270
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + + + +
no edit summary
: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)
: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)
: "Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"
So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition ''Origin of Species'' (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks.
[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)
: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)
: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)