Changes

:::- once either a copy of a gene or a copy of a domain is made, it is free to be point-mutated almost without restraint -- any one of these point mutations could create a new useful protein, with a new function.  

:::- once either a copy of a gene or a copy of a domain is made, it is free to be point-mutated almost without restraint -- any one of these point mutations could create a new useful protein, with a new function.  

::Using the cake analogy, this is paralleled by a copy of the recipe being made, then a change made to either the copy or the original. If  the cake recipe calls for adding a layer of chocolate followed by, say, almonds, a mutation could lead to two layers of chocolate and almonds being added. Or three, or four.  

::Using the cake analogy, this is paralleled by a copy of the recipe being made, then a change made to either the copy or the original. If  the cake recipe calls for adding a layer of chocolate followed by, say, almonds, a mutation could lead to two layers of chocolate and almonds being added. Or three, or four.  

::Teleologically, this does not add information -- however, I just realised that one cannot compare a gene to a cake recipe any more than one can compare the construction of a house to the fetal development of a human being. They go about by entirely different processes. If once were to take the analogy of the cake recipe and apply it to the Darwinian belief of life, the proteins would not be recipes, they would be the individual words. The Teleological criteria of addition of information would apply to a system similar to the English language. If I were to say "add three cups of grodzbly extract" instead of "add three cups of vanilla extract" it would not teleologically add information; whereas a point mutation in a strain of bacteria which allows an ABC transporter to remove one more toxin from the cell would confer a useful adaptation -- it might not confer information, but darwinism does not work by information using a teleological goal-seeking standard. Teleology is simply the wrong method to use to demolish something which rejects teleology. Any suggestions as to what you could use to attack genetics? What I know is that the recipe analogy isn't it.

::Teleologically, this does not add information -- however, I just realised that one cannot compare a gene to a cake recipe any more than one can compare the construction of a house to the fetal development of a human being. They go about by entirely different processes. If once were to take the analogy of the cake recipe and apply it to the Darwinian belief of life, the proteins would not be recipes, they would be the individual words. The Teleological criteria of addition of information would apply to a system similar to the English language. If I were to say "add three cups of grodzbly extract" instead of "add three cups of vanilla extract" it would not teleologically add information; whereas a point mutation in a strain of bacteria which allows an ABC transporter to remove one more toxin from the cell would confer a useful adaptation -- it might not confer information, but darwinism does not work by information using a teleological goal-seeking standard. Teleology is simply the wrong method to use to demolish something which rejects teleology. Any suggestions as to what you could use to attack genetics? What I know is that the recipe analogy isn't it. -- [[User:flipq|flipq]]

==mention other creation theories==

==mention other creation theories==