The old information is destroyed, and new information created, by re-organization.
You mean on two different strands of DNA, or do you mean the shuffling of genes during meiosis?
Science vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
The old information is destroyed, and new information created, by re-organization.
You mean on two different strands of DNA, or do you mean the shuffling of genes during meiosis?
Thriving on citrate was a new ability, and of course they were still bacteria, because no miracle occurred.
1) Even if an atheist loses the wager, we still live forever. No loss.
2) You still lose the wager if you accept the wrong religion.
3) What sort of god would accept worship based on the analysis of Pascal's wager?
The extrapolation is also built on time, creatures know to have existed, etc. The case for evolution is stronger than the case for any one creature.
You have confused chromosomal and gene duplication.
Again, by any testable definition of information, it also leads to gains.
I've seen actual books with accidentally repeated pages or paragraphs.
What? I experience pain for a few billion years, adjust to it, and live forever. After I have been alive for a trillion years, those first few billion will be all but forgotten.
One Brow is doing good posts here. And he's actually right on the facts.
God certainly isn't going to accept any calculated table of probabilities as a worthy "faith". Like the country song says, He ain't gonna settle for anything less than our Love.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Both of you are wrong.
One Brow: Although Down Syndrome most commonly occurs from non-disjunction of the 21st chromosome (leading to three copies), the actual root of the cause is the over expression of a certain region of genes (known as the Down Syndrome critical region), found on the q arm of the 21st chromosome (21q22.1–q22.3), which spans a few 'critical genes' such as DYRK1 & DSCR3 (which tend to drive the DS phenotype moreso, in a disease with such broad expressivity).
Hence, if this q22 region is translocated onto another chromosome (as can occur via Robertsonian Translocations) then you can still have Down Syndrome even without three copies of chromosome 21.
PearlWatson: duplication does not always lend itself to information loss. Also, your definition of recombination is narrow-scoped, and inaccurate.
And, from what I've seen of OB hereabouts, he would be just that persistent in his stand.
OB, God loved you before you ever got into this position, and He is even more persistent than you are. One of these days you're just gonna know that, too.
God sees your few billion years and raises the bet to a trillion. After that, you'll know He listens, and knows how to teach you the needed lesson. . . . .
But of course, I'm a Mormon, so I take all those Hell/Fire/SulfurPots and other horrid imaginary torments as figurative metaphors, not reality. The suffering with which we will have to live hereafter is our failures to choose the good over the evil in our lives here. . . . the pains of all the things that might have been, and the pains of being what we've chosen to be. . . . .
that will be torment enough.
Both of you are wrong.
One Brow: Although Down Syndrome most commonly occurs from non-disjunction of the 21st chromosome (leading to three copies), the actual root of the cause is the over expression of a certain region of genes (known as the Down Syndrome critical region), found on the q arm of the 21st chromosome (21q22.1–q22.3), which spans a few 'critical genes' such as DYRK1 & DSCR3 (which tend to drive the DS phenotype moreso, in a disease with such broad expressivity).
Hence, if this q22 region is translocated onto another chromosome (as can occur via Robertsonian Translocations) then you can still have Down Syndrome even without three copies of chromosome 21.
PearlWatson: duplication does not always lend itself to information loss. Also, your definition of recombination is narrow-scoped, and inaccurate.
repped. One of the best posts in this thread. I even learned something.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Since nobody knows for sure why would I be concerned? And how can it be worse than fertilizing the Earth?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The interpretation, of these things as "atavistic" to fit the Darwin ideology, is often quite silly.
A dolphin with extra flippers is supposed to prove they once had legs? Why not the obvious logic that ancestral Dolphins had more flippers?
A child with extra flesh on their backs, not at the midline and with no tail structure, is supposed to prove we once had a monkey tail? Most of these abnormalities look like an extra penis. There are some of these "tails" near the top of the spine, at the base of the neck, as well. These are nothing more than developmental abnormalities.
A lump with a five inch bone on the side of a 62 foot whale is supposed to be a "leg?" Silliness.
The strips of bone within whales are supposed to have been the pelvic structure for walking on land but they ain't even attached to the vertebral column. They serve a sexual function, and are different in males and females.
You ain't following logic or reason. You are faithfully following a godless myth.