TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
NoNatural selection does not help because there is nothing advantageous to select without some miracle to create new genes.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
NoNatural selection does not help because there is nothing advantageous to select without some miracle to create new genes.
Perhaps the phrase 'come from' is simply inappropriate.The universe either came from nothing or something.
Your posts have indicated that you do not understand this topic. And yes, I know that you cannot date dinosaur bones properly. It is rather amazing that you do not seem to understand how if one has bones that are contaminated that a false young age can be shown by the tests.
We both agree that dinosaur bones are over 65 million years old. But what date do you get with C14 dating if someone has painted the fossils with shellac?
Please document how any new gene came into being.
Then why do you keep objecting and stating the obvious? That tells us that you are not following along.I already stated that contamination leads to false age.... contrary to your claim that I do not understand the topic due to not understanding contamination leads to false age... which shows that it is you who does not understand what is being said to you
Already done.Please document how any new gene came into being.
Then why do you keep objecting and stating the obvious? That tells us that you are not following along.
This is just one of your posts that shows that you were not following the conversation:You have been the one objecting .. and complaining to be sure .. but your complaints were based on not understanding what was said. What was it you think I objected to ?
C-14 dating of many diamonds, fossils, fossilized wood that are supposed to be ancient are not C-14 dead.This is just one of your posts that shows that you were not following the conversation:
"No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago -- but the basics are still the basics .. can't date something older than the test limit of the machine and Dino Bones are not 30,000 years old "
Please document how any new gene came into being.
And give real details, codes through 20 generations with sexual reproduction.
Refuted a thousand times. Once again, not if that C14 is from contamination. And you cannot find any reliable sources with "not C-14 dead" examples.C-14 dating of many diamonds, fossils, fossilized wood that are supposed to be ancient are not C-14 dead.
So that proves the flood.
Technically those would be alleles. "New genes" are often an emergent process. An allele keeps get used for more and more things that are different from its original function that it can become a "new gene". Or it can occur almost immediately when genes are swapped in location within an organism or from another organism. The result is a "new gene" since it no longer has its old job and now has a brand new one. That mutation is a transposan:Why are you talking this nonsense .. why do you want details and codes through 20 generations .. other than to request nonsense.
New genes come into being every second of every day .. Duh ... and you have been told this before .. its called mutation .. the process by which evolution happens.
This is just one of your posts that shows that you were not following the conversation:
"No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago -- but the basics are still the basics .. can't date something older than the test limit of the machine and Dino Bones are not 30,000 years old "
but they were handed correctly.Refuted a thousand times. Once again, not if that C14 is from contamination. And you cannot find any reliable sources with "not C-14 dead" examples.
No, I was not. You were not paying attention as usual.What was it that shows not following ? you keep talking in riddles mate. You were blathering on about anomalies in young corral .. I told you I was talking about old corral .. not young .. followed by reminding you of the basics ..
What was not followed .. ?
Technically those would be alleles. "New genes" are often an emergent process. An allele keeps get used for more and more things that are different from its original function that it can become a "new gene". Or it can occur almost immediately when genes are swapped in location within an organism or from another organism. The result is a "new gene" since it no longer has its old job and now has a brand new one. That mutation is a transposan:
DNA Transposons: Nature and Applications in Genomics - PMC
Repeated DNA makes up a large fraction of a typical mammalian genome, and some repetitive elements are able to move within the genome (transposons and retrotransposons). DNA transposons move from one genomic location to another by a cut-and-paste ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Yes you were .. did you forget what you said ? and what was not followed .. and why did you forget to include this in your response ?No, I was not. You were not paying attention as usual.
but they were handed correctly.
Also how would the diamonds have been contaminated.
LOL! Don't get mad just because you are wrong.Dude .. shut up already with the purile nonsense .. "Technically those would be alleles" .. who cares .. the fellow was talking about new genes.. the point being that mutations happen .. creating new genetic material .. no need to go further .. as we both know said fellow has not managed to get this far .. and refuses to do so.
I do not play that game of going back and finding all of your errors again. Look at what happens. All that you have is denial.Yes you were .. did you forget what you said ? and what was not followed .. and why did you forget to include this in your response ?