What does the fossil record say?

[camanintx]

Natural selection that depends on mutations?
Failure comes to my mind.
From the Lonnig library:

Can you show where anyone, other than you, accepts Lonnig's "Law of Recurrent Variation"?

 

[wilsoncole]

And there are no "dead" ones either. Life is a property of the reactions between chemicals, not of the chemicals themselves.

Which chemicals?
You have no kind of science to back that up.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

This is not true! Men are!
Men often cause droughts. Clear-cutting forests and covering earth with cement and blacktop leads to drought.
"Trees also prevent soil erosion by retaining water in the soil and hindering runoff. Since trees hold a considerable amount of water, forests are less affected by droughts. Moreover, trees share their humidity with more fragile plants. Small vegetable gardens thrive in the fertile area created by large trees in semidesert regions such as southern Algeria." (AWAKE! 85 7/8 p. 23)
"The hospitable forest........ protects, sustains and actually improves mankind’s supplies of available water. .......In addition, trees purify man’s air. ....Trees also return to the atmosphere oxygen, which man breathes. That is one reason why air smells better in the forest, and why forests are vital to life on earth."
(AWAKE! 73 6/8 pp. 9-11)
No - but you sure know how to ruin it.
Oh, how we hate to accept the blame for our ineptitude. See:
Desertification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are saying that the only cause of desertification is humanity? There are no natural causes.... droughts are simply man made?
El Niño-Southern Oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
La Niña - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to be admitting that they were not self-created. Strange - how we have drifted from whether or not things were designed or created to "whodidit?"

You are the one claiming they are not self-created... I'm only asking you who you think did it. If not God then what other power has such creative force?

Richer countries have managed to keep the spread of diseases down, so it can be controlled.

Managed... not controlled. Americans sill die of the Plague every year in the USA.

Yet, it does not happen here and in similarly "advanced" countries, so man knows how to keep it under control, yet he does not, and for selfish and economic reasons. [/quote] Because we poisoned our land with DDT and killed the Malaria carrying mosquitoes. Are you suggesting spreading poison over the rest of the planet as well?

[/quote]

Ancient Israel was instructed on how to stop the spread of leprosy, but says nothing about "bird blood" being a cure. Will you direct me to the text that says so?

Leviticus (14:2-52)
Particularly this part:
14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it , and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:
14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

Nobody said there is. I was being asked about tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes. There are lots of other forms of disasters and the added devastation inflicted on it by mankind.

So then why insist that people simply know better and live away from places with natural disasters? Especially when we are supposed to "be fruitful and multiply"?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

They were not disasters prior to human habitation. They can only be termed "disasters" if humans are affected.
If you take human activity out of the equation, they would all be harmless.

LOL... :biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Which chemicals?
You have no kind of science to back that up.

Here are a few of those chemical reactions:
2 H2O + 2 NADP+ + 3 ADP + 3 Pi + light &#8594; 2 NADPH + 2 H+ + 3 ATP + O2
3 CO2 + 9 ATP + 6 NADPH + 6 H+ &#8594; C3H6O3-phosphate + 9 ADP + 8 Pi + 6 NADP+ + 3 H2O
C6H12O6 (aq) + 6 O2 (g) &#8594; 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l)
glucose + 2 NAD+ + 2 ADP + 2 Pi &#8594; 2 pyruvate + 2 NADH + 2 H+ + 2 ATP + 2 H2O

Just for a start.

Are any of these "living" chemicals?

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They were not disasters prior to human habitation. They can only be termed "disasters" if humans are affected.
If you take human activity out of the equation, they would all be harmless.

This right here is hilarious.....

 

[wilsoncole]

Can you show where anyone, other than you, accepts Lonnig's "Law of Recurrent Variation"?

I don't have to. Are you condemning it?
You should first find out what it is. See if you might not know it by another name.
He explains it very well here:
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
and he has the science to support it.
He says that:
"the most important generalization on the basis of the total outcome of mutation breeding will be termed “the law of recurrent variation”. It states that “treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants. This consistently occurs when the experiments are carried out on a scale adequate to isolate the potential of alleles causing phenotypic and functional deviations (saturation mutagenesis).
However, due to almost invisible residual effects of changes in redundant sequences and/or of further chromosome rearrangements, the corresponding saturation curve is asymptotically approaching its limit for the micro-quantitative part of variation.”

Also, reasons are given why the law is relevant for heterozygotes and allogamous species as well, and the genetical basis of the law is briefly defined."
This is what I get out of it:
If you employ artificial methods to induce mutations, they will happen, but to a limited extent. This happens without fail, but is hampered by some persistent limiting agent, so that you reach a point when no more mutations will occur without damage to the subject. He also says that "the genetical basis of the law is briefly defined." This is what his many years of investigation reveals.
In other words, living things continue to produce offspring only after their own kind in spite of induced mutations lasting many generations.
I could be wrong, now, but that is my understanding.
If he is right, and he could prove it by his experiments, that would show that the claims of unlimited mutations resulting in remarkable changes to any organism, even over many generations, is false.
The results of forty years of experimentation backs up his conclusions.

If you don't understand it, you can contact him here:
[email protected]
and ask him to explain it to you.
He will answer you.

He is a geneticist with over 30 years of experience.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't have to. Are you condemning it?
You should first find out what it is. See if you might not know it by another name.
He explains it very well here:
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
and he has the science to support it.
He says that:
"the most important generalization on the basis of the total outcome of mutation breeding will be termed “the law of recurrent variation”. It states that “treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants. This consistently occurs when the experiments are carried out on a scale adequate to isolate the potential of alleles causing phenotypic and functional deviations (saturation mutagenesis).
However, due to almost invisible residual effects of changes in redundant sequences and/or of further chromosome rearrangements, the corresponding saturation curve is asymptotically approaching its limit for the micro-quantitative part of variation.”

Also, reasons are given why the law is relevant for heterozygotes and allogamous species as well, and the genetical basis of the law is briefly defined."
This is what I get out of it:
If you employ artificial methods to induce mutations, they will happen, but to a limited extent. This happens without fail, but is hampered by some persistent limiting agent, so that you reach a point when no more mutations will occur without damage to the subject. He also says that "the genetical basis of the law is briefly defined." This is what his many years of investigation reveals.
In other words, living things continue to produce offspring only after their own kind in spite of induced mutations lasting many generations.
I could be wrong, now, but that is my understanding.
If he is right, and he could prove it by his experiments, that would show that the claims of unlimited mutations resulting in remarkable changes to any organism, even over many generations, is false.
The results of forty years of experimentation backs up his conclusions.

If you don't understand it, you can contact him here:
[email protected]
and ask him to explain it to you.
He will answer you.

He is a geneticist with over 30 years of experience.

Can you find a single other geneticist who supports his "law"?

 

[camanintx]

Which chemicals?
You have no kind of science to back that up.

Yes, we do. It's called biology.

I don't have to. Are you condemning it?
You should first find out what it is. See if you might not know it by another name.
He explains it very well here:
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf
and he has the science to support it.

If you don't understand it, you can contact him here:
[email protected]
and ask him to explain it to you.
He will answer you.

He is a geneticist with over 30 years of experience.

I'm not interested in his explanations, not being a geneticist, I doubt I would understand them. I want to know if any other geneticists with equivalent experience have reviewed his work and accept his conclusions. Apparently they don't, since all you can produce are links to his own personal web site.

 

[wilsoncole]

you leave me no choice but assume you haven't the slightest idea what you mean when you say the universe was designed and by the way you respond with an obvious attempt to change the subject...you are not the subject...your claim is...care to back it up?

I leave you no choice? Are you kidding? Your opinion does not matter to me, but it seems that the opposite is true. Why do you question me? Why does my opinion matter to you?

i didn't make the claim, you did..care to elaborate

Which one?

i'm sorry, did i miss something? are tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados the result of design or not?

You probably don't think I can see what you are attempting. You have shifted the goalpost. The question of design is now being abandoned. I figure you couldn't handle it. You are no longer questioning the design process. You are now questioning personality and motives.

i didn't see a yes or a no only ad hominem's

Doesn't matter to me.

when making a claim that the universe was designed with purpose, why would i not associate these occurrences of natural phenomenon as designed as well...not to mention the design and purpose of diseases...?

You can assume whatever you like, but you are now dragging one hurdle behind you while trying to clear another.
Let's get back to design.
"The complexity of the cell displays the talent, artistry, vision, and judgment necessary to design and produce such superb work.
The womb was created specifically for the propagation of the race and for nothing else.
The Bible points out that Jehovah is responsible for the process of formation of an embryo in the womb, showing that the design of the human in the womb is according to God’s pattern and not by chance or evolution. (Job 31:15; compare Job 10:8; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 45:9.)" (Insight vol. 2 p. 1199)

"Feathers are a marvel of design. The central shaft, called the rachis, is flexible and remarkably strong. Extending out from it are rows of interlocking barbs that form the smooth vane of the feather. The barbs attach to one another by means of several hundred tiny barbules, which hook onto neighboring barbules, forming a kind of zipper. When barbules unzip, the bird simply zips them back together by preening itself. You can do the same by drawing a frayed feather gently between your fingers.
Wing flight feathers in particular are asymmetrical—the vane is narrower on the leading edge than on the trailing edge. This classic airfoil design enables each flight feather to act like a tiny wing in itself. Also, if you look closely at a major flight feather, you will see a groove running along the underside of the rachis. This simple design element strengthens the shaft, allowing it to bend and twist without buckling."
(AWAKE! 7/07 p. 23)
Design without a designer? Not hardly!

well i would say no one was...you are the one assuming design remember?

Yes - design. That process does not reveal motive; so what do you expect from me?

who are they going to ask if no one has ever lived there before?

More goalpost shifting. You did not say that before.
Anyway, there are tell-tale signs of nature's activities. A careful search for high-water marks, fractured trees and other signs of seismic or tornadic activity could reveal much.
Most people would not do those things but I am only trying to show you that people could be much more careful where they build, thus reducing their losses.
Jesus, in illustrating a point, said this about building:
“Therefore everyone that hears these sayings of mine and does them will be likened to a discreet man, who built his house upon the rock-mass. And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and lashed against that house, but it did not cave in, for it had been founded upon the rock-mass.
Furthermore, everyone hearing these sayings of mine and not doing them will be likened to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. And the rain poured down and the floods came and the winds blew and struck against that house and it caved in, and its collapse was great.”” (Matthew 7:24-27)

Don't build on the beach. You're only asking for trouble.
You see no wisdom in this?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Can you find a single other geneticist who supports his "law"?

I just told you:

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
I don't have to. Are you condemning it?
You should first find out what it is. See if you might not know it by another name.
He explains it very well here:
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long...-Variation.pdf
and he has the science to support it.

You cannot rightly condemn it without understanding it.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[camanintx]

I just told you:
You cannot rightly condemn it without understanding it.

You cannot call it a scientific law unless it has been properly reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. Einstein didn't get a break, neither does Lönnig.

 

[waitasec]

I leave you no choice? Are you kidding? Your opinion does not matter to me, but it seems that the opposite is true. Why do you question me? Why does my opinion matter to you?

because, if you haven't noticed we are debating and your claims of design and purpose have not been supported that's why silly...

You probably don't think I can see what you are attempting. You have shifted the goalpost. The question of design is now being abandoned. I figure you couldn't handle it. You are no longer questioning the design process. You are now questioning personality and motives.

no i clearly said you are avoiding the question by trying to change the subject...
so again, are tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruption's designed and for what purpose...?
i keep asking the same question because you are avoiding the question...
you are the one who claims to know the unknowable...
so what is it know it all?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

because, if you haven't noticed we are debating and your claims of design and purpose have not been supported that's why silly...

:spit::biglaugh:

 

[wilsoncole]

Here are a few of those chemical reactions:
2 H2O + 2 NADP+ + 3 ADP + 3 Pi + light &#8594; 2 NADPH + 2 H+ + 3 ATP + O2
3 CO2 + 9 ATP + 6 NADPH + 6 H+ &#8594; C3H6O3-phosphate + 9 ADP + 8 Pi + 6 NADP+ + 3 H2O
C6H12O6 (aq) + 6 O2 (g) &#8594; 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l)
glucose + 2 NAD+ + 2 ADP + 2 Pi &#8594; 2 pyruvate + 2 NADH + 2 H+ + 2 ATP + 2 H2O

Just for a start.

Are any of these "living" chemicals?

wa:do

I said nothing about "living" chemicals, so I do not have to address that. All chemicals are dead.

Just for a finish!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

You cannot call it a scientific law unless it has been properly reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. Einstein didn't get a break, neither does Lönnig.

I didn't call it anything. Haven't you noticed?
That's why I submitted his email address. You can question HIM!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I just told you:
You cannot rightly condemn it without understanding it.

I didn't condemn it - I asked for any geneticists who support it.

If there are none, then I have plenty of reasons to dismiss it.

 

[wilsoncole]

because, if you haven't noticed we are debating and your claims of design and purpose have not been supported that's why silly...

We're debating?>
Oh - you mean it is now my turn to ask you questions?

you are the one who claims to know the unknowable...
so what is it know it all?

I did what?
Another word-twisting accusation!
I won't waste time on it.

Can I ask you some questions now?
The Big Bang - was it orderly or was it chaotic?
For a starter. OK?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[waitasec]

We're debating?>
Oh - you mean it is now my turn to ask you questions?
I did what?
Another word-twisting accusation!
I won't waste time on it.

Can I ask you some questions now?
The Big Bang - was it orderly or was it chaotic?
For a starter. OK?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

why must you insist on changing the subject...?
are tsunami's, tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions designed for a purpose?

 

[wilsoncole]

why must you insist on changing the subject...?
are tsunami's, tornado's, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions designed for a purpose?

You want to hear some Bible?
Because that's where the answers lie.
Shall I go ahead?
Now - about the Big Bang!


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson