Quote:


I highlighted the part that I find silly.  What we need to establish is foundations for the belief in Evolution.  And to not use axioms until these foundations are established and proven.  Opinions are not science. And in indoctrination methods "axioms" become slogans that have no actual evidence to back them.  If you repeat the same "axioms" from a position of "authority" without having real evidence, then it becomes obvious standard brainwashing techniques.
We don't need no stinking "slogans" only foundational factual and absolute evidence to form any conclusions.

Thanks for coming over!  The rules here that I enforce is no name calling nothing illegal, like defamation or copyright infringement and such: just keep on topic. If you attack me I will put you in your place and you can leave. If you post nonsense, I will attack your nonsense and you will probably leave as most people with no courage do.


This has nothing to do with the subject of evolution, unless you can tie this to some form of evidence.
I know how DNA works according to what scientists know, and I know what they don't know about DNA. And I know what they assume about DNA.

When Evodelusionist, regularly use what they don't know, and make assumptions to explain it, this is not any form of science that I was ever taught.

How does this tie in with any creature that has ever been proven to break the boundary of genetics and become some new creature over any length of time?
How does this prove that  fish (marine life) have become reptiles, and reptiles have become mammals and birds and by some magical process eventually become all the life you see?

With no implications or opinions? That is my question.
This is the final premise of evolution that most seem to avoid and change the definition to match the belief.
I have been studying this for over 40 years wanting for some real evidence.  What do you have?

My questions are always simple and straightforward.
Genotype is the instructions built into the genome and the phenotype is the outward manifestation of the genetic instructions contained in the genetic codings and  DNA ( and more).

Quote:



You are the one who needs to show if there is any relationship between DNA and the development of living from the DNA and this idea of creatures changing their DNA over some immense time into entirely new creatures.  That IS the question.
Since I have looked at how DNA works and all of the physical evidence there is on this subject, I have not been able to conclude evolution from what we actually know, empirically and what is in real evidence.

If you can show this I will welcome it.  If you can't then you can't.  Are you willing to see where this discussion goes?
There is no need to be afraid.

creatures changing their DNA over some immense time into entirely new creatures.  That IS the question.

Once again you're skipping far far ahead. How can we discuss such things without a collection of mutually shared axioms. It's like discussing mathematics and you have different symbols for all of the operations and you're using a base 15 number system.

We can't get anywhere like this. You're really pushing the edge of my patience. Now do you want to work on building a set of axioms or are we done here?

Mutation is a loaded word. But are you aware that DNA changes for various reasons. And that the DNA an organism inherits from it's parent(s) may be slightly different than the version in the parent?

Quote:


Since you know it is a loaded word, I will explain it to the readers:

What you call mutations is really just variations or differences shown in the DNA (genetics) from the parents and some later adaptations to the environment as seen in the offspring, and are not by definition really mutations*, because the geneticists don't really know what they are or how they manifested from what actual precise cause.  The science of DNA is not that advanced.

These are differences to the genome, but the science of genetics really doesn't have full understanding.  There is a mistaken premise of the general public that scientists actually have a handle on the natural world, but they can barely blow their noses, relatively speaking, considering how much science does not know, and how bad science has become from a form of seeking truth, to now, just a form of projecting religious mystical magical beliefs on evidence.

There are adaptations to the environment that cause the skin to be darker or lighter, people to adapt to bad foods, and bad air, immune system responses, the race to be taller or shorter, but they are always the same genus with variations. There is only cause and effect in natural science, not magical nonsense.

Here is what science does not know in the DNA (particularly on humans):  Where these differences in the DNA are manifest from. They do not see or understand the cause from parents to offspring. They see "results" shown in the DNA and are ignorant enough to think DNA is causal to its own manifestation.  Nothing is causal to its own manifestation.   

Is it ancient traits from 2000 year old ancestors that is in the programming of the DNA and now is being manifest for the first time in 2000 years (and they assume it is this "new mutation")? Is it from a 200 year old ancestor that is now just showing after all these years and looks like a new "mutation"?  Is it from a mix of the parents DNA, homogenized into these new "mutations". Is it because of a dominant gene in a parent that is overriding the other parent and does that dominant gene come from great (or 4 generation) grand parent? This is what is hidden in the DNA that cannot be seen at the present time.  I have seen many people (in my 61 years) who look just like their great grand parents.  It is a hobby of mine to look at old family photos to see the "genetics".  It is pretty amazing to see a great granddaughter (or G-grandson) who looks just like her great grandmother (g-grandfather).

They, absolutely, do not know where these "new", (acutally just different) traits, shown as changes to the DNA, come from or if they are hidden genetic traits from long dead ancestors, triggered by some event. 

But we know that the offspring are always humans and that each human being is totally unique in its make up. There have never been two people exactly alike, because that is the impossibility.
If you have objective evidence that shows something I don't know, then show it.
There are no "accidents" in the physical world. Everything is cause and effect.


*The foundational scientific meaning of mutation is something that is way off from the parents. Normally a "mutant" has "bad genes" as is common but it really means the chromosomes are not correct or symmetrical (equal number from both parents), or there is one or more or one or lesser numbers of chromosomes.  These "mutants" fail to breed into the main stream of the genus or if they do breed their offspring do not make it. This idea of mutation causing a new genus by some accident is part of what I have read in the evolution papers.  This has no evidence to even state such a ridiculous conclusion.

The use of the word "mutation" is deceptive in my opinion, from being involved in scientific study for over 47 years and 41 years on this subject.  When used to describe minor natural differences in the genome that are not out of balance or are not unusual for all the circumstances.  A new word needs to be considered to refer to this rather than screw up the definition of a perfectly good word that has existed for over 100 years before they changed the meaning in the last 20 years.  There is something ethically wrong with changing the definitions of foundational scientific words that has had specific meanings for so long.

Since this is a new phenomenon that has no equivalent word in any of science that fits what is really going on:
Why not "Adaptation and Traits"  =  "Adtraits" shown in the genome, because this fits what is really happening and is a new word that is designed for only that phenomenon and does not confuse people?  Think about it?  "Differernces" is actually the best word.

The new "adtraits" or "DNAdiffs" which are the adaptation part, are not ever explainable by random changes, because there is no such thing as random.  They are cause and effect and follow the laws of logic and reason. So far all of the new "adtraits", "DNAdiffs" are caused by adaptation to the environment after birth for the creatures to survive as the same creatures.  All the other changes are from genetic information and traits passed down.  Anything added for survival is for survival as the same creature. There is no "intentional" or "programmed" evolution in any creature.  Adapting to survive as the same species is not evolution, by basic definition of "evolution".

(This is why I opened this forum so we can post up to 15,000 characters and to be able to finish a thought.)

Quote:


You cannot talk about DNA and not include traits, because that is all the "baby" has when it comes into existence. The "cause" of the baby is the genetic information and traits of the parents, mixed with the poisons or good nourishment, including emotional distress of the mother,  taken during the pregnancy.  That is all you have, nothing else.
If you "see" some magical cause or event, you certainly have no evidence and if it violates the laws of physics, I tend to put it in the human garbage pile of crap beliefs.

There can only be "traits" and information passed from parent to offspring. There is no other possibility.  This is well known in genetics.
As the creature goes through life, it may make adaptations and there is an obvious "timing" that triggers events in the genome, such as old age and death, genetic caused diseases that strike at almost the same age in the parent as in the offspring and such.  Adaptations to the environmental toxins or removing toxins from the environment and a genetic coding,  may trigger cancer, but the cause has it roots in the genealogy, not in some random magic.



The ability of creatures to make changes to survive as the same creature is pretty obvious.  The only thing that is for sure is change based on logic and reason and events and that survival of the creature is built in to the "design".

(Every creature passes traits, but the offspring have never shown any great changes over even millions of years in the fossil record.)

What is thought to be random "mutations" are neither random nor are they mutations. They are manifestation of the programming in the DNA and environmental adjustments, that can be retro or can come and go as the need of the organism changes.

There are no accidents or random "mutations" because random is not even a scientific possibility in the physical world.  There are only causes and effects in the real world.
Again "random" in the genome is instant death.

Magical thinking is not part of real science.  This is one of my axioms which I prefer to call "absolute truths of science".

Quote:


It is very difficult to get past people who are educated into this nonsense.  It is sad to see people so sure of delusions.

There are several several logical fallacies in a row, that are obviously based on belief and assumptions that are "one way" logic and are not purely logical, nor based on objective thinking.  I really think you are a nice person and you should not take this personally because most all people on earth suffer from this. Belief first, creates the view of anything including science. Get rid of all beliefs and you are a real scientist.

The word "Changed" implies magic changes from what the parents are transferring to the offspring.  In order to call it changed from the genetic information of the parents you have to prove that with evidence. To do that you have to go back in the genealogy of the parents and look at the DNA of all the prior generations, looking for that same exact pattern that you call changed.  If it is in an ancestor of the offspring or parents, then it is not changed but is actually transmitted down the genealogy by a process you don't understand.

"One way" means that the mind has an agenda, belief, philosophy, religious thoughts, and is tainted towards the belief. I have avoided this like the "plague of mankind" for most of my life.  If you really want to know what I know then it is up to you to take advantage of it or to keep the barriers to communication in control.

This is obviously the idea that "evolution must be true" is  belief, and anyone reading this can see it.   No one really proves much if they don't examine all the plausibility, from all "angles" that present themselves to you, right in the evidence.

You see differences and automatically the belief "kicks in" and "it must be evolution" from "random mutations".  That is not science.  it is really stupid to assume evolution is true until you actually can show even one peice of evidence to make it obvious.  The truth of the matter is always "self evident" to anyone with a "room temperature" IQ.

One way thinking only projects the belief and can't see any other plausibility.  This is common with all people, but particularly bad with evodelusion.  It is the nature of humans to want to believe things they are taught from "authorities" and "nice people".

Religious people have their agenda.  Homosexuals have their agenda.  Angry people have their agenda. Feminists have their agenda, Buddhists, Jihadists and Evolutionists have their agenda.  When a belief is disguised as science or "truth" it is harder to see with pure logic. I have never allowed any belief to control my thinking.  This was taught to me early in my life by my father.

Here it is from the Buddha. This is one of those absolute truths that become more apparent as you test your beliefs to see if they are real or not.  Most people are cowards to actually test their beliefs, because they are emotionally and irrationally based.

The Buddha paraphrased:  "Don't believe any book, and sacred text, any science book, any scientist, any authority, priest, preacher, lover,  any teacher, anyone anywhere.
Find the truth for yourself."
 
It is funny to see Evolutionists tell other religious people that they are not scientific, when I see evolutionists are not at all scientific either (There is no use of the scientific method in Evodelusionism.).
There is about 10% science factual truth in the theory of evolution. This science fact is based on genetics that we already know 90% of.

The rest Is obviously a projection of what they believe is happening,, based on brainwashing and not objective observation.

That 10%, backed by real evidence, holds up the other 90% that can never be proven or tested. So this belief system keeps on perpetuating itself one generation after another.

If you can recognize this principle within yourself, you would make a tremendous leap in science that would make you some sort of hero, like Einstein or Newton.  If you keep with the "program" to be "safe" then all you are is "the program".  "The program" has always retarded science.

It is possible to learn all that mankind has to offer and never believe any of it until it is absolutely prove to you personally.
Finding the truth means to examine what you believe and be courageous enough to put it to the scientific method.  I have not seen much use of any scientific testing on old fossils, or most anything in this pseudo science.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
Albert Einstein

People who are taught this one way (twisted logic) logic are not objective any longer.  It is a taught thing and not tested at all.

As soon as you express belief in something most objectivity is gone.  These are facts of human behavior.

Thus the logic is not clear and does not see other obvious possibilities and probabilities.  This is not pure science but is the "expression" of belief that is forcing the logic to fit.  To me it is really sad to witness so clearly and yet have no ability to help people with this problem, unless they have the capacity to listen and learn from me.



There can only be information and traits passed to the offspring. The DNA does not come from some magical random nonsense.  The DNA is traits passed and information, whither you can see that or not is not my problem.The genetic instructions in the DNA can only come from the parents. There is no random in the universe.
 
"Junk DNA" is not even a tested principle. It can't be tested unless you have 3.2 billion people watching ever split second of life.   
Scientists have shown that "junk DNA" is not junk but rather has trigger that cause traits to express.

You cannot watch every tiny action within the DNA to see if it hasn't already expressed, or is just waiting to be expressed by the encoded timing within the DNA.  Maybe the "junk DNA" is the process of death waiting to be "expressed".

If a, so called, junk DNA expresses one time, and that is the programing it is supposed to do, then you would never see it.  This idea of "Junk DNA" is just an expression of belief in random and in evolution that is not proven.  Using preconceived ideas and projecting it on evidence is a big human problem.

The other part is that these DNA transferals to the offspring do not match the parents exactly.  So what?
If it is an homogenizing of the parents genetic traits. And as I said much of this "mysterious" DNA can be from the deeper programming that you can't see in the DNA and represents genetics that is from long long ago.  Which to me seems obvious. The foundation of DNA seems to be much deeper in the unseen regions of the creature.  There are no magical mystical events in science.

The DNA may actually be an "Expression" of another level of programing that you can't detect. Just like when we had no way to see bacteria and no way to see DNA, we also have no way to see any deeper into the structure of life at the present time and we think "this is all there is". It is an utter logical fallacy to think our instruments can detect this. And it is utter logical fallacy to think DNA is the "final frontier" of genetics. That is what they thought with Chromosome studies.

I call this the "Monarch Butterfly Conundrum".  There is no evidence in the DNA that tells any scientists how it is possible for a Monarch Butterfly to fly to an exact location when they have never been there before.  Even when you take many of them far off the track by 1000 miles they will still go to the same spot and meet up with the other Butterflies before they even cross the border into Mexico. They speed up in order to do this because it seems the programming is etched in stone to arrive at the prescribed time.  This is not some miracle, it is obviously in the programming of that species of butterfly. It cannot be seen in the DNA at all.

There is obviously something deeper going on in organic life than just DNA studies cannot answer.
You are on the basic levels of genetic study and you think you are advanced.