This came from a discussion in another thread again questioning Genesis as literal.

Gen 6
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

I want to make the point of the fact that to take Gen literally, the only animals that were on the ark were pairs of male and female only, as God commanded.

But this brings into question the fact that there are certain species of Lizards, snakes , and fish that reproduce asexually. For this discussion I call in the whiptail lizards that reproduce by producing a perfect clone of themselves. Not that their genetic make-up is that of two XX Chromosome chains that allow them to do this. Thus, when they produce offspring, there is no DNA added from a donating male or lost at all. (we will disregard mutations)

Now one point that I brought up is that AIG states that you cannot add to this DNA.


Also, AIG supports this with their statement....

"Natural selection and mutations are means of change; however, both of these processes fall short in explaining design because neither can produce new genetic information.
Natural selection and mutations involve a loss of genetic information, not a net gain. For something to change from one species into another, information would have to be produced de novo and added to the genome. Neither natural selection nor mutations can produce new information. Information always comes from a greater source of information."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/...SG-Answers.pdf

These animals have two sets of chromosomes. According to AIG, this must be by design of the God, at the time of creation, because you can create "new information" according to AIG. But this conflicts with the Gen 6:19

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.



So because of this, these creatures were created before the flood, but they could not have been on the Ark because of the 'literal genesis' stating that pairs of male and female on in verse 6:19

So the question is, how did these creatures survive the flood if they we not on the ark, if we are to take Genesis literally?

pep again owns this thread and is steam rolling the religion section

lol

speciation occurred before and after the Flood, his argument is 100% conjecture

No its not. Its simple logic.

1.Because of the genetic makeup of this animal, the double redundant chromosomes, this animal had to of been made this way at creation, as, according to AIG, you cannot add any DNA to an species. Thus this creature was not made of any hybrid or mutation after or before the flood, as it would have added these extra DNA chains to the animals genetic makeup, as quoted by their own article!

2. Gen 6:19 states that only male and female pairs of animals were on the ark.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

Same goes with Gen 7 that really re-iterates this.

2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.

Further on we have a narrative description!

8 Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth, 9 two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah.

It must be have been that important that only male and female were the only types of each species that were loaded onto the Ark, because it is mentioned SEVERAL TIMES.

Where is the conjecture in all of this? :rolleyes:
1 + 1 = 2 !

So once again, how could these animals of survived the flood if they were not on the ark, as God had commanded?

Prove the 'conjecture' then YZF...back up your statement.

nice^

no, it's not logic, because you're making inferences about the past...thousands of years ago...with no direct knowledge

pure conjecture


I did so withing the bounds of the Bible and the AIG (which base their logic on the bible)....so are you saying that the bible is now pure conjecture? (via transitivity)

What does that say then about the AIG, or are you attacking the Bible now?

come on YZF

So once again, how could these animals of survived the flood if they were not on the ark, as God had commanded?

Prove the 'conjecture' then YZF...back up your statement or STFU.

you cannot prove a mutation or some type of hybridization was not possible (regardless of what AIG says), it's a trivial argument with no facts in hand

The facts at hand or an entire species with double XX chromosomes that have been there from the beginning.

Will you agree that you cannot add DNA to a species, as AIG states in their paper? Simple question if you have the balls to answer it.

conjecture...not fact

So are you saying that AFTER the flood this DNA was added to this species?

origin of asexual reproduction in this ONE species of lizard, out of thousands, is unknown....utterly trivial stuff

Not occoring to AIGs guildlines which you covet so well.

Either they were asexual before the flood or after. And according to AIGs post:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/NAB-SG-Answers.pdf

"For something to change from one species into another, information would have to be produced de novo and added to the genome. Neither natural selection nor mutations can produce new information."

By this definition from AIG, this species HAS TO of been created before the flood during creation, because of its genetic makeup. There is no way around it or you will deny scripture....are you denying scripture then YZF?

Thus Gen 6:19 states that the animals on the ark were both male and female, which excludes this whiptail lizard.

So the question, which you are afraid to answer, is how did this and simular species survive the flood?

So there are possibilities:
1. Genesis is not literal
2. The flood was local
3. Both above are true.


So what is it there YZF? Can you be man enough to answer these questions with out mudslinging? Or are you going to be the atypical baby and call names???

4. we don't the answer because we don't have all the facts in hand

the wise person tries to understand how nature reinforces scripture, the worthless asshole attacks the scripture, believing his knowledge trumps God

I knew you didn't have the balls to answer or address this issue logically.
The facts are right there in your face pushing you to cower like a wimp.

I'm not attacking scripture either...that's not even a goal. I want to understand, yet you are spewing crap that is contradictory. Go continue to be a puppet to these fools.

But the facts are right in front of you, you're just to chicken to make a decision. So what is it then YZF, if DNA cannot be added, according to AIG, when did this species get the extra set of chromosomes....be a man and answer that one! I dare ya!

neither of us was there...God was there

God says the global Flood occurred about 4300 years ago, you say it didn't

you lose

Hey I'm taking your side of scripture in all of this fool....

I'm acknowledging literal genesis creation and DNA, the flood event, the population of the earth after it in this discussion. Hell, I've even taken AIGs research and used it as truth.

Using those parameters, I have found that not all animals fall into this, so I'm trying to make sense of it....yet instead you think its something else.

Jeez the one time I take your side of things and you whine, cry, and accuse.

LOL, you need some help dude....seriously.

has anyone ever seen pep start a thread in here? not I and he owns

yeah he is pretty good at this.

they laugh like a loon because they are crazy?

fools recognize their own, but any Bible scholar alive would laugh out loud at this hack

Right, sure.."It just cant be true!"

You just proved me right that you cant answer any of these questions.
Instead you went to mudslinging and calling me names.

Here it is I took your side of the issue and came up with a contradiction, and you couldn't even buck up with the balls to even answer one question truthfully. So much for the 'eagle' defending the truth....looks like chickens on the menu!

Whats funny is that this all came too easy, I',m surprised that your false idol AIG hasn't come up with this....but then again, they're not true scientists anyway.

I dare you just to answer one of my questions straight....but you cant and wont, chickens run randomly....

listen, psycho...we went round and round on this for no less than three pages...I told you it was an interesting point, with no resolution because we don't gave all the facts in hand,


Funny but we do have the facts at hand...and the reason for the new thread was because you got tired of being owned on every post and every point, so you tried you 'off topic' crying. :crying:



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html "asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known",

LOL did I just get you to quote talkorigins? Did you just take their side?
Damn this is rich, you just took the side of the one website the contradicts everything you believe int :roll: :roll: :roll:

Hey I'm going to have to email them my point, give them more ammo on how much AIG is full of BS.

You just don't get it...I took YOUR side of things, and proved it wrong by AIG's logic.

BTW
Its spelled mutation not 'mutaation', but then again your used to changing things...like and eagle into a chicken for example.

yzf does not to go off topic when cornered. we got him cornered in all these threads. its like he has multiple personalities.

I find it funny that he cannot answer not one single question I've posted straight forward.

He isn't cornered...hes running!

I'm going to be spending progressively less time here

btw, talkorigins does not contradict everything I believe in, that's more of your nonsense, because you don't listen....I believe in evolution, but I formly believe the trend of evolution is toward loss of information and progressive degradation of every living thing...the stuff I quoted from talkorigins is relevant

off topic blabbing...

why did you respond to it, then? it's 100% on topic and obliterates your argument

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html "asexual forms of normally sexual organisms are known"

any questions?


Not with the whiptail...sure with the komodo dragon, but there are no males with the whiptail.

FAIL and :owned:

wow

wow is right...imaging just being born pregnant!

??

Asexual reproduction...your body just decides to have a kid.

really stupid reason to deny the Genesis account, don't you think? talk about missing the forest for the trees there, superhack...and your trivial little argument is 100% pure conjecture



The only thing that is Failed with this thread is the fact that you cannot prove it otherwise. All you can do is proclaim failure, or your shattered little world really collapses.

Hey I took YOUR side on this, and found a problem...don't blame me, I tried to see things from you vantage. But it was the fools that you follow that got it all wrong...if anything blame them.

BTW I don't deny the Genesis account and you know that , I dont believe in taking it as literal as you do...

neither ccan you prove your case...and it's utterly trivial

I proved it well beyond a shadow of a doubt using AIG and their logic and publishing, and you know it, you're just a fool that shakes his head ...'It cant be true!' and runs around screaming like a chicken.

Keep on following your false idol AIG

wrong, wrong....WRONG....100% DEAD wrong....you proved absolutely nothing, your case in 100% conjecture based on observations today, then attempting to reverse extrapolate back in time 4300 years to what might have been...it's what all naturalists/uniformitariainists do, but it's not science, it's extrapolation of the facts, just like kevin with his blood types stuff

"its not true!" "its not true!" "its not true!" LOL, are you throwing a tantrum like a little lid or what!

I proved it in the bounds of the AIG, that you cannot ADD DNA to a species....so the whiptail had to be like this at the time of creation. And Genesis states several times that only male and female had to be on the ark.

Instead of stomping your feet like a little kid and regurgitation the 'extrapolation' nonsense. I've extrapolated nothing!

So how did this species survive the flood? ANSWER IT FOOL!

regardless of what AIG may think, it has been shown that asexual forms of sexual reproducing species have been produced, and asexual reproduction is an evolutionary dead end

Babbling that proves nothing, and the 'chicken' cannot answer the question.

So do you agree with the AIG that you cannot add DNA to a species?

your entire argument is extraploation because you haven't personally witnessed the reproduction of whiptail liazards over the last 4300 years, have you? THICK

Its extrapolation not 'extraploation' :rolleyes:

You cant answer one simple question can you....LOL, its because you know I'm right.

ANSWER IT FOOL!
Do you agree with the AIG that you cannot add DNA to a species?

bah, you're worthless

:owned:

You cant answer on single question straight forward can you fool.

On the table:
Do you agree with the AIG that you cannot add DNA to a species?

I'll keep posting it until you get the balls to answer it fool.

Do you agree with the AIG that you cannot add DNA to a species?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

as I've said before, this is a very complex issue and neither of us is qualified to comment on it in detail...your argument is a rabbit trail

No its a valid question, and the article you quoted is a tangent. We are not talking about single celled organisms or fish, we are talking about

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

I'll keep on asking it until you get the balls to answer....
So enough with your tap dancing fool:

Do you agree with the AIG that you cannot add DNA to a species?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_01.html



there is good evidence to suggest that all lizards were sexual reproducers in the ebginning, and this is the result of hybridization/mutation

Its spelled 'beginning' .......lol PBS is probably the most liberal source you can quote. LOL this is rich.

But if that is the case, then again, you have disproved literal genesis.

Genesis 7:16
16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.

So in that case the mutation of the whiptail lizards would have had to have been after the flood if they are female only. But you cannot add DNA according to AIG....
So either AIG is wrong with their assumptions with the creationism and its account, as you cannot add DNA....or

if we take your posting of the pbs article, then Genesis cannot be literal as only male and females were on the ark. So are you now saying that Genesis cannot be taken as literal?

So what is it then YZF, who is wrong here? Its clearly a paradox.

again, post a peer reviewed article substantiating your assertion that asexual reproduction involves "addition of DNA"


Basic reproduction. In case you were sleeping in HS biology class, look up meiosis, Haploid, and diploid.

But Parthenogenetic species like the whiptail have double the number of chromosomes, so when they do produce eggs, its the correct number for a viable offspring.

So either they were created with this DNA as AIG suggests at creation or AIG is wrong with their assertion that you cannot add DNA.

still waiting....let's see the documentation, not your bs

Please, hold your breath.
LOL you're trying to pull a strawman, and it wont work.


Pick up a text book and learn about basic reproduction or STFU....I have no interest in educating you to a HS level.

And the question is, was this species, with its double chromosomes, created this way at creation, or after the flood.

If we are to take Genesis literal, then it would have to be after the flood, and AIG is wrong. If its before the flood the Genesis is wrong.

So take you pick fool and answer the question on the table:
Do you agree with the AIG that you cannot add DNA to a species?

indeed

ultra :owned:

:rolleyes:

No comment on the source? Guess you are drinking your cup of STFU....

you have no credible source for your assertion, and you spent a good hour searching! high school textbooks? :roll:

Assertion? There is no assertion on the genetic makeup of these animals...only stone cold facts.

Face it YZF you neither have the gray matter or the ability to learn for yourself, that all you can do is regurgitate the clap trap of the likes of AIG and their flawed analysis.

You cant even follow straight up logic, or even answer a question....

You posts are absolutely boring....and show no depth to any sort of knowledge.

your assertion is that DNA is "added" to make asexual reproduction possible, from prior sexual reproduction

that assertion has no basis in fact....end of story

Its about time you answered the question. Geez.

So if the DNA was not added, then it must of been there all along, since the time of creation. That would mean that they were female only from the beginning!

THEN HOW DID THESE CREATURES SURVIVE THE FLOOD?
Literal Genesis states only male and female pairs were on the Ark...several times...Thus you are stating then since this species exist now, the flood was either local or literal genesis is not true.

So which is it YZF? A local flood, that allowed these species to service or that literal Genesis is not true?

Come on answer the question I pose there little man...You don't have the balls to do so. Your logic is worthless and weak....

I demolished the primary supporting pillar of your argument, so you FAIL

No you didn't, you tap danced around and never answered any question at hand. The FAIL is on you bub, you couldn't even answer any question asked without trying to divert the real questions of the origin of this species. Then when you did make an assertion, I crushed your 'literal genesis'

Face it, by dodging all of the questions at hand the failure is on you, loser.

:owned:

Let me repeat this....

So if the DNA was not added, then it must of been there all along, since the time of creation. That would mean that they were female only from the beginning!

THEN HOW DID THESE CREATURES SURVIVE THE FLOOD?
Literal Genesis states only male and female pairs were on the Ark...several times...Thus you are stating then since this species exist now, the flood was either local or literal genesis is not true.

So which is it YZF? A local flood, that allowed these species to service or that literal Genesis is not true?