PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 10 11 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:13 AM on April 9, 2009 :
those that argue via quote do so because they are too ignorant to come up with anything on their own.


Aah, you mean they may even be too ignorant to understand what they are quoting?


In my experience, yes, that is often the case.  


Surely anything they have to say personally will then be even stupider?

In my experience, yes, that is often the case.  Which makes one wonder what sort of person feels comfortable pontificating on matters in which they have little understanding.  But Dunning and Kruger explained it for us pretty well:


Unskilled and Unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's ownincompetence lead to inflated self-assessments



So, like I said - learn about it before pontificating, especially pontificating via quote.


So Gluteus, looks like every exit is blocked here -no pontificating and no quote pontificating either. Guess it's going to have to be some original research here.
It's tough doing battle with ego, isn't it?  



No, it is tough trying to discuss an issue with people that have at best a cursory knowledge of it yet present themselves as able not only  to discuss it in depth but to be able to 'refute' positions taken by those qwith true expertise in the area.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:09 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:41 AM on April 9, 2009 :
There's only one problem orion and that is that you're assuming that a single mutation may somehow be joined by many more that will join together to cause some sort of coordinated effect.


You are presuming that 1. this sort of thing is necessary and
2. that there are 'goals' that such a process is striving towards


Like making a liver slowly where there was none.

Like that.


We see it more like making spelling mistakes in an original perfect document.


Which simply demonstrates the shallow nature in which creationists view genetics.

And of course it is pure speculation that the 'document' was originally 'perfect'.

isn't i?


More and more spelling mistakes over many generations is unlikely to make a better story than the original intelligently designed one.


The problem with language analogies is that they break down when you apply them above conveying the very basics of transcription, and of course then those that employ such analogies as arguments do not understand how bad of an argument it is or that analogies are not arguments.

(Edited by derwood 4/9/2009 at 12:16 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:15 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester-
So Gluteus, looks like every exit is blocked here -no pontificating and no quote pontificating either. Guess it's going to have to be some original research here.
It's tough doing battle with ego, isn't it?  


Lester - you don't have the grace to admit that arguments and rebuttals that Devwood  presented make the Creationists arguments in this post look foolish and incompetent.


Quote from Lester10 at 10:41 AM on April 9, 2009 :
Orion
gluteus - you're ignoring one important ingredient - natural selection.  In a nutshell, nature selects those mutations that are favorable in some way.  Mutations that are unfavorable don't get passed along as readily.


There's only one problem orion and that is that you're assuming that a single mutation may somehow be joined by many more that will join together to cause some sort of coordinated effect. Like making a liver slowly where there was none. Obviously evolutionists has to assume that those sorts of effects are possible but they do that through pure speculation, they have to or they would have nothing to believe in.


Lester - have you tried taking your nose out of the Creationist blogs and taken a look at some of the enormous amounts of research that is being conducted in the field of evolution?  It is really quite remarkable.  The pase of discovery and new insights in increasing rapidly.  

From May 8, 2003 - Nature

Experiments show how Complex Functions can Evolve

Some mutations that cause damage in the short term ultimately become a positive force in the genetic pedigree of a complex organism. "The little things, they definitely count," said Lenski of Michigan State, the paper's lead author. "Our work allowed us to see how the most complex functions are built up from simpler and simpler functions. We also saw that some mutations looked like bad events when they happened, but turned out to be really important for the evolution of the population over a long period of time."


Mind you, these simulations were conducted using a computer model of mutations and natural selection.  But they give new insights on how evolution proceeds using the elements of mutations and the principles of natural selection.  

The program, called Avida, is an artificial petri dish in which organisms not only reproduce, but also perform mathematical calculations to obtain rewards. Their reward is more computer time that they can use for making copies of themselves. Avida randomly adds mutations to the copies, thus spurring natural selection and evolution. The research team watched how these "bugs" adapted and evolved in different environments inside their artificial world.

Avida is the biologist's racecar--a really souped up one. To watch the evolution of most living organisms would require thousands of years--without blinking. The digital bugs evolve at lightening speed, and they leave tracks for scientists to study.

"The cool thing is that we can trace the line of descent," Lenski said. "Out of a big population of organisms you can work back to see the pivotal mutations that really mattered during the evolutionary history of the population. The human mind can't sort through so much data, but we developed a tool to find these pivotal events."



The article ends by saying:
Many computer scientists and engineers are now using processes based on principles of genetics and evolution to solve complex problems, design working robots, and more.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:06 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:13 AM on April 9, 2009 :
those that argue via quote do so because they are too ignorant to come up with anything on their own.
Aah, you mean they may even be too ignorant to understand what they are quoting? Surely anything they have to say personally will then be even stupider?


So, like I said - learn about it before pontificating, especially pontificating via quote.
So Gluteus, looks like every exit is blocked here -no pontificating and no quote pontificating either. Guess it's going to have to be some original research here.
It's tough doing battle with ego, isn't it?
Bla bla bla bla bla. Slanted and timid ad hominem


gluteus - you're ignoring one important ingredient - natural selection.  In a nutshell, nature selects those mutations that are favorable in some way.  Mutations that are unfavorable don't get passed along as readily.
There's only one problem orion and that is that you're assuming that a single mutation may somehow be joined by many more that will join together to cause some sort of coordinated effect.
Strawman.
Like making a liver slowly where there was none.
Strawman.

If you don't know, just ask.

I don't really know actually, but my guess would be that organs form bia specialization of preexistent tissues.

I'd say that every new mutant gene that shows up for the audition has to cooperate with the preexistent ones, or will be kicked out.
Perhaps sometimes, while the new gene has not been completely kicked out, a new new gene comes along and helps the old new gene to integrate within the group.

That's my guess.

Obviously evolutionists has to assume that those sorts of effects are possible but they do that through pure speculation,
Obviously you don't know enough to spot what's really obvious.
they have to or they would have nothing to believe in.
Like unicorns, rib cloning, people turning into sand statues, walk on water, water to wine?
We don't see it that way.We see it more like making spelling mistakes in an original perfect document.
Yeah, but you have no basis.

Adam fucked up big time for a perfect document.

More and more spelling mistakes over many generations is unlikely to make a better story than the original intelligently designed one.
You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.
Even selection of the best mistakes is only holding the forthcoming disaster in check for a limited period of time.
Because books have meaning.

For something like a book to be selected successfully through the mistakes, yeah, there must be some intelligent (lat. inteligere, to understand) selecting factor (because books are intelligible). Just like your Bible.

Like the camel through the needle.

It made half sense, because camels too have a hard time passing through the eye of a needle (harder than the original rope).

In fact loooking at it this way is a far better explanation for the current mutational load
Define "mutational load".

You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.
than imagining that 'good' mutations are happening frequently enough to craft every sort of invertebrate,
What would be 'enough'?
fish, reptile, insect and mammal including man
Man is really not impressive.
from that incredibly unlikely original self organizing relative of us all, that unicellular masterpiece that we speculate about endlessly when discussing origins sans creative intelligence.
Bla bla bla.
Facts. No quotes, less adjectives, more facts.

So yes, NS may select mutations that are positive in some way
If we were like you, we'd be quote mining you. Well, if your opinion was important.
or it may just act as a quality controller ignoring those that are not too damaging to the final product.
Aha.

derwood
Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species.
I had not thought of that! How interesting!

No, it is tough trying to discuss an issue with people that have at best a cursory knowledge of it yet present themselves as able not only  to discuss it in depth but to be able to 'refute' positions taken by those qwith true expertise in the area.
I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.

(Creationists love old imagination, and hate new imagination, for some reason.)

And i'm often right while the expert is wrong.
I rule. =D

I'm now reading your last entry. Your reply is quite similar to mine, even if yours is expert and mine is not.

Oh, don't get me wrong! I appreciate your expertise very much. Besides you're not only an expert, but you are very smart, which i value just the same.

The problem with language analogies is that they break down when you apply them above conveying the very basics of transcription, and of course then those that employ such analogies as arguments do not understand how bad of an argument it is or that analogies are not arguments.
Yeah, well, that's the best they can do, when they can't pinpoint a real problem to the process we describe.

How do you call the thing to kill mice? The thing with a bait...
Someone mentioned it as an example of "irreducible complexity".
-You can't take away any part of it, or it won't work.
-Well, that's not true. You can take the wooden base away, and nail the thing to the floor.
-Editorial silence. Disdain gesture. Flushed cheeks.

Oh, interesting explanation by Dunning and Kruger.
I thought it was a creationist trait that originated in their faith.
Perhaps there's some kind of feedback.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:18 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, It IS hard to compete with the egos here. I guess they have won me over and evolution is without a doubt a fact.  sigh.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:19 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Egos?

If derwood tells you that he knows and understands more than you, he'd be falling short.
It would be a good deal. Special offer. You should take it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:08 PM on April 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess they have won me over and evolution is without a doubt a fact.


Well Gluteus I really hope you're being sarcastic there and are not about to start sticking those monkey pics in your family album. It is tiring, but you have work to do. We are in the minority but as long as we strive for the truth to be heard our effort is not wasted so don't throw the towel in at the evolutionist's back slapping party. It just amazes me how easy it was for Dagwood to make Wisp roll over! Shocking in its simplicity -I nearly had to throw up -I had almost credited Wisp with a brain and suddenly I had to remove the imaginary brain and stick back the programmed hard drive in its place. Life sure has its twists and turns!


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:27 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - you don't have the grace to admit that arguments and rebuttals that Devwood  presented make the Creationists arguments in this post look foolish and incompetent.


Oh I'm sorry I hadn't noticed!

Lester - have you tried taking your nose out of the Creationist blogs and taken a look at some of the enormous amounts of research that is being conducted in the field of evolution?  It is really quite remarkable.  The pase of discovery and new insights in increasing rapidly.


I haven't read many creationist blogs actually but I  have noticed that evolutionary hysteria has been stepping up a notch and is especially advancing in the imagination section.

Our work allowed us to see how the most complex functions are built up from simpler and simpler functions. We also saw that some mutations looked like bad events when they happened, but turned out to be really important for the evolution of the population over a long period of time."


Well reading this I was about to say "give me examples, I want to see them because I know it is not true", and just at that moment it was followed by:

Mind you, these simulations were conducted using a computer model of mutations and natural selection.


- so I didn't have to say it. Have you noticed at all that computers require programmers and garbage in gives garbage out? The programme is programmed to output garbage because it was written by a true believer.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:04 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
You are presuming that 1. this sort of thing is necessary and
2. that there are 'goals' that such a process is striving towards


Well I'd say you'd have to have some kind of a goal if this sort of thing were vaguely reasonable. If you have a biological entity with no liver and later an integrated liver  'evolves' in that line of organism then it would have to be a co-ordinated effort, not least of all with the other liver cells, then also with the circulatory system, the duct system, the intestines that feed products in the liver's direction and everything else the liver's actions need to be coordinated with.
Of course if you are an evolutionist, then there is no goal, it all just happened fortuitously to fit together - like imagining bridges that make themselves while the roads leading to the bridge on either side just happen to be there in the correct place without any foresight required. It's all pretty miraculous!
And please don't tell me I just don't understand evolution, the problem here is that I understand far too well why it couldn't work.The problems that evolutionists gloss over by necessity weigh on me heavily and are not easily pushed out of sight.

The problem with language analogies is that they break down when you apply them above conveying the very basics of transcription


So tell me why they can't apply this one right through transcription and on to protein synthesis?Explain to me where the argument breaks down.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:37 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't really know actually, but my guess would be that organs form bia specialization of preexistent tissues.


So you're guessing again. That's good -at least you acknowledge that you weren't there nor was anybody else so no-one knows.

I'd say that every new mutant gene that shows up for the audition has to cooperate with the preexistent ones, or will be kicked out.


You might say so but you're still guessing.

Perhaps sometimes, while the new gene has not been completely kicked out, a new new gene comes along and helps the old new gene to integrate within the group.


You make it all sound very organized and most fortunate. It is so easy to make up stories isn't it?

Obviously you don't know enough to spot what's really obvious.


No you don't, which is why you suck it all up and spit it out so easily as if the doing is just as easy and as obvious as the imagining.

We don't see it that way.We see it more like making spelling mistakes in an original perfect document.


Yeah, but you have no basis.


Nor do you have for assuming no designer was necessary for obvious complexity.

Adam fucked up big time for a perfect document.


Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?

You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.


According to your belief system they don't.

Define "mutational load".


The mass of genetic mistakes that are accumulating on the human genome.

You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.


Junk DNA is just non-coding DNA, nothing to do with the mutational load. As for junk, that's what evolutionists call anything that we haven't worked out the function for yet. Prediction: no junk, lots of function. Time will tell if I'm right. It's a recipe you see -intelligently designed code for life.

derwood
Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species.


I had not thought of that! How interesting!


Big slap on the back for that old chap! Why didn't I feel impressed? Why are these evolutionists so easy to please today? This is really creepy.

I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.


Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist! It's an essential function. Without that you'd lose all those monkey relatives of yours.

And i'm often right while the expert is wrong.


Actually you just have great imagination and that pleases the 'experts' who don't really care about the details, just that they sound plausible.

Oh, don't get me wrong! I appreciate your expertise very much. Besides you're not only an expert, but you are very smart, which i value just the same.


My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

Well, that's not true. You can take the wooden base away, and nail the thing to the floor.


So... the floor becomes the base. We really don't care what acts as the base Wisp, just that there is one that everything is attached to. Nice try though.






















 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:35 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:37 AM on April 10, 2009 :
Derwood
You are presuming that 1. this sort of thing is necessary and
2. that there are 'goals' that such a process is striving towards


Well I'd say you'd have to have some kind of a goal if this sort of thing were vaguely reasonable.


And thus you expose your ignorance of evolution.

The ego problem appears to lie with those having little real understadning of the subject yet pontificating on it as if they did.



If you have a biological entity with no liver and later an integrated liver  'evolves' in that line of organism then it would have to be a co-ordinated effort, not least of all with the other liver cells, then also with the circulatory system, the duct system, the intestines that feed products in the liver's direction and everything else the liver's actions need to be coordinated with.


Fish have livers.

Insects have livers of a sort.

No multicellular organism that possesses organ systems does NOT have a liver of some sort.

Presuming that an organism might have evolved without one and then decided that it needed on, thus the development of the liver was a goal is a simplistic caricature of the theory.


Of course if you are an evolutionist, then there is no goal, it all just happened fortuitously to fit together - like imagining bridges that make themselves while the roads leading to the bridge on either side just happen to be there in the correct place without any foresight required. It's all pretty miraculous!


Yes, just like that.  Because bridges really DO reproduce and so forth - just like organisms do!  

You know, without analogies - and really bad ones at that - you people would have almost nothing to write.




And please don't tell me I just don't understand evolution,


Well, you pretty clearly do not.



the problem here is that I understand far too well why it couldn't work.


And yet from what you have written, I do not see that at all.  I see misapplications of irrelevant analogies in this thread, irrelevant quotes, the usual 'you guys are elitists with egos', and that is it.



The problems that evolutionists gloss over by necessity weigh on me heavily and are not easily pushed out of sight.


Well, let's see what you've got.

But no child-like analogies this time, ok?



The problem with language analogies is that they break down when you apply them above conveying the very basics of transcription


So tell me why they can't apply this one right through transcription and on to protein synthesis?Explain to me where the argument breaks down.



OK - it is very simple if you actually understand the basics of genetics.

The common use of the 'language analogy' - which I used to use when I taught freshman biology - is as follows:

The nucleotides in a gene are like the letters in the english alphabet; triplets/codons are like words; genes are like sentences.

Good enough, gets the general point across.

Now, in english, how many 'words' (codons) can we exchange for one another and still get the same meaning from the sentence?

Can I write:

The cat runs fast.

and then write:

The can runs telephone.

and still convey the same meaning?

You can in genetics.

In english, how many sentences (genes) can be simply rewritten twice and do anything but confuse the reader?

 




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:52 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:27 AM on April 10, 2009 :
I guess they have won me over and evolution is without a doubt a fact.


Well Gluteus I really hope you're being sarcastic there and are not about to start sticking those monkey pics in your family album. It is tiring, but you have work to do. We are in the minority but as long as we strive for the truth to be heard our effort is not wasted so don't throw the towel in at the evolutionist's back slapping party. It just amazes me how easy it was for Dagwood to make Wisp roll over! Shocking in its simplicity -I nearly had to throw up -I had almost credited Wisp with a brain and suddenly I had to remove the imaginary brain and stick back the programmed hard drive in its place. Life sure has its twists and turns!



And you folks have the nerve to imply that it is US with the ego problems.

Incredible.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:17 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
I haven't read many creationist blogs actually but I  have noticed that evolutionary hysteria has been stepping up a notch and is especially advancing in the imagination section.


Lester, you're right about one thing - science would not advance very far without imagination.  

It took imagination for Copernicus to think outside the box, discard the old Ptolemy geocentric view of the universe, and propose a heliocentric solor system.  The heliocentric model fit the observed motions of the planets much better than the Ptolemic model.

All the great thinkers in science (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein, Gamov, etc) had to have the ability to 'think outside the box'.  They had to have that very important ingredient of imagination to fuel their creativity.

But scientific creativity and imagination is tested by the fires of the scientific method.  And that is the important distinction between the role imagination plays in science and the role it is played in other areas of human culture - science ideas are tested in for their  ability to explain facts and make acurate predictions.

Creationists, on the other hand, seem to lack imagination for the most part.  They are stuck with the biblical myths that were created thousands of years ago.    
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:22 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on April 10, 2009 :
Well his decision making wasn't good but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?


Is there any non-biblical evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Lifespans have been INCREASING overall in recorded history, not decreasing.


You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.


According to your belief system they don't.


So, "meaning" is dependant upon belief systems?

"Meaning" is not an inherent characterstic?


Define "mutational load".


The mass of genetic mistakes that are accumulating on the human genome.


Talk about loaded words...

Did you know that beneficial mutations are also considered part of the mutational load?


You don't like our 'junk DNA', but you like your 'mutational load'.


Junk DNA is just non-coding DNA, nothing to do with the mutational load. As for junk, that's what evolutionists call anything that we haven't worked out the function for yet. Prediction: no junk, lots of function. Time will tell if I'm right. It's a recipe you see -intelligently designed code for life.


Unfortunately, you've swallowed the historical revisionism of creatinist propaganda ministers.

Even as Ohno coined the term "junk DNA", he did not claim that this DNA has no function, and before and after the phrase was coined, evolutionists were speculating about AND discovering functions in junk DNA - decades beforwe the creationist/IDists "predicted" it.

You people are not only decades behind the times, you are also actively engaging in historical revisionism to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is, there ARE portions of the genome that have no direct physiological function.  Just saying this because we don't know what it does yet?  No, saying this because you can remove it and suffer no consequences, the very definition of no function, I should think.


Mice thrive without 'junk DNA'
20/10/04. By the DOE Joint Genome Institute

Researchers have deleted 3 per cent of the mouse genome, but the mice show no apparent ill effects.



After completing the sequencing of the human genome, a question still lingers: is all the non-coding DNA (sometimes called 'junk DNA') – which makes up nearly 98 per cent of the genome – required, or is some of it potentially disposable?

US researchers have now shown that deleting large swaths of DNA sequence shared by mice and humans still generated mice that suffered no apparent ills from their genomes being millions of letters lighter.

The findings, by researchers at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (JGI) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, were published in the 21 October 2004 edition of the journal Nature.

"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."

A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.

The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal.

Adapted from a press release by the DOE Joint Genome Institute .


I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.


Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist!


Blind obedience and an overestimation of your intellectual powers is what makes for a good creationist.


My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?

I'm not trying to impress anyone.  You surely are, but it is not working well.
I am just trying to correct pompous disinformation and ignorance being paraded as confident knowledge.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:56 AM on April 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Gluteus I really hope you're being sarcastic there
'Hope'?
You guys don't understand each other.

and are not about to start sticking those monkey pics in your family album.
Hahaha! That was good, Lester!

We are in the minority but as long as we strive for the truth to be heard our effort is not wasted so don't throw the towel in at the evolutionist's back slapping party.
Kind of blah blah.
It's avoidable, Lester.

It just amazes me how easy it was for Dagwood to make Wisp roll over!
I'm not familiar with the figurative sense of that expression.
I'm assuming that it's not literal, because that's not your style. You need your analogies and your figurative speech.

I had almost credited Wisp with a brain
=(
and suddenly I had to remove the imaginary brain and stick back the programmed hard drive in its place.
There you go, more analogies.

Programmed by what?
I have shown you that i was never indoctrinated by anyone.

Have you noticed at all that computers require programmers and garbage in gives garbage out? The programme is programmed to output garbage because it was written by a true believer.
www.swimbots.com

Man, the programmer only has to set the initial conditions and the darwinian laws, sit back and watch.

The swimbot program emulates a 2D water-like environment, with random replicators that need to mate to produce offspring.

I have helped the evolution of many very interesting creatures.
I'm their god, you might say.

I can sit back and watch too. Sometimes you get interesting stuff. Sometimes you get random mass extinctions. But complete extinctions are less likely in big environments.

The space is very limited, no different habitats, no light-dark cycles, no predation, no parasitism, 2 dimensions... And yet they manage to evolve!!

Imagine what Evolution could have done with the entire Earth, and millions of years!

Oh, sorry. Forgot you can't.

Oh, and i didn't design the excellent creatures whose evolution i aided.
My aid was just like a selective pressure.
I help mostly by killing stuff.

The darwinian laws really work in virtual spaces.
Can you admit to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4BGLp0wcdE&NR=1

Here you can see some virtually evolved creatures.

Your posts need some serious garbage-out.

Well I'd say you'd have to have some kind of a goal if this sort of thing were vaguely reasonable.
And you're wrong.

You keep saying that we assume stuff that we never did, and you never take it back. That shows your dishonesty.

It's you who assume false scenarios. And repeat them over and over again without paying attention to our rebuttals.

If you have a biological entity with no liver and later an integrated liver  'evolves' in that line of organism
'If'.

You can never have an organism that needs a liver, and has no liver.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Will you take that back?
My guess is that you won't.

then it would have to be a co-ordinated effort, not least of all with the other liver cells, then also with the circulatory system, the duct system, the intestines that feed products in the liver's direction and everything else the liver's actions need to be coordinated with.
You're confusing a coordinated (real?) effort for the organs in a living organism to work together, with some coordinated (imaginary) effort to evolve them. Thus again showing your lack of understanding.

Of course if you are an evolutionist, then there is no goal, it all just happened fortuitously to fit together -
What's your problem? Present it, or move on.
like imagining bridges that make themselves while the roads leading to the bridge on either side just happen to be there in the correct place without any foresight required.
Man, your analogies don't work! Bridges are not imperfect self-replicators!

Bring me analogies with self-replicators, at least. Or move on to a real problem.
It's all pretty miraculous!
Do you have any problems with miracles?

And please don't tell me I just don't understand evolution,
You just don't understand Evolution. I won't please you.
the problem here is that I understand far too well why it couldn't work.
Talk about ego.

You say it couldn't work because of randomness. Debunked.

You say it couldn't work because of the second law of thermodynamics. Debunked.

You say it couldn't work because information doesn't increase. Debunked.

Meh, i don't feel like listing.
If you can't refute our rebuttals, it clearly shows that you didn't understand them. Or that you do, but don't want to admit to them, out of dishonesty.
The problems that evolutionists gloss over by necessity weigh on me heavily and are not easily pushed out of sight.
Name them, or hush. Facts.

The problem with language analogies is that they break down when you apply them above conveying the very basics of transcription
So tell me why they can't apply this one right through transcription and on to protein synthesis?
I did.
Explain to me where the argument breaks down.
The meaning.

If there's no intelligence to appreciate the book, your book is also a random collection of symbols.

With a book you need some intelligence to appreciate. Otherwise it's not a book.

With an organism you need an environment to test it.

Environments are less strict when it comes to 'meaning': they need none.

I gave you a good explanation, but you won't like it. You can't refute it. You just won't like it.

I don't really know actually, but my guess would be that organs form bia specialization of preexistent tissues.
So you're guessing again.
Yes, yes, yes!
I can't admit it even more.

Nevertheless, my guesses are pretty good. They are not random guesses. They're based on reasoning.

When my guesses get confirmation, my faith in them increases.

That's good -at least you acknowledge that you weren't there nor was anybody else so no-one knows.
I never admitted that no-one knows. I admitted that i didn't.

I'd say that every new mutant gene that shows up for the audition has to cooperate with the preexistent ones, or will be kicked out.
You might say so but you're still guessing.
Yes. Along with my next sentence, i give it a 88% chance of complete accuracy, and a 95% chance of being pretty close to it.

There might be some other cases when a gene that doesn't cooperate is successful nevertheless. Not many, i'd guess.

They could learn to give themselves an edge in meiosis, or they could work on the phenotype and making the organism recognize and help other organisms with the same gene.
Far fetched, but not impossible.

You make it all sound very organized and most fortunate.
Not at all. Many 'good' genes must have been lost due to random chance.

Perhaps there was a gene that allowed it's possessor to read minds. And a tree fell on the owner's head. So bad.

It is so easy to make up stories isn't it?
Yes. For me it is. For you it's not.

You have yet to make up some nice story explaining parasites and predators. Claws, fangs, armors, teeth, electric shocks, thorns, fangs, venom, etc.

No you don't, which is why you suck it all up
'It all' what?

Evolution?

No i don't. I have given it a lot of thought.

You suck your Bible up without giving it any thought.

Yeah, but you have no basis.
Nor do you have for assuming no designer was necessary for obvious complexity.
'Nor'. So you admit that you have no basis, right?

Adam fucked up big time for a perfect document.
Well his decision making wasn't good
I actually disagree. I love his decision. Sadly you miss the point of this wonderful story. Your loss.
but he was pretty genetically superior if he lived for 900 odd years, don't you think?
I don't.

I rather live 10 human years than 100 turtle years.
And in your system of belief, Adam must have been just a little bit mentally superior to a turtle.

I pass from that long life.

Tell me something, was your genetically superior Adam able to move his ears towards the source of a sound? Was he furrier, so his goose bumps had some use? Was he able to swing from tree branches using his feet thanks to his undevolved plantaris muscle? Did he have long fangs so that the long fang roots had some use? Were his retinas facing the right direction? Did he have fully developed third eyelids to see underwater? Did he have gills? A tail? Could he manipulate objects with his genetically superior feet? Could he scratch with them? Otherwise, why have toe nails?

You're forgetting selection. You're forgetting that a book has a meaning, and organisms don't.
According to your belief system they don't.
Wait...

What are you talking about? What meaning do you find?

Lester10
wisp
derwood
Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species.
I had not thought of that! How interesting!
Big slap on the back for that old chap! Why didn't I feel impressed?
Because you didn't understand it.
Why are these evolutionists so easy to please today?
Easy? You think that was easy??
It makes perfect sense, and nothing you say ever does.
If it's that easy, why don't you follow his example and talk with sense?

What he said is really interesting. I think the wording is somewhat less than accurate (selection doesn't favor species that leave many daughter species), but it's just words. What he meant was very precise and accurate, and it makes perfect sense (something you could only dream of).

In your case your wording doesn't make sense, and its meaning doesn't make sense.

This is really creepy.
Again, you don't make sense.

You creationists keep trying to aid each other in a battle front. I don't.
Should you have noticed that timbrx didn't believe in vestigiality, you wouldn't have admitted to that.

However, that i could find real mistakes about this subject in someone as knowledgeable and smart as derwood seems to be sounds quite unlikely.

I'm not sucking up. Just stating facts.

I'm like that. I have no expertise in anything, and i discuss. And i love it. I rely solely on my wits and imagination.
Well the imagination part is what makes you such a good evolutionist!
Thanks.
Your lack of one is what makes you a good (??) creationist.
Creationists have a little imagination though. The difference is that they don't put it to the test.

It's an essential function.
I agree.
Without that you'd lose all those monkey relatives of yours.
Of ours. Yes.

And i'm often right while the expert is wrong.
Actually you just have great imagination and that pleases the 'experts' who don't really care about the details, just that they sound plausible.
Oh, is it us who don't care about the details?

Tell us how we got the weapons we see in nature, and then you can talk.

Oh, don't get me wrong! I appreciate your expertise very much. Besides you're not only an expert, but you are very smart, which i value just the same.
My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here.
Haha!
I have enough knowledge to realize that the guy knows what he's talking about. While you...
What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?
...don't.

By imagination and reasoning i get the same conclusions that the experts get. That means something, whether you like it or not.

If we're dreaming things up, how come we get the same? Sounds like magic. Thought transfer. Something supernatural.

You can't agree on what a kind is. You can't agree if we have vestigiality or not.
Big issues here.

Well, that's not true. You can take the wooden base away, and nail the thing to the floor.
So... the floor becomes the base.
So you lost a piece, it still works, and you won't admit it.
We really don't care what acts as the base Wisp,
How revealing.
just that there is one that everything is attached to.
Keep decreasing your expectations till they be met.
Nice try though.
Indeed.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:15 PM on April 10, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok Lester, you called me to remove the mountain gorillas and monkeys from my family album who I thought were my great-great-great-great grandfather's side of the family. Some of them today are in the county zoo but they are not speaking to me.
Lester you stated your case clearly and no matter how well, you will get railroaded here among our atheist friends. They don't seem to acknowledge the  law of increasing entropy, the bedfellows of disorder and randomness strikes a death blow at random mutations that would lead to our staggering complexity. They keep saying "given enough time" it can happen. I submit to you that 4 billion years is way too short a time for evolution to produce the wonders we see today.
The complexity of proteins forming by chance would take alot longer then that, a number with staggering exponents, orders of magnitude too horrific to mention here. But I think it all boils down to their refusal to admit the existence of God.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:12 PM on April 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, let us answer the same PRATT yet another time.

Let's be short this time.

Ok Lester, you called me to remove the mountain gorillas and monkeys from my family album who I thought were my great-great-great-great grandfather's side of the family.
That wouldn't be any side of any family. You didn't even say if that's from your mother or your father side.
Some of them today are in the county zoo but they are not speaking to me.
Select them for communicational skills, and they will, if given enough time.
Lester you stated your case clearly
Indeed. Crystal clear. We understand everything that you say even better than you do. We know that by "kinds" you mean nothing. You don't.
and no matter how well, you will get railroaded here among our atheist friends.
Exactly. No matter how well you express those silly claims, we'll debunk them over and over again. No matter how clearly you say "it's just a theory", or "can't happen by random chance", or "but the law of increasing entropy".

Don't worry, if you can express it, it's clear for us.
They don't seem to acknowledge the  law of increasing entropy,
We do. Entropy is increasing in the Universe. It's increasing in the Solar System, even if it's not on Earth because our energy input equals our energy output.

The law of entropy gets fulfilled every time. Energy from the Sun gets dispersed.

We're but whirlpools in the constant flow of entropy.
the bedfellows of disorder and randomness strikes a death blow at random mutations that would lead to our staggering complexity.
Again, mutations don't lead.
They keep saying "given enough time" it can happen.
It can't. Mutations don't lead. They just show up.
I submit to you that 4 billion years is way too short a time for evolution to produce the wonders we see today.
Yet in barely 4k years (a millionth of the time you mentioned) you claim that every land species devolved from a bunch that could fit into an ark.
The complexity of proteins forming by chance would take alot longer then that,
What proteins? You're wrong.
Anyway, proteins don't form by chance alone, so your comment deserves no attention.
a number with staggering exponents, orders of magnitude too horrific to mention here.
Then don't.
But I think
Hum...
it all boils down to their refusal to admit the existence of God.
I don't have the slightest doubt about God.

I can doubt about myself. Never about God.

So wrong, wrong, wrong.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:33 PM on April 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:12 PM on April 10, 2009 :
Lester you stated your case clearly and no matter how well, you will get railroaded here among our atheist friends.


Don't delude yourself, evolution has no more to do with atheism than creationism has to do with Christianity.

Creationism is little other than idol worship.  Ask yourself, which is more important, the bible or Christ?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:15 PM on April 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism belittles God, knowledge AND the scriptures.

That makes it thrice as sad as plain ignorance.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:32 PM on April 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Gluteus, sounds like maybe some believe in God, but no special creation. Strange and pointless in my view. If the Bible is to have any value then it must be true. if untrue, I'd dump the whole thing. If true then why complicate it by making up how it happened in direct contradiction to the official story?
I think maintaining evolution as the official story helps those that believe in God but want the excuse of being confused about what God says or wants. "Well there's all that hogwash in Genesis so probably the ten commandments can be rewritten as well because no doubt they don't mean what they say there either..."

It's amazing what a liberating thing evolution is for Christians as well. Did God really say...?
Well check out Genesis, that's wrong for sure; look at all this ironclad evidence for evolution and after that rewrite the whole meaning of the Bible to suit yourself.

The ultimate problem of course, is that death came through sin. If it didn't then why did Jesus Christ have to die? They said for the sins of the world and to overcome death so that we can live but according to evolution, there is no sin and there's all that death over millions of years; man is nothing special so really the whole story of Jesus Christ turns into rubbish, directly thanks to evolution.

Is it any wonder people love to believe in evolution and choose to ignore all the evidence against it being remotely possible?

As G Richard Bozarth noted in the American Atheist

Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight 'science' to the desparate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly the very reason Jeus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

Then we have the Bible that says "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

I personally concur with Soren Lovtrup who said in 1987: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science." and with Louis Bounourne, former director of the Strasbourg Zoological museum who stated in 1984: Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:26 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:26 AM on April 11, 2009 :
I personally concur with Soren Lovtrup who said in 1987: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science." and with Louis Bounourne, former director of the Strasbourg Zoological museum who stated in 1984: Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."  


Would you refuse a treatment for cancer developed with evolutionary principles?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:41 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Gluteus,
You can ask for his mail, you know.

There's PM also.

sounds like maybe some believe in God, but no special creation.
Certainly.
Strange
It's most common. So wrong.
and pointless
Talk about ego.
in my view.
How did hollow fangs carrying venom appear in your view?
If the Bible is to have any value then it must be true.
I feel like a rabbit, suddenly trapped by the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.

I can make poetic analogies too.    =D
if untrue, I'd dump the whole thing.
You'd dump Shakespeare, right?
If true then why complicate it by making up how it happened in direct contradiction to the official story?
Very strong "if" there.

"If" that's true, why say something else?
Well, no reason, of course.

I think maintaining evolution as the official story helps those that believe in God but want the excuse of being confused about what God says or wants.
God is infinite. Yahweh is a capricious malicious suspicious injudicious, vicious, surreptitious, incompetitious warrior god of a tribe.


"Well there's all that hogwash in Genesis so probably the ten commandments can be rewritten as well because no doubt they don't mean what they say there either..."
Oh, they do.

They also do mean that you must be killed for working on the sabbath.

And don't bring that bull that Jesus validated the top 10. He only mentioned half of them and made some new one up.

It's amazing what a liberating thing evolution is for Christians as well. Did God really say...?
I'm with you here. Christians should be all biblical literalist fundamentalists, or kiss the name goodbye.

Well check out Genesis, that's wrong for sure;
For sure.
look at all this ironclad evidence for evolution and after that rewrite the whole meaning of the Bible to suit yourself.
There's no real evidence for satellites either. The solid sky must be true.

The ultimate problem of course, is that death came through sin.
How come then we have so many weapons to fight death?

God couldn't have given them to us, because he didn't plan death... So? Devolved too?


If it didn't then why did Jesus Christ have to die?
He shouldn't.

May God get those who hung him. Or crucified him, whatever, not important.

They said for the sins of the world and to overcome death so that we can live but according to evolution, there is no sin and there's all that death over millions of years; man is nothing special so really the whole story of Jesus Christ turns into rubbish, directly thanks to evolution.
You miss the point of Jesus' words. Your loss.

Seriously, Lester. I'm not an atheist, but i admit that atheism is far better than your version of theism.

Is it any wonder people love to believe in evolution and choose to ignore all the evidence against it being remotely possible?
We don't. There's just none.

Odds: bs. 2LOT: bs. No new information: bs. Fossil record gaps: bs. Bananas being the atheist's nightmare: bs.

As G Richard Bozarth noted in the American Atheist
Here come the quotes...
Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight 'science' to the desparate end over evolution,
That's not christianity. It should be, but it's not.
because evolution destroys utterly the very reason Jeus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
I don't understand that.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin,
Hell yeah!
and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God.
Why?
If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins,
He's not. Give him some self value, won't you? A value that makes sense, preferably.

Take heed of his life, not his death.

and this is what evolution means,
'This' what?
then Christianity is nothing.
Oh, i wouldn't say 'nothing'.

It's very little essentially, but it's fueled by a huge load of ignorance.

Then we have the Bible that says "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."
Yeah, or "Go to that town, kill men, women and children, and take everything they had".

I personally concur with Soren Lovtrup
Spare us the quotes!
who said in 1987: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science."
Give us a deadline after which you'll shut up.
and with Louis Bounourne, former director of the Strasbourg Zoological museum who stated in 1984: Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.
Give us your version of the appearance of fangs, venom, claws, armors, zombifying chemicals, natural hypodermic needles, the ability to make a shelter, electric shocks, cooperative stalking, etc.

This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Keep repeating that till it comes true.

Anyway, good science is not helping science. Good science is predicting science.

So the useless Tiktaalic comes into play.

You can answer to it in Demon38's post.


(Edited by admin 4/11/2009 at 1:09 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:59 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

apoapsis
Would you refuse a treatment for cancer developed with evolutionary principles?

It would seem rather that cancer treatments defy evolutionary principles. If we didn't treat cancer than only those resistant to cancer would survive thus evolving into a cancer free humanity. Right?

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:05 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:12 PM on April 10, 2009 :
Lester you stated your case clearly and no matter how well, you will get railroaded here among our atheist friends. They don't seem to acknowledge the  law of increasing entropy,

There is no such law - what is to acknowledge?

I asked - and you wizards failed ot address much less answer - how is it then that is entropy is always increasing everywhere that crystals can form?

the bedfellows of disorder and randomness strikes a death blow at random mutations that would lead to our staggering complexity.


An ignorance of basic science is the bedfellow of proud and overconfident pronouncements from internet creationists.


They keep saying "given enough time" it can happen. I submit to you that 4 billion years is way too short a time for evolution to produce the wonders we see today.


Submit it all you want.

You people have certainly submitted nothing of merit that this is actually the case.


The complexity of proteins forming by chance would take alot longer then that,

Strawman arguments, apparently, have a probability of 1 when a creationist is discussing evolution.



a number with staggering exponents, orders of magnitude too horrific to mention here. But I think it all boils down to their refusal to admit the existence of God.


You people are pathetically laughable...

"This stuff cannot occur naturally no matter how much time there is.  But by golly, my super-duper magical GOD can do it all just by thinking!!!"




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:30 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:05 AM on April 11, 2009 :
apoapsis
Would you refuse a treatment for cancer developed with evolutionary principles?

It would seem rather that cancer treatments defy evolutionary principles. If we didn't treat cancer than only those resistant to cancer would survive thus evolving into a cancer free humanity. Right?





Yeah, so how's prayer doing for a cancer cure these days?


I see you folks know as much about probability and evolution as you do about vestigials...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:32 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:12 PM on April 10, 2009 :
Ok Lester,


Hey lester - your boyfriend wants you.

"My Derwood, you really have hypnotized old Wisp here. What bigs ears you have Granny! Are you sure that's you, Wisp?"

Hypocrites.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:34 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:05 AM on April 11, 2009 :
apoapsis
Would you refuse a treatment for cancer developed with evolutionary principles?

It would seem rather that cancer treatments defy evolutionary principles. If we didn't treat cancer than only those resistant to cancer would survive thus evolving into a cancer free humanity. Right?



That wasn't the question, was it?

What's your answer?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:49 AM on April 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's obvious that they would say: "No, you didn't develop it with evolutionary principles. You're lying to me, but i'll trust your treatment nevertheless."

timbrx
apoapsis
Would you refuse a treatment for cancer developed with evolutionary principles?

It would seem rather that cancer treatments defy evolutionary principles.
Nothing defies evolutionary principles.
If we didn't treat cancer than only those resistant to cancer would survive thus evolving into a cancer free humanity. Right?
Wrong.

Give it enough time, and the survival rate drops to zero.

There's this tendency, you know? Cancer tends to appear in people past the age of having offspring. Which, of course, makes perfect evolutionary sense. Just like everything else.

If we're just decaying, why do we have so very few kids with cancer?

We could get rid of cancer eventually by practicing eugenics (yeah, like Hitler).

You should only have to list cancer patients, and prevent his sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters from having kids.

So, timbrx. Can you think for yourself why an infertile childhood (cubhood, puppyhood, i don't know the English word for it) makes perfect evolutionary sense (just like everything else)?

Don't believe it. Think of it as a mental exercise that would give you a better understanding on our theory, and may give you weapons to fight it.

- - -

Now that i think about it, i have the semi eugenic solution to overpopulation, cancer and aging: ban reproduction before the age of 35, and slowly increase that minimum age.

It would act as a prolonged childhood.

It would bring problems at first.
Populations would drop (offspring of 35 and older women would have a harder time living healthy lives till they get to the legal fertility), then they would reach stability, and then they would rise again.

Perhaps it's laughable. But humanity will have to face enforced birth control.
Sounds horrible, but it's less horrible than famine, disease and war.

But who would get to reproduce? Who would decide?

I'm really concerned about these things.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:55 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
derwood
Our work allowed us to see how the most complex functions are built up from simpler and simpler functions. We also saw that some mutations looked like bad events when they happened, but turned out to be really important for the evolution of the population over a long period of time."
Well reading this I was about to say "give me examples, I want to see them because I know it is not true",
I thought i had.

Mutant allergy to the mosquito's bite.

This is my guess:
Some ancestor of ours was born with this annoying condition. It had to run away from mosquito's lunch places. He and his offspring had less chances of dying from mosquito transmitted deseases.

Is my guess correct, derwood?

Obviously the mosquito doesn't want for its bite to itch. But there was a strong selective pressure on our side.

Where does this condition come from, in your view, Lester10?

Pray, tell.
- - -
Some conditions might be seen as evolutionary trials. Perhaps some functional form of autism might evolve.

What would be very awesome is developing an autistic partition in the brain.


(Edited by wisp 4/11/2009 at 3:52 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:47 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


a number with staggering exponents, orders of magnitude too horrific to mention here. But I think it all boils down to their refusal to admit the existence of God.

You people are pathetically laughable...

"This stuff cannot occur naturally no matter how much time there is.  But by golly, my super-duper magical GOD can do it all just by thinking!!!"


Derwood, your ad hominem attack on Lester gives us insight to your character, subpar it seems.
Check out probability and statistics and see if you can get your numbers straightened out.




(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/11/2009 at 6:17 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:51 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Suddenly ad hominem is wrong?

"Anyway, that wasn't ad hominem. You're dumb."

My previous phrase was just another example of not-ad hominem.

He did not remotely imply that Lester10 is mistaken because he's pathetically laughable, but that his laughable pathetism  shows in the magnitude of his mistake.

Get it?
- - -
Edit: Think before posting. Your posts are short enough so you shouldn't need to edit them.

Your numbers don't apply, and you've been shown why. The proteins you see (and are build upon) did not come by random chance.

So, unless you can explain why you think they did, this subject is over.


(Edited by wisp 4/11/2009 at 7:49 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:40 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's not what I was talking about, you sage.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:54 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:26 AM on April 11, 2009 :
"Well there's all that hogwash in Genesis so probably the ten commandments can be rewritten as well because no doubt they don't mean what they say there either..."


If creationists put more effort into keeping the one about "bearing false witness", maybe they'd stop giving Christianity a black eye.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:58 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:54 PM on April 11, 2009 :
That's not what I was talking about, you sage.
Oh, you agree then that the subject of this thread is over?

Anyway, what were you talking about then?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:19 PM on April 12, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:05 AM on April 11, 2009 :
apoapsis
Would you refuse a treatment for cancer developed with evolutionary principles?


It would seem rather that cancer treatments defy evolutionary principles. If we didn't treat cancer than only those resistant to cancer would survive thus evolving into a cancer free humanity. Right?



apoapsis
That wasn't the question, was it?

What's your answer


My answer is that whatever methodology scientists use to develop their results has no real bearing on the usefulness of the results. The question is based on a false premise: that "evolutionary principals" would somehow taint a procedure because I don't believe in "evolutionary principals".  

Without getting back into the debate over all of the various aspects covered by the term "evolution" and which aspect a scientist might be referring to when discussing "evolutionary principals" as tools for development of a cancer treatment, suffice to say that if an oncologist told me that I would probably survive cancer "X" if I took this procedure, I wouldn't ask if it was developed on "evolutionary principals" nor would I care.

Would you refuse a treatment that was espoused as being based on creationist principals? I know a man who's mouth cancer has healed because of nutrition. He adjusted his diet to match biblical principals (very little meat if any, whole unprocessed foods, organically grown etc.) He eats foods the way God intended. Creationist principal. That won't stop wisp from being a vegetarian, will it wisp?


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:25 PM on April 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think prayer should be enough treatment based on creationist principles.

Yeap, i don't eat anything forbidden in the Bible. Except maybe for the ocasional spider while i'm sleeping, according to some statistics.

I think Apoapsis' question is something like "If they present you with a treatment that can't possibly work if Evolution isn't true, would you take it?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:34 PM on April 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Without getting back into the debate over all of the various aspects covered by the term "evolution" and which aspect a scientist might be referring to when discussing "evolutionary principals" as tools for development of a cancer treatment, suffice to say that if an oncologist told me that I would probably survive cancer "X" if I took this procedure, I wouldn't ask if it was developed on "evolutionary principals" nor would I care.


Would you accept a treatment based on witchcraft?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:01 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My answer is that whatever methodology scientists use to develop their results has no real bearing on the usefulness of the
results.


You're kidding right?  That statement is totally insane.  What do you think of Darwinian medicine then.

Would you refuse a treatment that was espoused as being based on creationist principals?
Yes, just as I would refuse treatment based on witchcraft, same thing really.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:46 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would you refuse a treatment that was espoused as being based on creationist principals?

PLEASE, DON'T PRAY FOR ME
( http://www.gocreate.com/workouts/wx079.htm )

The John Templeton Foundation awards an annual million-dollar-plus prize officially known as "the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realities." If the contradiction "Spiritual Realities" doesn't ring your bullshit detector, it's time for a serious tune-up.

Under the leadership of Dr. Herbert Benson, the same foundation forked over 2.4 million dollars to scientifically test the effects of prayer by three Christian congregations on three groups of heart-bypass surgery patients. You can read the four-page Templeton synopsis or the abstract from the American Heart Journal of April 2006, but here is a short summary from the synopsis:

Some patients were told they may or may not receive intercessory prayer: complications occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1) versus 51 percent of those who did not receive prayer (Group 2). Complications occurred in 59 percent of patients who were told they would receive prayer (Group 3) versus 52 percent, who also received prayer, but were uncertain of receiving it (Group 1). Major complications and thirty-day mortality were similar across the three groups.

Whoops! Looks like prayer did nothing for Groups 1 and 2 and actually hurt Group 3. Maybe it was the performance pressure on the folks who knew they were being prayed for. Maybe the selected churches didn't have their total prayer mojo going that week. Maybe Satan jumps in and messes with the intergalactic prayer thoroughfares when he knows a watershed prayer experiment is going down... Who knows?

I do know that if the experiment had gone the other way, the believers who roll their eyes and explain condescendingly, "God doesn't like to be tested that way," would have embraced the results like grim death.

Speaking of which, when I'm face to face with the grim reaper, instead of praying for me, whether you tell me or not, just drop a couple of million from the Templeton Foundation in my doc's back pocket.

This story is related eloquently by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion under the heading "The Great Prayer Experiment" beginning on page 61.


I know a man who's mouth cancer has healed because of nutrition. He adjusted his diet to match biblical principals (very little meat if any, whole unprocessed foods, organically grown etc.) He eats foods the way God intended. Creationist principal. That won't stop wisp from being a vegetarian, will it wisp?
Luke 15:11
"It is not what people put into their mouths that makes them unclean. It is what comes out of their mouths that makes them unclean."



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:12 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - that's interesting.

So are you reading Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'?  I haven't read it yet, but its on my list.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 06:35 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, yes i am.
But you shouldn't guess it from my post, i think... I was copypasting. Haha!

It's really interesting indeed.
I disagree with Dawkin's definition of God (with which he defines people like me as atheists).

His definition makes a lot of sense to him, and i respect that. But mine makes a lot of sense to me.

If i explained my "God" to him he'd say
-Why bother to call that 'God' at all?
I'd answer
-Because my God and the judeochristian God point to the same direction, even if this one fails to make great advances in that direction in my opinion.

There's a common ground: the will to embrace the absolute. To grow in understanding (you'd disagree if we talk about creationists, but they're temporarily confused, and that has nothing to do with God), and knowledge, and love.

Dawkins portrays a caricature that sadly depicts a lot of people's God quite accurately. I respect plain atheism more than that.

Some have said that anyone could imagine the total of "goodness". The absolute goodness.
In this world we have good and bad (that's not how i'd say it), or different degrees of good (people for instance) but you can conceive the absolute good. And that's God.

Dawkins would reply that we have smelly people. Some stink worse than others, but one can conceive the absolute stinkiness. And that's God.

Hilarious but specious. Everyone has, inevitably, some concept of "good" (even if it changes over time).
If some believe that there's nothing "good", and that the biological imperative is all we live for, then i go to the Christian side of the discussion.

That's what God is for.

Timbrx, you need to understand the biological imperative before being able to look clearly beyond it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:07 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:51 PM on April 11, 2009 :

a number with staggering exponents, orders of magnitude too horrific to mention here. But I think it all boils down to their refusal to admit the existence of God.

You people are pathetically laughable...

"This stuff cannot occur naturally no matter how much time there is.  But by golly, my super-duper magical GOD can do it all just by thinking!!!"


Derwood, your ad hominem attack on Lester gives us insight to your character, subpar it seems.


And of the character of the person that engages in the very activities that they accuse others of doing?



Check out probability and statistics and see if you can get your numbers straightened out.




(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/11/2009 at 6:17 PM).




I saw the numbers and I already responded to that nonsense, I guess you just ignored it.

I would also like to suggest that you actually learn what "ad hominem" means.

Creationists really seem to enjoy tossing that term around, but they rarely use it appropriately.

Here is a hint - I was not making an argument, thus, by definition, it cannot be an ad hominem.


I noticed that none of you have even tried to address any of the points I've raised or rebuttals I've written, yet you still chug along as if you've made profound statements.

Dunning-Kruger effect in action.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:39 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:54 PM on April 11, 2009 :
That's not what I was talking about, you sage.




So, what WERE you talking about, Mr.Wizard?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:45 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 2:25 PM on April 12, 2009 :He adjusted his diet to match biblical principals (very little meat if any, whole unprocessed foods, organically grown etc.) He eats foods the way God intended. Creationist principal. That won't stop wisp from being a vegetarian, will it wisp?




Sounds more like Hindu principles.  Must be Hinduism is the one true religion.

Pity that his cancer wasn't cured by a miracle.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:27 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:19 PM on February 17, 2009 :
You left out this part:

Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Obviously criminal activity doesn't bother you.




Oh, you mean this guy is ANOTHER plagiarist for Christ?

I should have known.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:29 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:16 AM on February 18, 2009 :
And I can point out a few flaws in your flaws.
My, the confidence.  Let's see if ti is matched by competence.


1 - evolution did not occur in a single sequential trial.  There were countless parallel trials occuring all at once, and continuously.

So lets say that amino acids are bumping into each other all over the place and some combine into a useful protein. Useful for what? And now this new protein has to bump into another friendly protein before it decays? Than what? The protein needs a job.


You realize, of course, that the post was merely in response to the plagiarized creatobabble, yes?

If the creatobabble yammered on about proteins, a response about proteins seems in order.
2 - more complex proteins surely evolved from  more simple proteins.  Gene duplication could account for more complex proteins.

So now our unemployed proteins go to school and get a degree from the Gene. What gene? I didn't think we had a gene yet.

Then maybe your creatobabbling buddies should have learned some basic biology.


3 - What makes you think that only a specific set of proteins are the only solution?  There could have been numerous possible outcomes.

Billions of unemployed proteins of all different trades sitting in the primordial unemployment office.

I see pseudo-cleverness substitutes for reasoned disccourse in the creato camp.

4 - Proteins that held an advantageous benefit were passed on.  Those of detrimental value were not.  Simply put -  What works is passed on.  What doesn't, isn't.

Skilled labor gets a job. Janitor in the Gene school?

Wow.  The 'cleverness' just keeps a comin'.
5 - chemical principles which lead to protein stability.  Unstable proteins don't get created.

So now you believe in creation? (joke). Apply the chemical principal to the supposed original environment. Can any protein form let alone last in a primitive hostile environment?

Yes.
Proteins can form in very hostile environments.  Didn't you know that?


6 - Evolution doesn't always result in the best protein for the job.  But the protein still gets the job done.

What job? Where did the cell come from? Abiogenesis? Did the proteins in the unemployment office form a union? Now we'll never get them to work unless we provide benefits.

Note how the creato simply shifts those goal posts when it suits them.  Part and parcel of their general dishonesty.


Here's an interesting example of a lab experiment that mimics the evolution of a protein that binds ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) used in the cell for energy transport.


So now that we have a simple cell, it needs to eat. I guess it has plenty since it was born in a bowl of soup. It has just enough "stuff" to replicate. Now we have lots of little laboratories experimenting with food. After a couple of billion years of playing simbot we get people among other things.

And you are telling me this doesn't require faith? You have more faith than I do.


No faith required.

You not understanding something does not mean it did not happen.  Such a position is pure arrogance.


Posted by Apoapsis at Tue February 17, 2009 - 10:19 PM
You left out this part:

Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Obviously criminal activity doesn't bother you.


Well I guess that discounts the entire argument. Thanks for pointing that out.

No, but it does say somethign about the originality and honesty of the creationist.

Unable to come up with arguments on their own, due to their ignorance, they simply regurgitate what their heros has barfed onto the net. Doesn't matter if you folks even understand it - it was written by someone who claims to!

Oh, wait. You think creationists think they are perfect or something? We have to tie our hands while relativists trot out all kinds of copyrighted pictures and things? If a creationist commits a crime than all arguments lose their validity?


No, but it is pretty clear that the creatos who copy and paste propaganda do so because they do not understand the material well enough to discuss it on their own.
which also means they lack the ability to tell if what they are Cand P'ing is correct or not.

Come on, apoapsis. At least refute something within the article rather than whether the article should even be posted here.


OK.  This entire paragraph (and what follows from it) are entirelyirrelevantto evolution:

Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 -- for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a "virtual certainty" compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!


Since it really doesn't matter how specific proteins might form in the first place, since our definitions of "life" generally contain a tenet regarding the ability to make proteins via transcription and translation, the bulk of the article is an exercise in the contruction of a strawman argument.  A fallacy.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:44 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 9:59 PM on February 18, 2009 : Even the simplest cell is a finely tuned precision instrument.


Arguments from awe, metaphorical language, and personal incredulity are fallacious.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:46 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 4:53 PM on February 19, 2009 :
I just think the numbers and odds are far too great for such complex things mentioned to have popped into existence, including a simple individual cell and form by chance.


So, you've just admitted that you either do not bother to read any replies to the copy and pastes you present, do not understand them, or simply do not care and wish to continue to rely on caricatures and fallacious arguments.

If you were to flip a coin 20,000,000,000,000 times, what are the chances it will come up heads 380,000 times in a row?


You tell us.

Question - do you know what Avogadro's number is?


Of course, what does that have to do with evolution, or even abiogenesis, for that matter?
Certainly not in supposed 13.7 billion years the universe has been around.


'Certainly'?  Let's see the math.

Do our intelligent minds allow for possibility that staggering odds are commonplace?

And if those odds are incorrect or irrelevant?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:50 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:27 PM on February 19, 2009 :
I think your logic is twisted,


ROTFLMAO!!!


If say you already won the megamillions lottery, what say are the chances you are going to do it again? Even the fact that you won beat astronomical odds, doesn't change the fact that the chances for it to happen once are also astronomical.

You just can't help yourself.
What was written DECIMATES your position, so you just alter what was written.

Also, I noted that in no time did the genetics of one species ever change into another. This is genetically speaking. If it did, A bird could change into a mountain lion in a matter of one day.


Are you in grade school?

Because that is about the level of understanding of genetics and evolution I just inferred from that statement.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:53 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 3:34 PM on April 12, 2009 :

Yeap, i don't eat anything forbidden in the Bible. Except maybe for the ocasional spider while i'm sleeping, according to some statistics.



Statistics? I was pretty certain you did not believe in them. Now you do?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:58 PM on April 13, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 10 11 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.