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
     Defend YEC Werner, if you can
       for Lester the doctor

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester's YEC Hero, Carl Werner, MD, whose claim to expertise involves studying evolution 'as a hobby' for 30 years and visiting lots of museums, wrote the following in the book Lester heralds as 100% true:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells. For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

Please defend that claim.  Defend its logic and scientific veracity in light of what evolution actually postulates.

I can see at least 3 errors with the claim that render it 100% irrelevant.  But lets see uif Lester with his doctorate can explain why he thinks Werner is correct.

(Edited by derwood 2/8/2010 at 2:23 PM).


-------
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 February 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So shameful...

So bad for his hobbies. First, Evolution, then "informing people".

Mistaken mutations? How many kinds of mutations does this guy know?

Proper location? Proper order? He's just looking at the individual leaf of grass the golf ball fell on, and saying it can't be a coincidence.

WHAT COINCIDENCE?

He seems to think that the bat was the model evolution was looking for.

So silly...

Mutations in the reproductive cells? What does he mean? Is he talking about meiosis or not?

Lester, you don't need to read this guy. You're at the same level. You could start writing.

The editor will correct your pneumonics, and it will be ready to print.


(Edited by wisp 2/8/2010 at 1:27 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: 1:25 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.
Derwood
Please defend that claim.


Let’s see, mutations are copy errors in the DNA so there we have ‘mistakes’ as Carl mentions.
Understand so far?

These mistakes need to be in the reproductive cells or else they will not be inherited by the next generation.
Understand? Of course you do.

Did a small mammal change into a bat? According to the theory of evolution, yes it did. Yes it’s a plausible story; after all we have to explain how flying mammals arose from non-flying mammals don’t we? Since we only have non-flying mammals and fully developed bats with wings in the fossil record, we need to get from one to the other without relying on any intelligent design so that leaves us with random typing errors accumulating in reproductive cells giving rise to wings that were not designed but just happened piece by accidental piece which accidents had to happen in the correct order or sequence such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.

I mean it doesn’t help to have wings without the correct respiratory system, nervous system, blood supply etc. – so all these things have to accidentally appear in the correct order and all must be there for the co-ordinated (sorry, should I dare use that word?) systems to work together allowing for flight.

What luck! Imagine if the wings had mutated but without the correct nervous innervation? Floppy wings?

How do we know that any of this happened without the discovery of any intermediates to assist this plausible story?

Well, we have this philosophical presupposition. It’s a religious faith-based belief really. It says that only natural processes are required or available to produce what really looks like design in living things. Since we are limiting ourselves there, we must then invent plausible stories to convince everybody that this did in fact happen. According to our faith, there is no other way. And so evolutionists came up with the story of the bat from the small non-flying mammal and now we know what happened!

All that remains is to convince stupid people like Carl Werner and Lester that it had to have happened that way and in the absence of evidence, imagination can and must fill in the dotted lines.

WHAT COINCIDENCE?

He seems to think that the bat was the model evolution was looking for.

So silly...


Yes, that would be silly. But I think what he's talking about is that so many mutational errors should come together in such a co-ordinated fashion producing wings that work rather than bits and pieces of random errors that aren't appropriate.

I mean imagine if you got wings but they didn't get 'accidentally wired' properly? What if there were wings but no proper accidental connections with the brain to allow for flight? Imagine if those mistakes hadn't accidentally happened along with the mistakes for the wing appearance?
Wow, it's like a miracle in itself - but a miracle of natural laws and incredible good luck!




-------
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: 01:40 AM on February 9, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:40 AM on February 9, 2010 :

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.
Derwood
Please defend that claim.


Let’s see, mutations are copy errors in the DNA so there we have ‘mistakes’ as Carl mentions.
Understand so far?


Ah - that unwarranted condescension... Love it!

'Mistaken mutation' - what does that mean - the mutation was mistaken?  Mistaken about what?


These mistakes need to be in the reproductive cells or else they will not be inherited by the next generation.
Understand? Of course you do.


Yes, I do.  What I do not understand is why you are belaboing the part of the claim that I did not highlight...

Did a small mammal change into a bat?

A bat IS a small mammal, and it did not 'change' into one.


According to the theory of evolution, yes it did.

According to the folk science interpretation of it as put forth by a medical doctor with a hobby, yes.


Yes it’s a plausible story; after all we have to explain how flying mammals arose from non-flying mammals don’t we? Since we only have non-flying mammals and fully developed bats with wings in the fossil record, we need to get from one to the other without relying on any intelligent design so that leaves us with random typing errors
I see you still think that language analogies have merit at a higher level discussion...

accumulating in reproductive cells giving rise to wings that were not designed but just happened piece by accidental piece which accidents had to happen in the correct order or sequence


Have you ever seen a bat wing?

Looks an awful like like... a HAND...

Anyway - WHAT is the 'correct order or sequence' that these must have happened in, and why did they have to have happened in such a fashion?

And do you understand why arguing in a post-hoc fashion like Werner - and you - did is illogical, when one considers the context?

You are talking about the current situation and arguing that the series of events that lead to the current situation are so unliklely as to be impossible, for they had to occur at specific times in specific locations without an 'intelligence' to guide them.

I look outside my window and I see clouds, and it is 18 degrees.  How many events had to occur in the atmosphere, in the earth's rotation and revolution, what solar activity, etc., all had to conspire - in a specific order and in specific places - to produce this cloudy 18 degree morning where I live?  IMPOSSIBLE!


With me so far?


Look at YOU - you have a unique genome, probably some 2.5 million SNPs, several hundred thousand to several million more unique bp arrangements in the form of indels and gene copy number polymorphisms.  You have a unique combination of alleles.

All of those unique features that produced you had to have occurred in the right places in the genome, at the right time, in the right combination - otherwise, no Doctor (LOL!) Lester!
What are the odds of you being alive?

Pretty slim - each SNP has a 1 in 3.2 billion chance of occurring (this is actually oversimplified - it takes into account ANY change, if we were to look at the actual changes, i.e., a mutation producing one of the 3 bases in place of the base that is there now, the odds go down considerably).  You have 2.5 million of them.  They all had to have occurred at once (using YEC logic here), and so each SNP's probability has to be mulitplied.  I cannot even think of how large that number is, and that is just for the SNPs.

of course, those SNPs are being produced in the gametes that fused to produce you.  In mommy, this had to have occurred in 1 of some 400 oocytes that reached maturity in her lifetime - out of the several million she was born with.  For daddy, that is 1 in about 250 million sperm per ejaculate, or 1 in hundreds of trillions over a lifetime of sperm production.  Your parents mating - 1 in 3 billion or so.  

Point is, if we take you, whom we know to exist, and try to calculate the odds of you existing premised on all of the 'chance' events that had to have occurred in a precise order in precise locations to allow this, we could say, mathematically, that your existence is impossible.

Yet there you are.  

Point is, the whole gist of the 'argument' is a bogus post-hoc probability argument.


such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.

What coordination is there in a bat wing that is not there in a mammalian forelimb?
Can you do a jumping jack?

I mean it doesn’t help to have wings without the correct respiratory system, nervous system, blood supply etc. – so all these things have to accidentally appear in the correct order and all must be there for the co-ordinated (sorry, should I dare use that word?) systems to work together allowing for flight.

Right - because I guess a bat ancestor did NOT have a respiratory system, nervous system, blood supply. etc.  Brilliant.

Let me guess - you think that a change in, say, the length of a digit requires a specific suite of mutations to alter the length of the bone, the length of the blood vessels, length of nerves, etc.?

What luck! Imagine if the wings had mutated but without the correct nervous innervation? Floppy wings?

Exactly!  I mean, there was NO innervation of the arm at all before that!  I mean, ever seen a mouse walk?  It stumbles and rolls around, no nervous system there at all!

How do we know that any of this happened without the discovery of any intermediates to assist this plausible story?


We can look at the genome, for one thing.  
But this brings up the usual point - how do you define 'transitional' or 'intermediate' in this context in a realistic, rational way?

And does this criterion of yours extend to your OWN beliefs?  Do you demand observation of empirical evidence for all YEC-related miracles?

snip asinine mantra

All that remains is to convince stupid people like Carl Werner and Lester that it had to have happened that way and in the absence of evidence, imagination can and must fill in the dotted lines.


Funny thing - I was not even really talking about bats, per se, I was referring to Werner's caricature about the order of the mutations and how it would have taken many thousand such mutations.

So far, you've not touched on any of that really, at least not in the way that a person with a science-related doctorate should be able to.

Seems to me that if you want to make scientific, evidence backed arguments, you should actually do so instead of relying on hackneyed logical fallacies and assertions.

Frankly, I do think Werner is stupid - that or monumentally dishonest.  Or a little of both.  

WHAT COINCIDENCE?

He seems to think that the bat was the model evolution was looking for.

So silly...


Yes, that would be silly. But I think what he's talking about is that so many mutational errors should come together in such a co-ordinated fashion producing wings that work rather than bits and pieces of random errors that aren't appropriate.

What is the coordinated fashion?

Please EXPLAIN, using your supposed background in anatomy and physiology, what is so radically different about a bat wing when compared to, say, a mouse forelimb such that a de novo nervous, circulatory, respiratory system is required and had to have been produced via a series of thousands of mutations in a specific order.

If you can't do this, then the entire 'argument' is nothing but a 'folk science' assertion.

I mean imagine if you got wings but they didn't get 'accidentally wired' properly?

I mean imagine that the innervation was already there in the ancestor and did not need any alteration..
What if there were wings but no proper accidental connections with the brain to allow for flight?

What if there were already proper connections between the brain and the muscles and the membranes and all that already?

Imagine if those mistakes hadn't accidentally happened along with the mistakes for the wing appearance?


Imagine if those 'mistakes' were not even needed, and declaring that they were is a function of a person's deceptive nature and/or ignorance of anatomy, physiology and development?

Wow, it's like a miracle in itself - but a miracle of natural laws and incredible good luck!

Wow, it is a carnival barker's-level argument being paraded as an explanation!


(Edited by derwood 2/9/2010 at 08:49 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:43 AM on February 9, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Let’s see, mutations are copy errors in the DNA so there we have ‘mistakes’ as Carl mentions.
Understand so far?
I sense an equivocation fallacy is forming.

Light can't be dark.
Feathers are light.
Feathers can't be dark.

Words is all you have.

Why don't you leave words alone and get to the facts?
Did a small mammal change into a bat?
Hum... I wonder how many mutations it takes for a small mammal to change into a bat...

Perhaps... None?

According to the theory of evolution, yes it did.
According to your demonstrably poor grasp of it perhaps.

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!

Reverse Evolution, right?! A huge blow for the Theory!!

Yes it’s a plausible story; after all we have to explain how flying mammals arose from non-flying mammals don’t we?
We don't HAVE to. We don't even have to do any Science if we don't want to.
Since we only have non-flying mammals and fully developed bats with wings in the fossil record,
You people used to say the same thing about whales and amphibians. Now you take it on the bats.

We have gliding mammals right now. If they started flying you would just call it "microevolution". So who cares?
we need to get from one to the other without relying on any intelligent design
And without any typists.
so that leaves us with random typing errors
Hahaha!

accumulating in reproductive cells giving rise to wings that were not designed but just happened piece by accidental blah blah blah creationist crap blah blah blah
No. Natural selection.
piece which accidents had to happen in the correct order or sequence
Says who? You?

Based on what?

Tell us all about this correct order or sequence.

Man... You know that when you make claims we ask you to back them up.

Why keep making empty claims then?

Do you enjoy being ridiculed?

You are talking about the current situation and arguing that the series of events that lead to the current situation are so unliklely as to be impossible, for they had to occur at specific times in specific locations without an 'intelligence' to guide them.
Specific?

Your story is not a part of your own creed, nor is it part of the ToE. So... What are you talking about?

Present something of value or shut up already.

such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".

Or shut up. That's another option.

I mean it doesn’t help to have wings without the correct respiratory system,
Tell us all about it. Draw comparisons with gliding animals, while you're at it.
nervous system,
Right nervous system?

What do you know about nervous systems?

There are some people with twelve functional fingers.
<--- Click to watch.

How is this even possible? Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?

Were they specially intelligently designed while they were embryos?

To me controlling something that wasn't supposed to be there looks more dramatic than controlling something that just changed its shape (like the bat's hand-wing).

blood supply etc.
Tell us about it etc.

so all these things have to accidentally appear in the correct order
You told us nothing about this "right order".

Enlighten us!

and all must be there for the co-ordinated (sorry, should I dare use that word?) systems to work together allowing for flight.
Why would that be difficult?

How much different should all these systems have to be from a gliding mammal?
What luck!
Blah blah!
Imagine if the wings had mutated but without the correct nervous innervation? Floppy wings?
Yeah! Awesome!

What about that guy with 12 fingers?

A miracle!

People have fingers with different lengths. How awesome is that?! They all get blood vessels according to their length!

And the innervations! They all get to the tip of the fingers! They don't end up further! They don't end up before reaching the tip!
People with big hands would have floppy hands!

What luck!

How do we know that any of this happened without the discovery of any intermediates to assist this plausible story?
Piece of cake: We know Evolution is a scientific fact.

The question is just "how". Not "if".

It's no longer "if".

It's an assumption. A very safe one. Just like when we assume that in other parts of the Universe mass have the same effect on gravity.

You can't make an argument from pigheadedness.

snip asinine mantra
Blah blablablah blablah.

I mean imagine if you got wings but they didn't get 'accidentally wired' properly?
You would die.

And nobody would miss you.

Death is an essential part of Evolution.

Your case doesn't sound very likely. It sounds quite stupid, actually. But nevermind that. If such a thing happened to a creature, it would die.

So?
What if there were wings but no proper accidental connections with the brain to allow for flight?
Brains are quite plastic. I don't think it needs lots of specifications for each single action.

Innate instructions would probably translate like this:

"Move kinda like this. Keep learning. Good luck!"

Imagine if those mistakes hadn't accidentally happened along with the mistakes for the wing appearance?
No flying wing would have "appeared". If organisms didn't care to move through the air, flying wings would have no advantage.
Why would they have evolved then?

Wow, it's like a miracle in itself - but a miracle of natural laws and incredible good luck!
You can just keep parading your ignorance and lack of understanding. But you're not impressing anyone.



-------
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: 5:06 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let’s see, mutations are copy errors in the DNA so there we have ‘mistakes’
I sense an equivocation fallacy is forming.


Nothing fallacious about it. You can't see copy errors as the mistakes that they are because you've been brainwashed into believing errors are the raw material of innovation and progress - despite all the genetic evidence to the contrary. You brain got stuck at that point.


Hum... I wonder how many mutations it takes for a small mammal to change into a bat...

Perhaps... None?


Ha! Dream on. I suppose 'none' could turn us into flying mammals overnight just as well.

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!


How about wingless bats? Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.

Do you enjoy being ridiculed?


Do you?

such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".


Like wings...

Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?


More of the same is somewhat different to the production of something quite new. The programming for fingers and their innervation is already there. The programming for wings is not. So do the nerves arrange themselves first or do the 'fingers' elongate first or do the membranes spontaneously arise first . It sure must be good luck that they all arise coincidentally since one would not be much good without the others. How do copy erors produce all the right stuff and end up as an engineering masterpiece with no organizer?

How many coincidental mutations are required to develop wings do you think?

and all must be there for the co-ordinated (sorry, should I dare use that word?) systems to work together allowing for flight.
Why would that be difficult?


How many co-ordinated non-flying parts need to be arranged precisely for an airplane to have a chance of getting off the ground? Don't you think a flying mammal might need a little organizational help as well?

What about that guy with 12 fingers?

A miracle!

People have fingers with different lengths. How awesome is that?! They all get blood vessels according to their length!

And the innervations! They all get to the tip of the fingers! They don't end up further! They don't end up before reaching the tip!
People with big hands would have floppy hands!

What luck!


What do you think is the chance that any of your descendants end up with wings?

How do we know that any of this happened without the discovery of any intermediates to assist this plausible story?
Piece of cake: We know Evolution is a scientific fact.


No it isn't though. It's a philisophical assumption not backed up by the necessary evidence. Plausible transitional forms are the exception in the fossil record, not the rule. You believe it anyway. That's not scientific fact, it's
myths and fairytales for small children and brainwashed adults.

The question is just "how". Not "if".


So you're saying that the evidence against your position makes not the slightest bit of difference then. That's your dogma and you're sticking with it.

What if 'your truth' is not 'the truth'? Then you're dreaming.

It's an assumption. A very safe one.


Not according to the evidence without your random presuppositions attached.

Death is an essential part of Evolution.


According to your religion yes. According to mine, which has better evidential support, death is a curse and it just might seem like a curse when your time comes. Remember "the fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God.' "


Brains are quite plastic. I don't think it needs lots of specifications for each single action.


You're assuming here. My assumptions are far more plausible however. You see wings need to be carefully wired according to a plan. No random connections will do the job. That's from mankind's experience of organization and planning -it only comes forth from intelligence.

You can just keep parading your ignorance and lack of understanding. But you're not impressing anyone.


Or is the problem your ignorance rather than mine?
I don't care to impress anyone but I'd hate anyone to be sucked into your cult without ever hearing a little of the other side of the argument.







-------
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: 2:42 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 2:42 PM on February 14, 2010 :
How about wingless bats? Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.


So, with this statement you are agreeing that in some cases a mutation will become a gain?

That's all evolution needs.



-------
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: 6:08 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 2:42 PM on February 14, 2010 :
despite all the genetic evidence to the contrary.


When do you plan to present some of this 'evidence'?  Let me guess - silly typing analogies?

Ha! Dream on. I suppose 'none' could turn us into flying mammals overnight just as well.

Overnight.. right...

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!


How about wingless bats? Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.


Ah, so bats represent a gain of information.  You know, do you not, that there are some 950+ species of bat?  That is alot of information...
Say - when do you plan to DEFINE information in a genetically meaningful way?
such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".


Like wings...


What is new about them?

Did you totally ignore the pretty picture I provided?


Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?


More of the same is somewhat different to the production of something quite new. The programming for fingers and their innervation is already there. The programming for wings is not.

I'm sorry but you are an ignoramus.

You have ZERO knowledge of anatomy and to claim you do is either a lie or a testament to the education at religious schools.

A bat wing is a plain old mammalian forelimb with the skin between the finders stretched out and the fingers really long.

A bird wing is not much different.



So do the nerves arrange themselves first or do the 'fingers' elongate first or do the membranes spontaneously arise first .


Fool.

Remember I presented the FGFR-3 mutation that causes achondroplasia (of course you don't - too many science words)?

A SINGLE point mutation causes disproportionate limb growth, loss of interphalangeal joints, etc.  No special series of mutations needed to alter innervation, bone structure, etc. - a SINGLE mutation.

This carrying on you are doing about nerves and blood vessels and such just makes you look like a desperate, ignorant fool.

So keep it up!
You see wings need to be carefully wired according to a plan. No random connections will do the job.

Why is a wing's "wiring" any different than a limb's?

Please explain it to us using your anatomy and physiology and genetics background (LOL!).


That's from mankind's experience of organization and planning -it only comes forth from intelligence.

Just as I thought - analogy used as evidence - the simpleton's game.

(Edited by derwood 2/14/2010 at 7:47 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:44 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Let’s see, mutations are copy errors in the DNA so there we have ‘mistakes’
I sense an equivocation fallacy is forming.
Nothing fallacious about it.
Will you defend that claim? No you won't.
You can't see copy errors as the mistakes that they are because you've been brainwashed into believing errors are the raw material of innovation and progress
Blah blah blah blah blah.
- despite all the genetic evidence to the contrary.
Will you present it? No you won't.
You brain got stuck at that point.
My brain seems to work just fine.
Hum... I wonder how many mutations it takes for a small mammal to change into a bat...

Perhaps... None?
Ha!
Ha!
Dream on.
You're hilarious.
I suppose 'none' could turn us into flying mammals overnight just as well.
I suppose you still don't understand why it doesn't take any mutations or generations to get a bat from a small mammal.

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!
How about wingless bats?
You still don't get it...

If i explain it to you it's not funny anymore. But you'll never figure it out on your own, so...

Take heed:

Bats ARE small mammals.

Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.
Thank you (either for the honesty or the accident).

Yes, mutations generally mean no gain ('generally' being the operative word). No loss either (saying junk DNA does something doesn't count as Science), but no gain. And loss happens much more often than gain.

You always ask "But what about those who get horrible failed mutations along the way?" Well they die, Lester. They die. And it's no big deal.

And you know what happens to those that escape the generality and get cool mutations? They reproduce, Lester. They reproduce.

Do you enjoy being ridiculed?
Do you?
If i learn from it, i might.

Your turn.


such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".
Like wings...
You think that's new?

Those are hands.

I thought you claimed to have a background in anatomy.

We call them "wings". Your brain gets stuck at the names we give to things. You think our names change nature.


Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?
More of the same is somewhat different to the production of something quite new.
No problem. You don't usually get something "quite new" in Evolution. The bat wing is no exception: it's a hand.
The programming for fingers and their innervation is already there.
The extra finger wasn't.
The programming for wings is not.
Show us how it's different from the programming for hands, or shut up.
So do the nerves arrange themselves first or do the 'fingers' elongate first or do the membranes spontaneously arise first.
What about this guy?

Those things are huge!

So do the nerves arranged themselves first, or did the 'fingers' elongate first?

By the way, the membranes were already there. We still have them.

Oh, and if the hand must be really deformed i can post an image of that too (not that images will ever convince you... or arguments... or logic, or reason...).
It sure must be good luck that they all arise coincidentally
Does your background in Science make you sure?

It's not luck. At all.
since one would not be much good without the others.
Are you talking about individuals or populations?

I bet you don't even know what you're talking about.
How do copy erors produce all the right stuff and end up as an engineering masterpiece with no organizer?
It's called 'Natural Selection'.

Look it up. You don't seem to know much about it.

How many coincidental mutations are required to develop wings do you think?
I'm clueless. The question is probably imprecise.

I mean... From what? From almost wings? In an entire population?


and all must be there for the co-ordinated (sorry, should I dare use that word?) systems to work together allowing for flight.
Why would that be difficult?
How many co-ordinated non-flying parts need to be arranged precisely for an airplane to have a chance of getting off the ground?
You didn't answer the question. You rather make a bad analogy.

Airplanes don't reproduce, Lester. Get real.
Don't you think a flying mammal might need a little organizational help as well?
Like what Natural Selection provides?


What about that guy with 12 fingers?

A miracle!

People have fingers with different lengths. How awesome is that?! They all get blood vessels according to their length!

And the innervations! They all get to the tip of the fingers! They don't end up further! They don't end up before reaching the tip!
People with big hands would have floppy hands!

What luck!
What do you think is the chance that any of your descendants end up with wings?
In what environment? How many generations?

A large number of generations in certain environments (or successions of environments) would increase the odds, but i couldn't calculate them. Probably nobody can.


How do we know that any of this happened without the discovery of any intermediates to assist this plausible story?
Piece of cake: We know Evolution is a scientific fact.
No it isn't though.
Will you back that up?
No you won't.
It's a philisophical assumption
Define "philosophical" and show us how it adjusts, or shut up.
not backed up by the necessary evidence.
We show you the evidence. You just say "No" (we ask YOU for your evidence, and you say "Look around").
It's amazingly easy for an ignorant religious fanatic such as yourself to dismiss the evidence presented by the most qualified people in the world, passing peer review, in harmony with the rest of the data and all other branches of Science.

And the power of Christ allows you to do this in every branch of Science your creed conflicts with.

You don't like this fact, but you've already shown us that your problem is with Evolution, Biology in general, Geology, Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics (i remember your discussion with Apoapsis), History, Archeology, Anthropology, Thermodynamics, Paleontology... You name it.
Even with Math, if it happens to conflict with your creed.

Evolution conflicts with none (post hoc calculations of probability are stupidity, not evidence that Evolution conflicts with Math).

Plausible transitional forms are the exception in the fossil record, not the rule.
If you don't define "transitional" i don't know what you're talking about.

By "plausible transitional forms" i bet you mean "transitionals".

I'd say most organisms are transitionals, in a very clear way (its ancestors lived in populations with different allele frequencies, and so will its descendants).

If we define "transitional" in a more useful way, then yeah. They are not the rule. So what? The ToE doesn't predict that they SHOULD be.
You believe it anyway.
"It" what?
That's not scientific fact, it's myths and fairytales for small children and brainwashed adults.
Hahaha!

Ah, your projection...

Your deity watches you every day of every year, and sees whether you've been good, and keeps a list of those who will receive his gift. NOTHING LIKE SANTA! Nono...

You have a "personal relationship" with a guy you talk to but you can't see, hear or touch. NOTHING LIKE AN IMAGINARY FRIEND! Nono...


The question is just "how". Not "if".
So you're saying that the evidence against your position makes not the slightest bit of difference then.
Present it first, and i'll answer to it.
That's your dogma and you're sticking with it.
Show me your evidence, or shut up.
What if 'your truth' is not 'the truth'?
I don't talk about the truth.
Then you're dreaming.
Blah blah blah.
It's an assumption. A very safe one.
Not according to the evidence without your random presuppositions attached.
Show me, or shut it.
Death is an essential part of Evolution.
According to your religion yes.
I have no religion. You lose.
According to mine, which has better evidential support,
Show me or shut it.
death is a curse and it just might seem like a curse when your time comes.
It's YOUR religion. YOU don't get to scare ME with it.
Remember "the fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God.' "
Remember: "
anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Brains are quite plastic. I don't think it needs lots of specifications for each single action.
You're assuming here.
No. I've seen how plastic they are.

I saw a monkey controlling a robotic arm with its brain, for instance. Much more amazing than controlling a hand that changed into a wing.
My assumptions are far more plausible however.
You're assuming here.
You see wings need to be carefully wired according to a plan.
Yeah. The same plan for the hand, mostly.
No random connections will do the job.
Fortunately the right connections were already there.
That's from mankind's experience of organization and planning -it only comes forth from intelligence.
Exactly. That was all our experience. We were very ignorant.

Now our experience has grown, and we know better. Praise the Lord!


You can just keep parading your ignorance and lack of understanding. But you're not impressing anyone.
Or is the problem your ignorance rather than mine?
Yours.
I don't care to impress anyone but I'd hate anyone to be sucked into your cult without ever hearing a little of the other side of the argument.
The other side has nothing to present, as you constantly demonstrate.

Nothing but poor analogies, Bible quotations and threats about the afterlife.



-------
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: 10:07 AM on February 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello?

'Doc'?
Quote from derwood at 7:44 PM on February 14, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 2:42 PM on February 14, 2010 :
despite all the genetic evidence to the contrary.


When do you plan to present some of this 'evidence'?  Let me guess - silly typing analogies?

Ha! Dream on. I suppose 'none' could turn us into flying mammals overnight just as well.

Overnight.. right...

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!


How about wingless bats? Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.


Ah, so bats represent a gain of information.  You know, do you not, that there are some 950+ species of bat?  That is alot of information...
Say - when do you plan to DEFINE information in a genetically meaningful way?
such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".


Like wings...


What is new about them?

Did you totally ignore the pretty picture I provided?


Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?


More of the same is somewhat different to the production of something quite new. The programming for fingers and their innervation is already there. The programming for wings is not.

I'm sorry but you are an ignoramus.

You have ZERO knowledge of anatomy and to claim you do is either a lie or a testament to the education at religious schools.

A bat wing is a plain old mammalian forelimb with the skin between the finders stretched out and the fingers really long.

A bird wing is not much different.



So do the nerves arrange themselves first or do the 'fingers' elongate first or do the membranes spontaneously arise first .


Fool.

Remember I presented the FGFR-3 mutation that causes achondroplasia (of course you don't - too many science words)?

A SINGLE point mutation causes disproportionate limb growth, loss of interphalangeal joints, etc.  No special series of mutations needed to alter innervation, bone structure, etc. - a SINGLE mutation.

This carrying on you are doing about nerves and blood vessels and such just makes you look like a desperate, ignorant fool.

So keep it up!
You see wings need to be carefully wired according to a plan. No random connections will do the job.

Why is a wing's "wiring" any different than a limb's?

Please explain it to us using your anatomy and physiology and genetics background (LOL!).


That's from mankind's experience of organization and planning -it only comes forth from intelligence.

Just as I thought - analogy used as evidence - the simpleton's game.

(Edited by derwood 2/14/2010 at 7:47 PM).






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:08 PM on March 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I had forgotten all about this thread.

That's what Lester counts on.

And then proceed in other threads repeating the same stuff, as if we didn't debunk every single bit.



-------
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: 8:12 PM on March 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is the creationist's way.

Lester is certainly not the first, and won't be the last, to engage in such antics.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:16 AM on March 8, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doc?

You there?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:52 AM on May 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello?

Pseudodoktor Liester?

You ran off again did you?

Quote from derwood at 7:44 PM on February 14, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 2:42 PM on February 14, 2010 :
despite all the genetic evidence to the contrary.


When do you plan to present some of this 'evidence'?  Let me guess - silly typing analogies?

Ha! Dream on. I suppose 'none' could turn us into flying mammals overnight just as well.

Overnight.. right...

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!


How about wingless bats? Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.


Ah, so bats represent a gain of information.  You know, do you not, that there are some 950+ species of bat?  That is alot of information...
Say - when do you plan to DEFINE information in a genetically meaningful way?
such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".


Like wings...


What is new about them?

Did you totally ignore the pretty picture I provided?


Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?


More of the same is somewhat different to the production of something quite new. The programming for fingers and their innervation is already there. The programming for wings is not.

I'm sorry but you are an ignoramus.

You have ZERO knowledge of anatomy and to claim you do is either a lie or a testament to the education at religious schools.

A bat wing is a plain old mammalian forelimb with the skin between the finders stretched out and the fingers really long.

A bird wing is not much different.



So do the nerves arrange themselves first or do the 'fingers' elongate first or do the membranes spontaneously arise first .


Fool.

Remember I presented the FGFR-3 mutation that causes achondroplasia (of course you don't - too many science words)?

A SINGLE point mutation causes disproportionate limb growth, loss of interphalangeal joints, etc.  No special series of mutations needed to alter innervation, bone structure, etc. - a SINGLE mutation.

This carrying on you are doing about nerves and blood vessels and such just makes you look like a desperate, ignorant fool.

So keep it up!
You see wings need to be carefully wired according to a plan. No random connections will do the job.

Why is a wing's "wiring" any different than a limb's?

Please explain it to us using your anatomy and physiology and genetics background (LOL!).


That's from mankind's experience of organization and planning -it only comes forth from intelligence.

Just as I thought - analogy used as evidence - the simpleton's game.

(Edited by derwood 2/14/2010 at 7:47 PM).






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:17 AM on May 13, 2010 | IP
JETZEN

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:27 AM on February 8, 2010 :

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells. For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."



Werner needs deprograming  to get his mind right.

here is some info about bat evolution

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

the change of one gene started it all

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/a-quantum-leap.html

more info on bat evolution

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128215645.htm









-------
split wood...not atoms, L.RoyJetzen
 


Posts: 213 | Posted: 11:10 PM on May 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doc Les?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:40 PM on May 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:07 PM on February 18, 2010 :
Lester
Let’s see, mutations are copy errors in the DNA so there we have ‘mistakes’
I sense an equivocation fallacy is forming.
Nothing fallacious about it.
Will you defend that claim? No you won't.
You can't see copy errors as the mistakes that they are because you've been brainwashed into believing errors are the raw material of innovation and progress
Blah blah blah blah blah.
- despite all the genetic evidence to the contrary.
Will you present it? No you won't.
You brain got stuck at that point.
My brain seems to work just fine.
Hum... I wonder how many mutations it takes for a small mammal to change into a bat...

Perhaps... None?
Ha!
Ha!
Dream on.
You're hilarious.
I suppose 'none' could turn us into flying mammals overnight just as well.
I suppose you still don't understand why it doesn't take any mutations or generations to get a bat from a small mammal.

I saw a documentary with bats giving birth to SMALL MAMMALS!!
How about wingless bats?
You still don't get it...

If i explain it to you it's not funny anymore. But you'll never figure it out on your own, so...

Take heed:

Bats ARE small mammals.

Mutation generally adds up to loss not gain.
Thank you (either for the honesty or the accident).

Yes, mutations generally mean no gain ('generally' being the operative word). No loss either (saying junk DNA does something doesn't count as Science), but no gain. And loss happens much more often than gain.

You always ask "But what about those who get horrible failed mutations along the way?" Well they die, Lester. They die. And it's no big deal.

And you know what happens to those that escape the generality and get cool mutations? They reproduce, Lester. They reproduce.

Do you enjoy being ridiculed?
Do you?
If i learn from it, i might.

Your turn.


such that the new systems could work together in a co-ordinated fashion.
New systems?

What "new systems"?

Please, tell us all about these "new systems".
Like wings...
You think that's new?

Those are hands.

I thought you claimed to have a background in anatomy.

We call them "wings". Your brain gets stuck at the names we give to things. You think our names change nature.


Did they have the "right nervous system" to control twelve fingers?
More of the same is somewhat different to the production of something quite new.
No problem. You don't usually get something "quite new" in Evolution. The bat wing is no exception: it's a hand.
The programming for fingers and their innervation is already there.
The extra finger wasn't.
The programming for wings is not.
Show us how it's different from the programming for hands, or shut up.
So do the nerves arrange themselves first or do the 'fingers' elongate first or do the membranes spontaneously arise first.
What about this guy?

Those things are huge!

So do the nerves arranged themselves first, or did the 'fingers' elongate first?

By the way, the membranes were already there. We still have them.

Oh, and if the hand must be really deformed i can post an image of that too (not that images will ever convince you... or arguments... or logic, or reason...).
It sure must be good luck that they all arise coincidentally
Does your background in Science make you sure?

It's not luck. At all.
since one would not be much good without the others.
Are you talking about individuals or populations?

I bet you don't even know what you're talking about.
How do copy erors produce all the right stuff and end up as an engineering masterpiece with no organizer?
It's called 'Natural Selection'.

Look it up. You don't seem to know much about it.

How many coincidental mutations are required to develop wings do you think?
I'm clueless. The question is probably imprecise.

I mean... From what? From almost wings? In an entire population?


and all must be there for the co-ordinated (sorry, should I dare use that word?) systems to work together allowing for flight.
Why would that be difficult?
How many co-ordinated non-flying parts need to be arranged precisely for an airplane to have a chance of getting off the ground?
You didn't answer the question. You rather make a bad analogy.

Airplanes don't reproduce, Lester. Get real.
Don't you think a flying mammal might need a little organizational help as well?
Like what Natural Selection provides?


What about that guy with 12 fingers?

A miracle!

People have fingers with different lengths. How awesome is that?! They all get blood vessels according to their length!

And the innervations! They all get to the tip of the fingers! They don't end up further! They don't end up before reaching the tip!
People with big hands would have floppy hands!

What luck!
What do you think is the chance that any of your descendants end up with wings?
In what environment? How many generations?

A large number of generations in certain environments (or successions of environments) would increase the odds, but i couldn't calculate them. Probably nobody can.


How do we know that any of this happened without the discovery of any intermediates to assist this plausible story?
Piece of cake: We know Evolution is a scientific fact.
No it isn't though.
Will you back that up?
No you won't.
It's a philisophical assumption
Define "philosophical" and show us how it adjusts, or shut up.
not backed up by the necessary evidence.
We show you the evidence. You just say "No" (we ask YOU for your evidence, and you say "Look around").
It's amazingly easy for an ignorant religious fanatic such as yourself to dismiss the evidence presented by the most qualified people in the world, passing peer review, in harmony with the rest of the data and all other branches of Science.

And the power of Christ allows you to do this in every branch of Science your creed conflicts with.

You don't like this fact, but you've already shown us that your problem is with Evolution, Biology in general, Geology, Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics (i remember your discussion with Apoapsis), History, Archeology, Anthropology, Thermodynamics, Paleontology... You name it.
Even with Math, if it happens to conflict with your creed.

Evolution conflicts with none (post hoc calculations of probability are stupidity, not evidence that Evolution conflicts with Math).

Plausible transitional forms are the exception in the fossil record, not the rule.
If you don't define "transitional" i don't know what you're talking about.

By "plausible transitional forms" i bet you mean "transitionals".

I'd say most organisms are transitionals, in a very clear way (its ancestors lived in populations with different allele frequencies, and so will its descendants).

If we define "transitional" in a more useful way, then yeah. They are not the rule. So what? The ToE doesn't predict that they SHOULD be.
You believe it anyway.
"It" what?
That's not scientific fact, it's myths and fairytales for small children and brainwashed adults.
Hahaha!

Ah, your projection...

Your deity watches you every day of every year, and sees whether you've been good, and keeps a list of those who will receive his gift. NOTHING LIKE SANTA! Nono...

You have a "personal relationship" with a guy you talk to but you can't see, hear or touch. NOTHING LIKE AN IMAGINARY FRIEND! Nono...


The question is just "how". Not "if".
So you're saying that the evidence against your position makes not the slightest bit of difference then.
Present it first, and i'll answer to it.
That's your dogma and you're sticking with it.
Show me your evidence, or shut up.
What if 'your truth' is not 'the truth'?
I don't talk about the truth.
Then you're dreaming.
Blah blah blah.
It's an assumption. A very safe one.
Not according to the evidence without your random presuppositions attached.
Show me, or shut it.
Death is an essential part of Evolution.
According to your religion yes.
I have no religion. You lose.
According to mine, which has better evidential support,
Show me or shut it.
death is a curse and it just might seem like a curse when your time comes.
It's YOUR religion. YOU don't get to scare ME with it.
Remember "the fool hath said in his heart, 'there is no God.' "
Remember: "
anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Brains are quite plastic. I don't think it needs lots of specifications for each single action.
You're assuming here.
No. I've seen how plastic they are.

I saw a monkey controlling a robotic arm with its brain, for instance. Much more amazing than controlling a hand that changed into a wing.
My assumptions are far more plausible however.
You're assuming here.
You see wings need to be carefully wired according to a plan.
Yeah. The same plan for the hand, mostly.
No random connections will do the job.
Fortunately the right connections were already there.
That's from mankind's experience of organization and planning -it only comes forth from intelligence.
Exactly. That was all our experience. We were very ignorant.

Now our experience has grown, and we know better. Praise the Lord!


You can just keep parading your ignorance and lack of understanding. But you're not impressing anyone.
Or is the problem your ignorance rather than mine?
Yours.
I don't care to impress anyone but I'd hate anyone to be sucked into your cult without ever hearing a little of the other side of the argument.
The other side has nothing to present, as you constantly demonstrate.

Nothing but poor analogies, Bible quotations and threats about the afterlife.




-------
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: 03:22 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

want to play a fun game? Go to the list of threads, go back a page.

Click on a random thread. The odds are almost 50-50% that whatever thread you click on, it will have ended with lester making some absurdist unevidenced claims, and then fled like a coward, with calls for justification and evidence echoing behind him. His flagrant and shameful cowardice has never been more on diplay by the number of threads he has fled from as soon as people start ademanding he actually EVIDENCE his claims.


What is the number one rule of common sense and decent behaviour in any debate on the world (online or in person) is still something lester cannot or will not grasp: Dont lie, and dont make absurdist claims unless you can back them up.

Instead he has substituted that with "make plentiful unevidenced absurdist claims, flee like a complete coward from any challenge or request for evidence, and repeat them endlessly even when they have been factually disproven."


Its pitiful.


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 05:04 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow Gaunt, 0% science in that post as usual.


-------
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: 07:15 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:15 AM on August 2, 2010 :
Wow Gaunt, 0% science in that post as usual.



"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells. For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

Please defend what your hero wrote without trying to change topics, rely on analogies and assertions, etc.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:48 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells. For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

Please defend what your hero wrote without trying to change topics, rely on analogies and assertions, etc.


While I quite understand what he's saying, it's not my claim so why should I defend it?

What are you having a problem with?


-------
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: 08:14 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:15 AM on August 2, 2010 :
Wow Gaunt, 0% science in that post as usual.



Wow Lester, 100% cowardice in your post, as usual.

Dont even talk to me about 'science' you adolescent liar. I post science routinely, and you flee from it like a coward, hiding and squirming away without fail.

Like when I proved your absurd claims about fly evolution wrong? FScience and verifyable references.

First you fled like a coward and didnt answer. THEN you repeated the same lie later on as if you had not just been proven a liar, THEN you pretended my evidence and proof never existed, even after I directed you to my first post, and when i finally REposted it, you FLED LIKE A COWARD!

Dont talk to me about science Lester, people in dozens of threads are BEGGING you to post evidence for youtr delusions, Begging you to answer the scientific evidence THEY have posted, BEGGING you to stop fleeing like a coward every time you are challenged, act like a man if you know how, and step up. But you refuse, every time.


No science? Lester, I will give you this, you do make me laugh.


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:25 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:14 AM on August 2, 2010 :
Derwood
"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells. For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

Please defend what your hero wrote without trying to change topics, rely on analogies and assertions, etc.


While I quite understand what he's saying, it's not my claim so why should I defend it?


You have presented Werner as some sort of ultimate authority due to his supposed 3 decades of study during whihc he apparently never learned the basic tenets of evolution to incluide how to interpret cladograms.

If you understand it all so well, maybe you can provide justification for this:

"For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:43 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
If you understand it all so well, maybe you can provide justification for this:

"For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."


Would you agree that if a ground mammal were to mutate into a bat it would require a fair number of useful mutations?


-------
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: 03:10 AM on August 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:10 AM on August 3, 2010 :
Derwood
If you understand it all so well, maybe you can provide justification for this:

"For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."


Would you agree that if a ground mammal were to mutate into a bat it would require a fair number of useful mutations?

No, I would not.

First, unlike creationist know-nothings, I do not pretend to know how many mutations would be required for any specific change - and when I have run across creationists who claim to know, when asked, they never provide any answers, if anything, I get crude folksy 'it MUSTA needed a whole bunch for that!'.  For example, I once had a YEC computer programmer insist that it MUSTA taken about a million mutations to get a bipedal hominid from a quadrupedal non-hominid.  When I asked how he knew this, he claimed that it jsut seemed that way to him.  Sad thing was, he actually felt that his position was not only justifiable, but true - all based on what he 'felt.'

I suspect this is how Werner came up with his claims, and how people like you think they have merit.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:56 AM on August 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:10 AM on August 3, 2010 :
Derwood
If you understand it all so well, maybe you can provide justification for this:

"For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."


Would you agree that if a ground mammal were to mutate into a bat it would require a fair number of useful mutations?


No reason they have to happen all at once.






-------
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: 12:30 PM on August 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:30 PM on August 3, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:10 AM on August 3, 2010 :
Derwood
If you understand it all so well, maybe you can provide justification for this:

"For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."


Would you agree that if a ground mammal were to mutate into a bat it would require a fair number of useful mutations?


No reason they have to happen all at once.


Also no reason there had to be a 'fair number' of them...




(Edited by derwood 8/5/2010 at 11:35 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:19 AM on August 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whats the matter, Les?

No shallow retorts?

You'd think a guy with so in-depth a science background as you claim to have could do better.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:09 AM on August 7, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.