# The Problem of Darwin and DNA



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.



 

Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
So a single cell organism will have a DNA strand of a length, let's call it a length of 1 for the discussion.  A horse will have a DNA strand length of 100,000.  Longer because it has information about bones, eyes, ears, fur, etc.  


 


When we reproduce each parent has DNA that is combined to make the offspring.  If the DNA is split exactly 50/50 there are 2 possible outcomes for the offspring.  In nature the DNA will be split between the parents in any combination, thus the offspring has over a million possible outcomes on their DNA.  In this diagram there are 2 lines, each being the side of the double helix.


 
So when DNA replicates there is a sophisticated series of mechanisms that basically unzips the DNA and rezips it.  Since every tiny section of that DNA is information as to who you are.  Any error in the replication process is a mutation (there are mechanisms to repair these defects, but not for this discussion). For example, if you receive a lethal dose of radiation, the radiation does not kill your cells.  What it does is damage the DNA so it cannot properly replicate.  And since your body is having to constantly replace your cells, you soon die because your cells are not being replaced.  



 

But let's say there is damage to the DNA that is nonlethal but there is enough DNA damage that causes a mutation in offspring.  All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.  


 

Let's use dogs as an example.  The wolf is the most diverse animal in that group, because it has the most complex DNA.  Because of that all of our dogs today are probably decendants of Wolves.  Why?  People have bred them into unique shapes and sizes.  Each change (mutation) in the animals offspring is due to a section of information being removed or replaced.  
For example, I want a dog with short legs so I keep breeding those with the shortest legs.  What I have done is removed the information about a wolfs long legs and replaced it with short legs.  But the inbreeding has created other errors in the DNA with parts now missing.  I want a breed of dog with a short nose.  What I've done is remove the DNA information about a wolfs long nose.  That's why many breeds have a large number of health issues - we have altered DNA so that information has been removed or replaced into mutations we call poodles and pit bulls.  The DNA strand of our pet dogs is much shorter than that of wolves. The changes I have made are only removing or replacing information in that DNA strand.  In nature information can never be created.  


 
That is important to remember.  *Information does not get created in nature. * It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible.  It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing.  Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated.  But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information.  An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone.  The information about wings cannot be added naturally.  A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information. 


 

So let's go back to Darwin.  Our starting point is some primeval goo.  That goo then reproduced into insects and soybeans and eventually humans.  


 

Here lies the problem that Darwin had no way of knowing.  For each progression additional information must be added to the DNA.  In order for the goo to become a soybean plant a lot of information must be added to the DNA strand.  That single cell organism that has a strand length of 1 must somehow obtain the information to get to a strand length of 1,000 for the Soybean plant.


 

But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.  The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs.  

For information to be created, it needs a creator.

So what really happened to start life?  Each shall reproduce of its own kind it says in Genesis.  So take the Darwin chart again. 


 

 Instead of you being a family member of soybeans, each species was created and evolved (mutated) from there.  Something like a wolf was first created, then information was removed to create toy poodles and chihuahuas.  So that is one branch started. Cows mutated into Black Angus and other breeds. Another branch started.  So thousands of branches were created, humans being one of them.  Each species has its own tree, but each species remains unique and unchanging into alternate species because DNA information cannot be added in nature.


----------



## PK1 (Oct 10, 2016)

WTF is this thread trying to say?
Darwin's theory is about *natural selection*. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
LOL!


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> View attachment 92909
> 
> Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
> ...


Dogs are not descended from wolves. They do share a common ancestor much like chimps and humans.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> WTF is this thread trying to say?
> Darwin's theory is about *natural selection*. DNA supports his famous theory explaining speciation, as well is 99% of biological scientists in this world, except for the religious nuts like yourself.
> LOL!


Your evidence is zero.  If you have evidence, show it or accept the OP.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ... Instead of you being a family member of soybeans, each species was created and evolved (mutated) from there.  Something like a wolf was first created, then information was removed to create toy poodles and chihuahuas.  So that is one branch started. Cows mutated into Black Angus and other breeds. Another branch started.  So thousands of branches were created, humans being one of them.  Each species has its own tree, but each species remains unique and unchanging into alternate species because DNA information cannot be added in nature.


Agreed about the evolution of various animal species, but disagreed about various animal species not being related.

Why do we share 98% of the same DNA as chimps?  44% of a fruit fly?  Putting DNA to Work - Introduction - Tracing Similarities and Differences in Our DNA


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> ...


"Whole genome sequencing indicates that the dog, the gray wolf, and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time."
Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, you're wrong already.  What other preconceived false ideas do you wish to share?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Even though Wiki is not a good source when it comes to these things obviously you dont understand that "diverged" and "descended" are two different words with totally different meanings.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> ...


All life has a double helix DNA.  Human DNA and Banana plants are 60% related.  But it  does not mean your relative is a banana.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dogs and wolves can breed, they are of the same kind.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


That had nothing to do with my point. My point was that dogs were not descended from wolves. They instead share a common ancestor.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Zebras and horses can breed too.  Its because they share a common ancestor.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Instead of you being a family member of soybeans, each species was created and evolved (mutated) from there.  Something like a wolf was first created, then information was removed to create toy poodles and chihuahuas.  So that is one branch started. Cows mutated into Black Angus and other breeds. Another branch started.  So thousands of branches were created, humans being one of them.  Each species has its own tree, but each species remains unique and unchanging into alternate species because DNA information cannot be added in nature.
> ...


And you are missing the primary point.  In order for you to go from fruit fly to chimp a lot of DNA information must be created.  In nature that is impossible.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


That's what I said, wolves and our pet dogs are from the same created branch.  Same with zebras and horses.  So we agree on that.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Even though Wiki is not a good source when it comes to these things obviously you dont understand that "diverged" and "descended" are two different words with totally different meanings.


The problem with Wiki, as you know, is that it is only as good as those who add to it.   It's the linked sources that are the real nuggets, IMO.  If a Wiki article has good links, then it's a good source of info.  No links or unreliable links, then not so much.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


No thats not what you said. You said this which is false.

"*Because of that all of our dogs today are probably decendants of Wolves*. Why? People have bred them into unique shapes and sizes. Each change (mutation) in the animals offspring is due to a section of information being removed or replaced. "


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Even though Wiki is not a good source when it comes to these things obviously you dont understand that "diverged" and "descended" are two different words with totally different meanings.
> ...


Enough about wiki, there are thousands of scientific articles.  The point is they are of their own kind and can breed.  The DNA strand of a wolve is much longer than that of a domestic dog, meaning it has more information and thus is more diverse and why it is believed to be closer to the original copy.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Are you saying that DNA information cannot be created by nature?  What do you call mutations?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You can take wolves and dogs up with science.  OP is about Darwin was not right.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> View attachment 92909
> 
> Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
> ...





Where's a link?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


A mutation is either the replacement or removal of information.  There is no new information ever added.  Information cannot be created in nature.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You also havent factored in that dogs and wolves will breed without human intervention.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


So how did wolves DNA become more complex and have more information than dogs? Doesnt that kind of kill your claim?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Carla_Danger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> ...


Here's a link.  Go there and you can write your own OP on the topic too.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Wolves are the closest to the created species.  Toy poodles are nothing but a series of removing DNA information.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Science didnt make you claim something wrong then pretend you didnt make the claim. I am asking you.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


What's dogs mating on their own have to do with DNA not being able to be created?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


So now youre claiming that a DNA strand is shorter if the animal is small?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Well you said that a wolfs dna is longer. How do you know that didnt come about from mating with dogs?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You yourself acknowledge wolves and dogs are of a kind.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...





That's not a direct link. Do you have a link to this report, or did you write it yourself?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Now youre being stupid.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I acknowledged they shared a common ancestor. You claimed that dogs were descended from wolves.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Carla_Danger said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


I wrote it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> And you are missing the primary point.  In order for you to go from fruit fly to chimp a lot of DNA information must be created.  In nature that is impossible.


Agreed about DNA "created", but not impossible.  Down Syndrome is full or partial extra copy of chromosome 21.  XYY syndrome is a genetic condition in which a human male has an extra Y chromosome.   Most mutations are bad, but some, by pure chance over millions of years, can be good.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I think its stupid to claim that wolves are closer to the original created animal without any proof. Especially since we know they share a common ancestor.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


OP is about Darwin being wrong.
Like I said, start your own OP if you want to claim dogs are not from wolves.


----------



## PK1 (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > WTF is this thread trying to say?
> ...


I side with the 98% in the AAAS (Pew Research):
*"98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time."*


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > And you are missing the primary point.  In order for you to go from fruit fly to chimp a lot of DNA information must be created.  In nature that is impossible.
> ...


Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ...Enough about wiki, there are thousands of scientific articles.  The point is they are of their own kind and can breed.  The DNA strand of a wolve is much longer than that of a domestic dog, meaning it has more information and thus is more diverse and why it is believed to be closer to the original copy.


So?  The "original" copy is merely the common ancestor, not the origin of their DNA history.

Ancient Wolf DNA Could Solve Dog Origin Mystery

14 Dog Breeds Closely Related To Wolves (You Will Be Surprised!)


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


Proving that you're one of the many programmed into turning off your brain when you hear the word "scientist". "Scientists say" is the most Pavlovian trigger mechanism humans have today.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


It speaks to the error in your argument. Its not my claim. its science.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Enough about wiki, there are thousands of scientific articles.  The point is they are of their own kind and can breed.  The DNA strand of a wolve is much longer than that of a domestic dog, meaning it has more information and thus is more diverse and why it is believed to be closer to the original copy.
> ...


The original copy will always have the longest strand DNA of that kind.  Why?  Because copies can only lose information, not create it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.


Why not?  How do you think the DNA was created in the first place?  6000 years ago in a day?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Dogs and wolves are of a kind.  Wolves are genetically superior.  Science says.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Just as I said in the OP, information can be duplicated, but never created.
> ...


That'll be a different OP.  But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Each kind can only breed with its own kind in nature.  A bird will not cross breed with a lizard, no matter how much they try.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> View attachment 92909
> 
> Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
> ...



*When we reproduce each parent has DNA that is combined to make the offspring. If the DNA is split exactly 50/50 there are 2 possible outcomes for the offspring.*






Using the simple example on top, there are 4 possible outcomes.


----------



## PK1 (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Unless you cite the true source of your OP,  your alleged "I wrote it" claim is not going to be taken seriously until published in a peer-reviewed journal (there are MANY of them).

What a hypocrite. You can't get more Pavlovian than citing the Bible!
LOLROTF!!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> ...


Double helix.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> View attachment 92909
> 
> Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
> ...



*For example, if you receive a lethal dose of radiation, the radiation does not kill your cells.*

Enough radiation does kill your cells.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


You're saying there are peer reviewed studies showing DNA information is naturally created and added to existing DNA?
Please link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



If each child got one "DNA rectangle" from each parent, there are 4 possible outcomes.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> ...


Radiation kills cells by damaging the DNA so it can not replicate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Or, just by killing them.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


If they are of a kind how are wolves superior?  This is why I can never take your threads seriously.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Does that mean whites are inferior because they have less protection from the suns radiation?


----------



## SixFoot (Oct 10, 2016)

"Darwin was wrong about dogs. He thought their remarkable diversity must reflect interbreeding with several types of wild dogs. But the DNA findings say differently. *All modern dogs are descendants of wolves*, though this domestication may have happened twice, producing groups of dogs descended from two unique common ancestors."

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog



			
				Neil Degrasse Tyson said:
			
		

> "Let's go back across 30,000 years to a time before dogs, when our ancestors lived in the endless winter of the last ice age.
> 
> Our ancestors were wanderers living in small bands.
> They slept beneath the stars.
> ...




Now, back to PBS:

How and when this domestication happened has been a matter of speculation. It was thought until very recently that dogs were wild until about 12,000 years ago. *But DNA analysis published in 1997 suggests a date of about 130,000 years ago for the transformation of wolves to dogs.* This means that wolves began to adapt to human society long before humans settled down and began practicing agriculture.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You're being stupid again.  Topic is about DNA information being created.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> View attachment 92909
> 
> Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
> ...


*
All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.* 

Or added. Or different.


*But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.*

That's not true.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Are you claiming that DNA information cannot be created?  Do you understand what an insertion mutation is?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You can recieve a lethal dose of radiation and never know it.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Mutation is a repeat of existing information. There is no evidence of DNA information being created.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Actually its not. You should educate yourself as to what an insertion mutation is.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> ...


Feel free to link to where DNA strands obtain new information.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



You know it when your skin cells die and your hair falls out and your blood leaks out, internally and externally.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And that occurs because old cells are not replaced with new cells.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PK1 (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


You obviously do not understand evolutionary theory. Since DNA was discovered over 50 years ago, the Scientific research has only confirmed the theory. If you claim an exception, feel free to publish your results and discussion, then let us all know your citation!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



It happens because if enough of your cells die, so do you.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree.  If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That bacteria already existed.  Try again.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


Falling back onto feel good talking points gets you nowhere.
The fact new information in DNA cannot be created is well documented.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists.  One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it.  The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You're repeating the OP again.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.  The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs. .



Says who?

A very pretty OP, but all the graphics can't cover up that you have made a claim that you have not substantiated.

Mutations do add 'information' to our DNA- which is why we have individuals with blue eyes and green eyes. 

We find that in dogs after they evolved from prehistoric wolves

_Previous research had suggested that perhaps dog domestication got a push from a genetic mutation that made it easier for modern dogs’ ancestors to digest starch — meaning they could scavenge from human garbage piles._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > WTF is this thread trying to say?
> ...



Except you haven't proven the OP- you made claims that you haven't substantiated.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > But in nature, information can only be removed, not created.  The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs. .
> ...


There is no case of DNA information being added to a strand that was not already there.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Darwin didn't know about DNA- but his overall theory is correct.

Remember Darwin never claimed how life was created- Darwin correctly predicted the rudimentary theory of evolution which was largely correct when the knowledge of genetics itself was very rudimentary.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


I've used simple known science.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Prove it.
_Previous research had suggested that perhaps dog domestication got a push from a genetic mutation that made it easier for modern dogs’ ancestors to digest starch — meaning they could scavenge from human garbage piles.
_
Starchy Diets May Have Given Ancient Dogs a Paw Up


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I am just waiting for you to do more than claim what you have stated is 'science'.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



They existed, but they couldn't eat nylon before.
That's new information.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Radiation can kill cells. Pretty basic.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


And every change is either information becoming dominate or the information is removed from the DNA strand.  At no time can nature create new information and insert it into the DNA.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Wrong again.  Cells die by the billions in your body every minute.  It's the lack of those cells being replaced that kills you after a lethal,dose of radiation.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Feel free to show us some science to support your claim in the OP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


_
Why is ionizing radiation dangerous? When atoms in living cells become ionized one of three things usually happen – the cell dies, the cell repairs itself, or the cell mutates incorrectly and can become cancerous. Not all cells are affected by ionizing radiation in the same way. The cells that reproduce the most and are the least specialized are the most likely to be affected by ionizing radiation, for example those in a forming fetus.1_

_Radiation is effective as a cancer treatment because it can kill the cancer cells, however it can also kill or damage nearby cells.

Ionizing Radiation and Humans – The Basics_


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Please link a study that debunks insertion mutation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



*Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information*


_By Michael Le Page_

_Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility_

_Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been __very strong selection__ for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial._

_Most biologists would see this as __a gain in information__: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information_


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


That is simply a modification of existing genes so that one becomes dominate.
Let me give you another example.  Antibiotic resistant bacteria we all hear about.  Normally antibiotics work by the bacteria ingesting the antibiotic and it turning into a toxic substance inside the bacteria.  With resistant bacteria, the DNA information that allowed it to ingest the antibiotic is now gone.  Now new DNA information was created, it was removed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


*
That is simply a modification of existing genes*

A modification that added new information.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, nylon is a new creation of man, and finding a bacteria that can eat it is mere coincidence.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.

Now if you pointed out a population digesting steel, that would be something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Nope. The enzyme to digest nylon did not exist before. It does now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



*No, as you state, people were already digesting the milk.*

Children.

An adult digesting it was new.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence.    It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I believe virus can add new information.  Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Just pointing out that Weather has once again posted a dump of pretty pictures but has not actually posted any science to support his claims.

And as always when his claims are refuted- he just refuses to accept the science.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually...we always had the genes to digest it, it just gets switched off in adulthood in certain individuals I think..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Even now, many humans of all ages cannot digest cow's milk.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...




This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith. 

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later. 

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God.   I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies. 

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution

*Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.*

http://books.google.com/books?id=VR...ping genes" mutation cosmic radiation&f=false

*"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.*


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Other studies show there was nothing new added.  In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA.  This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does _not_ explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. 


Yasuhira, K. et al, 2007. 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolases from the Alkalophilic Bacteria Agromyes sp. Strain KY5R and _Kocuria_ sp. Strain KY2. _Applied and Environmental Microbiology._ 73 (21): 7099-7102.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Last I checked children become adults with the same DNA.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


You miss the point.  Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> You miss the point.  Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.


Ummm, that's not what I got from it.  Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life.  Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth.   Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution
> 
> *Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.
> 
> ...


Mass extinctions and fossils is another thread I will start, sure to get the same polarized responses as this.  The amount of tweaking of data and conclusions over the decades to make the current popular theory works is eye opening for those who are willing to see.  We all look at the same evidence, which I will present as I did here, with shaded glasses and get different conclusions. The question is how tinted are our glasses.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I think you are giving Weather too much credit. 

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since. 

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal. 

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the point.  Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.
> ...


I know of no one who believes science is anti-God.  Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other.  Mind boggling you say?  It's not.  Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.  50 years ago science said the universe always existed.  Now science says it had a beginning.  We already knew that.  The supporting evidence is repeated many times.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Still waiting for those names.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


You need to first supply the evidence that DNA information naturally self creates and adds itself to existing DNA.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



*Other studies show there was nothing new added.*

That's funny.
*
In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.*

Adding new info is degrading? That's funny too.
*
The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does *_*not*_* explain the origin of that gene.*

Who said it did? Where?

*Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation),*

Yup, new info = adaptation.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> [ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.



Really?

So science supports a flood that covered the entire earth?

A flood that killed all but two of every species in the world?

So science supports the creation of life on earth- before the sun and other stars were created?

Tell me how science supports the conversion of plain water into wine by divine influence?

I don't know why folks like you feel like you need scientific validation for your religious beliefs. 

But claiming that science supports the idea that humans were created before the sun was.....


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



No- I really don't.  So far- as usual- you haven't provided any proof for your claims

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I'll do better.  Here is Dr Watsons story of his conversion to Christianity.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Uh, no.  Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created".  The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA. 

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on.  Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!! 

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Agree.  His theories were the foundation for modern evolution, but a lot has changed since then.  The thing is - I keep seeing so-called "Intelligent Design" folks attacking Darwin as if we've never moved past those first explorations and ignoring subsequent discoveries.  That's the politicization I tend to see.  Evolutionary scientists squabble all the time (did it happen in spurts or over a long period or...what) - but the fundamental core theories are still upheld - change over time.  Mutations still have to have a survival benefit or at least be neutral.  Darwin holds a respected position in history, like many of the great scientists


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



That's not what I said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in.  Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
> View attachment 92909
> 
> Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA.  Everything we are is in that DNA strand.  Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information.  Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
> ...



_That is important to remember. _*Information does not get created in nature. *

Can you prove it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution
> ...



It's all the same NEW evidence. Unfortunately, every time anybody even seems to question to Darwin, those tinted glasses come out. You're playing fair with all the new science. You just need to accept the fact that it's possible to Reactivate and ReUse EXISTING DNA coding that is already present. Nothing to "add" to cause an actual mutation.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Okay- so you are saying Collins is one of your 'discoverers' of the human genome- and here is what he said

_Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
_
Another quote from Collins:
_“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person._

Do you agree or disagree with Collins?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



It's really incredible isn't it?  The amount of information dormant in our genes and how credibly important the timing is - when to switch a gene on or off...at what point in development to create the creatures that exist today.  The study of evolution is the closest we have to a physical map of some of these changes.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > [ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.
> ...


Worthy of discussion but not for this thread.

The topic is we now have enough knowledge to discount evolution of species into other species.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

.


Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


He was a new Christian when he said that, I wonder what he thinks now.
Here is my conclusion.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Not at all.  All you have are semantical games.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> .
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Post 1 does.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The problem I have with the OP's assertions is that he dumps some actual science- and then jumps from there to unsubstantiated opinions of his as scientific fact- which he does repeatedly in these threads- here is a quote from the OP

_
*Information does not get created in nature. * It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible. It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing. Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated. But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information. An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone. The information about wings cannot be added naturally. A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information._

Anyone who has read evolutionary theory knows that 'wings' don't spontaniously jump into existance- they evolve from other structures- such as a small mammals forelimbs evolving into forelimbs with a membrane that allows flight


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Only in your head. Because you believe in the Bible.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



No, it doesn't.  It supports shared ancestory of species.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


If you wish to tell us how DNA creates itself and adds itself to existing DNA, please do.  You'll win a Nobel Prize for sure.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I know of no one who believes science is anti-God.  Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.
> 
> God created science so science and God dovetail each other.  Mind boggling you say?  It's not.  Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.  50 years ago science said the universe always existed.  Now science says it had a beginning.  We already knew that.  The supporting evidence is repeated many times.


Know personally or on this forum?  Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation.  However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally.  It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Science doesn't claim to have all the answers.  Yet.

Only you seem to want to use unanswered questions to support your "theories" - absence of evidence as evidence.  Not sure how sound that is.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.

You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I know of no one who believes science is anti-God.  Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.
> ...



A lot of religious people don't take it literally.  If you take an extremely broad view of creation, God providing that unexplainable spark of life - then religion and science can fill in each others gaps and stroll arm in arm.  But trying to pretend one is the other isn't going to work.

The Bible is not scientific.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
They don't argue men evolved from apes.  They argue homosapiens and other ape species evolved from a common ape like ancestor.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Actually, her article gave the example of an externally communicated virus INSERTING itself into a species' DNA. Where normally viruses just hijack random cells and insert their DNA into the host cells -- In remote cases this viral DNA can be passed at CONCEPTION and become essentially "added" to that person's DNA. That why so much of the "junk" in EVERY human's DNA appears to be old virus sequences. Moreso in our primate "ancestors".


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I know of no one who believes science is anti-God.  Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.
> ...


I take what the Bible says at 100% face value.
I also have a US Patent for a medical device that was used by thousands of hospitals, and helped design other medical devices as well as aerospace parts flying over your head right now.

Everything in the Bible dovetails science.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


But the information of the virus is not something that going to turn a soybean into a mouse.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Could over time.  How many mutations might have occurred this way?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Symantecs.  You get the point.  Evolutionists have not evolved since Darwin.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



The fossil record does not support that nor does the geology.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


A virus would have to have the information to make bone.  The list goes on and on.  No virus DNA has anything remotely close.  Virus DNA strands are not that long.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> .
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Nothing supports the creation of information to take primordial goo into everything we see that has ever lived.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



What a hypocrite you are.

You cite Collins as someone who agrees with your bizarre anti-evolutionary stance.

When I point out that Collins flat out calls you on it- you throw Collins under the bus

Collins labeled you well in this sentence:
_ Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Nothing supports your unsubstantiated claims. 

You claim that science supports the infallible Bible- yet when challenged on that- you dance like Fred Astaire.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Where is the evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth that killed all life except the pairs of animals on the ark?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Getting back to your claim - can you address that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



No. Prob not. But a cancer might learn to use it.  Or like antibiotic resistant bacteria, they might incorporate it to make cancers and other mutations resistant to attack. 

All I know is after reading that Nat Geo article, I aint having any sex when I have the flu anymore. Don't want to be diapering one of these.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Interestingly - many ancient people's have myths involving severe floods, so there must have been catastrophic floods at different times in the ancient worlds.  But the world was very small then - to ancient people.  A catastrophic flood wouldn't have had to be that widespread.

The problem with the ark thing is - we'd have horrific genetic bottlenecks in every known species including our own if this was true.  No evidence for that


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.
> 
> You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.


Sorry for not understanding, but are you saying mankind and the apes do or don't have a common ancestor?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



How about I show you your "tail" gene sequence??


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Oh I agree- there are lots of origin myths that include floods- but for the Bible to be literal, the flood would have had to cover the entire earth_*40*_

_  17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
_
So Mount Everest was covered by water......

And then the ark came to rest in one place- and somehow Galapagos tortoises made it from Mt. Ararat to the Galapagos on their own.....


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Exactly....


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Agreed about many ancient stories of floods.  Valleys were common areas for agricultural but were also susceptible to the "1000 year rain" problem of catastrophic flooding.  It would wipe out entire villages along the valley. 

As for the Bible, Noah existed thousands of years before Moses and it was Moses who wrote down the first five books of the Bible.  So where were the stories before?  Living memory.  Stories told around nomadic campfires.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



If he really believes that mutations are destructions then he is calling white people inferior. The gene to have light skin is a mutation.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I know man. I have to catch a lot of cosmic rays just to fix that defect.. Makes me vulnerable to predators at night also..


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I wonder which of the people on Noah's Ark were white, which were Asian and which were black.

And how did the Australian Aboriginals get from the Ark to Australia?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


All of them had to be Black.  You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


The mutation weaken your ability to take the rays of the sun but it did allow you to better absorb vitamin D.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> All of them had to be Black.  You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.


Ummm, wrong again, but I've come to expect that out of racists on this forum regardless of their associations with different cultures and geographies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You're taking this much too politically. I can make a coffee latte child with the right partner. Is that defective DNA? 

The answer to your Noah ark quiz is --- Noah was carrying enough recessive pigment genes to keep your hope alive  !!!!


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > All of them had to be Black.  You cant get Black people from white people for starters. Thats genetics 101 Also whites did not come about until about 7K years ago. The Aborigines are known to be one of the first groups to migrate out of Africa. The first 2 Chinese dynasties were Black people.
> ...


As always saying I am wrong is totally different from proving it.  You always make this mistake and everyone already knows you have nothing but objections bereft of any facts.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


If you can make a coffee latte child then your partner must have some dominant DNA. i cant call your DNA defective because its all subjective. Your DNA is superior in cold climates mine in hot climates. I'm not taking this politically. Sometimes people dont feel my dry humor.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> *As always saying I am wrong is totally different from proving it.*  You always make this mistake and everyone already knows you have nothing but objections bereft of any facts.


Correct.  Of course, you saying you're correct without ever offering evidence and/or proof is totally different from actually being correct. 

Do you have any evidence you are correct?  If so, please present it now or admit it's just your opinion.  Are you honest enough admit this to be true?


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Which...when you consider where light skinned people evolved, is actually an advantage in northern climates when it comes to sunshine and vitamin D.  The melanin that protects dark skinned people in southern climates from sun damage reduces their ability to form Vit D.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > *As always saying I am wrong is totally different from proving it.*  You always make this mistake and everyone already knows you have nothing but objections bereft of any facts.
> ...


You claimed i was wrong. Prove it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I honestly don't know, nor care, about the melanin vs. vitamin D content theories.  A lot of evolution is chance.  Pure fucking luck.  

Is sickle cell anemia bad luck or a sign of inferiority?  Color blindness?  The fact remains that all of humanity is 99.5% genetically alike.  Why do we make such a BFD about that 0.5%?  My best guess is psychology.  There's something in us about it.  My theory is the natural evolutionary survival trait of xenophobia.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> You claimed i was wrong. Prove it.


Prove a negative?  Sorry I cannot.

Sir, you made a claim.  Please back it up with facts.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Another fascinating tidbit on human genetics is sometimes mutations are hazardous when homozygous but beneficial when heterozygous - sickle cell disease would be an advantage.  If the person has only one gene, enough of his cells are normal that they don't cause health issues but they provide some benefit when it comes to malaria.

Or - our special adaptations to environmental extremes.  We evolved in a hot climate and the human body is much better at adapting to heat then to cold.  But indiginous people in northern regions such as the Inuit have a 50% higher basal metabolism rate and fewer sweat glands.


----------



## Coyote (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



I care because I find it fascinating.

There is a natural evolutionary survival trait in xenophobia.  It makes a hell of a lot of sense when we existed in a primative state.  I suspect we're hard wired to a certain extent...but, we also seemed wired to be more cooperative with outside groups then say chimps.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


The mutation that created sickle cell is actually a benefit. It fights malaria.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed i was wrong. Prove it.
> ...


Yes you can prove a negative. if i say 2+2 = 10 then you can show me how that was wrong with a math example. Please get busy showing us proof.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You sound angry and uncomfortable about the racial differences. No wonder you dont know or care to know much about them. No wonder you just claim I'm wrong when you just admitted you didnt know what you were talking about.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I care because I find it fascinating.
> 
> There is a natural evolutionary survival trait in xenophobia.  It makes a hell of a lot of sense when we existed in a primative state.  I suspect we're hard wired to a certain extent...but, we also seemed wired to be more cooperative with outside groups then say chimps.


Agreed 100%, very fascinating!

We're definitely wired to be "troop" animals (I hesitate to use the word "herd" since that isn't true).  Obviously there is strength in numbers for a creature with no claws, no great strengths except the one that differentiates us from all the other animals.  Our species spent up to 200,000 years in the wild before leaving Africa about 60,000 years ago.  We've only spent the last 200 years in an industrialized society sitting in cubicles and strapped to a car a few hours a day.  

Our natural reactions to the daily stresses of modern life are often in conflict to our evolution.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Yes you can prove a negative. if i say 2+2 = 10 then you can show me how that was wrong with a math example. Please get busy showing us proof.


Translation:  _You are correct, DW.  I have no proof of my ideas, so I'm going to continue bitching at you since that is all I have_.  

Have a good day, Asclepias.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you can prove a negative. if i say 2+2 = 10 then you can show me how that was wrong with a math example. Please get busy showing us proof.
> ...


Now youre deflecting after being shown you can indeed prove a negative. So you admit you have no proof of being correct by default.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> You sound angry and uncomfortable about the racial differences. No wonder you dont know or care to know much about them. No wonder you just claim I'm wrong when you just admitted you didnt know what you were talking about.


What makes you think I'm "_angry and uncomfortable about the racial differences_"?

I do care. What I don't care about are those who are racists, regardless of what "race" they claim to be.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > You sound angry and uncomfortable about the racial differences. No wonder you dont know or care to know much about them. No wonder you just claim I'm wrong when you just admitted you didnt know what you were talking about.
> ...


Your words and phrasing tell me you are angry and uncomfortable.

If you cared then you wouldnt have said you dont care. I dont need to prove you wrong. Your words prove it for all of us to see.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Now youre deflecting after being shown you can indeed prove a negative. So you admit you have no proof of being correct by default.


Translation:  _Dyam, DW!  You got me again. No, I have no proof of my opinion so I'll just keep asking you to prove my opinions wrong because that's how I roll_. 

Seriously, Asclepias?  That's how you want to leave this?  I think you're a fucking racist, but I didn't believe you were stupid....until now.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Your words and phrasing tell me you are angry and uncomfortable.
> 
> If you cared then you wouldnt have said you dont care. I dont need to prove you wrong. Your words prove it for all of us to see.


In your opinion.  Fine.  I can accept it's your opinion.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Now youre deflecting after being shown you can indeed prove a negative. So you admit you have no proof of being correct by default.
> ...


Of course I'm serious. You dont honestly believe what you think is important to me do you?  Since you cant prove my statements are wrong with evidence to the contrary then we all know your are just full of hot air as usual. No wonder you look silly everytime you disagree with me.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Of course I'm serious. You dont honestly believe what you think is important to me do you?  Since you cant prove my statements are wrong with evidence to the contrary then we all know your are just full of hot air as usual. No wonder you look silly everytime you disagree with me.


I judge people by their actions, not their words.

Yes, I believe you care about my comments because you keep responding to them.  

If you can't prove your own opinions, why can't you be honest enough to just admit they are opinions, not facts?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I'm serious. You dont honestly believe what you think is important to me do you?  Since you cant prove my statements are wrong with evidence to the contrary then we all know your are just full of hot air as usual. No wonder you look silly everytime you disagree with me.
> ...


No. I dont care about what you think. Your comments are nothing but fodder for me to shred so that is the only importance they hold.

You keep thinking you are important enough to prove my opinions to. You dont rate that consideration. If I saw you as a credible interlocutor I would prove you wrong. Since you are just full of hot air I dont waste my time dignifying you with a response I would give someone credible.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> *No. I dont care about what you think*. Your comments are nothing but fodder for me to shred so that is the only importance they hold.
> 
> You keep thinking you are important enough to prove my opinions to. You dont rate that consideration. If I saw you as a credible interlocutor I would prove you wrong. Since you are just full of hot air I dont waste my time dignifying you with a response I would give someone credible.


Your actions belie your words, sir.

If you don't want to prove your own opinions, that's fine.  It's not a requirement.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > *No. I dont care about what you think*. Your comments are nothing but fodder for me to shred so that is the only importance they hold.
> ...


My actions are that I'm not attempting to prove anything to you. 

I know its fine. You dont have a choice in the matter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


On the contrary, that is exactly what it indicates. Apparently we all come from the same genetic line that started at least 3.8 billion years ago.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Since the fruit fly and the alligator are contemporary animals, you are not merely missing the point, you have no point. Somewhere prior to the Cambrian, the fruit fly and the chimp did have a common ancestor.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


What the hell does contract theory have to do with Natural Selection? If you are going to post something to support your arguement, post a direct link to an article.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> My actions are that I'm not attempting to prove anything to you.
> 
> I know its fine. You dont have a choice in the matter.


Bullshit.  The very fact you respond to my posts in disagreement is an attempt by you to prove me wrong.  

The fact you wanted me to prove your *opinions* wrong is proof you are trying to prove you are correct without ever offering evidence.  Silly?  Yes, but that seems to be your strategy.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > My actions are that I'm not attempting to prove anything to you.
> ...


Bullshit. If i wanted to prove you wrong all I needed to do was post the evidence you want. I could care less about your opinions.

Why would I offer evidence to someone when I dont care about their opinion?


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 10, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> Bullshit. If i wanted to prove you wrong *all I needed to do was post the evidence you want. *I could care less about your opinions.
> 
> Why would I offer evidence to someone when I dont care about their opinion?


So why don't you post the evidence?  Why did you demand I prove your opinion wrong?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 10, 2016)

Divine.Wind said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. If i wanted to prove you wrong *all I needed to do was post the evidence you want. *I could care less about your opinions.
> ...


I wont post the evidence because your opinion is irrelevant. Stop begging me for it. I demanded you to prove me wrong just to see if you would attempt to. You didnt so I let it go unlike you.


----------



## Divine Wind (Oct 11, 2016)

Asclepias said:


> I wont post the evidence....


Thanks.  I figured you wouldn't.  Have a nice day, sir.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 26, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Mount Everest did not exist at that time.  During the flood the entire earth was transformed.


----------

