Creationists

[cbirch2]

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.

Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!

How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.

How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.

What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.

So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.

Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?

 

[cbirch2]

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.

A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?

Lol

No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No thats exactly what your saying. Your saying that ERV's do not come from viral infections.

Therefore, you are a fucking retard that doesnt understand what ERV's are.

Some may have been integral in evolution, sure. Viral infection is well associated with the evolution of the placenta, according to many biologists.

A retard with a degree in molecular biology what degree do you hold ? You and limo are proving one thing ,you are immature and can't debate honestly without trying to insult your opponent. You can believe as you wish but your beliefs are based on assumptions just as mine are. Your views are based in imagination that will one day be shown to be nonsense just like many of your theories.

You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.

You claimed to hold a degree once,what field was that degree in ? and is it an accredited school ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.

Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!

How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.

How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.

What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.

So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.

Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?

You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.

 

[daws101]

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.

Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!

How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.

How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.

What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.

So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.

Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?

You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.

 

[LOki]

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.

Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!

How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.

How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.

What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.

So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.

Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?

You have just made a great argument for design.

No.

things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it..

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY CREATED THEMSELVES ... NO MATTER HOW MUCH IMAGINATION YOU USE TO SAY OTHERWISE!

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology? ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY? ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation?

What "Creator"? Have you ever heard of using valid, verifiable evidence and valid logic to support your case?

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

now imagine God.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! Youwerecreated's very candid admission that this "God" of his must be imagined; is actually IMAGINARY!

 

[daws101]

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are not a microbiologist, this is abundantly clear to everyone. If you are, you are not an accredited one.

A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?

Lol

No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.

Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Look I will do it again for you.

Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.

Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools. Call it gene depletion.

When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.

Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool. It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise.

If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion. So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection. By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution. Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.

Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God. That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.

Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie. Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.

That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.

Here is the proper theory.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

 

[LOki]

Lol

No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.

Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.

Look I will do it again for you.

Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.

Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.

Not in contention.

Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Not in contention.

Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools.

If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

Call it gene depletion.

No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.

When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.

Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.

Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Mutation does.

It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise.

It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​

Until you surmount that inexplicable assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. NONE!

After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion.

No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.

So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection.

If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.

By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution.

It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.

Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God.

1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.

Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)

Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie.

No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.

Absolutely wrong.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.

None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.

Here is the proper theory.

This will prove to be rich.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol

No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.

Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.

Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.

Not in contention.

Not in contention.

If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.

Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.

Mutation does.

It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.

Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​

Until you surmount that inexplicable assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. NONE!

No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.

If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.

It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)

No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Absolutely wrong.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.

Here is the proper theory.

This will prove to be rich.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

Well how do you think species become extinct ?

You are confused, humans have a large gene pool,mutts have a huge gene pool,and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool. The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

 

[LOki]

Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.

Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.

Not in contention.

Not in contention.

If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.

Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.

Mutation does.

It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.

Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​

Until you surmount that inexplicable assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. NONE!

No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.

If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.

It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)

No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Absolutely wrong.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.

This will prove to be rich.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Well how do you think species become extinct ?

Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.

You are confused,...

No. Not at all.

humans have a large gene pool,...

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

mutts have a huge gene pool,...

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.

Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.

The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

 

[cbirch2]

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.

Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!

How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.

How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.

What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.

So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.

Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?

You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.

Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.

You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.

You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.

At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?

Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.

Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.

How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.

See the picture here??

Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?

You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.

 

[cbirch2]

A degree from the University of Arizona,yes it is an accredited school you think ?

Lol

No one here believes you have a degree in molecular biology. You dont even correctly understand DNA.

Sure I do, I just don't go along with the brainwashing any longer. I have presented the paradigm I support and refuted your claims of mutations but yet you still doubt.

Look I will do it again for you.

Micro-adaptations always produce the same kind of plant or animal.

Micro-adaptations are the result of the sorting or the loss of genetic information. Because of the loss of genetic information adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools. Call it gene depletion.

When you breed things you breed gentic information out that is why purebreeds have weaker genetic pools because the loss of information and that is why the gene pool of the mutt is stronger because it's a much bigger gene pool and less of a loss of information.

Increasing new & beneficial genetic information scientists know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool. It's only fantasy to suggest otherwise.

If your side was correct they should be able to point to millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information being added to the the gene pool so far they only point to antibiotic resistent bacteria and a few others while there are over 4,500 genetic diseases and disorders from mutations.

Three false assumptions by macro-evolutionist.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.

3. Large spans of time millions of years.

After all observed mutations that cause change , They're caused by the sorting or loss of the pre-existing genetic information,once again call it gene depletion. So gene pools get weaker and weaker until they are removed by natural selection. By the way no mutation can take over a gene pool which makes for a problem for macro-evolution. Because according to your theory the mutations must spread through the populations.

Natural selection removes weaker gene pools and preserves the stronger and origional creation of God. That is why left alone species going through micro-adaptations will return to the origional. Just like the finches in the galapagos islands.

Your textbook teaches that natural selection causes macro-evolution, that is a lie. Natural selection is what prevents macro-evolution from being possible because it eliminates the weaker gene pools from adaptations and mutations because the loss of the origional information.

That is why the short beak finches were dying off but once the drought was over they made a comeback and thrived.

Here is the proper theory.

DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I hope you got it this time.

Dude there is no such thing as a DNA code barrier. The DNA controls the organism, the organism doesnt control the DNA.

Thats how i know your not a molecular biologist. Your an idiot.

As a molecular biologist, i think i have a question you should be able to answer: What part of any organism is not ultimately a reaction between atoms?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.

Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.

Not in contention.

Not in contention.

If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.

Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.

Mutation does.

It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.

Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​

Until you surmount that inexplicable assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. NONE!

No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.

If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.

It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)

No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Absolutely wrong.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.

This will prove to be rich.

No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.


Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.

No. Not at all.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.

Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.

The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Pose the question to any vet they will tell you the same thing i did mutts are healthier because they belong to a much larger gene pool,they have the genetic information for all dogs. Where with a purebred they only have the information of that breed the answer is they breed out information.

Do you realize there are different gene pools of the same breed all over the world ? Pretty hard to go extinct unless there is too much inbreeding and mutations that would make the breed less adapted.

Even members of the same breeds don't all stay together that creates smaller gene pools unless new blood is introduced from the same breed to a particular gene pool problems can arise to make that group weaker from adaptations and mutations.

So now how do you explain it when all groups die out from a particular breed or species ?

Like i said please provide a link with all the supposedly beneficial mutations saying everything from a microbe to a human does not cut it, that is poor circular reasoning. The reason why i want a link we will compare it to the harmful mutations list . I figured you wouldn't be able to LIST them all on your own. Name all beneficial mutations that your side say's are beneficial mutations ,so p[lease provide a link with a complete list. No more of your poor circular reasoning.

What are the results of too much inbreeding ?

If you cross a purebred with a mutt you will no longer have a purebred but you will see traits of the purebred in the whole litter of pups,why because the purebred parent only has genetic data of it's breed proving what I am saying right and you wrong.

The traits of the mutt will cause different looks to the breed because it's new or different information introduced to that particular gene pool.

Your problem is you can't reason from evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And i would think anyone truly thought about the spectrum life (and understood its composition) would understand that it is complex but it is just matter none the same.

Think about a person, pretty complicated right? Its Eukaryote, it has complex cells with nuclei. And its multicellular, its cells must act in concert with each other.

Well what about a single yeast cell? Still pretty complicated, but not multicellular. Its still a eukaryote (as is the human), it has a pretty complex set of cellular machinery to do things like glycolysis and protein synthesis. It has membrane bound compartments and its DNA is wrapped into chromosomes and bound in the nucleus. Pretty complex for such a small cell!

How about a simple bacterial cell? Well its much simpler. it doesnt have complex chemical machinery confined in neat compartments like a eukaryotic cell does. It doesnt have a nucleus. its still fairly complicated. It has a cell membrane, but thats the only membrane. Its DNA is a free floating ring floating within the cells cytoplasm. All of the cells reactions take place in the cytoplasm. Its magnitudes simpler than a eukaryote, but still could be considered very complex.

How about a virus? No metabolism, no organelles. Its just a genome, and a protein capsid surrounding the genome. The capsid is just a repeated sequence of capsomeres, which are coded for by the genome they surround, and are created with the replication of the genome during infection and replication. So a virus is simply as complicated as its genome. A virus is fairly simple. Maybe you would call it complex, but i wouldnt.

What about a viroid? If a virus is simple, a viroid must be simpler. It doesnt have the complex niceties like a protein coat or spikes. Its just a strand of DNA that causes problems when its inside other cells.

So a viroid is just DNA. Is DNA that complex? No, its just nucleotides. Nucleotides are just carbon, with some functional groups like carboxyl attached.

Where do you draw the line? Where does life start, and where does life end?

Which part of life isnt ultimately controlled by biochemistry?

You have just made a great argument for design. Those things could not have possibly created themselves no matter how much imagination is used in trying to explain it.

Have you ever heard the creator is greater then the creation? now imagine God.

Well thats the opinion of someone that doesnt understand evolution, so its understandable how you would think its impossible.

You have danced around the question yet again by trying to act witty and smart. Your not, and you fail.

You might have missed the point of the post, i think you skipped the last half, because it addressed the problem of complexity.

At what point in the sequence (greatest to least complexity): Eukaryote > Prokaryote > Virus > Viroid > Nucleotide, does it become too complex?

Is the ring of carbon atoms (nucleotide) too complex to form alone? Evidence would say otherwise.

Is a viroid too complex to form alone? Well a viroid is just a strand of nucleotides, so it shouldnt be much more complex than just one nucleotide.

How about a virus? A virus is just a viroid that has evolved more advanced structures, like a icosahedral capsid made of repeating proteins. So it cant really be too much more complex than a viroid.

See the picture here??

Which of those is too complex? The Virus? The Viroid? The Nucleotide?

You need to start understanding that the organism doesnt control the DNA, the DNA controls the organism.

Nope,but that is what you did.

I do understand that and have stated it so many times that the DNA of the parents and their parents will determine what the offspring will be.

It's not the gene itself,it is the information contained in the DNA. That is what makes us vastly different then chimps.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.

Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.

Not in contention.

Not in contention.

If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.

Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.

Mutation does.

It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.

Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​

Until you surmount that inexplicable assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. NONE!

No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.

If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.

It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)

No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Absolutely wrong.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.

This will prove to be rich.

No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.


Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.

No. Not at all.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.

Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.

The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

A lesson for you.

One cannot define inbreeding as simply mating relatives. The true definition is the mating of individuals more closely related than the average of the population from which they come. This means that a true definition of inbreeding could vary from breed to breed and from location (country) to location. However absolute values can be derived and assessed on that count.

Inbreeding is measured using Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding which was first put forward in the 1920s. It can be expressed as a percentage e.g. 12.5% or as a proportion 0.125. It measures the increased homozygosity likely to occur in an individual. If you mate a Boxer to a Boxer you get Boxers which is no surprise because, of course, over the years many genes have become fixed in the breed. This means that all individuals carry the same combination of these genes.


The consequences of Inbreeding

Whether we inbreed or not it would make no difference to genes that are fixed in all members of the breed but in non-fixed genes it would lead to an increase in homozygosity and a decrease in heterozygosity. If we have a gene that we will call N with alternatives N and n then we have three possibilities NN, Nn and nn. Inbreeding will move us towards the NN and nn versions at the expense of Nn. Most deliterious traits tend to be recessive. This is because if an undesirable feature is dominant a dog which has it shows it and thus is usually selected against, unless it is very late onset. Thus most abnormalities and defects tend to be recessive ( the nn equivalent) while normal animals are NN or Nn (called carriers). If inbreeding takes us towards NN and nn then the first thing we will see is an increase in deliterious defects. But many rare genes will be lost on inbreeding, it depends on the population. Moreover once identified the nn animals and some of the Nn ones can be discarded from a breeding programme. Inbreeding does not operate in isolation but coupled with selection and this is certainly true of the dog in respect of inherited defects..

Inbreeding BMD, for example, would increase the risk of hypomyelinogenesis (trembler) but only very slightly because it is already rare. In contrast it might not increase cancer risks (though they are not necessarily simple traits) because some 40% of the breed already die of cancer of one kind or another. However if your line does not carry a specific defect inbreeding will not create it. For example, our own line began with a dog of exemplary character who was the son of a "trembler carrier". This meant that our dog had a 50:50 chance that he carried the trembler allele and a 50:50 chance that he did not. Close breeding (> 25% inbreeding) within the line has shown that he did not carry the trembler allele and thus it is absent from our line. Do not forget that breeders, even if they inbreed, also follow selection so that we are not just talking about inbreeding but inbreeding with selection which is a different ball game.

What we do know is that inbreeding brings about something called inbreeding depression. This depends on a formula which is:

-2F dpq

This will look complex so let us examine this. The term F relates to the inbreeding coefficient. If the animal were a brother sister mating the F value would be 0.25 (25%) and if a half brother half/sister it would be 0.125. So 2F relates to twice the inbreeding coefficient in the population. The terms p and q relate to the frequencies in the population of the alternative genes. If, for example, half the genes in the breed were N and the other half were n then the p frequency (N) would be 0.5 and the q frequency (n) would also be 0.5. If only ten percent of the genes were n then p would equal 0.9 and q would equal 0.1. (A summation sign is needed because it must be done over all loci but is not given because my computer does not have it).

The term d relates to the degree of dominance. This is measured from the midpoint between the parents. Suppose wither height were a single gene trait and we mated a 66 cm animal to a 60 cm (having corrected for sex) then the mid point is 66+60/2 = 63. If this offspring from this mating averaged 63 cm there would be no dominance and d would be equal to 0.

To be further educated read the whole article.

INBREEDING AND PEDIGREE DOG BREEDS

 

[Youwerecreated]

Denial is not the same thing as "refuted." You lose again.

Let's see if you bring ANY intellectually valid stroke to your demonstration.

Not in contention.

Not in contention.

If "the loss of genetic information" NECESSARILY means "weaker and weaker gene pools," how do you explain the STRENGTH of contemporary gene pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species gene pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If that genetic bottleneck had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

No. No genes are depleted, otherwise it's mutation.

Mutts and purebreds share the exact same genepool. There my be homogeneity (call it loss if you must) of information within the breed, but there is NO LOSS of information from the species' genepool.

Mutation does.

It's a denial of reality to assert that the accumulation of mutations over time simply CANNOT add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.

Thoroughly refuted repeatedly.

Thoroughly consistent with valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

Thoroughly supported by valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence.

So. NO FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THERE.

Let's look at Creationism's false assumptions, shall we?

There is a "Creator" or "Designer."​

Until you surmount that inexplicable assumption Youwerecreated, your explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. NONE!

No. It's an INCREASE IN DIVERSITY.

If weaknesses are lost, and strength is retained, how is the gene pool "weakened"?

ANSWER: It is obviously not weakened.

It wouldn't be a problem even if this were true.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

1. What "God"?

2. Evolutionary Theory does NOT say that natural selection removes weaker gene pools.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

Except that they WERE left alone, and they DIDN'T "return to the original." (whatever the fuck that might be)

No. You say that Evolution says natural selection causes macro-evolution; and that is a lie.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Absolutely wrong.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get the claims of evolution so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You're a fraud.

Why, WHY, WHY do you persist in asserting that the theory of Evolution and Evolutionists make these claims that they CLEARLY DO NOT MAKE? WHY?

ANSWER: You're intellectually dishonest, and cannot effectively attack the actual assertions made by Evolutionists.

None of which is inconsistent with Evolutionary Theory.

This will prove to be rich.

No one is surprised in the least that:

Youwerecreated's Magical DNA code barrier + Youwerecreated's nonsensical notions of Gene depletion + Youwerecreated's fundamental misunderstanding of Natural selection = No macro-evolution.

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.


Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.

No. Not at all.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

and purebred animals have a much smaller gene pool.

Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.

The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Time for me to give you a true headshot.



Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution


by Roger Patterson on

March 8, 2007


Layman
author-roger-patterson
biology


We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …
–Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders


What You Will Learn

Textbooks present evolution in two different ways—small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.

Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis

 

[LOki]

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.


Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.

No. Not at all.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.

The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Pose the question to any vet they will tell you the same thing i did mutts are healthier because they belong to a much larger gene pool, ...

No, veterinarians don't say this. Actual qualified veterinarians would say that mutts enjoy the benefits of a more heterogeneous genome. Actual qualified veterinarians would say that mutts belong to the exact same and identical gene-pool that all dogs belong to--the same IDENTICAL gene-pool.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

... they have the genetic information for all dogs. Where with a purebred they only have the information of that breed the answer is they breed out information.

All dogs have all the genetic information necessary to produce a dog ... mutts and purebreds both. While it is true that a particular pure-breed population is more genetically homogenous than the population of mutts or the population of all dogs, purebreds still belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... there is NO GENETIC INFORMATION LOST FROM THE GENE-POOL OF DOGS DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF PUREBREDS! NONE!

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Do you realize there are different gene pools of the same breed all over the world ?

Do you realize that population =/= gene-pool?
ANSWER: No.

All dogs, all over the world, mutt AND purebreds, belong to the same gene-pool.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Pretty hard to go extinct unless there is too much inbreeding and mutations that would make the breed less adapted.

Such genetic diversity is irrelevant in the face of a global flood, and impossible considering the necessary loss of genetic information that you Creation Myth necessarily asserts.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Even members of the same breeds don't all stay together that creates smaller gene pools unless new blood is introduced from the same breed to a particular gene pool problems can arise to make that group weaker from adaptations and mutations.

Isolating a population does not automatically create a new gene-pool. As long as the members of the isolated population remain members of the parent species, they belong to the same gene-pool.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

So now how do you explain it when all groups die out from a particular breed or species ?

They're dead. What's to explain? You're asking two different questions involving two different kinds of events, and the point of the questions is not clear.

Like i said please provide a link with all the supposedly beneficial mutations saying everything from a microbe to a human does not cut it, that is poor circular reasoning. The reason why i want a link we will compare it to the harmful mutations list . I figured you wouldn't be able to LIST them all on your own.

Every trait that is "beneficial," from kidneys to eyes, to opposable thumbs, is the result of some mutation that occurred at some point during the evolution of the human being

Name all beneficial mutations that your side say's are beneficial mutations ,so p[lease provide a link with a complete list.

You're right; I can't do it on my own--Google all those "beneficial" traits and you'll have your list. Knock yourself out.

Feel free then to compare all of those "beneficial" traits caused by the accumulation of "beneficial" mutations to your list of a few thousand "harmful" mutations that affect a fraction of the human population.

No more of your poor circular reasoning.

I'm not engaging in circular reasoning.

What are the results of too much inbreeding ?

What is "too much inbreeding"? The necessary (by the account of your "theory") inbreeding that occurred amongst Adam, Eve and their progeny? The necessary (by the account of your "theory") inbreeding that occurred between the 4 couples belonging to Noah's family? Would that be "too much inbreeding"?

I can tell you this much though, if the genetic bottleneck described in your Creation Myth had ACTUALLY occurred, then every member of every species would be so nearly identical genetically to their respective fellows that the differentiation currently observed would be INEXPLICABLE! There'd be no "races" of human beings, no different "breeds" of dogs, no different "kinds" of cats.

How do you explain the DIVERSITY in contemporary gene-pools after the NECESSARILY catastrophic "loss of genetic information" caused by reducing EVERY species' gene-pool to that of a single mating pair less than 10k years ago as described in your Creation Myth?

If you cross a purebred with a mutt you will no longer have a purebred but you will see traits of the purebred in the whole litter of pups,why because the purebred parent only has genetic data of it's breed proving what I am saying right and you wrong.

You have just repeated the exact same line that proves me right, and fails to prove you right.

Nicely done. Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

The traits of the mutt will cause different looks to the breed because it's new or different information introduced to that particular gene pool.

Producing a litter has no effect on the gene-pool of a breed, sub-species, or species. NO EFFECT AT ALL.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Your problem is you can't reason from evidence.

Nonsense. Your problem is that you cannot differentiate your superstition from reality.

 

[FurthurBB]

Ring Species is unambiguous PROOF of macro-evolution; it is an observable example of the very definition of macro-evolution.

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community."
LINK

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."
LINK

"macroevolution The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species."
LINK

"Macroevolution, ... is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."
LINK

"Macroevolution involves major evolutionary changes at or above the level of species. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population."

[Macroevolution] is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".

"mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun Biology.
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."​

Your denial of this manifestly verifiable fact of reality is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Really, do you believe that any amount of information will make that poster less blind, ignorant, or dishonest? I do not. A person who wants to give words their own definition because obviously the actual definition proves their point moot is just dishonest. A person who continually posts crap that has been completely proven false and swears that no one can prove it false, is just dishonest. A person who lies about their qualifications to try and make their crap look more reasoned when they obviously do not even understand elementary school science, is a fraud and a liar.

Your only defense in the face of undeniable evidence is to call the source a liar. Why dont you look up the species yourself, and find the evidence at an unbiased source. No i bet you wont do that because you'd prefer to wallow in your own ignorance.

What? You think that poster has undeniable evidence? I always look at unbiased sources unless a creationist puts something up from a creationist site. I think I am far from ignorant about biology, but thanks for your concern.

 

[LOki]

I dare you to give me a list of all beneficial mutations from someone of stature from your side,a Link not your faulty opinions.

In every way--the "millions of examples"--that humans are different from say, a bacterium, are the "millions of examples of new & beneficial genetic information" that whose sum is the human organism.


Every member of the species dies before they produce offspring.

No. Not at all.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

I said no different, but you must. It is a necessary consequence of your Creation Myth.

Purebreds belong to the exact same gene-pool as mutts ... their gene-pool is IDENTICAL ... it cannot be smaller.

The proof is when they cross breed you will see traits of that purebred because the purebred animal only has DNA of that breed.

This does not prove you're right, but literally proves that I'm right.

I'll claim another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Time for me to give you a true headshot.



Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution


by Roger Patterson on

March 8, 2007


Layman
author-roger-patterson
biology


We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …
–Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris
on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders


What You Will Learn

Textbooks present evolution in two different ways—small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.

Chapter 3: Natural Selection vs. Evolution - Answers in Genesis

A head-shot cannot be delivered by this kind of non-sequitur, you retarded, superstitious sense-embargo.