Creationists

[FurthurBB]

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 KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
i'll wait.

Does anyone believe that? Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.

 

[FurthurBB]

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!

Not to mention our selection of traits for animals would never be natural selection. We breed pugs that have to give birth by C-section. That would never happen in nature. Artificial selection cannot be compared to natural selection in that way.

 

[FurthurBB]

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.

Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things. People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.

I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things. People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.

Come on because you and I don't agree I am wrong ? you have offered no explanation to show what I say is wrong.

I'll show you one more time animals where their genes become fixed purebreeds only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Google

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
i'll wait.

Does anyone believe that? Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.

Tired of the insults lets see if you can do better then your buddies.

1.
How did life originate? So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

2.
How did the DNA code originate? What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

3.
How could mutations accidental copying mistakes DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

5.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

6.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

7.
How did multi cellular life originate? How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ,fitness for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?

9.
Why are the expected countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

10.
How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

11.
How did blind chemistry create mind-intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

12.
Why is evolutionary just so story telling tolerated?

13.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

 

[cbirch2]

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.

OK, what? "Its not the gene itself, its the information contained in the DNA." What?

You probably have some nuanced explanation for that but its a retarded statement.

A gene is just a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Those nucleotides are the information. The gene is the information, the nucleotides are the units of information.

You clearly avoided the question again.

Which of those is too complicated to form alone???????

 

[cbirch2]

"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."

PLUS ANY ERRORS IN DNA REPLICATION OR MUTATIONS OF THE OFFSPRING DNA OR GAMETE DNA.

Neutral mutations

Beneficial mutations

You should first understand neutral mutations, and how they will accumulate in a gene pool. After that, then you will understand the beneficial mutations accumulate in the same way, except accelerated by natural selection.

 

[cbirch2]

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.

Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things. People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.

Exactly. A few posts back i told him the same thing. The DNA controls the organism, the organism doesnt control the DNA.

He thinks there is something called the DNA code barrier.

 

[cbirch2]

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.

I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.

Mutations are not a dead end. Your a retard.

OK since your a molecular biologist you must understand how mutations in DNA are translated to physical deformities or benefits, right? Its a sequence a enzyme-catalyzed reactions transcribing DNA to RNA and RNA to protein

The structure of a protein is a sequence of a amino acids strung together and folded first into primary, then into secondary, and then into tertiary structures, sometimes even quaternary structures. The function of the protein is defined by its structure, most specifically the receptor site.

Mutations arent just "bad things". Mostly theyre just a small alteration in this giant structure of thousands of amino acids in a complex structure of hydrogen bonds. So most mutations dont do much. A mutation that doesnt do anything cant get weeded out, the its just part of the new offsprings DNA like any other nucleotide. When it reproduces, it may pass it on. Therefore neutral mutations become part of a gene pool when introduced, as long as that lineage doesnt die for other reasons. So over time, neutral mutations add up in a gene pool. This is fact.

Beneficial mutations therefore must be the same, except that organisms with these organisms may dominate a gene pool.

Getit?

 

[cbirch2]

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.

Not to mention when we are talking about evolution, it is really the evolution of DNA/RNA molecules at the heart of things. People who do not at all understand the molecular level of biology always make the mistake of looking at things from too far away to even begin to understand.

Come on because you and I don't agree I am wrong ? you have offered no explanation to show what I say is wrong.

I'll show you one more time animals where their genes become fixed purebreeds only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Google

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

Its proof that you can restrict the gene pool faster than evolution can expand it, thats about all purebreds are proof of.

Your a fucking moron.

Remember the german shephard we talked about? This is how a pure bred works.

A breeder identifies a dog they like, with desireable traits. And then mates that dog with another. Then they inbreed the children, and so much that they can get a large litter. Horand-the-german-shephard had like 84 grand children. All pure-bred german shephards are descendants of this family.

Random mutations still occur in the DNA replication of these dogs, just like any other organism. The only difference is we wouldnt even see the effect of those over the 100 or so years that the german shephard breed has existed, while in that same time we can easily constrict breeded and create a distinct lineage. So please stop mentioning purebreds, its annoying arguing about something thats entirely irrelevant and frankly exposes your ignorance.

Getit?

 

[LOki]

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.

When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION in the species' gene pool.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

All organisms experience mutations but yet we don't see new morpohlogical change ,why ? If mutations are the answer for new genetic data.

Simply claiming that change isn't seen, doesn't mean change isn't seen.

When YOU claim change isn't seen, ... well Cupcake, it is just about as safe bet as you can get that change is in fact seen, and you are just exercising faith.

I am warning you a day will come where there will be a new theory for macro-evolution because mutations are a deadend.

And I am telling you, that until the day comes when you surmount your false and inexplicable presumption that there is a "Creator" or "Designer", your false and inexplicable explanations have NO INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY. They are STILL-BORN. They are a DEAD-END!

 

[LOki]

I'll show you one more time animals where their genes become fixed purebreeds only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Google

These are not purebreds. They are hybrids and they are not a sub-species or breed ... pure or otherwise.

How, HOW, HOW can you so persistently get your facts about genetics and taxonomy so very VERY VERY WRONG if you actually earned an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology?

ANSWER: You didn't earn an actually legitimate degree in molecular biology; you're a fraud.​

Did you really say you have a degree in molecular biology? INEXPLICABLE!

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.

Care to explain that, Mr. Bible-Degree-in-Bible-Molecular-Bible-Biology?

Another delivered

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

 

[cbirch2]

YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
i'll wait.

Does anyone believe that? Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.

Tired of the insults lets see if you can do better then your buddies.

1.
How did life originate? So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

First evolution is totally independent of abiogensis. The histories of the theories are different, they were derived separately, they are separate topics that operate without eachother. The same goes for the big bang.

But it forms the same way a viroid forms. We would be having a discussion about this if you would pay attention and answer my questions. If you include a virus as life, life is just a sequence of DNA or RNA that is replicated in the presence of certain enzymes. Contain that in a lipid membrane, which form spontaneously in water, and you have a self contained replicating process.

2.
How did the DNA code originate? What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

Naturally Occurring Acid-Soluble Nucleotides - Chemical Reviews (ACS Publications)

3.
How could mutations accidental copying mistakes DNA letters exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Again, your making this more complicated than it has to be. Just read a book or something.

Imagine a virus infects a cell with 3,000 genes and inserts 100 genes into it. Those genes dont do anything in the cell but survive as an Endogenous Retro Virus. imagine the cell asexually reproduces, now all its offspring have 3,100 genes but still most likely the same function as before. But throughout many generations of that lineage random mutations take place on that ERV as well; after all, the ERV is still a sequence of nucleotides that code for a protein. Eventually the ERV will be distorted, may produce a different protein structure with a different function, and may change something about that organisms life. See (according to some biologists): The placenta

So information doesnt have to be added at the same time as a beneficial mutation. The addition of information is easy. The beneficial mutation part is more rare. Yet so many offspring are produce constantly in any given population, that they are inevitable. In a culture of bacteria, every mutation that is viable from the base template will probably happen over the course of a few years.

5.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection -- see "Evolution of new metabolic pathways"

6.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Wow.

My toast looks like the virgin mary. Prove it was not toasted by jesus.

7.
How did multi cellular life originate? How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ,fitness for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?

Sexual reproduction provides diversity to a population. There are plenty of bacteria that can undergo both asexual and sexual reproduction. In fact, most exclusively undergo asexual reproduction, and switch to sexual reproduction in harsh climates. Which would support the idea that sexual reproduction arose to provide diversity in a harsh climate.

Multicellular organisms would be explainable to anyone that knows anything about molecular biology. Cells just communicate by excreting chemicals. When i was in biology in college i had to review a scientific article about this very topic, in which a cell excretes a chemical as a part of its natural processes (independent of the whole colony of bacteria), but nevertheless the end result is that the surrounding cells react in a way similar to a multicellular organism.

Multicellular life isnt that much more complicated than eukaryotic life, just another evolutionary step.

9.
Why are the expected countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Well certainly not every skeleton is fossilized, and we dont find them all by any account.

But

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(A few) transitional fossils

10.
How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Well evolution doesnt say humans came from a worm. You cant just pick any animal any say humans came from it. Mmk? Learn the actual predicted lineage.

But really, its obvious to anyone that can work through in their mind how this works. Evolution says some fish eventually became terapods, and grew the ability to walk on primitive limbs. Does it say all fish decided to do that? No, that would be pretty strange if that happened to every species of fish. Rather, each population adapts to its local environment. Usually living fossils live in very isolated environments. And of course they arent genetically identical to the ones that existed millions of years ago, theres would be no way to make that assertion.

So evolution does not prohibit "living fossils". A school of fish living in an underwater cavern cannot turn into a human, no matter how long its given. It probably wont even turn into a terapod in a billion years. There are no evolutionary pressures in these isolated and extreme environments to drive any sort of significant natural selection, nor is there the ability to isolate and speciate. Living fossils are in fact quite in line with evolution, we find them in the exact environments evolution would predict.

This even made news a few weeks ago

11.
How did blind chemistry create mind-intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Wow now you dont understand how the brain works?

Neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dendrite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the one that is relevant on the most basic level:
Ion transporter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of your higher thought breaks down to these basic levels. Even morality

If you want to talk about the evolution of the brain, i would love to talk about that too. Why do you think our lower brain is called the reptilian brain?

12.
Why is evolutionary just so story telling tolerated?

Idk it probably does sound like stories to someone that is learning biology and chemistry at the same time hes learning about evolution. You dont understand evolution because you dont understand chemistry or biology.

13.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Well first, something doesnt have to be immediately applicable to be true. The formation of general relativity was pretty pointless to the average person until we went to space.

And second, ever heard of penicillin and amoxicillin?

 

[daws101]

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

The scientific community considers creation science to be pseudoscience which "does not use any scientific reasoning."[85] Consequently, scientific and scholarly organizations, including United States National Academy of Sciences, the Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism.[86] As a result, the National Center for Science Education, a science advocacy group, criticize AiG's promotion of non-science.[87][88][89] In direct response to AiG, No Answers in Genesis is a website maintained by members of the Australian Skeptics and retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting claims made by AiG.[90] In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff accepted an invitation for an online debate[91] with representatives from the Australian Skeptics in Margo Kingston's section of the Sydney Morning Herald.[92] Also the website talk.origins includes scientific responses to claims made by AiG's authors.[93]

The Louisville Courier-Journal reported, "Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum launched a joint promotional deal last week to draw attention to their holiday attractions."[7] But following an outcry of criticism, the zoo ended the relationship after two days.


"...be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers."
--Saint Augustine

~~~~~~

"Evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses
small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
--An Introduction to Evolution, from Understanding Evolution (see link immediately below)

No Answers in Genesis

 

[daws101]

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 KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
i'll wait.

Does anyone believe that? Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.

no it's just a fun way to watch the bullshit pile up.

 

[daws101]

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

"Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to his ‘museum’ may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will leave misled and intellectually deceived,” said Dr. Kevin Padian, professor and curator, University of California, Berkeley and president of the National Center for Science Education.

Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum

 

[Youwerecreated]

YOU KEEP SAYING YOU HAVE A molecular biology DEGREE! SHOW US IT AND THE SCHOOL YOU GOT IT FROM
i'll wait.

Does anyone believe that? Really, that poster has less understanding of biology than a third grader.

no it's just a fun way to watch the bullshit pile up.

Yeah you guys have laid it on kinda thick.

Big pile of pooh.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink it.

A day will come that we will clearly see who was right

 

[LOki]

You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink it.

A day will come that we will clearly see who was right

TRANSLATION:

Your surrender is accepted. Dismissed.