Creationists

[koshergrl]

That's a great opinion. Now do as you're asked and provide the verification that it's true.

I won't wait, because of course that verification doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.

 

[LOki]

You once again show you have no idea what you're talking about.

If beneficial mutations are not supposedly the engine of evolution where do you get the new information for macro-evolution ?

Here let me help you,according to your theory.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.

2. then natural selection helps the mutant spread through the population.

3. then the magic ingredient is added to make it possible,long ages for it to happen to long to be observed. That's not science.

What neo teaches is mutations+natural selection=Neo darwinian macro-evolution.

No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.

Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.

Absolutely false. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!

Here is what I believe the DNA code barrier+Gene depletion+natural selection prevents zero macro-evolution.

Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?

Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr

Opposable thumbs.

And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Wrong never denied this, ...

You deny it every single time you say mutation cannot lead to speciation.

... listen dummy what do you think happens with mutations ?

I think there's a change in genetic information. Don't you?

when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.

It's also documented that beneficial mutations cause more benefit that harm. Don't you agree?

You have been brainwashed to believe that traits change through mutations thats not true ,...

Well, you have yet to demonstrate how genotype is unrelated to phenotype.

... traits change through sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction.

Not where there's no change in the genotype that codes for the trait in question. Or are you about to level up and admit you believe magic causes the change in traits expressed?

This is where we go back to the genes of each parent decide what the offspring will look like and be.

Not if, as you assert, a difference in the genetic information can not express as a difference in the trait.

Your ignorance is a beautiful thing to watch.

I seem to rather well informed compared to you.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dragon]

what do you think happens with mutations ? when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.

No. What's been documented is that more harmful than beneficial mutations occur. That does NOT mean that mutations cause more harm than benefit. You still don't understand the role played by natural selection, which is further evidenced by your incorrect appraisal of it as "spreading mutations throughout the population."

Natural selection acts as a filter. It stops harmful mutations from being passed on to future generations. Because of natural selection, mutation does more good than harm, even though more harmful than beneficial mutations occur.

Let's say we have, on average, three mutations occurring per generation in a population. Of those, let's say that nine out of ten are harmful and one out of ten is beneficial. Here's how it would work over the course of nine generations. I'm using a random number generator to determine beneficial/harmful mutations.

First generation: 3 mutations, all harmful. Total in this generation: 3H/0B

Now natural selection goes to work. The three individuals with the harmful mutations die before they can pass on their altered genes.

Second generation: 3 mutations, 1 beneficial, 2 harmful. Total in this generation: 1B/2H.

Because natural selection killed the three harmful mutations from the prior generation, only the current two remain in the gene pool, along with the one beneficial mutation.

Third generation: 3 mutations, 2 harmful, 1 beneficial. Total in this generation: 2B/2H.

So far over three generations, we've seen 7 harmful mutations and only two beneficial ones. Yet this generation shows equal benefit and harm. Why? Because natural selection pruned out the harmful generations from the past. It also prunes out these current two harmful mutations, not allowing them to be passed on to the next generation.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th generations each had 3 harmful and no beneficial mutations. For each one of them, the total is 3H/2B, because again, all of the harmful mutations are screened out by natural selection; the only ones that manifest are the ones occurring in the current generations. No harmful mutations are passed on.

9th generation: 3 mutations, 2 beneficial, 1 harmful. Total in this generation: 4B/1H.

Now look at this. We've had a total of 27 mutations so far, and of those 23 were harmful and only 4 beneficial. Yet this generation shows the effect of those 4 beneficial mutations and only 1 harmful mutation! Why? Natural selection again: it weeded out all the harmful mutations from past generations so that they were not passed on. Only the beneficial mutations are left.

This is how it works.

 

[LOki]

You can take it up with YAHWEH when he appears on your door step.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

You are entirely wrong.

Even if I am entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

You have a poor understanding of genetics and what they do and how they spread through the population.

Even if you're right, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[Dragon]

That's a great opinion. Now do as you're asked and provide the verification that it's true.

The formation of crystals - crystal shapes, composition and structure

Start with that.

 

[LOki]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Creationist: The Bible says so.

Skeptic: Who wrote the Bible?

Creationist: God.

Skeptic: How do you know he did?

Creationist: The Bible says so.

And on and on ad nauseum.

Agreed,but there are things contained in the bible that man did not know at the time of the writing of the bible that leads you to believe those men were inspired by someone superior.

Man has failed in trying to show all things are a product of a natural process. They are going on faith to hold such a view.

Evolutionists assert qualified certainties based upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Creationists assert absolute certainties based upon unverifiable evidence and invalid logic. And superstitious retards like you dishonestly assert your absolute certainties based upon your intentionally applied falsehoods and invalid logic.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Also Youwerecreated, even if I and every proponent of actual evolution, or even the strawman versions you invent, are all entirely wrong and we have no idea what we're talking about, .... it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Look how parents genes have an effect on the offspring the genetics not mutations.

Beefalo image by snowyridgeranch on Photobucket

Redirect Notice

Redirect Notice

It's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[koshergrl]

What is the question this time? My experience has been that you are the one who's dishonest, and generally that dishonesty is reflected in the very accusations you level...so my guess is that you've refused to answer a question and so have created another scenario.

Give me the question. And don't waste my time with long convoluted bloviating...just the question, please. I'm sick of listening to your long winded self-aggrandizing bullshit.

 

[koshergrl]

Funny how the timing of that ignore worked out...Dragon now has me on ignore, just in time to prevent him from answering the question.

Go figure.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Would you like to provide proof of something complex spontaneously developing itself ?

"Spontaneously developing itself" is the wrong phrase. "Developing without being planned deliberately by a conscious intelligence" is the right one.

All forms of life. Also, the planet Earth. Also, the solar system. Also, anything complex in nature. Complexity does not require intelligence.

What is your evidence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. You have just demonstrated that despite having it explained, to you over and over again, that you are wrong ... you insist upon spreading you dishonest misrepresentations.

Correct. The strawman version of "evolution" you have created does not work. That's not in dispute. It never has been.

Absolutely false. NATURAL SELECTION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTION, YOU RETARD!

Here's what you believe: Changes in genotype do not result in changes in phenotype.

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And, now that your questions have been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Alright genius then point to one mutation that has been allowed to spread through the human population through natural selection ?

Remember these mutations must be found in the whole population For macro-evolution to occurr

Opposable thumbs.

And, now that your question has been answered again, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

What is your proof again ?

 

[koshergrl]

There is no evidence, any more than there's any direct evidence of God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

what do you think happens with mutations ? when mutations cause change they cause more harm then benefit. It's documented.

No. What's been documented is that more harmful than beneficial mutations occur. That does NOT mean that mutations cause more harm than benefit. You still don't understand the role played by natural selection, which is further evidenced by your incorrect appraisal of it as "spreading mutations throughout the population."

Natural selection acts as a filter. It stops harmful mutations from being passed on to future generations. Because of natural selection, mutation does more good than harm, even though more harmful than beneficial mutations occur.

Let's say we have, on average, three mutations occurring per generation in a population. Of those, let's say that nine out of ten are harmful and one out of ten is beneficial. Here's how it would work over the course of nine generations. I'm using a random number generator to determine beneficial/harmful mutations.

First generation: 3 mutations, all harmful. Total in this generation: 3H/0B

Now natural selection goes to work. The three individuals with the harmful mutations die before they can pass on their altered genes.

Second generation: 3 mutations, 1 beneficial, 2 harmful. Total in this generation: 1B/2H.

Because natural selection killed the three harmful mutations from the prior generation, only the current two remain in the gene pool, along with the one beneficial mutation.

Third generation: 3 mutations, 2 harmful, 1 beneficial. Total in this generation: 2B/2H.

So far over three generations, we've seen 7 harmful mutations and only two beneficial ones. Yet this generation shows equal benefit and harm. Why? Because natural selection pruned out the harmful generations from the past. It also prunes out these current two harmful mutations, not allowing them to be passed on to the next generation.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th generations each had 3 harmful and no beneficial mutations. For each one of them, the total is 3H/2B, because again, all of the harmful mutations are screened out by natural selection; the only ones that manifest are the ones occurring in the current generations. No harmful mutations are passed on.

9th generation: 3 mutations, 2 beneficial, 1 harmful. Total in this generation: 4B/1H.

Now look at this. We've had a total of 27 mutations so far, and of those 23 were harmful and only 4 beneficial. Yet this generation shows the effect of those 4 beneficial mutations and only 1 harmful mutation! Why? Natural selection again: it weeded out all the harmful mutations from past generations so that they were not passed on. Only the beneficial mutations are left.

This is how it works.

Let's use the proper term a positive mutation while I have said beneficial mutation but that is a bad term as i consider that article i posted. And I am still waiting for this mutation that has spread through the population through natural selection that can be proven ? Not something that is in a persons mind.

 

[LOki]

Genetics have always been a problem for evolutionist,they just are not willing to admit to variations within a family can be due to genetics.

Genetic aren't a problem for Evolutionists. Genetics have always been a problem for Creationists, because they just are not willing to admit to variations in phenotype can be EVER be due to ANY variations in genetics caused by mutations.

---DISINGENUOUSLY INVENTED STRAWMAN ASSERTIONS THOUGHTLESSLY CUT/PASTED BECAUSE RETARDS DON'T LINK SNIPPED---​

But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.

“EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM, FOR (probably not) THE LAST TIME. Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety.” From a debate on talkorigins.org

Ummm a little double talk. Well it also appears this is perilously close to evolution being an intelligent designer. But it is also a tautology or circular reasoning to say that “evolution causes random mutation” because evolutionists say random mutation causes evolution.

Note here that your intellectual hero possess the same lack of intellectual integrity that you do as he presents his strawman (this "amateur evolutionist"), and attacks his strawman's argument as if it was the very best argument that an informed evolutionist would make or defend.

You and this asshat both avoid the actual position that Evolution actually holds on mutation is more like, "Mutation is a source of change in genotype, that could lead naturally to change in phenotype."

The reason you fucktards avoid it is because it's far more difficult to refute than the strawmen you erect in its place.

Creationists believe in natural selection but we doubt the role mutations play in evolution and know if we can show that mutations cannot be part of the engine, then evolution will have lost its power.

A patently retarded and intentional misrepresentation offered as if Evolutionary Theory denies the influences genetic drift, transposition, recombination, and duplication on genetic variation.

Creationists like you project your dismissal of mutation on Evolutionists in the form of requiring them to dismiss everything but mutation. You're disingenuous douche-bags like that.

In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one.

See what I mean? This is a patent lie.

Evolutionists incorporate all of them.

The actual fact of the matter is that Creationists deny the validity of one type of mutation process, and that type of process is that which can successfully introduce new information into the genome to the organisms benefit. Whatever that (those) process(es) may be, doesn't exist. It can't, otherwise Creationists will have to resort to some other dishonestly retarded attempt at refuting evolution.

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy, manifested in your own continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny how the timing of that ignore worked out...Dragon now has me on ignore, just in time to prevent him from answering the question.

Go figure.

Eventually Loki will to.

Keeps showing his ignorance on simple reasoning.

I guess if he keeps saying someone is dishonest that everyone will believe him,while ducking questions or giving an opinion with nothing as far as evidence to support it.

Talk about a TROLL.

 

[LOki]

What is the question this time? My experience has been that you are the one who's dishonest, and generally that dishonesty is reflected in the very accusations you level...so my guess is that you've refused to answer a question and so have created another scenario.

Give me the question. And don't waste my time with long convoluted bloviating...just the question, please. I'm sick of listening to your long winded self-aggrandizing bullshit.

There's a link right to the question, you dope. It's been there all this time. You just couldn't click it?

 

[daws101]

Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods. As a state or condition, rather than a belief system or ideology, atheism doesn’t need to be "invented" or be "come up with" any more than being apolitical needs to be invented. It's simply the state that some people happen to be in, though for many religious believers it seems important to portray atheism as much more.

Scientists Invented Atheism? Did Scientists Come Up With Atheism Recently? Is Atheism the Belief that Species Appeared Out of Thin Air?

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no evidence, any more than there's any direct evidence of God.

Yes,and we are honest enough to say our belief is out of faith.