Creationists

[LOki]

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

Obviously what we have here is a thoroughly indoctrinated simpleton who demands that the ontological differentiation of the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution propagated by pulpitarians take precedence over the legitimate differentiation expressed by vetted geneticists.

The problem Creationists face when confronted by the verifiable facts of reality is that there is abundant evidence supporting the claim that change in genotype (even those caused by mutation) can lead to change in phenotype. Hence, the Creationist's disingenuous persistence in applying their own vague meanings to terms already understood by others as a means to disguise their self-indicting lack of courage in their certainty of the objective validity of their convictions.

The burden of the issue, none-the-less, fully belongs to these superstitious Creationist asshats who are obligated explain why, of all the ways that change in genotype verifiably lead to change in phenotype, the one exception to the well established and agreed upon relationship between genotype and phenotype is mutation.

We might hope that this should keep them silently busy forever. But, we should be careful to not underestimate the strength of the Creationist's biological imperative to inflict their superstitious folly upon the world; to the annoyance of the population of intellectually honest, rational human beings.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

Consistent with the axiomatic requirement of the superstitious to deny all evidence in contradiction to their baseless preconceptions, this shameless devotee to a specious postulate simply denies the plenitude of evidence that change in genotype verifiably leads to change in phenotype, and that the divergences of phenotype that so often indicate different species, different genera, different families, different orders, etc..., are directly the result of divergences (or differences, arrived at by any or all of the well established and documented mechanisms) of genotype.

A stolid commitment to ignorance is the only explanation for the impudent claim these retards make, that what they practice is legitimate science.

 

[koshergrl]

I apparently am ... for considering for one moment that you might have some intellectual integrity.

Well, I actually proved I didn't lie, and you're now proving that you're the idiot.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

Despite having every opportunity to substantiate your accusations with direct quotes and explanations, you didn't--the honest reason is that you can't.

You're a closed-minded idiot who lacks the intellectual integrity to admit she's wrong when it has been demonstrated to her.

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

Of course; justly earned ad-hominem attack, but not ad-hominem argument; certainly not application of the logical fallacy you so habitually practice.

This is a deliberate denial of verifiable reality. It is prima-facie evidence of your pathological projection; your pathetic attempt to deny your unmistakable lack of moral and intellectual integrity.

Who I guess doesn't know what the word "lie" means, or "proof" for that matter, which is sad.

This person, who doesn't know what the word(s) "lie" (or "proof") means, is clearly and unambiguously you.

You have made no substantive demonstration that I have deliberately asserted any misinformation regarding your claims. Meanwhile, I have unambiguously substantiated (with your very own behavior and self-indicting statements) the extent of the validity of the statements you referenced, and I offered my sincere and public apology to you where my misapprehensions led to misrepresentations of your claims. This is an indisputable fact of reality.

And in return for my ingenuousness toward you, you maliciously declare that I'm an idiot and fling the unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a liar.

Considering the abundant evidence you provide, I cannot imagine the rational basis upon which you might consider yourself to be a credit to Christianity, and an affirmative example of Christian moral integrity.

You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.

Utterly meaningless to any fact of reality about me. Yet still, unambiguous evidence that I am entirely correct regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm; which (in consideration of this evidence) I will amend to, "Your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm."

The next time you are inspired to express your objections about the way "non-believers, scoffers, persecuters (sic)", react to your example of Christian behavior, you might benefit from a pause to consider the role your example plays in their evaluation of Christians and Christianity; you might consider Jesus' evaluation of your example.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, you can just go eat a bag of shit.

ENJOY!

Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Retard,you should read his book he destroys the modern day theory of evolution ,that is neo darwinism.

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

That is what you dummys extrapolate from to try and show macroevolurion.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population. If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.



We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population. If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.



We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.

No what has been proven is adaptations have allowed organisms to survive and reproduce. What has not been proven is these adaptations allowed an animal over time to change in to something new. It has not been proven whether the information that was brought out to adapt was there all along.

The burden of proof is on your side to prove these adaptations lead to macro-evolution.

If natural selection was the cause through mutations why is it that things that show no evolution are still around ? The things that evolved because of natural selection are still here and so are the organisms that they evolved from,why ?

Does that make any sense at all if natural selection eliminates the weaker organisms that could not adapt ? and that is why others had to evolve to survive According to your theory.

But that is not what is seen we see organisms suddenly appearing in the fossil record and no gradualism at all.


natural selection
noun











Definition of NATURAL SELECTION



: a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environm

Why do they say producing more offspring,you mean our ancestors stopped producing offspring ?

So what are they saying ?

Definition for survival of the fittest:




Web definitions:




survival: a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment.

Now we know better adapted organisms survive but why did others evolve if there was no pressure on the ancestors to survive they are still here in many cases ?

The theory makes no sense,especially when you look at the fossil record.

 

[Youwerecreated]

See folks, what Youwerecreated fails to take note of is that his hero here, literally fails to "destroys the modern day theory of evolution" with his notion of magical signals from the environment choosing beneficial mutations. It's a laugh.

I like to see this candid admission that a superstitious retard has finally accepted that evolution is a well established fact.

MICROEVOLUTION. A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers in a population.

...​

MACROEVOLUTION is a large amount of evolutionary change involving many elementary changes in gene proportions: the sum of many microevolutionary steps over a very large time-scale.​

Since microevolution and macroevolution describe the same processes on different scales, we can all agree that Youwerecreated believes in macroevolution as well, bringing him finally up to date with 10th grade Biology.

Well what do you know? Stupid really is forever, or Slowcoach has some explaining to do--the least this asshat could do is provide those with an education in evolutionary genetics with some precise and meaningful definitions of his terms.

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population. If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.



We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.

Common sense it what my views are based in.

 

[konradv]

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

I think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation. You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations. WHY???

 

[LOki]

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem.

Of course; justly earned ad-hominem attack, but not ad-hominem argument; certainly not application of the logical fallacy you so habitually practice.

This is a deliberate denial of verifiable reality. It is prima-facie evidence of your pathological projection; your pathetic attempt to deny your unmistakable lack of moral and intellectual integrity.

This person, who doesn't know what the word(s) "lie" (or "proof") means, is clearly and unambiguously you.

You have made no substantive demonstration that I have deliberately asserted any misinformation regarding your claims. Meanwhile, I have unambiguously substantiated (with your very own behavior and self-indicting statements) the extent of the validity of the statements you referenced, and I offered my sincere and public apology to you where my misapprehensions led to misrepresentations of your claims. This is an indisputable fact of reality.

And in return for my ingenuousness toward you, you maliciously declare that I'm an idiot and fling the unsubstantiated accusation that I'm a liar.

Considering the abundant evidence you provide, I cannot imagine the rational basis upon which you might consider yourself to be a credit to Christianity, and an affirmative example of Christian moral integrity.

You're an example of the biblical truth about non-believers, scoffers, persecuters, and those who think they're *wise* but continually miss the point and actuall strengthen my faith.

Utterly meaningless to any fact of reality about me. Yet still, unambiguous evidence that I am entirely correct regarding your failure to accept the intellectual dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm; which (in consideration of this evidence) I will amend to, "Your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm."

The next time you are inspired to express your objections about the way "non-believers, scoffers, persecuters (sic)", react to your example of Christian behavior, you might benefit from a pause to consider the role your example plays in their evaluation of Christians and Christianity; you might consider Jesus' evaluation of your example.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, you can just go eat a bag of shit.

ENJOY!

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Your persistent paucity of substantive response is just further evidence of your commitment to venomous mendacity.

 

[koshergrl]

When you provide something worthy of a substantive response, I'll provide it. Until then, your own posts do more to illuminate your idiocy and dishonesty than anything I could ever say...

 

[MoistTrout]

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

Meh. It baffles me.

Maybe the same way some people believe the government taking more money away from people will help the economy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

I think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation. You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations. WHY???

This is a good question i will let this article explain it.

Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.

This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and science has proven that this is not the case. Primitive life forms have far less genetic material than more complex animals such as a mammal. Gould’s leap of faith also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today. Moving from a warm weather climate to a cold weather climate doesn’t trigger a different type of offspring.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change. There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present. Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendents of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

Hybrids are often used as examples of how simple it is for evolution to change the DNA of plants or animals. You can cross pollinate two types of tomato plants to produce a new tomato plant that produces larger fruit. There are three problems with how evolutionists interpret this observation. The first problem is the most obvious; nature is not making a change, human intelligence is forcing the change and must prevent nature from reverting back. Second, the next generation of seeds is both sterile and unable to reproduce, or it reverts back to an inferior fruit. The third problem is that you are not taking on new information; you are combining two plants that already possess the necessary information and have compatible DNA structures. For evolution to be possible, there must be new information added that did not previously exist. In other words, information must come into the existing genetic material without any pre-arranged order, combine with the DNA that is already present and create a new or better code than that which already existed. If newly added information is garbled, the DNA that existed would be useless. If it was inserted in the wrong place or in the wrong order, the plant or animal produced would die or be completely dysfunctional. For example, a microbe would need to somehow acquire enough information through millions of errorless mutations that added to its DNA, which would enable it to become a fish. A fish would have to get the new information that did not previously exist to form a lung, then feet, feathers and so on. The problem is that science does not observe mutations that add to the information, but rather just the opposite. It is a loss of information that occurs when mutations occur. Natural selection is a good example of this.

Survival of the fittest is what thins out the gene pool; it does not increase or add to the genetic data. Natural selection does open the door for adaptation and changes within a species, but it accomplishes just the opposite of what is necessary for evolution. When natural selection occurs, the species that have certain traits are often weeded out. If Darwin had been correct in his observation and the Galapagos Island finches permanently weeded out the shorter beaked finches, they have not added to the gene pool, but they have subtracted genetic code and would no longer have the information necessary to produce offspring that has a shorter beak. Natural selection and evolution work against each other. Natural selection does sometimes make changes within a species, but the progression is downward and not upward – and the species does not become a new species, but rather a variation of the old. A permanent change is a loss of information, but evolution requires the addition of new information. In science we can clearly observe that when a species has a trait that the environment challenges, those who have this trait are weeded out. What has never been observed in science is the addition of new information. Even if an example should be found to have happened by chance, it doesn't help the evolution cause. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We don't observe this happening. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species.

Richard Dawkins is arguably the most influential proponent of evolution today. In a debate, he was asked to provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science. After a long silence, he passed by the question. He later rebutted the question with a three page argument but never addressed this original question and he did not provide one example. Even environmental adaptations harm the evolution belief system. When the environment changes and those animals that have traits that prevent them from surviving, there is not an increase of information, but a loss of genetic code.

Even microscopic evolution shows this problem. We have all heard about the ‘super germs’ that have grown resistant to antibiotics. In reality, they are weak germs. Bacteria that is resistant to drugs are usually destroyed by other organisms. For example, bacterium that has mutated so that it no longer pipes in the toxins that would normally destroy it are weaker than other bacteria because they also cannot pipe in the nutrients that are needed to flourish. It may fail to produce enzymes that enable it to resist the drugs, but this also becomes a crippling factor that limits its survival. The very mutations that make it resistant also make it vulnerable and weak.

These issues render change by micro-evolution impossible thus leaving macro-evolution as the only stand that evolutionists can take, and all the evidence clearly disputes the concept of macro-evolution. The fossil records show zero gradual change. Species in existence today show no change from the fossils that supposedly date back hundreds of millions of years. Interdependency also renders evolution an impossibility. Nature is filled with species that are completely dependent on other species. If one species cannot survive without another, evolution becomes an illogical deduction. There are also interdependencies between plants and animals. If a plant is dependent on an animal and an animal is dependent on that specific plant, the two would have to emerge from the evolutionary change at the exact same time and place. One generation later is too late.

Don’t mistake micro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. They are not related. When a Christian says they do not believe in evolution, it is not a reference to changes in specific traits. It is a reference to changes that require crossing the DNA limitations. When the facts stare evolutionists in the face, they are reduced to either insulting those who present the evidence or they must admit their world view doesn’t hold water. Evolutionists always call Christians and creationists non-thinkers because we question their illogical theories. Critical analysis is not un-intellectual, but it is unreasonable to refuse to honestly look at the whole picture painted when all the facts are presented. When someone builds their belief system around a godless world view, it leaves the realm of science and becomes a religious defense. Anyone who gets angry at the facts is not defending science, but is defending their hope that God does not exist and their hope that there is no God in which we are accountable.

What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

I think it's up to your side to show why micro-adaptations, piled one upon the other, would not eventually lead to macro-adaptation. You admit they occur, but seem to reject the additive effect of many micro-adaptations. WHY???

I am not the one making the claim that micro-adaptations cause one family of organisms to change into a new destinct family from a prior family,that is your side making the claim but i did offer an article that explains why.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No it is up to your side to show that mutations lead to the major changes of macro-evolution.

You just did what i said your side does many times you extrapolate from the evidence of micro-adaptations as evidence for macro-evolution. There is a major difference in showing small changes within a family versus the change from one family to a destinct new family.

Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population. If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.



We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.

Common sense it what my views are based in.

Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species. I can't dumb it down any further than that.

 

[LOki]

When you provide something worthy of a substantive response, I'll provide it. Until then, your own posts do more to illuminate your idiocy and dishonesty than anything I could ever say...

There is just no penetrating your resolute denial of verifiable reality. BRAVO!!!! I take my hat of to the impressive magnitude of your dumb.

You literally stare -eyes wide open- at the undeniable substantiations I've posted by directly quoting the public record of your indisputable lack of moral and intellectual integrity, and just casually declare, " Nope. Don't see it. It's not there. You're the idiot. You're the liar. " Just ...... fascinating!

It's as if you have no idea that you enthusiastically posted your personal brand of stoic stupidity somewhere that's available for scrutiny and witness by just about everybody.

Again, .... :standing ovation: .... BRAVO, RETARD, BRAVO!!!

 

[koshergrl]

They aren't undeniable at all.

And..again, do you ever listen to yourself? You really should, because you come across as a pontificating blow hard...all that flowery verbage..and yet you say nada. It's just noise. And it tickles my editorial funny bone.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our side has already proven that mutations can be beneficial in a population. If something is beneficial to individuals in a species it increases their chances to survive and increases their chances to mate.



We're dropping below biology, and now we're just trying to get you to have common sense.

Common sense it what my views are based in.

Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species. I can't dumb it down any further than that.

Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?

msnbc.com Video Player

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.

Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).


Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

 

[Dr.Drock]

Common sense it what my views are based in.

Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species. I can't dumb it down any further than that.

Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?

msnbc.com Video Player

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.

Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).


Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

Where does it say DNA was extracted? DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.


You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.


That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species. I can't dumb it down any further than that.

Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?

msnbc.com Video Player

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.

Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).


Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

Where does it say DNA was extracted? DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.


You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.


That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.

Blood cells are DNA.

Read the article.

By the way it should not last 70 million years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well please use the common sense that says benefitical mutations would benefit individuals in a species. I can't dumb it down any further than that.

Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?

msnbc.com Video Player

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.

Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).


Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

Where does it say DNA was extracted? DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.


You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.


That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.

WASHINGTON — March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.

It was recovered dinosaur DNA — the blueprint for life — that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."

The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.

The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.

"The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.

Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.


Advertise | AdChoices



Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."

"You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.

Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.

Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.

Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.

She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.

She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.

The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

 

[daws101]

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

list them!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Use your common sense,Can you explain how blood cells are found in a 70 million year old T-rex when DNA only last best a 100,000 years ? Do evolutionist need to move the goalposts again ?

msnbc.com Video Player

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which can be used to create many copies of an initially small number of molecules. The researchers used PCR to amplify and extract many short strands of mtDNA from the Neandertal sample. By overlapping these, they were able to generate a sequence of 379 bases apparently from the Neandertal individual. To protect against errors and contamination, each base was extracted in at least two separate amplifications. The sequence was extracted from a section of the mtDNA genome known as the hypervariable region 1 (HVR1), so-called because that section of the genome accumulates mutations more rapidly than most of the genome and hence is particularly useful in distinguishing between different populations.

Krings et al. then compared this sequence against a database of 994 different mtDNA sequences from modern humans. For the sequence of mtDNA in question, humans on average differ from each other in 8 +/- 3.1 positions (the '3.1' represents one standard deviation). The greatest difference between any two modern humans was 24, and the smallest difference was 1 (because duplicates were removed from the database).


Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

Where does it say DNA was extracted? DNA and soft tissue aren't the same thing.


You babble about moving goal posts, right after you deflect from our mutation discussion.


That ploy used to be cute the first dozen times I saw you use, but now it's just annoying.

WASHINGTON — March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.

It was recovered dinosaur DNA — the blueprint for life — that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."

The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.

The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.

"The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.

Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.


Advertise | AdChoices



Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."

"You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.

Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.

Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.

Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.

She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.

She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.

The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links? You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.


Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.


Thank you.