Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If gays aren't part of god's plan, why do animals throughout the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual tendencies? Out of choice? Everyone? Do you personally know a gay person who's being gay by choice?They are designed to work together you foolish, blind man. That is the indication it is not part of God's plan. Also, answer me this, why do gay men go for men that act like women? Why do lesbians choose women that look like dudes? Again, more libtard logic. If you are biologically gay, then shouldn't you be attracted to members of the same sex that embody the behavioral characteristics of that sex? Also, the over the top flamboyant behavior isn't genetic. It is purposefully put on. The emphasis on their esses is purposeful as well. Their speech isn't genetic.
Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.
Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
Not a single person gay person I know has been abused as a child.
I wasn't talking to you. You are just noise. You continue with the same baiting techniques like claiming there are no peer reviewed studies and that ID doesn't have a hypothesis when this has been proven to you over 10 times, but yet you still pathetically attempt the same stupid statements to get my attention. Are you really that desperate? Don't you see how no one is responding to you anymore? You're post are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Of course, like a child, you just want attention, even if it is negative attention, from me, so now you can get all excited again.
I'm gay and I don't know anyone who's been abused as a child. Well, actually I do, but she's not gay.
So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan? Was it god? No? Then wtf?
So are you ever going to say who decided that gays aren't in god's plan?
No. Charles Darwin was by no means a primitive human.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Primitive human would thus apply to the modern day creationist. With the availability of knowledge and machinery we are equipped with and not used by the creationist, theyre looking quite primitive.
Why do you think Ann Gauger from the Disco 'tute would need to produce false and misleading photos of herself in a "lab" that she never entered?
It seems like a lie. Isn't the creationist rather primitive according to your description? Afterall, they're caling themselves "creation scientists" yet they do no research, publish no peer reviewed material and perform no field investigations.
I think "Charlatan" is the term I'm looking for.
While indeed we are still in the discovery phase of individual genes' roles, we know for a fact that over the course of millions of years, many genes become superfluous, since other forces are at play which turn them on and off, and many are no longer turned on ... such as the gene for our tails.
We know that conclusively since a simple plant, while far less complex than a human, has much longer gene strands, since plants have been around longer than we have, despite the 6-day, rest on the 7th day, myth, which has proven to be utter bunk.
And any book that starts off wrong, is likely to be wrong throughout. The Bible is thus highly unreliable.
Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.
No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
Ywc, you are claiming that beneficial mutations can't happen. I want to know, how are you rationally deducing this? As far as I can tell, you are simply using induction from what you've seen. This is flawed in making a conclusion such as you have.
I have answered this question many times.
You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
I have answered this question many times.
You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.
Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.
Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski
Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.
Adaptation With Beneficial Genetic Mutation
This from a Creation Website no doubt!
CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation
CCR5
Yet another Creation Website:
Sickle-Cell Anemia: Example of a "Beneficial Mutation"?
Now you were saying? About their being no beneficial mutations.
Prime example of a vivid imagination at play. Just because you were taught this nonsense it must be a fact, correct ? Please let's get back on topic how mutations provide beneficial change to an organism and mutation fixation.
No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
No. I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today. In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet. The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
No. The many facts (all known) lead to theories so valid as to be widely recognized truths.
So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
No. I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today. In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet. The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
I have answered this question many times.
You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.
I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.
Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
There are 2 million plus christians do any promote common sense?
There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
Not trying to be rude,just being honest with you. I once was branwashed as many are today by the school system.
There are far more than 2 million Christians and of course they do, you're talking to one. I just asked you a common sense question and you failed miserably with your response.
Sure he was,compared to the modern day scientist and the knowledge and machinery we are equipped with of course he was.
Primitive human would thus apply to the modern day creationist. With the availability of knowledge and machinery we are equipped with and not used by the creationist, theyre looking quite primitive.
Why do you think Ann Gauger from the Disco 'tute would need to produce false and misleading photos of herself in a "lab" that she never entered?
It seems like a lie. Isn't the creationist rather primitive according to your description? Afterall, they're caling themselves "creation scientists" yet they do no research, publish no peer reviewed material and perform no field investigations.
I think "Charlatan" is the term I'm looking for.
Yep that applies to all early science they were limited by their knowledge which begs the question,how did the bible get so many scientific questions right with limited knowledge,hmm.
Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
And that is why there are more Christian scientists today than there were?Crackedskull,there are 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations so you still think mutations promote fitness ?
We know they do.
How sad for the fundies that there is no affirmative evidence available to support belief in gawds. The fundies are left to hopeless and failed attacks on science in vain hopes of placating their amazing, shrinking gawds.
So you do accept design as a viable theory because of the evidence seen in nature ?
No. I see the obvious: random changes, leading to what we have today. In fact, random is merely different; and whether it proves advantageous is merely by chance, and can prove non-advantageous when changes in environment occur.
Proof of this is that speciaes alive today, represent about 1% of the species that evolved, by chance, on this planet. The other 99% proved failures, by chance.
As in with random chance I might win the lottery ?
