Darwin vs DNA

[Hollie]

Did you miss that if the questions were addressed they were answered with conjecture filled theories many that are not accepted by scientists.

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

You speak of conjecture filled theories not being accepted by scientists. I'm not clear what that means. You provide no indication of what theories were rejected and by which scientists.

Many don't accept macroevolution. Many don't accept the theory of Abiogenesis. Many don't accept the information theory that Dna came in to existence through natural processes. Many know that mutations destroy the origional genetic information not add to it.

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

 

[ima]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Youw, read this from Scientific American about random mutations and evolution, you'll learn something:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that organ be concentrated in the right places?: Scientific Ameri

 

[ima]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Youw, read this from Scientific American about random mutations and evolution, you'll learn something:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that organ be concentrated in the right places?: Scientific Ameri

 

[LOki]

The lack of verifiable evidence that God exists.

That evidence precisely.

What evidence is there that suggests there is no God ?

The same evidence to suggest there are no Leprechauns, Easter Bunnies and a host of Greek gods.

Indeed!

It's just hilarious that the superstitious so uniformly get bent all out of shape that I consider them a little bit retarded for their inability to recognize this point.

 

[LOki]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Because elsewhere, you are getting stuffed on your strawman/question-begging/special-pleading/superstitious premises.

Your surrender is accepted.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

Yes.

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

Yes.

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

No. Applying the arguably human trait of creativity to inanimate objects or imaginary intelligences belongs to the realm of superstition.

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

No. Applying the arguably human trait of creativity to inanimate objects or imaginary intelligences belongs to the realm of superstition.

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

No. The existence of information is self evident; it's discovery is the purpose of science--but the meaningfulness of information belongs to the realm of philosophy.

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

No. What's your point?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

^
He is a she, and:
Make a complex digital code, Jake.
My Peking ducks can mate with my mallards because they are related. Why can't we mate with your relatives, the chimps? I mean we're almost monkeys right? Should work.
Why can we use pig parts and cow parts, but our bodies reject monkey parts. How come?

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.
Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Lol. Now who doesn't want to argue?

Keep those blinders on, son. Willful ignorance is a virtue.

 

[LOki]

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

Scientific theories consist of fact. The term "theory" when used as part of the term "scientific theory" is different than the term "theory" when used in the common vernacular.

Only--and I mean ONLY--superstitious retards insist otherwise, despite having the difference explained to them (in crayon, as is usually necessary), as a means to discredit scientific method.

Youwerecreated, your credentials remain intact. Congratulations!

 

[LOki]

Did you miss that if the questions were addressed they were answered with conjecture filled theories many that are not accepted by scientists.

I'm talking hard facts not a theory,do you understand a theory is not a fact ?

You speak of conjecture filled theories not being accepted by scientists. I'm not clear what that means. You provide no indication of what theories were rejected and by which scientists.

Many don't accept macroevolution. Many don't accept the theory of Abiogenesis. Many don't accept the information theory that Dna came in to existence through natural processes. Many know that mutations destroy the origional genetic information not add to it.

I don't know how many you consider "many" to be. However, considering how intelligent design is not science, and intelligent design theorists are not scientists, "many" looks alot like "very few."

 

[Youwerecreated]

You speak of conjecture filled theories not being accepted by scientists. I'm not clear what that means. You provide no indication of what theories were rejected and by which scientists.

Many don't accept macroevolution. Many don't accept the theory of Abiogenesis. Many don't accept the information theory that Dna came in to existence through natural processes. Many know that mutations destroy the origional genetic information not add to it.

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

 

[amrchaos]

Many don't accept macroevolution. Many don't accept the theory of Abiogenesis. Many don't accept the information theory that Dna came in to existence through natural processes. Many know that mutations destroy the origional genetic information not add to it.

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

I have a question

Let say there is a mutation in an organism--does that mean all the organisms of that species also share that mutation? I tend to think not thus suggesting that you have few mutants that are trying to spread their genetic information and many more "original" organisms that share the majority of information with their ancestors. In competition for continuing their genetic information.

So how is it one can conclude that information is lost with the presence or arrival of a mutation? I don't see how this occurs since it is the continuance of the mutant strand that is in serious jeopardy here due to the lack of numbers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I said everything is definitely random? Holy shit, you might be too dumb to argue with.

I don't think you want to try if this is what you believe, that precision in nature is the result of chaos. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Precision in nature™ is yet another cliché furthered by the creationist ministries.
With regard to planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc. and with regard to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, etc., etc., just where is this Precision in nature™ that the creationist ministries blather on about?

Read up on the cell then come back and make such an ignorant comment. Maybe I should just provide some video's helping you to see the truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ&feature=related]Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8xhpXuXmpo&feature=related]The Living Cell - too complicated for chance "evolution" to make - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbd1-9ri2YM]Cell Complexity - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM]The Complexity of a Cell - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

I don't think you want to try if this is what you believe, that precision in nature is the result of chaos. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Precision in nature™ is yet another cliché furthered by the creationist ministries.
With regard to planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc. and with regard to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, etc., etc., just where is this Precision in nature™ that the creationist ministries blather on about?

Read up on the cell then come back and make such an ignorant comment. Maybe I should just provide some video's helping you to see the truth.

Because a cell is complicated it thus must have been designed by your gods?

Please, no more videos from creationist ministries and definitely nothing from Harun Yahya.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Precision in nature™ is yet another cliché furthered by the creationist ministries.
With regard to planetary bombardment by meteors, asteroids, etc. and with regard to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, etc., etc., just where is this Precision in nature™ that the creationist ministries blather on about?

Read up on the cell then come back and make such an ignorant comment. Maybe I should just provide some video's helping you to see the truth.

Because a cell is complicated it thus must have been designed by your gods?

Please, no more videos from creationist ministries and definitely nothing from Harun Yahya.

Watch atleast three but a must is the first video.

 

[LOki]

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

I have a question

Let say there is a mutation in an organism--does that mean all the organisms of that species also share that mutation? I tend to think not thus suggesting that you have few mutants that are trying to spread their genetic information and many more "original" organisms that share the majority of information with their ancestors. In competition for continuing their genetic information.

So how is it one can conclude that information is lost with the presence or arrival of a mutation? I don't see how this occurs since it is the continuance of the mutant strand that is in serious jeopardy here due to the lack of numbers.

Youwerecreated won't address this because he refuses to accept that there's a difference between "information" and "meaning." He demands that mutation ONLY destroys information. That's ALL it can do. It can't change information--oh no! It can't add information under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHAT-SO-EVER.

This is because he holds the ridiculously baseless presumption that any information that derives from mutation is NECESSARILY meaningless, hence destructive to information--because he declares it so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Youw's many are few, and those few are uneducated fools.

As if a Christian can't believe in evolution.

As if evolution were a salvation issue.

As if these fools have anything worthy to say about either God or science.

As if . . .

Many don't accept macroevolution. Many don't accept the theory of Abiogenesis. Many don't accept the information theory that Dna came in to existence through natural processes. Many know that mutations destroy the origional genetic information not add to it.

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

 

[Youwerecreated]

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

I have a question

Let say there is a mutation in an organism--does that mean all the organisms of that species also share that mutation? I tend to think not thus suggesting that you have few mutants that are trying to spread their genetic information and many more "original" organisms that share the majority of information with their ancestors. In competition for continuing their genetic information.

So how is it one can conclude that information is lost with the presence or arrival of a mutation? I don't see how this occurs since it is the continuance of the mutant strand that is in serious jeopardy here due to the lack of numbers.

Youwerecreated won't address this because he refuses to accept that there's a difference between "information" and "meaning." He demands that mutation ONLY destroys information. That's ALL it can do. It can't change information--oh no! It can't add information under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHAT-SO-EVER.

This is because he holds the ridiculously baseless presumption that any information that derives from mutation is NECESSARILY meaningless, hence destructive to information--because he declares it so.

Let me clear it up, not all mutations cause change they are repaired or neutral. If a mutation does cause change,it changed the origional infiormation in the mutant gene. Mutations are copying errors. If not corrected they can and will change the information. It is like writing out a sentence,if you change letters in the sentence do you change the meaning of the sentence ? Or worse does it change the sentence enough to make the sentence where it is no longer understood. Either way the origional Dna information is lost.

When we breed animals what are we doing ? When We are breeding animals we are breeding for specific traits. This is how we created so many different new breeds whether it be dog's cat's or livestock. So in a sense what did we do ? we created a new breed and as long as we only breed the new breed with others of the same breed you don't see very much genetic change. What happened we bred out old genetic information and isolated the new genetic information. The new breed only possesses the genetic information to reproduce what the new breed is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science. And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.

The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Youw, read this from Scientific American about random mutations and evolution, you'll learn something:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that organ be concentrated in the right places?: Scientific Ameri

Sorry to disappoint you but I did get my degree and did work in the field. I studied genes and mutations for 11 years.

 

[Hollie]

At this point you are the only one worth responding to.

Here ya go, are these questions not for science ?

1. How did nonliving matter get converted to all the living organism's we see today ?

2. How did the first living cell form to where it could reproduce more cells ?

3. How did chaos create order and precision in nature ?

4. How did non intelligence create intelligence ?

5. Where did the Dna information come from ?

6. Can you point to any code or form of communication such as language ever come in to existence through natural priocesses and absent of intelligence ?

Youw, read this from Scientific American about random mutations and evolution, you'll learn something:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that organ be concentrated in the right places?: Scientific Ameri

Sorry to disappoint you but I did get my degree and did work in the field. I studied genes and mutations for 11 years.

Yes. And you also command the French forces at Waterloo.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Youw's many are few, and those few are uneducated fools.

As if a Christian can't believe in evolution.

As if evolution were a salvation issue.

As if these fools have anything worthy to say about either God or science.

As if . . .

Do you mean many at Harun Yahya? I'm sure that is true. But honestly, who cares?

What we do know is that many of the "scientists" at creationist ministries are those who have lost credibility among their peers for abandoning the discipline of science.

What are you afraid of Hollie ? you don't know the theories well enough to choose the right ones

Don't speak for me you know very little about my back ground and the many that disagree with you that you slander.

The educated close their eyes to fact's, what would you call that ?

 

[Hollie]

Read up on the cell then come back and make such an ignorant comment. Maybe I should just provide some video's helping you to see the truth.

Because a cell is complicated it thus must have been designed by your gods?

Please, no more videos from creationist ministries and definitely nothing from Harun Yahya.

Watch atleast three but a must is the first video.

Thanks, but I'd rather chew thumb tacks.

The first video was a showcase for Richard Milton. I'm familiar with his diseased meanderings.


Internet Bunk
The Alternative Science Pages of Richard Milton

Internet Bunk - the alternative science pages of Richard Milton - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Milton's book The Facts of Life is "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand." --Richard Dawkins

Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims.



the straw man

Milton's attack on natural selection is an attack on a position quite distinct from the theory of natural selection. Milton attacks an idea few, if any, hold today. He attacks an ideology he characterizes as a godless philosophy of materialism, embracing the meaningless of life in a dog-eat-dog world of brute aggression. Natural selection implies nothing about the existence of God or a spiritual realm. It implies nothing about a Creator who does or does not meddle in evolution. It implies nothing about the kind of social world we have or should have. An evolutionary biologist is certainly free to believe that God designed evolution.