Darwin vs DNA

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Nowhere ... in the on-line dictionaries" ... Really.

proof [proof]
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

"Trust is faith." Welcome to the fallacy of equivocation. It's the problem my usage avoids.

You should have also highlighted the part that says, "sufficient to establish a thing as true"

Currently there is no such conclusive evidence (proof) that God does or does not exist.

Well, there are some who will assert that there is no conclusive evidence (proof) that ANYTHING does or does not exist.

Outside of areas like mathematics, "conclusive proof" is a moving target. Really, the reasonable expectation is to try to achieve "convincing evidence." The fact of the matter is, there is NOTHING about faith that in ANY way requires evidence and or valid logic to establish a belief that a thing as true. AND there is a very important component of faith that values commitment over evidence so much, that it is commitment, rather than evidence that validates faith. You cannot deny that someone who would maintain their faith in the face absolute "proof" is someone who has strong faith. Such a person would proudly proclaim that the strength of their faith is what validates their faith. Am I wrong?

Of course you just off-handedly reject my notions; so sure I'm all "wrong" about this. :whateverface: So, as you apply every meaning the dictionary offers, clue me into your means of avoiding the semantic-shift and equivocation that intellectually dishonest retards leverage to argue that imaginary things are (not could be, ARE) truly real--so truly real in fact, that they don't have to produce any evidence at all, let alone "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" to claim their belief is rationally valid.

I'm one of those who would assert that there's no conclusive evidence of anything, other than that I exist and that I reason. I'm not agnostic as a fashion statement.

I agree that faith doesn't require valid logic or evidence, but valid logic and evidence don't separate a belief from faith. While you seem to think I'm laughing in the face of evidence and logic, I'm starting to wonder if the motivation behind your argtument isn't simply an extreme dislike for those who believe in anything not validated by popular science. Hate the faith of fanatics all you want, but stop calling me a retard simply because I use the same categorical term to define even beliefs that are rational. According to the English language, that is actually an appropriate category, your distaste for the word notwithstanding.

And please, stop assigning opinions to me that I've never asserted. Once again, I've never once said that blind faith is "as good" or "of the same value" as a rational belief. Personally, I'm -only- willing to sign off on beliefs for which I've observed evidence, and as soon as contradictory evidence comes along, I update my shit. Try to keep in mind that this entire argument has become one of semantics.

 

[sakinago]

Since I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist, would those of you who believe in evolution explain how a random bang created an extremely complex DNA language with 3 billion genetic letters that actually store information in the form of a four-character digital code?

Ram, I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life. It is indeed very difficult to argue against evoloution, especially from the genetics standpoint. I do not believe in strict evolution, I do however agree with the theory of graduated equilibrium, which is evolution with a twist.

I am in no way that saying the bible is not true. If you want to make the argument for a Diety, best way to go about it is the concept in physics of "fine tuning". What fine tuning means is that the universe, and the laws of physics are too good to be true. If any one of the laws of physics was slightly changed, by fractions of a decimal, the universe as we know it would not exist. It would be a big cluster-fuck of incoherent energy. The universe seems to be tuned to give us the world we have today. Theres no reason why the laws of physics are the way they are, other than we either got lucky, or it was designed that way. This is what Einstien meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe."

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

 

[Hollie]

Ram, I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life. It is indeed very difficult to argue against evoloution, especially from the genetics standpoint. I do not believe in strict evolution, I do however agree with the theory of graduated equilibrium, which is evolution with a twist.

I am in no way that saying the bible is not true. If you want to make the argument for a Diety, best way to go about it is the concept in physics of "fine tuning". What fine tuning means is that the universe, and the laws of physics are too good to be true. If any one of the laws of physics was slightly changed, by fractions of a decimal, the universe as we know it would not exist. It would be a big cluster-fuck of incoherent energy. The universe seems to be tuned to give us the world we have today. Theres no reason why the laws of physics are the way they are, other than we either got lucky, or it was designed that way. This is what Einstien meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe."

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

 

[sakinago]

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

Not sure what your getting at, you seem to be running in circles now. And I'm pretty sure you do not have a good understanding of cancer. If everyone lived to be 120, they would all have cancer at one point in their life. Some people's Genetics are more prone to cancer, but there is no blueprint of genetics that will automatically give someone cancer. Either way using your argument, idiotic as it may be, cancer is a consequence of evolution. I thought you were trying to argue for evolution.

Cancer is the breakdown of genetic information that tells cells in the body to hold off on mitosis until it is necessary. Once that is lost the cells begin to rapidly multiply, forming tumors. These cells mutate even more so than before doing things that are either non or counter productive to the body, this makes the tumor malignant. Some times the mutated cells break off from the parent tumor and travel through the body and attach somewhere else and make a new tumor. I think this is a pretty good quick review of cancer.

 

[ima]

Loki I will bring something else to your attention.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.

This is the evidence of plate tectonics from the bible, the whole planet was under water. There were no living organisms at this time so there should be no fossils found in those layers of strata. The fossils were found in layers of strata that were formed in the global flood. These fossils are found world wide and in many cases where there was no water for a long time.

This isn't any evidence of plate tectonics.

Please provide a link to research confirming the great flood. Good luck, because there isn't any!

 

[Hollie]

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

Not sure what your getting at, you seem to be running in circles now. And I'm pretty sure you do not have a good understanding of cancer. If everyone lived to be 120, they would all have cancer at one point in their life. Some people's Genetics are more prone to cancer, but there is no blueprint of genetics that will automatically give someone cancer. Either way using your argument, idiotic as it may be, cancer is a consequence of evolution. thought you were trying to argue for evolution.

Cancer is the breakdown of genetic information that tells cells in the body to hold off on mitosis until it is necessary. Once that is lost the cells begin to rapidly multiply, forming tumors. These cells mutate even more so than before doing things that are either non or counter productive to the body, this makes the tumor malignant. Some times the mutated cells break off from the parent tumor and travel through the body and attach somewhere else and make a new tumor. I think this is a pretty good quick review of cancer.

It's possible that you forgot what you wrote? Your earlier comment was that all genetic information is designed to change. The context of your claim appeared to be that a supernatural designer was responsible for all genetic information. As the claimed designer of all, are the gods not responsible for all?

Did the omni-everything gods somehow overlook biological evolution and miss this?

 

[sakinago]

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

Not sure what your getting at, you seem to be running in circles now. And I'm pretty sure you do not have a good understanding of cancer. If everyone lived to be 120, they would all have cancer at one point in their life. Some people's Genetics are more prone to cancer, but there is no blueprint of genetics that will automatically give someone cancer. Either way using your argument, idiotic as it may be, cancer is a consequence of evolution. thought you were trying to argue for evolution.

Cancer is the breakdown of genetic information that tells cells in the body to hold off on mitosis until it is necessary. Once that is lost the cells begin to rapidly multiply, forming tumors. These cells mutate even more so than before doing things that are either non or counter productive to the body, this makes the tumor malignant. Some times the mutated cells break off from the parent tumor and travel through the body and attach somewhere else and make a new tumor. I think this is a pretty good quick review of cancer.

It's possible that you forgot what you wrote? Your earlier comment was that all genetic information is designed to change. The context of your claim appeared to be that a supernatural designer was responsible for all genetic information. As the claimed designer of all, are the gods not responsible for all?

Did the omni-everything gods somehow overlook biological evolution and miss this?

What?? now your just putting words into my mouth. I think your reading way too deep into what I am saying (maybe you've been arguing with these two too long). I never said or even tried to hint about a designer. What I said is that our genetics are designed for diversity, and mutation. But let me clarify so this does not happen again with you. Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring.

And again using your logic, you would have to blame cancer on evolution, which I dont understand why you would be using that logic if your trying to make an argument for evolution. Either way it is not correct logic for either argument, whether you want to argue for or against creationism. When you make that argument you do not have a clear understanding of what cancer is... or your just trying to pick fights. And I am not explaining cancer to you again.

 

[LOki]

Loki we can take on some of these issues from the bible you have a problem believing. Your cartoons are cute but they are not evidence because you choose not to believe in the bibles account of what happened. There is plenty of evidence of dinosaurs being seen by man and we can get to that later.

Let's focus on the flood there are some evidences that you need to know before prematurely dismissing.

The earth's crust is sedimentary strata 1 mile deep and how is sedimentary strata laid down ? The layers of strata are filled with fossils . Do you understand how fossils are formed ?

Here I will answer the questions for you to speed up the process. Sedimentary strata is laid down by water. Fossils are formed by rapid burial such as in the strata that is being laid down by the flooding waters.

This is exactly what you can expect if there were a global flood as the bible states.

You fail to mention that sedimentation and fossil formations are components of geology as understood by non-creationist geologists and evolution scientists. You also fail to mention that the "nature" ofthe strata and fossil formations are consistent with the expectations of non-creationist geology and evolution science; whereas they are inconsistent with the expected conditions after a global flood as the bible states.

A catastrophic global event, such as the global flood that the bible asserts, would result in a rather uniform, and rather homogeneous sedimentation world-wide. The fosillized remains of regional organisms--especially plants--would NOT be stratified as expected by actual geologists and evolution scientists, but rather all mixed together as your superstitious scenario so boldly asserts their contemporary coexistence. The retarded rationalizations creationists offer for why this is--why, for instance, there are no maple trees in the bottom layer--are a laugh riot. A veritable "hoot!"

And I cannot help but notice that you continue to validate the final conclusion made here.

You are failing to mention creationist hold degrees in the very fields you mentioned.

You're failing to mention that holding a degree is no immunity from being a spreader of obvious disinformation.

You are also failing to mention bigger heavier creatures would have been found in lower layers of sedimentary strata.

You're failing to mention that being big and heavy is not relative to the point. Wasn't the ark featured in your fairy tail both bigger and heaver than ANY animal it allegedly carried?

You also fail in mentioning pockets of fossils found out of sequence.

You fail to cite the incompetent and dishonestly misrepresenting source for this ridiculous claim. But when you submit said source in your retarded copy/paste vomit-palooza idiom, I'm sure it's obviously retarded rationalizations will be a laugh riot. A veritable "hoot!"

You also fail in mentionig that fossils that were from very large different periods of time were found in the same layers of strata.

You fail to cite the incompetent and dishonestly misrepresenting source for this ridiculous claim. But when you submit said source in your retarded copy/paste vomit-palooza idiom, I'm sure it's obviously retarded rationalizations will be a laugh riot. A veritable "hoot!"

I just can't wait to see how creationist "scientists" explain why, for instance, there are no maple tree fossils in the bottom layers of the geologic column that their alleged flood created with a WHOOOOOSH!

And I cannot help but notice that you continue to validate the final conclusion made here.

 

[LOki]

Loki you are a victim as many others in this country mainly because of one man. That one man is John Dewey. He wrote the humanist manifesto. He is the one that introduced the progressive education system that dominates the public school system in this country. He was quoted saying " To solve thw Christian problem we have to do it via the public school system."

I'll just take this as your continued validation of the final conclusion made here.

You can take it anyway you like but you are attempting to avoid the agenda set by your messiah.

I'll just take this obvious attempt to draw attention away from your intellectual cowardice as your continued validation of the final conclusion made here.

 

[LOki]

Loki I will bring something else to your attention.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.

This is the evidence of plate tectonics from the bible, the whole planet was under water.

There's no mention--and certainly no evidence--of plate tectonics found here. You're such clownshoes.

There were no living organisms at this time so there should be no fossils found in those layers of strata. The fossils were found in layers of strata that were formed in the global flood. These fossils are found world wide and in many cases where there was no water for a long time.

Yet at the lowest strata where fossils are found, the creationist account must necessarily predict the presence of maple tree fossils. How's that working out for you guys?

And, I'd like to make note of again, your continued validation of the final conclusion made here.

 

[LOki]

Ram, I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life. It is indeed very difficult to argue against evoloution, especially from the genetics standpoint. I do not believe in strict evolution, I do however agree with the theory of graduated equilibrium, which is evolution with a twist.

I am in no way that saying the bible is not true. If you want to make the argument for a Diety, best way to go about it is the concept in physics of "fine tuning". What fine tuning means is that the universe, and the laws of physics are too good to be true. If any one of the laws of physics was slightly changed, by fractions of a decimal, the universe as we know it would not exist. It would be a big cluster-fuck of incoherent energy. The universe seems to be tuned to give us the world we have today. Theres no reason why the laws of physics are the way they are, other than we either got lucky, or it was designed that way. This is what Einstien meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe."

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

If you substitute "the Easter Bunny" in place of "creator", the above makes just as much sense.

Indeed. The painful truth that these superstitious retards fail to appreciate is that even by their own dopey paradigm, they cannot demonstrate that the Easter Bunny is any less real than their "Creator."

 

[sakinago]

Have some more for you to think about.

A college science book, Life;The science of Biology Sinauer Associates 6th edition 2001 page 13 say's " They say not all forms of inquiry are scientific. That creationism begins with assertions that the earth is only 6,000 years old and everything was created. Then the very next page they say Evolution Science begins with assertions that the earth is only a few billion years old and that all organisms Evolved.

Neither case is scientific they are philosophies. So you can see the double standard and how they undermine religious beliefs.

Clarify for me youwerecreated, are you trying to argue for young earth, or not. The way you talk about dinosaurs seems like you are trying to argue for a young earth theory, Im just confused about where you stand.

 

[LOki]

You should have also highlighted the part that says, "sufficient to establish a thing as true"

Currently there is no such conclusive evidence (proof) that God does or does not exist.

Well, there are some who will assert that there is no conclusive evidence (proof) that ANYTHING does or does not exist.

Outside of areas like mathematics, "conclusive proof" is a moving target. Really, the reasonable expectation is to try to achieve "convincing evidence." The fact of the matter is, there is NOTHING about faith that in ANY way requires evidence and or valid logic to establish a belief that a thing as true. AND there is a very important component of faith that values commitment over evidence so much, that it is commitment, rather than evidence that validates faith. You cannot deny that someone who would maintain their faith in the face absolute "proof" is someone who has strong faith. Such a person would proudly proclaim that the strength of their faith is what validates their faith. Am I wrong?

Of course you just off-handedly reject my notions; so sure I'm all "wrong" about this. :whateverface: So, as you apply every meaning the dictionary offers, clue me into your means of avoiding the semantic-shift and equivocation that intellectually dishonest retards leverage to argue that imaginary things are (not could be, ARE) truly real--so truly real in fact, that they don't have to produce any evidence at all, let alone "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" to claim their belief is rationally valid.

I'm one of those who would assert that there's no conclusive evidence of anything, other than that I exist and that I reason.

If that's the case, why make this notion "conclusive evidence" the standard of being rational?

I'm not agnostic as a fashion statement.

That's a relief.

I agree that faith doesn't require valid logic or evidence, but valid logic and evidence don't separate a belief from faith.

Of course not. It's not even in contention. I am pretty clear that faith is a kind of belief that is distinct from reason/rational belief. Yes?

While you seem to think I'm laughing in the face of evidence and logic, I'm starting to wonder if the motivation behind your argtument isn't simply an extreme dislike for those who believe in anything not validated by popular science.

I just have an extreme dislike for intellectually dishonest retards. As long as they assert that their beliefs--possessing no (or just coincidental) validation in reality--are equivalent to beliefs that are held and validated by valid logic applied to verifiable evidence, I will make a hobby of exposing them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they obviously are.

Hate the faith of fanatics all you want, but stop calling me a retard simply because I use the same categorical term to define even beliefs that are rational. According to the English language, that is actually an appropriate category, your distaste for the word notwithstanding.

Perhaps you're not retarded, but can't deny that you've now intentionally chosen to be vague in your application of meaning. I find the motives for such a choice to be suspect.

And please, stop assigning opinions to me that I've never asserted. Once again, I've never once said that blind faith is "as good" or "of the same value" as a rational belief.

Perhaps if your terms were actually meaningful, I wouldn't become so confused about what you mean.

Personally, I'm -only- willing to sign off on beliefs for which I've observed evidence, and as soon as contradictory evidence comes along, I update my shit.

Sounds rational to me--and not a bit like faith.

Try to keep in mind that this entire argument has become one of semantics.

Right. We're discussing the meaning of terms, i.e. semantics. Why do you think I'd fail to keep that in mind?

 

[LOki]

Ram, I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life. It is indeed very difficult to argue against evoloution, especially from the genetics standpoint. I do not believe in strict evolution, I do however agree with the theory of graduated equilibrium, which is evolution with a twist.

I am in no way that saying the bible is not true. If you want to make the argument for a Diety, best way to go about it is the concept in physics of "fine tuning". What fine tuning means is that the universe, and the laws of physics are too good to be true. If any one of the laws of physics was slightly changed, by fractions of a decimal, the universe as we know it would not exist. It would be a big cluster-fuck of incoherent energy. The universe seems to be tuned to give us the world we have today. Theres no reason why the laws of physics are the way they are, other than we either got lucky, or it was designed that way. This is what Einstien meant when he said "God does not play dice with the universe."

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first. Thanks in advance.

 

[sakinago]

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first. Thanks in advance.

Whoa whoa whoa, so now are you saying you don't believe evolution??? And the evidence is everywhere that diversity is a necessity for life to survive in an ever changing environment. One easy logical explantion on why we are designed to change is the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body. This is why brothers and sisters look similar, BUT ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER except in the case of identical twins. To reject the fact that genetics does not support diversity is to reject evolution.

I guess you arn't the best of us to argue for evolution, since you keep seeming to argue against it, so I am going to assume you do not understand genetics, which is the basis of evolution YSI.

Take Texas hold em poker for instance. Lets say the cards on the board are A-2-4-J-8 (now imagine that the board cards represent the traits that make us basically human). The board cards are community cards, everyone at the table playing has these cards and these cards do not change (this is why when humans give birth to offspring, we dont just give birth to a pig, or an ant, we give birth to other humans). The reason we have kept these cards (or traits as we are prentending them to be) is because these cards have helped us to survive in the world, and we were able to fill a niche..... But everyone playing at the table has their own pocket cards, (the pocket cards represent the taits that make us individuals compared with the rest of humanity) well say one is holding A-Q and another is holding 4-4. Oh-No... a climate change comes along, new ice age, the person holding A-Q has a good hand but dies of b/c it is not good enough, and the person holding a 4-4 made a set and is going to survive the ice age and reproduce. Now multiply the 5 cards representing human traits every human shares with the 2 cards that makes humans different from each other by a couple million, and bam that is basically how genetics work. Not the best most in depth example on how genetics is designed to diversify, but I think it makes my point clear.

I still cant believe you somehow believe evolution but do not believe that all life diversifies itself, its an oxymoron and an idiotic belief. FR

 

[sakinago]

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first. Thanks in advance.

Whoa whoa whoa, so now are you saying you don't believe evolution??? And the evidence is everywhere that diversity is a necessity for life to survive in an ever changing environment. One easy logical explantion on why we are designed to change is the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body. This is why brothers and sisters look similar, BUT ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER except in the case of identical twins. To reject the fact that genetics does not support diversity is to reject evolution.

I guess you arn't the best of us to argue for evolution, since you keep seeming to argue against it, so I am going to assume you do not understand genetics, which is the basis of evolution YSI.

Take Texas hold em poker for instance. Lets say the cards on the board are A-2-4-J-8 (now imagine that the board cards represent the traits that make us basically human). The board cards are community cards, everyone at the table playing has these cards and these cards do not change (this is why when humans give birth to offspring, we dont just give birth to a pig, or an ant, we give birth to other humans). The reason we have kept these cards (or traits as we are prentending them to be) is because these cards have helped us to survive in the world, and we were able to fill a niche..... But everyone playing at the table has their own pocket cards, (the pocket cards represent the taits that make us individuals compared with the rest of humanity) well say one is holding A-Q and another is holding 4-4. Oh-No... a climate change comes along, new ice age, the person holding A-Q has a good hand but dies of b/c it is not good enough, and the person holding a 4-4 made a set and is going to survive the ice age and reproduce. Now multiply the 5 cards representing human traits every human shares with the 2 cards that makes humans different from each other by a couple million, and bam that is basically how genetics work. Not the best most in depth example on how genetics is designed to diversify, but I think it makes my point clear.

I still cant believe you somehow believe evolution but do not believe that all life diversifies itself, its an oxymoron and an idiotic belief. FR

Something I forgot to translate from my short-hand from my previous post.

YSI= you stupid idiot
FR= fucking retard

Just to make sure you understand how I feel

 

[LOki]

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first. Thanks in advance.

Whoa whoa whoa, so now are you saying you don't believe evolution???

Not this brand of evolution that was designed.

And the evidence is everywhere that diversity is a necessity for life to survive in an ever changing environment.

But unfortunately for you there's no logically valid or verifiable evidence that this diversity you mention was designed.

One easy logical explantion on why we are designed to change is the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body.

Without contesting the validity of "the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body," it is not evidence of design.

This is why brothers and sisters look similar, BUT ARE ALWAYS DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER except in the case of identical twins. To reject the fact that genetics does not support diversity is to reject evolution.

You're barking up the entirely wrong strawman, Sis.

I guess you arn't the best of us to argue for evolution, since you keep seeming to argue against it, so I am going to assume you do not understand genetics, which is the basis of evolution YSI.

I understand the actual science of evolution just fine Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

Take Texas hold em poker for instance. Lets say the cards on the board are A-2-4-J-8 (now imagine that the board cards represent the traits that make us basically human). The board cards are community cards, everyone at the table playing has these cards and these cards do not change (this is why when humans give birth to offspring, we dont just give birth to a pig, or an ant, we give birth to other humans). The reason we have kept these cards (or traits as we are prentending them to be) is because these cards have helped us to survive in the world, and we were able to fill a niche..... But everyone playing at the table has their own pocket cards, (the pocket cards represent the taits that make us individuals compared with the rest of humanity) well say one is holding A-Q and another is holding 4-4. Oh-No... a climate change comes along, new ice age, the person holding A-Q has a good hand but dies of b/c it is not good enough, and the person holding a 4-4 made a set and is going to survive the ice age and reproduce. Now multiply the 5 cards representing human traits every human shares with the 2 cards that makes humans different from each other by a couple million, and bam that is basically how genetics work. Not the best most in depth example on how genetics is designed to diversify, but I think it makes my point clear.

This is a fine metaphor describing how genetic diversity works to favor survival of the species, but it fails in every way to explain how genetics is designed to diversify.

I still cant believe you somehow believe evolution but do not believe that all life diversifies itself, its an oxymoron and an idiotic belief. FR

Well, what did you expect from the strawman you created that is an idiot with all the idiotic beliefs you imbued it with?

 

[sakinago]

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first. Thanks in advance.

Whoa whoa whoa, so now are you saying you don't believe evolution???

Not this brand of evolution that was designed.

But unfortunately for you there's no logically valid or verifiable evidence that this diversity you mention was designed.

Without contesting the validity of "the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body," it is not evidence of design.

You're barking up the entirely wrong strawman, Sis.

I understand the actual science of evolution just fine Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

Take Texas hold em poker for instance. Lets say the cards on the board are A-2-4-J-8 (now imagine that the board cards represent the traits that make us basically human). The board cards are community cards, everyone at the table playing has these cards and these cards do not change (this is why when humans give birth to offspring, we dont just give birth to a pig, or an ant, we give birth to other humans). The reason we have kept these cards (or traits as we are prentending them to be) is because these cards have helped us to survive in the world, and we were able to fill a niche..... But everyone playing at the table has their own pocket cards, (the pocket cards represent the taits that make us individuals compared with the rest of humanity) well say one is holding A-Q and another is holding 4-4. Oh-No... a climate change comes along, new ice age, the person holding A-Q has a good hand but dies of b/c it is not good enough, and the person holding a 4-4 made a set and is going to survive the ice age and reproduce. Now multiply the 5 cards representing human traits every human shares with the 2 cards that makes humans different from each other by a couple million, and bam that is basically how genetics work. Not the best most in depth example on how genetics is designed to diversify, but I think it makes my point clear.

This is a fine metaphor describing how genetic diversity works to favor survival of the species, but it fails in every way to explain how genetics is designed to diversify.

I still cant believe you somehow believe evolution but do not believe that all life diversifies itself, its an oxymoron and an idiotic belief. FR

Well, what did you expect from the strawman you created that is an idiot with all the idiotic beliefs you imbued it with?

Again, what the hell are you talking about???? Again putting words in my mouth, but the words your putting there are from left field, who the hell was talking about magic b/c it was not me. Let me say one final time, .... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity. WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT GENETICS, OPEN UP A SCIENCE BOOK B/C YOUR TALKING LIKE A RETARD.

Any single biologist on the planet will tell you this, a basic concept in genetics. You completely missed my point about poker so Im going to have to explain in depth more. When gametes are copying their genetic information from the full 46 chromosome cell to the 23 chromosome cell they become, they never are the same as the parent cell from whence they came. They do a little shuffle of genetic information, not in the traits that make us human, but traits that make us individuals (this is what i was getting at with the pocket cards). This is how our body is designed, just like our veins and arteries constricting whenever we stand up to keep our BP from dropping.

WTF dont you understand? Your saying that Genetic information doesn't change from parent to offspring, or at least that it does not do it purpose. Which looking around at the animals of the world around you can maybe see that your wrong about that, and that yes your mom probably smoked crack while she was pregnant with you, which i suspected 3 post ago.

 

[LOki]

Whoa whoa whoa, so now are you saying you don't believe evolution???

Not this brand of evolution that was designed.

But unfortunately for you there's no logically valid or verifiable evidence that this diversity you mention was designed.

Without contesting the validity of "the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body," it is not evidence of design.

You're barking up the entirely wrong strawman, Sis.

I understand the actual science of evolution just fine Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

This is a fine metaphor describing how genetic diversity works to favor survival of the species, but it fails in every way to explain how genetics is designed to diversify.

I still cant believe you somehow believe evolution but do not believe that all life diversifies itself, its an oxymoron and an idiotic belief. FR

Well, what did you expect from the strawman you created that is an idiot with all the idiotic beliefs you imbued it with?

Again, what the hell are you talking about???? Again putting words in my mouth, but the words your putting there are from left field, who the hell was talking about magic b/c it was not me. Let me say one final time, .... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity. WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT GENETICS, OPEN UP A SCIENCE BOOK B/C YOUR TALKING LIKE A RETARD.

The retard here is the one who INSISTS that evolution was designed, and then INSISTS that I'm putting words in his mouth when I point it out. You won't find designed evolution in any competent science textbook, so reviewing my science education will only strengthen my understanding of how you have no idea who you're talking to, or what you're talking about.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

Any single biologist on the planet will tell you this, a basic concept in genetics. You completely missed my point about poker so Im going to have to explain in depth more. When gametes are copying their genetic information from the full 46 chromosome cell to the 23 chromosome cell they become, they never are the same as the parent cell from whence they came. They do a little shuffle of genetic information, not in the traits that make us human, but traits that make us individuals (this is what i was getting at with the pocket cards).

There is no reason at all for you to repeat or clarify this. As I clearly stated before, I'm fine with your metaphor.

This is how our body is designed, just like our veins and arteries constricting whenever we stand up to keep our BP from dropping.

Sorry? You were talking some sense for a minute, and then it turned into a fairy tale.

WTF dont you understand?

I don't understand your "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations" fairy tale.

While I am not disputing in any way the value of genetic diversity to the survival of a species; or the value that mutations have in adding information to a species' gene-pool, I just have a problem with this crazy notion you INSIST upon forwarding, that it's due to a design--that somebody designed it that way.

I'll tell you again: I understand the actual science of evolution just fine, Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

You don't have to explain to me how the mechanisms of natural selection, environmental survival pressures, genetics, genetic drift, genetic mutations, etc. ..., give rise to the diversity of life observed on this planet. This is because I understand the he actual science of evolution; your designed evolution is just crazy talk, Count Chocula.

Just to make sure you understand: I am well familiar with and have a competent foundation in the sciences; I have no dispute with the science of actual evolution, as it is founded upon, and validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. What I simply do not understand is that it's all designed.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first, and we'd have something to discuss. Otherwise you're just peddling some magical story--just another superstitious retard attempting to advance his retarded superstition as something logically valid and verifiably real.

Your saying that Genetic information doesn't change from parent to offspring, or at least that it does not do it purpose.

Who is putting words who's mouth now, Sis?

Which looking around at the animals of the world around you can maybe see that your wrong about that, and that yes your mom probably smoked crack while she was pregnant with you, which i suspected 3 post ago.

Ah, it's come to "moms" for you already. Not surprised in the least. Game on retard.

 

[sakinago]

Not this brand of evolution that was designed.

But unfortunately for you there's no logically valid or verifiable evidence that this diversity you mention was designed.

Without contesting the validity of "the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body," it is not evidence of design.

You're barking up the entirely wrong strawman, Sis.

I understand the actual science of evolution just fine Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

This is a fine metaphor describing how genetic diversity works to favor survival of the species, but it fails in every way to explain how genetics is designed to diversify.

Well, what did you expect from the strawman you created that is an idiot with all the idiotic beliefs you imbued it with?

Again, what the hell are you talking about???? Again putting words in my mouth, but the words your putting there are from left field, who the hell was talking about magic b/c it was not me. Let me say one final time, .... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity. WHAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT GENETICS, OPEN UP A SCIENCE BOOK B/C YOUR TALKING LIKE A RETARD.

The retard here is the one who INSISTS that evolution was designed, and then INSISTS that I'm putting words in his mouth when I point it out. You won't find designed evolution in any competent science textbook, so reviewing my science education will only strengthen my understanding of how you have no idea who you're talking to, or what you're talking about.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

There is no reason at all for you to repeat or clarify this. As I clearly stated before, I'm fine with your metaphor.

Sorry? You were talking some sense for a minute, and then it turned into a fairy tale.

I don't understand your "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations" fairy tale.

While I am not disputing in any way the value of genetic diversity to the survival of a species; or the value that mutations have in adding information to a species' gene-pool, I just have a problem with this crazy notion you INSIST upon forwarding, that it's due to a design--that somebody designed it that way.

I'll tell you again: I understand the actual science of evolution just fine, Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

You don't have to explain to me how the mechanisms of natural selection, environmental survival pressures, genetics, genetic drift, genetic mutations, etc. ..., give rise to the diversity of life observed on this planet. This is because I understand the he actual science of evolution; your designed evolution is just crazy talk, Count Chocula.

Just to make sure you understand: I am well familiar with and have a competent foundation in the sciences; I have no dispute with the science of actual evolution, as it is founded upon, and validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. What I simply do not understand is that it's all designed.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first, and we'd have something to discuss. Otherwise you're just peddling some magical story--just another superstitious retard attempting to advance his retarded superstition as something logically valid and verifiably real.

Your saying that Genetic information doesn't change from parent to offspring, or at least that it does not do it purpose.

Who is putting words who's mouth now, Sis?

Which looking around at the animals of the world around you can maybe see that your wrong about that, and that yes your mom probably smoked crack while she was pregnant with you, which i suspected 3 post ago.

Ah, it's come to "moms" for you already. Not surprised in the least. Game on retard.

What planet do you live on?? are you saying that you have a problem with the word design, as if i am trying to argue for intelligent design... which I have said I was not twice before (and is what I have been arguing against). Fine Let me use a different word than design, b/c apparently when I use it, I must only be referring to intelligent design (which is not the case, and I have no clue where you have ever picked that up, since my original argument against intelligent design that you keep going back to is saying that our bodies are made to shuffle up for diversity, which if you believe in intelligent design and life is made to evolve, then you must also believe in evoloution since god must have designed it that way, which is an oxymoron.)

Cheetah's bodies are put together in such a way that makes them run fast, a birds bones are put together in a hollow way to help them fly. The purpose of a heart is to pump blood, purpose of lungs is to exchange gas, purpose of genetics is to provide diversity. The later statement you have been arguing against this whole time, so no I am not putting words into your mouth.

So... 1. You either did not understand my points (common knowledge) about genetics, which means you dont understand genetics (just like you dont understand cancer if you believe that some people are genetically programed for it). Meaning your a retard and should not be arguing for evolution.

or 2. You are just arguing for the sake of argument, which means you never had a valid argument, and you have just been wasting my time .