Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Youwerecreated]

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

Oh created. I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. I come back to find you're playing the same games with someone else now? Here's let's summarize where we left off.

• You claimed evolution is made up.
• I provided supporting evidence.
• You ignored supporting evidence.
• You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms.
• I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct.
• You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there.
• I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
• You once again made the claim evolution is made up.
• I provided more supporting evidence.
• You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
• I provided evidence to macroevolution.
• You ran away.

Shall we restart this game again, my ignorant acquaintance?

I have debated this issue to nauseum,you will say this,and I will say that. In truth you won't present anything new.

You believe a non-intelligent non-thinking process called random chance is creator of life. I believe intelligence= God was the creator of all life. So I will prove life is a product of intelligence then you can give your rebuttal.


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints


If you can't provide an adequate answer to this, I win God exist and you lose.

 

[konradv]

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

Oh created. I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. I come back to find you're playing the same games with someone else now? Here's let's summarize where we left off.

• You claimed evolution is made up.
• I provided supporting evidence.
• You ignored supporting evidence.
• You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms.
• I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct.
• You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there.
• I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
• You once again made the claim evolution is made up.
• I provided more supporting evidence.
• You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
• I provided evidence to macroevolution.
• You ran away.

Shall we restart this game again, my ignorant acquaintance?

I have debated this issue to nauseum,you will say this,and I will say that. In truth you won't present anything new.

You believe a non-intelligent non-thinking process called random chance is creator of life. I believe intelligence= God was the creator of all life. So I will prove life is a product of intelligence then you can give your rebuttal.


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints


If you can't provide an adequate answer to this, I win God exist and you lose.

That's not a valid proof in that all one has to do is say "you just haven't found the natural process yet". Trying to prove a negative like that is usually a logical loser.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No,because according to your theory of macro-evolution your claims are new families of organisms can come from old families. You know like ape to human.

New species arise and diverge from old ones. The fossil record makes no sense otherwise. How do you explain the varied rise and fall of extinct species then?

No mutations do not do what you say,new traits can arise from sexual reproduction and or because the information was already present in the population.

Mutations are defined as changes in the genomic sequence. These changes can build up over time into evolutionary change. Mutations happen when producing offspring, everyone has mutations when they are born. New traits do not arise from sexual reproduction solely, they are caused by errors in DNA. If the information was already present in the population, well at one point it had to have come from some where. They came from mutations.



The proof of mutations is in the DNA code of anything that has mutations. It will be different from another example of the organism that lacks the mutation. Biologists look into the DNA code of organisms all the time, and it's a prime way to see how related one is to another. We're all related.



That sounds more like a definition for macro-evolution. The theory of evolution as a whole is much more nuanced.

Creationist believe the information for variations within a family has always been present in the population.

Well then new variations must pose a problem to what you believe then, we see new ones arising all the time.

My views are easily proven by the evidence yours on the other hand are exaggerations of the imagination.

So what's the scientific evidence for creationism? I still haven't really seen any. Hell, what's the scientific theory for creationism? What are its tenants? All I've seen in this thread is half-baked criticisms of evolution which merely show ignorance in biology.

On the other hand I have provided much evidence for evolution, both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Extinction of organisms was for many reasons,lack of food,unable to adapt to changing enviornments,health reasons,so on and so on.

Mutations prove to be a loss of information not a gain of information.

Why is that a problem if they become isolated from the family and the information was already present in the genepool ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh created. I wiped your face across this entire forum on these topics last time. I come back to find you're playing the same games with someone else now? Here's let's summarize where we left off.

• You claimed evolution is made up.
• I provided supporting evidence.
• You ignored supporting evidence.
• You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms.
• I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct.
• You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there.
• I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
• You once again made the claim evolution is made up.
• I provided more supporting evidence.
• You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
• I provided evidence to macroevolution.
• You ran away.

Shall we restart this game again, my ignorant acquaintance?

I have debated this issue to nauseum,you will say this,and I will say that. In truth you won't present anything new.

You believe a non-intelligent non-thinking process called random chance is creator of life. I believe intelligence= God was the creator of all life. So I will prove life is a product of intelligence then you can give your rebuttal.


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints


If you can't provide an adequate answer to this, I win God exist and you lose.

That's not a valid proof in that all one has to do is say "you just haven't found the natural process yet". Trying to prove a negative like that is usually a logical loser.

Wrong, by scientists own admission the genetic code is a form of information that gets communicated,and that information produces life, and it is a blue print of what the offspring will be.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will no longer get lost in the endless debate, answer the question, that is the only question i will respond to.If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

 

[Woyzeck]

No,because according to your theory of macro-evolution your claims are new families of organisms can come from old families. You know like ape to human.

New species arise and diverge from old ones. The fossil record makes no sense otherwise. How do you explain the varied rise and fall of extinct species then?



Mutations are defined as changes in the genomic sequence. These changes can build up over time into evolutionary change. Mutations happen when producing offspring, everyone has mutations when they are born. New traits do not arise from sexual reproduction solely, they are caused by errors in DNA. If the information was already present in the population, well at one point it had to have come from some where. They came from mutations.



The proof of mutations is in the DNA code of anything that has mutations. It will be different from another example of the organism that lacks the mutation. Biologists look into the DNA code of organisms all the time, and it's a prime way to see how related one is to another. We're all related.



That sounds more like a definition for macro-evolution. The theory of evolution as a whole is much more nuanced.



Well then new variations must pose a problem to what you believe then, we see new ones arising all the time.

My views are easily proven by the evidence yours on the other hand are exaggerations of the imagination.

So what's the scientific evidence for creationism? I still haven't really seen any. Hell, what's the scientific theory for creationism? What are its tenants? All I've seen in this thread is half-baked criticisms of evolution which merely show ignorance in biology.

On the other hand I have provided much evidence for evolution, both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Extinction of organisms was for many reasons,lack of food,unable to adapt to changing enviornments,health reasons,so on and so on.

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?

Mutations prove to be a loss of information not a gain of information.

Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.

Why is that a problem if they become isolated from the family and the information was already present in the genepool ?

Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

New species arise and diverge from old ones. The fossil record makes no sense otherwise. How do you explain the varied rise and fall of extinct species then?



Mutations are defined as changes in the genomic sequence. These changes can build up over time into evolutionary change. Mutations happen when producing offspring, everyone has mutations when they are born. New traits do not arise from sexual reproduction solely, they are caused by errors in DNA. If the information was already present in the population, well at one point it had to have come from some where. They came from mutations.



The proof of mutations is in the DNA code of anything that has mutations. It will be different from another example of the organism that lacks the mutation. Biologists look into the DNA code of organisms all the time, and it's a prime way to see how related one is to another. We're all related.



That sounds more like a definition for macro-evolution. The theory of evolution as a whole is much more nuanced.



Well then new variations must pose a problem to what you believe then, we see new ones arising all the time.



So what's the scientific evidence for creationism? I still haven't really seen any. Hell, what's the scientific theory for creationism? What are its tenants? All I've seen in this thread is half-baked criticisms of evolution which merely show ignorance in biology.

On the other hand I have provided much evidence for evolution, both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Extinction of organisms was for many reasons,lack of food,unable to adapt to changing enviornments,health reasons,so on and so on.

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?

Mutations prove to be a loss of information not a gain of information.

Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.

Why is that a problem if they become isolated from the family and the information was already present in the genepool ?

Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

The creator.

Gen 6:20 Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.



Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Kind in the bible represents a family of organisms.

 

[Woyzeck]

Extinction of organisms was for many reasons,lack of food,unable to adapt to changing enviornments,health reasons,so on and so on.

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?



Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.

Why is that a problem if they become isolated from the family and the information was already present in the genepool ?

Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

The creator.

Gen 6:20 Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.



Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Kind in the bible represents a family of organisms.

Do you have any evidence that isn't from the Bible? The Bible is known to get a few things wrong, and within Genesis as well, as I've pointed out before.

 

[Youwerecreated]

New species arise and diverge from old ones. The fossil record makes no sense otherwise. How do you explain the varied rise and fall of extinct species then?



Mutations are defined as changes in the genomic sequence. These changes can build up over time into evolutionary change. Mutations happen when producing offspring, everyone has mutations when they are born. New traits do not arise from sexual reproduction solely, they are caused by errors in DNA. If the information was already present in the population, well at one point it had to have come from some where. They came from mutations.



The proof of mutations is in the DNA code of anything that has mutations. It will be different from another example of the organism that lacks the mutation. Biologists look into the DNA code of organisms all the time, and it's a prime way to see how related one is to another. We're all related.



That sounds more like a definition for macro-evolution. The theory of evolution as a whole is much more nuanced.



Well then new variations must pose a problem to what you believe then, we see new ones arising all the time.



So what's the scientific evidence for creationism? I still haven't really seen any. Hell, what's the scientific theory for creationism? What are its tenants? All I've seen in this thread is half-baked criticisms of evolution which merely show ignorance in biology.

On the other hand I have provided much evidence for evolution, both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Extinction of organisms was for many reasons,lack of food,unable to adapt to changing enviornments,health reasons,so on and so on.

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?

Mutations prove to be a loss of information not a gain of information.

Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.

Why is that a problem if they become isolated from the family and the information was already present in the genepool ?

Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

How can you say a mutation can add information when it results from a loss of the origional information ? All mutations are an error,it's rearranged information.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?



Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.



Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

The creator.

Gen 6:20 Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.



Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Kind in the bible represents a family of organisms.

Do you have any evidence that isn't from the Bible? The Bible is known to get a few things wrong, and within Genesis as well, as I've pointed out before.

Well the bible didn't get it wrong because kinds bring forth after their kinds, correct ?

 

[Woyzeck]

Extinction of organisms was for many reasons,lack of food,unable to adapt to changing enviornments,health reasons,so on and so on.

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?



Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.

Why is that a problem if they become isolated from the family and the information was already present in the genepool ?

Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

How can you say a mutation can add information when it results from a loss of the origional information ? All mutations are an error,it's rearranged information.

If stuff only gets rearranged, how is it lost then, if it can't be gained?

It doesn't matter, mutations can cause both loss of information and gain. This has been observed, it is a fact of modern biology.

 

[Woyzeck]

The creator.

Gen 6:20 Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.



Gen 7:14 They went in, and every animal after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

Kind in the bible represents a family of organisms.

Do you have any evidence that isn't from the Bible? The Bible is known to get a few things wrong, and within Genesis as well, as I've pointed out before.

Well the bible didn't get it wrong because kinds bring forth after their kinds, correct ?

Please stop wasting my time and cite a reputable source.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And the new younger species came from where if not evolution?



Back to yet another old line from you, hm? Mutations can either take away information, or give it, this is true. However we have observed several instances of them adding information, which probably occurs via DNA replication.

We've observed increased genetic variety, increased genetic material and novel genetic material. So continuing to say mutations only lose information makes you look like you lack reading comprehension.



Where did the information originally come from then? How did it come to be in that gene pool?

The answer is mutations.

How can you say a mutation can add information when it results from a loss of the origional information ? All mutations are an error,it's rearranged information.

If stuff only gets rearranged, how is it lost then, if it can't be gained?

It doesn't matter, mutations can cause both loss of information and gain. This has been observed, it is a fact of modern biology.

Because mutations come at a loss of a function.

Yes, a mutation can cause a change in the information because the information is rearranged, but it's rare for that rearranged information to be beneficial to the organism.

I already presented the " NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION " and each and everyone of these must be present.

So your theory fails before it starts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you have any evidence that isn't from the Bible? The Bible is known to get a few things wrong, and within Genesis as well, as I've pointed out before.

Well the bible didn't get it wrong because kinds bring forth after their kinds, correct ?

Please stop wasting my time and cite a reputable source.

You couldn't answer an easy question trutfully.

Do kinds bring forth offspring after their kind ?

I am only wasting your time if you can't be honest.

 

[Youwerecreated]

By the way no one is attempting once again to answer the atheist riddle.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you have any evidence that isn't from the Bible? The Bible is known to get a few things wrong, and within Genesis as well, as I've pointed out before.

Well the bible didn't get it wrong because kinds bring forth after their kinds, correct ?

Please stop wasting my time and cite a reputable source.

Your theory contradicts itself,let me give you an example.

Does natural selection lean toward genetic diversity or stability?

 

[Woyzeck]

How can you say a mutation can add information when it results from a loss of the origional information ? All mutations are an error,it's rearranged information.

If stuff only gets rearranged, how is it lost then, if it can't be gained?

It doesn't matter, mutations can cause both loss of information and gain. This has been observed, it is a fact of modern biology.

Because mutations come at a loss of a function.

Yes, a mutation can cause a change in the information because the information is rearranged, but it's rare for that rearranged information to be beneficial to the organism.

I already presented the " NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION " and each and everyone of these must be present.

So your theory fails before it starts.

Mutations do not only take away information, they can add to it. I have pointed this out, and there is evidence for it. Stop lying and stop wasting my time.

 

[Woyzeck]

Well the bible didn't get it wrong because kinds bring forth after their kinds, correct ?

Please stop wasting my time and cite a reputable source.

You couldn't answer an easy question trutfully.

Do kinds bring forth offspring after their kind ?

I am only wasting your time if you can't be honest.

The Bible is not a scientific source. It has no place in any field of science. The question was where does new information arise if not from mutations. Stop wasting my time and get thee to a library.

 

[Woyzeck]

Well the bible didn't get it wrong because kinds bring forth after their kinds, correct ?

Please stop wasting my time and cite a reputable source.

Your theory contradicts itself,let me give you an example.

Does natural selection lean toward genetic diversity or stability?

That's not an example, that's a question. Tell me how it contradicts yourself, or stop claiming to know something you don't.

 

[Woyzeck]

I'm still waiting what the scientific principles of creationism are, something that doesn't include half-baked criticisms of evolution. If evolution is wrong, and creationism is right, there must be some concepts behind it, and testable experiments with results to show how it works, like all scientific theories do. There must be some kind of science behind it if it wants the controversy taught and equal footing in science classrooms.