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

[Woyzeck]

I believe changes happen within a family,call it micro-evolution or micro-adaptations but not the grander scale of evolution where new families are formed from a former family.

That's nice. But we have evidence of macro-evolution. So you're still a broken record. See, you can choose to believe what you want, but science is something while you don't have to believe it, it's still reality.

There are no documented cases of one family becoming a new family,none ,zero.

If you wish to continue confusing micro-adaptations or evolution with macro-evolution,knock yourself out.

There are changes within a family but not one family becoming a new family. and these changes do not come from mutations.

Okay, that's it. I'm getting sick of this bullshit. You are perfectly aware that macro-evolution occurs at species level and above, not simply above species level. I have made this perfectly clear in this thread. We have evidence of evolution at the species level (it's called speciation). I disproven your statement, macroevolution occurs and we have evidence for it. Would you kindly please stop moving the goalposts once I quickly shoot your claims down?

Would you also please stop lying all the time? That's all you're doing, repeating past claims I've debunked, and continually lying and saying no evidence for such and such exists. We have evidence of macro-evolution, we have evidence of mutations and we know they cause change in organisms. So quit the broken record act already.

So was the bible accurate in saying kinds bring forth offspring of their own kind ,is this what we see ?

Is this not a question you have an answer for or are you deliberately avoiding this question because you might have to agree with the bible ?

What part of THE BIBLE IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC SOURCE is so hard to understand? I have repeated this many times as well. Stop wasting my time with repeating bullshit I've dealt with. You clearly know nothing of biology, evolution, or science as a whole.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Humans are the greatest creation of all living organisms.

Nothing will ever change humans from what we see now that is correct.

Thank you for agreeing with me, humans are immune to science while every other species are not.

Continue your own personal crusade against Satan's weapon (science) and you'll probably get a very comfortable seat in the front row of heaven.

We are the only creation that was created in the image of God.

So yes I agree with you now that I think about it.

No not science, Macro-evolution is pseudoscience.

But saying man as a species are immune to biology makes perfect sense scientifically.



Continue on with your good work....................................

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except you somehow think the human species is immune to that. You deny micro-evolution in the hominidae family.

Really ? humans have different races, that was change from the origional parents.

You've admitted many times before that you believe that new species come about within families, but you deny that humans became a new species within a family.

Thus, you think humans are magically immune to certain aspects of biology.

Let's just clear this up, I don't believe new families can come from an old family the change is limited that can happen within humans just as it is with all animals.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's nice. But we have evidence of macro-evolution. So you're still a broken record. See, you can choose to believe what you want, but science is something while you don't have to believe it, it's still reality.

There are no documented cases of one family becoming a new family,none ,zero.

If you wish to continue confusing micro-adaptations or evolution with macro-evolution,knock yourself out.

There are changes within a family but not one family becoming a new family. and these changes do not come from mutations.

Okay, that's it. I'm getting sick of this bullshit. You are perfectly aware that macro-evolution occurs at species level and above, not simply above species level. I have made this perfectly clear in this thread. We have evidence of evolution at the species level (it's called speciation). I disproven your statement, macroevolution occurs and we have evidence for it. Would you kindly please stop moving the goalposts once I quickly shoot your claims down?

Would you also please stop lying all the time? That's all you're doing, repeating past claims I've debunked, and continually lying and saying no evidence for such and such exists. We have evidence of macro-evolution, we have evidence of mutations and we know they cause change in organisms. So quit the broken record act already.

So was the bible accurate in saying kinds bring forth offspring of their own kind ,is this what we see ?

Is this not a question you have an answer for or are you deliberately avoiding this question because you might have to agree with the bible ?

What part of THE BIBLE IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC SOURCE is so hard to understand? I have repeated this many times as well. Stop wasting my time with repeating bullshit I've dealt with. You clearly know nothing of biology, evolution, or science as a whole.

I wouldn't call you a liar,but just confused.

I feel the same way about some of your books that spread this junk you call science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thank you for agreeing with me, humans are immune to science while every other species are not.

Continue your own personal crusade against Satan's weapon (science) and you'll probably get a very comfortable seat in the front row of heaven.

We are the only creation that was created in the image of God.

So yes I agree with you now that I think about it.

No not science, Macro-evolution is pseudoscience.

But saying man as a species are immune to biology makes perfect sense scientifically.



Continue on with your good work....................................

I am saying God allowed man to change but as you can see it is very little change over the years. All races of humans came from the same parents and each race has different characteristics . That is your change monkey or ape was not in the process. That is evidence that the information was already present, it did not happen through mutations. We are all decendants of the same parents.

 

[FurthurBB]

There are things in the bible that can be verified through science. Did not say the bible was a science book.

You cited it as the answer to my question of where information comes from, if not mutations. You were using it as such.

I believe that is what the bible say's and i have no reason to doubt it by the evidence. Especially knowing what i know of mutations.

Which is apparently nothing from what you have been saying here.

 

[FurthurBB]

Well Natural selection does away with organisms that are sick and weak and ones who can't survive their enviornment that shows it makes things stable.It weeds out things that shouldn't be. It's only fantasy to believe it makes diversity. Genetics , sexual reproduction , asexual reproduction, and large genepools are the reasons for the diversity we see.

Natural selection filters out mutation based on what would survive best. I'm not sure how it stunts diversity, really. If there are two separate mutations in different organisms of the same species that help them survive, then both will survive and pass on the mutation.

There have been many organisms go extinct would that not fall under the definition of natural selection ?


Dictionary






Search Results

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion



noun 



1.The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution

Is this not what i have been saying ? now knowing how rare beneficial mutations are how can you believe that every group of organisms that are alive today ,managed to pass on enough beneficial mutations to where every group could evolve that evolutionist said evolved ? it has never made any sense and i have already provided the method to why we see such diversity and it does not envolve mutations.

As I have told you before, the mutations that help organisms to survive in one environment can be deleterious in another. Mutations are not rare at all, they happen all the time. Since unicellular organism have a very low genetic load and have low fidelity polymerases. Complex multicellular organisms have a very high genetic load and we have high fidelity polymerases. Even humans build up mutations, our polymerase has an error rate of 1 mistake in 1 billion nucleotides. Considering the rate at which we replicate DNA, that is an average of ~1250 mutations in a person's lifetime. This doesn't even account for the UV light we are exposed to or any other mutagens. Some bacterial polymerases have a error rate as high as 1 in 100,000 nucleotides. That means that they would have a mutation at least every 2nd round of DNA replication.

 

[FurthurBB]

Oh really


Dictionary






Search Results

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion



noun 



1.The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution

So what happens to groups of organisms that can't adapt to their enviornment ? Look up survival of the fittest you should be familiar with this.

I do not need to look up survival of the fittest. Natural selection is just if a species can survive to reproduce its genes get passed on. If you are reproductively successful you are fit. You should familiarize yourself with this concept so you stop thinking there is something intelligent about it.

Natural selection is not an intelligent process when did I say that ?

Right here http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...question-click-for-answer-32.html#post4016355

 

[FurthurBB]

Why do I need to use terms that are only there to add support to your theory ? I think you understand what I mean when I use terms like kind, family,group,and breed.

By not using your terms I am lying

Let me give you the honest test since it concerns you so much. The same question that woyzeck ignored.

Was the bible right when it say's kinds bring forth offspring of their own kind ?

Who cares? Everyone can see that with their own eyes even the ancients. Why is it so impressive to you that the bible states the obvious? Well, let me put this an easier way to understand. If someone sued me because I libeled them and my argument was I don't agree with the definition of libel because it is a word created to support the plaintiff's position, the judge would laugh me out of court. That is the exact same thing you are doing. The words as defined disprove your beliefs so you have to change the definition to make it look like your beliefs have support. I.E. deliberately being disingenuous, or lying.

 

[FurthurBB]

Then you need to let all your buddies know that see it differently,it definitely is a code of information.

If it's not a code or language can you explain how these Doctors could diagnose this child ?

Doctors use genetic code to make groundbreaking diagnosis - JSOnline

DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme

The genetic code - the language of genetics

http://creationwiki.org/The_genetic_code_is_a_language_(Talk.Origins)

Deciphering the Genetic Code

Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genetic Code


You really want to see this one.

Tutorial 12.2 Deciphering The Genetic Code


Don't waste my time.

You are wasting your own time by trying to equate DNA to a language. We say it is a language or a code because it contains the information that lead to what we see in organisms. I see it exactly the same way all biologists see it. I studied it, saw it self assemble, saw how you can alter and change the way it is translated by changing the charges on it or the charges in the environment. Can you change the English language by adding salt? Can you change computer codes by changing the temperature?

Really ? because most scientist equate the Genetic code as a language. You're reaching, the genetic code allows us to identify individuals.

Standford school of medicine thinks it is a language. from what I have read from you so far I doubt your credentials are more impressive. Like i said quit wasting my time.

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

Why would you assume I need to read those things? We scientist do call it a genetic code, language, or fingerprint. That is because when DNA has an adenine, RNA polymerase will pair it with a uracil, if there was a thiamine in the DNA before the adenine and a cytosine after you will get a start codon that always makes methionine when translated. What you are not understanding is only uracil or thiamine can base pair with adenine (unless there is something chemically wrong with the bases), and the tRNA for methionine is the only tRNA that can react with AUG (same disclaimer as earlier). It is all very well understood chemical reactions that give us what we call a code or language or fingerprint.

 

[FurthurBB]

One more thing furtherBB, did you notice in the article from Standford school of medicine, that scientist were causing bacteria to speak in a different language by making their DNA to mutate,and it was intelligence once again behind the new language.

I didn't read it because it wasn't germane to my understanding of the conversation, but we can force mutations, or knock out genes, or cause the over expression of genes only because we understand evolution.

 

[FurthurBB]

We are the only creation that was created in the image of God.

So yes I agree with you now that I think about it.

No not science, Macro-evolution is pseudoscience.

But saying man as a species are immune to biology makes perfect sense scientifically.



Continue on with your good work....................................

I am saying God allowed man to change but as you can see it is very little change over the years. All races of humans came from the same parents and each race has different characteristics . That is your change monkey or ape was not in the process. That is evidence that the information was already present, it did not happen through mutations. We are all decendants of the same parents.

There is no evidence that the information was already present at all. Every species starts with two parents unless they use binary fission to reproduce then they only come from one parent. God sure is tricky, why did he make it so that when cells within a multicellular organism lose communication they become unicellular organisms?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You cited it as the answer to my question of where information comes from, if not mutations. You were using it as such.

I believe that is what the bible say's and i have no reason to doubt it by the evidence. Especially knowing what i know of mutations.

Which is apparently nothing from what you have been saying here.

Well not sure what you're referring to ? but i have debated in three or four threads here on this issue, and mutations have been covered thoroughly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Natural selection filters out mutation based on what would survive best. I'm not sure how it stunts diversity, really. If there are two separate mutations in different organisms of the same species that help them survive, then both will survive and pass on the mutation.

There have been many organisms go extinct would that not fall under the definition of natural selection ?


Dictionary






Search Results

nat·u·ral se·lec·tion



noun 



1.The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution

Is this not what i have been saying ? now knowing how rare beneficial mutations are how can you believe that every group of organisms that are alive today ,managed to pass on enough beneficial mutations to where every group could evolve that evolutionist said evolved ? it has never made any sense and i have already provided the method to why we see such diversity and it does not envolve mutations.

As I have told you before, the mutations that help organisms to survive in one environment can be deleterious in another. Mutations are not rare at all, they happen all the time. Since unicellular organism have a very low genetic load and have low fidelity polymerases. Complex multicellular organisms have a very high genetic load and we have high fidelity polymerases. Even humans build up mutations, our polymerase has an error rate of 1 mistake in 1 billion nucleotides. Considering the rate at which we replicate DNA, that is an average of ~1250 mutations in a person's lifetime. This doesn't even account for the UV light we are exposed to or any other mutagens. Some bacterial polymerases have a error rate as high as 1 in 100,000 nucleotides. That means that they would have a mutation at least every 2nd round of DNA replication.

Beneficial mutations are extrememly rare which is what you need for your theory to be true. But most of those mistakes are repaired or they show no effect to the organism at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do not need to look up survival of the fittest. Natural selection is just if a species can survive to reproduce its genes get passed on. If you are reproductively successful you are fit. You should familiarize yourself with this concept so you stop thinking there is something intelligent about it.

Natural selection is not an intelligent process when did I say that ?

Right here http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...question-click-for-answer-32.html#post4016355

That was sarcasm,my point was that by evolutionists reasoning that natural selection would know which mutant gene was beneficial and which wasn't and let the beneficial mutation remain in the population.

Sarcasm is what that was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are wasting your own time by trying to equate DNA to a language. We say it is a language or a code because it contains the information that lead to what we see in organisms. I see it exactly the same way all biologists see it. I studied it, saw it self assemble, saw how you can alter and change the way it is translated by changing the charges on it or the charges in the environment. Can you change the English language by adding salt? Can you change computer codes by changing the temperature?

Really ? because most scientist equate the Genetic code as a language. You're reaching, the genetic code allows us to identify individuals.

Standford school of medicine thinks it is a language. from what I have read from you so far I doubt your credentials are more impressive. Like i said quit wasting my time.

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

Why would you assume I need to read those things? We scientist do call it a genetic code, language, or fingerprint. That is because when DNA has an adenine, RNA polymerase will pair it with a uracil, if there was a thiamine in the DNA before the adenine and a cytosine after you will get a start codon that always makes methionine when translated. What you are not understanding is only uracil or thiamine can base pair with adenine (unless there is something chemically wrong with the bases), and the tRNA for methionine is the only tRNA that can react with AUG (same disclaimer as earlier). It is all very well understood chemical reactions that give us what we call a code or language or fingerprint.

Any message that can be relayed by a code is a form of communication which is a language. Genetic code is the blue print of life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But saying man as a species are immune to biology makes perfect sense scientifically.



Continue on with your good work....................................

I am saying God allowed man to change but as you can see it is very little change over the years. All races of humans came from the same parents and each race has different characteristics . That is your change monkey or ape was not in the process. That is evidence that the information was already present, it did not happen through mutations. We are all decendants of the same parents.

There is no evidence that the information was already present at all. Every species starts Just with two parents unless they use binary fission to reproduce then they only come from one parent. God sure is tricky, why did he make it so that when cells within a multicellular organism lose communication they become unicellular organisms?

I don't think God is tricky at all,he is just the best dang scientist of all, so good that we still can't figure out how he did everything, with all the great minds working on it for many years.

Just because you can't reason some things out that he did, is not evidence he didn't do it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But saying man as a species are immune to biology makes perfect sense scientifically.



Continue on with your good work....................................

I am saying God allowed man to change but as you can see it is very little change over the years. All races of humans came from the same parents and each race has different characteristics . That is your change monkey or ape was not in the process. That is evidence that the information was already present, it did not happen through mutations. We are all decendants of the same parents.

There is no evidence that the information was already present at all. Every species starts with two parents unless they use binary fission to reproduce then they only come from one parent. God sure is tricky, why did he make it so that when cells within a multicellular organism lose communication they become unicellular organisms?

Sure there is you just don't want to admit to it. we see diversity in every family of organisms. And we know many of the changes was the result of interbreeding and or cross breeding.

We know all humans originated from the same mother,but yet the humans are diverse.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No there are many things not known man is no more close to figuring out how God did it and we won't until he reveals it.

This is truly the heart of every one of your points. Because YOU personally don't know something, it stands to reason that god has not revealed it, and also stands to reason that no one else could possibly know that topic either. This is precisely why you get almost every claim regarding evolution wrong. I even cited that as being one of the common things you do: "You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms." Let's take a look:

Really / because there is plenty of evidence of evolutionist being disingenuous with their explanations and even faking evidence,i'm sure you remember the pigs tooth ? that was portayed as a nearest ancestor ?

Pigs tooth? Remind me again: when was that? What part of the scientific community supported it? More importantly: who debunked it?

Oh that's right. It was a century ago, it was not widely believed, and the scientific community used the part of the scientific process that focuses on demanding reproducible outcomes to debunk it. Even a century ago this self-regulated system had the means of destroying false claims. You want to use that as evidence to deny widely recognized and reproducible evidence? That's a stretch! But I suppose it's the best someone like you can do.

No you have not presented any evidence for macro-evolutionist. By the way creationist are careful about not presenting information that can't be proven.

Creationists are careful about presenting information which can't be test, verified, or disproved either. That's how ignorance works.

But I had presented evidence regarding macro-evolution. Did you forget about the Ken Miller video I showed you, complete with verbatim citation as well as paraphrasing to educate you on the topic? You couldn't provide a single explanation as to how our own chromosomes appear to be the result of two ape chromosomes fused together at the ends.

I mean, if I take two sticks, and bind them together with duct tape end to end, and put them in your driveway, you'd tell me it was God who placed that extra long tape stick there. Laughable. You can provide ZERO reasoning to refute large scale evolutionary changes, even when those undeniable reproducible changes are shoved under your nose. The only option you have when faced with such education is to retreat into your ignorance, and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You believe a non-intelligent non-thinking process called random chance is creator of life.

False. This is yet another example that illustrates how you don't even understand the concept of evolution, despite your insistence it is incorrect. Perhaps you should similarly insist the theory of gravity is wrong because I believe in ether.

Let's once again correct your ignorance on the topic. While evolution does have a random component to it, the filter of natural selection does not produce a random result. Let me dumb this down a bit. Random is rolling two dice and having any of the 6 numbers come up with equal probability. If your dice always land on snake eyes, the game is fixed.

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.

Oh good. Another one of your contrived "proofs" that lacks all supporting evidence. Here's the thing about this "proof": any code I provide you will claim God made. That's how circular reasoning works. From a logical standpoint, it's called moving the goalposts.

Numbers, in their simplicity, create codes and patterns. Prime numbers, the Fibonacci sequence, Ulam's spiral, fractals, crystal structures, etc. But despite codes being produces throughout the natural and physical world, you will in your usual circular reasoning, claim none of them "count" because you don't like them. The key to this particular bit of circular reasoning of yours is the use of the word "code" as it by definition infers something must be DEcoded or read, which itself can only be done by something natural, thus negating all codes entirely, bringing us back to the start of the circular reasoning.

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.

DNA.

Once again we have another argument you aren't quite smart enough to understand on your own. But good job copying and pasting someone else's propaganda. To this end, I have implanted one example of a code in the above set that your author states is not real. I did so purposely to goad you into attempting to reiterate his point on that topic, so I can then dismantle them one by one. I expect you will completely ignore every other example that your author didn't address, pretending they don't exist. This should be entertaining.

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

Now this uses one of your other tactics I mentioned in my previous list: claiming your theory is supported because someone else can't support their own. Actually I should restate: you're claiming your theory regarding God is supported because someone else can't support your INCORRECT theory regarding evolution. Perhaps next week you can tell me you can prove you shoot fire from your ears because I can't explain how neutrinos work.

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.

Not all mutations result in loss of information. Once again you show how utterly clueless you are on this topic. Refutation without understanding is as good as describing a new surrounding with your eyes closed.