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

[RDD_1210]

Why on Earth would anyone ask a possible presidential candidate about evolution?

Did they ask him what his favorite color is?

Uh oh, here comes the person who is cool with child raping.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is fun to watch you guys try to prove something that is just a theory. Oh, it is also not scientific fact. Keep that lie going, it makes you guys look real good, not!

That the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old is not theory, it is fact.

Therefore the Bible is immediately wrong on that relevant point.

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You said evolution as much if not more. I wanted to hear how you think it could possibly be more.

What part of "if" is hard to understand?

I didn't think you would back up your claim. Shocking....just like everything else you say and believe. No proof, no support.

I stand by my statements.

Not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills.

 

[Sallow]

Show me some examples of your "hard" evidence.

The thing about Chrsitianity in regards to creation, we don't question the Word of God. We accept it on faith. Much like the faith you hold on the "theory" of evolution.

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

All of this is a load of crap.

And using bad science to refute good science doesn't much help your case.

You still have to rely on the same science that you are trying to refute for the metrics you are using as proof.

 

[Political Junky]

It is fun to watch you guys try to prove something that is just a theory. Oh, it is also not scientific fact. Keep that lie going, it makes you guys look real good, not!

That the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old is not theory, it is fact.

Therefore the Bible is immediately wrong on that relevant point.

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

Wow, talk about hard evidence.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

All of this is a load of crap.
And using bad science to refute good science doesn't much help your case.

You still have to rely on the same science that you are trying to refute for the metrics you are using as proof.

Great counter!

I'll use it next time one of you idiot clowns claim evolution is factual.

 

[Missourian]

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

 

[RDD_1210]

What part of "if" is hard to understand?

I didn't think you would back up your claim. Shocking....just like everything else you say and believe. No proof, no support.

I stand by my statements.

Not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills.

Your statement are nothing more then....."No, you're wrong because I know you are". There's something to be proud of. I didn't realize being ignorant was a point of pride in Texans.

 

[RDD_1210]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

 

[Sallow]

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

All of this is a load of crap.
And using bad science to refute good science doesn't much help your case.

You still have to rely on the same science that you are trying to refute for the metrics you are using as proof.

Great counter!

I'll use it next time one of you idiot clowns claim evolution is factual.

You could. But you'd be wrong.

And you have to rely on Darwin, essentially, to disprove his theories.

You know what a crackpot notion that is?

 

[Sallow]

All the pieces must be in place simultaneously.

Why? Exactly.

 

[bodecea]

I love the Young Earth, Adam & Eve people...they are so funny!

 

[Woyzeck]

As with every election and especially a presidential election, all candidates are asked their thoughts on evolution. I believe the liberal MSM passed on asking that question to Obama (I wonder why?) but anyway, Rick Perry was asked the question and he gave a lengthy answer. How do you think his response was?


Rick Perry Answers the Dreaded "Evolution" Question - Evolution News & Views
His Answer:

"There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place. Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I'm not going to tell you that I've got the answers to that. I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there's enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory."



Will his evangelical base accept this answer as good enough?

Here is another source;
PERRY SEES "HOLES" IN "THEORY" OF EVOLUTION

When do we sacrifice some chattel for rain?

What? This isn't the Stone Age anymore?

 

[Woyzeck]

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

Darwin actually refuted this in the Origin of Species. He essentially surveyed all existing animals with eyes, and strung a hypothetical progression of the evolution of eyes from there. From basic light spots to our own complex eyes.

A pair of Swedish scientists made a mathematical model on how long it would take to evolve from one to the other. It would only take (with conservative estimates) about 400,000 years.

I'm gonna guess and say you have no idea how evolution works or what the theory says. I suggest a visit to your local library to pick some of the books written by biologists on the subject.

 

[8537]

Show me some examples of your "hard" evidence.

The thing about Chrsitianity in regards to creation, we don't question the Word of God. We accept it on faith. Much like the faith you hold on the "theory" of evolution.

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

The spelling and grammar appear to be correct in this post^. Other than those items, every single thing is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions.

Every piece.

I can only assume you never took biology and got your information about evolution from a creationist.

 

[Missourian]

All the pieces must be in place simultaneously.

Why? Exactly.

Did you read the excerpt?

That's the whole theory of evolution...random mutation passed on via natural selection.

If a random mutation serves no purpose, it has no advantage.

No advantage, no selection.

So you're left with dumb luck...over and over again.

 

[Woyzeck]

Show me some examples of your "hard" evidence.

The thing about Chrsitianity in regards to creation, we don't question the Word of God. We accept it on faith. Much like the faith you hold on the "theory" of evolution.

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

That's false. We have. Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik roseae?

I'm gonna guess you haven't.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

The rate is about 70%. Keep in mind, that's when mutations happen, that itself varies with the species. For the most part, evolution via mutation is a long slow process, which is what the theory of evolution states. It takes a long time for something to evolve. Mainly because generations of an organisms last years.

It doesn't take observation simply to make something fact. Otherwise stars were never born. You see where this line of thinking goes.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Thank you for not understanding how the fuck humans evolved. It's just aces. Look up something called geographic isolation in terms of speciation, and you'll see just how one species can evolve into another.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

Hm? It didn't just happened randomly. One minute basic single celled organisms the next BOOM multi-cellular organs. This stuff took a long time to evolve (we're talking billions of years) to get where we are.

It also isn't random. The mutations that cause a change in an organism randomly happen (also random is if they are beneficial or not). Natural selection filters the bad ones out (something with a negative mutation won't survive to pass on it's genes, that's why it's a negative mutation), that isn't random.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

And this math is relevant how? it proves.... what?

I suggest you also take a trip down to your local library and ask a librarian to direct you to the biology section, perhaps even the evolutionary biology section. I can recommend you one or two if you'd like.

 

[Missourian]

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

Darwin actually refuted this in the Origin of Species. He essentially surveyed all existing animals with eyes, and strung a hypothetical progression of the evolution of eyes from there. From basic light spots to our own complex eyes.

A pair of Swedish scientists made a mathematical model on how long it would take to evolve from one to the other. It would only take (with conservative estimates) about 400,000 years.

I'm gonna guess and say you have no idea how evolution works or what the theory says. I suggest a visit to your local library to pick some of the books written by biologists on the subject.

I suggest you read the article.

Now, if these 1,829 gradations really evolutionary steps that are in fact small enough to cross in fairly short order (a few generations each under selective conditions), it seems quite likely that such ranges in morphologic expression would be seen within a single gene pool of a single species.

But, they aren't.

Species that have simple flat light-sensitive eyespots only have flat light-sensitive eyespots. No individual within that species shows any sort of dimpled eye that would have any selective advantage with regard to increased visual acuity.

This fact alone suggests that these seemingly small steps probably aren't that simple when it comes to the coordinated underlying genetic changes that would be needed to get from one step to the next.​

Read More​

I can't excerpt any more of this copyrighted article , so you'll have to read it for yourself.
​

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I didn't think you would back up your claim. Shocking....just like everything else you say and believe. No proof, no support.

I stand by my statements.

Not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills.

Your statement are nothing more then....."No, you're wrong because I know you are". There's something to be proud of. I didn't realize being ignorant was a point of pride in Texans.

Again, it's not my fault you do not possess reading comprehension skills.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

Pretty much.