Evolution. Pfffft

[Weatherman2020]

MIGHT? MIGHT? So you admit that evolution has holes in it!! And do you KNOW what that environment is???

You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.

So you don't know either. You ASSUME that evolution is fact, it is not.

You don't know for sure either.

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I have answered you already. You can't see the trees through the forest.

Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?

The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution. You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.

Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.

Fine. Then we see evolution in the progression of the fossils, and we see it in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. We see nothing else that explains what we are seeing. So, until you present a theory that explains known observations and facts better than evolution, evolution stands, and your silly rantings merely reveal your intellectual shortcomings.

So, you admit that there could be something that better explains life on this planet better than evolution? Bottom line: evolution is still a theory, a best guess. Which means we still do not understand completely. This leaves the option of believing that there is a greater power with a hand in how we came to be on this planet. You believe what you will, I will believe what I choose to.

I don't believe in evolution, I accept the overwhelming evidence for it. And if you wish to believe otherwise, that is your right. Just don't try to teach it as science.

You also believe in the manmade Gorebal Warming myth too. You just swallow whatever they feed you without question.

 

[WinterBorn]

You seem to assume that evolution has a direction. As to what environment or environmental factors would influence the future evolution of chimps, since we don't know the future, we cannot know that. As far as holes in evolution, you are going to have to define what you mean by that, if you can.

So you don't know either. You ASSUME that evolution is fact, it is not.

You don't know for sure either.

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you don't know either. You ASSUME that evolution is fact, it is not.

You don't know for sure either.

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Dark Matter.
No one has seen it.
It only exists because we say it has to to make everything we see going on in the universe fit our thinking.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you don't know either. You ASSUME that evolution is fact, it is not.

You don't know for sure either.

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't know for sure either.

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Dark Matter.
No one has seen it.
It only exists because we say it has to to make everything we see going on in the universe fit our thinking.

They see the gravitational effects on other objects. That is solid evidence that it exists.

You cannot see wind either. But only an idiot would say it does not exists because you cannot see it. Science does not require that things be visible to the naked eye.

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't know for sure either.

But the their if evolution is the best answer with the facts we have.

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The facts also do not rule out ID, which is the option I choose to believe.

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.

 

[WinterBorn]

No problem. As I have said before, you are welcome to believe what you want. But ID does not fit the parameters of science. Therefore, has no place in science class.

Also, there are facts that support Evolution. Are there facts that support ID?

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

 

[Weatherman2020]

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

 

[WinterBorn]

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

Sickle cell anemia. While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria. It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid. Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

Sickle cell anemia. While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria. It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid. Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?

Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect? Please.

Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease

 

[WinterBorn]

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

Sickle cell anemia. While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria. It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid. Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?

Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect? Please.

Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease

People with the sickle cell gene from one parent, but not the other, do not have sickle cell anemia, and have a strong resistance to malaria.

So yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

Sickle cell anemia. While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria. It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid. Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?

Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect? Please.

Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease

People with the sickle cell gene from one parent, but not the other, do not have sickle cell anemia, and have a strong resistance to malaria.

So yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.

You can inform the 200,000 that will die from sickle cell this year.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here are 4 beneficial mutations. (one I have already mentioned)

from: 4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now

"Beneficial mutation #1: Apolipoprotein AI-Milano

Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

Beneficial mutation #2: Increased bone density

One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

Beneficial mutation #3: Malaria resistance

The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

Beneficial mutation #4: Tetrachromatic vision

Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."



Now, how about my question? You can answer it. If you do I will continue. But the idea that you expect answers from others, while refusing to answer their questions is ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

Sickle cell anemia. While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria. It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid. Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?

Sickle cell anemia is an advantages birth defect? Please.

Anyway: "The protective effect of sickle-cell trait does not apply to people with sickle cell disease; in fact, they are more vulnerable to malaria, since the most common cause of painful crises in malarial countries is infection with malaria. It has therefore been recommended that people with sickle-cell disease living in malarial countries should receive anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for life."
Malaria chemoprophylaxis in sickle cell disease

People with the sickle cell gene from one parent, but not the other, do not have sickle cell anemia, and have a strong resistance to malaria.

So yes, that would be a beneficial mutation.

You can inform the 200,000 that will die from sickle cell this year.

If you would actually READ what I said, it would prevent you from looking so stupid.

The adaptation is with a single gene from the parents, not a gene from both. So the benefit is there, and they do not have sickle cell.

Also, in the link to 4 beneficial mutations, it says: "Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease."

 

[LTCArmyRet]

ID does not fit the parameters of science?
So if they uncovered a UFO in the arctic ice today dated a million years ago your response would be that is not a scientific discovery?
Science does not work that way.

And as I stated earlier, the Nobel Prize winner discoverer of the human genome says God did it. He knows bigoted views are unscientific.

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it". May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.

You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID. You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID. I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.

 

[WinterBorn]

If they uncovered an alien spacecraft in the arctic ice, that would be actual evidence. It would certainly be a scientific discovery.

What is not scientific is crediting an unknown, unknowable intelligence that cannot be proven to exist, with being single-handedly responsible for our biodiversity.

The discoverer of the genome has no more evidence than you do with the "it is too complex" idea. Yes, that is an issue. But to discover a problem and then simply to decide,based on zero evidence, that God had to have done it, is not scientific at all.

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

That is the lame ass excuse that all of you use that want to discredit ID, because it involves FAITH, you automatically say "prove it". May I suggest you look up the definition of faith.

You have evidence to "suggest" evolution, I have evidence to "suggest" ID. You can't PROVE evolution no more than I can PROVE ID. I pity you that only believes what you can see and touch, there is so much in this magnificent universe that NONE OF US has the ability to fully comprehend.

Your assumption that I do not have faith is noted. I have not said that at all. Just that I do not elieve it should be part of a science class.

Despite what you may wish, there IS solid evidence supporting the theory of evolution. There is none supporting intelligent design.

Oh, and you and Weatherman don't have any problem demanding proof for evolution. But panic when the same is expected of ID.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nature cannot create machines on its own.

That will just be your little secret.

It would, of course, depend on your definition of "machine". The currents in the oceans change weather patterns, which add or remove water from land masses. They also circulate warmth to colder regions.

Life uses complex machines that must work perfectly in order for life to exist. It is impossible for mere chance to create such devices, even assuming a billion years.



To say a species change into another species by defects in the replication of DNA is absurd. Please point to any person in history with a birth defect that is advantages. You cannot. Nature only works in one way.

This is a living creature. Humans did not start inventing such sophisticated machinery until the 19th century.
View attachment 118860

So you have said numerous times. The problem is, there is no way for the fossil record to show differently. The mutation will simply be labeled another organism by you and your ilk.

You say "Nature only works in one way", like you are speaking from a position of knowledge. You aren't. You are guessing based on your own, very limited, observations.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any evidence supporting ID.

Again, name one birth defect in the history of mankind where a birth defect is advantages.

You cannot because nature does not move to the more complex. It defies the laws of nature to do so.

Sickle cell anemia. While it can cause other problems, it also gives protection from certain tropical diseases, such as malaria. It comes from a single substitution of an amino acid. Nothing major.


Now, since I have answered numerous questions from you, when are you going to answer my simple question?

Can you provide any evidence to support ID?

Sickle Cell Anemia is not a mutation. It is latent code that already exists in DNA. It becomes more dominant in people who live in high malaria areas, such as blacks. Just as a white moth in preindustrial London became a brown moth later - the brown latent code became dominant because the white moths became easy prey. But the code of both is still there.
DNA has all of the information necessary to direct the growth of an organism. There is great variation allowed that causes differences, it is why we do not look alike. A mutation is a deficient transmission of data that ALWAYS results in a more disordered structure. Mutations are very rare, but when they do occur it is always in the direction of degeneration.

 

[sealybobo]

Tilapia found in the Sea of Galilee. Which has been land locked for over 6 million years yet is still it's same old tasty self.
View attachment 115740

Coelacanth, thought to have been extinct 66 million years ago. Until science found out locals consider them tasty too and looking just like their 66 million year old ancestors.
View attachment 115741

We may complain about freezing temperatures, but most cold snaps leave us little worse for the wear. That’s not the case for a common lizard living on the Texas-Mexico border, which, in just the span of a few months, underwent a dramatic genetic transformation in response to cold weather. In fact—in one of the most detailed examples of rapid evolution to date—a new study shows that just one cold snap can change the way green anoles’ muscular and nervous systems respond to temperature.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/cold-snap-makes-lizards-evolve-just-few-months