Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection? There should have been no changes otherwise. And, it was Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution. Smaller changes would lead to bigger changes that affect the genome after enough time.The micro-evolution found in natural selection must have had some effect.
That's what I asked you. Where is the microevolution? The alleles for color were already present for both light and dark PMs. Also, Kittlewell was wrong with his hypotheses. That adds up to evolutionists got zilch.
Otherwise, the peppered moth should have gone the way of the dinosaur by not being able to adapt and being predated into extinction. Are you trying to claim that the species we have now did not evolve through forms of microevolution, and that they existed on our planet since prehistory?
Haha. Good one. You mean the peppered moth would be made extinct by asteroid?
How do we get different breeds without micro-evolution?Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.
Link? I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before. Where is the microevolution?
Thanks, I mis-wrote. It is not different species but breeds. Why are not all dogs the same as wild dogs in Africa, for example? Micro-evolution accounts for that.Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.
Link? I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before. Where is the microevolution?
Dog breeding is just hybrids of existing DNA and is not evolution of any kind.
It takes mutations for evolution, and that can't happen to dogs in terms of human observation.
It takes millions of years.
No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
There were several bipedal primates before humans.
And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as gibbons and indriids.
No, Jonathan Wells has said the creation paleontologists have studied the fossils of plants and animals in the same layer as dinosaur fossils and they are the same creatures that exist today. I even presented a list of fossils that were presented over the years by evolutionists and they turned out to be misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes. It clearly is a case of evolutionists making an argument up like you are to back evolution.
Here is your claim:
Instead, we get this:
and
Ernst Haeckel -- Evolution frauds
Again, when I ask for evidence of macroevolution and those previous bipedal primates or evidence of microevolution and small changes, I get misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes.
Totally false.
We can date the rock dinosaur fossils are found in and they are over 100 million years old.
At which time ALL the plants and animals are entirely different.
None are the same.
Which proves evolution, because modern plants and animals did not exist then.
The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection
How do we get different breeds without micro-evolution?Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.
Link? I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before. Where is the microevolution?
Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection
You got what you just stated from HB Kettlewell's research. Birds were not the main predators of peppered moths. Bats are. They are noctunal like all moths. I just pointed out Kettlewell's hypothesis was all wrong.
I get tired of repeating myself. The change from light to dark and back again was due to the alleles in the PM's gene already. Both light and dark PMs existed at the same time. There was no need for any evolution. It's all part of natural selection.
We agree on the soot pollution, but the moths didn't perch on the bark of the tree. They slept higher up in the tree under its leaves. If Kettlewell just looked for the PMs elsewhere, then he would've found both light and dark existed in different percentages. He was trying to fit the results to his theory.
There is more than the one original dog breed now than there was originally. Artificial and natural selection is a requirement for micro-evolution.How do we get different breeds without micro-evolution?Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.
Link? I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before. Where is the microevolution?
>>Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.<<
That's what I asked you. You're the one who made the claim. Where's the microevolution?
Instead, my answer would be natural selection and artificial selection. That's what I know.
Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection
You got what you just stated from HB Kettlewell's research. Birds were not the main predators of peppered moths. Bats are. They are noctunal like all moths. I just pointed out Kettlewell's hypothesis was all wrong.
I get tired of repeating myself. The change from light to dark and back again was due to the alleles in the PM's gene already. Both light and dark PMs existed at the same time. There was no need for any evolution. It's all part of natural selection.
We agree on the soot pollution, but the moths didn't perch on the bark of the tree. They slept higher up in the tree under its leaves. If Kettlewell just looked for the PMs elsewhere, then he would've found both light and dark existed in different percentages. He was trying to fit the results to his theory.
Shark fossil records are abundant and diverse. They show that some species, living over 150 million years ago, were identical to those existing today.--https://www.sharktrust.org/shark-evolution
Any change must be a form of micro-evolution.
Artificial and natural selection is a requirement for micro-evolution.
Any Change is micro-evolution. You are merely special pleading. The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection
You got what you just stated from HB Kettlewell's research. Birds were not the main predators of peppered moths. Bats are. They are noctunal like all moths. I just pointed out Kettlewell's hypothesis was all wrong.
I get tired of repeating myself. The change from light to dark and back again was due to the alleles in the PM's gene already. Both light and dark PMs existed at the same time. There was no need for any evolution. It's all part of natural selection.
We agree on the soot pollution, but the moths didn't perch on the bark of the tree. They slept higher up in the tree under its leaves. If Kettlewell just looked for the PMs elsewhere, then he would've found both light and dark existed in different percentages. He was trying to fit the results to his theory.
Shark fossil records are abundant and diverse. They show that some species, living over 150 million years ago, were identical to those existing today.--https://www.sharktrust.org/shark-evolution
Any change must be a form of micro-evolution.
I already answered why the change more than once. You can read the above.
Next, you compare apples to oranges.
Also, you didn't read,
As for why sharks haven't changed, you can't figure it out from reading the article. Why change when " Sharks have always dominated the top of the marine food chain."
Artificial and natural selection is a requirement for micro-evolution.
No, those are the reason for the different breeds. What else has to be present for microevolution? I posted the answer above.
Rigby5 said:
"Dog breeding is just hybrids of existing DNA and is not evolution of any kind.
It takes mutations for evolution, and that can't happen to dogs in terms of human observation.
It takes millions of years."
Why he posts stuff like that me, I have no idea. He should post to you.
Evolution means Change.So if we get rid of evolution what other THEORY(which cannot be proven) should replace it?
Not 'evolution'....Darwin's version of an explanation.
Read more carefully.
If you ever get around to reading, you will find that there are a number of other explanations for the diversity of life.
See if you understand this:
“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in The New York Times. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.
That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning.
Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty, it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”
If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection
You got what you just stated from HB Kettlewell's research. Birds were not the main predators of peppered moths. Bats are. They are noctunal like all moths. I just pointed out Kettlewell's hypothesis was all wrong.
I get tired of repeating myself. The change from light to dark and back again was due to the alleles in the PM's gene already. Both light and dark PMs existed at the same time. There was no need for any evolution. It's all part of natural selection.
We agree on the soot pollution, but the moths didn't perch on the bark of the tree. They slept higher up in the tree under its leaves. If Kettlewell just looked for the PMs elsewhere, then he would've found both light and dark existed in different percentages. He was trying to fit the results to his theory.
Shark fossil records are abundant and diverse. They show that some species, living over 150 million years ago, were identical to those existing today.--https://www.sharktrust.org/shark-evolution
Any change must be a form of micro-evolution.
I already answered why the change more than once. You can read the above.
Next, you compare apples to oranges.
Also, you didn't read,
As for why sharks haven't changed, you can't figure it out from reading the article. Why change when " Sharks have always dominated the top of the marine food chain."
Artificial and natural selection is a requirement for micro-evolution.
No, those are the reason for the different breeds. What else has to be present for microevolution? I posted the answer above.
Rigby5 said:
"Dog breeding is just hybrids of existing DNA and is not evolution of any kind.
It takes mutations for evolution, and that can't happen to dogs in terms of human observation.
It takes millions of years."
Why he posts stuff like that me, I have no idea. He should post to you.
The Miller-Urey experiment proved micro-evolution happens.Evolution "came under fire"? That's all very melodramatic but such tirades don't reflect reality.Now that’s pretty darn funny.
There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.
What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.
This has nothing to do with creation science. Ronald Fisher's theorem backed up Darwin after Mendel published his empirical findings. Darwin's explanation of ToE was just that an explanation or hypothesis. It grew to become a theory after Fisher's theorem. You didn't even read nor understand what the article said. It's from the Genetic Entropy group and they published in Mathematical Biology -- The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. I guess this is so mind blowing that their paper is free to view and download.
Furthermore, I keep talking about the period from 2007 - 2011 where evolution came under fire. I think this was the period that Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants were brought up to counter Darwinism -- Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity. Darwin, like you, didn't have a clue about genetics.
You can read the history of the birth of genetics here -- Chromosomes, Mutation, and the Birth of Modern Genetics: Thomas Hunt Morgan.
It leads into Ronald Fisher and his theorem (it's on the next page of the website where I learned evolution) -- Random Mutations and Evolutionary Change: Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, & Sewall Wright
The reality is evolution has been destroyed by the Mathematical Biology and the experiments on mutations that backed up the math. You have had your time from the 1850s to 2007 or so. That's a long enough time for a lie to be accepted and tried with the advent of genetics. Much of the experiments were based on circular reasoning and trying to make the results fit the theory. However, all that came tumbling down with the disproving of Fisher's theorem and the challenge to evolutionary biology. Much of Darwin's concepts, i.e. Darwinism was debunked by experiments during 2007 - 2011 timeframe. Now the mathematical biology foundations have been destroyed. You should ask yourself what you have left?
Uh huh...If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
It isn't my connection to God but you right wingers immorally complaining about Taxes after Jesus the Christ told you not to do that; all it takes is morals to have a "Kingdom of God on Earth".Uh huh...If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".
Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.It isn't my connection to God but you right wingers immorally complaining about Taxes after Jesus the Christ told you not to do that; all it takes is morals to have a "Kingdom of God on Earth".Uh huh...If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".
Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.It isn't my connection to God but you right wingers immorally complaining about Taxes after Jesus the Christ told you not to do that; all it takes is morals to have a "Kingdom of God on Earth".Uh huh...If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".
You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.It isn't my connection to God but you right wingers immorally complaining about Taxes after Jesus the Christ told you not to do that; all it takes is morals to have a "Kingdom of God on Earth".Uh huh...If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".
We would not need a minimum wage when all it should require is morals. Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.It isn't my connection to God but you right wingers immorally complaining about Taxes after Jesus the Christ told you not to do that; all it takes is morals to have a "Kingdom of God on Earth".Uh huh...If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.There is a difference between improbable and impossible.The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
Evolution is impossible.
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".
Do you keep a track of what you post?
