Darwin vs DNA

[The Irish Ram]

Of course I can. And I'll be back tonight to show you how.
Until then speculate on this:
6,000 years ago, God said, "Ismael will be a wild ass whose hand will be against everyone including his own".
See if you can find anything to back that prophecy up on tonight's news..................

I speculated as requested. I found evidence here:

The Onion - America's Finest News Source

From what I can discern, I suggest you immediately sell all your possessions and head-for-zee-hills.

No need. I stand my ground.

Oh and Loki,

If creationists are correct and our population started with 4 couples after the flood 4,300 years ago, our population today should be sufficiently homogeneous genetically to make donor organ rejection mostly meaningless. That's the predictable consequence of the genetic purity resultant from such an extreme genetic bottle-neck.

No it would not. Even slight variations between parent and children, can prohibit donating organs.
Since your ancestors are monkeys, why can't you use donor monkey organs?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, you forgot to add that according to the study:
Changing any of the dimensions given in the Bible, even a little, would have created an ark that would not have survived. The Titanic sank. The ark did not.
The research was performed without bias. Does the fact that you can't find it on any atheists sites somehow discredit the results?

How do you know the study was performed without bias? If that was the case, then why don't the creationists publish the results of their study? As is so often the case with studies by creationists, there is no opportunity for a non-biased entity to review the data.

As far as

Not all seeds float. Hardwood tree seeds/fruit will sink quickly when immersed in water:
pin oak, maple seed pods, walnut pods for a few examples.

That would be covered in Genesis 6:21

Genesis may appeal to your preference not to examine those things which contradict the bible but you shouldn't expect others with no preconceptions of biblical inerrancy to accept false claims.

The invisible one told me to write the above.

 

[Hollie]

Of course I can. And I'll be back tonight to show you how.
Until then speculate on this:
6,000 years ago, God said, "Ismael will be a wild ass whose hand will be against everyone including his own".
See if you can find anything to back that prophecy up on tonight's news..................

I speculated as requested. I found evidence here:

The Onion - America's Finest News Source

From what I can discern, I suggest you immediately sell all your possessions and head-for-zee-hills.

No need. I stand my ground.

No need to keep last nights news a secret. What happened? Or, is someone suffering from Marshall Applewhite syndrome?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Back to DeoxyriboNucleicAcid:

The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids that are one millionth the size of a human hair. Even the smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids, 20+ of which are required to produce the proteins that exist in living cells.

If you calculate the odds against 500 amino acids lining up in the correct order to produce one living cell by random is one chance in 10 followed by 200 zeros, or, the same odds as a blind man locating a grain of sand painted gold within a universe composed of 50 billion galaxies of two hundred million stars apiece of nothing but sand.

 

[LOki]

Oh and Loki,

If creationists are correct and our population started with 4 couples after the flood 4,300 years ago, our population today should be sufficiently homogeneous genetically to make donor organ rejection mostly meaningless. That's the predictable consequence of the genetic purity resultant from such an extreme genetic bottle-neck.

No it would not. Even slight variations between parent and children, can prohibit donating organs.
Since your ancestors are monkeys, why can't you use donor monkey organs?

Wow. A comparison between " slight variations between parent and children" and entirely different species. What in the world could go wrong with that argument?

Your idiot's notion of common ancestry is a clue.

But since you've waxed so knowledgeable, you should already be aware that there's living example, in the case of cheetahs, that is evidence validating my assertion. Here's the paper describing the experiment, and the findings. Of course you say they're wrong.

Please illuminate us all.

 

[newpolitics]

New,
I'd like for it to be as easy as saying, "you collect marbles for a million years and I'll collect marbles for 43 hundred years and see who is closest to the amount of marbles in the world today".
But I can't so:
Since there has never been a world census, let's add variables and use the same calculations for both creationists and evolutionists.
Let's use one family with an low average of 2.5 children each to account for natural depletion, such as war, disease, and famine. And we'll use a 43 year generation. Any of these can be changed but must be the same for both equations.
In 4300 years, there would be 100 generations lasting forty three years each, which would make the population growth from the flood to now 5 billion.
Now evolution. Using the same calculation of 43 years per generation, the population growth would produce 23,256 consecutive generations @2.5 children each. or 10 to the power of 2091. If they are correct, at a rate of 2% a year, in 700 years there will be 1 person per foot of earth.
Using the evolution theory, assume that the human population increases geometrically. That is, the increase each year is equal to a constant proportion of the population the previous year.
Here's the math:
P is the population at any certain time, r is the proportionate annual increase in population, and Pn is the population n years later. For example, if the present population is 3.5 billion and the planet’s permissible population is 50 billion, the number of years before this number will be reached at the present 2% annual increase can be calculated as follows:
Going backwards instead of forward, equation (1) will also indicate how long it would take to produce the present population at 2% growth per year, starting with two people. An initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% per year, would become 3.5 billion people in only 1075 years. Since written records go back over 4,000 years, it is obvious that the average growth rate throughout past history has been considerably less than the present rate.
You can also use the equation (1) to determine what the average growth rate would have to be to generate the present population in 4,000 years.
An average population growth rate of only (1/2)% would generate the present world population in only 4000 years.

Hollie, you forgot to add that according to the study:
Changing any of the dimensions given in the Bible, even a little, would have created an ark that would not have survived. The Titanic sank. The ark did not.
The research was performed without bias. Does the fact that you can't find it on any atheists sites somehow discredit the results?

As far as

Not all seeds float. Hardwood tree seeds/fruit will sink quickly when immersed in water:
pin oak, maple seed pods, walnut pods for a few examples.

That would be covered in Genesis 6:21


Ima,

I'm sorry, you can't attribute any words to any invisible being that no one has ever seen who lives in another dimension that no one has ever been to. What you're doing is speculating that this invisible dude knows everything.

And anyways your quote is "I [God] make known the end from the beginning", which means pretty much nothing, and certainly nowhere near what you're arguing about dimensions. You're messed up bro.

I can if the invisible predicts the future with accuracy. No mortal can do it with regularity, and without guesswork. You try it. What movie will win the Academy Award for best picture in 2014?

As far as dimensions no one has seen, you don't have to see them to know that they are there. Well, maybe you do, but Genesis, Nachmanides, Einstein, Hawking and others understand on a different level than you do.
Acquaint yourself with the work of Rabbi Nachnabides, concerning the information he was able to extract from the invisible one concerning dimensions for help.

And Yes, He knows everything. And he is a really good ship builder too.

There ya go.

Math, when done in a vacuum, is not descriptive of reality, or the history of reality, hence, it is not useful. This is exactly what you have done, which is exactly what I predicted you would do. You simply take you're exponential equations, add more time, and voila: If evolutionary time scales were true, there would be one person per square foot on this earth!

Well, unfortunately for you, math in a vacuum, is not describing anything except itself, as it has no application to what we know actually happened, as it is essentially leaving out TONS of information as I previously described, that would put some serious kinks in you're exponential and geometric curves. I am not going to go through them again, because I understand the creationist mind just doesn't give a shit about actual evidence or reason.

 

[LOki]

Back to DeoxyriboNucleicAcid:

The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids that are one millionth the size of a human hair. Even the smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids, 20+ of which are required to produce the proteins that exist in living cells.

If you calculate the odds against 500 amino acids lining up in the correct order to produce one living cell by random is one chance in 10 followed by 200 zeros, or, the same odds as a blind man locating a grain of sand painted gold within a universe composed of 50 billion galaxies of two hundred million stars apiece of nothing but sand.

How nice of you to make up those odds. They're very pretty.

In the end, they're meaningless.

 

[The Irish Ram]

New,
I'd like for it to be as easy as saying, "you collect marbles for a million years and I'll collect marbles for 43 hundred years and see who is closest to the amount of marbles in the world today".
But I can't so:
Since there has never been a world census, let's add variables and use the same calculations for both creationists and evolutionists.
Let's use one family with an low average of 2.5 children each to account for natural depletion, such as war, disease, and famine. And we'll use a 43 year generation. Any of these can be changed but must be the same for both equations.
In 4300 years, there would be 100 generations lasting forty three years each, which would make the population growth from the flood to now 5 billion.
Now evolution. Using the same calculation of 43 years per generation, the population growth would produce 23,256 consecutive generations @2.5 children each. or 10 to the power of 2091. If they are correct, at a rate of 2% a year, in 700 years there will be 1 person per foot of earth.
Using the evolution theory, assume that the human population increases geometrically. That is, the increase each year is equal to a constant proportion of the population the previous year.
Here's the math:
P is the population at any certain time, r is the proportionate annual increase in population, and Pn is the population n years later. For example, if the present population is 3.5 billion and the planet’s permissible population is 50 billion, the number of years before this number will be reached at the present 2% annual increase can be calculated as follows:
Going backwards instead of forward, equation (1) will also indicate how long it would take to produce the present population at 2% growth per year, starting with two people. An initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% per year, would become 3.5 billion people in only 1075 years. Since written records go back over 4,000 years, it is obvious that the average growth rate throughout past history has been considerably less than the present rate.
You can also use the equation (1) to determine what the average growth rate would have to be to generate the present population in 4,000 years.
An average population growth rate of only (1/2)% would generate the present world population in only 4000 years.

Hollie, you forgot to add that according to the study:
Changing any of the dimensions given in the Bible, even a little, would have created an ark that would not have survived. The Titanic sank. The ark did not.
The research was performed without bias. Does the fact that you can't find it on any atheists sites somehow discredit the results?

As far as

Not all seeds float. Hardwood tree seeds/fruit will sink quickly when immersed in water:
pin oak, maple seed pods, walnut pods for a few examples.

That would be covered in Genesis 6:21


Ima,

I'm sorry, you can't attribute any words to any invisible being that no one has ever seen who lives in another dimension that no one has ever been to. What you're doing is speculating that this invisible dude knows everything.

And anyways your quote is "I [God] make known the end from the beginning", which means pretty much nothing, and certainly nowhere near what you're arguing about dimensions. You're messed up bro.

I can if the invisible predicts the future with accuracy. No mortal can do it with regularity, and without guesswork. You try it. What movie will win the Academy Award for best picture in 2014?

As far as dimensions no one has seen, you don't have to see them to know that they are there. Well, maybe you do, but Genesis, Nachmanides, Einstein, Hawking and others understand on a different level than you do.
Acquaint yourself with the work of Rabbi Nachnabides, concerning the information he was able to extract from the invisible one concerning dimensions for help.

And Yes, He knows everything. And he is a really good ship builder too.

There ya go.

Math, when done in a vacuum, is not descriptive of reality, or the history of reality, hence, it is not useful. This is exactly what you have done, which is exactly what I predicted you would do. You simply take you're exponential equations, add more time, and voila: If evolutionary time scales were true, there would be one person per square foot on this earth!

Well, unfortunately for you, math in a vacuum, is not describing anything except itself, as it has no application to what we know actually happened, as it is essentially leaving out TONS of information as I previously described, that would put some serious kinks in you're exponential and geometric curves. I am not going to go through them again, because I understand the creationist mind just doesn't give a shit about actual evidence or reason.

Not my math and there is no vacuum.
The lead editorial in an issue of Science, says:

"The United Nations Population Conference, which concluded on 31 August in Bucharest, passed by acclamation a World Plan of Action that dramatized the growing global concern for the planet's plight.… At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socio-economic gains and fatally imperil the environment.…

"Those governments for which excessive population growth is detrimental to their national purpose were given a target date of 1985 to provide information and methods for implementing these goals."

So urgent do the experts consider this problem to be that the United Nations Organization actually proclaimed 1974 to be "World Population Year." It can be shown, in fact, that if the population continued to increase at the rate of 2% per year, in less than 700 years there would be one person for every square foot of the earth's surface.

Take THEIR math and work backwards.
What you have is a problem with the United Nations Population Conference. Your second problem is to discern if they are correct or not.

They are not correct. Overpopulation is not an issue. But even their miscalculations lead to creation.
Want the math?

 

[Hollie]

New,
I'd like for it to be as easy as saying, "you collect marbles for a million years and I'll collect marbles for 43 hundred years and see who is closest to the amount of marbles in the world today".
But I can't so:
Since there has never been a world census, let's add variables and use the same calculations for both creationists and evolutionists.
Let's use one family with an low average of 2.5 children each to account for natural depletion, such as war, disease, and famine. And we'll use a 43 year generation. Any of these can be changed but must be the same for both equations.
In 4300 years, there would be 100 generations lasting forty three years each, which would make the population growth from the flood to now 5 billion.
Now evolution. Using the same calculation of 43 years per generation, the population growth would produce 23,256 consecutive generations @2.5 children each. or 10 to the power of 2091. If they are correct, at a rate of 2% a year, in 700 years there will be 1 person per foot of earth.
Using the evolution theory, assume that the human population increases geometrically. That is, the increase each year is equal to a constant proportion of the population the previous year.
Here's the math:
P is the population at any certain time, r is the proportionate annual increase in population, and Pn is the population n years later. For example, if the present population is 3.5 billion and the planet’s permissible population is 50 billion, the number of years before this number will be reached at the present 2% annual increase can be calculated as follows:
Going backwards instead of forward, equation (1) will also indicate how long it would take to produce the present population at 2% growth per year, starting with two people. An initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% per year, would become 3.5 billion people in only 1075 years. Since written records go back over 4,000 years, it is obvious that the average growth rate throughout past history has been considerably less than the present rate.
You can also use the equation (1) to determine what the average growth rate would have to be to generate the present population in 4,000 years.
An average population growth rate of only (1/2)% would generate the present world population in only 4000 years.

Hollie, you forgot to add that according to the study:
Changing any of the dimensions given in the Bible, even a little, would have created an ark that would not have survived. The Titanic sank. The ark did not.
The research was performed without bias. Does the fact that you can't find it on any atheists sites somehow discredit the results?

As far as

That would be covered in Genesis 6:21


Ima,


I can if the invisible predicts the future with accuracy. No mortal can do it with regularity, and without guesswork. You try it. What movie will win the Academy Award for best picture in 2014?

As far as dimensions no one has seen, you don't have to see them to know that they are there. Well, maybe you do, but Genesis, Nachmanides, Einstein, Hawking and others understand on a different level than you do.
Acquaint yourself with the work of Rabbi Nachnabides, concerning the information he was able to extract from the invisible one concerning dimensions for help.

And Yes, He knows everything. And he is a really good ship builder too.

There ya go.

Math, when done in a vacuum, is not descriptive of reality, or the history of reality, hence, it is not useful. This is exactly what you have done, which is exactly what I predicted you would do. You simply take you're exponential equations, add more time, and voila: If evolutionary time scales were true, there would be one person per square foot on this earth!

Well, unfortunately for you, math in a vacuum, is not describing anything except itself, as it has no application to what we know actually happened, as it is essentially leaving out TONS of information as I previously described, that would put some serious kinks in you're exponential and geometric curves. I am not going to go through them again, because I understand the creationist mind just doesn't give a shit about actual evidence or reason.

Not my math and there is no vacuum.
The lead editorial in an issue of Science, says:

"The United Nations Population Conference, which concluded on 31 August in Bucharest, passed by acclamation a World Plan of Action that dramatized the growing global concern for the planet's plight.… At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socio-economic gains and fatally imperil the environment.…

"Those governments for which excessive population growth is detrimental to their national purpose were given a target date of 1985 to provide information and methods for implementing these goals."

So urgent do the experts consider this problem to be that the United Nations Organization actually proclaimed 1974 to be "World Population Year." It can be shown, in fact, that if the population continued to increase at the rate of 2% per year, in less than 700 years there would be one person for every square foot of the earth's surface.

Take THEIR math and work backwards.
What you have is a problem with the United Nations Population Conference. Your second problem is to discern if they are correct or not.

They are not correct. Overpopulation is not an issue. But even their miscalculations lead to creation.
Want the math?

I was curious as to why you didn't link to the exact url for the Science article. I searched the pages of Science Magazine for your reference and found nothing. However, I did find the exact "quote" you posted at the Institute for Creation Research.

Evolution and the Population Problem

Oddly, the bolded text in your "quote" was commentary supplied by Henry Morris and not text from the UN Population Conference. How strange you missed that. As I suspect you know, Henry Morris is the Head Quack in Charge at the ICR.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Oh and Loki,

If creationists are correct and our population started with 4 couples after the flood 4,300 years ago, our population today should be sufficiently homogeneous genetically to make donor organ rejection mostly meaningless. That's the predictable consequence of the genetic purity resultant from such an extreme genetic bottle-neck.

No it would not. Even slight variations between parent and children, can prohibit donating organs.
Since your ancestors are monkeys, why can't you use donor monkey organs?

Wow. A comparison between " slight variations between parent and children" and entirely different species. What in the world could go wrong with that argument?

Your idiot's notion of common ancestry is a clue.

But since you've waxed so knowledgeable, you should already be aware that there's living example, in the case of cheetahs, that is evidence validating my assertion. Here's the paper describing the experiment, and the findings. Of course you say they're wrong.

Please illuminate us all.

Glad to:
Adaption.

Although most genetic studies use lab animals and domestic animals, evidence is accumulating that the effects of inbreeding are at least as severe on wild animals in natural habitats. Natural selection is expected to reduce the frequency of deleterious alleles, in populations the persist through bottlenecks, but as yet there is little evidence for such purging of the genetic load in mammalian populations.
No species of mammal has been shown to be unaffected by inbreeding.

Genetic problems are contributing to the decline and vulnerability of at least several mammalian taxa. Genetic threats to population viability will be expressed by effects on and interactions with demographic and ecological processes.
Department of Biology, @ Daniel F and Ada L. Rice Center Brookfield, Ill.

We adapt, we don't change from camels to lions, or monkeys to humans.
So what you chalk up to kitty evolution, is actually caused by adaptation and inbreeding.

 

[Hollie]

Oh and Loki,


No it would not. Even slight variations between parent and children, can prohibit donating organs.
Since your ancestors are monkeys, why can't you use donor monkey organs?

Wow. A comparison between " slight variations between parent and children" and entirely different species. What in the world could go wrong with that argument?

Your idiot's notion of common ancestry is a clue.

But since you've waxed so knowledgeable, you should already be aware that there's living example, in the case of cheetahs, that is evidence validating my assertion. Here's the paper describing the experiment, and the findings. Of course you say they're wrong.

Please illuminate us all.

Glad to:
Adaption.

Although most genetic studies use lab animals and domestic animals, evidence is accumulating that the effects of inbreeding are at least as severe on wild animals in natural habitats. Natural selection is expected to reduce the frequency of deleterious alleles, in populations the persist through bottlenecks, but as yet there is little evidence for such purging of the genetic load in mammalian populations.
No species of mammal has been shown to be unaffected by inbreeding.

Genetic problems are contributing to the decline and vulnerability of at least several mammalian taxa. Genetic threats to population viability will be expressed by effects on and interactions with demographic and ecological processes.
Department of Biology, @ Daniel F and Ada L. Rice Center Brookfield, Ill.

We adapt, we don't change from camels to lions, or monkeys to humans.
So what you chalk up to kitty evolution, is actually caused by adaptation and inbreeding.

This is at least the second time you have made the false representation of monkeys turning into humans.

Anyone who has ever weed whacked through the landscape of crestionist invention has seen such nonsense. Unfortunately, your premise regarding the “Monkey” thing is terribly flawed. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the ‘monkeys into human beings’ displays a fundamental lack of understanding regarding human evolution. Man was never a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

 

[LOki]

Oh and Loki,


No it would not. Even slight variations between parent and children, can prohibit donating organs.
Since your ancestors are monkeys, why can't you use donor monkey organs?

Wow. A comparison between " slight variations between parent and children" and entirely different species. What in the world could go wrong with that argument?

Your idiot's notion of common ancestry is a clue.

But since you've waxed so knowledgeable, you should already be aware that there's living example, in the case of cheetahs, that is evidence validating my assertion. Here's the paper describing the experiment, and the findings. Of course you say they're wrong.

Please illuminate us all.

Glad to:
Adaption.

Although most genetic studies use lab animals and domestic animals, evidence is accumulating that the effects of inbreeding are at least as severe on wild animals in natural habitats. Natural selection is expected to reduce the frequency of deleterious alleles, in populations the persist through bottlenecks, but as yet there is little evidence for such purging of the genetic load in mammalian populations.
No species of mammal has been shown to be unaffected by inbreeding.

Genetic problems are contributing to the decline and vulnerability of at least several mammalian taxa. Genetic threats to population viability will be expressed by effects on and interactions with demographic and ecological processes.
Department of Biology, @ Daniel F and Ada L. Rice Center Brookfield, Ill.

We adapt, we don't change from camels to lions, or monkeys to humans.
So what you chalk up to kitty evolution, is actually caused by adaptation and inbreeding.

The issue was not adaptation, it was the predictable and substantiated consequences of a genetic bottle-neck of the magnitude necessarily posited by your flood catastrophe assertions.

It's not at all surprising to me that you'd change the subject in hopes you'd hide the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[sakinago]

The retard here is the one who INSISTS that evolution was designed, and then INSISTS that I'm putting words in his mouth when I point it out. You won't find designed evolution in any competent science textbook, so reviewing my science education will only strengthen my understanding of how you have no idea who you're talking to, or what you're talking about.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

There is no reason at all for you to repeat or clarify this. As I clearly stated before, I'm fine with your metaphor.

Sorry? You were talking some sense for a minute, and then it turned into a fairy tale.

I don't understand your "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations" fairy tale.

While I am not disputing in any way the value of genetic diversity to the survival of a species; or the value that mutations have in adding information to a species' gene-pool, I just have a problem with this crazy notion you INSIST upon forwarding, that it's due to a design--that somebody designed it that way.

I'll tell you again: I understand the actual science of evolution just fine, Cupcake--it's your magically designed evolution that I'm at total loss for.

You don't have to explain to me how the mechanisms of natural selection, environmental survival pressures, genetics, genetic drift, genetic mutations, etc. ..., give rise to the diversity of life observed on this planet. This is because I understand the he actual science of evolution; your designed evolution is just crazy talk, Count Chocula.

Just to make sure you understand: I am well familiar with and have a competent foundation in the sciences; I have no dispute with the science of actual evolution, as it is founded upon, and validated by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. What I simply do not understand is that it's all designed.

Produce a logically valid/evidentiary case for your assertion that "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

If you do, you'd be the very first, and we'd have something to discuss. Otherwise you're just peddling some magical story--just another superstitious retard attempting to advance his retarded superstition as something logically valid and verifiably real.

Who is putting words who's mouth now, Sis?

Ah, it's come to "moms" for you already. Not surprised in the least. Game on retard.

de·sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.

2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.

3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.

4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.

5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.​

The same planet where you assert that, "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations", that "...our body is designed...", that ".... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity", that "... we are designed to change..." and that "...[you] believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life", --where despite the definition of design and everything you've said, you think you're NOT discussing Intelligent Design. That planet. Am I at least in the right solar system Commander Cupcake?

I have no problem with the word "design" at all, or that you are certainly arguing the case for intelligent design--the issue I take is with your OBVIOUS attempt to apply some kind of complex question strategy where intelligent design is an accepted premise.

Youwerecreated is the award winning superstar example that being a Creationist is no immunity from being dishonest. An "Intelligent Design" advocate brings a guarantee of their dishonesty.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You "have no clue where" I might have picked up on the notion that you're just advancing a superstitious creationist agenda.

pur·pose   [pur-puhs]
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

3. determination; resoluteness.

4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.

5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.​

This is you NOT advancing an intelligent design argument? So now you've said it 3 times, and that just makes you a liar 3 times.

​

The later statement you have been arguing against this whole time, so no I am not putting words into your mouth.

Correction; you're a liar 4 times.

So... 1. You either did not understand my points (common knowledge) about genetics, which means you dont understand genetics (just like you dont understand cancer if you believe that some people are genetically programed for it). Meaning your a retard and should not be arguing for evolution.

or 2. You are just arguing for the sake of argument, which means you never had a valid argument, and you have just been wasting my time .

Either/or? Seriously, you have no idea what you are doing here, who you are talking to, or what you are talking about. So why don't you just gather up all of your stupid strawmen, imagine that you've brought them to your designer, and then have him shove all those stawmen right up your ass. Ok sis?

Sorry, I was away on business for a couple weeks, didn't have time to listen to your stupid bullshit. But I am back with a full week off of work, and can see that you have started using arguments over the definitions of words instead of answering conceptual arguments I had brought up. Which means your pretty desperate, and rightfully so because your trying to argue that genetics does not produce variations (******* moron). Im guessing you don't read so just look up any video on youtube explaining how genetics works, and if you are able to comprehend the simplist of explanations in the video you will realize that yes... you did indeed grow up on a retard farm.

Not even sure what your trying to argue, but you do need to stop because your loosing the argument for evolution (which is a hard thing to do). Instead of me debating with the intelligent design folks, ive been wasting my time with with some1 who says they believe in evolution, but looks like they have no backround in science (let alone biology), and pretty much makes up their own science.

So good luck trying to prove that there are no variations in genetics, but just a heads up, when you do that you are actually arguing for intelligent design and their famous argument that "when you breed and horse and a horse, you get a horse. when you breed a pig and a pig, you get a pig." and so on.

 

[LOki]

de·sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.

2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.

3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.

4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.

5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.​

The same planet where you assert that, "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations", that "...our body is designed...", that ".... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity", that "... we are designed to change..." and that "...[you] believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life", --where despite the definition of design and everything you've said, you think you're NOT discussing Intelligent Design. That planet. Am I at least in the right solar system Commander Cupcake?

I have no problem with the word "design" at all, or that you are certainly arguing the case for intelligent design--the issue I take is with your OBVIOUS attempt to apply some kind of complex question strategy where intelligent design is an accepted premise.

Youwerecreated is the award winning superstar example that being a Creationist is no immunity from being dishonest. An "Intelligent Design" advocate brings a guarantee of their dishonesty.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You "have no clue where" I might have picked up on the notion that you're just advancing a superstitious creationist agenda.

pur·pose   [pur-puhs]
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

3. determination; resoluteness.

4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.

5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.​

This is you NOT advancing an intelligent design argument? So now you've said it 3 times, and that just makes you a liar 3 times.

Correction; you're a liar 4 times.

So... 1. You either did not understand my points (common knowledge) about genetics, which means you dont understand genetics (just like you dont understand cancer if you believe that some people are genetically programed for it). Meaning your a retard and should not be arguing for evolution.

or 2. You are just arguing for the sake of argument, which means you never had a valid argument, and you have just been wasting my time .

Either/or? Seriously, you have no idea what you are doing here, who you are talking to, or what you are talking about. So why don't you just gather up all of your stupid strawmen, imagine that you've brought them to your designer, and then have him shove all those stawmen right up your ass. Ok sis?

Sorry, I was away on business for a couple weeks, didn't have time to listen to your stupid bullshit. But I am back with a full week off of work, and can see that you have started using arguments over the definitions of words instead of answering conceptual arguments I had brought up. Which means your pretty desperate, and rightfully so because your trying to argue that genetics does not produce variations (******* moron).

Strawman.

Im guessing you don't read so just look up any video on youtube explaining how genetics works, and if you are able to comprehend the simplist of explanations in the video you will realize that yes... you did indeed grow up on a retard farm.

If you would follow your own advice, you would learn that folks who actually understand genetics, do not assign some purpose of a designer to genetics. If you read my posts, you could not possibly come to the conclusions you are drawing about my understanding of genetics.

Not even sure what your trying to argue, but you do need to stop because your loosing the argument for evolution (which is a hard thing to do). Instead of me debating with the intelligent design folks, ive been wasting my time with with some1 who says they believe in evolution, but looks like they have no backround in science (let alone biology), and pretty much makes up their own science.

Says the retard who is EXPLICITLY arguing the case for Intelligent Design.

So good luck trying to prove that there are no variations in genetics, ...

Why should I need luck? I don't intend to advance the retarded strawman position you have created for me.

...but just a heads up, when you do that you are actually arguing for intelligent design and their famous argument that "when you breed and horse and a horse, you get a horse. when you breed a pig and a pig, you get a pig." and so on.

These are actually sound points which evolutionary theory accepts. If mating pairs belonging to the same species did not give rise to offspring of the same species, the whole theory of evolution would collapse.

Who the **** are you to tell ANYONE that they need to learn more about genetics?

 

[sakinago]

Back to DeoxyriboNucleicAcid:

The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids that are one millionth the size of a human hair. Even the smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids, 20+ of which are required to produce the proteins that exist in living cells.

If you calculate the odds against 500 amino acids lining up in the correct order to produce one living cell by random is one chance in 10 followed by 200 zeros, or, the same odds as a blind man locating a grain of sand painted gold within a universe composed of 50 billion galaxies of two hundred million stars apiece of nothing but sand.

There are a lot of variables that I guarantee are not taken into account in this probability equation, there almost always is unless it is done by a legitament statistician (which there are very few of). DNA is actually a very simple informational structure. Its just 4 base AA's, comes together very nicely, and maintains the integrity of the information very well.

Either way it seems like your argument now is against chemical evolution, not evolution in general. As I said before I got off on a tangent with an idiot named loki, It is very difficult to argue intelligent design from a genetics standpoint. ALL FORMS OF LIFE (even those that reproduce asexually) are wired for to make variations in offspring, which is a pretty big indicator that evolution is bound to happen. The only way it evolution would not logically happen is if information did not change in the universe... which it does. Natural life needs variations when new variables are introduced in the environment. And I think you should do your research into graduated equilibrium b/c it is going to make a lot more sense why variations are needed for life to continue.

 

[sakinago]

de·sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.

2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.

3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.

4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.

5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.​

The same planet where you assert that, "... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations", that "...our body is designed...", that ".... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity", that "... we are designed to change..." and that "...[you] believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life", --where despite the definition of design and everything you've said, you think you're NOT discussing Intelligent Design. That planet. Am I at least in the right solar system Commander Cupcake?

I have no problem with the word "design" at all, or that you are certainly arguing the case for intelligent design--the issue I take is with your OBVIOUS attempt to apply some kind of complex question strategy where intelligent design is an accepted premise.

Youwerecreated is the award winning superstar example that being a Creationist is no immunity from being dishonest. An "Intelligent Design" advocate brings a guarantee of their dishonesty.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You "have no clue where" I might have picked up on the notion that you're just advancing a superstitious creationist agenda.

pur·pose   [pur-puhs]
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.

2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

3. determination; resoluteness.

4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.

5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.​

This is you NOT advancing an intelligent design argument? So now you've said it 3 times, and that just makes you a liar 3 times.

Correction; you're a liar 4 times.

Either/or? Seriously, you have no idea what you are doing here, who you are talking to, or what you are talking about. So why don't you just gather up all of your stupid strawmen, imagine that you've brought them to your designer, and then have him shove all those stawmen right up your ass. Ok sis?

Sorry, I was away on business for a couple weeks, didn't have time to listen to your stupid bullshit. But I am back with a full week off of work, and can see that you have started using arguments over the definitions of words instead of answering conceptual arguments I had brought up. Which means your pretty desperate, and rightfully so because your trying to argue that genetics does not produce variations (******* moron).

Strawman.

If you would follow your own advice, you would learn that folks who actually understand genetics, do not assign some purpose of a designer to genetics. If you read my posts, you could not possibly come to the conclusions you are drawing about my understanding of genetics.

Says the retard who is EXPLICITLY arguing the case for Intelligent Design.

So good luck trying to prove that there are no variations in genetics, ...

Why should I need luck? I don't intend to advance the retarded strawman position you have created for me.

...but just a heads up, when you do that you are actually arguing for intelligent design and their famous argument that "when you breed and horse and a horse, you get a horse. when you breed a pig and a pig, you get a pig." and so on.

These are actually sound points which evolutionary theory accepts. If mating pairs belonging to the same species did not give rise to offspring of the same species, the whole theory of evolution would collapse.

Who the **** are you to tell ANYONE that they need to learn more about genetics?

I've said 4 times in previous post I am arguing against intelligent design. Go back and read-em. And yea no shit when you mate a pig with a pig you get a pig, don't even know where to begin with your "these are actually sound points" comment. Thats like saying birds can fly is an integral part of bird behavior (its pretty idiotic, and kind of doesn't make sense).

And pretty close to half my work week is spent running gels on a tree disease that no ones ever heard of (fire blith), so I do a lot of work with genetics in a way. And I am guessing (if you have a college education) it would probably be in one of the liberal arts, or something like english. And you do not have a good understanding of biology (e.g. when you said people get cancer in their genes... or genetics doesn't produce variations... or most recently "these are actually sound points in the evolutionary theory.") So yea I will tell someone to learn more about genetics when they say it isn't made to make variations in offspring.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, I was away on business for a couple weeks, didn't have time to listen to your stupid bullshit. But I am back with a full week off of work, and can see that you have started using arguments over the definitions of words instead of answering conceptual arguments I had brought up. Which means your pretty desperate, and rightfully so because your trying to argue that genetics does not produce variations (******* moron).

Strawman.

If you would follow your own advice, you would learn that folks who actually understand genetics, do not assign some purpose of a designer to genetics. If you read my posts, you could not possibly come to the conclusions you are drawing about my understanding of genetics.

Says the retard who is EXPLICITLY arguing the case for Intelligent Design.

Why should I need luck? I don't intend to advance the retarded strawman position you have created for me.

...but just a heads up, when you do that you are actually arguing for intelligent design and their famous argument that "when you breed and horse and a horse, you get a horse. when you breed a pig and a pig, you get a pig." and so on.

These are actually sound points which evolutionary theory accepts. If mating pairs belonging to the same species did not give rise to offspring of the same species, the whole theory of evolution would collapse.

Who the **** are you to tell ANYONE that they need to learn more about genetics?

I've said 4 times in previous post I am arguing against intelligent design.

What you say you're doing, and what you're actually doing, are two entirely different things.

Go back and read-em.

I suggest YOU go back and read them. Mr. "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

And yea no shit when you mate a pig with a pig you get a pig, don't even know where to begin with your "these are actually sound points" comment. Thats like saying birds can fly is an integral part of bird behavior (its pretty idiotic, and kind of doesn't make sense).

The idiot is the one who clearly expresses a problem with the concept!

And pretty close to half my work week is spent running gels on a tree disease that no ones ever heard of (fire blith), so I do a lot of work with genetics in a way.

Well then, you have no excuse for being so terribly misinformed. You're just a liar. Not surprising behavior from an ID advocate; but good have it confirmed. Thanks.

And I am guessing (if you have a college education) it would probably be in one of the liberal arts, or something like english.

Wrong.

And you do not have a good understanding of biology (e.g. when you said people get cancer in their genes... or genetics doesn't produce variations... or most recently "these are actually sound points in the evolutionary theory.")

I didn't say "people get cancer in their genes" .. WTF is wrong with you?

I NEVER SAID "genetics doesn't produce variations" YOU LYING FUCKTARD!

And it is a FACT of reality that offspring are of the same species as their parents, is a sound point in the evolutionary theory. It IS!

If you deny that offspring are of the same species as their parents, you simply don't know **** all about genetics, or its role in reproduction.

So yea I will tell someone to learn more about genetics when they say it isn't made to make variations in offspring.

All-right you ******* creationist retard; if genetics was "...made to make variations in offspring," WHO made genetics "to make variations in offspring?"

And when you do, you can stop denying you're trying to advance a creationist argument.

 

[sakinago]

Strawman.

If you would follow your own advice, you would learn that folks who actually understand genetics, do not assign some purpose of a designer to genetics. If you read my posts, you could not possibly come to the conclusions you are drawing about my understanding of genetics.

Says the retard who is EXPLICITLY arguing the case for Intelligent Design.

Why should I need luck? I don't intend to advance the retarded strawman position you have created for me.

These are actually sound points which evolutionary theory accepts. If mating pairs belonging to the same species did not give rise to offspring of the same species, the whole theory of evolution would collapse.

Who the **** are you to tell ANYONE that they need to learn more about genetics?

I've said 4 times in previous post I am arguing against intelligent design.

What you say you're doing, and what you're actually doing, are two entirely different things.

I suggest YOU go back and read them. Mr. "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

The idiot is the one who clearly expresses a problem with the concept!

Well then, you have no excuse for being so terribly misinformed. You're just a liar. Not surprising behavior from an ID advocate; but good have it confirmed. Thanks.

Wrong.

And you do not have a good understanding of biology (e.g. when you said people get cancer in their genes... or genetics doesn't produce variations... or most recently "these are actually sound points in the evolutionary theory.")

I didn't say "people get cancer in their genes" .. WTF is wrong with you?

I NEVER SAID "genetics doesn't produce variations" YOU LYING FUCKTARD!

And it is a FACT of reality that offspring are of the same species as their parents, is a sound point in the evolutionary theory. It IS!

If you deny that offspring are of the same species as their parents, you simply don't know **** all about genetics, or its role in reproduction.

So yea I will tell someone to learn more about genetics when they say it isn't made to make variations in offspring.

All-right you ******* creationist retard; if genetics was "...made to make variations in offspring," WHO made genetics "to make variations in offspring?"

And when you do, you can stop denying you're trying to advance a creationist argument.

My very first post on this thread, I stated that I was a fan of graduated equilibrium (now more commonly known as punctuated equilibrium). Variations in genetic code is essential to graduated equilibrium, as well as environmental variables continually changing. Im guessing you do not know what graduated/punctuated equilibrium is (which you would not if you have taken nothing higher than a BIO 101 course), or the slight differences between that and the standard evolution model. You also have no clue what ID is since you seem to think that I am advocating it, when what I am saying is the complete opposite. So keep accusing me of advocating ID, because you'll be wrong every time.

As for the pigs makes pigs comment, again you do not know what g/p equilibrium is, so STFU, b/c it is a common argument for ID (its a stupid half truth). And also, if go back to my poker metaphore I made ealier and you'll see where I stand on that issue.

And If you never said you don't believe that genetics makes variations then you should read your earlier post, because thats what they said. Now your argument has changed to trying to say that I am an advocate for ID, which is just as stupid, since from the beginning I have been arguing against it.

 

[LOki]

I've said 4 times in previous post I am arguing against intelligent design.

What you say you're doing, and what you're actually doing, are two entirely different things.

I suggest YOU go back and read them. Mr. "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

The idiot is the one who clearly expresses a problem with the concept!

Well then, you have no excuse for being so terribly misinformed. You're just a liar. Not surprising behavior from an ID advocate; but good have it confirmed. Thanks.

Wrong.

I didn't say "people get cancer in their genes" .. WTF is wrong with you?

I NEVER SAID "genetics doesn't produce variations" YOU LYING FUCKTARD!

And it is a FACT of reality that offspring are of the same species as their parents, is a sound point in the evolutionary theory. It IS!

If you deny that offspring are of the same species as their parents, you simply don't know **** all about genetics, or its role in reproduction.

So yea I will tell someone to learn more about genetics when they say it isn't made to make variations in offspring.

All-right you ******* creationist retard; if genetics was "...made to make variations in offspring," WHO made genetics "to make variations in offspring?"

And when you do, you can stop denying you're trying to advance a creationist argument.

My very first post on this thread, I stated that I was a fan of graduated equilibrium (now more commonly known as punctuated equilibrium). Variations in genetic code is essential to graduated equilibrium, as well as environmental variables continually changing. Im guessing you do not know what graduated/punctuated equilibrium is (which you would not if you have taken nothing higher than a BIO 101 course), or the slight differences between that and the standard evolution model.

Another bad guess on your part.

You also have no clue what ID is since you seem to think that I am advocating it, when what I am saying is the complete opposite.

Except for the part where you insist that "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations"--that essential and identifying characteristic of ID that you are in complete agreement with--what you're saying is the ... ahem ... "complete opposite."

You are lolfritters.

So keep accusing me of advocating ID, because you'll be wrong every time.

You keep saying it was all "designed" and "made" for "purposes", and you'll be failing to conceal that you're advocating ID, and I will keep pointing it out ... and I'll be right; every time.

As for the pigs makes pigs comment, again you do not know what g/p equilibrium is, so STFU, b/c it is a common argument for ID (its a stupid half truth). And also, if go back to my poker metaphore I made ealier and you'll see where I stand on that issue.

I already told you I accept your poker metaphor (for as far as it can go) and it does not invalidate the obvious (graduated/punctuated equilibrium or otherwise)--that offspring are of the same species as their parents, and that fact is an essential point in the validity of evolutionary theory.

And If you never said you don't believe that genetics makes variations then you should read your earlier post, because thats what they said.

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to prove this accusation of yours by linking to the post, you didn't. Why is that Cupcake?

Now your argument has changed to trying to say that I am an advocate for ID, which is just as stupid, since from the beginning I have been arguing against it.

There's been no change in my argument. From the minute you posted "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations..." I have pointed out your Intelligent Design advocacy.

Isn't that right, Cupcake?

 

[sakinago]

What you say you're doing, and what you're actually doing, are two entirely different things.

I suggest YOU go back and read them. Mr. "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

The idiot is the one who clearly expresses a problem with the concept!

Well then, you have no excuse for being so terribly misinformed. You're just a liar. Not surprising behavior from an ID advocate; but good have it confirmed. Thanks.

Wrong.

I didn't say "people get cancer in their genes" .. WTF is wrong with you?

I NEVER SAID "genetics doesn't produce variations" YOU LYING FUCKTARD!

And it is a FACT of reality that offspring are of the same species as their parents, is a sound point in the evolutionary theory. It IS!

If you deny that offspring are of the same species as their parents, you simply don't know **** all about genetics, or its role in reproduction.

All-right you ******* creationist retard; if genetics was "...made to make variations in offspring," WHO made genetics "to make variations in offspring?"

And when you do, you can stop denying you're trying to advance a creationist argument.

My very first post on this thread, I stated that I was a fan of graduated equilibrium (now more commonly known as punctuated equilibrium). Variations in genetic code is essential to graduated equilibrium, as well as environmental variables continually changing. Im guessing you do not know what graduated/punctuated equilibrium is (which you would not if you have taken nothing higher than a BIO 101 course), or the slight differences between that and the standard evolution model.

Another bad guess on your part.

Except for the part where you insist that "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations"--that essential and identifying characteristic of ID that you are in complete agreement with--what you're saying is the ... ahem ... "complete opposite."

You are lolfritters.

You keep saying it was all "designed" and "made" for "purposes", and you'll be failing to conceal that you're advocating ID, and I will keep pointing it out ... and I'll be right; every time.

I already told you I accept your poker metaphor (for as far as it can go) and it does not invalidate the obvious (graduated/punctuated equilibrium or otherwise)--that offspring are of the same species as their parents, and that fact is an essential point in the validity of evolutionary theory.

And If you never said you don't believe that genetics makes variations then you should read your earlier post, because thats what they said.

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to prove this accusation of yours by linking to the post, you didn't. Why is that Cupcake?

Now your argument has changed to trying to say that I am an advocate for ID, which is just as stupid, since from the beginning I have been arguing against it.

There's been no change in my argument. From the minute you posted "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations..." I have pointed out your Intelligent Design advocacy.

Isn't that right, Cupcake?

Yea like I said before, heart is designed to pump blood, genetics is designed to make variations. Thats a duh statement. Simple bio, no way shape or form did I say, or hinted GOD designed a human heart, or human genetics, and put it on the earth no evolution. And If you think I believe that than you do not understand g/p equilibrium. You wanna argue definitions of words, or implications of words, your not gonna win the argument. I have told you my position many times, If I was arguing for ID, do you think I would change my position so quickly.

And If I dont multi quote you or whatever, its b/c I dont feel like it. And I dont have too, read your old post, simple as that.