Marx, Math And Myth

[Indeependent]

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

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.
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.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.

Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".

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".

Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?

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!

List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.
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.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.

Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".

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".

Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?

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!

List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.

List ten nations who have no Government because they are moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

 

[Indeependent]

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

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.
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.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.

Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".

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".

Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?

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!

List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.

List ten nations who have no Government because they are moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

Which of the Ten Commandments states that everyone gets a Minimum Wage?

 

[james bond]

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.

Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.

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.

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.

>>Any Change is micro-evolution.<<

Haha. What's macroevolution then? You're the one special pleading and also wrong about microevolution..

>>The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.<<

No, it isn't. Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. There was no mutation involved. We didn't microevolve into different races or sub species. We are all of the same species of homo sapiens despite our different looks. Again, those are due to the environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. I'm tired of explaining basics that every good evolutionist knows. We are done.

I don't think you understand microevolution and now are saying dumb things like different races vs one homogenous race to make up any sort of argument. You don't discuss mutations and leave out long time.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.

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.

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.

>>Any Change is micro-evolution.<<

Haha. What's macroevolution then? You're the one special pleading and also wrong about microevolution..

>>The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.<<

No, it isn't. Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. There was no mutation involved. We didn't microevolve into different races or sub species. We are all of the same species of homo sapiens despite our different looks. Again, those are due to the environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. I'm tired of explaining basics that every good evolutionist knows. We are done.

I don't think you understand microevolution and now are saying dumb things like different races vs one homogenous race to make up any sort of argument. You don't discuss mutations and leave out long time.

No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
It has to be differences in the genes.
We did micro-evolve into different races and would have evolved into different species if we had not started interbreeding.
Environment expression could not possibly have any reality or else a Black born in the Artic circle would not have dark skin.

 

[abu afak]

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.

Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.

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.

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.

>>Any Change is micro-evolution.<<

Haha. What's macroevolution then? You're the one special pleading and also wrong about microevolution..

>>The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.<<

No, it isn't. Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. There was no mutation involved. We didn't microevolve into different races or sub species. We are all of the same species of homo sapiens despite our different looks. Again, those are due to the environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. I'm tired of explaining basics that every good evolutionist knows. We are done.

I don't think you understand microevolution and now are saying dumb things like different races vs one homogenous race to make up any sort of argument. You don't discuss mutations and leave out long time.

No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
It has to be differences in the genes.
We did micro-evolve into different races and would have evolved into different species if we had not started interbreeding.
Environment expression could not possibly have any reality or else a Black born in the Artic circle would not have dark skin.

You have to understand James Bond is a Creationist FRAUD (in another Creationist FRAUD'S thread).
Palos also knows nothing!
and the two (and more) are making a mockery of the bd/Science/debating!
It's nutty here!

Bond does NOT know what a subspecies/race is and doesn't not know what a Species is, nor does he acknowledge either!
He's an idiot/child-like creationist who believes in 'kinds'/look-alikes.
That all of them were put here by god about as is, and there is no significant difference between them except 'gene expression.'

But actually, as soon as any species move over the hills, across rivers, etc, Genetic Drift begins, which is why we get races/subspecies.. and as you also correctly understand, eventually separate species.

In fact, Bond (the simpleton/idiot) would not acknowledge scientifically/taxonomically accepted different species or subspecies.
ie, Both Gorillas and Chimps not only have separate subspecies, they each have Two Different Species.
He would never acknowledge that even if he 'knew' it.
He's a literal/litter/looks-like Kweationist.
He has no genetics, no science, no evolution, just 'goddidit.'


EDIT:
Notice embarrassed/OUTED James Bond's completely OFF Topic Deflection/non-denial, non-response, joke in 'reply' quoting me two below.

`

 

[james bond]

No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
It has to be differences in the genes.
We did micro-evolve into different races and would have evolved into different species if we had not started interbreeding.
Environment expression could not possibly have any reality or else a Black born in the Artic circle would not have dark skin.

Got any evolutionary science to back it up ethnicity boy?

 

[james bond]

You have to understand James Bond is a Creationist FRAUD (in another Creationist FRAUD'S thread).

Let me tell yu a joke then. A Muslim guy walks into a Muslim bookstore wearing a MAGA cap.

He is wandering around taking a look inside the store, so the clerk asked him if he could help the man find anything.

“Do you have a copy of Donald Trump’s book on his U.S. immigration policy regarding Muslims and illegal aliens?”

The clerk said, “Kiss my ass… get out… and stay out!”

The man said, “Yes, that’s the one. Do you have it in paperback?”

Get it? “Kiss my ass… get out… and stay out!”

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.
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.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.

Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".

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".

Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?

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!

List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.

List ten nations who have no Government because they are moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

Which of the Ten Commandments states that everyone gets a Minimum Wage?

What do you mean by everyone getting the minimum wage? Gravity Payments' minimum wage starts at thirty-five dollars an hour.

And,

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7

Why should we take right wingers seriously about morals?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.

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.

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.

>>Any Change is micro-evolution.<<

Haha. What's macroevolution then? You're the one special pleading and also wrong about microevolution..

>>The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.<<

No, it isn't. Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. There was no mutation involved. We didn't microevolve into different races or sub species. We are all of the same species of homo sapiens despite our different looks. Again, those are due to the environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. I'm tired of explaining basics that every good evolutionist knows. We are done.

I don't think you understand microevolution and now are saying dumb things like different races vs one homogenous race to make up any sort of argument. You don't discuss mutations and leave out long time.

It could take millions of years not just thousands of years for such mutations to occur.

Micro-evolution happens and was proved by Gregor Mendel.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Why do homo sapiens sapiens not all look like their common ancestor if no micro-evolution happens?

 

[Indeependent]

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

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.
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.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.

Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".

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".

Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?

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!

List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.

List ten nations who have no Government because they are moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

Which of the Ten Commandments states that everyone gets a Minimum Wage?

What do you mean by everyone getting the minimum wage? Gravity Payments' minimum wage starts at thirty-five dollars an hour.

And,

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7

Why should we take right wingers seriously about morals?

The word “righteous” is the Hebrew word tzaddik.
Do you know the definition of the word?
Do you know how the word applies to the communities where crime is rampant?

 

[Rigby5]

No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
It has to be differences in the genes.
We did micro-evolve into different races and would have evolved into different species if we had not started interbreeding.
Environment expression could not possibly have any reality or else a Black born in the Artic circle would not have dark skin.

Got any evolutionary science to back it up ethnicity boy?

Easy.
Just look at different races who have moved to different environments. If races were not permanently in their DNA and instead just environmental adaptations, then a Black couple relocated to the Arctic would have a white child. But they don't. Their children are still Black because their melanin is controlled by a permanent characteristic in the DNA of their race.
Obviously how much melanin your body produces can make you more or less successful depending on if you are living near the equator or the pole, but it can't quickly chance. It takes millions of year of micro evolution in order to change. And the only possible reason that could be true is if you have to wait for accidental mutations.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.
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.

There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.

If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.

Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".

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".

Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?

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!

List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.

List ten nations who have no Government because they are moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

Which of the Ten Commandments states that everyone gets a Minimum Wage?

What do you mean by everyone getting the minimum wage? Gravity Payments' minimum wage starts at thirty-five dollars an hour.

And,

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." Proverbs 29:7

Why should we take right wingers seriously about morals?

The word “righteous” is the Hebrew word tzaddik.
Do you know the definition of the word?
Do you know how the word applies to the communities where crime is rampant?

Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found

 

[james bond]

No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
It has to be differences in the genes.
We did micro-evolve into different races and would have evolved into different species if we had not started interbreeding.
Environment expression could not possibly have any reality or else a Black born in the Artic circle would not have dark skin.

Got any evolutionary science to back it up ethnicity boy?

Easy.
Just look at different races who have moved to different environments. If races were not permanently in their DNA and instead just environmental adaptations, then a Black couple relocated to the Arctic would have a white child. But they don't. Their children are still Black because their melanin is controlled by a permanent characteristic in the DNA of their race.
Obviously how much melanin your body produces can make you more or less successful depending on if you are living near the equator or the pole, but it can't quickly chance. It takes millions of year of micro evolution in order to change. And the only possible reason that could be true is if you have to wait for accidental mutations.

So wrong and you provided no link nor evidence.

Everyone has melanin, but different forms and ratios of it. The forms are determined by your parents and the amount of melanin one has produces different shades.

The science shows, " The expression of pigment is controlled by six main genes in the body, and this genetic makeup is largely determined by your parents and the generations that came before them. That’s how natural selection works."

Thus, you have no way to micro evolve into different races.

 

[james bond]

Basically, we don't have microevolution in races because a white couple can have a black child. Evolutionists are racists in a way because they believed that it started with black people and ended up with white people. However, we find natural selection doesn't work one way.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Why the change? Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans.

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.

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.

>>Any Change is micro-evolution.<<

Haha. What's macroevolution then? You're the one special pleading and also wrong about microevolution..

>>The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.<<

No, it isn't. Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. There was no mutation involved. We didn't microevolve into different races or sub species. We are all of the same species of homo sapiens despite our different looks. Again, those are due to the environment and different expressions of the same set of genes. I'm tired of explaining basics that every good evolutionist knows. We are done.

I don't think you understand microevolution and now are saying dumb things like different races vs one homogenous race to make up any sort of argument. You don't discuss mutations and leave out long time.

It’s comical how science loathing religionists describe natural selection.

“Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes.”

Adaptation to the environment is a function of evolution.

 

[james bond]

The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory. True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.

 

[Hollie]

The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory. True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.

That makes no sense.

 

[james bond]

The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory. True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense for the knowledgeable people.

For example, we just were discussing race when there really isn't a category of race. I was using the term race loosely since it has to do with the color of our skin and I explained how the color of our skin is determined. I never got a chance to continue...

Race doesn't have anything to do with evolution as there is no category of race. Yet, evolutionists will argue that it does and label and categorize people as being of different races. How wrong can one be? They actually differentiate how the color of skin makes us different. Even Charles Darwin did this.

The subtitle of Charles Darwin book Origin of Species is "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." From the context of the book, it shows that he had races of animals primarily in mind, but with his second book The Descent of Man, that it is also clear he thought of races of men in the same way. This clearly is racism. I've said many times that Darwin was a racist.

That this concept is still held today with the people here. Also, it was evident from the following words of a later evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:

"Races of man have, or perhaps one should say 'had', exactly the same biological significance as the sub-species of other species of mammals." 1

1. George Gaylord Simpson: "The Biological Nature of Man," Science, Vol. 152, April 22, 1966, p. 474.

I don't think this has changed much from back then. Does this show that evolutionists are racists?

However, this color does not make us a different race. We are all still of the human race. It's just that our outside looks different. I think science has discovered this now. We are all part of the human race, but for cultural or some other reason such as racism, we made up that we are different "races" due to color of our skin and such. Furthermore, this made up category of race had to evolve for the evolutionists. How could it when there was nothing to evolve? Basically, the differences of people can be categorized by languages, families, nations, and lands. This is how creation science looks at different "peoples." Not by skin color.

Does Race Exist?

Does Race Exist?

Anthropologists George Gill and Loring Brace square off on the sensitive subject of whether race exists biologically.

www.pbs.org

 

[Hollie]

The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory. True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense for the knowledgeable people.

For example, we just were discussing race when there really isn't a category of race. I was using the term race loosely since it has to do with the color of our skin and I explained how the color of our skin is determined. I never got a chance to continue...

Race doesn't have anything to do with evolution as there is no category of race. Yet, evolutionists will argue that it does and label and categorize people as being of different races. How wrong can one be? They actually differentiate how the color of skin makes us different. Even Charles Darwin did this.

The subtitle of Charles Darwin book Origin of Species is "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." From the context of the book, it shows that he had races of animals primarily in mind, but with his second book The Descent of Man, that it is also clear he thought of races of men in the same way. This clearly is racism. I've said many times that Darwin was a racist.

That this concept is still held today with the people here. Also, it was evident from the following words of a later evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:

"Races of man have, or perhaps one should say 'had', exactly the same biological significance as the sub-species of other species of mammals." 1

1. George Gaylord Simpson: "The Biological Nature of Man," Science, Vol. 152, April 22, 1966, p. 474.

I don't think this has changed much from back then. Does this show that evolutionists are racists?

However, this color does not make us a different race. We are all still of the human race. It's just that our outside looks different. I think science has discovered this now. We are all part of the human race, but for cultural or some other reason such as racism, we made up that we are different "races" due to color of our skin and such. Furthermore, this made up category of race had to evolve for the evolutionists. How could it when there was nothing to evolve? Basically, the differences of people can be categorized by languages, families, nations, and lands. This is how creation science looks at different "peoples." Not by skin color.

Does Race Exist?

Does Race Exist?

Anthropologists George Gill and Loring Brace square off on the sensitive subject of whether race exists biologically.

www.pbs.org

It's standard fare for ID'iot creationers to use the "evolutionism is racist" canard. It's a convenient canard for the science loathing religionists. If you want to examine where your racist attitudes come from, the Christian Church is home to many of the most racist, evil men in all of humanity.

Opinion | Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. Here's why.

For most of American history, the light-skinned Jesus conjured up by white congregations demanded the preservation of inequality as part of the divine order.

www.nbcnews.com

Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence.