Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Ringtone]

One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
Where is all the cancer evidence?

Did you read my last post yet? Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
Where is all the cancer evidence?

Did you read my last post yet? Thanks.

Did it have proof of your claim.... Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

 

[james bond]

I've heard it causes tumors

LOL!

Tumors may not be cancerous, but still an unsightly mess -- Is a Tumor Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

More recently, the worry is getting cancer, but not enough evidence -- Is There Evidence That GMOs Can Cause Cancer? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

It's up to you. I'm more careful with trying to eat non-GMO foods and opt for grass fed and grain fed beef.

Atheists and their atheist scientists should follow evolution and eat GMO foods. Practice what you preach.

One person who may have had an allergic reaction.
Where is all the cancer evidence?

Eat the GMO foods and you could be it. I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.

One can't get cheap, fast, and good. One can only get two out of the three.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.

haha... so things we don't know yet are the reason for your beliefs.

A moment of accidental honesty and clarity from a magical thinker.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.

So you lied when you said we already know.....thanks

 

[Ringtone]

Eat the GMO foods and you could be it. I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.

One can't get cheap, fast, and good. One can only get two out of the three.

Hey, James, still waiting on you to explain precisely how the actually infinite only exists in the supernatural world, indeed, still waiting on you to explain to God and everybody what the beep that even means. Thanks.

Winning!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Winning!

And again...how strange, considering the scoreboard shows you losing by about eleventy zillion points. You would fail a 7th grade science quiz. So i am curious what you think you are winning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did it have proof of your claim.... Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

As far as I know, you haven't satisfactorily resolved this error in your mind yet. . . .

There is a dramatic difference between the following two statements:

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.​

​

Mutations can never add new information.​

The first statement is true, the second statement is arguably false. You attributed the arguably false statement, which I never made, to me out of rank ignorance.

Wow, that seems like a major difference . . . not really.

Translation of what Toddsterpatriot is actually claiming, albeit, unwittingly, because he's an arrogant know-nothing of rank fideism:

In spite of the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information, there's no major difference between the following two statements:

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.​

​

Mutations can never add new information.​

​

First: say derp derp, and tell your significant other to slap you.

Second: drop and give me 50!

Third: Link?

Thanks.

Your claim isn't my error.

If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.

 

[Ringtone]

“The atheist-of-the-gaps fallacy is the metaphysical apriority of naturalism, i.e., the puerile belief that nature did it! —Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)”

If you could post your “General Theory of Supernaturalism™” we could examine your data for the supernatural. If the natural world is somehow subservient to your supernatural world and supernatural realms, show us the magic. If there are supernatural forces that you claim to exist but refuse to demonstrate and you choose to keep those to yourself, how does anyone come to a conclusion about your supernatural realms?

One has to able to think logically, mathematically and scientifically sound to grasp that "theory."

Sadly, you're not qualified.

 

[Ringtone]

Your claim isn't my error.

If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.

The pertinent claim and the attending blunder is yours, and you haven't provided a link for your claim. See post #606.

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your claim isn't my error.

If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.

The pertinent claim and the attending blunder is yours, and you haven't provided a link for you claim.

The pertinent claim......is yours.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you can't prove it, just say so.

 

[Hollie]

Life exists on the planet. Either life erupted from biological processes or, by your beliefs, one or more gods snapped their eternal digits and magically created existence 6,000 years ago. I’m discounting the alien seeding thing. I’m also discounting your ability to demonstrate any understanding of biology and I’m further discounting your ability to make any rational case for your beliefs in a 6,000 year old planet whipped up by your gods.

Have you ever considered that light reaching this planet from anywhere further than 6,000 light years distant is an unresolvable dilemma for you Flat Earth types?

We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know with certainty that organisms evolve. We know with certainty, you don’t, but thinking humans know the planet is billions of years old and the processes of chemistry and biology have had almost as long to interact.

So, tell us about that Ark cruise.

Just how stupid are you? I have told you at least three times now that I'm not a YEC.

Take your YEC thingies up with James Bond.

Moreover, the Bible does not put an age on the Earth, let alone on the Universe. Ushrian hermeneutics and the biblical text are not the same thing. I already know you believe in the fantasy of abiogenesis. You're repeating yourself. Now explain the processes of chemical evolution up from prebiotic precursors to life. I'm all .

Thanks.

It's truly funny when the YEC'ists become indignant when others acknowledge their belief system. Embrace your YEC'ist belief.

 

[Hollie]

Your claim isn't my error.

If you can't prove your claim, that's fine.

The pertinent claim and the attending blunder is yours, and you haven't provided a link for your claim. See post #606.

Thanks.

With regard to links to one's claims, I'm still waiting for the YEC'ist to post his
"General Theory of Supernatural Creation''

To bluster on with claims to supernatural gods performing supernatural acts would suggest the YEC'ist / The Gods Did It'ist supply some evidence to support such a claim.

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

The pertinent claim......is yours.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you can't prove it, just say so.

Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.

See post #606.

As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you. However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you. In the meantime. . . .

So did you ever post your proof that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, and did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​

. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​

​

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​

​

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​

​

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The pertinent claim......is yours.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you can't prove it, just say so.

Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.

See post #606.

As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you. However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you. In the meantime. . . .

So did you ever post your proof that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, and did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​

​

. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​

​

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​

​

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​

​

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​

​

As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you.

Excellent! In what post did you put your proof?

So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine?

My definition doesn't matter, because I didn't make the claim about mutations in post #282, you did.

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . .

Information that is translocated, inverted or duplicated results in new information.
The info at the end is different than the info you started with.

If that's your understanding, then thanks for admitting your earlier error.

 

[ReinyDays]

I understand the theory on large and small populations. That MAY address stasis but I don't believe that addresses the lack of transitional fossils.

What transition fossil do we expect to find? ... and where should we find them? ... if the rock strata is discontinuous, and quite a few are, the fossil record within will be discontinuous ... locally here where I live, there are no fossils of any kind ... all Mid-Holocene deposits laid down at 700 ºC ... living matter cooked on impact ...

In the places and lineages that lack that lack transitions pieces, is the rock strata continuous ... i.e. an example please ...

 

[Ringtone]

Information that is translocated, inverted or duplicated results in new information.
The info at the end is different than the info you started with.

Hey, dummy, you just gave an illustrative definition and an example of arguably new information. I thought you said something about the burden being on me. Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise. But you stupidly think that's a contradiction regarding my stance per the information in genomes.

Alas, ye of little knowledge.

But, hey, good job overall!

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #524 again.

 

[Hollie]

The pertinent claim......is yours.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you can't prove it, just say so.

Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.

See post #606.

As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you. However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you. In the meantime. . . .

So did you ever post your proof that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, and did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​

. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​

​

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​

​

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​

​

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​

Thanks.

I've noticed that the Disco'tute tends to churn out such slogans as ''scrambled DNA''.

Do you folks enjoy being a complete embarrassment?

 

[Hollie]

The pertinent claim......is yours.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you can't prove it, just say so.

Well, since my claim, unlike yours, is true, the pertinent claim is that the difference between the two statements entails no significant difference is an enormously stupid blunder of a know-nothing. That would be you.

See post #606.

As for my claim, it's already been proven, but your lack of knowledge blinds you. However, that will be made more and more manifest, perhaps even to the likes of you. In the meantime. . . .

So did you ever post your proof that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

So did you ever answer the question regarding your definition of information, given that it depends on YOUR definition, not mine? So do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?, and did you ever acknowledge your inability to grasp the ramifications of the following?:

Mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information. . . .​

. . . Evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​

​

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ​

​

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​

​

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​

Thanks.

"decompressed genomes''

Now that's pretty darn funny.

The YEC'ists are a hoot.

 

[Ringtone]

View attachment 462413

It's against the rules to invent quotes attributed to another poster, you should edit this out of
post #506

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 26 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ah, you don't like your enormous blunder being exposed, but that's fine. It's too late to edit it, but I can repost it sans the effect . . . and expose your enormous blunder again!