The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[Ringtone]

From the article:

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​

Just how much information was required to produce the first living thing? To answer that you need to know what the first living thing looked like. Do you imagine it was a worm? Maybe a single cell? Maybe a bacterium? All very complex beings and impossible to just happen by accident, on that we likely agree. But maybe that first life was simpler than that bacterium, simpler even that an amino acid? Maybe it was an organic molecule floating in a lifeless soup of organic molecules. Similar molecules might attach themselves together and continue forming long molecular chains. Growth. Eventually they would grow so long that they would break apart. Reproduction. Molecules that were better at growing and splitting would monopolize the available resources better. Evolution.

Growth + Reproduction + Evolution = LIFE

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

So you still don't grasp the following?

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

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

Hot damn, Twinkles! You still can't make up your mind?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

So you won't be posting proof of your claim anytime soon?

 

[alang1216]

From the article:

Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism.​

Just how much information was required to produce the first living thing? To answer that you need to know what the first living thing looked like. Do you imagine it was a worm? Maybe a single cell? Maybe a bacterium? All very complex beings and impossible to just happen by accident, on that we likely agree. But maybe that first life was simpler than that bacterium, simpler even that an amino acid? Maybe it was an organic molecule floating in a lifeless soup of organic molecules. Similar molecules might attach themselves together and continue forming long molecular chains. Growth. Eventually they would grow so long that they would break apart. Reproduction. Molecules that were better at growing and splitting would monopolize the available resources better. Evolution.

Growth + Reproduction + Evolution = LIFE

Or maybe you're making baby talk.

You disappoint me yet again.

 

[my2¢]

I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive. The Bible shouldn't be taken as a science textbook,

 

[Ringtone]

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

So you still don't grasp the following?

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

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

Hot damn, Twinkles! You still can't make up your mind?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

So you won't be posting proof of your claim anytime soon?

Hot damn!

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome still defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

 

[abu afak]

`
Again
the OP Article posted was from a
CHRISTIAN Apologetics website.
Joy! Digital.

Joy! Digital
Christian Portal
Articles - Interviews - Videos - Teachings

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

So you still don't grasp the following?

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

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

Hot damn, Twinkles! You still can't make up your mind?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

So you won't be posting proof of your claim anytime soon?

Hot damn!

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome still defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

 

[Hollie]

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

So you still don't grasp the following?

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

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

Hot damn, Twinkles! You still can't make up your mind?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Did you steal the above from the charlatans at AIG?

 

[Ringtone]

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine! Just how dense are you?

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine! Just how dense are you?

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Under some definitions, your claim is wrong? LOL!

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical,

So post your proof already, snowflake.

 

[Hollie]

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

So you still don't grasp the following?

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

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

Hot damn, Twinkles! You still can't make up your mind?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

So you won't be posting proof of your claim anytime soon?

Hot damn!

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome still defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

Hot damn!

It’s the ignorant YEC’er “it’s too complicated and I don’t understand any of it so I’ll believe what the prayer leader at my fundamentalist madrassah told me”, meme.

 

[Hollie]

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine! Just how dense are you?

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

DNA doesn’t code anything. You make the mistake of parroting slogans from AIG.

 

[Ringtone]

DNA doesn’t code anything. You make the mistake of parroting slogans from AIG.

Wrong again, Madcap. DNA contains the information that codes for protein sequences. What you mean to say is that these sequences are not directly made from DNA, but from the codons of mRNA that are synthesized from the DNA .

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine! Just how dense are you?

Indeed, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, also depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria. Gee whiz! Evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.



Hot damn!



It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance,

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Under some definitions, your claim is wrong? LOL!

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical,

So post your proof already, snowflake.

Hot damn, Sunshine! So you're still as dense as a pile of bricks.

Rather, it's almost as if you get what I'm teaching you after all, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, also depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria. Indeed, evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.!

But then you go all stupid again.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

 

[toobfreak]

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome?

I never made that claim......so no proof from you?

 

[toobfreak]

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine! Just how dense are you?

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Under some definitions, your claim is wrong? LOL!

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical,

So post your proof already, snowflake.

Ringtone makes outrageously unsupportable assertions then when pinned down, runs off like a little girl calling everyone names!

 

[toobfreak]

Is that a fact? Is that what I believe? Huh. Thanks for clearing that up, good to know.

I try to be of service when I can.

I bet you do because you're obviously a big tool.

 

[Hollie]

DNA doesn’t code anything. You make the mistake of parroting slogans from AIG.

Wrong again, Madcap. DNA contains the information that codes for protein sequences. What you mean to say is that these sequences are not directly made from DNA, but from the codons of mRNA that are synthesized from the DNA .

Thanks.

DNA does not code anything. Pay attention next time and you won’t be such an insufferable buffoon.

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My ignorance, simple-minded or not, doesn't help with the claim you still haven't proven.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Hot damn, Sunshine! Just how dense are you?

Indeed, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, also depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria. Gee whiz! Evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.



Hot damn!



It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance,

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and trait information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

So you still don't understand that it depends on how one defines information?

Under some definitions, your claim is wrong? LOL!

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical,

So post your proof already, snowflake.

Hot damn, Sunshine! So you're still as dense as a pile of bricks.

Rather, it's almost as if you get what I'm teaching you after all, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, also depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria. Indeed, evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.!

But then you go all stupid again.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Thanks.

Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.

 

[Hollie]

Another thread of frantic claims by the YEC’er who has yet to define any failure of evolutionary theory.

It’s now what, four separate threads opened by the religious zealot as he screeches against science matters he doesn’t understand?