Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Meister]

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You believe a non-intelligent non-thinking process called random chance is creator of life.

False. This is yet another example that illustrates how you don't even understand the concept of evolution, despite your insistence it is incorrect. Perhaps you should similarly insist the theory of gravity is wrong because I believe in ether.

Let's once again correct your ignorance on the topic. While evolution does have a random component to it, the filter of natural selection does not produce a random result. Let me dumb this down a bit. Random is rolling two dice and having any of the 6 numbers come up with equal probability. If your dice always land on snake eyes, the game is fixed.

I will prove life is a product of intelligence then you can give your rebuttal.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Oh good. Another one of your contrived "proofs" that lacks all supporting evidence. Here's the thing about this "proof": any code I provide you will claim God made. That's how circular reasoning works. From a logical standpoint, it's called moving the goalposts.

Numbers, in their simplicity, create codes and patterns. Prime numbers, the Fibonacci sequence, Ulam's spiral, fractals, crystal structures, etc. But despite codes being produces throughout the natural and physical world, you will in your usual circular reasoning, claim none of them "count" because you don't like them. The key to this particular bit of circular reasoning of yours is the use of the word "code" as it by definition infers something must be DEcoded or read, which itself can only be done by something natural, thus negating all codes entirely, bringing us back to the start of the circular reasoning.


DNA.

Once again we have another argument you aren't quite smart enough to understand on your own. But good job copying and pasting someone else's propaganda. To this end, I have implanted one example of a code in the above set that your author states is not real. I did so purposely to goad you into attempting to reiterate his point on that topic, so I can then dismantle them one by one. I expect you will completely ignore every other example that your author didn't address, pretending they don't exist. This should be entertaining.

If you can't provide an adequate answer to this, I win God exist and you lose.

Now this uses one of your other tactics I mentioned in my previous list: claiming your theory is supported because someone else can't support their own. Actually I should restate: you're claiming your theory regarding God is supported because someone else can't support your INCORRECT theory regarding evolution. Perhaps next week you can tell me you can prove you shoot fire from your ears because I can't explain how neutrinos work.

How can you say a mutation can add information when it results from a loss of the origional information ? All mutations are an error,it's rearranged information.

Not all mutations result in loss of information. Once again you show how utterly clueless you are on this topic. Refutation without understanding is as good as describing a new surrounding with your eyes closed.

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ? Mutations result in a loss of a function yes or no ?

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Why do you say new information arises through mutations but reject it being a means of communication ? one of your terms "DNA transcription" do you care to define it for us ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them. But they can never provide any sort of mechanism that has been observed. The craziest thing about them is they even go to measures to undermind superior scientist in the field that disagree with them having no reason to reject what these scientists say.

It is universially accepted that the genetic code is a code of information which is a language,but he will still try to defend his religion. Anything that shows evidence for an intelligent creator he will reject and hold on to his view of randomness. Everything we see according to his side is by chance alone,but they will try to convince you it is not by random chance,funny how they contradict themselves and not even realize they have contradicted themselves.

 

[Woyzeck]

There are no documented cases of one family becoming a new family,none ,zero.

If you wish to continue confusing micro-adaptations or evolution with macro-evolution,knock yourself out.

There are changes within a family but not one family becoming a new family. and these changes do not come from mutations.

Okay, that's it. I'm getting sick of this bullshit. You are perfectly aware that macro-evolution occurs at species level and above, not simply above species level. I have made this perfectly clear in this thread. We have evidence of evolution at the species level (it's called speciation). I disproven your statement, macroevolution occurs and we have evidence for it. Would you kindly please stop moving the goalposts once I quickly shoot your claims down?

Would you also please stop lying all the time? That's all you're doing, repeating past claims I've debunked, and continually lying and saying no evidence for such and such exists. We have evidence of macro-evolution, we have evidence of mutations and we know they cause change in organisms. So quit the broken record act already.

So was the bible accurate in saying kinds bring forth offspring of their own kind ,is this what we see ?

Is this not a question you have an answer for or are you deliberately avoiding this question because you might have to agree with the bible ?

What part of THE BIBLE IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC SOURCE is so hard to understand? I have repeated this many times as well. Stop wasting my time with repeating bullshit I've dealt with. You clearly know nothing of biology, evolution, or science as a whole.

I wouldn't call you a liar,but just confused.

I feel the same way about some of your books that spread this junk you call science.

That's funny coming from someone who doesn't understand why the earth spins on it's axis, or the well-documented fact of mutations causing changes in organisms.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ?

No. Not all mutations result in a loss of the original information. This is a topic we've gone over several times in the past. I can't tell whether you decide to purposefully remain ignorant on the matter, or you simply can't grasp the basic concepts. Many mutations do result in a change whereby the new organism does not have the same information as the old. But many mutations also simply add new material without affecting or losing prior code. Again, we've gone over this. I've similarly shown you many examples of this type of de novo mutagenesis, which you have never been able to explain, and continually ignore, pretending they don't exist because it doesn't fit with your conclusion.

This is essentially the difference between our reasoning. I draw a conclusion based on the evidence, whereas you cherry pick your evidence based on your pre-conceived conclusion.

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Yes. That is because communication by definition requires intelligence. Circular reasoning is circular. That still has nothing to do with natural codes and patterns. If I take a random string of DNA and shove it into a non-living media composed of protein building blocks and ribosomes, that DNA can be read and produce a protein, despite nothing being alive in the media. No life, no communication, no intelligence, but the code is still there are produces an outcome, just as Ulam's spiral is a code that is there and produces an outcome regardless of whether it is communicated or not.

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

Nor have I convinced 4th graders. You need to not only read, but understand, before you can disagree with it. I doubt you did either.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them.

No. I believe you're ignorant because you don't understand the concept you attempt to deface, because you spout incorrect fabrications of evolution, and because you generally get the topic wrong more times than I can count. Compare that to someone who has read and understands the bible but believes it to be a work of fiction. The former is ignorance, the latter is disagreement. You are confusing the two.

Perhaps if you didn't say so many scientifically inaccurate statements as if they were true, I wouldn't believe you were ignorant.

This is where we usually wait for one to several days for you to find some other author to provide you with content with which you can respond to all of the other points I've made so far, and ignore all the evidence creationist loons can't account for.

 

[Meister]

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ?

No. Not all mutations result in a loss of the original information. This is a topic we've gone over several times in the past. I can't tell whether you decide to purposefully remain ignorant on the matter, or you simply can't grasp the basic concepts. Many mutations do result in a change whereby the new organism does not have the same information as the old. But many mutations also simply add new material without affecting or losing prior code. Again, we've gone over this. I've similarly shown you many examples of this type of de novo mutagenesis, which you have never been able to explain, and continually ignore, pretending they don't exist because it doesn't fit with your conclusion.

This is essentially the difference between our reasoning. I draw a conclusion based on the evidence, whereas you cherry pick your evidence based on your pre-conceived conclusion.

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Yes. That is because communication by definition requires intelligence. Circular reasoning is circular. That still has nothing to do with natural codes and patterns. If I take a random string of DNA and shove it into a non-living media composed of protein building blocks and ribosomes, that DNA can be read and produce a protein, despite nothing being alive in the media. No life, no communication, no intelligence, but the code is still there are produces an outcome, just as Ulam's spiral is a code that is there and produces an outcome regardless of whether it is communicated or not.

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

Nor have I convinced 4th graders. You need to not only read, but understand, before you can disagree with it. I doubt you did either.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them.

No. I believe you're ignorant because you don't understand the concept you attempt to deface, because you spout incorrect fabrications of evolution, and because you generally get the topic wrong more times than I can count. Compare that to someone who has read and understands the bible but believes it to be a work of fiction. The former is ignorance, the latter is disagreement. You are confusing the two.

Perhaps if you didn't say so many scientifically inaccurate statements as if they were true, I wouldn't believe you were ignorant.

This is where we usually wait for one to several days for you to find some other author to provide you with content with which you can respond to all of the other points I've made so far, and ignore all the evidence creationist loons can't account for.

One time being on your side and now being on the other side...yes, I read and I now do understand. As for you it's very doubtful with a mind that is so closed as yours. It's Okay...I give a lot of slack to atheists...a lot more than I do with christians, so...by all means, carry on with your drivel.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So, still completely incapable of producing a refutation. I do appreciate how you took the time to give excuses as to why you were incapable, but still incapable nonetheless.

 

[Meister]

So, still completely incapable of producing a refutation. I do appreciate how you took the time to give excuses as to why you were incapable, but still incapable nonetheless.

Dude, I owe you no explanation...I thought you got that part of it....just like I didn't ask for your explanation. What you posted was no more than drivel....no big deal to me...you probably think my posts are drivel...no big deal to me.

 

[JScott]

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them. But they can never provide any sort of mechanism that has been observed. The craziest thing about them is they even go to measures to undermind superior scientist in the field that disagree with them having no reason to reject what these scientists say.

It is universially accepted that the genetic code is a code of information which is a language,but he will still try to defend his religion. Anything that shows evidence for an intelligent creator he will reject and hold on to his view of randomness. Everything we see according to his side is by chance alone,but they will try to convince you it is not by random chance,funny how they contradict themselves and not even realize they have contradicted themselves.

Ok, YWC, Ive done hours and hours of research on the things youve presented. Youve got me. Im convinced of the things you have brought up mainly because of your videos. Heres one I have found.

Proof that God Discovered Everything Science Proved Thousands of Years Later

And theres more.

Scientists are Lying About Everything

Im am impressed with your ability to destroy all the scientists in the world with just a flick of your awe inspiring intellect. You, sir, are a gift to the world of high science and everyone who listens to you should bow down to you. Christian science is better because of you.

Christian Science Discovers Things

The way you plow through a debate is unforgettable. No one can beat you because Gods on your side bro.

You Arent Dumb

Dont worry, I got your back dude.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Dude, I owe you no explanation...I thought you got that part of it....just like I didn't ask for your explanation. What you posted was no more than drivel....no big deal to me...you probably think my posts are drivel...no big deal to me.

You must be new to the internet. Here, let me give you some idea of how it works. People come onto an internet forum to type their ideas, which may be supported, such as what I typed, or unsupported, which is how you type. No one need ask for anyone else's explanations: such responses are inherent to forums. Please note the location of the reply buttons, which allow for such means of communication. No one need ask for use of reply buttons.

You are right in saying you owe no support to your crap excuses as to why you can't support your lack of refutation. Don't get all bothered just because I called you on it though. If you'd like to actually participate in the conversation like a big boy instead of using 3rd grade communication skills that don't actually address the topic and retort temper tantrums of "I DONT OWE YOU TEH EXPLANATION!!!!", I'd be happy to hear something you can manage to produce with support.

Let me know if you want more tips on basic communication, or the internet. I'm happy to continue educating you.

 

[Meister]

Dude, I owe you no explanation...I thought you got that part of it....just like I didn't ask for your explanation. What you posted was no more than drivel....no big deal to me...you probably think my posts are drivel...no big deal to me.

You must be new to the internet. Here, let me give you some idea of how it works. People come onto an internet forum to type their ideas, which may be supported, such as what I typed, or unsupported, which is how you type. No one need ask for anyone else's explanations: such responses are inherent to forums. Please note the location of the reply buttons, which allow for such means of communication. No one need ask for use of reply buttons.

You are right in saying you owe no support to your crap excuses as to why you can't support your lack of refutation. Don't get all bothered just because I called you on it though. If you'd like to actually participate in the conversation like a big boy instead of using 3rd grade communication skills that don't actually address the topic and retort temper tantrums of "I DONT OWE YOU TEH EXPLANATION!!!!", I'd be happy to hear something you can manage to produce with support.

Let me know if you want more tips on basic communication, or the internet. I'm happy to continue educating you.

Hey I got an idea....why don't you stick your head up your ass and roll down the sidewalk. How's that for communication? Or maybe you need a picture of it?
Like I said....I don't owe you an explanation and you are no big deal to me....deal with it, sonny.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hey I got an idea....why don't you stick your head up your ass and roll down the sidewalk. How's that for communication? Or maybe you need a picture of it?
Like I said....I don't owe you an explanation and you are no big deal to me....deal with it, sonny.

Perhaps you missed this last time:

You are right in saying you owe no support to your crap excuses as to why you can't support your lack of refutation. Don't get all bothered just because I called you on it though. If you'd like to actually participate in the conversation like a big boy instead of using 3rd grade communication skills that don't actually address the topic and retort temper tantrums of "I DONT OWE YOU TEH EXPLANATION!!!!", I'd be happy to hear something you can manage to produce with support.

Your temper tantrum amuses me though. Please continue coming back to the same post and replying how much this doesn't matter to you. Perhaps after 10 or so posts on the same immaturity, you can convince yourself of it.

Anyone else want to refute reliable scientific conclusions supported by reproducible evidence by acting like a child for my amusement? The more the funnier.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Okay, that's it. I'm getting sick of this bullshit. You are perfectly aware that macro-evolution occurs at species level and above, not simply above species level. I have made this perfectly clear in this thread. We have evidence of evolution at the species level (it's called speciation). I disproven your statement, macroevolution occurs and we have evidence for it. Would you kindly please stop moving the goalposts once I quickly shoot your claims down?

Would you also please stop lying all the time? That's all you're doing, repeating past claims I've debunked, and continually lying and saying no evidence for such and such exists. We have evidence of macro-evolution, we have evidence of mutations and we know they cause change in organisms. So quit the broken record act already.





What part of THE BIBLE IS NOT A VALID SCIENTIFIC SOURCE is so hard to understand? I have repeated this many times as well. Stop wasting my time with repeating bullshit I've dealt with. You clearly know nothing of biology, evolution, or science as a whole.

I wouldn't call you a liar,but just confused.

I feel the same way about some of your books that spread this junk you call science.

That's funny coming from someone who doesn't understand why the earth spins on it's axis, or the well-documented fact of mutations causing changes in organisms.

I never said this,do you delibrately lie to try and gain an edge ? What I said was what keeps the earth on it's axis and how it was convienient that it is on it's current axis .

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, still completely incapable of producing a refutation. I do appreciate how you took the time to give excuses as to why you were incapable, but still incapable nonetheless.

Refutation to what ?you have not said anything of substance.like he said you drivel like it is suppost to be impressive or something.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All mutations result in a loss of the origional information,do they or do they not ?

No. Not all mutations result in a loss of the original information. This is a topic we've gone over several times in the past. I can't tell whether you decide to purposefully remain ignorant on the matter, or you simply can't grasp the basic concepts. Many mutations do result in a change whereby the new organism does not have the same information as the old. But many mutations also simply add new material without affecting or losing prior code. Again, we've gone over this. I've similarly shown you many examples of this type of de novo mutagenesis, which you have never been able to explain, and continually ignore, pretending they don't exist because it doesn't fit with your conclusion.

This is essentially the difference between our reasoning. I draw a conclusion based on the evidence, whereas you cherry pick your evidence based on your pre-conceived conclusion.

There is no form of communication where intelligence was not needed.

Yes. That is because communication by definition requires intelligence. Circular reasoning is circular. That still has nothing to do with natural codes and patterns. If I take a random string of DNA and shove it into a non-living media composed of protein building blocks and ribosomes, that DNA can be read and produce a protein, despite nothing being alive in the media. No life, no communication, no intelligence, but the code is still there are produces an outcome, just as Ulam's spiral is a code that is there and produces an outcome regardless of whether it is communicated or not.

You sure have convinced me with all that drivel.

Nor have I convinced 4th graders. You need to not only read, but understand, before you can disagree with it. I doubt you did either.

That is mostly all their arguments is based on, everyone is ignorant who doesn't agree with them.

No. I believe you're ignorant because you don't understand the concept you attempt to deface, because you spout incorrect fabrications of evolution, and because you generally get the topic wrong more times than I can count. Compare that to someone who has read and understands the bible but believes it to be a work of fiction. The former is ignorance, the latter is disagreement. You are confusing the two.

Perhaps if you didn't say so many scientifically inaccurate statements as if they were true, I wouldn't believe you were ignorant.

This is where we usually wait for one to several days for you to find some other author to provide you with content with which you can respond to all of the other points I've made so far, and ignore all the evidence creationist loons can't account for.

Just admit you're wrong and the genetic code is a language.

Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function ? Tell me all these documented beneficial mutations and we will compare numbers to the harmful mutations.

Poop or get off the pot.

Wait nothing, I am still waiting for you to show a form of communication that did not need intelligence to be developed ,it just simply happened by chance ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dude, I owe you no explanation...I thought you got that part of it....just like I didn't ask for your explanation. What you posted was no more than drivel....no big deal to me...you probably think my posts are drivel...no big deal to me.

You must be new to the internet. Here, let me give you some idea of how it works. People come onto an internet forum to type their ideas, which may be supported, such as what I typed, or unsupported, which is how you type. No one need ask for anyone else's explanations: such responses are inherent to forums. Please note the location of the reply buttons, which allow for such means of communication. No one need ask for use of reply buttons.

You are right in saying you owe no support to your crap excuses as to why you can't support your lack of refutation. Don't get all bothered just because I called you on it though. If you'd like to actually participate in the conversation like a big boy instead of using 3rd grade communication skills that don't actually address the topic and retort temper tantrums of "I DONT OWE YOU TEH EXPLANATION!!!!", I'd be happy to hear something you can manage to produce with support.

Let me know if you want more tips on basic communication, or the internet. I'm happy to continue educating you.

Most real scientists don't waist their time on the internet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hey I got an idea....why don't you stick your head up your ass and roll down the sidewalk. How's that for communication? Or maybe you need a picture of it?
Like I said....I don't owe you an explanation and you are no big deal to me....deal with it, sonny.

Perhaps you missed this last time:

You are right in saying you owe no support to your crap excuses as to why you can't support your lack of refutation. Don't get all bothered just because I called you on it though. If you'd like to actually participate in the conversation like a big boy instead of using 3rd grade communication skills that don't actually address the topic and retort temper tantrums of "I DONT OWE YOU TEH EXPLANATION!!!!", I'd be happy to hear something you can manage to produce with support.

Your temper tantrum amuses me though. Please continue coming back to the same post and replying how much this doesn't matter to you. Perhaps after 10 or so posts on the same immaturity, you can convince yourself of it.

Anyone else want to refute reliable scientific conclusions supported by reproducible evidence by acting like a child for my amusement? The more the funnier.

Hey genius, can you tell me where all DNA information origionated from ?

Can you provide any emperical evidence of life happening naturally from a non-intelligent process ?

Is this where you punt and say we don't concern ourselves with the origins of life or you drag out this rediculous idea that life can spontaneously generate itself ? but please do try to answer my questions.

 

[Woyzeck]

I wouldn't call you a liar,but just confused.

I feel the same way about some of your books that spread this junk you call science.

That's funny coming from someone who doesn't understand why the earth spins on it's axis, or the well-documented fact of mutations causing changes in organisms.

I never said this,do you delibrately lie to try and gain an edge ? What I said was what keeps the earth on it's axis and how it was convienient that it is on it's current axis .

The guy who constantly claims there's no evidence for evolution is calling me a liar.

Funny stuff. You should take your act on the road.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Just admit you're wrong and the genetic code is a language.

You throw a challenge, get a solid response, and retort with "no but seriously you're still wrong" instead of actually addressing the challenge that you yourself created. So what was the point of creating the challenge in the first place? This is what makes you ignorant: pure bankruptcy of logic. It's not that you disagree, it's that you lack the capacity to even evaluate WHY you disagree.

Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function ? Tell me all these documented beneficial mutations and we will compare numbers to the harmful mutations.

Why do you think comparing beneficial mutations to the number of deleterious mutations proves your point? Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge regarding the topic of evolution. Mutations are not created to be beneficial. They are just created, and the bad ones get weeded out. You have never understood this concept.

But to answer your question anyway, I'm happy to "Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function": bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance. I'm sure you will argue this doesn't count despite perfectly meeting your criteria and presenting a mutation that provided a benefit without removing another function, but that's your usual response: pretend anything supporting evolution doesn't exist or doesn't count for unsubstantiated reasons.

I am still waiting for you to show a form of communication that did not need intelligence to be developed ,it just simply happened by chance ?

And this is precisely what I meant by moving the goalposts. You ask for one thing, and then demand another. In this case, you asked for any code that isn't made by an intelligent mind, I give you several, and then you claim I haven't given you a "form of communication." By definition, communication means "the imparting of thoughts." So yes, you are correct in saying I have not shown you a form of [imparting thoughts] that did not require thinking. Note how by definition thought involves thinking. Thus once again you have set up circular reasoning, as it seems to be the ONLY method such blind ignorance creates underhanded coercion of reasoning.

Again, the reason you are ignorant is not because you disagree. The reason you are ignorant is because you are incapable of engaging in a logical honest conversation. Science draws conclusion from evidence. You support pre-conceived conclusions from the poor rhetoric of people you copied and pasted.

Hey genius, can you tell me where all DNA information origionated from ?

Can you provide any emperical evidence of life happening naturally from a non-intelligent process ?

As I mentioned numerous times now, you aren't ignorant simply because you disagree. You are ignorance because you constantly get the concept of evolution wrong, and this quote is just another shining example. With regard to evolution, the origin of the universe, this planet, and even the origin of DNA and life are completely irrelevant. Regardless of whether DNA burst into existence by magical leprechauns, was deposited on earth by aliens, was created by god, or was the result of a time traveling experiment from the year 3025 by a sentient piece of swiss cheese, the concept of evolution does not change. I'm sure this confuses you, simply because you still don't understand evolution.

So again I ask: do you purposely remain willfully ignorant to these topics? Or are you simply not smart enough to understand them?

I'm guessing it's a little of both. Regardless, this is another example of moving the goalposts. You can't have an open conversation on a single topic using such things as reason or evidence, so you jump between topics every time your points are soundly refuted.

So let's look at the progression I had predicted you would take so far:

* You claimed evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided supporting evidence. < this happened
* You ignored supporting evidence. < this happened
* You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms. < this happened
* I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct. < this happened
* You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there. < this happened
* I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp. < this happened
* You once again made the claim evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided more supporting evidence. < this happened
* You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
* I provided evidence to macroevolution.
* You ran away.

By the usual progression, this is where you start getting into contrived points regarding micro and macro evolution. Then, I'll prove you wrong again, and you'll run away. Home stretch now!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just admit you're wrong and the genetic code is a language.

You throw a challenge, get a solid response, and retort with "no but seriously you're still wrong" instead of actually addressing the challenge that you yourself created. So what was the point of creating the challenge in the first place? This is what makes you ignorant: pure bankruptcy of logic. It's not that you disagree, it's that you lack the capacity to even evaluate WHY you disagree.

Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function ? Tell me all these documented beneficial mutations and we will compare numbers to the harmful mutations.

Why do you think comparing beneficial mutations to the number of deleterious mutations proves your point? Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge regarding the topic of evolution. Mutations are not created to be beneficial. They are just created, and the bad ones get weeded out. You have never understood this concept.

But to answer your question anyway, I'm happy to "Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function": bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance. I'm sure you will argue this doesn't count despite perfectly meeting your criteria and presenting a mutation that provided a benefit without removing another function, but that's your usual response: pretend anything supporting evolution doesn't exist or doesn't count for unsubstantiated reasons.


And this is precisely what I meant by moving the goalposts. You ask for one thing, and then demand another. In this case, you asked for any code that isn't made by an intelligent mind, I give you several, and then you claim I haven't given you a "form of communication." By definition, communication means "the imparting of thoughts." So yes, you are correct in saying I have not shown you a form of [imparting thoughts] that did not require thinking. Note how by definition thought involves thinking. Thus once again you have set up circular reasoning, as it seems to be the ONLY method such blind ignorance creates underhanded coercion of reasoning.

Again, the reason you are ignorant is not because you disagree. The reason you are ignorant is because you are incapable of engaging in a logical honest conversation. Science draws conclusion from evidence. You support pre-conceived conclusions from the poor rhetoric of people you copied and pasted.

Hey genius, can you tell me where all DNA information origionated from ?

Can you provide any emperical evidence of life happening naturally from a non-intelligent process ?

As I mentioned numerous times now, you aren't ignorant simply because you disagree. You are ignorance because you constantly get the concept of evolution wrong, and this quote is just another shining example. With regard to evolution, the origin of the universe, this planet, and even the origin of DNA and life are completely irrelevant. Regardless of whether DNA burst into existence by magical leprechauns, was deposited on earth by aliens, was created by god, or was the result of a time traveling experiment from the year 3025 by a sentient piece of swiss cheese, the concept of evolution does not change. I'm sure this confuses you, simply because you still don't understand evolution.

So again I ask: do you purposely remain willfully ignorant to these topics? Or are you simply not smart enough to understand them?

I'm guessing it's a little of both. Regardless, this is another example of moving the goalposts. You can't have an open conversation on a single topic using such things as reason or evidence, so you jump between topics every time your points are soundly refuted.

So let's look at the progression I had predicted you would take so far:

* You claimed evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided supporting evidence. < this happened
* You ignored supporting evidence. < this happened
* You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms. < this happened
* I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct. < this happened
* You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there. < this happened
* I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp. < this happened
* You once again made the claim evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided more supporting evidence. < this happened
* You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
* I provided evidence to macroevolution.
* You ran away.

By the usual progression, this is where you start getting into contrived points regarding micro and macro evolution. Then, I'll prove you wrong again, and you'll run away. Home stretch now!

Rhetoric.

Avoiding questions just like most evolutionist.

Life either was created by intelligence or it all came about by natural causes you seem to avoid the obvious answer.

How did you address the genetic code and whether it is a language or not ? you would have to refute most scientists with such a comment.

If all bad mutations get weeded as you say, why do we have over 4,500 genetic disorders ? Do you realize how harmful neutral and harmful mutations are to your theory thast needs a net gain of beneficial mutations ?

to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?


Kevin Anderson, Ph.D.
© 2005 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
This article first appeared in Vol. 41, No. 4 of the Creation Research Society Quarterly,
a peer-reviewed journal published by the Creation Research Society.


Abstract
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

- Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change? -- TrueOrigin Archive

I have shown in the past scientists did concern themselves with the origins of life and you simply turn to this explanatiuon because you have no rational explanation to the origins of life question. Did you really understand the miller and urey experiment ? and many others that have been performed in the labs with complicated machines and under perfect conditions,with very intelligent men ?

Like meister said you're a bloviator.

I don't move goalposts it was simple question that you try to spin. please provide a language or means of communication that was absent of intelligence when developed ?

I am also asking you the origins of all genetic information ?