religion

[Aviann]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dodge noted

Have a great day. Take care

There was no dodge, although you ignored the points I was making, or at least a partiality of them... The point is that maybe our DNA was altered by beings who actually did have the right proteins needed on their planet to create life, much longer ago than ours did, considering they'd need the technology to make it here, and make the badass gumbo that created life on Earth.

Regardless, we are here, God isn't real, prove me wrong Mr. Jesuscientist.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did it write itself? Time is not a plausible answer. Time doesn't write genetic code.

See now I think you are trolling. Are you a poe? You really cant be this dense, right?

No one "wrote" anything. Mutations happen and nature selects for, is indifferent to, or kills the organism. That is how DNA gets added to or subtracted from...mutations. Who the fuck said time wrote something? God fucking damn...

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"All Natural Selection proves is that weak life forms die. "

Ughh, were do you come up with this crap? Natural selection doesnt prove weak life forms die. Dont be dense. If an organism can live long enough to procreate then it is going to pass along it's DNA. Nature works with what it's got. Put a large species on a small island and in a few hundred generations they will be smaller in stature. Smaller organisms eat less so it is a favored trait in harsh times.

Hilarious

You really have no idea wtf you are talking about. Natural Selection has always been about survival of the fittest. Weak life forms die. Duh. So now your magical force for Evolution lies are reproductive organs? How did those evolve and come about from Nothing? Secondly, all reproduction does is create variations of existing genetic code. There isn't a single example that can be given of spontaneous new genetic information and data being written to the genome from pure randomness and Nothing.

My suggestion to you would be bow out of this discussion while you still have some dignity left. All you're doing is digging more holes with each response and showing you have a complete lack of understanding of the BS theory you are trying to trumpet.

"It doesn't write new legible genetic code"

Wrong. Scientists have even seen it in the lab.

Nope

New, legible and completely never before seen information spontaneously creating itself has never been witnessed. Never will be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

A mutation is a random chaotic and destructive force. Not a creative force. The odds that a mutation would add legible information that actually works in harmony with existing code is like putting a chimp at a typewriter and expecting him to write the next Masterpiece of Literature. Even those odds are better than the book completely writing itself from Nothing with the only creative mechanism being harmful mutations which scramble genetic code and Time.

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

There you go...research papers and all. Tested and verified.

You're just copying and pasting shit without thinking it through because you don't have a proper grasp and understanding of it. Pretty sad actually.

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See now I think you are trolling. Are you a poe? You really cant be this dense, right?

No one "wrote" anything. Mutations happen and nature selects for, is indifferent to, or kills the organism. That is how DNA gets added to or subtracted from...mutations. Who the fuck said time wrote something? God fucking damn...

Mutations scramble genetic code and are very rare. They don't write legible, structured, precise and ordered genetic code that works in complete harmony with existing genetic code.

Want me to post some pictures of mutations? You really want to claim mutations are the creative force behind Evolution? Secondly where is the evidence on The Fossil record of all these transitional animals that spontaneously mutated into new, never before seen types/kinds of animals?

[G13]

Originally Posted by Aviann [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There was no dodge, although you ignored the points I was making, or at least a partiality of them... The point is that maybe our DNA was altered by beings who actually did have the right proteins needed on their planet to create life, much longer ago than ours did, considering they'd need the technology to make it here, and make the badass gumbo that created life on Earth.

Regardless, we are here, God isn't real, prove me wrong Mr. Jesuscientist.

No you dodged

No worries

For someone who mocks and scoffs at the idea of an Intelligent Design and Purpose of our reality, you sure make some wild speculations based upon Faith

Have a great evening /wave

[leewong]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

....

"Even to build the simplest proteins require mathematical odds that are an impossibility. There needs to be an exact sequence of 123 amino acids with 20 different types to choose from. What is your source for shit you are pasting that you don't understand? "

Flat out false claim. I would give you a lesson on statistics but you wouldnt understand.

"For example their "energy source" to make these wild assumptions even remotely plausible is a "volcanic hot spring" while offhandedly dismissing the implausibility that ATP Synthase Molecule would randomly structure itself."

Lol, wrong on both parts. I suggest you read it again. Most important is this:

"In a generalization and thermal variation of the binding change mechanism of today's ATP synthase, the "first protein" would have bound substrates (peptides, phosphate, nucleosides, RNA 'monomers') and condensed them to a reaction product that remained bound until after a temperature change it was released by thermal unfolding."

I will give you a hint: They are talking about an ATP precursor.

The rest of what you wrote isnt even worth addressing. How many questions have you answered for me? ZERO. Why should I even respond to you anymore if you arent going to have a two way conversation?

Here is how this conversation has been for 80+ pages:

1. you make a claim against science

2. I respond

3. you ask a question

4. I respond

5. you ask another question

6 I respond

7. you ask another question

8. I respond

9. you ask another question

10. I respond

and so on...

At the very least, acknowledge I answered the last question adequately before moving on to the next. If I give an unsatisfactory answer to you then DONT ASK ANOTHER UNRELATED QUESTION. Ask me to clarify.

I am tired of the constant moving of the goal post and quite frankly sick of answer the same questions over and over. How many times do these things need to be repeated? Dont you own a computer? Use it.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by G13 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hey don't write legible, structured, precise and ordered genetic code that works in complete harmony with existing genetic code.

You keep saying that but we have witnessed it in a lab already. You are wrong. I even sited the fucking scientific papers for you. Either prove the studies false IN A LAB or dont bother me with this nonsense again.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"All Natural Selection proves is that weak life forms die. "

Ughh, were do you come up with this crap? Natural selection doesnt prove weak life forms die. Dont be dense. If an organism can live long enough to procreate then it is going to pass along it's DNA. Nature works with what it's got. Put a large species on a small island and in a few hundred generations they will be smaller in stature. Smaller organisms eat less so it is a favored trait in harsh times.

"It doesn't write new legible genetic code"

Wrong. Scientists have even seen it in the lab.

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

There you go...research papers and all. Tested and verified.

Genetic Divergence and Fitness Convergence Under Uniform Selection
in Experimental Populations of Bacteria Ryszard Korona
Centerfor Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 and Institute of Environmental Biology, Jagiellonian University, 30-060 Krakow, Poland
Manuscript received November 13, 1995 Accepted for publication March 13, 1996


Replicate populations of bacteria were propagated for 1000 generations in the laboratory. The growth
substrate was periodically renewed, so that duringmost generations (cell doublingsi)t was not limiting. The final clones demonstrated about a 40% fitness inrease when competed against their common ancestor.
This increasweasuniform both among and within populations despite extensive differentiation in correlated traits: cell size, resistance to starvation and dry culture. It is suggested that genetic diversity developed because selection promoted any changes directing cella ctivity toward a higher maximum growth rate. Evolution of this trait halted at a similar level when some basic constraints on bacterial metabolism were met. The selective values of emerging mutations must have depended on the genetic background. Theyvwould be beneficial early in rv olution but Ineffective near the limit of adapta-
tion. This hypothesis was tested for one mutation that affected both fitness and colony morphology. In some clones it was the first adaptive mutation and provided a third of the total fitness increase, but it was not assimilated by the clones that reached the adaptive ceiling in some other way. Near the limit of adaptation,epistasis levels off the fitnesses of genetically variable clones.

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You keep saying that but we have witnessed it in a lab already. You are wrong. I even sited the fucking scientific papers for you. Either prove the studies false IN A LAB or dont bother me with this nonsense again.

Nope

New code never before seen was written in a Lab? Witnessed or written and attempted to be patched into existing genetic information? What specific example are you talking about? A new, never before seen life form magically came into existence within a lab? Amazing! Show me the proof.

Do you understand that DNA is the language of life? It's code. Code is symbology. Symbology is representation and intelligent communication. DNA code writing itself into a new life form never before seen and/or working in harmony with existing code has never been observed in the field and never been witnessed in a lab. It never will be either.

[G13]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You keep saying that but we have witnessed it in a lab already. You are wrong. I even sited the fucking scientific papers for you. Either prove the studies false IN A LAB or dont bother me with this nonsense again.

BTW an example was already given to dispute this several pages ago

They've been trying with fruit flies for decades. Still fruit flies

The Russians have been trying with silver foxes. Still foxes

Next