religion

[Glenzig]

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

Sure I do.

/eyeroll

"It generates trial and error...and discards inferior."

That implies intelligence. You can have trial and error without intelligence to pick out the portions that worked. Otherwise you would just have error. You can't regard something as inferior without intelligence. Evolution or natural selection then would have to be a form of intelligent selection. But if there is no one to do the selecting, how does anything get selected?

[radditsu]

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

"It generates trial and error...and discards inferior."

That implies intelligence. You can have trial and error without intelligence to pick out the portions that worked. Otherwise you would just have error. You can't regard something as inferior without intelligence. Evolution or natural selection then would have to be a form of intelligent selection. But if there is no one to do the selecting, how does anything get selected?

Eating and fucking better is success. And jesus hates the fuckin without a ring. Poor monkeys going to hell.

[radditsu]

Eating and fucking = reproduction and growth. Poor traits tend to die off after a few tries. More things with a better trait that is stronger and fucks harder and has more exist. They then have more room to develop. Bigger seals get to fuck the women.

[radditsu]

You dont have to be smart to eat and fuck.

[leewong]

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

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.


William A. Dembski

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."

"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "

"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

[leewong]

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

....

"That implies intelligence. You can have trial and error without intelligence to pick out the portions that worked. Otherwise you would just have error."

FFS, dont be dense. Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?

[Glenzig]

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

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."

"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "

"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Well that wasn't actually the point of that particular quote. The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.

[iruinedyourday]

who cares if jesus was alive or not, he wouldnt have liked any of you christian mother fuckers one bit thats all that matters.

[radditsu]

Eat and fuck better= More things.

[leewong]

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

The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.

"The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research."

First, you have to show design is apparent and not based on personal feelings. Otherwise, the claim is nonsensical. Also, this man you quoted didnt even know the definition of vestigial or is being dishonest about it. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

"Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you."

Nice assertion. How would terminology like "junk DNA" meant to describe a phenomena we observe reinforce the quote you posted? Explain in detail.