Evidence Of Physics For Intelligent Design

Originally posted by C Hess
And yet, if most represent modification or loss of information, that would leave some where information is gained. Thank you, that's all evolution requires. Good night.

No, you misunderstand the study. The study determined that natural selection and mutations can not account for new information in DNA that would lead to the modifications necessary for lower to higher life forms as Darwin suggested with the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, you misunderstand the study. The study determined that natural selection and mutations can not account for new information in DNA that would lead to the modifications necessary for lower to higher life forms as Darwin suggested with the theory of evolution.

The thing these creationists bent on destroying evolution refuse to acknowledge is (or more likely, deliberately misrepresenting) is the FACT that evolution is not a one way street from worse to better. A lot of mutations happen by some kind of stress, less food, less water, too much water, earthquakes, lightning and so forth.

Only some of them lead to a better version, better meaning it can thrive easier with the same amount of food and so forth. One example is the cave newt, it's great great grandparents say 1000 generations removed, had eyes.

Now they are totally blind but they still have the nubs where eyes used to be. That was a case of losing information because in the depths of a cave, eyes had no particular survival value since EVERYTHING in that cave had no light for any kind of optical sensor to sense so it became less and less important as each generation developed and so they lost their eyes.

Evolution is not necessarily going forward with each generation. Information is lost almost as fast as it is gained so it is a wash almost but things manage to get more complex but on very long time scales which of course is the bottom line for creationists

If it takes 12,000 years, it cannot be correct no matter what ANYONE says because my fairy tale book, the bible, tells me otherwise.

Which it doesn't actually, but you YEC's just try to do math thinking every Roger begat Billy who begat Rachael who begat blah blah blah, not realizing these books were written by people who had ZERO concept of deep time and wouldn't have been able to construct ANY kind of a reliable record but does that even occur to YEC's? Most decidedly not, EVERY WORD IS FROM GOD therefore infallibible. (As Patrick Sky sings)

Originally posted by sonhouse
The thing these creationists bent on destroying evolution refuse to acknowledge is (or more likely, deliberately misrepresenting) is the FACT that evolution is not a one way street from worse to better. A lot of mutations happen by some kind of stress, less food, less water, too much water, earthquakes, lightning and so forth.

Only some of them lead to ...[text shortened]... YEC's? Most decidedly not, EVERY WORD IS FROM GOD therefore infallibible. (As Patrick Sky sings)

But where is the evidence of something gaining eyes in which its ancestors never had eyes before? That is the kind of evidence we need to prove evolution possible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But where is the evidence of something gaining eyes in which its ancestors never had eyes before? That is the kind of evidence we need to prove evolution possible.

I guess you and your creationist cretins can't understand the original eye was just a development from the original photosensor chemicals that allowed animals like jellyfish which definitely have no eyes, yet they manage to avoid high light conditions and they can respond to shadows above them which they take to be predators of some kind and they can swim away from that shadow. If you are actually interested, which I doubt, you can look at this one article about the evolution of eyes:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.full

Originally posted by sonhouse
I guess you and your creationist cretins can't understand the original eye was just a development from the original photosensor chemicals that allowed animals like jellyfish which definitely have no eyes, yet they manage to avoid high light conditions and they can respond to shadows above them which they take to be predators of some kind and they can swim a ...[text shortened]... e article about the evolution of eyes:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.full

Speculation does not amount to proof. Show us proof of an animal gaining eyes in which its ancestors never had eyes before. We ask for the real science with no fairy tales.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Speculation does not amount to proof. Show us proof of an animal gaining eyes in which its ancestors never had eyes before. We ask for the real science with no fairy tales.

You ask for a time machine. What we have is human intelligence and the scientific method.

Also, I have said before science is in the first grade now so you berate 6 year olds. Come back in 100 years and see how much weight your pseudoscience crap holds up.

You go 'they don't know everything, so they know nothing therefore the bible is true'

That is the level of your thinking, like a prurient 16 year old drawing a picture.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You ask for a time machine. What we have is human intelligence and the scientific method.

Also, I have said before science is in the first grade now so you berate 6 year olds. Come back in 100 years and see how much weight your pseudoscience crap holds up.

You go 'they don't know everything, so they know nothing therefore the bible is true'

That is the level of your thinking, like a prurient 16 year old drawing a picture.

So you have fairy tales and no real science proof. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you have fairy tales and no real science proof. 😏

We have enough to convince people with open minds what is really going on in the world, as opposed to your one trick pony bullshyte creationist young Earth fairy tale. You have been thoroughly duped and programmed so well you don't know which end is up anymore.

Which is a good definition of a troll.

The difference between you and me is that I can change given new evidence by real scientists who are not preprogrammed to spout creationism. You cannot EVER change, you will die with your mind blinded to truth. AND you will not go to your heaven. You and I both will just be pushing up daisy's like everyone else including your JC. JC didn't die on the cross, just fooled people into believing it with magician tricks and then took off on the silk road so the Romans wouldn't catch him again. If he existed at all.

Originally posted by sonhouse
We have enough to convince people with open minds what is really going on in the world, as opposed to your one trick pony bullshyte creationist young Earth fairy tale. You have been thoroughly duped and programmed so well you don't know which end is up anymore.

Which is a good definition of a troll.

The difference between you and me is that I can cha ...[text shortened]... and then took off on the silk road so the Romans wouldn't catch him again. If he existed at all.

Have you lost your mind?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you lost your mind?

I think he's had it up to here with your creationist nonsense. I can't say I blame him.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/
pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf

Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances.The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate. In retrospect, this
conclusion is readily understandable from our knowledge of the structure of genetic systems, and is concisely summarized by the first rule of adaptive evolution.Evolution has myriad facets, and this one is worthy of some notice.

Michael Behe, while highly intelligent and a fine micro biologist, is so biased by religion, that when he writes in its favour, he makes these embarrassing, silly mistakes. It's a shame, really.

If most of something fits two of three possible categories, then some will by default match the third category. He's basically acknowledging the very fuel upon which evolution works, and also saying that the tank is not empty, and from this he wants you to believe that evolution isn't working because the tank is not full.

Brilliant!

Furthermore, his paper reeks of desperation when he's trying to redefine beneficial mutations causing malarial resistance as the result of "diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations", and now we're kind of trying to look elsewhere, but it's almost impossible not to look. I guess people slipping on the proverbial banana peel is just too captivating and hilarious not to watch... and laugh. 😳

Originally posted by C Hess
[quote]
Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances.The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss- ...[text shortened]... n the proverbial banana peel is just too captivating and hilarious not to watch... and laugh. 😳

I don't blame you, as an evolutionist, for being embarrassed because your kind must rely on speculation, instead of real science, as proof of your theory of evolution. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't blame you, as an evolutionist, for being embarrassed because your kind must rely on speculation, instead of real science, as proof of your theory of evolution. 😏

So, you got nothing in response? That is not what I expected. Really. 🙄

I know this show is satire (please tell me it's satire), but it's so beautifully ironic how the audience and the host is like a bunch of monkeys, and the only one who realises we are in fact apes, is the one with the calm, rational mind:

YouTube : atheist hot seat

Enjoy. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
So, you got nothing in response? That is not what I expected. Really. 🙄

I know this show is satire (please tell me it's satire), but it's so beautifully ironic how the audience and the host is like a bunch of monkeys, and the only one who realises we are in fact apes, is the one with the calm, rational mind:

[youtube atheist hot seat]rPNCWA_5h9w[/youtube]

Enjoy. 🙂

That was a very funny comedy skit. 😀

Evidence of Chemical Information science in DNA Disproves Evolution and Destroys Darwinism While Demonstrating Divinity

YouTube