Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:45 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Human Devolution
RE: Human Devolution
(January 22, 2017 at 4:06 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: So he's a med-lab-tech... He must be familiar with antibiotic resistant microbes, what would be the non-evolution explanation I wonder?

Ahem. *Creationist voice.*

"They're still bacteria!"

It's kinds. You all know it's going to be kinds. Tongue
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
RE: Human Devolution
(January 21, 2017 at 10:44 pm)Pulse Wrote:  the Truth or to even dare question your High Priests of Scientism who have no idea how DNA coded itself to Code itself to replicate or that it needs the products of its own translation to translate itself or how the millions of cellular nano machines originated etc these are all logical vicious circles ever inexplicable by science.

... You ever think that maybe those things arose via simpler versions of the same mechanisms gaining complexity over millions of years?

It's good to see you've started being honest and have just begun hoisting up your ignorance of certain ideas as support for your claims, though. I wonder if you even know what logical fallacy that is?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
RE: Human Devolution
(January 19, 2017 at 6:15 pm)Pulse Wrote: Remember the Second Law says Entropy increases, so how did Order evolve in Genomes??

You've had natural selection explained to you before, right? What would be the point of going through it again when clearly such explanations don't actually penetrate your skull?

(January 19, 2017 at 6:31 pm)Pulse Wrote: The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things.

Strawman. No one said raw energy generates complexity. It just makes the generation of complexity possible. And again, you have to have completely failed to comprehend all previous explanations of evolution in order to entertain this pseudoscience in the first place.

(January 19, 2017 at 6:41 pm)Pulse Wrote: Again can you show a concrete example in Nature that shows a mutation increasing, and not corrupting, the Genome? Granted some mutations can, for example, make a mosquito more resistant to pesticides, but this mutation actually corrupts the Genome and makes the organism weaker.

So weak it becomes predominant as long as the pesticide is present, eh? If the pesticide ceases to be used and the mutation dies out, does that corrupt the genome (another word that doesn't need to be capitalized) or make it stronger?

(January 19, 2017 at 11:31 pm)Pulse Wrote: Dr Sanford's full rebuttal; please Google "Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy"

Sanford's work gives us a timeline to extinction. If Sanford is correct, no species can last much longer than 400 generations before going extinct from cumulative genetic deterioration. Therefore, humans can't have been around much longer than 400 generations (roughly ten thousand years). We must be getting close by now!

However, in that 10,000 years; mice, which have 4 generations a year and 400 generations a century; would have gone extinct about 100 times in that 10,000 years if Sanford's work was valid. Nearly all life would have gone extinct multiple times in that span, because we're pretty long-lived compared to most other critters. Not only is Sanford wrong, he's stupidly and obviously wrong, and you don't even need a degree to figure out that he's wrong. Why he's wrong is a little more complicated.

(January 20, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Pulse Wrote:
(January 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Your use of the phrase "still maintain its functionality" suggests that it has been designed for a specific purpose. You are presupposing certain things to be true.

Either way, if you remove a species from an ecosystem then it can entirely collapse. For example, remove plankton and the entire food chain disappears.

If you are 'quite frankly shocked' then you are quite frankly ignorant. Ecosystems are also self organising systems.

I notice that you have not contested the idea that the idea of irreducible complexity completely ignores the fact that systems develop and change over time.

Take certain bridges. They can be irreducibly complex because if you remove any part of it then it will collapse. But that ignores the fact that it developed over time using scaffolding that was then removed once it could support itself. It doesn't matter if they evolved or were designed. Either way they depended upon the presence of other components before reaching the form where a creationist would call them irreducibly complex.




As I said, I can evolve many different systems that cease to function if you take away one component.

Again Let's look at the ATP Sythese enzyme which is a marvel of Engineering and had to have each of its component parts work from THE BEGINNING, to work properly, any part missing makes it useless. How could it possibly gradually evolve?? Not to mention myriads of other nano machines in the cell, that's what Behe was referring to, not bridges or ecosystems. I am concerned you put too blind much faith in GA.

Your response to this post indicates that you did not understand what Mathilda was saying, or possibly didn't even read it.

(January 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm)Pulse Wrote: If the above Materialistic Theory is correct, why doesn't DNA helicase randomly bind to other components in the cell, making it perform random functions, some of which would surely be deleterious to the cell, thereby stopping evolution in its tracks and causing the extinction of every living cell on earth? In other words why did it bind to a H+ motor, and Nothing else, and make a Perfect enzyme and then perfectly encoded it into the DNA??

DNA doesn't bind randomly, and eliminating mutations deleterious to cells is one of the things natural selection is really good at. Evolution can't be stopped in its tracks by imperfect replication, it runs on imperfect replication, which generates the variation that natural selection acts upon. You don't even need college biology to spot the flaws in these arguments. There's a reason they don't make it past peer review.

(January 21, 2017 at 4:36 am)Pulse Wrote: Dear Stimbo, I have a science degree,

That's terribly sad.

(January 21, 2017 at 3:18 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Lol, when someone says they have a science degree without clarifying what that degree is, you know they have a B.S. in English from a technical college.

Saying you have a "science degree" is pretty telling. I have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, but I won't pretend that this makes me some sort of expert in cell biology or genetics. Some colleges (USNA being one of them) only deliver Bachelor's of Science. So you can get a science degree in History from a really good school. Doesn't mean you are qualified to talk about biology with any gravitas. Especially when you can't even be bothered to get basic definitions correct.

I have a Bachelor of Arts degree...but it's in a science.

(January 21, 2017 at 11:48 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You should probably ask.for your money back -- your understanding of the subject matter is abysmal.

I'm sure he does okay as a lab assistant or whatever he does. It's not like his degree qualifies him to do original research on his own, or requires him to actually understand biology in-depth. But it's not entirely irrelevant to the field, which was a pleasant surprise.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)