Intelligent Design

[Cyberman]

Yeah, it's like AiG and the 'Discovery' Institute just vomited all over the board, isn't it?

[AAA]

Molecules to man evolution is not fact.

Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.

If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time.

That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.

Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information.

Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.

These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?

Molecules to man may be worded simply, but it isn't dishonest considering that materialists believe that molecules gradually combined to form either RNA or protein, which then increased in complexity via mutation and natural selection resulting in mankind.

Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

Biological information is the specific sequence of nucleotides that produce proteins capable of accomplishing a specific task. Functional sequences are rare, yet our genome's are full of them.

I am a biology major with a chem minor at my university and plan to get a PhD in molecular biology.

[Redbeard The Pink]

The problem with your use of the word design is that you think it's ok to make up your own definition for it, dipshit.

A guy walks into a sperm donor bank wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. He goes up to the nurse and demands her to open the sperm bank vault. She says "But sir, its just a sperm bank!", "I don't care, open it now!!!" he replies. So she opens the door to the vault and inside are all the sperm samples. The guy says "Take one of those sperm samples and drink it!", she looks at him "BUT, they are sperm samples???" , "DO IT!". So the nurse sucks it back. "That one there, drink that one as well.", so the nurse drinks that one as well. Finally after 4 samples the man takes off his ski mask and says, "See honey - its not that hard."

A lonely man walks into a bar and, after having a few drinks, lets slip to the bartender that he's desperate for pussy.


"No problem," says the bartender as he slides a worn business card across the bar. The front is practically illegible, but the back has an address on it. "That's the apartment of the best whore in the city. Just be warned...it'll cost ya."


Now, this man has never consorted with prostitutes before, thinking himself above such measures, but he's desperately lonely, so he figures, "Ah, what the hell? Nobody's gonna know, right? Besides, I got money to waste since I don't have any women around."


So he slams 3 more drinks to calm his nerves and then drunkenly makes his way to this apartment. When he gets there and knocks on the door, a middle-aged whore answers it. She doesn't look like much, but she's supposed to be the best in the city, so he asks anyway.


"Hi, is this Mandy's house?" he asks awkwardly.


"Sure is!" says the whore. "What can I do ya for, honey?"


"Well, you tell me," he says, still nervous despite the drinking. "I've never done this before, so maybe we should start with a hand job."


"Oh sure, honey," says the whore, "but I'm afraid I'll have to charge up front for that. Hand jobs are $500."


"$500?!" exclaims the man, taken aback. "That had better be the best hand job in the city!"


The whore says "You see the furniture in this apartment? I furnished this place with just hand job money."


So the dude looks around, and this bitch has some nice-ass furniture (like, really nice furniture), so he figures, Ah, what the hell? and gets the hand job, which turns out to be the best hand job he's ever had in his life.


"Damn!" he says. "That was the best hand job ever! how much for a blow job?"


The whore smiles as pretty as she can and says, "Why, blow jobs are $1,000, honey."


"$1000?! Fuck, that had better be the best blow job in the whole city!"


"You see this apartment? I rent this place with just blow job money."


So dude looks around, and this is a nice apartment. High rise, lots of space, perfect view of the city...the works, right? So he figures, Ah what the hell? I'm drunk and desperate, right? So he gets the blow job, which turns out to be the best blow job he's ever had.


"Whoah damn! That was the best blow job ever...ok, I think I'm ready to ask. How much for some pussy?"


The whore smiles real big, takes him to the window, and gestures to the skyline. "You see that city? If I had a pussy, I'd OWN that city."


Also, your definition of design is fucking wrong, just like your tired jokes.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

A guy walks into a sperm donor bank wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. He goes up to the nurse and demands her to open the sperm bank vault. She says "But sir, its just a sperm bank!", "I don't care, open it now!!!" he replies. So she opens the door to the vault and inside are all the sperm samples. The guy says "Take one of those sperm samples and drink it!", she looks at him "BUT, they are sperm samples???" , "DO IT!". So the nurse sucks it back. "That one there, drink that one as well.", so the nurse drinks that one as well. Finally after 4 samples the man takes off his ski mask and says, "See honey - its not that hard."

A lonely man walks into a bar and, after having a few drinks, lets slip to the bartender that he's desperate for pussy.


"No problem," says the bartender as he slides a worn business card across the bar. The front is practically illegible, but the back has an address on it. "That's the apartment of the best whore in the city. Just be warned...it'll cost ya."


Now, this man has never consorted with prostitutes before, thinking himself above such measures, but he's desperately lonely, so he figures, "Ah, what the hell? Nobody's gonna know, right? Besides, I got money to waste since I don't have any women around."


So he slams 3 more drinks to calm his nerves and then drunkenly makes his way to this apartment. When he gets there and knocks on the door, a middle-aged whore answers it. She doesn't look like much, but she's supposed to be the best in the city, so he asks anyway.


"Hi, is this Mandy's house?" he asks awkwardly.


"Sure is!" says the whore. "What can I do ya for, honey?"


"Well, you tell me," he says, still nervous despite the drinking. "I've never done this before, so maybe we should start with a hand job."


"Oh sure, honey," says the whore, "but I'm afraid I'll have to charge up front for that. Hand jobs are $500."


"$500?!" exclaims the man, taken aback. "That had better be the best hand job in the city!"


The whore says "You see the furniture in this apartment? I furnished this place with just hand job money."


So the dude looks around, and this bitch has some nice-ass furniture (like, really nice furniture), so he figures, Ah, what the hell? and gets the hand job, which turns out to be the best hand job he's ever had in his life.


"Damn!" he says. "That was the best hand job ever! how much for a blow job?"


The whore smiles as pretty as she can and says, "Why, blow jobs are $1,000, honey."


"$1000?! Fuck, that had better be the best blow job in the whole city!"


"You see this apartment? I rent this place with just blow job money."


So dude looks around, and this is a nice apartment. High rise, lots of space, perfect view of the city...the works, right? So he figures, Ah what the hell? I'm drunk and desperate, right? So he gets the blow job, which turns out to be the best blow job he's ever had.


"Whoah damn! That was the best blow job ever...ok, I think I'm ready to ask. How much for some pussy?"


The whore smiles real big, takes him to the window, and gestures to the skyline. "You see that city? If I had a pussy, I'd OWN that city."


Also, your definition of design is fucking wrong, just like your tired jokes.

[Simon Moon]

I am a biology major with a chem minor at my university and plan to get a PhD in molecular biology.

Why do you think you differ so drastically from the consensus of biologists?

They seem to have some pretty compelling (to say the least) natural explanations for biological diversity. And many of them are theists.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Molecules to man evolution is not fact. It isn't that hard to wrap your brain around, and the ID argument is not the argument that results from people not understanding the theory. If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time. Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information. These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

Show us some factual evidence for such a claim, not the factive dumbfuck source from which that bullshit hatched!

HIDEY-HO!

[The Inquisition]

Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.


That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.


Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.


So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?

Molecules to man may be worded simply, but it isn't dishonest considering that materialists believe that molecules gradually combined to form either RNA or protein, which then increased in complexity via mutation and natural selection resulting in mankind.

Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

Biological information is the specific sequence of nucleotides that produce proteins capable of accomplishing a specific task. Functional sequences are rare, yet our genome's are full of them.

I am a biology major with a chem minor at my university and plan to get a PhD in molecular biology.

Really? There are no genes that a bacteria acquires that are mutated?

You're using terms like "complexity" loosely, define them before tossing them about in such a cavalier fashion.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Molecules to man evolution is not fact.

Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.

If you want to believe in evolution, you have to have a natural way to increase the complexity of a living system over time.

That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.

Studies show mutations to be harmful and degrade the genetic information.

Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.

These mutations in our originally good genome are what cause these diseases that you are complaining about. There are cellular mechanisms (indicating design) that prevent mutations, but there is only so much it can do when the people in our society fill ourselves with mutagenic chemicals instead of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we were intended to eat. This suffering from diseases is almost entirely due to poor lifestyle or inherited mutations from ancestors with poor lifestyles. It is not the fault of the design or the designer.

So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?

You know we aren't wasting time if we do this for the benefit of the non-troll observers.

Chances are this clown has a Ph.D. in Anti-Science, the esteemed art of destroying scientific progress in society through the muddling of known facts and the deliberate dissemination of misinformation. The effects of its practice in the US is so profoundly strong that I'm sure there must be a program for this specific field at some of the Liberal Arts colleges in this country.

As they once said proudly, having no idea what it would later mean, "Only in America!"

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.


That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.


Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.


So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?

Molecules to man may be worded simply, but it isn't dishonest considering that materialists believe that molecules gradually combined to form either RNA or protein, which then increased in complexity via mutation and natural selection resulting in mankind.

Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

Biological information is the specific sequence of nucleotides that produce proteins capable of accomplishing a specific task. Functional sequences are rare, yet our genome's are full of them.

I am a biology major with a chem minor at my university and plan to get a PhD in molecular biology.

Dafuq, I pegged you right - an anti-science major!

Now, let me guess which college. William Jessup? Oral Roberts? Bringham Young?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

As one who has walked into at least one scientific field with the presumption that everything which exists owes its existence to a designing creator, why do you think your god would bother with any sort of automatic coding system at all, much less one which could only degrade and never, ever improve? Keep in mind that if said god is all-powerful and perfect then he is also tireless, therefore he really could design each individual with as much thought that went into the first. You'd better not try and chalk this up to that "curse of sin" nonsense, not if you want to play at science.

a-HIDEY-HO!!!