DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

[quote pid='1858321' dateline='1543184347']
Ridiculous. The question is why would food exist on this planet at all? Not, what is food? 
And the question is why and how would nothing care if our species survived? Evolution is not a first cause of anything. It is a just a process that occured after LIFE itself had already began.
[/quote]

We've already been through this snukums. 
Plants evolved 300 million years before there was anything to eat it. 

"Casey Luskin is a lawyer and one of the primary shills for the intelligent design advocacy group the Discovery Institute. When he speaks, he tends to go up at the end of every sentence, like it was a question. Okay, so it's really, really difficult to convey this in text, just see it for yourself.[1]
The irony of putting a lawyer at the head of the largest ID "research" organization is lost on most of its followers.
Mr Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego. He worked for the Scripps Institute for Oceanography (1997-2002) doing geological survey work.
Luskin is particularly famous for his claims that published articles on evolution contain "veiled threats"[2] against creationism and that Nature has launched a propaganda war on creationism[3]. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism, but Luskin appears to reject the distinction between scientific evidence and polemics, and between criticism of creationism and personal attacks."

LMFAO

More argument from authority fallicy. He is incomptent. 

[Anomalocaris]

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for...nd_Culture

No kidding. Why do you think I gave it to the Christian and not to one of you?

Because christians are a lot closer to your level of ignorance, stupidity and conceit?   And being total loser you need all the idiot loserly support you can get even if you are too psychotic to account for the fact that you are no better, possibly much worse, than the dumbest even amongst Christians?

[Gwaithmir]

No kidding. Why do you think I gave it to the Christian and not to one of you?

Because christians are a lot closer to your level of ignorance, stupidity and conceit?   And being total loser you need all the idiot loserly support you can get even if you are too psychotic to account for the fact that you are no better, possibly much wise, than the dumbest even amongst Christians?

Well said.

[Nay_Sayer]

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

No kidding. Why do you think I gave it to the Christian and not to one of you?

Because christians are a lot closer to your level of ignorance, stupidity and conceit?   And being total loser you need all the idiot loserly support you can get even if you are too psychotic to account for the fact that you are no better, possibly much wise, than the dumbest even amongst Christians?

Now wait, that's unfair to psychotics

[Everena]

Ridiculous. The question is why would food exist on this planet at all? Not, what is food? 
And the question is why and how would nothing care if our species survived? Evolution is not a first cause of anything. It is a just a process that occured after LIFE itself had already began.

We've already been through this snukums. 
Plants evolved 300 million years before there was anything to eat it.
 

Everena: So what? That still does not answer my question.

"Casey Luskin is a lawyer and one of the primary shills for the intelligent design advocacy group the Discovery Institute. When he speaks, he tends to go up at the end of every sentence, like it was a question. Okay, so it's really, really difficult to convey this in text, just see it for yourself.[1]
The irony of putting a lawyer at the head of the largest ID "research" organization is lost on most of its followers.
Mr Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego. He worked for the Scripps Institute for Oceanography (1997-2002) doing geological survey work.
Luskin is particularly famous for his claims that published articles on evolution contain "veiled threats"[2] against creationism and that Nature has launched a propaganda war on creationism[3]. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism, but Luskin appears to reject the distinction between scientific evidence and polemics, and between criticism of creationism and personal attacks."

LMFAO

More argument from authority fallicy. He is incomptent. 
 

Everena He has a Bachelors Degree and a Masters Degree in Earth Science as well as a Doctorate degree in law, and he is far smarter than you will ever be. Also, it is imperative to be skeptical of anything that claims to explain the origins of life. Turkey and Israel have now stopped teaching evolution in their schools.

[CDF47]

The Bible does matter.  Because there is no evidence of a common ancestry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent
Unfortunately for you, there is.

Propaganda.

[Everena]

The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.

Many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000).

Great! I see you have copying and pasting down pat. That in no way answers my question though, so strawman argument and try again.

The question is why would we even have a sex drive or a will to live or an immune system?
Just because of nothing and for no reason? How would nothingness care if our species survived?

---

Also, we have discovered that there are approx 200 billion different galaxies. Do you really think humans are the highest form of intelligence in 200 billion galaxies?

Irrelevant

It is totally relevant, so answer the question and stop hedging.

---

Woops.... snookums is wrong again about epigenetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
This second language is constantly evolving, and in fact can change in ONE generation, depending on the experience(s) of the progenitor.

"The term also refers to the changes themselves: functionally relevant changes to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of mechanisms that produce such changes are DNA methylation and histone modification, each of which alters how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Gene expression can be controlled through the action of repressor proteins that attach to silencer regions of the DNA. These epigenetic changes may last through cell divisions for the duration of the cell's life, and may also last for multiple generations even though they do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[5] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.

One example of an epigenetic change in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, as a single fertilized egg cell – the zygote – continues to divide, the resulting daughter cells change into all the different cell types in an organism, including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc., by activating some genes while inhibiting the expression of others.

"Epigenetic inheritance adds another dimension to the modern picture of evolution. The genome changes slowly, through the processes of random mutation and natural selection. It takes many generations for a genetic trait to become common in a population. The epigenome, on the other hand, can change rapidly in response to signals from the environment. And epigenetic changes can happen in many individuals at once. Through epigenetic inheritance, some of the experiences of the parents may pass to future generations. At the same time, the epigenome remains flexible as environmental conditions continue to change. Epigenetic inheritance may allow an organism to continually adjust its gene expression to fit its environment - without changing its DNA code."

Dumbass opened a can of worms that refutes her nonsense. LOL  ... and about which she knows nothing.

https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/...heritance/

But just you wait. She's gonna solve the mysteries of the universe for us.

All you do is present strawman arguments and make yourself look like even more of a foolish idiot than you already have before. Try harder to figure out what it is that we are actually discussing.

Also, it appears that epigenetics may be disproving Natural Selection because the environment of the parent has now been proven to affect the very next generation. Sounds like adaption......

[Bucky Ball]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent
Unfortunately for you, there is.

Propaganda.

Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of science agree with it, and IF it were propaganda, someone would have debunked it, and have a Nobel for their trouble. Every major university and medical center in the world teaches it, operates successfully using it, and you have no evidence that there is a better explanation.

[Everena]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent
Unfortunately for you, there is.

Propaganda.

Here's a great article about why it looks like they are wrong about Natural Selection. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010...enes-wrong

And here's their side claiming they may have to alter the theory evolution a bit because of all these new findings.

https://www.livescience.com/37158-epigen...ction.html

[Bucky Ball]

Also, it appears that epigenetics may be disproving Natural Selection because the environment of the parent has now been proven to affect the very next generation. Sounds like adaption......

Exactly. Natural selection operates over many generations. Epigenetics can block gene expression. So no, snookums ... wrong again. That's just garbage you made up again.
And about two hours ago you didn't even know that the "new code" was even called epigenetics, and I TOLD YOU it affects the next generation, you dishonest troll

If Natural Selection were wrong, someone would have proposed an alternative explanation.
Science is very competitive.
They would have a Nobel. YOU have no alternative explanation.

All this demonstrates how out-of-touch with the working of real science these god-botherers are.