DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Paleophyte]

You want to teach YOUR children contradictory views to actual, established science, you fucking go for it.  Don't try to push your bullshit on everyone elses kids and try to call it fucking science.

ID is a CLAIM.  Not even a scientific theory.

But, once again, it's amazing how you morons play the fucking victim or claim "conspiracy" when judgements go against YOUR agenda.

Boo -fucking - hoo.  The vast majority of scientists accepts evolution because it has overwhelming supporting evidence.  It is testable, verifiable, and observable.  Whereas ID is accepted by some people who don't have qualifications in the required field and perhaps a handful of people who do.

I suppose you would support prayer or faith "healing" over modern medicine, too.

ID is science.

Tell it to the judge.

---

By what definition of the term is a barnacle conscious?

Seems conscious enough:

" The sessile lifestyle of barnacles makes sexual reproduction difficult, as the organisms cannot leave their shells to mate. To facilitate genetic transfer between isolated individuals, barnacles have extraordinarily long penises⁠. Barnacles probably have the largest penis to body size ratio of the animal kingdom.[11]

Barnacles can also reproduce through a method called spermcasting, in which the male barnacle releases his sperm into the water and females pick it up and fertilise their eggs.[13]

The Rhizocephala superorder used to be considered hermaphroditic, but it turned out that its males inject themselves into the female's body, degrading to the condition of nothing more than sperm-producing cells.[14

What does barnacle penis size have to do with consciousness?!?

He asked in horrified fascination.

[CDF47]

ID is science.

Tell it to the judge.

---

Seems conscious enough:

" The sessile lifestyle of barnacles makes sexual reproduction difficult, as the organisms cannot leave their shells to mate. To facilitate genetic transfer between isolated individuals, barnacles have extraordinarily long penises⁠. Barnacles probably have the largest penis to body size ratio of the animal kingdom.[11]

Barnacles can also reproduce through a method called spermcasting, in which the male barnacle releases his sperm into the water and females pick it up and fertilise their eggs.[13]

The Rhizocephala superorder used to be considered hermaphroditic, but it turned out that its males inject themselves into the female's body, degrading to the condition of nothing more than sperm-producing cells.[14

What does barnacle penis size have to do with consciousness?!?

He asked in horrified fascination.

Again, it was a BS case.

[Amarok]

So what is your take on these recent findings?

Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

But they can't possibly be talking about Macro evolution because reasons ....

And yet the evil evolutionist Gestapo let them publish who knows maybe their hiding out with mr chemist who won't write a peer review paper but will take you out for lunch during his super secret meetings were he shows those foolish biologists up

---

Tell it to the judge.

---

What does barnacle penis size have to do with consciousness?!?

He asked in horrified fascination.

Again, it was a BS case.

Only because you lost if you had won regardless of merit you wouldn't be saying that .

[Everena]

Citation please?
And are you claiming to be smarter than they are? The article explains their findings well.

Paleophyte (2018). I'm not claiming to be smarter than anybody, I'm just offering one interpretation of their data. I'm certain that you're capable of clicking on that link I posted and learning about mitochondrial Eve and how it's just a statistical effect within populations. Alternately, you could employ Google to find your own sources of information.

I think scientists who went through 5 milllion gene snapshots of 100, 000 animal species would have considered that themselves if that were an issue.

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/...l-kingdom/

I particularly enjoyed the section titled, "Evolutionary bottlenecks: the fresh new beginning of a species" Do you read anything that you cite?

I am fully aware that all science is currently acting on the assumption that evolution is true. They are trying to work it in with current theories. We will see what happens. Time will tell.

---

Tell it to the judge.

---

What does barnacle penis size have to do with consciousness?!?

He asked in horrified fascination.

Again, it was a BS case

I think if a species mates in a consious manner, and has a penis that it injects a female with, it is conscious.

[Amarok]

False, every scientist has to until their theory is disproven. They are working on the assumption that it is true and we all know microevolution has been proven.

True they are working with the fact it's true and they know Macro evolution is beyond reasonable doubt 

False and if you really think so, prove it.

Already been done they are clearly talking about Macro Evolution and once again i don't need to convince you of anything .

False, and it says so right in the first couple lines of the article. Still needs to be corroborated though.

True nothing in the article is attempt nor a success at challenging evolution and the scientists know it  it's creationists that warp their findings to fit their agenda .

Nope, you showed I was right and that you didn't even read what you were posting.

Wrong i refuted your points and you didn't read it

[Rahn127]

Ev - I'm beginning to think you're a 13 yr old goth girl who gets super angry when she doesn't understand something.

Oh really? What is it that you are claiming I don't understand? And be specific.

So, I take it the 13 yr old angry goth girl is accurate ?
That explains sooooo much.
Teenagers your age think they know everything.

Speaking of everything.
I specifically don't think you understand everything.
You've gotten everything you've ever said on this forum wrong, like demonstrably wrong, pathetically wrong.

To paraphrase a semi well known quote.
"You're not even wrong"

This quote means that you first would have to say something that's even in the ballpark of wrongness.
You're so far out there, you're not even wrong.

[Amarok]

And are you claiming to be smarter than they are? The article explains their findings well. 

Yet you think yourself smarter then most of the scientific community 

I think scientists who went through 5 milllion gene snapshots of 100, 000 animal species would have considered that themselves if that were an issue.

Maybe they haven't wasn't it you who said biologists are only people 

I am fully aware that all science is currently acting on the assumption that evolution is true. They are trying to work it in with current theories. We will see what happens. Time will tell.

Nope they work under the fact evolution is true and it will be around 1000 years from now 

I think if a species mates in a consious manner, and has a penis that it injects a female with, it is conscious.

Another BS made up stipulation

[Everena]

No kidding. That does not mean science cannot be as a tool used to prove it is true.

Clearly you do not understand science.

If you don't think science can someday prove intelligent design, then you are the one who does not understand science.

I understand that you are going to defer to a strawman argument instead of attempting to answer the question.

No, I am simply making sure that you understand the words that you have used to ask the question. If you don't understand what complexity is then you may as well have asked how glomerocrysts coalesce in a trondjhemite. And if you don't understand your question then there's precious little point in wasting my time answering it is there?

Try this link instead.

I understand the words. I also understand that you have provided nothing that explains how the complexity of DNA could come about without an intelligent driving force. The big rock in your front yard did not create DNA. No matter what you think can arise from an inanimate object, it is literally not possible or logical in any way. And you obviously have no argument of your own.

[Amarok]

If you don't think science can someday prove intelligent design, then you are the one who does not understand science

It can't and it won't they will simply fap in their little blogs write their bargain bin books and blame their failure on made up conspiracies

---

I understand the words. I also understand that you have provided nothing that explains how the complexity of DNA could come about without an intelligent driving force. The big rock in your front yard did not create DNA. No matter what you think can arise from an inanimate object, it is literally not possible or logical in any way. And you obviously have no argument of your own.

He has provided plenty and all you have provided is incredulity

---

Another great article.  Yeah, macroevolution is history

Keep convincing yourself of that well the rest of us watch it continue to be vindicated

[Everena]

Oh really? What is it that you are claiming I don't understand? And be specific.

So, I take it the 13 yr old angry goth girl is accurate ?
That explains sooooo much.
Teenagers your age think they know everything.

Speaking of everything.
I specifically don't think you understand everything.
You've gotten everything you've ever said on this forum wrong, like demonstrably wrong, pathetically wrong.

To paraphrase a semi well known quote.
"You're not even wrong"

This quote means that you first would have to say something that's even in the ballpark of wrongness.
You're so far out there, you're not even wrong.

Really? Name one thing then. I said be specific fool.