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: December 15, 2024, 12:31 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The code that is DNA
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 2:25 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 2:06 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: When god created life on earth, is that considered macro creation or micro creation?
That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 3:05 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:
Quote:Well I already mentioned Lenski and the fact that after MANY thousands of mutation induced generations on fruit flies, there is zero macro evolution to wit. Unless you call a 2 headed fly evolution
No you misused  Lenski,s work to come to stupid conclusion . You know Lenski the guy who accepts Maro evolution happens .

Quote:That would be considered creation. 
Nothing because it's a fairytale


Quote:And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be?


Fallacy


Quote: (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

You tried this trick already it failed you then it fails you now.

Quote:What would be an example of a scientific fact, for example? Even scientific laws are understood to be descriptions, not facts, precisely because a "black swan" could appear at some point undermining the observations described by them.
Nope it  remains a fact .I know you don't like that but a fact it remains

“I stand by it”
Ha ha lol
RE: The code that is DNA
Let's keep the rational, sensible talk to a minimum, ok sal?!
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 4:28 pm)no one Wrote: Let's keep the rational, sensible talk to a minimum, ok sal?!

I'll post whatever I want to post  Panic
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 4:26 pm)Sal Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 2:25 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.

Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 4:47 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".

There's a reason why biologists make a distinction between microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Consider for instance that if gradual changes simply accumulate within a single population across ∞ number of generations, speciation never takes place.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 4:27 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 3:05 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: No you misused  Lenski,s work to come to stupid conclusion . You know Lenski the guy who accepts Maro evolution happens .

Nothing because it's a fairytale




Fallacy



You tried this trick already it failed you then it fails you now.

Nope it  remains a fact .I know you don't like that but a fact it remains

“I stand by it”
Ha ha lol
So you stand by

Misrepresenting a scientists work .A scientist who accepts the thing you insist his work proves false . 

Logical fallacies

And statical trickey to back a fallacious point   

Alrighty then meanwhile i'll stand  by the opposite of that.

Quote:There's a reason why biologist make a distinction between microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Consider for instance that if gradual changes simply accumulate within a single population across x number of generation, speciation never takes place.
This example fails and is just another creationist  attempt to split hairs so you can deny evolution

(December 28, 2019 at 4:26 pm)Sal Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 2:25 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.
More or less

(December 28, 2019 at 4:47 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 4:26 pm)Sal Wrote: Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.

Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".
Yup it's just an attempt to have their cake and eat it too .Scientific facts aren't jars of candy they get to pick and choose what they like and get to deny the rest because it conflicts with their ideology.
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 5:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(December 28, 2019 at 4:47 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".

There's a reason why biologist make a distinction between microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Consider for instance that if gradual changes simply accumulate within a single population across x number of generation, speciation never takes place.

1 year is 31,556,926 seconds.

Given enough various isolated groups of the same animal, in different habitats, speciation will occur, via the forge of natural selection of genetic mutations throughout a species generations. This has been demonstrated in the lab with bacteria and happens from generation to generation, where one bacteria, through natural selection of genetic mutation, is able to survive in a different habitat that its predecessors did not.

You can flail around all you want about "distinctions", but the science is in; evolution occurs in all populations' differing habitats, where natural selection weeds out the genetic mutations that are harmful for the species survival in its own habitat, leaving the survivors able to breed for its next generation.


[Image: ENPMv.png]
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 28, 2019 at 5:24 pm)Sal Wrote: Given enough various isolated groups of the same animal, in different habitats, speciation will occur, via the forge of natural selection of genetic mutations throughout a species generations.

Notice you had to add another variable in your response. Gradual change is insufficient to produce speciation, therefore adding "isolated groups of the same animal" was necessary. That's a better response.
RE: The code that is DNA
Quote:Notice you had to add another variable in your response. Gradual change is insufficient to produce speciation, therefore adding "isolated groups of the same animal" was necessary. That's a better response.
Once again your wrong
"Change was inevitable"


Nemo sicut deus debet esse!

[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]



 “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM


      



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 4655 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Are humans half aliens? Human DNA question Signa92 14 2432 December 30, 2018 at 12:34 am
Last Post: Rahn127
Brick Atheist moral code Void 45 17271 March 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Last Post: I Am Not A Human Being



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)