Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[AAA]

Genetic code degrading. Lol. Another idiot that does not understand evolution.

I think it is degrading. Why are there so many mechanisms to ensure faithful copying of the code if not to prevent it from degrading?

---

Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least?

Junk Status; Nooooooooooooooo!!!!

Yo are not SERIOUSLY going to come back here for a 5th fucking time and try to argue for design, are you?  ARE you?!  Haven't you been slapped around here enough?  How has it not been pounded through your thick skull yet that the "argument from design" is just a giant argument from ignorance and personal incredulity?  There is NO way you aren't a troll.  TROLL, I say!  Junk status...  *grumbles*

---

Why not? What do you think about cells?

I think you have engaged in this back and forth about cells/DNA/genetics/complexity/statistical probabilities AD NAUSEAM with members here several times over in the last year, and it's dishonest of you to bring it up here so innocently, as though you've never discussed it with us before.  

---

What prediction? What world view? Productive how?

You're about to be taken for a very long ride that will end with you banging your head against a wall like Little Rik, and pulling all of the hairs on your head out, one strand at a time.  

---

He's going to tell you he's a biology student, but what he won't tell you is that it's a Christian college.  Several of our well-educated members who have backgrounds in evolutionary biology spent WEEKS with this guy, trying to show him the flaws in both his reasoning, AND his scientific understanding, but he just comes back every few months and hits the reset button on everyone.  He is a waste of everybody's time and mental effort, as far as I'm concerned.  

---

Hey it's Junk Status, long time no see lad. What you been doing with yourself, still pretending to be getting an education? Still thinking you know more than Sweet Fanny Adams about anything?

---

Well in order to be able to ascertain that nature shows evidence of design you have to show said evidence. The current amount of evidence you have provided for your beloved creatardism Junk Status is detailed below:



Yeah, Junk Status, you've got absolutely fucking nothing.

LOL.  I was starting to think I was the only one who remembered him!  It was an awful, lonely feeling.  [emoji1]

Yeah, I've been here before. It's just Christmas break, and I was bored. And nobody has presented a compelling flaw in the arguments I gave. In fact all I get are people (like you) asserting that I do not understand evolution.

---

No, I think I do understand it.

"Throughout the duration of the LTEE, there has existed an ecological opportunity in the form of an abundant, but unused, resource. DM25 medium contains not only glucose, but also citrate at a high concentration. The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species. Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process. It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates. E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power. The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions. Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit+) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters."

Note that they say that the only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to tranport citrate under anoxic conditions. This is what I said.
here is the article:
Blout, Z.D., Borland, C.Z., Lenski, R.E., 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. CrossMark. 105(23) 7899-7906.

Your original statement was a gross oversimplification of that:

And were you referring to the long term evolution experiment where the bacteria gained the ability to metabolize citrate? They already possessed the enzymes necessary to break it down, it's just that they could not take it in under aerobic conditions.

And that is not the only barrier.

And how about addressing the other issues?

Well they say in their article that it is the only known barrier, but I suppose you know of more? And also, I don't think it was a gross oversimplification. They simply couldn't take it in (they weren't expressing the necessary transporter).
And what other issues? The fact that in you think the presence of building blocks would mean that life would form? One of my relatives got legos for christmas. He had all the building blocks necessary to produce the design, but the design did not simply emerge. Neither amino acids nor nucleotides seem to have any chemical reason to arrange themselves into functional sequences.