Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

[Kayenneh]

That's quite the arrogant assumption though that you've disproved every field of science in one forum post. What's your iq? It must be astronomical.

I can ask my Mensa friend if he has ever come across her. At least her attitude is shitty enough to fit right in

[Drich]

Just an observation.

The Christian presented a statement containing facts (statements that can be proved or disproved.) The Atheist response? was to attack the christian's character, education, and the general viablity of his ablity to make a claim that was typically atheistic in nature, rather than simply pairing the christian's facts against stronger reference material and properly disprooving the christian claim properly..

[Tonus]

Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

According to atheistic origin science, all species today have evolved upward through a succession of ancestor species.

That is incorrect.

---

Just an observation.

The entire opening post is built around an incorrect claim that betrays a misunderstanding of evolution that poisons everything that follows. There really isn't any value in discussing the incorrect conclusions drawn from an incorrect premise.

[Kayenneh]

The Christian presented a statement containing facts (statements that can be proved or disproved.)

Uh, no. Every single time anyone has asked Grace for proof, none has been put forward.

The Atheist response? was to attack the christian's character, education, and the general viablity of his ablity to make a claim that was typically atheistic in nature, rather than simply pairing the christian's facts against stronger reference material and properly disprooving the christian claim properly..

The atheistic response? You just accused all atheists of doing what you are doing yourself. And how can we attack her education, when we don't even know what it is? And there are no facts to disprove, because as I said above, she hasn't provided anything substantial.

[Bucky Ball]

Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution

According to atheistic origin science,

The house of cards has fallen.

In your dreams.

Please post TODAY,
1. that you graduated from
a. high school, and list your science classes,
b. college, please list the same
2. What text, article, journal, or book anthing is ever ONE time called "atheist origin science".
3. Anywhere any geneticist or Evolutionary Biologist uses the term "upward evolution".



Confucius say :
"ah, peopre who rive in grass house, should not knock house of calds".
:p



meow

[popeyespappy]

Endogenous retroviruses (ERV) are either proof that evolution is true or proof that your god is the biggest fucking asshole in the universe (or outside the universe as the case may be).

About 8% of human DNA is viral. Almost all of it is shared by humans and our great ape cousins. It goes a lot deeper than that though because most of it is shared by all mammals. If evolution is correct here is how that works.

A common ancestor of mice and men had a number of ERVs. We will call these ERVs group 1. Eventually that line diverged into two lines. One that is the common ancestor of mice and rats, and another that is the common ancestor of chimps and humans. Each of these two lines would still carry the group 1 ERVs, each would now start to develop its own group. Now the common ancestor for mice and rats carries ERV groups 1 and 2. The common ancestor for chimps and humans carries ERV groups 1 and 3. Please note that at this point the mice and rats ancestor does not have any of the ERV group 3 mutations neither does the chimps and humans ancestor carry any of the group 2 mutations.

These two lines diverge again. The mice and rat lines splits into a line that will become mice, and one that will become rats. Again each of these two lines begins accumulating ERVs independent of each other. Mice accumulate ERV group 4, rats group 5, chimps group 6 and humans group 7. Once again though no species shares any of the ERVs with the other species after the point in time of the last common ancestor with another species.



If evolution is true this is what we would expect to see in the genetic codes of these species. In fact it is exactly what we found once we began to decode the DNA of various species. The god did it explanation on the other hand brings up some interesting questions such as why would god need to put viral DNA in his various non virus creations? Assuming god did put viral DNA in his creations why did it do it in such a way as to make it appear exactly as it would if the DNA had been added by viral infections at various points in the evolutionary process? Now here is the biggie. If god put viral DNA in all his creations in such a way as to appear that it got there through the process of evolution he did it with the knowledge that I and others like me would interpret this as evidence of evolution and reject special creation. Thereby damning us to hell as a result of his actions. If he did then your god is a fucking asshole and does not deserve my admiration even if he is my creator.

[Crossless2.0]

The Christian presented a statement containing facts (statements that can be proved or disproved.)

Uh, no. Every single time anyone has asked Grace for proof, none has been put forward.

The Atheist response? was to attack the christian's character, education, and the general viablity of his ablity to make a claim that was typically atheistic in nature, rather than simply pairing the christian's facts against stronger reference material and properly disprooving the christian claim properly..

The atheistic response? You just accused all atheists of doing what you are doing yourself. And how can we attack her education, when we don't even know what it is? And there are no facts to disprove, because as I said above, she hasn't provided anything substantial.

I suppose Drich was addressing me. I have been harsh toward the OP, and I stand by every word of it. The scorn and abuse has been earned in each thread this person has begun. He/she is one of the most dishonest and stubbornly ignorant people I have ever encountered. The OP has never missed an opportunity to misrepresent science and to ignore those who would correct the errors. There is no excuse for it. Consider the OP's collected posts to date as Exhibit # 1,935,521 in the case concerning the dangers of religious indoctrination.

But Drich thinks the OP presents facts. Lol. Why am I not surprised?

[Psykhronic]

"Theory of Upward Evolution"

Is is that hard to fucking open a biology textbook and notice that NOWHERE does it say UPWARD evolution?

[Doubting Thomas]

The Christian presented a statement containing facts (statements that can be proved or disproved.) The Atheist response? was to attack the christian's character, education, and the general viablity of his ablity to make a claim

Only because this particular Christian is completely ignoring any previous points atheists have made toward him/her and continues to spout bullshit without evidence. Any time we refute a point SBG makes, he/she just ignores it and continues on to post other religious blather without a shred of evidence. SBG just keeps shotgunning crap out there and claiming it has to be true. There's no debate or discussion with this person. So why continue to waste time refuting stuff that's already long been refuted when they'll just ignore anything that's inconvenient to them?

And I think you'll see that there is plenty of scientific evidence presented to refute SBG's claims, to which SBG demands detailed data, but when asked for evidence for his/her claims he/she just ignores it. It goes like this:

SBG: Makes claim that science is wrong
Atheist: Please present some evidence.
SBG: Goddidit.
Atheist: Presents scientific study
SBG: Please show all data in incredibly minute detail so that I may pick it apart, and if I find one inconsistency, the entire theory is false.

There is no discussion to be had with SBG, so to ridicule it goes.

[Zazzy]

In origins, the establishment is blinded by a false assumption of No God.

Please give specifies.

Your thread on origins is elsewhere. And we've already had this conversation. Scientific method does not presume there is no god. Many fine religious scientists believe in god and practice beautiful lab science. God is not a useful experimental concept. If there were a way to use god in the lab, ambitious grad students would be on that yesterday.

Now, are you going to repeat this same thing many more times while ignoring my answer, or do the intelligent and honest thing, which is to accept what I have told you. I say it again- SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS NO SUCH ASSUMPTION. Period.

Now, do you want to ask about anything related to your OP, which was a mishmash of misinformation about mutations, or do you want to dodge me some more?