DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Abaddon_ire]

But a different species of each.

Or are you going to tell me that there is only one species of bacteria on Earth, as well as only one species of Fruit Fly?
Don't change the meaning of words, now!

They are still the same genus and still the same family.

What are they after 50 million changes?

---

And if you add lots of "micro-evolutionary" changes what do you get?

You still have not noticed that the whole "micro"/"macro" thing is a false distinction created for no other reason than to sway the gulllible. 

There is a reason why pastors and priests refer to "flocks" and "sheep". You are expected to blindly follow along and so you do. Meekly.

Speaking personally, were I to die and end up unexpectedly at the imaginary pearly gates, with absolute proof of the christian god, I would still reject him as the thug he is. And I would cite you as supporting evidence. Your god has screwed you over and knew it. Why? Because I have moral fibre, something you apparently lack. After all, you think slavery is moral. Human sacrifice is moral, ete, etc. You have accepted it because your "shepherds" told you so and you swallowed the lie hook line and sinker.

You get a lot of changes within the kind.  A lot of adaptations.

Where are those limits? What are those limits? Why are those limits?

Face it. You are out of your depth.

[Anomalocaris]

You guys, this dude is a trollolol.

Even if that was his intent, it has been overwhelmed by his dumb repetitiousness and sad loserliness evidenced by the lack of anything better to do with his time.

[Abaddon_ire]

You’ve asserted the same thing ad nauseam, while showing nothing whatsoever.    Your credibility,a zero as it had been at the beginning, falls a long way further with every claim of “show” or “proof” there after.

So let’s say kind refer to the entire domain of all biotic life, then you would almost right.

I didn't say that.  I said it has to refer to genus then probably.  A higher level taxonomy than a species.

Where do the imaginary "kinds" fit into taxonomy? Do you know? Of course you don't.

[CDF47]

I didn't say that.  I said it has to refer to genus then probably.  A higher level taxonomy than a species.

No, you didn’t say it.

But you need to say it to be right.

For you to be mostly right, that taxonomical classification has to be the very highest level possible - the domain of all life on earth.

Then it is still only just mostly right.  It is not right at the origin of all life on earth.   You would have been mostly right by happenstance, that evidence points to life on earth that descended to the present day all had one single common origin, that the lineal ancesters of all life trace back to a single type of organism and thus presumable even further back into single common point when ancesters of that organism arose from non-life.

It is not inconceivable that we may yet discover evidence that some parts of biosphere contain as yet undiscovered organisms that could not descent from a common biotic ancesters with the rest of the biosphere.  If that is discovered, then adaptation and evolution would prove to transcend the boundary between non-biotic organic chemicals and biotic life not once, but potentially many times.

Yeah, right.  There is no proof of that; organic life from non-organic, and you know it.  There is no proof that there is a common ancestor to all life.

---

But a different species of each.

Or are you going to tell me that there is only one species of bacteria on Earth, as well as only one species of Fruit Fly?
Don't change the meaning of words, now!

And there is the problem. CDF claims "micro" evolution exists as demonstrated over 60 or so years of scientifically observed "micro" evolution. How much could happen in 3 billion years? Add those 60 years together over 3 billion years and we get 3,000,000,000/60=50.000.000 changes over time. That's right 50 million changes will result in no change of any note. That is the claim. 50 million changes results in no change at all. 

And that is to neglect the influence of natural selection. It is to ignore all of the evidence we actually have to hand of, for example, ring species, a topic CDF avoids like the plague because he realises it sinks his nonsense or simply does not understand it.

I cannot fathom how stupid CDF's claim is. It amounts to nothing more that "I can't work it out, therefore god-did-it" a typical god-of-the-gaps position. 

Unfortunately for CDF, the gaps are ever smaller, so CDF must continuously change position to attempt to keep up.

I can give a trivial example. I spend more than a little time for my daily toil on credit cards and encryption of same for substantial institutions. ~Some years ago we had the spam <bank of choice>requires you to verify your details spammage. At first, I just wrote a hack script to submit nonsense to such hackers. But that evolved over time until the entire programming started doing it in their spare time. By the end, we had a bot that would submit entirely fictitious yet valid cards, cvv's, names, DOB's and so forth. We reached a point where the scammers could not tell without testing each one and we shut down quite a few scams. The point is that the software evolved. People just contributed in their spare time for the hell of it. I am constrained by NDA to not provide identifying detail for the bank in question, but Really Believe Such. And I would rather have a bar of chocolate than a bar of clay. 

In any event, we undertook this gratis. It was not a contracted task, it was simply an emergent property. We all saw evolution happen before our eyes as diverse individuals contributed. It was fun at the time, but a long while ago.

The initial program required a programmer.  All information and information processes come from a mind.

[LostLocke]

You guys, this dude is a trollolol.

I have a feeling that's why he was banned at TTA.

[Minimalist]

He's not even a very good troll.

[pocaracas]

But a different species of each.

Or are you going to tell me that there is only one species of bacteria on Earth, as well as only one species of Fruit Fly?
Don't change the meaning of words, now!

They are still the same genus and still the same family.

Yeah, kind may refer to a genus.

Come now... be consistent.

This is what you said earlier:

I presume microevolution can continue within the kind. Kind is a species.

Also, you could answer my questions concerning the fossil record ordering. Remember those?

[CDF47]

They are still the same genus and still the same family.

Yeah, kind may refer to a genus.

Come now... be consistent.

This is what you said earlier:

I presume microevolution can continue within the kind.  Kind is a species.

Also, you could answer my questions concerning the fossil record ordering. Remember those?

Kind must be a genus or maybe family, not a species.  That was my bad.  I responded to that post regarding the ordering.

[Ravenshire]

I didn't say that.  I said it has to refer to genus then probably.  A higher level taxonomy than a species.

Where do the imaginary "kinds" fit into taxonomy? Do you know? Of course you don't.

Of course he does. A "kind" is a species, except when it's a genus. Like, duh!

[Anomalocaris]

He's not even a very good troll.

I think he was reading a bible themed comic book during professor Dufus’ introduction to trolling 101 class.