DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

Because it's inconvenient too her narrative that it doesn't happen or apparently it only happens when she can't deny it .

Well, her certitude is her citation!   She got As in college biology class!   She doesn’t need no stinking knowledge she didn’t have when she was three.   She certainly didn’t evolve into any different species since she was three, did she now.

I got A's but I was not brainwashed by it. I accept science that is observable and demonstratable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you can address any of the observed and demonstrable speciation events which you have been provided with, at any time.

---

Everena: I was not threatening you. I was asking you, what if the Christians are right?

It wouldn't matter a jot to me, I still wouldn't be a christian.

We don't know for sure that they are wrong and it is something I wonder myself on occasion.

Who's this we?  I do know that they are wrong, even if you do not.

I was just curious if you ever wondered that yourself. A Jesus freak would believe that Jesus is God and I do not believe that, nor do I believe the Bible is the word of God. It could have been inspired by prophets of God though. We really don't know. And if you are claiming you have no soul then you are equating yourself to a robot. Do you really think you are just a robot? Like Data on Star Trek for example?

Pointless lies still pointless.

[The Valkyrie]

Well, her certitude is her citation!   She got As in college biology class!   She doesn’t need no stinking knowledge she didn’t have when she was three.   She certainly didn’t evolve into any different species since she was three, did she now.

I got A's but I was not brainwashed by it. I accept science that is observable and demonstratable.

Like evolution.

And you shouldn't use words like "demonstrable" as it contains the word "demon" and that's a good way to get the attention of one.

So an individual online told me once. I laughed at him, too.

[Whateverist]

And you have previously used the quote function correctly, so this deliberate misuse of it is showing more and more that you're trolling us.

Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.

Evolution is not fact. It is a theory that is full of tons of conjecture and speculation. It could proven wrong tomorrow with one new discovery. You simply believe it on your faith in men.

@Valky: I think she may be thinking that evolution is too irreducibly complex for her to understand. Also, the onion rings are better.

EVERGREEN SAID: a bunch of weird stuff.

[Angrboda]

More lies.  I have had numerous respectful conversations with serious and honest theists like Steve and Neo.  You simply aren't a member of that group.

And I wasn't particularly angry so much as disturbed by the fact that you continue to be a dishonest douche bag, as you are in claiming that I don't have a case for my denial.

If you want to show the case for your denial, you can.  I'm not interested in helping you Jo, you are so far gone in hate, you can't see reason and light, and you can't acknowledge truth anymore, you are so far gone.

More lies. Fine, I'll point out with a simple example. Cancer and neurofibromatosis, in which tumors grow on the nervous system, are caused by one or several mutations. Neurofibromatosis is thought to be caused by mutations occurring during early development, though the genes can be passed on hereditarily. In both cases a new biological behavior results from one or more mutations. Since these new behaviors are a result of evolutionary processes, they are not irreducibly complex. I don't know what rudimentary consciousness evidenced itself as originally, but as in cancer and neurofibromatosis, it is entirely possible for a new function or behavior to arise via mutation in a single generation. You have in the past argued that consciousness cannot arise by only one or several mutations by arguing that it is too complex to have arisen this way. But that is a misunderstanding of what you are arguing, as well as an example of the genetic fallacy. I would agree that what we identify as consciousness in humans likely did not evolve in one generation, but that's assuming that consciousness when it originally evolved was like consciousness such as we display, and that none of those intermediary steps between the first consciousness and modern day examples of it could have occurred through mutation. Most of the problems stem from not being clear on what you mean by consciousness. If consciousness is some specific type of "stuff happening" in the brain, there is no obvious obstacle to that kind of stuff happening arising in one generation, regardless of how one defines consciousness. If one defines it as akin to our modern consciousness, then anything even slightly less or different from that type is clearly a precursor to consciousness which could occur as a result of one or several mutations. If you define human consciousness as the standard, then the intermediaries from animal consciousness are by definition not consciousness, by your hypothesized argument, and the steps between animal non-but-close-to-consciousness and our own become explicable by evolutionary steps. If you move the line back, you simply move the precursors back. You need at least two things to show that consciousness could not have evolved in a single step by evolutionary processes: 1) a clear and unambiguous definition of consciousness in terms of material processes, and 2) a demonstration that there could not exist any creature possesing less than the full measure of your definition which could not reach that full measure through natural means.

You have shown neither and have essentially done nothing but assert that consciousness is too complex to have arisen through evolutionary processes, an ipse dixit argument that is eminently impeachable on its face. Consciousness in its original incarnation did not need to be anything even resembling what we as humans have today, and pointing to either human consciousness or any of its precursors is futile unless you accomplish the two things stated above. You haven't done any such thing.





This idea that I am too far gone in hate is nothing more than your own attempt to dismiss anyone who substantially disagrees with you by resort to ad hominems and poisoning the well. A habit of yours that I can demonstrate, unlike your ridiculous lies.

[Everena]

[quote pid='1849744' dateline='1542303841']

Everena: I read the findings about the whale and what they think it means. It's a straight up guess. My guess is just as good.
That's funny you brought up laryngeal nerve 
The old argument used to be- Why do we have an appendix? Now we know the appendix stores good bacteria and repopulates the digestive system after an illness in order to keep us healthy. 
As for the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I'm sure we will discover that there is actually a good reason for the path it takes at some point in the future. There are of course already numerous papers from doctors on the web explaining  why the design is actually better.  Here's an article discussing both sides of this argument    https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_re...al_nerve_/

Too bad elephant souls are of far more value to the designer gods than human baby souls.
This supposed "designer" apparently actually knew how to prevent cancer, but chose to "code" it only in elephants, and left the babies to suffer.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/elephants-rarely-get-cancer-thanks-zombie-gene

"According to a study published yesterday in Cell Reports, researchers discovered that elephants have extra copies of two cancer-fighting genes: P53, which hunts for cells with miscopied DNA, and LIF6, which obliterates the mutated cells before they can form a tumor"

Everena:
When you believe in God, you believe in eternal life and that there is no real death. When we "die" here, we are alive in better place. Death from anything is for atheists. And good for the elephants. Perhaps we can develop a cure for cancer for ourselves based on what we have learned from them.

[The Valkyrie]

Evolution is not fact. It is a theory that is full of tons of conjecture and speculation. It could proven wrong tomorrow with one new discovery. You simply believe it on your faith in men.

@Valky: I think she may be thinking that evolution is too irreducibly complex for her to understand. Also, the onion rings are better.

EVERGREEN SAID: a bunch of weird stuff.

Iy's funny she should say that, because I have little faith or trust in humanity.

[Everena]

So again, you’re going to need to explain, with evidence, why some forms of life can speciate (as has been demonstrated to you in this thread) and some can’t.  Please provide citations to show your work.

Pieces of shit usually can't handle such a monumental task. You're better off asking Santa.

Prove that it is not just adaption. Plants are not conscious life. They are plants.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right back to the whole "speciation isn't speciation when plants or non-conscious creatures are speciating" song and dance.

This is not only demonstrably false..and you've been provided the information you require.it's a failure of word comprehension.

[Everena]

I'm not familiar with any terms that aren't human-made.

Plumbing does not explain the first cause of water, because what the first cause of water was is irrelevant to plumbing. What the first cause of anything is other than species is also irrelevant to evolution, which explains what is happening to populations of organisms once they exist. Ev: No kidding. Stop pretending it has anything to do with the first cause of anything.

How could the planet have less food than is needed for all the life on it to survive? Ev: How could it? Without higher intelligence is how it couldn't.

If life exceeds the available food supply, it dies, or in some cases, goes dormant.

I appreciate that you don't reject the findings of science though, not as common as it should be.

First bolded statement: Who's pretending it does? Not the skeptics around here. Do you mean to be chiding creationists?

Second bolded statement: This is a completely unsupported assertion. Whereas that there literally can't be more life than there is sufficient food for is tautological.

Yes tautological and it absolutely requires an intelligent agent.