DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

When and if it happens, get back to us .... lol, 

Everena: I won't have to get back to you. Science will publish it when it's proven and you can read it for yourself. My guess would be with in the next 5 years
meanwhile it's a baseless assertion to say they can combine the quantum level with the macro level,
Everena: Well quantum biologists are the ones saying it.

(NO ONE has been able to do that, ... which you would know if you had any education, and YOU can say nothing to support your nonsense. You're sounding like a broken record. Got anything of use or interesting ? 


No I don't liar. You've already been schooled on why your "logic" is insufficient ... and you can't even say which logic you use, and why. 

Everena: Wrong. I am the only one using any logic. And 93% of the world can get this, so that should really, really tell you something.


Do you have any plans to demonstrate that ? LMAO. 

Everena: I just did. You don't even understand what "its a matter of when, not if" means.

---

So then, .... rats are surviving and fucking. Hmmm. They may be more intelligent than Evy

Everena: They have intelligence, they have brains. Even ants have intelligence.

Actually it could not be proven wrong tomorrow. The fact that you say that demonstrates how little you know about the current state of science. Every single major university in the entire world teaches it, and modern medicine assumes it and works on the basis of it. Any one scientist who could actually come up with an actual challenge to it, would be instantly wealthy and get a Nobel. Science is VERY competitive ... very often the competitors hate each other's guts. They would do *anything* to prove the competition wrong. There is no other theory that explains what is observed, that works as well, and YOU don't have one.

The field of Evolutionary Biology is only like 290 people, with most of them working under someone else. It's like a small company and none of them are trying to disprove evolution. They are all trying to make strides in genetics or newer theores. Evolution is considered settled science. They decided they were right and I'm still not saying that they are wrong. I'm saying only that there is one part of their proven theory that is not proven. One species turning into an entirely different species has only flimsy evidence and huge amounts of conjecture and speculation, I am not convinced. Maybe one day they will convince me. Don't let my personal skepticism bother you. I also think all religions are man made. I am a skeptic of everything pretty much. But I do know God exists beyond and all doubt and someday you will too.

Except you dishonest troll, we were talking about GENETICS, now weren't were. 
The truth of a subject is in NO way dependent on the number in the field ... how many were doing "relativity" ? LMAO
It's hardly a small field. Post a reference NOW for how you got your 290 number. 

Explain how one species turning into an entirely different species is helping find cures for diseases? Genetics is a relatively new field, and they are discovering new things all the time. They were using genetics long before 2013 and yet they discovered an entirely new code with a second language that controls our genes, written on top of the other code. 

What a stupid idiot.

[Angrboda]

You can address any of the examples of speciation events which have been provided to you..at any time.

Sure can: They could just as easily be examples of adaption. The species is only changing in minor ways, not turning into an entirely different species.

What in your words is the difference between an adaptation and turning into an entirely different species? I guess the crux at the heart of the question is what do you believe determines what a species is such that we can determine whether an organism that has changed is still within the same species, and thus is merely adapting, as opposed to a species that has changed enough to make it no longer a part of the original species. It's said that every species is a transitional organism, and that every organism is a transitional organism, as all organisms are different from their parents, and all organisms are thus in some respects different from their parent species. I'll help the debate along by suggesting that a mutation in the germ line is a necessary condition of a mutation or other event giving rise to a new species. Beyond that, things get murky. What do you consider the minimum change necessary for an organism to display, relative to any of its ancestors, that would be required for an organism to be part of a new species?

(Note that this becomes entangled with common descent. An organism need not be sufficiently different from its parent, but rather from any prior ancestor, because if speciation does not occur, then all ancestors of the organism are necessarily of the same species and can serve as the referent for change. For example, in ring species, immediate descendants of mating couples may indeed be fertile with their parents and others like them. However, if interfertility is the standard, and if they are not interfertile with any given organisms in the ring, and all organisms in the ring are conceded to be related, then speciation by definition has occurred.)

[CDF47]

Nope.
No one finding could do that, and (again) the fact you even say that, demonstrates you actually know nothing about the MOUNTAINS of intersecting, supporting evidence that supports and IS WORKING NOW in the field to find cures for diseases.
There is NOT ONE geneticist that would agree with your rubbish.

BTW, sweetie, when you *do* your unsupported ASSertion thing, like you do, you need to provide a possible concrete example of how that would work, IN DETAIL.
Good luck with that, you incompetent liar.
Blowing smoke out your ass is not good enough.

Explain how one species turning into an entirely different species is helping find cures for diseases? Genetics is a relatively new field, and they are discovering new things all the time. They were using genetics long before 2013 and yet they discovered an entirely new code with a second language that controls our genes, written on top of the other code.  https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/...etic-code/

I just read the article.  That is an amazing discovery.  The second code was layered and hidden on the other code and includes the control instructions for genes.  Impressive finding.

[Angrboda]

Yes.  Given theists' usual reluctance to discuss the specifics of such experiences, it's hard to know anything at all about them, aside from that we should be skeptical of their experiences for the same reason that we are skeptical of anyone who claims something extraordinary but is uncommonly tight-lipped about the details.  Such people frequently show themselves to be mistaken, lying, or simply foolish.  Would you care to dispel these suspicions by providing us with the specific details of these experiences by which you claim to know God?

You have to experience these things yourself to really know how real and convincing it is.

Having lived with psychotic delusions the bulk of my life, I'm quite familiar with how things can seem real and convincing, yet all the same be poorly and inadequately justified. For an example from a different subject, people who live through NDEs report their experiences as being so clear and compelling, that some even say that they are more real to them than their ordinary experience. Yet its known that starving the brain of oxygen and injecting someone with ketamine can also produce experiences that are more real than their ordinary experiences, which some even believe in spite of knowing the cause. The phenomenological appearance of something is a poor indicator of its likely reflection of truth. Do you not agree? If so, what exactly are you resting your certainty upon aside from this?

[CDF47]

Because DNA is the proof.  There is actual information found in DNA, not Shannon information.

How are you distinguishing between the information found in DNA and Shannon information?

DNA is a functional code.  It has specificity and complexity.  Shannon information is just dumb information.  It could be complex but not specific.

[Anomalocaris]

How are you distinguishing between the information found in DNA and Shannon information?

DNA is a functional code.  It has specificity and complexity.  Shannon information is just dumb information.  It could be complex but not specific.

Specificity and complexity are just dumb information that got lucky.

And to make it even more trivial, what constitutes luck wasn’t defined a priori, but ex post.   Basically, you look at a particular piece of dumb information, assert without any basis it is not dumb, and claim it is not dumb because it has the exact specificity and complexity seem inthat particular piece of dumb information.

[The Grand Nudger]

What you're saying..is that not all information needs a designer, after all.  Yeah, we've been over this before.

[Angrboda]

How are you distinguishing between the information found in DNA and Shannon information?

DNA is a functional code.  It has specificity and complexity.  Shannon information is just dumb information.  It could be complex but not specific.

Shannon information is anything but dumb. Anyway, that's hardly a technical distinction. DNA is complex, I will grant you that, but as we have discussed before, the idea that it is 'specified' is a load of bollocks as specification as it applies to information has no coherent definition, and no one, including Dembski himself, can demonstrate that any one thing is or is not specified. Nor additionally, is the concept in any practical application being used, nor has it ever been. I don't think you understand the first thing about Shannon information or any other kind of information. But feel free to prove me wrong. Give me a workable definition of specified information. Feel free to get as technical as you like. We've been over this very subject once already, and you're repeating something you've already been refuted on and are simply being dishonest.

[Ravenshire]

You have to experience these things yourself to really know how real and convincing it is. It took so so so much to convince me beyond any doubt. I could not believe I was even getting all this proof of God. I never thought I would because I always believed in God anyway. Now I no longer fear death and it is so freeing.

So the fuck what. I have never believed in any gawd(s) yet I have no fear of death. What did you think that little bon mot would prove.

[Angrboda]

Actually it could not be proven wrong tomorrow. The fact that you say that demonstrates how little you know about the current state of science. Every single major university in the entire world teaches it, and modern medicine assumes it and works on the basis of it. Any one scientist who could actually come up with an actual challenge to it, would be instantly wealthy and get a Nobel. Science is VERY competitive ... very often the competitors hate each other's guts. They would do *anything* to prove the competition wrong. There is no other theory that explains what is observed, that works as well, and YOU don't have one.

The field of Evolutionary Biology is only like 290 people, with most of them working under someone else.