DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[GUBU]

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

That case was a joke and should have never happened.

You're right. Advocating creatardism under the guise of id and then trying to force it on kids though a court case was a sick joke.

Well at least proceedings showed that the likes of Behe had nothing worthwhile to add to biology. In fact as Behe was under oath he had to admit that irreducable complexity was a lie. So the trial wasn't a total waste, it forced liars and idiots to face the truth for once and admit evolution was the only game in town.

[Paleophyte]

Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

We all know that. We all believe in adaption aka microevolution. Anyway, looks like one species turning into an entirely different species is going down the tubes.

So, no, you didn't actually read the paper you're quoting. At least read the conclusions:

Mitochondria drive many important processes of life. There is irony but also grandeur in this view that, precisely because they have no phenotype, synonymous codon variations in mitochondria reveal the structure of species and the mechanism of speciation. The vista of evolution is best seen from the passenger seat.

Congratulations, you finally beat somebody in an argument. Yourself. You win!

[Everena]

I did not say all animals have consciousness you liar.

7.8 million species of conscious life on this planet

So, that's all the animals that you are claiming are conscious, no?

That is what this says, yes

• Animals: 7.77 million (12% described)
  
  https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161
  

  ---

  We all know that. We all believe in adaption aka microevolution. Anyway, looks like one species turning into an entirely different species is going down the tubes.

  
  So, no, you didn't actually read the paper you're quoting. At least read the conclusions:
  
  

  Mitochondria drive many important processes of life. There is irony but also grandeur in this view that, precisely because they have no phenotype, synonymous codon variations in mitochondria reveal the structure of species and the mechanism of speciation. The vista of evolution is best seen from the passenger seat.

  
  Congratulations, you finally beat somebody in an argument. Yourself. You win!

  
  No one's arguing microevolution, like I just said. And yes I know that already, but thanks anyway.

[Paleophyte]

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

That case was a joke and should have never happened.

What? You mean the perjury by the ID proponents? The judge agrees with you:

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

---

So, that's all the animals that you are claiming are conscious, no?

That is what this says, yes

Animals: 7.77 million (12% described)

So you did say that all animals are conscious then. Any time you're ready to apologize for calling me a liar...

No one's arguing microevolution, like I just said. And yes I know that already, but thanks anyway.

Speciation. That word that I put in giant red letters for you. That means macroevolution. You're citing a paper that describes how macroevolution happens and trying to claim that it says it doesn't. It's like pointing to a duck and saying, "See? I told you so! No birds!"

[Everena]

So what is your take on these recent findings?

Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

Speciation is deceptively named. It could just as easily be called adaption and none of it proves at all that one species has ever turned into an entirely different species.

---

That case was a joke and should have never happened.

What? You mean the perjury by the ID proponents? The judge agrees with you:

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

---

That is what this says, yes

Animals: 7.77 million (12% described)

So you did say that all animals are conscious then. Any time you're ready to apologize for calling me a liar...

No one's arguing microevolution, like I just said. And yes I know that already, but thanks anyway.

Speciation. That word that I put in giant red letters for you. That means macroevolution. You're citing a paper that describes how macroevolution happens and trying to claim that it says it doesn't. It's like pointing to a duck and saying, "See? I told you so! No birds!"

No it sure doesn't. It means changes within the same species, or adaption.
The definition and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Very deceptive and not honest science. We have no observable evidence of actual speciation because it supposedly occured over millons of years.

---

Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

Speciation is deceptively named. It could just as easily be called adaption and none of it proves at all that one species has ever turned into an entirely different species.

---

What? You mean the perjury by the ID proponents? The judge agrees with you:

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

---

So you did say that all animals are conscious then. Any time you're ready to apologize for calling me a liar...
Nope. I said there should be a separate classification for all conscious life after you said all animals were not conscious, and you were wrong (again) because there is.

Speciation. That word that I put in giant red letters for you. That means macroevolution. You're citing a paper that describes how macroevolution happens and trying to claim that it says it doesn't. It's like pointing to a duck and saying, "See? I told you so! No birds!"

No it sure doesn't. It means changes within the same species, or adaption.
The definition and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Very deceptive and not honest science. We have no observable evidence of actual speciation because it supposedly occured over millons of years.

[Nakara]

Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

Speciation is deceptively named. It could just as easily be called adaption and none of it proves at all that one species has ever turned into an entirely different species.

---

What? You mean the perjury by the ID proponents? The judge agrees with you:

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

---

So you did say that all animals are conscious then. Any time you're ready to apologize for calling me a liar...


Speciation. That word that I put in giant red letters for you. That means macroevolution. You're citing a paper that describes how macroevolution happens and trying to claim that it says it doesn't. It's like pointing to a duck and saying, "See? I told you so! No birds!"

No it sure doesn't. It means changes within the same species, or adaption.
The definition and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Very deceptive and not honest science. We have no observable evidence of actual speciation because it supposedly occured over millons of years.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/speciation

Speciation- The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

---

Please explain to me how this is not what speciation actually means.

---

Holy shiitake mushrooms this thread is nearing 1k PAGES

---

[Everena]

NOVA Wonders: Can We Build a Brain?

The title is somewhat misleading.  It's actually a good overview of modern AI, including explaining multiple models, and discussing risks and problems.  Recommended.

And you really think computers will be conscious and emotional just like we are?And fall in love, want to have sex, cry, grieve, need hugs, want to have fun, maybe get drunk and party all night? That really sounds realistic to someone like you?

---

Speciation is deceptively named. It could just as easily be called adaption and none of it proves at all that one species has ever turned into an entirely different species.

---

No it sure doesn't. It means changes within the same species, or adaption.
The definition and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Very deceptive and not honest science. We have no observable evidence of actual speciation because it supposedly occured over millons of years.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/speciation

Speciation- The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

---

Please explain to me how this is not what speciation actually means.

It is exactly what it means, but we have no observable evidence of it because it allegedly occurs over millions of years. Therefore, all they have examples of are microevolution aka adaption.

---

Nope. Explain, in your own words, from your own understanding of it, how the complexity of DNA could ever possibly come about without an intelligent driving force.

Sorry, but  don't feel like chewing your food for you today.

Excuse me? So by that you are saying you have no idea how, and your paper does answer my question at all either.

[Nakara]

NOVA Wonders: Can We Build a Brain?

The title is somewhat misleading.  It's actually a good overview of modern AI, including explaining multiple models, and discussing risks and problems.  Recommended.

And you really think computers will be conscious and emotional just like we are?And fall in love, want to have sex, cry, grieve, need hugs, want to have fun, maybe get drunk and party all night? That really sounds realistic to someone like you?

---

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/speciation

Speciation- The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

---

Please explain to me how this is not what speciation actually means.

It is exactly what it means, but we have no observable evidence of it because it allegedly occurs over millions of years. Therefore, all they have examples of are microevolution aka adaption.

...ok I'm not going to bother getting too involved here. You clearly don't understand that macro/micro evolution are the same gorram thing, evolution. The only "difference" is the time scale, and those terms are often used by creationists to make it seem like the evolution of new species is impossible but adaptation is. That somehow species are "locked" into a certain form and can't diverge into something radically different given time. Right...

And no, evolution is not constrained to millions of years. We have observed many species diverge. From fruit flies to finches to lizards, even stinking sea urchins! And plenty more.

You have access to the most powerful informational tool in the history of humanity. Use it.

[Everena]

And you really think computers will be conscious and emotional just like we are?And fall in love, want to have sex, cry, grieve, need hugs, want to have fun, maybe get drunk and party all night? That really sounds realistic to someone like you?

---

It is exactly what it means, but we have no observable evidence of it because it allegedly  occurs over millions of years. Therefore, all they have examples of are microevolution aka adaption.

...ok I'm not going to bother getting too involved here. You clearly don't understand that macro/micro evolution are the same gorram thing, evolution. The only "difference" is the time scale, and those terms are often used by creationists to make it seem like the evolution of new species is impossible but adaptation is. That somehow species are "locked" into a certain form and can't diverge into something radically different given time. Right...

And no, evolution is not constrained to millions of years. We have observed many species diverge. You have access to the most powerful informational tool in the history of humanity. Use it.

I understand that you like to pretend they are the same thing, but one species turning into an entirely different species is only speculative.

[Paleophyte]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/speciation

Speciation- The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

---

Please explain to me how this is not what speciation actually means.

It is exactly what it means, but we have no observable evidence of it because it allegedly  occurs over millions of years. Therefore, all they have examples of are microevolution aka adaption.

Here's the link from CARM since you don't believe Nakara's definition:

Macroevolution is evolution on a large scale, above the species level, over a long period of time that results in new species and/or new body plans. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale, below the level of species.

The paper you posted is all about how macroevolution happens. Congratulations! You win!