Does it matter WHAT corrupts the process, as long as it is corrupt/changed? Not all corruptions end up being bad.
Yes. If the DNA replicator is perfect, there far, far fewer opportunities for corruption. Does it matter how many cells mutate? As long as one can, and does during reproduction, mutation is going on.
Yes it matters, if you are trying to prove evolution by the scientific method. The more mutations you have, the more opportunity for changes. that some people are naturally more thin and muscle toned while others are more fat... That's pretty much all that's needed for evolution.
Some people are more thin, others are more fat, so evolution must be true. Hmm. I never thought of that. As for the rest, your posts just make it seem as if you're REALLY trying hard to convince yourself otherwise.
You wish. I'm compensating for the stupid ideas people throw around that have no basis in reality. Just so there is no mistake: Evolution is a tidal wave of horseshit. |
|
|
|
Well, first of all, entropy applies more to physics than evolution
I said entropy but i really meant disorder. As for DNA, there's no self-replicating when you only have one half in the sperm and one half in the egg. If they join, and there are quirks, mutations, or some other changes, that's all that DNA has to start with. Nothing to correct from. Besides, if it was completely self correcting, we'd all look exactly the same. Ever notice how some people have bigger eyes than others, and some people have better sense of taste than others?
If the DNA isn't correct, you won't get a healthy baby. We don't look the same because the DNA for our looks and body type is unique to each of us, (except for identical twins) and yet, we're all still human, with the same feature set. There are 6 billion experiments of human DNA replication all over the globe, and none yet show signs of evolving into different species. I would guess that platipy lived on land, and couldn't dive, instead using their beaks to snatch things out from under water.
Sounds like a good way to starve to death fast. Not really a land animal. Sucks at swimming. The platypus needs to eat about 20% of its own weight each day. This requires the platypus to spend an average of 12 hours each day looking for food. Who says platypus had to start as an aquatic animal?
The scientific method tells you that all platypus are aquatic animals. Do you want to expand from there? Knock yourself out, but don't call it science. ....Eventually one of them was able to...
a group came out......one of those nostril-closing freaks had..........The evolution of the electro-deception could easily have developed.........
Yup. Magic. There's no science here. A little less magic than Zeus. I mean Ra. I mean Jesus.
You're right. Engineers are magicians. |
|
|
|
Actually, your DNA fucks up CONSTANTLY.
Our DNA replication is PERFECTLY coded. It is other forces and circumstances that corrupt the process. How many white blood cells out of 10 trillion daily do you suppose are "fucked up"? I would wager its a very very small number, and most certainly not "constantly". If it were not, you would not survive for long, of that you can be assured. Cancer results when ONE cell mutates. Then it copies itself. That's not a DNA replicator mistake. The replicator did its job, it makes copies, but the original was corrupted by some other factor, such as radiation. |
|
|
|
information certainly can be added during a mutation...
chromosomes may be added (such as in the case of down syndrome)
dna sequences may be added (over-replicate) or may be missing (dna insertion and deletion)
dna sequences can arrange differently than they normally do (expression)
or there may be simple errors at single/multiple points of the sequence (point/frame shift)
None of these examples are new added information! Down's syndrome happens due to an added copy of a chromosome. Its not new data. Its redundant. The other examples are not useful new data. Its corrupted garbage. any of these occurring in an organism can make drastic changes (but not necessarily so). some of these changes may be beneficial, some detrimental, some neutral. how these changes affect the organisms ability to survive and reproduce determines whether the mutation will be passed on.
this is the driving force behind evolution.
None of these DNA changes you describe ever result in beneficial evolution. |
|
|
|
Despite your vaunted faith in the self-correction capabilities of DNA, it still fucks up, as evinced by the numerous genetic disorders that plague humanity.
Faith? You must be joking. Your body produces 10 trillion copies of your DNA daily just counting white blood cells. That replication code has to be friggin airtight. Genetic disorders are the result of lost/scrambled information. That is not new information, its new garbage. Information comes only from intelligence. Randomness it the total absence of information. |
|
|
|
The entire building instructions for a platypus are encoded in all its cell DNA. DNA is self-correcting (3 out of 4 bits), any errors that are introduced are discarded by the self-replicating code. No new instructions can be added through random chance. Disprove that, if you can. Any genetic traits that appear later, were pre-existing but not active.
WRONG, wrong, wrongedy-wrong. Mutations are adding instructions to DNA all the time. Some of them are beneficial, and add to the creature's survivability. Others are detrimental, and reduce it. Some are flat out lethal, and the organism dies before spreading that mutation. How can new data be appended to a self-correcting code? |
|
|
|
Neither. Evolution is gradual, not instant.
That breaks the laws of entropy. In one of your earlier points, LeFBI said we almost lost the cecum because we heat our meals. Unused or undeveloped features will tend to die off, not develop into new features. The entire building instructions for a platypus are encoded in all its cell DNA. DNA is self-correcting (3 out of 4 bits), any errors that are introduced are discarded by the self-replicating code. No new instructions can be added through random chance. Disprove that, if you can. Any genetic traits that appear later, were pre-existing but not active. I would guess that platipy lived on land, and couldn't dive, instead using their beaks to snatch things out from under water.
Sounds like a good way to starve to death fast. Not really a land animal. Sucks at swimming. The platypus needs to eat about 20% of its own weight each day. This requires the platypus to spend an average of 12 hours each day looking for food. ....Eventually one of them was able to...
a group came out......one of those nostril-closing freaks had..........The evolution of the electro-deception could easily have developed.........
Yup. Magic. There's no science here. |
|
|
|
It's superbly adapted to its ecological niche. It's just ugly as sin.
Ok lets see...platypus dives and its eyes, nose, and ears fill with water and it drowns. It also can't find food without the eletro-detection beak. So it starves too. Now its really dead. What came first, the platypus' beak, or the electro-detection wiring? I am really curious how you think an electrical pathway can be wired into the brain after the beak structure is already there. Do you think electricians go into finished houses and wire them for lights and AC outlets? Please don't say the neural circuitry was pre-wired "by accident", or out of evolution's magical foresight. Give me a rundown of how science says evolution built a platypus beak. This should be very easy, since evolution is "observable and provable". |
|
|
|
How does evolution adapt? Magic? Where is evolution? What is the source? If it is non-physical, how does it impact physical matter?
So, you say evolution is made up and is not fact, and then point out that you don't even understand what it is or how it works? Oooookay then. Any scientist worth a can of beans will tell you, that yes, evolution is not fact, but theory. I am asking these questions because no one can answer them, much less you. |
|
|
|
nothing in ID has anything to do with science. period.
calling ID a threat to science is like saying greek mythology is a threat to astrology. one is religion, the other is science
I actually agree with you. ID is a philosophy. Same as evolution. |
|
|
|
Prove the existence of a god scientifically and not with empty phrases. I could use the "proof is all around you" phrase exactly for my horny green unicorns (they are noble creatures!). That's not how scientific evidence is made.
Nothing unseen can be proven absolutely. You can only remove doubt. That IS how science works. I can't prove to you that God exists any more than you can prove that gravity is real. We can show proofs, and remove doubt, but absolutes are impossible. Unicorns are a fantasy for children, didn't you know? The concept of an infinite God is an idea that is difficult even for adults to fully comprehend. I am having trouble convincing you, see? ;^) Evolution theory is as the name suggest a theory and is taught as such(in opposite to the church that teaches god as fact and not as theory)
The church is not science class, it a place that worships God. Unlike the laboratory where they worship evolu......wait... Also it has nothing to do with thread title and is offtopic. The evolutionary tree is empirical proven by analyzing genomes of the species.
Circular Reasoning. "Genome comes from evolution, which is proved by the genome." Your statement "The proof is all around you" is none of that.
You're right! My statement is just a statement. You also can see evolution on the human being during the last centuries...we lost and still loose hair, we got and get taller, our pinky got and gets smaller. Go back even more in time and find out that by now we nearly lost the cecum because we heat our meals.
I don't see evolution, which is supposed to make entirely new organisms. I do see genetic variance, and adaptation. evolution is not magic, it's adapting to to environmental conditions.
What was the environmental condition that caused life, a shortage of humans?  How does evolution adapt? Magic? Where is evolution? What is the source? If it is non-physical, how does it impact physical matter? |
|
|
|
Platypus is purposefully and elegantly designed for life in the water:
Congratulations, you are officially the first person EVER to use the words 'Platypus' and 'elegant' in the same sentence. I think platypus is cute. But more to the point: you ignored the post and chose to twist the meaning. That is essentially an acknowledgement that you can't refute the foresight and intelligence in the design of a Platypus. I'm glad you agree. Makes life easier. Its nice that we can get along. |
|
|
|
The proof is all around you, but scientists today ascribe it to evolution, a magical ether with intelligent powers of foresight and design.
One need only look at the duck-billed platypus and see that Evolution has neither foresight, nor a design aesthetic. It uses what works, no more, no less. That statement is easily disproved. Platypus is purposefully and elegantly designed for life in the water: - webbed feet - nostrils on top of its beak to breathe in the water - can close its ears, eyes and nose when diving - its beak has electroreceptors to detect tiny electrical currents generated by its prey - it has cheek pouches to store caught prey so it doesn't have to eat in the water |
|
|
|
Most moral laws in religions such as "You shall not murder." or "You shall not steal." are just common sense.
Of course it's common sense. I would not expect God's morality to be without sense, or without logic. SO where does morality come from then, if it makes sense? If morality makes, sense, then it must have an opposite: immorality, or the absence of sensibility. Sounds almost like a physical law to me. Those moral laws are just human and independent from any religious beliefs, you can find the same moral laws (or norms and values) in every culture on this planet.
That's a very debatable suggestion. There are many examples in the world that prove that not all cultures naturally take on the same morals. In fact, cultures have been shown to abandon morality altogether many times though-out history. Morals are NOT a given, they come from a source OTHER than humanity. The church claims the existence of an all-knowing and almighty creature or "it" called god without providing any proof for this claim and teaches it as fact, not as theory.
The proof is all around you, but scientists today ascribe it to evolution, an unscientific, magical ether with intelligent powers of foresight and design. Don't lecture to Christians about fairy-tale unicorns and leprechauns and then tell us that DNA formed by itself through the magic of evolution. |
|
|
|
BTC was invented by Satoshi to provide an alternative to a devaluing currency called the ...
Satoshi mostly wanted to provide a private and secure currency that were p2p, decentralized and can't be controlled. He didn't really care about value. Bitcoins can have huge inflations as we saw recently, in early June, I was able to buy a HD6990 with 25 BTC, now I must pay like 60 BTC for it. I don't agree with you at all. How do you control currency? By controlling its issuance which affects its inflation or deflation. Valuation was certainly on Satoshi's mind in the creation of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
it depends on how you define God. If I say that God is a man sitting on the clauds, the I am an atheist, because it is absurd. However, if I define God as the fountain of everithing, the will not matter wathever if he is spaguetti or a man; just God, whathever name -ridiculous or not- you give to him.
Why would an all-powerful God be dependent on OUR definition of him? That's an absurd concept. If God IS GOD, then surely he would define his own creation, not the other way around. And if he is only what you imagine him to be, then he exists only in your mind! Then why believe in such a silly notion? The only way that I personally can believe in the infinite God, is if I can search for evidence of his work in the universe around me, and FIND IT! It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but it is the honor of kings to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2 |
|
|
|
If you want it to be a currency then it needs to stawnd as an alternative to other currencies. There cant be a period of "Well it looks like shit NOW, but in the future~"
It looks like shit? Then why is it trading for 13:1 against the dollar? |
|
|
|
Christians, Muslims, Jews and other monotheists almost all believe might makes right. They worship God because they believe He is all-powerful. I asked many Christians if they would still worship God if Satan was more powerful. Few responded. You could see smoke coming from their ears. They tried to weasel out question. Ultimately the answer for almost all of them is "no". They would worship Satan if Satan was all-powerful.
Might=right for these people. This is why they are Statists and why they are perfectly comfortable with a system centered around a violence monopoly.
Here is my answer:
Its a nonsense question. Its illogical, a logical fallacy. If Satan were more powerful, then God wouldn't be God, would he. That is the essence of God.
Its as nonsensical as this question: If there was no law of gravity, would you still obey it?If you want to have a sensible debate, you can't base your argument on foolishness. |
|
|
|
I am religious and i accept evolution.
Because for real christians, truth should be sacred.
Jesus Christ is the creator who made all things. Do you deny that truth? Do you deny Genesis? You must deny it to accept evolution. If you deny Genesis, then there is no faith. The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events according to evolution theory. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events according to evolution is the opposite. |
|
|
|
Ok, Just so I have this straight, your arguments for the existence of God is:
"The prophet Elijah said there were a lot of stars"
and
"DNA is too complex to not be intentional"?
My argument? Dude, the numbers are arguing with you! Plus, that was a crappy response from you, so whatever. Many people don't understand the power of math. Satoshi does! Not going to debate with you further. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
