Conquer Club

There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution. Yet this is not observable. Not even the top evolutionist has observable evidence and nor do you. So stop pretending your faith in evolution is fact, stop deluding yourself.




Evolutionist that are not aware of the difference between adaptation and evolution, really should stop posting that you know about the topic. You are embarrassing yourself and you don't see it. Adaptation already has the information for adapting to external stimulus already in the DNA coding. There are limits to how far a creature can adapt, the limits of adaptation are set by the DNA code, if one gets too close they become sterile, still birth, premature death from disease, sickness, climate or predators.
Evolution requires NEW information in the DNA coding to produce new function and new kind. The problems: Imbedded in the DNA code is to not select a creature that has inability to adapt to changes in external stimulus. So evolutionary theory that mutated DNA gets passed on, is not reality, for creatures select the strong, not the weak (and all mutations produced a loss of function, not an enhancement).
The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".
What is observable: Mutations produce a loss of function, weakness, shortness of life, and loss of desirability for reproduction. And what evolution requires is trillions upon trillions of mutations that enhance, improve function, make one stronger, increase longevity, make one more desirable to the opposite sex for reproduction, not just one instance, but trillions upon trillions.

universalchiro wrote:So stop pretending your faith in evolution is fact, stop deluding yourself.

Agreed. AGREEED. AGHRREEEEED.

If there is just one thing I know about evolution, it is that it has one problem -- and that problem is universalchiro. He's like the Dark Knight or Wonderwoman. Mysterious and all legs (that did NOT sprout from fish).


--Andy

Evolution still makes more sense than "a jealous monarch created humans because he wants people to worship him".

Army of GOD wrote:Evolution still makes more sense than "a jealous monarch created humans because he wants people to worship him".

NO. JUST NO. AOG, NO.

Don't make me bring your mother into this. Go to your room and think about what you've said. No HEAT Championships for you this year -- and don't make me take away next year's tooooooo.


--Andy

The Heat can't hand the Heat...or a spur.

Richard Dawkins might not be able to, but I can.

a young yoshi wrote:According to the paper, transposons stabilized around 50-35 mya. In other words, transposon "jumpiness" was highest during that point. I predicted that the period before this would include great speciation and that the period after would have a dropoff in species numbers (since great species diversity will result in a few optimal species being born, these ones will then overtake the rest).

This timeframe almost exactly coincides with the Eocene period (56-34 mya). This period is characterized as the period in which the mammals first appeared, but also that the grasses diversified. At the earlier part of the period, grasses were mostly coastal and small communities. By the end, they formed savannahs. So part 1 of my prediction turned out accurately (I should also have predicted the grass-specific speciation since the grasses still show tons of transposon activity).

Sure enough, the Eocene period ended with a mass extinction. Interestingly enough, this was the smallest mass extinction we know of. I would propose that this extinction level event may be biological in nature, and not climatological, as the leading theory is.

Quite simply transposons can move nearly anywhere in the genome. Once they appeared, the increase in information would have been nearly infinitely increased.

Are there really people who don't believe in evolution? I thought even the creationists have accepted evolution, and somehow crafted it as part of God's big plan all along.

universalchiro wrote:There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution.

Really? Who is alleging that information has increased?
Secondly, they are not unguided. Bad mutations get weeded out. That is the whole idea of natural selection.

scarmagnet wrote:Are there really people who don't believe in evolution? I thought even the creationists have accepted evolution, and somehow crafted it as part of God's big plan all along.

Yes. Just as there are people who don't believe in God. However, evolution is a joke....(seriously there are many more problems than 1) and God does exist! PLAYER has excepted evolution but she is in a small fringe group.

scarmagnet wrote:Are there really people who don't believe in evolution? I thought even the creationists have accepted evolution, and somehow crafted it as part of God's big plan all along.

You get no credit for rudimentary argument of majority rules. Nice try.

tzor wrote:

universalchiro wrote:There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution.

Really? Who is alleging that information has increased?
Secondly, they are not unguided. Bad mutations get weeded out. That is the whole idea of natural selection.

Yes really, let's get you up to speed: the first single celled prokaryote was an increase in information over the chaotic primordial soup of chemplex chemicals. And information and complexity increased through random unguided mutations.

Also, you confusing natural selection with random unguided mutations of the gene. Since you are the first evolutionist to proclaim there is a force guiding which portion of the DNA code is mutated, please divulge what is the force that chooses which DNA section to alter? In case your stumped, a true evolutionist wouldn't say there was a force, they would accept the changes to the DNA code are unguided and rely on natural selection to weed out the bad mutations. This is probably what you meant you just worded it wrong, so I helped you.

But anyone who knows computer programming knows that random unguided changes to the program causes non-function, not enhancement. Oh the leap of faith for evolutionist.

The biggest problem with evolution are the misguided moronic deluded naysayers that are being fed lies and half truths by beguilers taking their money through books, church, etc.

Too bad natural selection wouldn't weed these idiots out of the gene pool. Instead they breed like fleas and result in a blight on society.

notyou2 wrote:The biggest problem with evolution are the misguided moronic deluded naysayers that are being fed lies and half truths by beguilers taking their money through books, church, etc.

Too bad natural selection wouldn't weed these idiots out of the gene pool. Instead they breed like fleas and result in a blight on society.

ok, pick a mammal we evolved from... most say apes. Ok why are there no apes evolving today? Why do we not see ANY evidence that one animal species evolves into a new, totally different animal species? Did nature just STOP the evolution process one day? What is funny is that many evolutionist deny the existence of God because they "can't see Him", yet wholeheartedly accept evolution which they also "have not seen".

universalchiro wrote:

tzor wrote:

universalchiro wrote:There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution.

Really? Who is alleging that information has increased?
Secondly, they are not unguided. Bad mutations get weeded out. That is the whole idea of natural selection.

Yes really, let's get you up to speed: the first single celled prokaryote was an increase in information over the chaotic primordial soup of chemplex chemicals. And information and complexity increased through random unguided mutations.

What do you mean by "information?" And once you've defined that, please explain what you mean when you say that the first single celled prokaryote was an "increase in information." With respect to what? The entirety of the rest of the "primordial soup?" A sample of the soup with the same volume as the cell?

this moronic idea of creationism is only supported by hardcore american protestants. I don t ever bother reading your medieval beliefs, this is the 21st century. Stop being so retarded, or keep it to yourself, no one gives a f*ck of what you believe to be true in your imaginary world.

betiko wrote: I don t ever bother reading

You don't say?

jay_a2j wrote:

betiko wrote: I don t ever bother reading

You don't say?

Like the subject is new or anything new is going to be said in these forums. There are like 5 idiots that keep on trolling with their caveman beliefs holding "universal knowledge". Just go open a usergroup and discuss your crap between yourselves. Enough topics opened about the same damn thing. You will not convince anyone and no one will convince you, this eternal debate is long over in the rest of the world, just live between yourselves and give us a break.

betiko wrote: give us a break.

Break.....


So, are you really in Paris? Went there once in the 80's. Can't say it was fun. People were rude.

jay_a2j wrote:

betiko wrote: give us a break.

Break.....


So, are you really in Paris? Went there once in the 80's. Can't say it was fun. People were rude.

Little did jay_a2j know, is that he was trying to converse with a mime and was disturbed by the lack of response:




--Andy

jay_a2j wrote:

betiko wrote: give us a break.

Break.....


So, are you really in Paris? Went there once in the 80's. Can't say it was fun. People were rude.

We are rude because creationism doesn t exist here, and you certainly aren t going to allow parents to chose between creationism and evolutionism in school for their kids. It is deeply disturbing to know that the american educational system could accept such thing. At some point you just have to cut the crap with theologistical bullshit.

Betiko, rise above name calling, you are above this. In debating forums when one results to pad their argument with name calling that one has intellectually lost. I've seen you post many times well written stuff, so even though you view believers in God with contempt, rise above the name calling, b/c though it feels good to spew verbal anger, it hurts your argument.

jay_a2j wrote:

notyou2 wrote:The biggest problem with evolution are the misguided moronic deluded naysayers that are being fed lies and half truths by beguilers taking their money through books, church, etc.

Too bad natural selection wouldn't weed these idiots out of the gene pool. Instead they breed like fleas and result in a blight on society.

ok, pick a mammal we evolved from... most say apes. Ok why are there no apes evolving today? Why do we not see ANY evidence that one animal species evolves into a new, totally different animal species? Did nature just STOP the evolution process one day? What is funny is that many evolutionist deny the existence of God because they "can't see Him", yet wholeheartedly accept evolution which they also "have not seen".

This has been debated repeatedly. Your mind is closed. See my post above for reference material on your condition.

universalchiro wrote:There is a requirement of trillions of genetic random unguided mutations (evolutionary process) that has allegedly increased the information in the genome in evolution. Yet this is not observable. Not even the top evolutionist has observable evidence and nor do you. So stop pretending your faith in evolution is fact, stop deluding yourself.

You are one of the problems of the evolution... But I dont worry, evolution has extremely effective mechanism for removing faulty organisms

notyou2 wrote:
This has been debated repeatedly. Your mind is closed. See my post above for reference material on your condition.

A non-response! How, um er..... lame

Jay_a2j, don't bother responding to "notyou2", he doesn't bring logic, only anger, ridicule and insults. Best to foe him and move on to fertile soil.

GoranZ, you went personal. That doesn't bode well for you.