The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

You have been shown the evidence repeatedly. But it appears you refuse to read it. Rather you google for creationist and ID responses. That is intellectually dishonest. As is selectively citing parts of papers.

A big non answer that says nothing. I simply ask:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

Show me the evidence.

double post

a reply to: neoholographic

Anything to say about my response that answered that question at the end of last page?

originally posted by: Barcs
The regulators are already there,

So its all already there? Are you sure you aren't defending ID? All genes require regulation. How could, for example, the regulators in the lac operon have evolved at the same time that the coding sequence for the protein evolved? - one without the other is incomplete and hazardous to the organism.

You are pretending all mutations are added code, or complete new genes getting added.

I never implied such a thing. I mentioned how each mutation that leads to a new gene inherently has to ruin the old gene that got mutated. Yet, evolutionists still think its so simple that novel genes are generated without ruining the equilibrium of the organism. Meditate on that for a while.

originally posted by: neoholographic

A big non answer that says nothing. I simply ask:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

Show me the evidence.

They are incapable because there is no evidence. It is rare enough for one beneficial mutation to occur, let alone two simultaneously that so happen to be synchronized. I don't think they can fathom that gene without regulator is useless. They will continue to beat around the bush and never address this impossibility.

a reply to: cooperton

Give me proof that every genetic mutations requires new regulators. I know this has already been discussed in this section, but it's been a while. I remember somebody even asked a biologist directly and they explained it. LOL at ruining a creature's equilibrium.

It is rare enough for one beneficial mutation to occur, let alone two simultaneously that so happen to be synchronized.

This is why you leave science to the scientists. Who ever said that 2 mutations happen simultaneously on top of each other? What on earth gave you that idea?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

A big non answer that says nothing. I simply ask:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

Show me the evidence.

They are incapable because there is no evidence. It is rare enough for one beneficial mutation to occur, let alone two simultaneously that so happen to be synchronized. I don't think they can fathom that gene without regulator is useless. They will continue to beat around the bush and never address this impossibility.

BINGO!!

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: whereislogic

I'm sorry but blue print is not the correct metaphor for DNA.

And we're back to the routine of denying facts/realities by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and pretending I used it as a metaphor and then even arguing it's a bad metaphor (and leaving out my specification "DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms" in your response, not the quotation). On top of that you conveniently ignore the video and the ones in that video also using that word to describe the same fact, not as a metaphor. Complete denial of all the science/knowledge humans have discovered since they discovered the structure of DNA (as it is found in living organisms) while pretending to be such a fan of science (and while promoting Pagan religious myths derived from Pantheism).

Everyone, enjoy your demonstration of 2 Timothy 4:3,4, Ecclesiastes 1:9, etc.

a reply to: neoholographic

Except for the fact that I did answer it. You just happen to be not reading my answer and pretending it never happened. Interesting strategy but it only weakens your position.

a reply to: whereislogic

Youtube videos and bible verses don't prove anything. Give links to scientific research papers, not creationist propaganda sites.

a reply to: neoholographic

So, I am going to ask. Do you have a learning disability? Because I have posted some of the said evidence in this very thread.

But try the following sunshine:

Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. March 1992 vol. 56 no. 1 229-264
Cell, 9 June 2000, vol 101, no 6, 581–584
nature Reviews Genetics, October 2012, 13, 745-753


As it thus appears you can not or will not read links provided (and instead google for creationist rebuttle, and not think for yourself) here are the cliff notes.

Mutations are the cause of evolution.
Evolution happens
Get over it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

Except for the fact that I did answer it. You just happen to be not reading my answer and pretending it never happened. Interesting strategy but it only weakens your position.

Nothing you said addressed the paradox of a gene and its regulators arising simultaneously. Your way of answering it is this:

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic
Genes are basically pairs of atoms on a double helix. We assign the atoms letters.

They're nucleotides that get paired, not atoms.

If you scramble computer code, you could definitely cause new functions of a software program, even if they have never been in the software previously.

Could a random letter/number generator working with the original mac ever generate the code required for the contemporary macbook pro? absolutely not.

This isn't anything new or riveting. Genetic engineering proves it.

No it doesn't. Intelligent beings (us) being able to manipulate the genetic code does not prove that evolution gave rise to the diversity of life.

The meaning is already there....DNA is basically a blueprint

Wow! Sounds like it was designed (keyword - blueprint)

a reply to: neoholographic

No the incapability is you and your cohorts, not reading, or acknowledging posted evidence. I still am waiting to see if you have read your own 'proofs' because the papers don't support your case. You would know that if you had read any of them.

a reply to: cooperton

You said:

So its all already there? Are you sure you aren't defending ID? All genes require regulation. How could, for example, the regulators in the lac operon have evolved at the same time that the coding sequence for the protein evolved? - one without the other is incomplete and hazardous to the organism.

Excellent retort.

Both of these things occur because a sequence of DNA letters have meaning and function. For instance, the sequence TATAAA gives direction to the transcription factors on which way a strand of DNA should be read.

There's zero evidence that shows how random mutations and natural selection can give a sequence of the DNA letters TATAAA meaning that tells transcription factors what direction to start reading the DNA sequence and what DNA sequence should be read.

The only thing that can give a sequence of letters meaning and function to regulate expression is INTELLIGENCE.

a reply to: neoholographic

Still no rebuttal huh?

How could the proteins that regulate the expression of the lac operon evolve without the lac operon that couldn't evolve without the proteins needed to regulate the expression of the lac operon?

How did the sequence of DNA letters that regulate the lac operon occur through random mutations and natural selection and did this sequence of DNA letters evolve alongside the sequence of letters that code for the lac operon? How did random mutations and natural selection bring meaning and function to these sequences of DNA letters and bring them together to make the lac operon system?

a reply to: neoholographic

So this total ignoring of posted evidence is a capitulation to you being wrong then? That is the only real answer to why you ignore it. Good job!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

So this total ignoring of posted evidence is a capitulation to you being wrong then? That is the only real answer to why you ignore it. Good job!

Nope, you haven't responded or answered anything. Giving references to go look up is meaningless. This isn't a game of go fish. Just tell me why these references refute what I'm saying.

The problem is you can't, so you just say go fish like this is supposed to mean something.

a reply to: whereislogic

Oh jeez, why did I even bother.

It's your world brother. It's your world. Just keep on keeping on, I guess...

originally posted by: Barcs

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

Uh, no, for the umpteenth time. i thought you were one of the ones that actually cared about giving people accurate information. Apparently I thought wrong, which is unfortunate.

What about all the other mechanisms? Do you want me to list them all?