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

a reply to: Barcs

Yah, I get that. This is what you always say. But there's no need to simplify it.

It would be the same as saying Physics = Newton's Laws of Motion

While not technically false, it also leaves a lot of crucial aspects of Physics out.

It only causes more confusion or misleads people who may not know any better. And in these forums it almost always leads to frivolous debates about what evolution is. Many of which I admittedly have been a part of. Even if just to trying to set the record straight...

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: neoholographic

Since you refuse to engage in appropriate due diligence, let me reference the earlier evidence provided regarding Trim5-CypA

The gene, called TRIM5-CypA, well characterized elsewhere (AIDS, 2007; PNAS, 2008), is a hybrid of two existing cellular genes, TRIM5 and CypA. The combination produces a single protein capable of blocking infection by viruses closely related to HIV. Surprisingly, this is actually the second time researchers have identified a TRIM5-CypA gene in monkeys. The other hybrid gene, called TRIMCyp, was discovered in 2004 in South American owl monkeys.

www.eurekalert.org...

For the record, this mutation has occurred twice and independently of one another in Asian monkeys and S. American monkeys.

TRIM5-CypA was not found in monkeys closely related to the Asian macaques, and in fact, was not found in every macaque individual tested. Likewise, owl monkey TRIMCyp was not found in any other species of South American primate. Researchers interpret this to mean that the two genes arose independently, once in owl monkeys and once in macaques. More tellingly, even though the protein sequences specified by the two TRIM5-CypA genes are similar, at the DNA level it is obvious that the molecular events leading to formation of the two genes were different.

Evolutionary biologists refer to the acquisition of a similar adaptation in different species as "convergent evolution," an example being the independent appearance of flight in both birds and bats. The Harvard team's genetic evidence indicates that the two TRIM5-CypA genes constitute an unambiguous and particularly striking example of convergent evolution. Moreover, the kinds of molecular events required to construct the two TRIM5-CypA genes are thought to be rare.

In reality this post should be the end of the thread. It is a direct example of a random mutation that led to new functionality, which is exactly what the OP asked for. Yet he pretends that this mutation doesn't exist because he's still stuck on semantics rather than facts. He wants to straw man evolution to suggest that every new gene sequence must spontaneously emerge at once with new fully functional traits out of nothing, rather than the modification of existing genes over time to slowly change the way they function. He's merely playing word games here and the fact that he won't provide any rebuttals, and just blindly denies this information and then repeats his original argument speaks volumes. There is also the gene for lactose tolerance in adults, which is another direct example of a random mutation (or series of mutations) leading to new functionality in a species. It really doesn't get more direct than that. He claims this is a debate but doesn't address the majority of counterpoints against him.

I read it and it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This is why you couldn't articulate a coherent response.

Yeah, it's incoherent to people that don't understand the science. Just laughable that somebody could say that about a scientific research paper on a specific gene sequence that explains everything in detail. But to this guy, that is a bad thing.

Everyone who continues to ignore the OPs questions should be ashamed of yourselves. And take a good long hard look at your honesty and integrity.

I realize that these two terms mean nothing in today's world. Police don't have it, politicians don't have it, scientists don't have it.

And look at the state the world is in because of it.

The true backbone of every great society is honesty, truth, and integrity. When you throw those out, and accept lies and propaganda you get a world in which we live today.

The OP brings out some very simple yet thought-provoking questions about how the extremely complex nature of the cell shows that it was designed.

You know, now I have talked with people who believe in the evolution theory in the past, and most of them were not informed that even the most simple and basic cell is highly complex, beyond orders of magnitude of modern-day machinery. They just imagine it must have been very stupid and basic, something that could have come randomly from nothing.

But science tells us this is NOT the case. That even the most basic forms of cells are highly complex and ordered.

In fact when you tell them the chances for Chance, they ignore it. They worship and idolize Chance. It is what brought everything about. They have no proof of it. So there you have it. Their god is Chance. In fact they are just replacing the word God with the word Chance.

Now this is a little off subject, and many will complain that it deals with cosmology and not biology. But you see, you still have to go back to the beginning if you want to reason things out logically.

There is no evidence that something comes from nothing. 0.

In fact, if you were told that something just popped into existence out of nothing, you would scoff at that idea as silly and stupid, and you would be correct.

So where did the universe come from?

It is quite simple, something has always had to exist. Now if you were to tell someone who doesn't believe in God that that thing was just anything else but God they would most likely accept it, on blind faith, for it cannot be proven.

But if you open their minds eye to understand that an immortal person who never had a beginning may have always existed, their thinking ability shuts down, and their thought processes cease to function. They cannot understand that. It makes no sense to them.

And yet, it makes perfect reasonable sound logical sense to me. And to many other reasonable minded and thinking, and logical people.

It isn't that the idea is unattainable, it is that it goes against your faith in something that existed that caused the universe, but NOT a conscious reasoning person.

I believe it would be wrong to try and force those of you who believe that way to change your mind. It i proper to use sound logic and reasoning based on truth and facts to try and persuade you to open your minds eye to that possibility. But if it is closed, then it would be disrespectful to go further.

At a certain point, and it has been repeated dozens of times already in this thread, after you refuse to acknowledge the questions, or answer them, and continue to use propaganda, twist words and meanings, and act like you have no idea of what you are being asked, that the OP should figure out, that if God himself knocked on your door, came down from heaven, and proved his existence there are still people who would refuse to accept it.

But the farce going on here should help reasoning people to draw conclusions about your real motives and agenda. And make them think.

a reply to: Barcs

LOL, I destroyed this argument and why do you guys continue to make things up. You said:

In reality this post should be the end of the thread. It is a direct example of a random mutation that led to new functionality, which is exactly what the OP asked for.

No, it's a direct example of a single mutation that interfered with a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression. I have been saying this over and over again. This argument was destroyed yet again in the last post on the previous page.

Let's look at the TATA box.

A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.

www.nature.com...

Random mutations can't give meaning and function to the sequence TATAAA that regulates expression and defines the direction of transcription and which strand of DNA should be read.

This is the house of cards when it comes to evolution.

originally posted by: whereislogic
And now he suddenly switches to "biological evolution" instead of just saying "evolution" as in his first comment

I have not switched anything. I have been talking about biological evolution the entire time. In science, biological evolution is the only evolution. The word can have other meanings, like simple change or improvement over time, but in science there is ONE evolution, and that's biological evolution aka The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. Your accusation is ridiculously unfounded, I never ever suggested evolution was anything other than biological evolution. This is what the OP has done, he is using the unscientific version of the word and using it to form conclusions about biological evolution. I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference.

If Neo was using the layman's version of the word to indicate simple change/improvement over time, then why is he calling it a lie? Things can't change or improve over time? If that's not what he means, then what definition is he actually using if not the scientific one or the layman's one? There's only so many directions this conversation can go.

Evolution applies to biological organisms only. Otherwise you are equivocating terms that mean different things.

Yes, and I stand by this. You can't debate science without using the proper terminology. If the layman's version of the word evolution is false, then it means nothing can ever change or improve over time, which is pure nonsense. If he means something else, by all means enlighten me instead of playing word games.

That is simply not how the word "evolution" is exclusively used and mentioning the definition "change over time" to somehow pretend that you're letting people know that there are more applications for the word "evolution" than just the one you mentioned, is telling a half-truth and leaving out the term "chemical evolution" or "the chemical evolution theory of life'"

Chemical evolution is abiogenesis. That is the layman's term evolution being used with the descriptor "chemical". It's not the same process as biological evolution. Also there is no chemical evolution theory of life. It is called the hypothesis of aboigenesis.

Let's break it down for the scientifically challenged:

From the very first paragraph of the OP:

Evolution is truly the BIG LIE. We're a product of intelligence not any random process. DNA destroys any notion of evolution. I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught next to evolution, I think Intelligent Design should replace the Fantasy that is evolution.

He doesn't specify which version of evolution he is talking about. If evolution (change over time) is a big lie, then it means nothing can change over time, which we know is not true. If evolution (theory of evolution based on the change in frequencies of alleles via genetic mutations and natural selection) is a big lie, then it refers to biological evolution. If neither of these, what is he talking about? He didn't mention chemical evolution or anything specific. He just said evolution.

It all has to do with the mythology being more obvious regarding the subject of the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley).

Has anybody in this thread claimed that the hypothesis of abiogenesis is proven fact? The OP mentioned genetic mutations numerous times in the thread, so if he is not talking about biological evolution, then he is completely failing because genetic mutations ONLY happen in evolution, not abiogenesis. The process of evolution (biological) is fact, not abiogenesis (or chemical evolution). I just don't think you understand the difference. Can you explain it without the ranting and run on sentences please? It's very difficult to follow your points. Is the OP not talking about biological evolution? If not, then why is he asking for genetic mutations that lead to new functions? You can't argue against chemical evolution and then suddenly switch gears into biological evolution, nor can you use one to disprove the other.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
Everyone who continues to ignore the OPs questions should be ashamed of yourselves. And take a good long hard look at your honesty and integrity.

Everyone who continues to read the thread and pretend that the questions have not been answered should be ashamed of yourselves. This only shows you haven't read the thread because they have been answered several times in several different ways, but the OP refuses to offer a single counter point and just keeps repeating the argument and claims scientific research papers prove nothing because they are too long and he won't read them. It's a complete joke.

originally posted by: neoholographic
No, it's a direct example of a single mutation that interfered with a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression. I have been saying this over and over again. This argument was destroyed yet again in the last post on the previous page.

Um, so how does that make evolution a lie? You didn't destroy ANY arguments you just denied them blindly and repeated the original claim and refused to even read the papers cited. You asked for random mutations causing new functionality. That is exactly what you wanted. Stop being so intellectually dishonest.

Random mutations can't give meaning and function to the sequence TATAAA that regulates expression and defines the direction of transcription and which strand of DNA should be read.

Repeating this lie doesn't make it true. We have given more than one example of random mutations leading to new function and you have offered nothing as a rebuttal aside from denial. Do you have an actual argument? Repeating the original claim over and over doesn't make it magically true. You need to show why this cannot happen or why the papers about the lactose tolerance gene and the Trim5-CypA gene are wrong. You are relying on heavy semantics, not objective evidence.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
Everyone who continues to ignore the OPs questions should be ashamed of yourselves. And take a good long hard look at your honesty and integrity.

I realize that these two terms mean nothing in today's world. Police don't have it, politicians don't have it, scientists don't have it.

And look at the state the world is in because of it.

The true backbone of every great society is honesty, truth, and integrity. When you throw those out, and accept lies and propaganda you get a world in which we live today.

The OP brings out some very simple yet thought-provoking questions about how the extremely complex nature of the cell shows that it was designed.

You know, now I have talked with people who believe in the evolution theory in the past, and most of them were not informed that even the most simple and basic cell is highly complex, beyond orders of magnitude of modern-day machinery. They just imagine it must have been very stupid and basic, something that could have come randomly from nothing.

But science tells us this is NOT the case. That even the most basic forms of cells are highly complex and ordered.

In fact when you tell them the chances for Chance, they ignore it. They worship and idolize Chance. It is what brought everything about. They have no proof of it. So there you have it. Their god is Chance. In fact they are just replacing the word God with the word Chance.

Now this is a little off subject, and many will complain that it deals with cosmology and not biology. But you see, you still have to go back to the beginning if you want to reason things out logically.

There is no evidence that something comes from nothing. 0.

In fact, if you were told that something just popped into existence out of nothing, you would scoff at that idea as silly and stupid, and you would be correct.

So where did the universe come from?

It is quite simple, something has always had to exist. Now if you were to tell someone who doesn't believe in God that that thing was just anything else but God they would most likely accept it, on blind faith, for it cannot be proven.

But if you open their minds eye to understand that an immortal person who never had a beginning may have always existed, their thinking ability shuts down, and their thought processes cease to function. They cannot understand that. It makes no sense to them.

And yet, it makes perfect reasonable sound logical sense to me. And to many other reasonable minded and thinking, and logical people.

It isn't that the idea is unattainable, it is that it goes against your faith in something that existed that caused the universe, but NOT a conscious reasoning person.

I believe it would be wrong to try and force those of you who believe that way to change your mind. It i proper to use sound logic and reasoning based on truth and facts to try and persuade you to open your minds eye to that possibility. But if it is closed, then it would be disrespectful to go further.

At a certain point, and it has been repeated dozens of times already in this thread, after you refuse to acknowledge the questions, or answer them, and continue to use propaganda, twist words and meanings, and act like you have no idea of what you are being asked, that the OP should figure out, that if God himself knocked on your door, came down from heaven, and proved his existence there are still people who would refuse to accept it.

But the farce going on here should help reasoning people to draw conclusions about your real motives and agenda. And make them think.

Good post and like you said these are simple questions that they can't answer. You get nothing but obfuscation.

Whenever they run into a road block they cry about Abiogenesis because they recognized the weakness of evolution without an explanation as to how a sequence of DNA letters MAGICALLY got meaning and function through the luck of a few lightning strikes. It makes no sense and evolution falls flat on it face in the face of these truths.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: neoholographic

The fact is, there's not a shred of evidence that the genetic code evolved. Instructions and the machinery to carry out these instructions don't evolve by chance.

How do you figure we know apes and man are related? There are many, fossils out there showing how animals evolved over time. Evolution happens- you can observe it in your own home with fruit flies if you were so inclined.

DNA is just chemistry- chemistry happens all around you, every day. This is one of those infinite monkeys with typewriter type deals.

I came to this board way too late but it has the same flaw injected into it that EVERY evolutionist seems to and ive always just shut up cuz it seems pointless as no matter how many times a correction is attempted, it is ignored and the same false info bleeds into the next thread.

Not once, never in history, has evolution been observed. Never. Even when scientists decided to speed things up cuz they weren't getting the desired results and they replaced animals with bacteria and amoebas someof which reproduce in minutes giving thousands of observable generations in a single day, and STILL no scientist has observed evolution of one species of animal or even bacteria making that magic switch into another. Which is the whole reason the argument is out there, "you twiddle with environment all you want and a beaver may grow thicker fur (adaptation not evolution) but even given a million generations that beaver isnt going to give birth to a panda bear." And so eve more ridiculous is the lesson that a fish became a mud eel became a four foot iguana became a monkey became a chimp became man.

And if you only knew the reasons why not just creationists intelligent designists and other nonevolutionists AND evolutionists themselves slowly but some rely are admitting and throwing out what is known by supposed fossils strata and carbon dating. I thought like you too til I finally said, "shut up me, you really dont know squat but a Jr high level understanding of evo." and i watched a YouTube on the truly scandalous way they came up with the monkey to man theory, the homohabilis and its single knee bone leading to its discovery, one step which when tested modern times shows homosapien but with severe arthritis, not another species, and hopefully I dont need to talk to you about carbon dating not but the dinosaurs of academia will touch that for now.

But evolutionist ppl, stop spreading bad info nobody has observed evolution. No science site book or person will even say that in fact only the misinformed. Nobody claims to have observed it or wed all be singing quite a different tune.

You obviously went to the same school as the OP and a few others on this thread. Why don't you write a letter to the authors of the following article to let them know that they're completely wrong! I'm sure they'll respond.


From SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
By Christie Wilcox on December 18, 2011


Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: neoholographic
Whenever they run into a road block they cry about Abiogenesis because they recognized the weakness of evolution without an explanation as to how a sequence of DNA letters MAGICALLY got meaning and function through the luck of a few lightning strikes. It makes no sense and evolution falls flat on it face in the face of these truths.

Yeah, except for the fact that it doesn't. Thanks for playing though. It's been fun. Science deniers are a very special breed. DNA is not letters. Letters are given by scientists to show what type of nucleotide it is. Just because you don't understand how it could have happened, doesn't make abiogenesis wrong, and definitely doesn't make evolution wrong. Sorry.

a reply to: Barcs

Folks need to remember, ID is creationism. Creationism is an auto deceptive, extream religious group, requiring a certain amount of reality denial as outlined in the wedge document.
This group has infiltrated state governments and has positioned members in legislative branches to inforce their religious law onto the rest of us.
Do not take anything they say at face value.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Noinden

You just keep rambling on with things that have nothing to do with the debate.

I never said mutations can't interfere with the expression of a gene. What they can't do is create any new function or meaning to a sequence of DNA that regulates gene expression. Nothing you have said or anyone else refutes this.

Like many Darwinist, you post half truths. Look at LRP5 for instance. Mutations of LRP5 cause all types of problems like polycystic liver disease also Familial exudative vitreoretinopathy.

There's increased bone density but this isn't always a good thing and many bone density related diseases are caused by mutations in LRP5.

This isn't the point though. Like I said, mutations can interfere with the expression of a gene but mutations or natural selection can't give function or meaning to a sequence of DNA that regulates expression.
The sequence of DNA letters that regulate the expression of LRP5 wasn't given meaning or function via random mutations or natural selection. Mutations interfere with a gene that regulated by a sequence of DNA letters and there's zero evidence that random mutations can give meaning and function to a sequence of DNA that regulates expression. THAT'S A FANTASY!

You really understand zip about the entire field of genetics and molecular biology. Do you ever read research or do you just make it up as you go along? The degree of confusion and ignorance is overwhelming.

Antibiotic and Pesticide Resistance

The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients is a direct result of evolution through natural selection. The rise of Shigella strains resistant to the synthetic antibiotic class of sulfonamides also demonstrates the generation of new information as an evolutionary process. Similarly, the appearance of DDT resistance in various forms of Anopheles mosquitoes, and the appearance of myxomatosis resistance in breeding rabbit populations in Australia, are all evidence of the existence of evolution in situations of evolutionary selection pressure in species in which generations occur rapidly.


e.coli
Examples for the evidence for evolution often stems from direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory. Scientists have observed and documented a multitude of events where natural selection is in action. The most well known examples are antibiotic resistance in the medical field along with better-known laboratory experiments documenting evolution's occurrence. Natural selection is tantamount to common descent in the fact that long-term occurrence and selection pressures can lead to the diversity of life on earth as found today. All adaptations—documented and undocumented changes concerned—are caused by natural selection (and a few other minor processes). The examples below are only a small fraction of the actual experiments and observations.


Experimental evolution uses controlled experiments to test hypotheses and theories of evolution. In one early example, William Dallinger set up an experiment shortly before 1880, subjecting microbes to heat with the aim of forcing adaptive changes. His experiment ran for around seven years, and his published results were acclaimed, but he did not resume the experiment after the apparatus failed.

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment that began in 1988 under the leadership of Richard Lenski is still in progress, and has shown adaptations including the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media—a trait absent in all other known forms of E. Coli, including the initial strain.

Natural selection is observed in contemporary human populations, with recent findings demonstrating that the population at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. Scientists postulate one of the reasons for the rapid selection of this genetic variant is the lethality of the disease in non-immune persons. Other reported evolutionary trends in other populations include a lengthening of the reproductive period, reduction in cholesterol levels, blood glucose and blood pressure.

Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, because of a lack of the required enzyme lactase in the digestive system. The normal mammalian condition is for the young of a species to experience reduced lactase production at the end of the weaning period (a species-specific length of time). In humans, in non-dairy consuming societies, lactase production usually drops about 90% during the first four years of life, although the exact drop over time varies widely. However, certain human populations have a mutation on chromosome 2 that eliminates the shutdown in lactase production, making it possible for members of these populations to continue consumption of raw milk and other fresh and fermented dairy products throughout their lives without difficulty. This appears to be an evolutionarily recent adaptation to dairy consumption, and has occurred independently in both northern Europe and east Africa in populations with a historically pastoral lifestyle



Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs.

After General Electric dumped polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Hudson River from 1947 through 1976, tomcods living in the river were found to have evolved an increased resistance to the compound's toxic effects. At first the tomcod population was devastated, but it recovered. Scientists identified the genetic mutation that conferred the resistance. The mutated form was present in 99 per cent of the surviving tomcods in the river, compared to fewer than 10 percent of the tomcods from other waters.

The Peppered Moth

One classic example of adaptation in response to selection pressure is the case of the peppered moth. The color of the moth has gone from light to dark to light again over the course of a few hundred years due to the appearance and later disappearance of pollution from the Industrial Revolution in England.

a reply to: Phantom423

More half truths from Darwinist that never answer the question:

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

The things you posted don't have anything to do with this. I can't believe you went to the peppered moth which just shows variation within a species which nobody has disputed.

The population shift has been hailed as proof of Darwinian evolution. Probably every student in public education has been taught it. However, what really happened? At the beginning, there were light and dark shades. Once the pollution darkened the environment, there were light and dark shades. There are light and dark shades now. Throughout the entire time, both shades existed and comprised a single interbreeding species. There is no evolution here.

Actually, the situation is more complex than the textbooks present. There are at least five varieties of shades forming a continuum. The "controlled" experiments by Kettlewell and others in the '50s and '60s actually employed highly abnormal population diversities and environments. Genetically, the situation is quite complex.

However, at any rate, the peppered moth demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along. Variation within a specific created type occurs all the time. Natural selection can select the variant best suited for an environment, but natural selection does not create anything new. Why, then, do evolutionists use this as Exhibit No. 1? This, obviously, must be the best evidence they have got.

www.icr.org...

At the end of the day, this has nothing to do with random mutations or natural selection giving meaning to a sequence of DNA letters that have meaning and function that regulate expression.

a reply to: neoholographic

I return to the fact that you don't seem to recognize an answer (or evidence) when it is presented. Several of us have answered your questions, debunked your comments, and each time, you either ignore it, say it is not down to you to read the evidence (you don't understand how intellectual discussion works if this is truly your stance), and present non peer reviewed materials as a counter point.

So to summarize, as you seem to be needing Cliff notes.

(1) Evolution is not a big lie. You've not proved that to be the case.
(2) It has repeatedly been shown that mutations can result in new functions (both positive and potentially negative)
(3) Evolution is on going.
and
(4)That you and your fellow Creationists, seem to be unwilling to actually engage in honest discussion.

This last point is repeated in most threads created on here. Rather you will engage in logical fallacies (Ad Hominem attacks are the most common), or silence.

SO I challenge you to be intellectually honest here.

a reply to: neoholographic


This is beyond a joke at this point. You've got people citing peer reviewed papers that detail every step of the research and provide appropriate citations which allow other people in their field or related fields to test the data and attempt to reproduce it independently. Your replies to this hard data? Ad hominem and strawman BS ad then,
to fluff up your false premise, you don't cite peer reviewed data, you present an article that pretends to be about genetics yet is written by an engineer who just happens to be the son of the founder of ICR.

This is the most common tactic of proponents of Creationism, the false appeal to authority. People who don't understand science enough to actually dissect the data and dispute it find someone who can write any type of obfuscated garbage and lend credibility to it by adding PhD to the end of their name. And these people writing on topics beyond the purview of their respective fields never seem to explain why the data is wrong while entertaining the masses with their diatribes. They never cite any science that supports their positions. Because they actually can't. Instead they babble out some verbal diarrhea and blindly dismiss every piece of science that conflicts with their insular worldview while blindly accepting every other piece of science that plays no part in their religious views. It's quite honestly insulting that you think a guy who's got a doctorate in geological engineering has the requisite background to dispute genetics properly. That would be like me writing a rebuttal article against a peer reviewed paper written by a physicist but not explaining how I came to that conclusion and refusing to cite my sources let alone describing what experimental methodologies unused to derive those conclusions. But then again, that's been par for the course since the OP.

a reply to: neoholographic

Citing ICR is the nail in the coffin for this thread. They are proven frauds, known for twisting and manipulating the truth to justify an ancient belief system. I guess when you are incapable of offering any rebuttals and don't really understand the science involved, it makes perfect sense.

a reply to: peter vlar

Again, a bunch of blathering but no answers to these questions. You said:

You've got people citing peer reviewed papers that detail every step of the research and provide appropriate citations which allow other people in their field or related fields to test the data and attempt to reproduce it independently.

No, they don't detail any step by step research as it relates to the subject, they provide half truths and citations that have nothing to do with the subject.

None of you guys have been able to articulate a coherent response to this one simple question.

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

You either provide links or citations with no commentary or context and just say go fish. The reason you do this is because you can't provide any answers. If you could, it would be easy to simply articulate a response and connect it to the PDF or link that you're posting.

Instead, you paste something or you list a citation with no context or commentary as it relates to the question. If you could, you would have 10 pages ago but you can't.

People are telling half truths about mutations and everything else. Just answer the question.

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

There's no answer from Darwinist. You need to get your head out of the Prebiotic Goo LOL!

a reply to: neoholographic

But here's your problem. You say intelligent design, but who's intelligent design? The Bible/Genesis? That's laughable. The Sumerian Creation story? Navajo? Inca? Norse Mythology? Roman Gods?

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: neoholographic

But here's your problem. You say intelligent design, but who's intelligent design? The Bible/Genesis? That's laughable. The Sumerian Creation story? Navajo? Inca? Norse Mythology? Roman Gods?

In the thread, I've said this several times.

We know what intelligence can do and we know intelligence exist. There's no evidence of a magic molecule in the prebiotic goo.

The form of this intelligence could be God, an advanced civilization or a quantum computer equipped with artificial intelligence that simulates ancestor simulations.

This is what the evidence points to. There's not a shred of evidence that supports life magically arising out of the prebiotic goo.

We know intellence can put letters and numbers into a sequence that can automate and regulate expression. THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE that random mutations or natural selection can give meaning and function to a sequence of DNA letters that regulate expression.

originally posted by: neoholographic

www.icr.org...

Did you really just cite ICR?

That's a bad job. I mean, there's no way anyone you're trying to convince will take anything from that site seriously. It's a well known propaganda and biased, "organization". Come on, you should know better.