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

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

Oh dearie me. The ICR? Seriously? Stick a fork in this thread, it's done.

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

originally posted by: neoholographic

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

There's no evidence either way for how life came to be, nor where all of the information by which organismal morphological designs and functionality came from. The Theory of Evolution, however you may feel about it, actually bears no impact on the origin of this information. But it most certainly exists in the form of DNA/RNA, and has for a very long time. How did it get there or arise out of nothing? Well I think it's a fair question. One which an honest person would admit - we do not know.

We forget and take for granted that at any given moment there are trillions of little biological machines constantly working in concert to keep the whole alive. This happens all by itself. We don't control any of it. That's astounding. But we don't even notice how amazing it is, or just simply shrug it off. How can it all work? It seems impossible, I know. There's really no reason at all that we should be able to live for as long as we do pain free. So many things should go wrong but don't. We're talking about trillions of extremely complex and precise operations per second, and mostly, it all works really well.

There isn't an organism alive or that has ever lived that does not have a specific design or purpose. There are some organisms so perfectly fit for their environments you have to wonder how can this happen from a random and blind process.

Some are okay with the explanations that we've come up with. It's apparent you are not. I'm not either, but I have to withhold judgement on where it all comes from because we just don't know.

a reply to: neoholographic

That you can't understand why speaks volumes. All credibility lost. And I used to find some of your threads interesting.

What a bummer.

a reply to: cooperton

That you don't understand the difference between the information provided in a peer reviewed paper and what is provided in a citation-less article written by an engineer who is attempting to dispute the validity of someone else's work from a field so unrelated to his own that it may as well be a reply from 'Dear Abby', then there really isn't much point in having a discussion. The ICR link wasn't a citation. It wasn't science and didn't provide any information to support its thesis statement. But hey, when it lets you climb up on your filthy soapbox and point fingers at "these people" everything is A OK right as rain.

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

You must be joking with that reference. You get a pass this time - not again

Ok, so you don't understand the context of what was posted. I'm sorry you don't have a clue - but that's your fault - you lack curiosity and an open mind.

Here's your problem: You don't understand your own question because you have no idea how any of this research is conducted in the lab. You read a paper, consult the idiots at ICR and then draw a conclusion that fits your agenda. None of the ICR idiots have published anything of consequence in a peer-reviewed journal.

This information has been around for a long time. Everyone has moved on except you and the ICR idiots.

Molecular Cell Biology. 4th edition.

Section 8.1Mutations: Types and Causes

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...





_____________________________________________________________________

Functional and nonfunctional mutations distinguished by random
recombination of homologous genes
(adaptive evolutionyneutral mutationsyDNA shufflingyin vitro evolution)
HUIMIN ZHAO AND FRANCES H. ARNOLD*

Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering 210-41, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
Communicated by Peter B. Dervan, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, May 16, 1997 (received for review March 3, 1997)

ABSTRACT We describe a convenient method for distinguishing
functional from nonfunctional or deleterious mutations
in homologous genes. High fidelity in vitro gene recombination
(‘‘DNA shuffling’’) coupled with sequence analysis of
a small sampling of the shuffled library exhibiting the evolved
behavior allows identification of those mutations responsible
for the behavior in a background of neutral and deleterious
mutations. Functional mutations are expected to occur in
100% of the sequenced screened sample; neutral mutations are
found in 50% on average, and deleterious mutations do not
appear at all. When used to analyze 10 mutations in a
laboratory-evolved gene encoding a thermostable subtilisin E,
this method rapidly identified the two responsible for the
observed protease thermostability; the remaining eight were
neutral with respect to thermostability, within the precision of
the screening assay. A similar approach, coupled with selection
for growth and survival of the host organism, could be
used to distinguish adaptive from neutral mutations.

www.pnas.org...

_____________________________________________

MORE EXAMPLES:

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them? D'oh!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

real world experience is more useful than virtual drama. thats what we can take away from this thread. only one problem with that... we seem to keep forgetting. or is it ignoring?

but thats a conspiracy forum for ya, i guess.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them? D'oh!

Because if they are not confronted with real facts then some might think that that their BS has a basis in fact. Which it does not.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

Don't go! Denigration of science and the purposeful propagation of misinformation by creationist must not stand.
I know creationist can be frustrating in their eternal denial but less not forget the readers. Keep correcting them, you may not get through, but the readers can look up the facts for themselves an see the deception of creationist propaganda regardless of denial.
Deception is their Achilles heel and is proving to be their downfall as world wide religion declines. In a way, it's good they raise their ugly heads in forums like this, so that we may shine a spotlight on their dishonesty, effectively removing the god head.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

Don't go! Denigration of science and the purposeful propagation of misinformation by creationist must not stand.
I know creationist can be frustrating in their eternal denial but less not forget the readers. Keep correcting them, you may not get through, but the readers can look up the facts for themselves an see the deception of creationist propaganda regardless of denial.
Deception is their Achilles heel and is proving to be their downfall as world wide religion declines. In a way, it's good they raise their ugly heads in forums like this, so that we may shine a spotlight on their dishonesty, effectively removing the god head.

its a conspiracy forum. these threads make as much difference as uploading a video on youtube.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them? D'oh!

Because if they are not confronted with real facts then some might think that that their BS has a basis in fact. Which it does not.

see above response.

a reply to: Phantom423

This is your problem. You have no answer so you can't articulate one. Did you even read what you posted?

Of course intelligence can replace a coding gene under study with a reporter gene. You copy and pasted a bunch of stuff but there's very little commentary as to how it relates to the question.

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

This is your commentary:

You must be joking with that reference. You get a pass this time - not again

Ok, so you don't understand the context of what was posted. I'm sorry you don't have a clue - but that's your fault - you lack curiosity and an open mind.

Here's your problem: You don't understand your own question because you have no idea how any of this research is conducted in the lab. You read a paper, consult the idiots at ICR and then draw a conclusion that fits your agenda. None of the ICR idiots have published anything of consequence in a peer-reviewed journal.

This information has been around for a long time. Everyone has moved on except you and the ICR idiots.

Basically a bunch of rambling about ICR and nothing else. You don't articulate a coherent response to the question. You ramble on about a lack of curiosity and an open mind. You then cut and paste a bunch of stuff. What you don't do is articulate and simplay say how what you're cutting and pasting is responding to the question.

You talk about research conducted in a lab, but again you don't show or explain how random mutations or natural selection can give meaning and function to DNA sequences that regulate expression.

Here some more ICR you can whine about.

While evolutionists have focused on genes that code for proteins, work is just beginning on an equally essential and complicated class of DNA sequence called regulatory elements. These are DNA sequences that do not code for protein but are involved in the regulation of genes. While efficient code usage and re-usage is common among many genomes, what is important is not just the protein the gene generates, but how much, how often, how fast, and when and where in the body it is produced. This is where the gene regulatory process begins to get really complicated. These regulatory differences play a key role in defining what makes a certain kind of organism unique.

After the human genome sequence was obtained to a completion level satisfactory to the scientific community, a separate but heavily-funded and related effort was initiated called the ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA Elements) project.4 This involves ongoing research to determine the identity and characteristics of the regulatory elements in the human genome. At present, ENCODE has barely scratched the surface, but the results have revolutionized the concept of genetics by showing whole new levels of complexity and efficiency of code and gene activation.

www.icr.org...

Here's a video about ENCODE and junk DNA.



Now let me give you some context and commentary. This is what you guys fail to do because you have no answers.

There's sequences of DNA that regulate how a gene is expressed through things like transcription, translation, error correction and more. There's no evidence that random mutations or natural selection can give a sequence of DNA meaning and function to regulate expression. Nothing you have presented supports this notion.

Mutations can interfere with this expression but they can't give meaning or function to a sequence that regulates gene expression. It goes back to things like the TATA box and lac operon.

It goes back to my pop can example:

Let's say I construct an automated system that makes a can of pop. Intelligence constructed the automated process through a sequence of letters and numbers that regulate the expression or the can of pop.

During this automation, the process may get mixed up and then a different flavor of pop is produced.

As the owner of this brand, I may like the flavor even though it's a mistake. Now the mistake didn't create any new sequences that regulate the process of making a can of pop. There's no new function or information in the sequences that regulate the expression of a can of pop.

In the video he talks about Junk DNA, which Darwinist labeled Junk, and how it isn't junk but it's filled with switches. He compared these on and of switches to wiring in a house.

Again, how does random mutations and natural selection give DNA sequences meaning and function to switch on and regulate how a gene is expressed?

How does the sequence that regulates gene expression evolve when there's no gene to regulate or did the gene that will be regulated evolve first but how could it if it wasn't regulate? Do we know have to go back to some magical molecule in the prebiotic goo to explain this lol?

The problem you have is this and it's a BIG ONE. You can't explain how the sequence TATAAAA evolved to have meaning and function that tells transcription factors the direction of the gene to be read and what sequence will be read. Like ENCODE said these sequences are everywhere in what was labeled Junk DNA.

Like I said with the alphabet. If I scramble and shakeup letters from the alphabet and I see thatway, it only has meaning because intelligence gave the sequence of letters meaning. What you're saying is that random mutations somehow bestow meaning on a sequence of DNA letters and that's absurd.

Look at the lac operon.

The way you control the expression of a gene is through regulating the rate of transcription. This has NOTHING TO DO with random mutations or natural selection but a sequence of DNA letters that have meaning and function.

The Promoter of the lac operon is denoted by a sequence of DNA letters which allows the RNA Polymerse to transcribe the sequence of genes. This can't occur unless the lac repressor, which is also denoted by a sequence of DNA letters is switched on which allows the Promotor to begin transcription. If the lac repressor is turned off then the Promotor can't begin transcription.

This is all governed by sequences of DNA letters that have function and meaning.

So that brings us back the the central observation that destroys any notion of evolution:

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

Also, this is how you respond. You don't provide little or no commentary or context. I know why you do it though. It's because you can't articulate an answer because there isn't one.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

Don't go! Denigration of science and the purposeful propagation of misinformation by creationist must not stand.
I know creationist can be frustrating in their eternal denial but less not forget the readers. Keep correcting them, you may not get through, but the readers can look up the facts for themselves an see the deception of creationist propaganda regardless of denial.
Deception is their Achilles heel and is proving to be their downfall as world wide religion declines. In a way, it's good they raise their ugly heads in forums like this, so that we may shine a spotlight on their dishonesty, effectively removing the god head.

its a conspiracy forum. these threads make as much difference as uploading a video on youtube.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them? D'oh!

Because if they are not confronted with real facts then some might think that that their BS has a basis in fact. Which it does not.

see above response.

I do not agree..
I know several members who have abandoned creationism and other pseudoscientific woo because of knowledge they have gleaned from these forums.

a reply to: neoholographic

are you really comparing the mechanics of a soda machine to genetic sequencing?

may i ask where exactly you got your education in genetics and biology?

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them?

d'oh!

Good question. And I'm done with this thread. Thanks for reminding me that my own work IN A REAL LAB, WITH REAL DATA, REAL SCIENTISTS AND HONEST RESULTS, is more important than arguing with scammers and extremists.

Don't go! Denigration of science and the purposeful propagation of misinformation by creationist must not stand.
I know creationist can be frustrating in their eternal denial but less not forget the readers. Keep correcting them, you may not get through, but the readers can look up the facts for themselves an see the deception of creationist propaganda regardless of denial.
Deception is their Achilles heel and is proving to be their downfall as world wide religion declines. In a way, it's good they raise their ugly heads in forums like this, so that we may shine a spotlight on their dishonesty, effectively removing the god head.

its a conspiracy forum. these threads make as much difference as uploading a video on youtube.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: WASTYT

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.

Give me a break LOL!

When I hear stuff like this, it usually means people can't debate the issue so instead of debating they want to say EVERYTHING is discredited from a source.

So you have read and sourced every article on ICR?

So the only ones that have an agenda is sites that reach a different conclusion than you do. I see this any time something is listed from a Creationist website. I go to creationist website as well as Darwinists websites. I just find it odd, that everytime a site that's ran by Creationist is mentioned EVERYTHING on the site must be a lie.

That's just nonsense.

If it's a lie, explain why it's a lie. Blanket indictments show a lack of understanding and the ability to argue a point.

Hhahaha exactly! It's laughable that we put up with their evolution propaganda sources, yet when we cite people who are arguing against such, it is blindly dismissed without consideration. This is why you can't argue with these people.

I know.

They list these things with zero context or commentary as it relates to the topic being discussed. This is because there's no answer to the questions so they can't articulate a response. So they say go fish.

Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

ok...then why are you still here arguing with them? D'oh!

Because if they are not confronted with real facts then some might think that that their BS has a basis in fact. Which it does not.

see above response.

I do not agree..
I know several members who have abandoned creationism and other pseudoscientific woo because of knowledge they have gleaned from these forums.

and what has the world gained from this?

we each have all the significance of a pebble plunking in the mississippi river. but dont be daunted by this fact, be liberated. although arguing with these clowns is rather a waste of liberty.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

That you don't understand the difference between the information provided in a peer reviewed paper and what is provided in a citation-less article written by an engineer who is attempting to dispute the validity of someone else's work from a field so unrelated to his own that it may as well be a reply from 'Dear Abby', then there really isn't much point in having a discussion. The ICR link wasn't a citation. It wasn't science and didn't provide any information to support its thesis statement. But hey, when it lets you climb up on your filthy soapbox and point fingers at "these people" everything is A OK right as rain.

Understand the innate bias in the following dichotomy: ICR (and other similar organizations) are under the presupposition that intelligent design created the diversity of life, all science articles are under the presupposition that evolution created the diversity of life.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Neither one of you is capable of arguing the topic. You couldn't pass a Genetics or Molecular Biology 101 course. You don't even get the terminology correct most of the time.

Oh get off your pedestal. There are pre-teens who pass Bio 101 in highschool. I took it in 9th grade and felt like I knew everything once I was convinced of evolution. Then, later on, the veil of material reductionism was lifted and I began to critically think on my own.