No Intelligence in evolutionary branches?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Yes and no... Some is randomness that reacts with the non-randomness of the natural order/physics of our universe. I disagree with "purposefully" since there can be infinite universes with infinite variables to the order/physics of each one of them. As example with the force of gravity, if it was slightly different we would not be here... This doesn't mean that God needed to provide just that right force to create life, it just means that life has reacted to that force as it is in our universe. This is more of a cause and effect event than intelligent design.

Laws, by definition, are implemented by intelligence. Biology has such intricacies that it requires something to have designed it. Even with the extent that technology has advanced, we still cannot replicate many of the biological functions. This indicates the intelligence that made us is beyond our current comprehension.

To even appease the idea of evolution would be a great disservice to the intelligence that we were born with.

It is most certainly beyond your comprehension. BTW, did you ever write that letter? I could write it for you - sign your name of course - Cooperton, Oklahoma

originally posted by: Phantom423
I could write it for you - sign your name of course - Cooperton, Oklahoma

Awww you must have googled my name. I'm flattered.

It's actually good news that evolutionary theory is wrong. It means you're not a meaningless mutant progeny of great grand daddy pond scum. I don't know why you are so hellbent on clinging to a dead-end theory... I remember when I first got suckered into believing evolutionary theory. I saw an abysmal eternal nothingness because I knew the implications of my fate if my coming into existence was by random chance. Luckily that's not our fate. Get your head out of the sand.

a reply to: cooperton

That was a really long route you took to avoid actually answering the query posed to you... Havenyou written the letter yet? Will and if not why wouldn’t you?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

That was a really long route you took to avoid actually answering the query posed to you... Havenyou written the letter yet? Will and if not why wouldn’t you?

She was only using that as a rouse to avoid admitting the impossibility of biochemical cascades evolving.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
I could write it for you - sign your name of course - Cooperton, Oklahoma

Awww you must have googled my name. I'm flattered.

It's actually good news that evolutionary theory is wrong. It means you're not a meaningless mutant progeny of great grand daddy pond scum. I don't know why you are so hellbent on clinging to a dead-end theory... I remember when I first got suckered into believing evolutionary theory. I saw an abysmal eternal nothingness because I knew the implications of my fate if my coming into existence was by random chance. Luckily that's not our fate. Get your head out of the sand.

Did you write the letter? No, of course you didn't. Why? Because at some point even the most irrational person gets tired of looking like a fool.

That you are scared to death to write that letter confirms that you're not a professional. You're not a scientist, have never been in a lab, have never been associated with a credible institution where ideas are discussed and debated. You're a broken record on a dead end street.

In the interest of honesty, why not state the real reason why you wouldn't write a letter to the authors of that paper? We won't hold our breath. You're a phony, a liar and a fraud.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Did you write the letter? No, of course you didn't. Why? Because at some point even the most irrational person gets tired of looking like a fool.

That you are scared to death to write that letter confirms that you're not a professional. You're not a scientist, have never been in a lab, have never been associated with a credible institution where ideas are discussed and debated. You're a broken record on a dead end street.

In the interest of honesty, why not state the real reason why you wouldn't write a letter to the authors of that paper? We won't hold our breath. You're a phony, a liar and a fraud.

Don't worry, I sent the email. Now I am eagerly awaiting your super scientist demi-god to give my humble plebeian intellect a moment of their time.

So now back to the matter that you were deflecting. Explain how biochemical cascades could have evolved in a step-by-step mutative manner, despite the entire group of proteins being required for the cascade to function.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Did you write the letter? No, of course you didn't. Why? Because at some point even the most irrational person gets tired of looking like a fool.

That you are scared to death to write that letter confirms that you're not a professional. You're not a scientist, have never been in a lab, have never been associated with a credible institution where ideas are discussed and debated. You're a broken record on a dead end street.

In the interest of honesty, why not state the real reason why you wouldn't write a letter to the authors of that paper? We won't hold our breath. You're a phony, a liar and a fraud.

Don't worry, I sent the email. Now I am eagerly awaiting your super scientist demi-god to give my humble plebeian intellect a moment of their time.

So now back to the matter that you were deflecting. Explain how biochemical cascades could have evolved in a step-by-step mutative manner, despite the entire group of proteins being required for the cascade to function.

Publish the email here. Then I'll confirm that it was received.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Publish the email here. Then I'll confirm that it was received.

This was to one of the authors of the 2015 paper regarding epigenetic inheritance being the cause of antibiotic resistance in microbes.



If you want me to debate with one of your colleagues they can email me [email protected]

So now, explain how biochemical cascades could have possibly evolved in a step-by-step mutative manner given that the entire cascade of proteins needs to be present for proper functioning.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Publish the email here. Then I'll confirm that it was received.

This was to one of the authors of the 2015 paper regarding epigenetic inheritance being the cause of antibiotic resistance in microbes.

If you want me to debate with one of your colleagues they can email me [email protected]

So now, explain how biochemical cascades could have possibly evolved in a step-by-step mutative manner given that the entire cascade of proteins needs to be present for proper functioning.

Fake email. Never received by that recipient.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

That was a really long route you took to avoid actually answering the query posed to you... Havenyou written the letter yet? Will and if not why wouldn’t you?

She was only using that as a rouse to avoid admitting the impossibility of biochemical cascades evolving.

No, that’s your claim. The onus lies with you to support your claim. It’s not up to the membership of ATS to either support or falsify your claims. That’s entirely on you. But since your entire ruse is to pretend you know more than people who have studied and/or worked in these fields while refusing to support your claims... that’s next level special.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Fake email. Never received by that recipient.

Are you the electronic mail courier for all scientists? I sent it to him.

originally posted by: peter vlar
The onus lies with you to support your claim. It’s not up to the membership of ATS to either support or falsify your claims.

The onus lies on you guys to prove evolution is possible. I've come as close as possible to proving a negative by demonstrating the insurmountable hurdles that evolutionary mechanisms simply could not have passed. So answer the question or admit it is absolutely impossible:

How could biochemical cascades have evolved through piece-by-piece mutations when the multitude of proteins involved must be in place for the cascade to function?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Fake email. Never received by that recipient.

Are you the electronic mail courier for all scientists? I sent it to him.

originally posted by: peter vlar
The onus lies with you to support your claim. It’s not up to the membership of ATS to either support or falsify your claims.

The onus lies on you guys to prove evolution is possible. I've come as close as possible to proving a negative by demonstrating the insurmountable hurdles that evolutionary mechanisms simply could not have passed. So answer the question or admit it is absolutely impossible:

How could biochemical cascades have evolved through piece-by-piece mutations when the multitude of proteins involved must be in place for the cascade to function?

No, you did not send that email to the appropriate authors. You're a liar.

Your chicken and egg crap about cascades shows once again that you know absolutely nothing about thermodynamics and Michaelis-Menten signal transmission. There are millions of biochemical cascade events which have occurred since the first organism appeared on this planet until today. These are stochastic processes. They don't require a chicken or an egg.

You're an uneducated idiot who doesn't have a clue about how science is really done. Go away. You annoy me.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Fake email. Never received by that recipient.

Are you the electronic mail courier for all scientists? I sent it to him.

Sorry, but until you can prove that you sent any emails, then they don't exist. Please demonstrate only empirical evidence that you have attempted to correspond with anyone who thinks differently than you do.

originally posted by: peter vlar
The onus lies with you to support your claim. It’s not up to the membership of ATS to either support or falsify your claims.

onus lies on you guys to prove evolution is possible.

No, the overall consensus amongst scientists of every discipline and the sheer volume of evidence does that for me. I didn't have anyone telling me what to think or what areas to focus on in school. The technology simply didn't exist to test my hypothesis in the late 90's. Svante Paabo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology eventually proved me to be correct once the technology to piece together ancient genetics was designed and proven by double blind experiments on both sides of the Atlantic. Evolution happens and its a fact, regardless of your denial and lack of understanding of the words you copy and paste here.

come as close as possible to proving a negative by demonstrating the insurmountable hurdles that evolutionary mechanisms simply could not have passed. So answer the question or admit it is absolutely impossible:

And I've been explaining these processes on ATS for just over a decade. Whether it's that you don't understand the explanations or refuse to look at the actual data because it conflicts with your confirmation bias, I don't know. All I can be certain of is the answers you claim to seek have been provided repeatedly by multiple posters on here and some of us are actually trained in the fields you take most offense to. Bottom line is that copy and pasting from YEC proponents or getting your PhD at the university of YouTube are jokes and you've done nothing to demonstrate the improbability of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (especially since you're so hung up on Darwin/Darwinism, which is only a fraction of the modern synthesis.

could biochemical cascades have evolved through piece-by-piece mutations when the multitude of proteins involved must be in place for the cascade to function?

yes, they can and you're wrong that every other protein must be in place for things to evolve. But that's to be expected as you're wrong far more than you are not.

If the chicken came first, where did the rooster come from?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

From the same sauropods that chickens evolved from. See, that wasn't so hard!

On a side note, Based on proteins and collagen found in T-Rex fossils in 2003, they're pretty closely related to chickens. Neither chicken/rooster nor T-Rex collagen and proteins, matches any living reptile anywhere near as closely as T-Rex matches that of a chicken. That's not to say that they descended from T-Rex, they just happen to be the only current exemplar of preserved Sauropod that can be compared to chickens.

a reply to: peter vlar

What are the odds animals evolved male and female, let alone animals evolving.

a reply to: peter vlar

We tamed that beast, tasty t-rex eggs

I would be interested in what you think about the experiment that some scientists did at cyba geige now Novartis, it's called the primeval code?
ats thread
If I understand it right, it indicates that the electromagnetic field has a big influence in what part of the geneis activated.
how does that tie into evolution theory?

Sincerely NC

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: peter vlar

What are the odds animals evolved male and female, let alone animals evolving.

the same way we see amphibians today change their gender in times of constrainment in their ecosystem that makes passing their genes on more difficult.

a reply to: NoConspiracy

ETs didn't mess with the DNA of other species, they just messed with apes, and here we are...

I've wondered the samething,

I mean, there's a missing link, and it isn't bigfoot, it's the one thing we don't have a firm grasp on, as a society...

originally posted by: NoConspiracy
a reply to: peter vlar

We tamed that beast, tasty t-rex eggs

I would be interested in what you think about the experiment that some scientists did at cyba geige now Novartis, it's called the primeval code?
ats thread
If I understand it right, it indicates that the electromagnetic field has a big influence in what part of the geneis activated.
how does that tie into evolution theory?

Sincerely NC

I'm not gonna BS you, my background is in Paleoanthropology so the above noted experiment is slightly out of my wheelhouse. It's incredibly interesting to look at and contemplate the possibilities. Perhaps it's something innate in our "junk DNA" which we now know isn't as full of junk as was once thought. If your interpretation were correct, it doesn't appear to contradict with any aspects of the MES. If long ago 2 chromosomes can fuse together creating a pathway for the genus Homo, why then in our distant past could we not have (and by WE I just mean life on earth) adapted to a rapidly fluctuating magnetic field? I'm simply spitballing and hypothesizing so please take my thoughts with a heaping handful of salt.