Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

a reply to: cooperton

My point was that laboratory settings often do not emulate natural conditions on earth

A better setting than saying it all poped into existence and was miraculously created out of thin air a few thousand years ago?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

My point was that laboratory settings often do not emulate natural conditions on earth

A better setting than saying it all poped into existence and was miraculously created out of thin air a few thousand years ago?

Perhaps you can answer why monkeys don't evolve to become humans and why E.Coli hasn't evolved to become Chlamydia Trachomatis. These questions seem to be troubling the poster who then concludes that if the influenza virus cannot evolve to become a coronavirus then evolution is not true and we have been living in a lie perpetrated by scientists who take part in the greatest ever conspiracy created by humans.

originally posted by: Kurokage
A better setting than saying it all poped into existence and was miraculously created out of thin air a few thousand years ago?

You're missing the point. Those experiments use conditions in which Early earth was like a meticulous lab experiment conducted by intelligence and they still couldn't come close to created relevant biological polymers. Which goes to show the requirement of an even greater intelligence to contrive intelligent life

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Perhaps you can answer why monkeys don't evolve to become humans and why E.Coli hasn't evolved to become Chlamydia Trachomatis. These questions seem to be troubling the poster who then concludes that if the influenza virus cannot evolve to become a coronavirus then evolution is not true and we have been living in a lie perpetrated by scientists who take part in the greatest ever conspiracy created by humans.

Lol you're just salty there's no empirical examples of evolution actually happening

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
A better setting than saying it all poped into existence and was miraculously created out of thin air a few thousand years ago?

You're missing the point. Those experiments use conditions in which Early earth was like a meticulous lab experiment conducted by intelligence and they still couldn't come close to created relevant biological polymers. Which goes to show the requirement of an even greater intelligence to contrive intelligent life

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Perhaps you can answer why monkeys don't evolve to become humans and why E.Coli hasn't evolved to become Chlamydia Trachomatis. These questions seem to be troubling the poster who then concludes that if the influenza virus cannot evolve to become a coronavirus then evolution is not true and we have been living in a lie perpetrated by scientists who take part in the greatest ever conspiracy created by humans.

Lol you're just salty there's no empirical examples of evolution actually happening

Your arguments are devoid of science and that reflects your ideology. Creationism is devoid of science and I can't blame you fully for it. You kept recycling the same debunked nonsense but you don't care so much about the credibility of your claims as long as you push the nonsense. It hasn't worked well on this thread and the others you are participating.

a reply to: cooperton

You need to answer the question to yourself. Why is it that E.Coli doesn't 'evolve' to become Chlamydia Trachomatis?

a reply to: cooperton

Lol you're just salty there's no empirical examples of evolution actually happening

And as usual Cooperton decides to ignore the actual facts and substitute them for his own Confirmation bias.
I've posted about the evolution of the whale, the horse and even the ancestor of us and other apes before, but lets go round this merry-go-round with you once again for you to deny it!

Horse ancestor

The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized,[1] forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern horse. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete outline of the evolutionary lineage of the modern horse than of any other animal. Much of this evolution took place in North America, where horses originated but became extinct about 10,000 years ago,

Whales.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large teeth that could be used for eating meat. From the outside, they don’t look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the inner ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal.

Man and other Apes

Interestingly, a remarkable fossil discovery sheds light on what this ancient ancestor might have looked like. The 13-million-year-old infant skull, affectionately named “Alesi,” was found in Kenya. Alesi likely belonged to a fruit-eating, slow-climbing primate that resembled a baby gibbon. This fossil provides valuable insights into the early stages of ape and human evolution

a reply to: cooperton

I have degrees in this area I know about the endosymbiosis theory. It's laughable though in light of empirical data:

Did you respect my "higher" education? I know I went one of America's joke schools who's rival is a more frequent joke school, but both are actually really good institutions. Lots of alumni between them.

Nope, you scoffed at it for being incorrect mainstream concensus and not syncing up with your own notions or adequately confirming bias. Even when it repeatedly tells you (without getting into it) WHY you are wrong.

So for purposes of this thread. All university level education is BS.

"A surprising result of phylogenetic analyses is the relatively small proportion (10-20%) of the mitochondrial proteome displaying a clear α-proteobacterial ancestry."
link

This means that mitochondrial DNA only shares 10-20% similarity with prokaryotic organisms. Clearly indicating it did not evolve from engulfing a prokaryote.

This I have to bullsh*t. I have to look up the very basics here. You could be conjuring up another ocean of crystaline hydroxyl and a tiny percentage of slab fluid again. It sounds pretty educated, but it's a lot of trickery. I can't catch it in molecular biology like I can in geology, so it wouldn't surprise me if you make a few faith-driven assumptions here too.

I do know it took a billion years to get from LUCA to single celled Eukaryotes. And then another 1.2 billion years for the single celled Eukaryotes to become multicellular.

Multicellularity has evolved independently at least 25 times in eukaryotes,[7][8] and also in some prokaryotes, like cyanobacteria, myxobacteria, actinomycetes, Magnetoglobus multicellularis or Methanosarcina.[3] However, complex multicellular organisms evolved only in six eukaryotic groups: animals, symbiomycotan fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants.[9] It evolved repeatedly for Chloroplastida (green algae and land plants), once for animals, once for brown algae, three times in the fungi (chytrids, ascomycetes, and basidiomycetes)[10] and perhaps several times for slime molds and red algae.[11] The first evidence of multicellular organization, which is when unicellular organisms coordinate behaviors and may be an evolutionary precursor to true multicellularity, is from cyanobacteria-like organisms that lived 3.0–3.5 billion years ago.[7] To reproduce, true multicellular organisms must solve the problem of regenerating a whole organism from germ cells (i.e., sperm and egg cells), an issue that is studied in evolutionary developmental biology. Animals have evolved a considerable diversity of cell types in a multicellular body (100–150 different cell types), compared with 10–20 in plants and fungi

I don't think it's some ZOMG moment for impossibility, but really supports an expected exponential curve for life diversification. 3.7 billion - 2.7 billion - 1.5 billion in slow gradual steps, that started to really get going with red algae.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Studies from the scale of modern ecosystems to global long-term patterns in the fossil record support a model for the exponential diversification of life, and one explanation for a pattern of exponential diversification is that as diversity increases, new forms become ever more refinements of existing forms.

It follows a natural curve if you plot out the total number of organisms. Your god can literally be plotted diversifying its creation if you follow the evolutionary tree.

You want to talk about simplistic imprints of singular form, look at the way life diversified over time. If you totally accecpt the evolutionary timescale and apply Y = ab^x, it works.

Even after extinction events, the exponential diversification resets and resumes as remaining life moves into new niches and then rapidly fills now unoccupied spaces.

That "life force" life seems to innately possess that makes it thrive is quite amazing.

originally posted by: Degradation33

Did you respect my "higher" education? I know I went one of America's joke schools who's rival is a more frequent joke school, but both are actually really good institutions. Lots of alumni between them.

Nope, you scoffed at it for being incorrect mainstream concensus and not syncing up with your own. Even when it repeatedly tells you (without getting into it) WHY you are wrong.

So for purposes of this thread. All university level education is BS.

No I don't think it is all BS. But endosymbiosis theory is a specious argument in light of genetic data. There are 37 genes on the human mitochondrial genome, for example, whereas the simplest independent prokaryotic organism requires around 1300 genes to exist. This is why I don't believe the mitochondrion is an ancient prokaryote.

originally posted by: Kurokage

And as usual Cooperton decides to ignore the actual facts and substitute them for his own Confirmation bias.
I've posted about the evolution of the whale, the horse and even the ancestor of us and other apes before, but lets go round this merry-go-round with you once again for you to deny it!

Yeah and they're incomplete fossils where there's not enough evidence to make a conclusion about it. We have plenty of complete fossils of dinosaurs, because they were real. On the other hand, we have dubious fragments of what scientists hope are transitional fossils because there's actually no such thing as transitional fossils

Horse ancestor
The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized,[1] forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern horse. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete outline of the evolutionary lineage of the modern horse than of any other animal. Much of this evolution took place in North America, where horses originated but became extinct about 10,000 years ago,

Show me the data they are pulling from. Post the fossils they are using to make these assertions

Whales.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large teeth that could be used for eating meat. From the outside, they don’t look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the inner ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal.

Pakicetus was even admitted to fully be a land animal in the paper published in nature. Hardly a transitional fossil into a whale.

Man and other Apes
Interestingly, a remarkable fossil discovery sheds light on what this ancient ancestor might have looked like. The 13-million-year-old infant skull, affectionately named “Alesi,” was found in Kenya. Alesi likely belonged to a fruit-eating, slow-climbing primate that resembled a baby gibbon. This fossil provides valuable insights into the early stages of ape and human evolution

Show me the data they are pulling from. Post the fossils they are using to make these assertions

Interesting topic.

Whilst all you say may point to some level of intelligent design, is there any evidence that this design is a product of a specific religion?

If so, which religion do you think is most prominently represented by this theory?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Degradation33

Did you respect my "higher" education? I know I went one of America's joke schools who's rival is a more frequent joke school, but both are actually really good institutions. Lots of alumni between them.

Nope, you scoffed at it for being incorrect mainstream concensus and not syncing up with your own. Even when it repeatedly tells you (without getting into it) WHY you are wrong.

So for purposes of this thread. All university level education is BS.

No I don't think it is all BS. But endosymbiosis theory is a specious argument in light of genetic data. There are 37 genes on the human mitochondrial genome, for example, whereas the simplest independent prokaryotic organism requires around 1300 genes to exist. This is why I don't believe the mitochondrion is an ancient prokaryote.

See, I don't know what that means.

But it sounds like you said because human mitochondria has 37 genes and bacteria has 500-1500 genes, depending on type, that eliminates it in your mind as being related.

I think it's more than that, like structural reasons.

This .gov catalog are these threads favorite site for finding things we assume agree with our points. My turn now.

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

Since the endosymbiotic theory describes α-proteobacteria as an ancestor of mitochondria, many common features have been discovered over the years between mitochondrial and prokaryotic genomes. The bacterial genomes size varies in the range of approximately 1000–9000 kbp [105]. The genome of Escherichia coli is described as 4700 kbp, double-stranded, circular DNA (circular bacterial chromosome), and it is the most popular model for molecular studies [106]. During the endosymbiotic process, a significant reduction of bacterial genome size occurred as a result of gene transfer to the host. Hence, mtDNA has a much smaller size than the average bacterial cell, and it lost many functional genes [107]. The bacterial genome is located in the central part of bacteria in the form of compacted nucleoid. In some bacteria, such as E. coli, DNA is supported by multiple plasmids located nearby that encode e.g., antibiotic resistance genes. Human mitochondria have many copies of double-stranded, circular DNA [39]. Same as in bacteria, mtDNA is associated with proteins and shaped into nucleoids, which indicates a possible evolutionary correlation of the two [9]. In the case of mitochondria, TFAM proteins are the main components that compact DNA.

So yeah... THAT! I only know sorta what it means, but I think it explains how gene loss occured when mitochondria evolved from bacteria. And thus backs up my point to my simplistic level of understanding.

a reply to: cooperton

Unfortunately science disagrees with you entirely and the evidence we have shows clearly why evolution is true at all levels.

There are endless scientific research papers and articles and many of them we have presented them here. All of them together with their authors have are a testimony to why creationism is nonsensical and your arguments devoid of science.

Every single scientist in the powers links debunks your beliefs but the irony is that you claim they don't know what they are talking about, they are confused, the entire scientific community lives in the dark ages but at the same time you know well and you are on the record for saying

I have degrees in this area I know about the endosymbiosis theory. It's laughable though in light of empirical data

What kind of degrees you have in this area? And what is this area? I didn't know you were academically trained because you made arguments that we all know they are false. Actually it's rather difficult to find claims you made that are true.

From the E.Coli argument where it doesn't 'evolve' to become Chlamydia Trachomatis to dinosaurs walking alongside humans not that long time ago to monkeys that don't 'evolve' to become humans.

What Universities did you attend? What course did you study? I am quite curious.

originally posted by: Degradation33

This .gov catalog are these threads favorite site for finding things we assume agree with our points. My turn now.

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

"Since the endosymbiotic theory describes α-proteobacteria as an ancestor of mitochondria, many common features have been discovered over the years between mitochondrial and prokaryotic genomes. The bacterial genomes size varies in the range of approximately 1000–9000 kbp [105]. The genome of Escherichia coli is described as 4700 kbp, double-stranded, circular DNA (circular bacterial chromosome), and it is the most popular model for molecular studies [106]. During the endosymbiotic process, a significant reduction of bacterial genome size occurred as a result of gene transfer to the host. Hence, mtDNA has a much smaller size than the average bacterial cell, and it lost many functional genes [107]. The bacterial genome is located in the central part of bacteria in the form of compacted nucleoid. In some bacteria, such as E. coli, DNA is supported by multiple plasmids located nearby that encode e.g., antibiotic resistance genes. Human mitochondria have many copies of double-stranded, circular DNA [39]. Same as in bacteria, mtDNA is associated with proteins and shaped into nucleoids, which indicates a possible evolutionary correlation of the two [9]. In the case of mitochondria, TFAM proteins are the main components that compact DNA."

So yeah... THAT! I only know sorta what it means, but I think it explains how gene loss occured when mitochondria evolved from bacteria. And thus backs up my point to my simplistic level of understanding.

Yeah that is the explanation used by scientists who still hold to the endosymbiosis theory. The reason I don't think that explanation is sufficient is because even simple eukaryotes, like malaria, still have a very smaller mitochondrial genome. Malaria has 5 genes in its mitochondria, despite eukaryotes being remarkably closer, in theory, to this alleged endosymbiont event. I think the largest known mitochondrial genome is less than 100 genes, making its genome still less than 1/10th the size of the simplest prokaryote's genome.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Every single scientist in the powers links debunks your beliefs

No there's a growing number of scientists that realize evolution is being proven false:

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Every single scientist in the powers links debunks your beliefs

No there's a growing number of scientists that realize evolution is being proven false:

That's only true in your head and nowhere else.

I see you dodged the question and you are trying to divert by arguing nonsense with the other posters. Usual tactic after all.

So the entire scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy against intelligent design according to you and the scientists are willingly living in the dark ages. They don't know that they are talking about but you do because as you said:

I have degrees in this area I know about the endosymbiosis theory. It's laughable though in light of empirical data

But you haven't told us that degrees do you have and in which areas? What Universities did you attend and what courses did you take? This is still a mystery given your claims and arguments that show the opposite of someone who has academic degrees.



Glad you keep your up with your science-free arguments

Pakicetus was even admitted to fully be a land animal in the paper published in nature. Hardly a transitional fossil into a whale.

What nonsense for once more.
You are in the very dangerous path of total denialism of reality.

a reply to: cooperton

Perhaps you may want to answer the question you have posed earlier. If evolution is true then why bacteria don't 'evolve' to become different bacteria. Why is it that E.Coli remains as it is and doesn't 'evolve' to become Chlamydia Trachomatis?

Why Chipanzees don't 'evolve' to become humans?

Was the ancestor of whales a land creature?!

baleinesendirect.org...

The ancestor of today’s whales, the first cetacean, is believed to be Pakicetus, a quadruped measuring 1 to 2 metres long. Skeletons discovered in Pakistan indicate that the animal had typical artiodactyl ankles and a typical cetacean skull. Unlike today’s whales, this species was not aquatic and its ankles are testimony to its running ability. It is still considered a cetacean, especially on account of the morphology of its inner ear. The shape of its teeth suggests that Pakicetus was carnivorous, like modern-day whales.

Do land creatures evolve to become sea creatures?

We all know they are false?

Who is this ‘we’ V?

Try to argue for yourself and not for the rest of us

In this regard there is no majority for you to talk from amongst just you and your opinion along with whatever evidence you can muster.

a reply to: Venkuish1

So the entire scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy

Well they can’t have just done the plandemic without a little practice in deception 😂

So the ancestor of today’s whale is believed to be Pakicetus

Hmmmm. Seems like settled science to me 😳🙄🤔

a reply to: Venkuish1

a reply to: cooperton

Show me the data they are pulling from. Post the fossils they are using to make these assertions

It makes me laugh when you start demanding answers which I know you're going to ignore anyway and then do your little 'Rinse and Repeat" routine.

The data is clearly out there for you to read many posters have added links into many of your threads, if you can't understand them by now or what to look for yourself with open eyes, then there's no hope...

Pakicetus was even admitted to fully be a land animal in the paper published in nature. Hardly a transitional fossil into a whale.

So you ignore this part??

However, their skulls — particularly in the inner ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal.

originally posted by: Dalamax
We all know they are false?

Who is this ‘we’ V?

Try to argue for yourself and not for the rest of us

In this regard there is no majority for you to talk from amongst just you and your opinion along with whatever evidence you can muster.

a reply to: Venkuish1

'We' referring to the posters who take part in the thread and have pointed out the flaws of the logic of the poster ehi tries to argue in favour of creationism. It doesn't mean everyone online, let me clarify this.

Creationism is a debunked ideology and making parallels with the pandemic will not help your argument if you are trying to support the idea that the entire scientific community has conspired to cover up the truth about creationism.