Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

So tooth, are you just going to ignore the FACT that humans are still evolving?

reply to post by MrXYZ

So tooth, are you just going to ignore the FACT that humans are still evolving?

I have never heard of humans giving birth to anything other than humans so ya.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Only becuase if it were true, it would ALSO require intelligent programming in order for everything to stay on target.

I know you hate to answer questions asked of you but at least try: You have claimed many times that evolution cannot be as the species that evolves would not have food. Do you stand by that claim?

The diet of the squirrel listed in wiki clearly shows the species known to have what I have identified as a phase one diet, and in the off season they also list a second diet which is phase two of hunger.

I asked you to provide a link, not your fantasy of what you claim the links information means

So then by your own admission, species learn from the parents.

Why do you insist on being a clown? I dont have to admit young (not species you drip) learn from their parents. That is a fact.

Then who taught us and why did we ever start making our own food and creating processes for them?

Did you miss the part about experimenting? Trial and error? By example?

Why do you cook food? because you have been told to or because you enjoy the taste. We discovered by trial and error that we could eat more food types and kill germs. Are you really this far gone that your fantasy cannot allow you to accept even this.

You have been given ample chance to prove this theory wrong,

Surprise surprise, you have no proof and make no attempt to get any. Just more farts in the echo chamber.

Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

Yours is not. Try giving evidence, proof a logical argument.

No they aren't, they are direct consequneces of life, not of any made up process, so prove it.

As I said your opinion is never appreciated. Show proof. Explain diversity if it is not explained by evolution. Explain how diseases evolve giving rise to new diseases.

A creator could have just of easily of made all this, and you haven't proven that theory wrong yet.

No more chances to explain diversity. As usual you cannot and call upon magic to fill your empty fantasy. An ideal example of your abject ignorance and your desperation to cling on to it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So tooth, are you just going to ignore the FACT that humans are still evolving?

I have never heard of humans giving birth to anything other than humans so ya.

Here you go. A couple of posts below where you write

I have no idea why you think I believe in this.

In answer to: You are still stuck in your 'cat going to sleep and waking up as a rat .

And you have the cheek to call others incredulous

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So tooth, are you just going to ignore the FACT that humans are still evolving?

I have never heard of humans giving birth to anything other than humans so ya.

Humans are in a CONSTANT STATE OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES. This can be seen as some Children are now being born without their Wisdom Teeth as well as some are being born with a smaller Appendix. We are also growing Taller on Average as well as people who as early as 400 years ago such as the Spanish who landed in Mexico and South America...have mated with the former indigenous people and because of the tropical Sun...are being Born with Darker Skin Pigmentation, Larger Nostrils to breath thinner air and Darker Eyes which protect the Retina as apposed to Blue or Hazel or Green eyes which have less protection for the eyes.

Split Infinity

reply to post by colin42

I know you hate to answer questions asked of you but at least try: You have claimed many times that evolution cannot be as the species that evolves would not have food. Do you stand by that claim?

Of course, its common sense.

I asked you to provide a link, not your fantasy of what you claim the links information means

squirrel wiki

Squirrels cannot digest cellulose, so must rely on foods rich in protein, carbohydrates, and fats. In temperate regions, early spring is the hardest time of year for squirrels, because buried nuts begin to sprout and are no longer available for the squirrel to eat, and new food sources have not become available yet. During these times, squirrels rely heavily on the buds of trees. Squirrels' diets consist primarily of a wide variety of plants, including nuts, seeds, conifer cones, fruits, fungi and green vegetation. However, some squirrels also consume meat, especially when faced with hunger.[6] Squirrels have been known to eat insects, eggs, small birds, young snakes and smaller rodents. Indeed, some tropical species have shifted almost entirely to a diet of insects.

This diet is clearly a phase one diet with an alternate diet shown as to what happens when that diet is not avaiable, being phase two.

Why do you insist on being a clown? I dont have to admit young (not species you drip) learn from their parents. That is a fact.

Then why is it that most species aren't recognized for this event?

Did you miss the part about experimenting? Trial and error? By example?

Well which is it, your contradicting yourself, are we taught what to eat or do we experiment?

And I would like to see mass proof of either or both.

Why do you cook food? because you have been told to or because you enjoy the taste. We discovered by trial and error that we could eat more food types and kill germs. Are you really this far gone that your fantasy cannot allow you to accept even this.

Nope the reason we cook food is to kill germs because it was not our intended food to begin with.

Surprise surprise, you have no proof and make no attempt to get any. Just more farts in the echo chamber.

I have shared the details enough times colin, I'm not going to play the colin repeat game.

Yours is not. Try giving evidence, proof a logical argument.

I have given plenty of proof, the squirrel diet is proof of two phases of hunger.

As I said your opinion is never appreciated. Show proof. Explain diversity if it is not explained by evolution. Explain how diseases evolve giving rise to new diseases.

There is no basis for your argument, evolution made the claim first, you prove it.

No more chances to explain diversity. As usual you cannot and call upon magic to fill your empty fantasy. An ideal example of your abject ignorance and your desperation to cling on to it.

Like I said, a creator could have done it, and just because you don't accept that as an option doesn't mean its not possible. BTW fantasy is not common in ancient history books. You have no basis for dismissing such documents except for the fact that you are not accepting or understanding the definition of the word supernatural.

I have never heard of humans giving birth to anything other than humans so ya.
Here you go. A couple of posts below where you write


I have no idea why you think I believe in this.

In answer to: You are still stuck in your 'cat going to sleep and waking up as a rat .

And you have the cheek to call others incredulous

It doesn't matter what you believe in, if you think this happens so slowly that it is not noticable, a human would still have to evolve into something else. Slow enough to not see and slow enough for the changes to not be rejected

.
There is no proof that such changes would be allowed over time. DNA does have error correcting abilities you know, so if something was trying to make a change that did not sync well with the lay out, it gets rejected. Where is the proof that DNA would allow a species to evolve into another species.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Humans are in a CONSTANT STATE OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES. This can be seen as some Children are now being born without their Wisdom Teeth as well as some are being born with a smaller Appendix. We are also growing Taller on Average as well as people who as early as 400 years ago such as the Spanish who landed in Mexico and South America...have mated with the former indigenous people and because of the tropical Sun...are being Born with Darker Skin Pigmentation, Larger Nostrils to breath thinner air and Darker Eyes which protect the Retina as apposed to Blue or Hazel or Green eyes which have less protection for the eyes.

I understand this is assumed, but where is the proof? There is no proof that children being born without wisdom teeth is evolution. There is no proof that any of this is evolution, as usual its all just assumed. I think your accepting what appears to be changes, as evolutionary change, however like I have explained in the past that there is no proof that these changes weren't allowed differences within the genetic code to begin with.

As an example, somone else mentioned the idea of breeding tall people with more tall people will eventually yeild tall offspring, that is not evolution, its genetics. Now if one of those offspring tries to grow to be 10 feet tall, that may not be an allowable change within the genetic code, so its POSSIBLE that an outside force had something to do with this happening. While some people are complaining to teach me that nothing happens as a result of evolution, its just the process of change, this doesn't explain how evolution can be titled when some changes occur, like with ADHD. It is a genetic change, but I'm told over and over that it's not evolution. And why not, its just becomes part of the process that changes.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So tooth, are you just going to ignore the FACT that humans are still evolving?

The terms "Manifest Destiny" and "neuro-linguistic programming" come into my mind. Personally I truly believe mechanisms of social engineering have been in play long enough to certainly have an effect on our own "evolution"... or lack there of.

I sometimes wonder if we will be conscious enough to realize as a species when we are no longer "human" and have evolved. I sometimes wonder if it will happen during a weekday or a weekend, too.

reply to post by ILikeStars


I wonder how long it will be and what changes are going to take place before people wise up and realize that adaptation is NOT part of evolution and that evolution is just a made up word that has no significance. Flooding people with hypothesis that have no basis and no proof doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Evolution fails the litmus for test to know if its a scientific theory, which is no big shocker. You can't see it, you can't test it, you can't recreate it, you can't predict it, and you can't trace it. These are things that would be necessary to determine if something is a scientific theory or not.

Not to be confused with the fact that there is adaptation found in viruses and bacteria, but adaptation has no proof with evolution, even in the wiki of the definition, its just conveniently added to the term with no basis of proof.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So tooth, are you just going to ignore the FACT that humans are still evolving?

I have never heard of humans giving birth to anything other than humans so ya.

By posting nonsense like this you show that you really don't understand the theory at all. Your understanding of it is still on a "crocoduck" level

In fact, that's probably more sad than funny given all the information and explanations you've received. As I said, ignorance at its best

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by ILikeStars

 

I wonder how long it will be and what changes are going to take place before people wise up and realize that adaptation is NOT part of evolution and that evolution is just a made up word that has no significance. Flooding people with hypothesis that have no basis and no proof doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Evolution fails the litmus for test to know if its a scientific theory, which is no big shocker. You can't see it, you can't test it, you can't recreate it, you can't predict it, and you can't trace it. These are things that would be necessary to determine if something is a scientific theory or not.

Not to be confused with the fact that there is adaptation found in viruses and bacteria, but adaptation has no proof with evolution, even in the wiki of the definition, its just conveniently added to the term with no basis of proof.

Wow you're lying out of your ass

Adaptation leads to a change in allele frequency in genes, and that's a FACT...and also the very definition of evolution. Get that in your brainwashed head!! Evolution is a change in allele frequency and that's caused through adaptation.

Of course you've been told that before...so I won't be surprised if I catch you using the same lie again a few posts later. Your quest to dumb down people on this board is relentless...just like that of any fundamentalist preacher who doesn't care about logic, rationality and facts.

reply to post by MrXYZ

By posting nonsense like this you show that you really don't understand the theory at all. Your understanding of it is still on a "crocoduck" level

In fact, that's probably more sad than funny given all the information and explanations you've received. As I said, ignorance at its best

And rather than produce proof that adaptation is part of evolution, you decided to side step the question by calling me ignornt.

Wow you're lying out of your ass

Adaptation leads to a change in allele frequency in genes, and that's a FACT...and also the very definition of evolution. Get that in your brainwashed head!! Evolution is a change in allele frequency and that's caused through adaptation.

Of course you've been told that before...so I won't be surprised if I catch you using the same lie again a few posts later. Your quest to dumb down people on this board is relentless...just like that of any fundamentalist preacher who doesn't care about logic, rationality and facts.

If I'm lying, you should have no problem proving me wrong, instead you choose to just call me a liar and claim I'm dumbing people down, so I have heard your opinion, where is your proof?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Of course, its common sense.

Along with never supplying evidence or answers you show no connection or ability to use common sense.

By admitting you believe a species would evolve and find it had no food is proof positive you have no idea of what evolution explains which is shocking with the amount of information you have had spoon fed you, living up to my analogy of you being a fart in an echoe chamber and it looks to me you followed through.

This diet is clearly a phase one diet with an alternate diet shown as to what happens when that diet is not avaiable, being phase two.

Your made up nonsense is just one more flushed turd in the sewer. It just adds to amount of $hit you have already flushed.

Give a complete description of the three phases before using them in a post to me.

Then why is it that most species aren't recognized for this event?

Despite your infantile use of the English language go and read my post again. It is A KNOWN FACT that young learn from their parents. Maybe not in your case obviously. You have never learned anything.

Well which is it, your contradicting yourself, are we taught what to eat or do we experiment?

Why does it have to be an either or? Its BOTH. Are you so shut down you cannot grasp that either?

And I would like to see mass proof of either or both.

You have been spoon fed that. Time for you to provide proof, to back up your dismissals with evidence.

Nope the reason we cook food is to kill germs because it was not our intended food to begin with.

Showing again your abject ignorance. We have been cooking much longer than we have known what germs are. The likely reason for cooking is forraging for food after a brush fire and enjoying the taste.

I have shared the details enough times colin, I'm not going to play the colin repeat game.

Then stop lying about providing proof. You have not. All you ever reply with is you opinions. Farts in an echoe chamber.

I have given plenty of proof, the squirrel diet is proof of two phases of hunger.

See what I mean another one of your turds offered with no support. It's brown, flush it down.

There is no basis for your argument, evolution made the claim first, you prove it.

To cowardly to put your evidence where your mouth is. So typically you.

Like I said, a creator could have done it, and just because you don't accept that as an option doesn't mean its not possible

Again more toothy turds. You cannot explain diversity, evolution can and does and has the evidence in abundance.

BTW fantasy is not common in ancient history books.

What history books?

You have no basis for dismissing such documents except for the fact that you are not accepting or understanding the definition of the word supernatural.

If your so called history book is based on the supernatural then it is not a history book. IT IS A FANTASY.

It doesn't matter what you believe in, if you think this happens so slowly that it is not noticable, a human would still have to evolve into something else. Slow enough to not see and slow enough for the changes to not be rejected

Jesus wept how many times do you need to be told. No species evolves into something else they just evolve. Small changes over time selected for by the environment.

NOTHING CHANGES INTO SOMETHING ELSE

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I am absolutely awestruck by the human mind's inability to bridge the gap between science and the etheric. For them, it has to be ONE, or the OTHER.

Did it EVER occur to evolutionists or creationists that God could create organisms that would live, survive, and adjust over time with changing conditions and currents? Did this EVER pop into anyone's minds at all? Even once???

Or...are all creationists just simply sold to the idea that God was limited in its capacity to create a self governing, evolving system that could last for any duration of time that it chose?

Are evolutionists so LOST that they can't see the intelligence behind the art of this creation in which we reside?

Someone created this, and just like the chameleon, the creation evolves and adapts to changing conditions just like anything else.

END OF STORY. Pretty simple stuff actually...

reply to post by itsthetooth


I didn't side step the answer!!! Just a few posts ago I posted the definition of evolution, showing that it's a CHANGE IN ALLELE FREQUENCY IN GENES. I then posted a link that shows adaption leads to a change in allele frequency. It's the official definition tooth, just because you don't like it because your clown religion doesn't agree doesn't mean it's not proven

Even after all those pages I'm still surprised at your display of ignorance. You are like the anti-ATS mascot

Oh, and btw, we HAVE proven that you're a liar. It's just that every time we post links to scientific articles proving you wrong, you simply go "where's the proof" just a few posts later...completely ignoring the proof that had been posted. It's really clownish behavior, and I pity you for not being able to cope with reality

Originally posted by Serenity777
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I am absolutely awestruck by the human mind's inability to bridge the gap between science and the etheric. For them, it has to be ONE, or the OTHER.

Did it EVER occur to evolutionists or creationists that God could create organisms that would live, survive, and adjust over time with changing conditions and currents? Did this EVER pop into anyone's minds at all? Even once???

Or...are all creationists just simply sold to the idea that God was limited in its capacity to create a self governing, evolving system that could last for any duration of time that it chose?

Are evolutionists so LOST that they can't see the intelligence behind the art of this creation in which we reside?

Someone created this, and just like the chameleon, the creation evolves and adapts to changing conditions just like anything else.

END OF STORY. Pretty simple stuff actually...

Of course. It is called involution and evolution. You are seeing evolution as a cause when it is a result. Involution and Evolution

reply to post by EnochWasRight


And that's your belief...and not a FACT.

We don't know how first life started, so all you're doing is filling that gap in knowledge with magic...just like members of other religions who all claim "their religion" is the right one. None of them presents any objective evidence to support their claims...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

And that's your belief...and not a FACT.

We don't know how first life started, so all you're doing is filling that gap in knowledge with magic...just like members of other religions who all claim "their religion" is the right one. None of them presents any objective evidence to support their claims...

Science fills the gap. God already stated the axioms.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Science fills those gaps by analysing facts and objective evidence...correct.

The second part of your statement is once again your "belief", you haven't presented any facts or objective evidence to back up that claim.

That's ok of course...as long as you don't start claiming that belief is somehow a proven truth

reply to post by colin42

Along with never supplying evidence or answers you show no connection or ability to use common sense.

Well then you should have been paying more attention in the beginning because I told you I'm not going to play the colin repeat game.

By admitting you believe a species would evolve and find it had no food is proof positive you have no idea of what evolution explains which is shocking with the amount of information you have had spoon fed you, living up to my analogy of you being a fart in an echoe chamber and it looks to me you followed through.

It makes no sense that a species evolves into accepting a food type if that food type is also evolving, how would it keep up? It's obviously another made up hypothesis.

Your made up nonsense is just one more flushed turd in the sewer. It just adds to amount of $hit you have already flushed.

Give a complete description of the three phases before using them in a post to me.

Your opinion is greatly appreciated but the fact is target food, and the three phases of hunger still appear to exist, and if you honestly believe they don't, then why don't you explain why these things are the way that they are? Is it because it would obviously require admittance of intellgence somewhere along the line and evolution doesn't do that?

Despite your infantile use of the English language go and read my post again. It is A KNOWN FACT that young learn from their parents. Maybe not in your case obviously. You have never learned anything

Thats a crock, the last 150 wiki species I looked up said nothing about the parent teaching the young how to eat. Even if your correct it couldn't be more than 1 to 10% of the population, where is your proof?

Why does it have to be an either or? Its BOTH. Are you so shut down you cannot grasp that either?

Because if we experimented to locate food, that would first of all be listed in the description of the species, and its not, but it would also explain the lack of the need for the parent to teach the young what to eat, so which is it, and where is your proof, I understand at this point your voicing your opinion as you haven't proven anything.

You have been spoon fed that. Time for you to provide proof, to back up your dismissals with evidence.

I allready have, the wikis I presented said NOTHING about both an experimental phase of food searching or that parents teach thier young what to eat. So as usual your wrong in both cases, and if you feel I'm wrong, lets see several wikis where parents teach thier young, lets see several wikis where ther is this so called experimental phase.

Showing again your abject ignorance. We have been cooking much longer than we have known what germs are. The likely reason for cooking is forraging for food after a brush fire and enjoying the taste.

Which proves my fact even more, as long as we have been here.

Then stop lying about providing proof. You have not. All you ever reply with is you opinions. Farts in an echoe chamber.

I'm not going to cater to your ADD problem, if you missed it the dozen or so times I shared it, thats your fault. Your welcome to look up ANY wiki to see that I'm right, there is no experimental stage for food and there is very few cases of adults teaching young how to eat.

See what I mean another one of your turds offered with no support. It's brown, flush it down

And still it stands, you can't hide the facts.

To cowardly to put your evidence where your mouth is. So typically you

The burden of proof is upon YOU, as evolution made the claim first, are you going to man up and defend it, or continue to side step the question like you always do?

Again more toothy turds. You cannot explain diversity, evolution can and does and has the evidence in abundance.

Evolution has never proven diversity, thats a laugh, and its impossible since you can't prove the steps in evolution, I suggest you get into something more scientific that can actually be tested and anylized, but more importantly something that can be proven. If evoution were a scientific theoy, you and I would not be having this conversation, but its not.