The grand hoax of evolution: Seems Darwin didn't know about amino acids, dna, rna, ribosomes etc, or anything at all did he?

I've already answered plenty of your questions, now answer me. What observation have you made that demonstrates random, train wreck, runaway, horror movie, scientifical, Mr Darwin mutations cant improve precision, form, and observed, specific, individual, mechanical, mango functions?

"Mr Darwin mutations cant improve precision, form"
Very good, there never was a need to improve on perfection to begin with which is why the mindless mutation is good theory, reveals mindlessness. You really should defend your inexperienced, believe whatever your told vulnerability.

Insanely ironic. Ill ask again, what 'observational experience' demonstrates that run away, trainwreck blah blah mutations can't produce precision form and function?

Btw, bearing false witness is against the 10 commandments.

"mutations can't produce precision form and function?"
Very good, never been observed, probably never even tried in a laboratory, who can't think even that far ahead, ...duh..... Scrape a 1,000 piece perfect jigsaw puzzle off the table and throw the pieces up, until they randomly fall back down in perfect precision. If it doesn't work out try again, and again, and again.... for millions of years, after all time is on your side right, then you'll be.... experienced., and scientifically sane.

Last Edited by DGN on 03/27/2017 10:23 PM

DGN, provide evidence for your claim that random, train wreck, runaway mutations can't result in precision, form and function.

You said it takes little observational experience to understand this. Give me one observation to support your claim.

Cool video. How do you know that mutations can't produce precision form and function?

How do you know bowling balls can't stand pins up in exact order upon impact? What's to prevent that? Give it a try and stay there until you get it right.

I don't know that. How do you know mutations can't produce precision form and function? You can save time by admitting it's an assumption.

Hmmm... yeah I think you got me but....you know how a bomb blows a barn to smithereens? Well how can I prove that doesn't happen in reverse, every now and a million years?

You may not be able to, but that's not a reason to think it's possible. According to your worldview though, couldn't God make it happen?

The barn scenario isn't a good analogy for evolution. Neither is a tornado assembling a 747, bowling pins standing up or most of the other analogies Creationists give.

A better analogy would be if you take all the pieces of a barn and start putting them together in a random order. Only every time you place a part in the correct position you keep it there. Every time you place a part in the wrong position, you remove that part and try again.

Continuing this process long enough, wouldn't you eventually place all parts of the barn in the correct position?

A fine analogy of deliberate intelligent design and assembly.

Are you saying God placed parts at random and built humans through trial and error?

In my analogy the person placing the parts represents natural selection, discarding negative changes and keeping the viable changes.

Natural selection does not exist, species die off and nothing writes new DNA blueprints from thin air inventing a whole new species. Mr Darwin was not educated he was a sci-fy prankster having a fun one on the simpletons of that age.

As I explained, the presence of natural selection is incontrovertible. No body is saying DNA comes out of thin air. According to you it came from clay right?

What evolution theory says is that DNA changes occur across generations. Changes that decrease the chance of reproduction are less likely to make it to the next generation. Changes that increase the chance of reproduction are more likely to make it to the next generation. This is natural selection.
This insures that over time, changes are inclined towards adaption and the improvement of reproductive potential.

If an environment remains the same, a population can reach an optimal level of adaption. At this point, any change will decrease that optimal level of adaption, so the gene pool of the population will be encouraged to remain the same as it is.
If the environment changes, selection pressures can change, meaning that genetic changes that were once detrimental may become beneficial. This can cause the population to change in adaption to the new environment. If enough changes accumulate, this will produce a population that is so different to the original population, that those two populations would be incapable of breeding with each other. At this point, those two populations are by definition, separate species.

Once you have two separate species, their respective gene pools will no longer share changes, allowing them to evolve separately. Now they have the potential to become radically different from one another.

Now that you have reached the good old "well mutations did it", why don't you share 100 beneficial mutations that demonstrate this evotardism really is an existing process leading to novelty in an organism.

Can you admit that almost all mutations are bad? Can you admit that the rest of the mutations are neutral (ergo they are exactly the same copy)?

If you have any scientific proof of new information being added to a genome resulting in new functions, please do share.

By genetic shuffling due to coitus I presume you are stating that humans will give birth to new non-humans in the future?

Your critical thinking skills are severely lacking. Perhaps have a look at other worldviews and open your mind a bit, if that is at all possible.

You are the same guy that believes in eternal time and matter right? Again, whats holding you back to believe in other eternities?

If only you could express your beliefs without that many 'cans' and 'mays'.

Again, this is your defense of your monkey theory, naturalistic materialistic means created and will create everything. The end. I love science.

Gtfo

First, Wouldn't it be stupid to say a coin will land on heads rather than a coin may land on heads? Why wouldn't I say 'can' and 'may' if that's what I mean?

Why do you think that's a problem?

Second, the post wasn't intended to express my beliefs. I was explaining what evolution theory is, because DGN seems to have some misconceptions.
The post was not 'my defense' of evolution theory, it is a description of evolution theory. The fact that you don't know the difference would explain a lot about the way you form arguments.

First, how does one obtain a coin? Second, who or what creates and defines heads or tails? Third, coins created themselves... Fourth, coins confirm to the law of gravity, did the law of gravity create itself as well?

Do you want me to explain why may and can are stupid? Because the scientific method says so. If it's not repeatable, testable, observable and falsifiable, it is crap.

examples of crap:
I may find the cure for cancer.
I may win a million dollars.
I may have coitus with your mother.
I can have coitus with your sister.

Fun, charming, very entertaining, but crap.

What are you trying to explain about evolution theory? You are just using a way too many words to describe your 'i believe i am the offspring of a monkey theory' yet you seem afraid to honestly express your monkey belief, a shared trait with your fellow believers.

For the 4th time, I'm not going to go dig up 100 beneficial mutations for you. You claimed that there are none, and I've given you about 20. Find the rest yourself. Here are 5:

*The mutation 'CCR5-delta 32' in humans provides resistance to aids.
*Richard Lenski cultivated a strain of E Coli bacteria that developed a mutation enabling it to metabolize citrate.
*The mutant Apo-AIM gene found in a family in Italy gives them resistance to heart disease.
*A mutation found in the PCSK9 gene also gives people resistance to heart disease.
*A mutation found in the LRP5 gene has given a family in the Midwest bones that are much stronger than normal people.



No, I won't admit it because it's wrong. Most mutations are neutral (which does not mean they are they same copy, that doesn't even make sense).



A genome is a chain of nucleotides, right? Every nucleotide contains a pair of bases. Every animal on earth uses the same 4 bases, arranged in a different sequence and quantity. Mutations can shift, add, or subtract nucleotides. If this doesn't count as adding information, then tell me what would.



No, not even close to what I'm stating. I'm referring to Mendelian laws of inheritance.



I was raised a Christian. I've researched Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Kabbalah, Scientology and others. I probably know more about your religion than you do.



No, you're thinking of someone else.



What the **** are you talking about?



The scientific method doesn't say that at all you crazy moron! Science frequently deals in probability. There are entire fields of study dedicated to measuring the likelihood that something may or may not happen. Scientists rarely make claims of absolute certainty because the goal is to be objective and honest.



Awww, am I using too many words for you? Does it hurt your widdle head? Maybe go get a dictionary, then you'll be able to actually understand the topic you're trying to debate.

Here is some food for thought, so sit down and really think about it:

In Genesis we are told that Adam and Eve was first, and they had 3 sons......and we all come from them.


Now sit down and really think about it.

Small mutations can be harmless but cell replication failure is never beneficial, never been observed just claimed. Limited adaptation help with environmental changes but never rewrites a creatures DNA turning it into a bigger better species, only variety within the same.

Wrong, speciation has been observed. I'm getting tired of repeating this. Look it up yourself.

No species has ever turned into a different one, renaming varieties is part of professor Darwin's hoax, like finch beaks.


Last Edited by DGN on 03/28/2017 09:02 PM

So did one mutate into a female, you know like Eve?

Last Edited by DGN on 03/28/2017 08:31 PM

Yeah but the fun thing about DarwinScience is there are no genetic rules, like with Dr Seuss.


Last Edited by DGN on 03/28/2017 09:08 PM

And what do you base this on? I've explained what a species is and given you crystal clear examples of speciation. You can sit there all day saying something has never happened, that doesn't make it true. How do you know no species ever turned into another one?

Seems you have no choice but to believe it. If someone says prove it just say prove it didn't. live, die, be forgotten and blow away as dust in the wind, that's the essence of the Church of Evolution, strange anyone needs to defend that.


Last Edited by DGN on 03/28/2017 10:01 PM

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Didn't understand the question?