Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,190 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,570,402
Pageviews Today: 1,960,632Threads Today: 284Posts Today: 5,172
06:40 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

 
De_Dutch

User ID: 71586647
Netherlands
08/06/2018 05:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Evolution is only a theory not a fact. Climate change is a stupid term for natural atmospheric patterns.
 Quoting: FlashBuzzkill



Yep, just like gravity is a theory.
bump
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/06/2018 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


The ERV still has genetic material, right?

I believe you are confusing amino acids with nucleic acids. They are not the same.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


ERVs contain the retrovirus genes GAG POL ENV. As well as the Long Terminal Repeats, LTRs, which are formed during reverse transcription, the process retroviruses use to make a DNA copy of their RNA genome. The LTRs are both sides of the ERVs, just like they see today when todays retroviruses do the same thing.

The 2 LTRs in each ERV have to be completely, 100% identical at the time of insertion. So when they look at the LTRs in each ERV, they are able to see the how old the ERVs are compared to the other ERVs. The more divergence of the mutations between the 2 LTRs in each ERV shows how old they are compared to the other pairs of LTRs in the other ERVs.

The more divergence of the LTRs, the older they are, the more mutation difference between each LTR in each ERV. When they look at the same LTRs in multiple species, it shows how closely related the species are. Since the LTRs are more identical in chimps with humans, than with gorillas and humans, they know chimps and humans are more closely related than with gorillas and humans. And that gorillas and humans are more closely related than with old world monkeys and humans. It shows chimps and humans share a common ancestor more recently than with gorillas and humans.

This proves evolution as it is impossible for humans and chimps to share ERVs without evolution, as ERVs are retrovirus insertions and that they KNOW they are retrovirus insertions due to the LTRs which are formed during reverse transcription, the process retroviruses use to make a DNA copy of their RNA genome. And that, they contain retrovirus genes..
 Quoting: Kakarot_


This is the old tired argument of common design vs common descent.

Once you are able to show that genetic material can arise magically from a few non-chiral amino acids, then come back and say evolution is possible. Until then you still have nothing.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


This is not common design, these are retrovirus insertions. They KNOW they are insertions, not from an original design. They see the exact same thing still happening today in person. LTRs form during reverse transcription. All the ERVs have LTRs both sides of the ERVs. They see the same thing happening today with todays retroviruses. It is literally the best single evidence of evolution. Humans and chimps share 99.9% (203,000 insertions) of their ERVs in the exact same position with the exact same mutations, you have to be mentally retarded to reject it. Retroviruses insert into 1 of 3 billion places, this ERV will stay in that same position generation after generation and that is what we see in all the apes. It is impossible for there to be no evolution/common descent.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


You can repeat this all you want, but its still the same argument of common design vs common descent.

If you want to get technical about this, these ERVs were predicted by the creation model, and it destroyed the evolutionary molecular biology model that there was 'junk DNA'.

Linda Walkup, a creationist molecular biologist, predicted back in 2000 that transposable elements would have been created to enable variation within the kinds.

Meanwhile mainstream science was still calling it 'junk DNA'. Now you are acting like this is something that helps the evolution model, which is false.
seadog 36

User ID: 76809044
United States
08/06/2018 03:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Evolution is more philosophy than science
 Quoting: 589


Its wistful thinking.
 Quoting: Asmodée


it's a elegant explanation for how
all this marvelous life flourished.
Harry The Dog

User ID: 52680061
United States
08/06/2018 04:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Evolution is more philosophy than science
 Quoting: 589


Its wistful thinking.
 Quoting: Asmodée


it's a elegant explanation for how
all this marvelous life flourished.
 Quoting: seadog 36


Might be an elegant explanation, but still doesn't explain ORIGINS.
seadog 36

User ID: 76809044
United States
08/06/2018 04:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Evolution is more philosophy than science
 Quoting: 589


Its wistful thinking.
 Quoting: Asmodée


it's a elegant explanation for how
all this marvelous life flourished.
 Quoting: seadog 36


Might be an elegant explanation, but still doesn't explain ORIGINS.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Chemistry.

einstein-duh11
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/06/2018 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


Its wistful thinking.
 Quoting: Asmodée


it's a elegant explanation for how
all this marvelous life flourished.
 Quoting: seadog 36


Might be an elegant explanation, but still doesn't explain ORIGINS.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Chemistry.

einstein-duh11
 Quoting: seadog 36


Cite something

How about the law of biogenesis which was demonstrated by Pasteur, do you not agree with that?

Last Edited by Expose ALL Shills on 08/06/2018 04:59 PM
seadog 36

User ID: 76809044
United States
08/06/2018 05:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


it's a elegant explanation for how
all this marvelous life flourished.
 Quoting: seadog 36


Might be an elegant explanation, but still doesn't explain ORIGINS.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Chemistry.

einstein-duh11
 Quoting: seadog 36


Cite something

How about the law of biogenesis which was demonstrated by Pasteur, do you not agree with that?
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


Relax. Let go.... Life is just another
mere phenomenon of Nature, live with it.
Asmodée

User ID: 76764840
United States
08/06/2018 05:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
it's a elegant explanation for how
all this marvelous life flourished.
 Quoting: seadog 36


You weren't there when my mother destroyed her breeding books. A lifetime's work. For nothing. Elegance looks nice in a glass case, out in the field it quickly breaks.
effectively mute
T-Man

User ID: 72722600
Netherlands
08/06/2018 05:29 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
gotta be crazy to believe we come from monkeys etc.. imo
TheLordsServant

User ID: 66404044
United States
08/06/2018 06:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
gotta be crazy to believe we come from monkeys etc.. imo
 Quoting: T-Man


Maybe just the ones who believe in evolution

horn2 horn2 horn2 horn2 horn2 horn2 horn2

chuckle laugh lol rofl 1rof1 lmao lolsign

einstein-duh11

mash-cheers5
I am but a humble Servant of the one True God.
mushufasa11

User ID: 76590430
Canada
08/06/2018 06:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Even if Darwinian evolution is indeed the general framework that more or less drives life/speciation, there will be intricacies that we humans cannot comprehend. Human's are not very good at context. The idea of change occurring over thousands or millions of years is very difficult to conceive. Nature is vast with many secrets and we have already been caught time and time again as being negligent to how interconnected all species are. Our sciences ultimately form man-made conclusions that are not "fact" or "truth" but rather speculative opinion.

That is to say it is as equally speculative as any other "theory" that man can conclude.

Can you live without having a belief in the matter? Should we not try to live in harmony with nature no matter what the theory?
 Quoting: mushufasa11


We have laws of science, such as the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis, etc

Evolution violates these laws

If you keep studying you will see that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned, and it could not have happened by random chance.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


These laws have held up and served our needs pretty well since being implemented in civilization. I would question whether these are universally built-in laws that were "discovered." Perhaps the universe does tend to behave this way for the most part, but there is probably more to the story.

I never said anything happened by random chance.

The dichotomy between random chance and creation is an example of taking data and arriving at an inevitably short-minded conclusion.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


They are called laws for a reason, not because they serve human needs.

We should be teaching Biogenesis in the schools as fact, not abiogenesis.

Evolution is a tax-funded religion and nothing more.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


That we call them laws, does not in fact make them real laws.

Biogenesis is an assumption based on observations and false, reductionist logic. We can not even clearly define what life is. Some would say everything in this universe is living; a perspective that would make "Biogenesis" semantically moot.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/06/2018 07:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


We have laws of science, such as the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis, etc

Evolution violates these laws

If you keep studying you will see that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned, and it could not have happened by random chance.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


These laws have held up and served our needs pretty well since being implemented in civilization. I would question whether these are universally built-in laws that were "discovered." Perhaps the universe does tend to behave this way for the most part, but there is probably more to the story.

I never said anything happened by random chance.

The dichotomy between random chance and creation is an example of taking data and arriving at an inevitably short-minded conclusion.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


They are called laws for a reason, not because they serve human needs.

We should be teaching Biogenesis in the schools as fact, not abiogenesis.

Evolution is a tax-funded religion and nothing more.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


That we call them laws, does not in fact make them real laws.

Biogenesis is an assumption based on observations and false, reductionist logic. We can not even clearly define what life is. Some would say everything in this universe is living; a perspective that would make "Biogenesis" semantically moot.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


All we observe is life coming from life. That is science.

Abiogenesis is not observed. That is not science.

You can play semantics all you like, it will not change what we observe.
mushufasa11

User ID: 76590430
Canada
08/06/2018 08:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


These laws have held up and served our needs pretty well since being implemented in civilization. I would question whether these are universally built-in laws that were "discovered." Perhaps the universe does tend to behave this way for the most part, but there is probably more to the story.

I never said anything happened by random chance.

The dichotomy between random chance and creation is an example of taking data and arriving at an inevitably short-minded conclusion.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


They are called laws for a reason, not because they serve human needs.

We should be teaching Biogenesis in the schools as fact, not abiogenesis.

Evolution is a tax-funded religion and nothing more.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


That we call them laws, does not in fact make them real laws.

Biogenesis is an assumption based on observations and false, reductionist logic. We can not even clearly define what life is. Some would say everything in this universe is living; a perspective that would make "Biogenesis" semantically moot.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


All we observe is life coming from life. That is science.

Abiogenesis is not observed. That is not science.

You can play semantics all you like, it will not change what we observe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


I wont argue with that, your syllogism is clear.

Where I am in some opposition is how much you equate observation with real truth.

I don't have the answer. But if its between strict creationism and evolution, I would go with neither.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/07/2018 01:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


They are called laws for a reason, not because they serve human needs.

We should be teaching Biogenesis in the schools as fact, not abiogenesis.

Evolution is a tax-funded religion and nothing more.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


That we call them laws, does not in fact make them real laws.

Biogenesis is an assumption based on observations and false, reductionist logic. We can not even clearly define what life is. Some would say everything in this universe is living; a perspective that would make "Biogenesis" semantically moot.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


All we observe is life coming from life. That is science.

Abiogenesis is not observed. That is not science.

You can play semantics all you like, it will not change what we observe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


I wont argue with that, your syllogism is clear.

Where I am in some opposition is how much you equate observation with real truth.

I don't have the answer. But if its between strict creationism and evolution, I would go with neither.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Help yourself, but let me try out some semantics with you friend:

If there are laws of science, then there must be a lawgiver.

If there are laws of logic, then there must be a lawgiver.

If there is an absolute standard for morality, God must be that standard, not man.

God bless
mushufasa11

User ID: 76590430
Canada
08/07/2018 03:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


That we call them laws, does not in fact make them real laws.

Biogenesis is an assumption based on observations and false, reductionist logic. We can not even clearly define what life is. Some would say everything in this universe is living; a perspective that would make "Biogenesis" semantically moot.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


All we observe is life coming from life. That is science.

Abiogenesis is not observed. That is not science.

You can play semantics all you like, it will not change what we observe.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


I wont argue with that, your syllogism is clear.

Where I am in some opposition is how much you equate observation with real truth.

I don't have the answer. But if its between strict creationism and evolution, I would go with neither.
 Quoting: mushufasa11


Help yourself, but let me try out some semantics with you friend:

If there are laws of science, then there must be a lawgiver.

If there are laws of logic, then there must be a lawgiver.

If there is an absolute standard for morality, God must be that standard, not man.

God bless
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


For me personally its difficult to give much weight to these statements.

It can be debated whether the "if" portions actually exist.

Since the statements are all contingent on metaphysical laws of logic existing, I wouldn't necessarily need to agree with the logical conclusions you are trying to make.

Not to say they are meaningless. They can still have meaning for those who happen to find meaning in them.

Language is the folly here in my opinion. It is invented by man and so are all of these ideas we assign names to (i.e. science, logic, morality).

There may be objective truth/God in the universe, but the facts/knowledge can not be manifested in language is where I am at right now.

Thanks for invoking my stream of consciousness.
Kakarot_

User ID: 76796294
Australia
08/07/2018 08:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


ERVs contain the retrovirus genes GAG POL ENV. As well as the Long Terminal Repeats, LTRs, which are formed during reverse transcription, the process retroviruses use to make a DNA copy of their RNA genome. The LTRs are both sides of the ERVs, just like they see today when todays retroviruses do the same thing.

The 2 LTRs in each ERV have to be completely, 100% identical at the time of insertion. So when they look at the LTRs in each ERV, they are able to see the how old the ERVs are compared to the other ERVs. The more divergence of the mutations between the 2 LTRs in each ERV shows how old they are compared to the other pairs of LTRs in the other ERVs.

The more divergence of the LTRs, the older they are, the more mutation difference between each LTR in each ERV. When they look at the same LTRs in multiple species, it shows how closely related the species are. Since the LTRs are more identical in chimps with humans, than with gorillas and humans, they know chimps and humans are more closely related than with gorillas and humans. And that gorillas and humans are more closely related than with old world monkeys and humans. It shows chimps and humans share a common ancestor more recently than with gorillas and humans.

This proves evolution as it is impossible for humans and chimps to share ERVs without evolution, as ERVs are retrovirus insertions and that they KNOW they are retrovirus insertions due to the LTRs which are formed during reverse transcription, the process retroviruses use to make a DNA copy of their RNA genome. And that, they contain retrovirus genes..
 Quoting: Kakarot_


This is the old tired argument of common design vs common descent.

Once you are able to show that genetic material can arise magically from a few non-chiral amino acids, then come back and say evolution is possible. Until then you still have nothing.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


This is not common design, these are retrovirus insertions. They KNOW they are insertions, not from an original design. They see the exact same thing still happening today in person. LTRs form during reverse transcription. All the ERVs have LTRs both sides of the ERVs. They see the same thing happening today with todays retroviruses. It is literally the best single evidence of evolution. Humans and chimps share 99.9% (203,000 insertions) of their ERVs in the exact same position with the exact same mutations, you have to be mentally retarded to reject it. Retroviruses insert into 1 of 3 billion places, this ERV will stay in that same position generation after generation and that is what we see in all the apes. It is impossible for there to be no evolution/common descent.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


You can repeat this all you want, but its still the same argument of common design vs common descent.

If you want to get technical about this, these ERVs were predicted by the creation model, and it destroyed the evolutionary molecular biology model that there was 'junk DNA'.

Linda Walkup, a creationist molecular biologist, predicted back in 2000 that transposable elements would have been created to enable variation within the kinds.

Meanwhile mainstream science was still calling it 'junk DNA'. Now you are acting like this is something that helps the evolution model, which is false.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


You realize some ERVs in humans are still active and causing diseases ?

And that there are shared ERVs in some humans but not every human ?

And that in the last 100 years, some Australian Koala populations have been infected by ERVs that have become fixed (the same ERV, in the same position) but not in all populations of Koalas? And that these ERVs are giving them cancer?

There are 26 families of ERVs in humans that have been discovered.

ERVs are proviruses.

ERVs have the genes LTR GAG POL ENV LTR, Retroviruses have the genes LTR GAG POL ENV LTR

Some specific retrovirus genes in ERVs have been co-opted by evolution in Humans, evolution predicted this as thats how evolution works. These have the same use the retroviruses used them for. This does not mean ERVs are functional, some genes in some ERVs have been co-opted, they are not functional ERVs. You don't want ERVs to be functional.

If ERVs are evidence of common design, why are retroviruses doing the same thing today even in humans? Why do they have the same genes as retroviruses? Why are they causing diseases?

Since LTRs HAVE to be identical at insertion, the pair of LTRs in ERVs can be used to date insertions. Paleovirologists use this method to date retrovirus insertions.

Last Edited by Kakarot_ on 08/07/2018 08:31 AM
Torchie

User ID: 74276477
United States
08/07/2018 10:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Well this will not be taught in high schools and universities anytime soon ... or even brought up for obvious reasons of questioning the collective
 Quoting: The Patriot Mind


oh it will
 Quoting: REYMEGA TRUTH


hope so
untying the shoelaces of the internet one post at a time

love tastes best from teal buckets

GIT in your STALL!

a Spark does not fall far from the Torchie
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/08/2018 01:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


This is the old tired argument of common design vs common descent.

Once you are able to show that genetic material can arise magically from a few non-chiral amino acids, then come back and say evolution is possible. Until then you still have nothing.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


This is not common design, these are retrovirus insertions. They KNOW they are insertions, not from an original design. They see the exact same thing still happening today in person. LTRs form during reverse transcription. All the ERVs have LTRs both sides of the ERVs. They see the same thing happening today with todays retroviruses. It is literally the best single evidence of evolution. Humans and chimps share 99.9% (203,000 insertions) of their ERVs in the exact same position with the exact same mutations, you have to be mentally retarded to reject it. Retroviruses insert into 1 of 3 billion places, this ERV will stay in that same position generation after generation and that is what we see in all the apes. It is impossible for there to be no evolution/common descent.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


You can repeat this all you want, but its still the same argument of common design vs common descent.

If you want to get technical about this, these ERVs were predicted by the creation model, and it destroyed the evolutionary molecular biology model that there was 'junk DNA'.

Linda Walkup, a creationist molecular biologist, predicted back in 2000 that transposable elements would have been created to enable variation within the kinds.

Meanwhile mainstream science was still calling it 'junk DNA'. Now you are acting like this is something that helps the evolution model, which is false.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


You realize some ERVs in humans are still active and causing diseases ?

 Quoting: Kakarot_


This not evidence of things getting magically better, per the religion of evolution.

It is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics, everything tends to decay. Including our genome.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/08/2018 01:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
The laws of science cannot be debated. They are called laws because it is all we observe. If someone were to disprove or falsify them, they would no longer be called laws.

Why not stick with what is observed? Why give any credit to a religion which says everything comes from nothing, and all life from a primordial soup?

Last Edited by Expose ALL Shills on 08/08/2018 01:33 PM
CtrlAltDelete

User ID: 76661416
United States
08/08/2018 01:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 73372097
United States
08/08/2018 02:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


Life begets life

If you want to believe otherwise help yourself, but that is not science. Its a religion.
CtrlAltDelete

User ID: 14923607
United States
08/08/2018 02:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


Life begets life

If you want to believe otherwise help yourself, but that is not science. Its a religion.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


Your platitude is meaningless.

Of course life begets life. And life begets different species as the need arises, finds a way.

You're going to talk to me about religion while you're arguing the magical creationist side?

gtfo5
Harry The Dog

User ID: 52680061
United States
08/08/2018 05:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEZZZZZZE. Provide just one example of a NEW species that we have OBSERVED evolving naturally from an existing species. Just one!
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 40190483
United States
08/08/2018 09:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


Life begets life

If you want to believe otherwise help yourself, but that is not science. Its a religion.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


Your platitude is meaningless.

Of course life begets life. And life begets different species as the need arises, finds a way.

You're going to talk to me about religion while you're arguing the magical creationist side?

gtfo5
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


Abiogenesis is a major tenet of evolution, maybe you need to study your religion further.
Kakarot_

User ID: 76796294
Australia
08/08/2018 11:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
And my largest frustration in any debate is how the subject matter gets framed.

Darwin's book was titled "The Origin Of Species." He postulated that evolution within a species somehow leads to THE CREATION OF NEW SPECIES. Over time we have all accepted that EVOLUTION is real. AND IT IS! Humans in sunny, hot environments are very different from humans in cold, sun-starved environments.

Evolution within species is undeniable; however, evolution as a means of explaining origins of new species is ludicrous.
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Fuck are you talking about?
We see new species developing all the time and we know how various different species arose over million of years.

Creationists say the dumbest things.

Why would you say something flat retarded?

lala
 Quoting: CtrlAltDelete


PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEZZZZZZE. Provide just one example of a NEW species that we have OBSERVED evolving naturally from an existing species. Just one!
 Quoting: Harry The Dog


Dog, Bear etc is not a scientific name. Its a generic name. The species of "Dog" is called Canis Lupus. Domestic dogs are a subspecies of Canis Lupus. There are 38 subspecies of Canis Lupus. The domestic dogs scientific name is Canis Lupus Familiaris. Speciation is not "Dog" speciating into "Cow". Evolution is gradual. Thats why you see in the fossil record dog-like fossils becoming dog fossils. Mammal-like fossils becoming mammals. Speciation means one population has genetically changed to the point they cannot reproduce with the other populations of that species, meaning it is a new species. This is macroevolution.
Kakarot_

User ID: 76796294
Australia
08/08/2018 11:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


This is not common design, these are retrovirus insertions. They KNOW they are insertions, not from an original design. They see the exact same thing still happening today in person. LTRs form during reverse transcription. All the ERVs have LTRs both sides of the ERVs. They see the same thing happening today with todays retroviruses. It is literally the best single evidence of evolution. Humans and chimps share 99.9% (203,000 insertions) of their ERVs in the exact same position with the exact same mutations, you have to be mentally retarded to reject it. Retroviruses insert into 1 of 3 billion places, this ERV will stay in that same position generation after generation and that is what we see in all the apes. It is impossible for there to be no evolution/common descent.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


You can repeat this all you want, but its still the same argument of common design vs common descent.

If you want to get technical about this, these ERVs were predicted by the creation model, and it destroyed the evolutionary molecular biology model that there was 'junk DNA'.

Linda Walkup, a creationist molecular biologist, predicted back in 2000 that transposable elements would have been created to enable variation within the kinds.

Meanwhile mainstream science was still calling it 'junk DNA'. Now you are acting like this is something that helps the evolution model, which is false.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


You realize some ERVs in humans are still active and causing diseases ?

 Quoting: Kakarot_


This not evidence of things getting magically better, per the religion of evolution.

It is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics, everything tends to decay. Including our genome.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


What........ I thought you said they were from God to make variation in species? They are just ancient retrovirus genes. Most of them have inactivation mutations which stops them from replicating. Some do not. That causes diseases. They KNOW the ERVs are from retrovirus origin due to the LTRs and lots of other ways, they are literal retrovirus genes, they are NOT from your god. ERVs are occurring in humans today, thats how retroviruses work.

If retroviruses insert into germline cells you now have an ERV. Some ERVs are shared between some humans but not everyone. If everyone that didn't have those new ERVs died then these ERVs would be fixed into the whole species of human.

Why would you think ERVs in humans are from God when you see them happening on their own in individuals? I know the reason, if people didn't say they support evolution you wouldn't care about them, you would think they are just from retrovirus insertions, you HAVE to say they are from god or it would debunk your religion even though it makes you look retarded. Thats how bad your beliefs are.

Last Edited by Kakarot_ on 08/08/2018 11:52 PM
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75409848
United States
08/09/2018 12:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


You can repeat this all you want, but its still the same argument of common design vs common descent.

If you want to get technical about this, these ERVs were predicted by the creation model, and it destroyed the evolutionary molecular biology model that there was 'junk DNA'.

Linda Walkup, a creationist molecular biologist, predicted back in 2000 that transposable elements would have been created to enable variation within the kinds.

Meanwhile mainstream science was still calling it 'junk DNA'. Now you are acting like this is something that helps the evolution model, which is false.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


You realize some ERVs in humans are still active and causing diseases ?

 Quoting: Kakarot_


This not evidence of things getting magically better, per the religion of evolution.

It is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics, everything tends to decay. Including our genome.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


What........ I thought you said they were from God to make variation in species? They are just ancient retrovirus genes. Most of them have inactivation mutations which stops them from replicating. Some do not. That causes diseases. They KNOW the ERVs are from retrovirus origin due to the LTRs and lots of other ways, they are literal retrovirus genes, they are NOT from your god. ERVs are occurring in humans today, thats how retroviruses work.

If retroviruses insert into germline cells you now have an ERV. Some ERVs are shared between some humans but not everyone. If everyone that didn't have those new ERVs died then these ERVs would be fixed into the whole species of human.

Why would you think ERVs in humans are from God when you see them happening on their own in individuals? I know the reason, if people didn't say they support evolution you wouldn't care about them, you would think they are just from retrovirus insertions, you HAVE to say they are from god or it would debunk your religion even though it makes you look retarded. Thats how bad your beliefs are.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


The religion of evolution runs counter to the laws of thermodynamics.

Conservation of matter, energy is violated by the big bang.

The evolutionist idea of everything getting magically better violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The magical idea of abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis.

Keep repeating your nonsensical argument about ERVs, you have been refuted by facts every time and all can see.
Kakarot_

User ID: 76796294
Australia
08/09/2018 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


You realize some ERVs in humans are still active and causing diseases ?

 Quoting: Kakarot_


This not evidence of things getting magically better, per the religion of evolution.

It is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics, everything tends to decay. Including our genome.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


What........ I thought you said they were from God to make variation in species? They are just ancient retrovirus genes. Most of them have inactivation mutations which stops them from replicating. Some do not. That causes diseases. They KNOW the ERVs are from retrovirus origin due to the LTRs and lots of other ways, they are literal retrovirus genes, they are NOT from your god. ERVs are occurring in humans today, thats how retroviruses work.

If retroviruses insert into germline cells you now have an ERV. Some ERVs are shared between some humans but not everyone. If everyone that didn't have those new ERVs died then these ERVs would be fixed into the whole species of human.

Why would you think ERVs in humans are from God when you see them happening on their own in individuals? I know the reason, if people didn't say they support evolution you wouldn't care about them, you would think they are just from retrovirus insertions, you HAVE to say they are from god or it would debunk your religion even though it makes you look retarded. Thats how bad your beliefs are.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


The religion of evolution runs counter to the laws of thermodynamics.

Conservation of matter, energy is violated by the big bang.

The evolutionist idea of everything getting magically better violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The magical idea of abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis.

Keep repeating your nonsensical argument about ERVs, you have been refuted by facts every time and all can see.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


There is this thing in the sky that is giving us energy called the Sun. The Sun has a few more billion years before it dies.


ERVs prove evolution/common descent, this is not debatable. Your only option now is to believe your god created evolution. If you reject ERVs are from retrovirus insertions it is the same as you rejecting cell theory or gravity, that is how good this evidence is.
Expose ALL Shills

User ID: 75423414
United States
08/09/2018 02:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
...


This not evidence of things getting magically better, per the religion of evolution.

It is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics, everything tends to decay. Including our genome.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


What........ I thought you said they were from God to make variation in species? They are just ancient retrovirus genes. Most of them have inactivation mutations which stops them from replicating. Some do not. That causes diseases. They KNOW the ERVs are from retrovirus origin due to the LTRs and lots of other ways, they are literal retrovirus genes, they are NOT from your god. ERVs are occurring in humans today, thats how retroviruses work.

If retroviruses insert into germline cells you now have an ERV. Some ERVs are shared between some humans but not everyone. If everyone that didn't have those new ERVs died then these ERVs would be fixed into the whole species of human.

Why would you think ERVs in humans are from God when you see them happening on their own in individuals? I know the reason, if people didn't say they support evolution you wouldn't care about them, you would think they are just from retrovirus insertions, you HAVE to say they are from god or it would debunk your religion even though it makes you look retarded. Thats how bad your beliefs are.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


The religion of evolution runs counter to the laws of thermodynamics.

Conservation of matter, energy is violated by the big bang.

The evolutionist idea of everything getting magically better violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The magical idea of abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis.

Keep repeating your nonsensical argument about ERVs, you have been refuted by facts every time and all can see.
 Quoting: Expose ALL Shills


There is this thing in the sky that is giving us energy called the Sun. The Sun has a few more billion years before it dies.


ERVs prove evolution/common descent, this is not debatable. Your only option now is to believe your god created evolution. If you reject ERVs are from retrovirus insertions it is the same as you rejecting cell theory or gravity, that is how good this evidence is.
 Quoting: Kakarot_


The sun also adheres to the laws of physics, unlike the religion of evolution.

An evolutionist must disregard the laws of science in order to propagate their religion. You have disregarded those laws here per the usual script.

Last Edited by Expose ALL Shills on 08/09/2018 02:27 PM
oldboy1979

User ID: 34264536
Belgium
08/09/2018 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: 500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
Where is DGN when you need him