Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[rmwilliamsll]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...102350?ie=UTF8


It's so fun proving you guys so wrong so quickly.


i'm curious, did you actually read the book?
there is little to no evidence from your postings that:
1-you read it
2-you understand it.
3-you appear to be quoting secondary material, that is people who read the book talking about the book.

 

[AV1611VET]

You guys do know that scientists have concluded that evolution does not exist, by analyzing random diarrhea samples, don't you? They concluded that it's all in the jeans. The samples came from various participants.

 

[h2whoa]

You guys do know that scientists have concluded that evolution does not exist, by analyzing random diarrhea samples, don't you? They concluded that it's all in the jeans. The samples came from various participants.

Nah, in the end they decided that research was a load of crap that lacked any real substance...

 

[Mincus]

You guys do know that scientists have concluded that evolution does not exist, by analyzing random diarrhea samples, don't you? They concluded that it's all in the jeans. The samples came from various participants.

It would be nice if you'd post something relevant or not bother, please.

Some people are trying to take this forum seriously even if you're unwilling to.

 

[Gracchus]

It would be nice if you'd post something relevant or not bother, please.

Oh let AV1611VET alone. He is having so much fun playing with the stuff he found in his diaper. Let him believe he is impressing us. There is no way to stop him from believing it. I do think though, that he is much funnier when he isn’t trying so hard to be funny.

Some people are trying to take this forum seriously even if you're unwilling to.

Trying is not doing. This is a forum with JohnR7, dad, and supersport as well as AV1611VET et al. And you want to take them seriously? If they were my patients I might take them seriously. Since they are not, they are to laugh.

 

[notto]

all you acknowledge was that I was an idiot for not knowing that all genes code for proteins.

But actually...what is it??? 5%? LOL!

ALL genes code for proteins (by definition)
ALL genes are made of DNA (Duh!)
ALL DNA does not exist as genes. (only 5% does)

ALL dogs have fur
ALL dogs are mammals
ALL mammals are not dogs.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

ALL genes code for protien


there are at least some genes that encode for regulatory RNA sequences, these RNA molecules are not normally translated into proteins, but rather act as transcription factors on the regulatory areas of other genes.

see:
http://doegenomestolife.org/science/generegulatorynetwork.shtml
for example.

 

[notto]

ALL genes code for protien


there are at least some genes that encode for regulatory RNA sequences, these RNA molecules are not normally translated into proteins, but rather act as transcription factors on the regulatory areas of other genes.

see:
http://doegenomestolife.org/science/generegulatorynetwork.shtml
for example.

Thanks, just trying to clarify the error in logic by categorization that supersport is basing his conclusions on.

ALL genes are made of DNA (Duh!)
ALL DNA does not exist as genes. (only 5% does)

ALL dogs are mammals
ALL mammals are not dogs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh let AV1611VET alone. He is having so much fun playing with the stuff he found in his diaper.

Why, thank you, Gracchus

The next Pepto Bismol is on me!

 

[trunks2k]

Thanks, just trying to clarify the error in logic by categorization that supersport is basing his conclusions on.

ALL genes are made of DNA (Duh!)
ALL DNA does not exist as genes. (only 5% does)

ALL dogs are mammals
ALL mammals are not dogs.

English nit pick: if you take a literal reading of that the statments are contradictory. The bolded lines imply that NO DNA exist as genes, and that NO mammals are dogs. So before our creationist friend tries to jump on that, the better way to phrase it would be:

ALL genes are made of DNA (Duh!)
NOT ALL DNA exist as genes. (only 5% does)

ALL dogs are mammals
NOT ALL mammals are dogs.

and of course, my favorite:
ALL squares are rectangles.
NOT ALL rectangles are squares.

 

[supersport]

how does gradualistic neodarwinism explain this? I thought traits were related to specific genes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/24/national/a100226D49.DTL&feed=rss.news

 

[Tomk80]

all you acknowledge was that I was an idiot for not knowing that all genes code for proteins.

But actually...what is it??? 5%? LOL!

No, 5% of DNA. Don't you read your own sources.

DNA=/=genes.

Post number 316, where I said:

Regulating sequences. A little part of the DNA is genes, these genes encode for proteins. When the proteins are produced and in what amount is regulated by the regulatory regions of the DNA, which are before and after the genes. Fifth time I've said this now. Do you understand it this time, or do I have to repeat myself a sixth, seventh and eigth time, supporting my statements with the quotes you supply? I'll do it if necessary, but it is much easier if you just try to understand now.

What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[Tomk80]

how does gradualistic neodarwinism explain this? I thought traits were related to specific genes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/24/national/a100226D49.DTL&feed=rss.news

Explained in the link you give:

How can this be? Researchers focused on sperm, which is simpler to analyze than an egg, and found evidence that RNA molecules there were carrying the hereditary signal. For example, when RNA from mice bearing the aberrant gene was injected into early embryos, about half the resulting mice showed the distinctive white tail tip.

It's an interesting study, as apparantly not only DNA is passed on to the offspring, but in this case also RNA, which is a translator molecule between DNA and RNA. It is unexpected, yes. Groundbreaking even. But still completely in line with how evolution would function.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

how does gradualistic neodarwinism explain this? I thought traits were related to specific genes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/24/national/a100226D49.DTL&feed=rss.news

How can this be? Researchers focused on sperm, which is simpler to analyze than an egg, and found evidence that RNA molecules there were carrying the hereditary signal. For example, when RNA from mice bearing the aberrant gene was injected into early embryos, about half the resulting mice showed the distinctive white tail tip.

transcription factors.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

What the hell are we dealing with here, a 10 year old?

Actually, I am wondering myself but I think we are looking at a manic phase with delusions of grandeur. The alternative I think is the more consistant Quack and I don't exactly know how to characterise that.

 

[supersport]

http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan00/nr_jan00_visionrestored.html

Evidently the human brain can build new vision pathways if the old ones are destroyed by disease.

how do you evolutionists explain this if there is no intelligence in the genome?

 

[Lucretius]

http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan00/nr_jan00_visionrestored.html

Evidently the human brain can build new vision pathways if the old ones are destroyed by disease.

how do you evolutionists explain this if there is no intelligence in the genome?

It is the result of selection; obviously those whose brains allowed such things managed to survive. Besides if you read the whole article the eye that was unaffected by demylenating disease was still re-routed (though not to as full of an extent) through extra-occipital passageways. Why would the intelligent designer require the re-routing of an unaffected eye?

 

[birdan]

http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan00/nr_jan00_visionrestored.html

Evidently the human brain can build new vision pathways if the old ones are destroyed by disease.

how do you evolutionists explain this if there is no intelligence in the genome?

Geez, supersort, it's painfully obvious you have no idea what evolutionary theory says. Your "examples" don't even begin to make sense.

Hey, if one simply applies some heat, dough evolves into bread! Wow, how about that!

 

[supersport]

It is the result of selection; obviously those whose brains allowed such things managed to survive. Besides if you read the whole article the eye that was unaffected by demylenating disease was still re-routed (though not to as full of an extent) through extra-occipital passageways. Why would the intelligent designer require the re-routing of an unaffected eye?

Well the genome has 6 billion nucleotides...how many do you think NS would have had to sort through via survival of the fittest to accomplish this feat?

Get real; your theory is pathetic

 

[Lucretius]

Well the genome has 6 billion nucleotides...how many do you think NS would have had to sort through via survival of the fittest to accomplish this feat?

Get real; your theory is pathetic

A little angry are we? Is it because I provided an answer to your question?

Natural selection doesn't run through every little sequence in the genome, one at a time, until it finds one it dislikes and discards — if anything in the genome decreases the fitness of a creature, it will be selected against. I don't think you understand how natural selection works.