"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[-57]

And so we apparently conclude this thread with nobody able to think of a reason to believe that life itself is so complex that the underlying reality of nature (nature's god) could not have caused it to evolve.

Post 3

 

[doubtingmerle]

Post 3

Post 4 through 1101.

 

[-57]

Post 4 through 1101.

There is NOTHING in nature that has been show to be able to create a code of such sophistication that it can create and add information to it.

The only thing that can create such a code is intelligence.....a process of trial and error via a random process that contains very, very few so-called beneficial mutations has not been shown to be possible. It is strictly your assumption that it can.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is false. Multiple mutations have been shown to be beneficial. They create new features that did not exist before. You were told this earlier. You simply ignored it. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/ AND http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html .

 

[-57]

That is false. Multiple mutations have been shown to be beneficial. They create new features that did not exist before. You were told this earlier. You simply ignored it. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931526/ AND http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html .

The first link only provided a theory. It never showed how a code can come about through evolutionism.
The second link used bacteria for the most part and didn't show any evolution of a new body part, appendage, system or organ. No macro-evolutionism.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The second link used bacteria for the most part and didn't show any evolution of a new body part, appendage, system or organ. No macro-evolutionism.

Moving the goal posts, huh?

Your claim was that mutations cannot add new information. That is wrong. The link that I provided shows multiple instances where the genetic code was modified in a way that made the organisms superior to a particular situation.

Now your claim is that there is no macro-evolution. Macro-evolution takes time. Small changes over hundreds of thousands of generations results in big changes.

And macro-evolution has many evidences, including the fossil record. For instance:

That's clear evidence that macro-evolution happened. How do you explain this chart?

 

[SteveB28]

Moving the goal posts, huh?

Your claim was that mutations cannot add new information. That is wrong. The link that I provided shows multiple instances where the genetic code was modified in a way that made the organisms superior to a particular situation.

Now your claim is that there is no macro-evolution. Macro-evolution takes time. Small changes over hundreds of thousands of generations results in big changes.

And macro-evolution has many evidences, including the fossil record. For instance:

That's clear evidence that macro-evolution happened. How do you explain this chart?

The 'moving the goalposts' ploy is a common one for the average dishonest creationist. Unable to effectively refute a particular piece of evidence, they rush on to their next point, obviously hoping that no one will notice that they failed to address the previous one.

It's laughable.......

 

[SteveB28]

There is NOTHING in nature that has been show to be able to create a code of such sophistication that it can create and add information to it.

Except for an imperfect process of reproduction, of course..........for which we have mountains of evidence!

 

[-57]

Moving the goal posts, huh?

Your claim was that mutations cannot add new information. That is wrong. The link that I provided shows multiple instances where the genetic code was modified in a way that made the organisms superior to a particular situation.

Now your claim is that there is no macro-evolution. Macro-evolution takes time. Small changes over hundreds of thousands of generations results in big changes.

And macro-evolution has many evidences, including the fossil record. For instance:

That's clear evidence that macro-evolution happened. How do you explain this chart?

Imagination is how i explain the chart.


Here's more macro-evolution.

So, when will you show how mutations can add information?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Imagination is how i explain the chart.

Wait. Hundreds of scientist have made many discoveries of over a dozen genera of horse fossils, most with multiple species and multiple finds of each species. Many bones have been dated and found to be in the fossil record at the date ranges shown. So we have a chart summarizing the findings of hundreds of scientists. And you think every one of these scientists is just making it up!!!! You think hundreds of scientists are just making things up that they imagine!!

ROFL!

And scientists just make up that water is H20?

And they just make up that the sun is 93 million miles away? That is all that science is? Just a bunch of lies from people with good imaginations!!!

ROFL! How could so many people have been involved in this giant conspiracy of which you speak!!!!

So, when will you show how mutations can add information?

Simple. Mutations change the DNA. DNA is used to make RNA that decodes to make proteins. Mutations in the DNA make minor changes in the amino acids that form proteins, which makes minor changes in the way proteins fold, which makes minor changes in the way they process reactions, which makes minor changes in the components in the cells, which makes minor changes in the amounts of proteins created, which together makes minor changes to the way cells work, which makes minor changes to the way cells organize together, which makes minor changes in the shape and function of the organism. Thus minor changes in the DNA make minor changes in the organism. Any change in the DNA is a change in the information that makes the organism.

Most organisms have many minor changes spread throughout the various members of the species. If a particular trait is favored, those DNA sequences that best meet these characteristics are favored, and that DNA spreads. Soon members appear with multiple DNA sequences all favoring a certain change. The effect can amplify to make a major change. Multiple major changes then favor those members even more. Continued mutations add to the effect, and over time a new species develops with the information for a radically changed feature of that organism.

 

[SteveB28]

Wait. Hundreds of scientist have made many discoveries of over a dozen genera of horse fossils, most with multiple species and multiple finds of each species. Many bones have been dated and found to be in the fossil record at the date ranges shown. So we have a chart summarizing the findings of hundreds of scientists. And you think every one of these scientists is just making it up!!!! You think hundreds of scientists are just making things up that they imagine!!

ROFL!

And scientists just make up that water is H20?

And they just make up that the sun is 93 million miles away? That is all that science is? Just a bunch of lies from people with good imaginations!!!

ROFL! How could so many people have been involved in this giant conspiracy of which you speak!!!!


Simple. Mutations change the DNA. DNA is used to make RNA that decodes to make proteins. Mutations in the DNA make minor changes in the amino acids that form proteins, which makes minor changes in the way proteins fold, which makes minor changes in the way they process reactions, which makes minor changes in the components in the cells, which makes minor changes in the amounts of proteins created, which together makes minor changes to the way cells work, which makes minor changes to the way cells organize together, which makes minor changes in the shape and function of the organism. Thus minor changes in the DNA make minor changes in the organism. Any change in the DNA is a change in the information that makes the organism.

Most organisms have many minor changes spread throughout the various members of the species. If a particular trait is favored, those DNA sequences that best meet these characteristics are favored, and that DNA spreads. Soon members appear with multiple DNA sequences all favoring a certain change. The effect can amplify to make a major change. Multiple major changes then favor those members even more. Continued mutations add to the effect, and over time a new species develops with the information for a radically changed feature of that organism.

He has to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist, because what is his alternative? To face the facts?

 

[doubtingmerle]

what is his alternative? To face the facts?

So it would seem. That appears to be the alternative.

 

[-57]

Wait. Hundreds of scientist have made many discoveries of over a dozen genera of horse fossils, most with multiple species and multiple finds of each species. Many bones have been dated and found to be in the fossil record at the date ranges shown. So we have a chart summarizing the findings of hundreds of scientists. And you think every one of these scientists is just making it up!!!! You think hundreds of scientists are just making things up that they imagine!!

1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed 'earliest' horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where 'both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus'.1 In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: 'Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.' Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?
   
   
2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.
   
   
3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly 'intermediate' stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.
   
   
4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.
   
   ref
   
   I wouldn't brag about your horse evolutionism.

 

[-57]

Simple. Mutations change the DNA. DNA is used to make RNA that decodes to make proteins. Mutations in the DNA make minor changes in the amino acids that form proteins, which makes minor changes in the way proteins fold, which makes minor changes in the way they process reactions, which makes minor changes in the components in the cells, which makes minor changes in the amounts of proteins created, which together makes minor changes to the way cells work, which makes minor changes to the way cells organize together, which makes minor changes in the shape and function of the organism. Thus minor changes in the DNA make minor changes in the organism. Any change in the DNA is a change in the information that makes the organism.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1474449713049-1'); });
Most organisms have many minor changes spread throughout the various members of the species. If a particular trait is favored, those DNA sequences that best meet these characteristics are favored, and that DNA spreads. Soon members appear with multiple DNA sequences all favoring a certain change. The effect can amplify to make a major change. Multiple major changes then favor those members even more. Continued mutations add to the effect, and over time a new species develops with the information for a radically changed feature of that organism.

I had to chuckle a little bit...you shot yourself in the foot.

Your string of minor changes must be exact....see post 3. Secondly for an organism to evolve a simple system these exact minor changes must occur over and over again...which is impossible.

Evolutionism fails.

 

[Speedwell]

I had to chuckle a little bit...you shot yourself in the foot.

Your string of minor changes must be exact....see post 3.

They don't have to be exact--selection takes care of it.

Secondly for an organism to evolve a simple system these exact minor changes must occur over and over again...which is impossible.

Sounds like the "hindsight fallacy." The only thing that needs to happen in evolution is the very next step.

 

[-57]

They don't have to be exact--selection takes care of it. Sounds like the "hindsight fallacy." The only thing that needs to happen in evolution is the very next step.

I disagree. The post said "minor changes in the way proteins fold," The change has to be exactly right. Kinda like a lock and key....

Keep in mind that it takes more than one mutation to make a simple system. The additional mutations in the species progeny must occur in the right place and at the right time. Those little extremely rare so-called beneficial mutations must change the DNA in such a way that if it were possible future mutations could add to the previous....and do this over and over again....many. many times.

The evolutionist DON'T have a means of doing this.

Post 3.

 

[SteveB28]

Keep in mind that it takes more than one mutation to make a simple system. The additional mutations in the species progeny must occur in the right place and at the right time. Those little extremely rare so-called beneficial mutations must change the DNA in such a way that if it were possible future mutations could add to the previous....and do this over and over again....many. many times.

The evolutionist DON'T have a means of doing this.

Post 3.

Evolution isn't "making" anything. It has no plan 'in mind'. You are blinded by your obsession with 'design' and, as Speedwell correctly points out, committing the fallacy of trying to make a hindsight 'prediction'.

 

[doubtingmerle]

-57,

You really should read up on horse evolution. Here, for instance: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed 'earliest' horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils.

Huh? The chart is based on where the fossils are found. The "earliest horse", hyracotherium, is always found in rocks over 50 million years old. If you know of one that was found recently, please document it.

O. C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where 'both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus'.1

Did you even look at the chart? It shows there was a line of horses with 3 toes well up into the sequence. Some had 1 toe, some had 3.

Move on folks, nothing to see in that paragraph.

In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: 'Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.' Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

Got me there. Since horse evolution is based on just two fossils, that isn't much to go on. Oh wait, actually there are many fossils. More than a dozen genera, mulitple species in most genera, multiple fossils in most species. Many, many fossils. You were told that last post. You just ignored it. See also http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm .

There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

Wrong. They are all in North America until the very end of the sequence where the horses cross a land bridge into Asia. Most of the major genera are found in Florida alone.

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly 'intermediate' stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

Random changes. Next question.

Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

Read the links I posted. It has nothing to do with ponies growing into Clydesdales. There are many other things changing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't.

But we do!

As I explained, the fossil record has been confirmed by thousands of people making many finds, all of which are carefully documented with an amazing consistency. I too was once a young earth creationist, but I was cured by a trip to the library. Reading sources like your link, it is easy to think that charts like the horse chart above are made up. But go to a research library, and find the shelves of primary research on evolution. As you read the pages of specific claims about specific finds at specific places with specific dates, it becomes hard to believe that all of this could possibly just by people making things up and writing them down.

 

[SteveB28]

But we do!

As I explained, the fossil record has been confirmed by thousands of people making many finds, all of which are carefully documented with an amazing consistency. I too was once a young earth creationist, but I was cured by a trip to the library. Reading sources like your link, it is easy to think that charts like the horse chart above are made up. But go to a research library, and find the shelves of primary research on evolution. As you read the pages of specific claims about specific finds at specific places with specific dates, it becomes hard to believe that all of this could possibly just by people making things up and writing them down.

Well done sir...!

You obviously possess the courage that so many of our creationist neighbours lack.....to face the facts!