Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see that for you ignorance is bliss.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That's a good one!
Speaking of arrogance; Extraneous thinks ToE has been refuted, but science won't admit this.
Oh, the ironing.
So what if a dog suddenly needed wings how woul it get them.
Seriously, how hard is this to get? Information is not a thing. Information is a mathematical construct we read onto things. There is no inherent information in the phrase "Your house is on fire"; rather, we have social conventions that help us read the information into that phrase. If we lacked those conventions, then it would be utterly meaningless to us, but just like you can say that a computer chip is meaningful to
Actually, it was a dinosaur and a particular clade of dinosaurs who happened to be bipedal.
No, according to evolution, dogs will never regrow a wing because neither they nor any of their ancestors had wings.
I hope it's because you weren't paying close attention to what you wrote and missed the fact that you asked if dogs will ever "regrow a wing".
ToE has already refuted itself. The assertions it made about junk DNA for example. that has been refuted. ToE still wont admit that is cannot explain mans origin through DNA however, even though it doesnt even understand its complexities. How about its assertions concerning the human appendix? Was that not refuted as well? You would have me believe that although they were wrong about these things that they can actually see and observe, that they cannot possibly be wrong about things that happened millions of years ago, things they cannot see or observe? Dont insult my intelligence sir. Please , i know you just cant understand how science could be so fallible as to invent such a fallible and wrong theory, and teach it as if it were true, but that's whats going on here.
Sorry but they haven't. Project ENCODE hyped their project. They showed that more of DNA had some sort of function but they did not even crack 10% when it came to true functionality. Most "Junk DNA" is still "Junk DNA":
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/how-much-of-human-dna-is-doing-something/
But you don't even have to go to that article. I can refute the idea of "No Junk DNA" with fairly simple logic. First you need to answer this question: Are you more or less complex than an amoeba?
ToE has already refuted itself.
The assertions it made about junk DNA for example. that has been refuted.
ToE still wont admit that is cannot explain mans origin through DNA however,
{snip} Dont insult my intelligence sir. Please , i know you just cant understand how science could be so fallible as to invent such a fallible and wrong theory, and teach it as if it were true, but that's whats going on here.
But there is no actual communication with DNA. RNA simple builds the protein that follows from a sequence. There is no understanding of information at all.The second string has the exact same likelihood of occurance, but differs in that it's complexity is SPECIFIED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION.
How does this help your case, exactly? We know humans do this; who else? Are we aware of any being that specifies complexity in tightly-packed molecular structures? Do we have any reason to believe that DNA is "specified to communicate information", rather than simply a set of complex organic molecules with self-reproducing properties?
BAM!!
I wonder why cdesign proponentsists insist on using "information" when referring to biochemical processes*?But there is no actual communication with DNA. RNA simple builds the protein that follows from a sequence. There is no understanding of information at all.
The problem is that there is more than one definition for the word "information" and your weak attempt to make DNA different by hanging a couple of words so that you have a phrase is still a failure on your part. Your error is still an equivocation error.
Ok, im done, no more for me. If y'all want to believe they can teach things that happened millions of years ago, even though they cant even teach many things that happen in real time, then be my guest.
Why admit something that isn't true? Humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with our cousins the chimpanzee. We have evidence such as:
1. Chromosome 2
2. 203,000 shared ERVs
3. Greater similarity than any other sequenced species other than Neanderthals.
4. Specific genes that make us "human" such as SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B which MYH16 possibly explaining why we have a smaller jaw.
Look I know what you are saying ... I will use dogs as an example ... A dog starts to grow bone tissue in its side due to mutation. Over millions of years it is passed on slowly parts of the dog population get increased bone size. It turns out that this bone help the dog balance, so it is a better hunter. The trait gets passed on. Then another mutation occurs that gives the dog a swivel joint. The more I think about it the less sensible evolution is. Do you know how much complexity would be needed to form a wing, even by natural selection.
No, thats a blessing it seems.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?