Prove it or remove it challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

That's a good one!

I see that for you ignorance is bliss.

 

[Extraneous]

Speaking of arrogance; Extraneous thinks ToE has been refuted, but science won't admit this.

Oh, the ironing.

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.

 

[USincognito]

So what if a dog suddenly needed wings how woul it get them.

Then it would be out of luck because:
A. Beings don't decide when mutations they get and what changes happen to their phynotpe.
B. Because major character changes occur over many generations, not a single generation.
C. They sure as heck don't occur in an individual within their lifetime.

You really should try and learn something about evolution and all these questions you're asking aren't helping.

 

[Paterfamilia]

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

We don't lack the conventions. That's the point.

You are not talking about information, you are talking about the communication process.

One thing I am very impressed with as a newcomer to this site is the degree of cordial manners. I really appreciate that.

 

[JackRT]

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

 

[Extraneous]

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".

They cant even explain the human appendix, or DNA complexities, things they can actually observe. Why would you believe these things that cannot be observed?

 

[Paterfamilia]

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!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

 

[Extraneous]

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.

 

[Extraneous]

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?

More like junk Science. You call the DNA junk because you cant understand it, but the science is brilliant. ok

 

[HitchSlap]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

That's a good one!

I suppose it might be for some.

 

[USincognito]

ToE has already refuted itself.

Oh this should be good...

The assertions it made about junk DNA for example. that has been refuted.

A. You might want to read up on what ENCODE actually found.
B. Do you not grasp the difference between a provisional observation and a theory?

ToE still wont admit that is cannot explain mans origin through DNA however,

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.

{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.

I'll suggest again, you don't grasp the difference between a specific observation or proposition and a theory. You might want to fix that before accusing others of insulting your intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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!!

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.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

I wonder why cdesign proponentsists insist on using "information" when referring to biochemical processes*?







*rhetorical question

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Its not a question of "belief". Its about understanding the science (i.e. understanding reality as that is what science do, help us understand reality). That you lack education is not our problem.

 

[Paterfamilia]

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.

Does it explain why we have a chin? Ha ha can you?

 

[Extraneous]

That you lack education

No, thats a blessing it seems.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Wow. Just wow. This post should be embarrassing, but one would need a sense of shame to feel embarrassed.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, thats a blessing it seems.

You think ignorance is a virtue? Strange.

 

[USincognito]

Does it explain why we have a chin? Ha ha can you?

Member Since:Yesterday Messages:26​

I'm sorry, is there any reason that I should take your posts seriously?