What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[HitchSlap]

You're talking to a New Zealander here. I am a Jacinta man. As far as US politics is concerned I don't know who is a crook or not, so I don't place any bets on any of those horses!

They're all croo... er, politicians.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because the science seems to demand it. Deviations in DNA as little as .1% prevent any reproduction. The code has limits. That sort of limitation can't be random. You don't build in this capability for diversity and then turn it off sometime down the road. You must have designed it to be that way. And in order to have reproduction at all without extinction, given the rules of DNA, you have to have two compatible sexed pairs of any of the species. Any attempt to move from asexual to sexual utterly fails when you don't have a matched pair. A mammal doesn't reproduce without a male with a penis and female with a vagina and evolution would require that a parent mammal to be asexual and to have created a female and male, and that pair understand completely how they were to use these new untested organs. So the imperative had to also have been generated. Any mistake has the species go extinct. No do-overs. There is no time to get it right. One generation is all you get.

I call Poe.

 

[Paul James]

They're all croo... er, politicians.

I loved Rich Little's impression of Richard Nixon - "My fellow Americans!"

 

[Speedwell]

Because the science seems to demand it. Deviations in DNA as little as .1% prevent any reproduction. The code has limits. That sort of limitation can't be random. You don't build in this capability for diversity and then turn it off sometime down the road. You must have designed it to be that way. And in order to have reproduction at all without extinction, given the rules of DNA, you have to have two compatible sexed pairs of any of the species. Any attempt to move from asexual to sexual utterly fails when you don't have a matched pair. A mammal doesn't reproduce without a male with a penis and female with a vagina and evolution would require that a parent mammal to be asexual and to have created a female and male, and that pair understand completely how they were to use these new untested organs. So the imperative had to also have been generated. Any mistake has the species go extinct. No do-overs. There is no time to get it right. One generation is all you get.

Do you have any idea at all how bisexual reproduction actually evolved? You don't really think it happened in one generation, do you? And in mammals??? Of course not--you're not that dumb. But that means you didn't really answer my question; you just set up a straw man.

 

[HitchSlap]

I loved Rich Little's impression of Richard Nixon - "My fellow Americans!"

Then you'll love Alec Baldwin as Trumper.

 

[pitabread]

Deviations in DNA as little as .1% prevent any reproduction. The code has limits.

This isn't true, since wholesale chromosome duplication is quite common in certain types of organisms (e.g. plants).

And in order to have reproduction at all without extinction, given the rules of DNA, you have to have two compatible sexed pairs of any of the species. Any attempt to move from asexual to sexual utterly fails when you don't have a matched pair. A mammal doesn't reproduce without a male with a penis and female with a vagina and evolution would require that a parent mammal to be asexual and to have created a female and male, and that pair understand completely how they were to use these new untested organs.

This is also not true as a cursory examination of biological reproductive methods will reveal.

There are many organisms that engage in reproductive methods that are not strictly binary sexual reproduction. In fact, there are some organisms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

 

[pitabread]

I call Poe.

I'm wondering that, too.

In the News forum I had a similar encounter with this individual where they were posting completely incorrect stuff to do with statistics and economics.

So it makes me wonder if they're doing it on purpose just to troll the forums or if they just enjoy getting into arguments about subjects they know nothing about.

In fact, the latter could arguably be construed as an effective way to learn about a subject.

 

[Paul James]

Then you'll love Alec Baldwin as Trumper.

I watched the guy on Saturday Night Live doing Trump and he's just brilliant at it. I saw that both previous Presidents attended the Press Agency Dinners, but Trump wouldn't attend. Perhaps he can't laugh at himself the same as the other two. George W Bush loved it when Rich Little did an impression of him right there in front of him.

 

[Paul James]

I'm wondering that, too.

In the News forum I had a similar encounter with this individual where they were posting completely incorrect stuff to do with statistics and economics.

So it makes me wonder if they're doing it on purpose just to troll the forums or if they just enjoy getting into arguments about subjects they know nothing about.

In fact, the latter could arguably be construed as an effective way to learn about a subject.

Actually, that's true. I have learned a lot of valuable stuff about evolution since I started discussing it on these threads.

 

[HitchSlap]

I watched the guy on Saturday Night Live doing Trump and he's just brilliant at it. I saw that both previous Presidents attended the Press Agency Dinners, but Trump wouldn't attend. Perhaps he can't laugh at himself the same as the other two. George W Bush loved it when Rich Little did an impression of him right there in front of him.

Rich Little's impersonations were spot on.

Hallmark of narcissistic personalities is the inability to laugh at themselves.

 

[Paul James]

Rich Little's impersonations were spot on.

Hallmark of narcissistic personalities is the inability to laugh at themselves.

I know this is off-topic but I have been listening to our Prime Minister Jacinda Aderne dealing with the news media during her reports to them this last week, and saw how well she answered their questions - honestly and respectfully, and had the media right on her side all the way.

Then I saw a news conference with our cobber Don and how he was aggressive and accusative with them, and they with him, as if there is little respect one for the other.

For me the pudding is in the eating. We have the crisis under total control with new cases falling dramatically, while over there under Don's leadership it is still out of control in many areas.

But then I am looking from way down here through a telescope - probably the wrong way round!

 

[Al Touthentop]

Do you have any idea at all how bisexual reproduction actually evolved? You don't really think it happened in one generation, do you? And in mammals??? Of course not--you're not that dumb. But that means you didn't really answer my question; you just set up a straw man.

It had to happen in one generation or it didn't happen. Here's a fun exercise. Find any fossil where the species was asexual and then progressed to sexual.

"It's impossible to know from which of the reptiles the first mammals evolved."

Reptiles have penises and vaginas. At some point down the line they were asexual. Go back as far as you need to. The eggs have to be fertilized and the x and y chromosomes had to be separated in the male and female. That had to happen in a single generation or it didn't happen at all. Even in fish where the male covers the eggs outside the female's body, the male had to be given some sort of instructions that this was necessary, prior to this the process being asexual. It can't have been an accident or "natural selection" because again, if the first pair doesn't get it right, there are no subsequent pairs.

Then you have the problem of live birth. An egg contains all the ingredients to grow the offspring for it's entire "gestation period." To mess up even one part of the process of transition to a womb from an egg producing organ, is to extinct the species. Just think of the enormous change that it would take to go from a hard shell on an egg to embedding an tiny egg in the uterus ( an organ that didn't itself exist and which requires its own amazingly complex instructions to produce) and growing it to a survivable baby and then also the hormones and drugs required to make the mother push it out at the exact right time so that it could survive. She guesses wrong and its dead baby. Natural selection would never explain such a complex change even (especially) over time. You can't win that battle when none of the offspring make it to adulthood. There's no competition that would explain it. All of a sudden several offspring of the asexual parent have multiple reproductive mechanisms and the best one survives? It still requires a massive amount of change in a single generation even if that scenario were plausible.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Rich Little's impersonations were spot on.

Hallmark of narcissistic personalities is the inability to laugh at themselves.

Which is unfortunately true for many politicians. Ron Paul was targeted by Borat and he was remarkably polite throughout the entire ordeal. Even at the end he just muttered that the guy was crazy. Borat thought it would be funny to come on to Dr. Paul sexually.

 

[Speedwell]

It had to happen in one generation or it didn't happen. Here's a fun exercise. Find any fossil where the species was asexual and then progressed to sexual.

"It's impossible to know from which of the reptiles the first mammals evolved."

Reptiles have penises and vaginas. At some point down the line they were asexual. Go back as far as you need to. The eggs have to be fertilized and the x and y chromosomes had to be separated in the male and female. That had to happen in a single generation or it didn't happen at all. Even in fish where the male covers the eggs outside the female's body, the male had to be given some sort of instructions that this was necessary, prior to this the process being asexual. It can't have been an accident or "natural selection" because again, if the first pair doesn't get it right, there are no subsequent pairs.

Bisexual reproduction began to emerge 2 billion years ago--long before their were reptiles.

Then you have the problem of live birth. An egg contains all the ingredients to grow the offspring for it's entire "gestation period." To mess up even one part of the process of transition to a womb from an egg producing organ, is to extinct the species. Just think of the enormous change that it would take to go from a hard shell on an egg to embedding an tiny egg in the uterus ( an organ that didn't itself exist and which requires its own amazingly complex instructions to produce) and growing it to a survivable baby and then also the hormones and drugs required to make the mother push it out at the exact right time so that it could survive. She guesses wrong and its dead baby. Natural selection would never explain such a complex change even (especially) over time. You can't win that battle when none of the offspring make it to adulthood. There's no competition that would explain it. All of a sudden several offspring of the asexual parent have multiple reproductive mechanisms and the best one survives? It still requires a massive amount of change in a single generation even if that scenario were plausible.

The Hebrews could have used you in Egypt. But really, if you're going to argue against evolution, you ought to be arguing against what the theory actually claims, even if you think its just as wrong as this stuff you're making up.

 

[Al Touthentop]

This isn't true, since wholesale chromosome duplication is quite common in certain types of organisms (e.g. plants).



This is also not true as a cursory examination of biological reproductive methods will reveal.

There are many organisms that engage in reproductive methods that are not strictly binary sexual reproduction. In fact, there are some organisms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually.

This is a canard. The fact that there are amphibians that can switch sexes is only evidence of what is possible in that species. They don't require cooperative sex organs. Sexual reproduction in other species does. And there is nothing in the fossil record that indicates anything other than species that do things one particular way, not that we can see them transitioning over time.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Bisexual reproduction began to emerge 2 billion years ago--long before their were reptiles.

I said, go back as far as you want. You want to nitpick on a particular species or class, the problem remains. From asexual to sexual, from egg laying to live birth. They have to happen in one generation.

Mammals are said to have transitioned from egg laying to live birth if they indeed were descended from reptiles. There are some live-birthing lizards. They are in the reptile family but they also had to transition from egg-laying. There's no room for error.

 

[Speedwell]

I said, go back as far as you want. You want to nitpick on a particular species or class, the problem remains. From asexual to sexual, from egg laying to live birth. They have to happen in one generation.

Not if they did it both ways for a while.

Mammals are said to have transitioned from egg laying to live birth if they indeed were descended from reptiles. There are some live-birthing lizards. They are in the reptile family but they also had to transition from egg-laying. There's no room for error.

So you imagine. But the possibility of any kind of a transition period seems to elude you. It is interesting to observe that there are some reptile species even in the present which reproduce both ways.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know this is off-topic but I have been listening to our Prime Minister Jacinda Aderne dealing with the news media during her reports to them this last week, and saw how well she answered their questions - honestly and respectfully, and had the media right on her side all the way.

Then I saw a news conference with our cobber Don and how he was aggressive and accusative with them, and they with him, as if there is little respect one for the other.

For me the pudding is in the eating. We have the crisis under total control with new cases falling dramatically, while over there under Don's leadership it is still out of control in many areas.

But then I am looking from way down here through a telescope - probably the wrong way round!

I’d say your telescope is working just fine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the science seems to demand it. Deviations in DNA as little as .1% prevent any reproduction. The code has limits. That sort of limitation can't be random. You don't build in this capability for diversity and then turn it off sometime down the road. You must have designed it to be that way. And in order to have reproduction at all without extinction, given the rules of DNA, you have to have two compatible sexed pairs of any of the species. Any attempt to move from asexual to sexual utterly fails when you don't have a matched pair. A mammal doesn't reproduce without a male with a penis and female with a vagina and evolution would require that a parent mammal to be asexual and to have created a female and male, and that pair understand completely how they were to use these new untested organs. So the imperative had to also have been generated. Any mistake has the species go extinct. No do-overs. There is no time to get it right. One generation is all you get.

You need to support such claims with evidence. Just because you do not know how evolution would have occurred does not mean that it could not happen or that limitations in variation demands a designer. That is a logical fallacy called An Argument From Ignorance.

And a deviation of 0.1% would be massive. We do not need anything near that for evolution to occur. For example you have on the order of 100 mutations in your DNA. That is about average per generation per individual. Now that may not seem to be all that much, but evolution is a constant event and speciation on the order of 10,000 years would be very fast for advanced mammals.

Also evolution is a parallel process. It is not linear. That means that mutations are chosen from an entire population and not just one individual in a single line of decent. With a small population of only one million members of a population there would be on the order of 100 million mutations per generation. Throw in natural selection and time and evolution is inevitable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said, go back as far as you want. You want to nitpick on a particular species or class, the problem remains. From asexual to sexual, from egg laying to live birth. They have to happen in one generation.

Mammals are said to have transitioned from egg laying to live birth if they indeed were descended from reptiles. There are some live-birthing lizards. They are in the reptile family but they also had to transition from egg-laying. There's no room for error.

You would need to prove that. There appears to be plenty of room for error. Again this is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.