Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[Speedwell]

The diverse plants were there from the start. Algae didn't evolve into redwood trees.

An assertion with no evidence whatever--a conclusion arrived at with no data.

 

[VirOptimus]

There's one atheist poster here who has asked for proof, and not a peep from the academic elite here.

But let one of us mention it, and we don't understand science.

Go figure.

Your ignorance is very well supported, you even claim it yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only you are responsible for your posts.

It evolved (even though it's still a post).

 

[AV1611VET]

Your ignorance is very well supported, you even claim it yourself.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[VirOptimus]

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

And you live ignorant. A sad state of affair to celebrate it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you live ignorant. A sad state of affair to celebrate it.

You don't see me making ignit videos though, do you?

 

[VirOptimus]

You don't see me making ignit videos though, do you?

I wouldnt watch.

 

[renniks]

Then it will be easy for you to show how thats the case.

Another question I have not seen answered conclusively is just how long men have been genetically modifying plants. I suspect it was happening way before recorded human history. There's too much we don't know. But evolution assumes such things have been uniform throughout history. So it assumes we must have pulled ourselves out of the muck by our own non-existent bootstraps. Never allowing for a hint of the supernatural.

 

[VirOptimus]

Another question I have not seen answered conclusively is just how long men have been genetically modifying plants. I suspect it was happening way before recorded human history. There's too much we don't know. But evolution assumes such things have been uniform throughout history. So it assumes we must have pulled ourselves out of the muck by our own non-existent bootstraps. Never allowing for a hint of the supernatural.

Again, support your claim or just admit that you cant.

No irrelevant wordsalads please.

 

[renniks]

An assertion with no evidence whatever--a conclusion arrived at with no data.

It's the same old problem. You can't get there from here. Not without the addition of more genetic information.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's the same old problem. You can't get there from here. Not without the addition of more genetic information.

The functions of evolution is well known.

Now, define ”genetic information”.

 

[renniks]

The functions of evolution is well known.

That tells me nothing.
"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms."

–Kemp, T. S. (Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford
University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University Press,
1999, p. 246

 

[VirOptimus]

That tells me nothing.
"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms."

–Kemp, T. S. (Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford
University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University Press,
1999, p. 246

Answer the questions.

 

[renniks]

An assertion with no evidence whatever--a conclusion arrived at with no data.

The mutation/selection process by itself is not capable of creating the new biological information that is required for creating new life forms.
Not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there.

More to come. I'm working.

 

[VirOptimus]

The mutation/selection process by itself is not capable of creating the new biological information that is required for creating new life forms.
Not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there.

More to come. I'm working.

Answer the questions instead of continueing with your word salad.

 

[Speedwell]

The mutation/selection process by itself is not capable of creating the new biological information that is required for creating new life forms.
Not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there.

More to come. I'm working.

I still don't see why it is a problem. The interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information processing and generating capacity to account for the biological diversity that we observe.

 

[Astrid]

Another question I have not seen answered conclusively is just how long men have been genetically modifying plants. I suspect it was happening way before recorded human history. There's too much we don't know. But evolution assumes such things have been uniform throughout history. So it assumes we must have pulled ourselves out of the muck by our own non-existent bootstraps. Never allowing for a hint of the supernatural.

"Evolution assumes such things have been uniform
through history"
Not bad, four major errors in nine words.

 

[renniks]

I still don't see why it is a problem. The interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information processing and generating capacity to account for the biological diversity that we observe.

 

[Speedwell]

Apologetics. Information Theory is a mathematical way of characterizing patterns in nature. Any argument against evolution based on Information Theory which doesn't have any math in it is bootless.

 

[Astrid]

Apologetics. Information Theory is a mathematical way of characterizing patterns in nature. Any argument against evolution based on Information Theory which doesn't have any math in it is bootless.

The way serious looking people can talk such
drivel is a mzrvel of nature.