It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 26
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You sprout the same disproven ignorant crap every post you make. A fly will remain a fly and a mouse remain a mouse. You sound like you are retarded.




posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton
A fly will remain a fly and a mouse remain a mouse.


It's so simple, and it disproves evolution.


You sound like you are retarded.


Would you want me to over-complicate it for you? And talk about, for example, how the creation of a novel gene via random mutation would eliminate the function of the old gene? Every new protein-coding gene that would ever theoretically come to be through random mutation would inherently have to remove the function of the old gene. Who needs that old protein anyway? Oh wait, definitely the organism. The organism definitely needs all the proteins that its genetics code for. Also, in the intermediate steps between removing the old gene and creating the new gene that codes for a protein, you now don't have either of those genes functioning - the old or the new gene.

So against all odds if that organism manages to survive millions of years without that necessary protein that the old gene was coding for, what are the odds that random chance is going to create a coherent protein chain that serves a new function in that organism? Unfathomably low, otherwise known as impossible. Especially considering all the other proteins that rely on that now-removed protein to function. The interdependence of proteins to establish, for example, biochemical cascades means that all enzymes (proteins) must be present for the cascade to function. So if you removed one enzyme from it, take for example fumarase from the Kreb's cycle, then the entire function of metabolism no longer works.

So the mythology that new functional proteins can be created for by random mutations is absolutely absurd, and unfounded in the scientific literature. Also, keep in mind, what I just described is the bare necessity of a new protein. It would also require post-translational modification to allow it to fold properly, and it would also need proper epigenetic control so that the protein would not be under or over-produced, and also the mechanism to elicit its release at the necessary time. The new gene must also be compatible with the rest of the plethora of biological components present in the organism, and also not trigger the body's immune system.

Want me to continue? Because there's more.
edit on 11-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FlyingFox


Organisms develop traits because they want them.

Then why can't I just grow wings?


You could grow wings, but the drain on your metabolism would reduce other necessary functions. Also the bio-kinetics would not work out, as you could NEVER fly with terrestrial gravity and available power-to-weight ratios.

So, you would not be able to fly away from predators, nor run away....maybe only crawl. That's known as a biological (and genetic) dead-end.

It's more like how a giraffe's neck elongates; it wants it to grow longer to gain more food.

Do you have a better explanation?



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




Want me to continue? Because there's more.


Sure. Why not continue the same garbage you've posted dozens of times and that NO ONE, except the lame, lazy and crazy, believes. Your "positions" have been run over by a truck every time you post them.

Everything is in the literature. It's been posted dozens of times. You fail to read it, hoping that no one else reads it, and you continue to perpetrate a fraud.

Remember that Japanese article? That's a classic example of how you do research. You post a link to an article that you never read, has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about, and you expect that no one is watching. Well they are watching.

How about that Japanese article? Did you read it? Do you know what it says?

Liar. Fraud. Deceitful. Evil. Sick.




edit on 11-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton




Want me to continue? Because there's more.

Liar. Fraud. Deceitful. Evil. Sick.


+ Young Earth Creationist.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: peter vlar

So the evidence could never show that evolution doesn't happen?



Over 150 years of research, selective breeding, and artificial selection trying to force evolution yet no organism has ever evolved into another organism. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes.


Please provide the data from any contemporary experiment you’ve mentioned above where the objective was to create a new species or genus.

Can’t find any? Because there has NEVER been an experiment to achieve this. The experiments are to test genetic traits and inheritance, not to create new species, yet you peddle this line CONSTANTLY to your stupid sheep followers.

You disgust me. I honestly don’t know how you can call yourself a person of god.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Sure. Why not continue the same garbage you've posted dozens of times and that NO ONE, except the lame, lazy and crazy, believes. Your "positions" have been run over by a truck every time you post them.

Everything is in the literature.


What portion of what I said was incorrect according to the literature? I'm sick of your blanket statements that hold no weight. Show where I was wrong in my last post, according to the literature
edit on 11-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Sure. Why not continue the same garbage you've posted dozens of times and that NO ONE, except the lame, lazy and crazy, believes. Your "positions" have been run over by a truck every time you post them.

Everything is in the literature.


What portion of what I said was incorrect according to the literature? I'm sick of your blanket statements that hold no weight. Show where I was wrong in my last post, according to the literature


You answered ZERO questions about those papers. Meanwhile, you're the one who complained about "men in white coats" while you were the one who relied on the literature in the first place - even though you don't have a clue what those papers described.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

You answered ZERO questions about those papers. Meanwhile, you're the one who complained about "men in white coats" while you were the one who relied on the literature in the first place - even though you don't have a clue what those papers described.



Lool, if you want to discuss, respond to the science I posted here: Necessities for the formation of a new gene

Or just stop with the erroneous statements.


originally posted by: TerraLiga

Please provide the data from any contemporary experiment you’ve mentioned above where the objective was to create a new species or genus.


Labs all across the world have been doing selective breeding experiments. Here's one from 1910:

old fruit fly selective breeding experiment

They're still doing it today, here's one from 2019:

artificial selection and fruit fly mutation

They've been trying for a long time to artificially induce evolution, But they all remain fruit flies, never becoming a new organism. This shows that organisms cannot evolve outside particular genetic bounds. The fact that you made me even post articles like this is silly, because there are so many.



Can’t find any? Because there has NEVER been an experiment to achieve this.


You're right, they've never been able to evolve an organism.





You disgust me. I honestly don’t know how you can call yourself a person of god.


For the same reason that you can call yourself a child of God.
edit on 11-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

You answered ZERO questions about those papers. Meanwhile, you're the one who complained about "men in white coats" while you were the one who relied on the literature in the first place - even though you don't have a clue what those papers described.



Lool, if you want to discuss, respond to the science I posted here: Necessities for the formation of a new gene

Or just stop with the erroneous statements.


originally posted by: TerraLiga

Please provide the data from any contemporary experiment you’ve mentioned above where the objective was to create a new species or genus.


Labs all across the world have been doing selective breeding experiments. Here's one from 1910:

old fruit fly selective breeding experiment

They're still doing it today, here's one from 2019:

artificial selection and fruit fly mutation

They've been trying for a long time to artificially induce evolution, But they all remain fruit flies, never becoming a new organism. This shows that organisms cannot evolve outside particular genetic bounds. The fact that you made me even post articles like this is silly, because there are so many.



Can’t find any? Because there has NEVER been an experiment to achieve this.


You're right, they've never been able to evolve an organism.





You disgust me. I honestly don’t know how you can call yourself a person of god.


For the same reason that you can call yourself a child of God.


Nice try to change the subject. You lost - a long time ago.

You can't substantiate anything you have asserted. You mix and match, unmix, unmatch - hoping that no one notices. Well many people notice. You're a fraud. You just proved it by trying to change the subject.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You and YouTube scientist have a disease in common. It's called Foot-In-Mouth disease. You talk so much you can't keep up with yourself. You forget what you posted, scramble the eggs, then try to unscramble them. No one in their right mind falls for it.

You're a fraud.




edit on 11-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You and YouTube scientist have a disease in common. It's called Foot-In-Mouth disease. You talk so much you can't keep up with yourself. You forget what you posted, scramble the eggs, then try to unscramble them. No one in their right mind falls for it.

You're a fraud.


What are you talking about? Stop with the accusations and discuss the science I posted: post

If you want to insult me, just private message me instead so you don't waste forum space.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Insult you?? You can't answer a single question about your own posts! You can't even keep track of them.

I think you need a secretary. I understand this woman is also looking for work:





posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Insult you?? You can't answer a single question about your own posts! You can't even keep track of them.

I think you need a secretary. I understand this woman is also looking for work:






Ok if you can't discuss science we'll discuss something else, you poor thing. You can only mock people anonymously online. In person, on the other hand, you have to retreat into your shell because you fear public disapproval. You release this angst on these forums, attempting to make yourself seem superior. But I insist you let go of past failures to connect to people, and especially the numerous occasions of public humiliation stemming from your unrelenting hubris. You are not superior to anyone, nor is anyone superior to you. Humble your self and you can begin to connect to people again, and not feel so alienated from the world.
edit on 11-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You've had dozens of opportunities to discuss the "science". Each time you weasel your way out by either changing the subject or you just don't answer questions. You're fooling no one. The game is over. You've been outed.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
You've been outed.


You say this very often, but where was I wrong with the science in my assessment?



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Well the questions do not get answred because he can't

I posted basic level chemistry questions. That he could show his education, or hell at least he could google.

No answer

Yet the rest of us have to prove ourselves



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

What assessment????? Post the link to where you responded to the questions regarding the papers which included the Japanese paper? You don't have a clue what those papers were about. Where's your "assessment"?

You don't even know why you posted those links.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

Well the questions do not get answred because he can't

I posted basic level chemistry questions. That he could show his education, or hell at least he could google.

No answer

Yet the rest of us have to prove ourselves


It's continual obfuscation - that's all he has.



posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Well to be fair, IF he tries to answer the questions, his claims will be blown out of the water.




top topics



 
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join