100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid is Stupid

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 
You don't need religon to tell you its stupid. I recently pointed out to a group of evolutionists that science had just reveiled that ADHD actually multiplies some genes and deletes others. As a result, evolutionists would have recognized this as an evolutionary change. So someone commented to me that no they wouldn't because its an epi-genetic change.

As though DNA transfered through off spring actually goes through a period and process where it isn't part of a living organism.

Just stupid.



Still misquoting that scientific study I see


How exactly does a disease that can (but not needn't) be caused by genetic defects invalidate evolution exactly? Because that's not what the study says....and it doesn't because their claims wouldn't proof it




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
I was wondering, if one was to arrive on earth, 100 years from now, and find a "round up ready GMO corn kernal," and had no knowledge of how the item's genes got the way they are, would you consider that evolution or intelligent design?


Well done, C.O.M.
As an atheist and believer in evolution I still had to give you credit for your remark.

Just today a fallen leaf led me to question whether evolution might still have some kind of intelligent design behind it.

Look at this leaf:


The only word that comes to mind when thinking on the formation of this leaf is 'information'.

Information:

It's what a sperm passes to an egg.

It's what tells a seed to grow into a tomato instead of poison ivy.

It's what tells an embryo to become a lizard instead of a pig.

It's what tells hair to be red instead of blonde.

Every living thing is loaded with information - information that just couldn't have formed without a designer (scientists from another realm, or super intelligent aliens. No mythical gods, though.).



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 




The "flood" or "deluge" is not quite "debunked". Actually its a huge pain for historians to deal with it because although theres no "proof" of it, you have to admit that from the Sumerians to north america, going to through germany and india, people, both in different times and at the same time in different places, with no connection to each other, all of them have a "great flood" on their "tales".

So... its kinda hard to call it a coincidence.


True. Its also hard to forget that "great floods" happen often right up to today. The Sumerians (oldest of the 'great flood' stories - source of Noah's Flood story) couldn't possibly know whether or not the entire world was flooded, only that their entire valley was affected. Stories 'evolve' to become bigger and more interesting over time.

Furthermore, the entire world most definitely and unambiguously did experience a tremendous climate change about 15 to 10 thousand years ago - the end of a major glaciation period. This would have created havoc, with increased storms, flooding, weather patterns changing, sea level rises, etc, etc, etc. Land bridges that previously existed would be flooded, hunting grounds shifted.

These are all important information to pass on from one generation the next, where the fishing is, where the hunting is, how to get from here to there. Sudden changes are catastrophe's that are going to be remembered. And the whole planet experienced these problems.

Today we know exactly how big a 'great flood' is while it is happening, but they are still the source of extravagant claims. During the New Orleans floods after Katrina, there were tales of gangs of gunmen roaming the evacuation centers, raping and pillaging. Bangladesh experiences great floods every year, and every year the stories about them are worse than the year before (of course, today the destruction story inflation is probably accurate due to climate change).

edit on 6/10/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Evolutionist have become absurd to present evoltuion theories as absolute truth about human origin.Then they go and push this agenda in shools and media and slam anyone who goes agaisnt as crazy in the head and whackos and stupid.You cannot even mention Jesus to them or they go nuts on you like your crazy and call you Tea Baggers and mentaly ill and schizoprhenic and demand you to understand their own interruptation of the bible.
Evolution describes the evolution of all life. Perhaps you should try expanding your egocentric views.

Hey if you have a better explanation for diversity I for one would love to hear it



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by UB2120
 




Evolution is not out of step with belief in God.


I agree wholeheartedly. There are plenty of theists who believe in God and accept the validity of evolution. However there are those who deem what their holy texts have to say about creation as literal truth (such as Hovind). For them the accuracy of the Bible (or other religious text) is absolute and anything that contradicts the Bible is automatically false.

I myself was raised in a creationist household and up until about age 18 I was what would have been termed an Old Earth Creationist. The main place people are learning this form of fundamentalism is from their parents or their churches. Because of this upbringing I was taught to mistrust much of mainstream science especially in regards to biology and it wasn't until years later that I escaped the indoctrination.

reply to post by smilesmcgee
 


It is an absolutely absurd story. Especially in context of modern Christianity which is all about having a "personal relationship" with Jesus and God. Does anyone really want to have a personal relationship with the God of the OLD TESTAMENT? The one who drowns everyone instead of forgiving them or correcting their behavior, the one who murders the first born of egypt in a petty act of revenge for the Pharaoh doing it to the Hebrews first, etc? Only out of fear could anyone ever truly serve so evil a God.

reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The study of epigenetics is a fairly new field of study, I'm not sure you're describing it correctly there. An epigenetic change usually doesn't involve the addition or subtraction of any information from the genes but instead has to do with the ways genes are expressed.

The issue of epigenetics pertaining to how ADHD is diagnosed, has absolutely no bearing on the overall underlying fact of biological evolution.

By the way whether you deem evolution stupid or not has no bearing on it either.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by crankyoldman
I was wondering, if one was to arrive on earth, 100 years from now, and find a "round up ready GMO corn kernal," and had no knowledge of how the item's genes got the way they are, would you consider that evolution or intelligent design?


Well done, C.O.M.
As an atheist and believer in evolution I still had to give you credit for your remark.

Just today a fallen leaf led me to question whether evolution might still have some kind of intelligent design behind it.

Look at this leaf:


The only word that comes to mind when thinking on the formation of this leaf is 'information'.

Information:

It's what a sperm passes to an egg.

It's what tells a seed to grow into a tomato instead of poison ivy.

It's what tells an embryo to become a lizard instead of a pig.

It's what tells hair to be red instead of blonde.

Every living thing is loaded with information - information that just couldn't have formed without a designer (scientists from another realm, or super intelligent aliens. No mythical gods, though.).






Ponder this: DNA has the computer code system of checksum in it. A code for making sure there are no mistakes when running through the sequences. Interesting fact.

Ponder this: Monsanto has students making GMO corn, splicing together computer code to make another thing. If we stop assuming we are a the "end" or outer most point of evolution and figure there is no end or beginning just like the corn exists only after it has been created, could the items like the wonderful leaf simply be the product of a classroom of kids making "things" to occupy the reality, via code?

In order to ponder those two ideas, you'll have to break the connection of body - expression of code, and animating energy - soul essence if you will. The two are not the same.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Ponder this: DNA has the computer code system of checksum in it. A code for making sure there are no mistakes when running through the sequences. Interesting fact.

A fact? No. It's a lie you either made up or read from some creationist fantasy site.


Originally posted by crankyoldman
Ponder this: Monsanto has students making GMO corn, splicing together computer code to make another thing. If we stop assuming we are a the "end" or outer most point of evolution and figure there is no end or beginning just like the corn exists only after it has been created, could the items like the wonderful leaf simply be the product of a classroom of kids making "things" to occupy the reality, via code?

GMO is almost entirely about taking protein-coding genes from one organism and expressing them in another. No biological scientist would assume that we are the "end" or outer most point of evolution (whatever that even means). The leaf pictured is the result of some 3.7 billion years of evolution. There are even two kinds of organelle in there, that were once, some 1-1.5 billion years ago, free-living bacteria, alphaproteobacteria in the case of mitochondria, and cyanobacteria in the case of chloroplasts.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Do your research. As it turns out, someone has made an interesting case on this very site, regarding the "checksum theory" of DNA:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please refrain from calling someone a liar as a knee-jerk reaction. If you're not willing to discuss matters with an open mind, I don't see why you're here at all.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Do your research. As it turns out, someone has made an interesting case on this very site, regarding the "checksum theory" of DNA:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please refrain from calling someone a liar as a knee-jerk reaction. If you're not willing to discuss matters with an open mind, I don't see why you're here at all.

I've done my research, considering I studied molecular biology for a better part of a decade. Also, I remember that thread. It's total nonsense. For further info you can read the thread and my posts in it..
edit on 9-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Hmmm...regardless of the erroneous conclusions that may or may not have been drawn based on those findings, it is undeniable that some very interesting and surprising pieces are hidden in the human genome that were revealed by that thread.

It does irritate me that we're so quick to jump to conclusions on the trigonometric scale when we're only just learning algebra.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Hmmm...regardless of the erroneous conclusions that may or may not have been drawn based on those findings, it is undeniable that some very interesting and surprising pieces are hidden in the human genome that were revealed by that thread.

Many interesting and surprising things certainly remain to be discovered from all (not just human) genomes. However, that particular thread (or the article it's based on) reveal nothing..



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Ponder this: DNA has the computer code system of checksum in it. A code for making sure there are no mistakes when running through the sequences. Interesting fact.

That's not a fact. Just because DNA checks itself when replicating does not mean there is a "computer code system of checksum". That is an exaggeration, and not what is actually there. If that's what you believe, please source the computer code and show me the exact coding that enables the checksum feature. If its computer code, then surely you can give me a list of the commands of the programming language.


Ponder this: Monsanto has students making GMO corn, splicing together computer code to make another thing. If we stop assuming we are a the "end" or outer most point of evolution and figure there is no end or beginning just like the corn exists only after it has been created, could the items like the wonderful leaf simply be the product of a classroom of kids making "things" to occupy the reality, via code?

I don't think anybody really assumes that humans are the end or pinnacle of evolution. Evolution is pretty much slow change over time and it doesn't stop, for better or worse. Things can stay very similar if there is no need to adapt to a new environment, but there is still slight variation and genetic drift, which is seen by many human ancestors.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


There is an extensive thread on here about the checksum in the dna, I didn't come up with the term, a noted mathematician did. Please refrain from condescending energy, it only makes you look bad and has me now quitting the thread.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman

Ponder this: DNA has the computer code system of checksum in it. A code for making sure there are no mistakes when running through the sequences. Interesting fact.


DNA doesn't have a checksum. DNA isn't digital so there's no such thing as a checksum. If it did and it worked perfectly, there would never be a mutation and all life would look alike.

You have to show that your checksum or error checking/detecting/repair mechanism:

1. Has been present in every organism since the very beginning of life on Earth...around 3 billion years, give or take
2. Operates with 100% efficiency
3. Works in every single living cell on the planet all the time

You also have to show just what that mechanism is. Now, there ARE error detection mechanisms, but that does not disprove evolution. Without them, the mutation rate would be much, much higher. In addition, genetic "code" and genetic "information" aren't digital, so the two aren't analogous.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


There is an extensive thread on here about the checksum in the dna, I didn't come up with the term, a noted mathematician did. Please refrain from condescending energy, it only makes you look bad and has me now quitting the thread.

1. Jean-Claude Perez is not a noted mathematician. The only place in the internet that seems to note him is creationwiki.org There you can discover some of his glorious achievements, like writing a foreword to or endorsing Carl Johan Calleman Cosmologie Maya er theorie quantique, Editions Alphée Monaco, 2010, which I take is some new age book about the end of the world in 2012.. or something else as scientifically solid.
2. His article was published in a very low impact factor journal and later an erratum to the article was passed
3. The article was total nonsense and should not have ever been published in the first place
4. In this thread you speak of I address the above point
5. You said that checksum in DNA is a fact, however, the above points clearly prove it to be otherwise, at best, it's nonsensical speculation

p.s. I love the logic of "your kind". Literally millions of articles and observations supporting TOE. NONONO, THIS IS BS. One fringe article that doesn't go against creation. YES YES, THIS IS A FACT! Ever heard of confirmation bias?
edit on 9-10-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So in your experience, you have never seen anything that would indicate an intelligence, or an intelligent design, to the structure of our DNA?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So in your experience, you have never seen anything that would indicate an intelligence, or an intelligent design, to the structure of our DNA?

Nope. To the contrary, it's impossible to avoid seeing things that clearly indicate that it evolved over time.






top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join