Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

Link to where she asks me to find a textbook that says population of organisms can change

a reply to: cooperton

Reading comprehension once again.

Proven? Yeah, and macbook air evolved from the original Macbook. Or, no, it makes more sense that they have a common designer. Computers don't come to be without intelligence. Neither do biological organisms.

Yes, proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Ugh I should have known you wouldn't know what progenitor means. I pick my words carefully and this is exactly what I meant:

Progenitor: a person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is descended or originates; an ancestor or parent.

So when I called a unicellular organism the progenitor of all organisms, that is saying exactly what you said above in your post:

Reading comprehension, again, and again, and again.

So which is it, do organisms on this planet have a common ancestor as you said earlier in your post? Or was their never a theorizied progenitor of all organisms??

Common ancestry means commonality of DNA. It DOESN'T mean a dog turned into a cat or a bacteria turned into an elephant. You deliberately misinterpret the research - and you think you can get away with it. Don't think so.

lol and neither in my post did I make that mistake. I was taking it from the point of the beginning of evolution. I haven't even begun to discuss the impossibilities of abiogenesis on this thread. Evolution has enough holes as it is.

That is proof you are lying, or just incapable of scientific discussion. You have entirely lost your objectivity. You're like Captain Ahab trying to take down Moby Dick... you're taking your self and the whole crew down in the process.

Yes, you certainly did.

a reply to: cooperton

I think you need to watch this.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

I think you need to watch this.

Explain in your own words. A macbook has similar coding to a macbook pro... does that mean one evolved from the other? No. They have a common designer. Of course chimpanzees will have similar genetics to a human, they are phenotypically one of the most similar organisms to humans. You guys assume evolution is true, and rush to presume all evidence shows its validity. Your view is too myopic to realize other more comprehensive explanations. The design is beautiful.

logical structures require a logical creator.



Also, what they don't tell you about the supposed fusion sight is that there are multiple genes that are inserted in the supposed region that disrupt the theory. This is why you have to do your own research, these researchers that you blindly believe are simply rushing to conclusions without due diligence.

a reply to: cooperton

does that mean one evolved from the other? No.

The evolution of the MacBook
By Seán Moreau, Freelance Social Media Editor, Computerworld | Jul 17, 2019 10:37 am PDT

In a moment of somewhat unexpected nostalgia at its most recent media event, Apple pointed out that it was the 25th anniversary of the PowerBook. (It’s good to know that, 27 years later, Apple still would rather nobody remember the Mac Portable.) I’ve been a Mac laptop user since the original PowerBook era. That ancient history is my history. Since 1991, Apple has gone through seven distinct eras when it comes to its laptop strategy and design.

Your ignorance is showing again. The "evolution" of the computer is actually a very good example of common ancestry. The original format and code were simply upgraded to a more powerful version BY A HUMAN who originally DESIGNED the computer.
Humans were not designed by anyone. They naturally evolve from their common ancestor. If there was a "designer" involved in the process, it would have shown itself a long time ago. But since evolution can be demonstrated BY HUMANS in a LAB, it's a proven FACT that evolution is a fact.
Your crackpot cult needs an update. Please alert your designer that your version has failed miserably and requires an immediate update.

a reply to: cooperton

Also, what they don't tell you about the supposed fusion sight is that there are multiple genes that are inserted in the supposed region that disrupt the theory. This is why you have to do your own research, these researchers that you blindly believe are simply rushing to conclusions without due diligence.

OMG, there are multiple genes suspiciously inserted in no-man's land!!! We can't have that!
BTW, where's your research? Where's your laboratory experiments that challenge that paper?
Anything? Nothing? Makes sense to me!

If we were designed, why do we have so much junk DNA in our genome? A designer would have taken it out as surplus to requirements. A designer would have stripped it out to make us and everything else more efficient. Instead we have remnants of genes to make all sorts of parts we don't need or use, and haven't used for millions of years in fact. Was your designer sloppy or lazy? Or maybe it doesn't exist.

Your MacBook started its journey with rocks and marks on clay. Basic and elementary. Just like all life on Earth.

a reply to: cooperton

Well ow i know your supposed research you did is a lie. Your graphic was pulled off this page and doesn't mean what you think it does.

dxline.info...

This shows me you went to some creationist website and they lied to you really do some research

originally posted by: Phantom423

OMG, there are multiple genes suspiciously inserted in no-man's land!!! We can't have that!
BTW, where's your research? Where's your laboratory experiments that challenge that paper?
Anything? Nothing? Makes sense to me!

150,000 base pairs interrupting the fusion site totally disrupts the theory. There is also about 10% missing DNA, or 24,000,000 nucleotides missing when you compare chromsome 2 to the two supposedly fused chimpanzee chromosomes.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
If we were designed, why do we have so much junk DNA in our genome? A designer would have taken it out as surplus to requirements. A designer would have stripped it out to make us and everything else more efficient. Instead we have remnants of genes to make all sorts of parts we don't need or use, and haven't used for millions of years in fact. Was your designer sloppy or lazy? Or maybe it doesn't exist.

That's a good question. Thank you, I think phantom is losing her mind.

Most of the DNA that does not code for proteins is supposedly helping for modulatory purposes. mRNA strands, even if they don't code for proteins, have been shown now to have some type of modulatory effect. There is also viral DNA that isn't cleaned out of the genome. But then there is also the notion of untapped DNA potential. There is likely, given a better lifestyle and circumstance, a DNA activation that would occur if we lived more naturally.

Take for example when they first discovered neurogenesis was possible after maturity. The reason they couldn't find it was because they had all their test subjects locked in cages. Surely enough someone thought it would be a good idea to let them have natural enrichment and surely enough they discovered neurogenesis in these test subjects after maturity.

Sumerians, Hebrews, Egyptians, Greeks, etc talk of a time of old when humans were closer to gods then they are mortals. This is likely due to activating the parts of our DNA that are now dormant. Just a theory, but it makes sense to me. The fall of humankind recorded in these same cultures is a telling of the corruption of our DNA, the decrease of our lifespan, and so on.

This is why I started getting away from believing evolutionary theory in the first place... more pieces fit the more I started disregarding it and investigating the details of it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Well ow i know your supposed research you did is a lie. Your graphic was pulled off this page and doesn't mean what you think it does.

dxline.info...

This shows me you went to some creationist website and they lied to you really do some research

Never said I was the one who sequenced the genome. I found through doing my own research that the fusion site is not as clear as the evolutionary theorists want you to believe. Any comment on how 150,000 base pairs would have gotten inserted into this fusion site? or how there are 24,000,000 base pairs missing?

Also keep in mind that if a distant organism did have a fused chromosome and managed to not die from this, they would also have to find a mate with the same chromosomal fusion in the same orientation otherwise the metaphase plate could not line up and therefore no children could happen. These are things you guys aren't thinking about.

a reply to: cooperton

I found through doing my own research that the fusion site is not as clear as the evolutionary theorists want you to believe.

Really???? Where is this "research". Where's the data? Where's the publication? If you don't have a publication, where's the lab write demonstrating the methods used to draw your conclusion?

You're such a liar - you wouldn't know your way around a molecular biology lab if your life depended on it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton




Really???? Where is this "research". Where's the data? Where's the publication? If you don't have a publication, where's the lab write demonstrating the methods used to draw your conclusion?

You're such a liar - you wouldn't know your way around a molecular biology lab if your life depended on it.

Lol relax. No comment in the missing 24,000,000 base pairs? This is your strategy all the time. You side track to avoid answering the blatant discrepancies with the theory

a reply to: cooperton

Where's your research? I'm not the one making false accusations about your "research". You are.

About your "missing genes", anything you suggest is not worth researching. You never post the data nor the research papers to prove your case. So why would anyone bother. More fraud and deception.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Where's your research? I'm not the one making false accusations about your "research". You are.

About your "missing genes", anything you suggest is not worth researching. You never post the data nor the research papers to prove your case. So why would anyone bother. More fraud and deception.

Chromosome 2 base pair length = 242,193,529 base pairs in humans

Chimp Chromosome 2A and 2B added together = 244,720,170 base pairs in chimpanzees

So I messed up it is actually 2,500,000 base pairs that are gone from this supposed fusion. Losing the telomeres would only account for about 10,000 base pairs. So this doesn't make sense how losing 2.5 million nucleotides of information would help transition it into a human. The 150,000 base pairs that are monkey wrench'd into the supposed fusion spot also show that it did not happen the way they wish.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Where's your research? I'm not the one making false accusations about your "research". You are.

About your "missing genes", anything you suggest is not worth researching. You never post the data nor the research papers to prove your case. So why would anyone bother. More fraud and deception.

Chromosome 2 base pair length = 242,193,529 base pairs in humans

Chimp Chromosome 2A and 2B added together = 244,720,170 base pairs in chimpanzees

So I messed up it is actually 2,500,000 base pairs that are gone from this supposed fusion. Losing the telomeres would only account for about 10,000 base pairs. So this doesn't make sense how losing 2.5 million nucleotides of information would help transition it into a human. The 150,000 base pairs that are monkey wrench'd into the supposed fusion spot also show that it did not happen the way they wish.

Once again your clueless you fail to understand gene expression. But let's put that aside for a minute look at a Bonobo chromosome 2a and 2b are almost identical they just are not fused. A bonobo is our closest relative to all the apes.

Now about what you believe to be a gotcha isn't and here's why. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. So they are there just in other locations this is why i know you dont understand gene expression in DNA because then you would know why they were relocated


Your arguing against something that is hard to refute the evidence is in the DNA. Of course, there are differences if there wasn't we would be an ape however what you need to look at is the similarities that occur which is well beyond random chance. The same as we can tell for example if you have genes from vikings we use that same method to look further back in time. You are arguing against everything we have learned about DNA in the past 50 years. Your arguments are actually silly so what ever creationist website you found them on are wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton
Unintelligent design (evolution) is just garbage. We are intelligent. Physical laws are intelligent. The cosmos behave according to intelligible patterns. You can't get away from intelligence. Unless you are thinking unintelligently

Do you consider God to be intelligent?

If so, why do you have issue with intelligence existing without one?

originally posted by: Toothache

Do you consider God to be intelligent?

If so, why do you have issue with intelligence existing without one?

For the same reason artificial intelligence must be created by something with intelligence. A computer will not come to be by random chance, it requires intelligence to be built. The same idea applies to us organic intelligent beings, we must have been created by something intelligent. 100 billion neurons assembled to allow a conscious experience cannot happen by random chance. God is the intelligent extra-dimensional Being that manifested a material form for consciousness as a human being

a reply to: cooperton


Did you write them a letter with your research?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Did you write them a letter with your research?

Just have a normal conversation without appealing to authority. You can do it

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Toothache

Do you consider God to be intelligent?

If so, why do you have issue with intelligence existing without one?

For the same reason artificial intelligence must be created by something with intelligence. A computer will not come to be by random chance, it requires intelligence to be built. The same idea applies to us organic intelligent beings, we must have been created by something intelligent. 100 billion neurons assembled to allow a conscious experience cannot happen by random chance. God is the intelligent extra-dimensional Being that manifested a material form for consciousness as a human being

Well, then who created him since you said you can't have intelligence without something intelligent creating god. And therein lies the problem with your argument if it takes intelligence to create intelligence it would have never occurred.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Well, then who created him since you said you can't have intelligence without something intelligent creating god. And therein lies the problem with your argument if it takes intelligence to create intelligence it would have never occurred.

This was solved by philosophers long ago. God never was created. God always existed. That's the meaning of Alpha Omega. Not limited to the restrictions of space and time like we are.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Toothache

Do you consider God to be intelligent?

If so, why do you have issue with intelligence existing without one?

For the same reason artificial intelligence must be created by something with intelligence. A computer will not come to be by random chance, it requires intelligence to be built. The same idea applies to us organic intelligent beings, we must have been created by something intelligent. 100 billion neurons assembled to allow a conscious experience cannot happen by random chance. God is the intelligent extra-dimensional Being that manifested a material form for consciousness as a human being

You cannot compare inorganic with organic. Our brains allow us to achieve a conscience, which is learned through millions of interactions in our experiences via a complex and ever-changing network of neural connections. We are fully aware of everything we do and what the consequences of our actions are.

No artificial intelligence, regardless of programmer, will achieve this for the foreseeable future. Artificial intelligence is achieved via simple logic gates on a sequenced loop. Without a significant change in the programming structure, artificial intelligence is simply an elaborate checksum. Learning only produces more possible outcomes, not an expansion of experience of consequence.

Our brains are not designed. Studies have shown that the same experiences given to sample groups will have different outcomes, will be routed through the brain through different pathways and will illicit different emotional experiences. If we were designed, like a computer, all participants will behave exactly the same and show the same results.