Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

FM, you don't have the genetic information of the brand new species within the previous species - neither in parts, nor as a possibility of gene shuffle. How will you make a Cd genetics out of AA, Ab, aB and BB gene shuffle?

youre underthinking it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

youre underthinking it.

... and you are looking to the least resistance in giving something that might resemble an answer. As you give sufficient thoughts and consideration to, and have mind-boddling success in considering the issue adequately, why don't you tell us how it works.
In your favourite theory we read:

Quote:

1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive

This is absolutely Jesuit statement. Lets consider the last few individuals of an extincting species just before the time of their final and irretrievable extinction. They also comprise 'more offspring' than can possible survive. Actually the biosphere is all the time and continuously in that state.
Further we read:

Quote:

2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction

If this is true, there will be no species at all. All the living beings within the biosphere will look like the 'taxonomy' of the viruses - unclassifiable in any known taxonomy.

Quote:

3) trait differences are heritable.

This is the key to understand the Jesuit nature of the whole 'theory'. Let's see what is the 'overthought explanation' of the processes, driving the creation of new species there: traits vary; lead to different rates of survival and reproduction (pay attention - not to different or modified traits); and traits differences are heritable (what about the traits themselves - how can you inherit only the differences).
From where it becomes absolutely evident that the 'explanation' of the said 'theory' is at the level of 'district governor' - as a minimum - and is intended exclusively for this type of students only.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Now here youre just trying your own brand of simplistic obfuscation nd I find it precious that youre attempting to try reason where your religious beliefs cant support you.

Actually, all the principles upon which DARWIN based his theory are OBSERVATIONS FROM NATURE. So if you wish to deny them all, youll have to submit a pper for publication with your unique scientific worldview and how you deny observable facts. (Hint: these observations hve been looked at, agreed to, and even predicted in summary for species by amost all scientists, and this even includes "Creation Scientists"

Ernst Mayr summarized the bases of Nat selection used by Darwin and thee several observations in his 1991 work One Long Argument

Heres what Mayr said summarized in a chart form so your IT mind may be somewhat more enlightened

http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/imgs/content/ns.jpg

The way I see it,youre still underthinking things, and as far as trying to deny basic observations, I don't know where you want to go with that. Next we will be hearing about you endorsing Quahogs "Hollow Earth" bullshit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Super fecuntidy

What does this have to do at all with the shift in the DNA sequence. O.K. it makes a larger variety of DNA sequences (in comparison to restrained fecundity), but they are all different - the DNA sequences do not vary in clusters (that you will need in order to make a species).

Quote:

Limited resources

All the resources on the Earth and in the SS are limited. The size of the Earth is finite, the energy resources are limited; the level to which we can pump NOx, CO2, SO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere is also limited - by the Event X (IMV it is not global warming, but rather global flooding; and/or maximal acidification of the ocean ... when all the shells of the plankton will dissolve in the acidified waters and the results will be absolute collapse of the ocean biosystem ... and of the continental one after that); the energy of the Sun is finite and limited, etc. So this 'limited resources' is nothing but a Jesuit statement.

Quote:

Competition

In order to make a brand new species you should have competing teams rather than individuals. Where do you see 'teams' in the theory?

Quote:

Herritability of differences

I am not going to comment how these differences appear (without the genetic code) ... and how the brand new genetic code is autonomously self-writting, but may I ask you something else: How many differences in the DNA sequences you should have at one and the same time ... and with how many individuals of the species (also at approximately one and the same time) in order to make a brand new species? What is the number? One individual even with dominant traits cannot make a brand new species. What is more, the mutations usually are not dominant. Do you have the math of the creation of a new species?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald, I am someone who knows this Universe more than scientists do, for I do not see for myself - I see through the Universe, and even I can reasonably say to you, "you have not an iota for truth".

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

What does this have to do at all with the shift in the DNA sequence. O.K. it makes a larger variety of DNA sequences (in comparison to restrained fecundity), but they are all different

Thats where "every individual is slightly different genetically" comes in.Also That's exactly what genetic variability implies. UNDERSTAND??

Quote:

All the resources on the Earth and in the SS are limited

so what is your beef with that fact?????. You therefore accept initial Darwins observations

Quote:

In order to make a brand new species you should have competing teams

Individuals within populations (its biology, not fooball)

Quote:

One individual even with dominant traits cannot make a brand new species. What is more, the mutations usually are not dominant. Do you have the math of the creation of a new species?

The math requires at least 2 of opposite sexes. (Or in the case of asexual--fissionable traits)

Im beginning to wonder about whether you purposely avoid reading just so you can spout inanities without blushing or are you really this dumb??

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

Herald, I am someone who knows this Universe more than scientists do, for I do not see for myself - I see through the Universe, and even I can reasonably say to you, "you have not an iota for truth".

Confidence in ones mission and capabilities is always a good thing to possess. Overconfidence can sometimes send you plummeting into a concrete pavement when you had the belief in your abilities to fly like a bird.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

And when that man has established his ground profoundly so, that when he does grow wings, he uses them to put the fire out people have started, rather than embarking on a freedom that exists no more true than the ephemeral chains which constrain him.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

are you a random phrase generator bot?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I certainly wish.

I'd have no responsibility weighing down my shoulders every day. But life is pain; pain is life.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Clearly the answer is less than 2% since humans and chimps share over 98% of their DNA.

Well, now, what does this say?? Errrr......NOTHING of course.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Thats where "every individual is slightly different genetically" comes in.

FM, you don't answer the question: how much diversions (differences in the DNA sequences) are enough to pronounce a brand new species as such? ... and how does that happen by one single mutation or gene shuffle of old gens?

farmerman wrote:

You therefore accept initial Darwins observations

I am considering them as they are stated - this does not mean that I accept them unconditionally, as truth of the last resort. BTW why don't you stop hiding behind authorities - his claims are made 150 years ago, under different circumstances. Why don't you tell what you think personally, on the grounds of your own scientific or whatever beliefs, by using the modern tools and achievements of contemporary science.

farmerman wrote:

Individuals within populations (its biology, not fooball)

You obviously don't understand the question. You will need a whole brand new 'team' (much more than one 'positive' mutant) with one and the same mutation which has to be set of dominant traits enough to make sufficient DNA differences to be proclaimed as brand new species. Do you have the math of that?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Well, now, what does this say?? Errrr......NOTHING of course.

It says everything - it says that some people are light years ahead as fakirs of the misrepresentation. They state out 2% as something insignificant and casually forget to say how much is that 2%, how much is 0.02 x 4^3 000 000 000 ... and how such diversion in the DNA sequences is done by one single mutated individual - a tiny miss, hiding a huge gap in the misinterpretation of the things. Why does this resemble so much the 'methodology' of explanation of the Time.Space Continuum and the Gravitational Continuum? ... and isn't it high time to have some Evolutionary Continuum as well.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

It says everything - it says that some people are light years ahead as fakirs of the misrepresentation. They state out 2% as something insignificant and casually forget to say how much is that 2%, how much is 0.02 x 4^3 000 000 000 ... and how such diversion in the DNA sequences is done by one single mutated individual - a tiny miss, hiding a huge gap in the misinterpretation of the things. Why does this resemble so much the 'methodology' of explanation of the Time.Space Continuum and the Gravitational Continuum? ... and isn't it high time to have some Evolutionary Continuum as well

.

what I ment was that it really isn't any evidence for any evolution at all.
And you are making it way too complex.

0 Replies

@Herald,

it actually shows that you have no idea about genetics at all. one gene can be respponible for many polymorphs and many genes may be responsible for one. Cience is still looking at the effect of SNP as epigenes.

Answering your questions (and even considering anything that Quahog dregs up)) is like discussing quantum chemistry with two budgies

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

it actually shows that you have no idea about genetics at all. one gene can be respponible for many polymorphs and many genes may be responsible for one. Cience is still looking at the effect of SNP as epigenes.

Answering your questions (and even considering anything that Quahog dregs up)) is like discussing quantum chemistry with two budgie

So, anything goes then??? wow interesting, but not very scientific of course . Wink

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

have some bird seed little budgie

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

have some bird seed little budgie

And ....YES......YES.....of course another Ad Hominem......GOAL!!!!!!

YEAHHH

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

If it weren't for your predictable vapiidity Id have nothing to discuss with you at all. So be thankful its only insults not based upon any of your simpleass views of the subject, of which you remain breathtakingly ignorant.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If it weren't for your predictable vapiidity Id have nothing to discuss with you at all. So be thankful its only insults not based upon any of your simpleass views of the subject, of which you remain breathtakingly ignorant.

Quote:

be thankful its only insults

LOL

Yo just give it all away

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know