Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@parados,

Really???

LOL

You didn't proof one yota!

You only STATED: "Of course evolution isn't random"

You really have to do a better job then just make a statement, girly!

LOL

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

You are simply arguing that because the likelihood of a particular outcome is 1 in 4^3,000,000,000 therefore there is no outcome at all. When probability shows your argument is silly. The likelihood of there being an outcome is 1 in 1 no matter how many possible outcomes there are.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

... display knowledge about how many cumulative mutations occur per species every second and how many of these are lethal, netral, or beneficial?

Mutations are due to defects in the mechanics of replication ... by reason that even you, yourself, have not the slightest idea. FM, if you have that many mutations per second per species, and you claim that they are absolute stochastics, can you explain how exactly a random mutation in T Rex-male and T Rex-female will happen in such a way that their offspring will 'hit the jackpot' of 2% DNA sequential differences (over 4^3 000 000 000) ... and become a bird ... and where is that bird today?

2 Replies

@Herald,

you've answered the question yourself. (And stop being so stupid)> T rex wasn't the direct ancestor of the order Aves. BIRDS ALREADY EXISTED FOR ABOUT 70 MILLION YEARS WHEN T REX ROAMED THE EARTH.
weve gone over this several times AND , YOURE NOT ABLE TO SCORE ANY DEBATE POINTS BY REPEATING THIS DRIVVLE OVER AND OVER.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Mutations are due to defects in the mechanics of replication

among other things

1 Reply

@parados,

I wonder how many responses you would get from him if he were not ignoring you????

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

T rex wasn't the direct ancestor of the order Aves.

O.K. You cannot tell us anything about the DNA sequence of T Rex - where has it gone 'after the extinction' of that species.
What about the Pterodactyles and Pteranodones - where are they DNA sequence inheritors right now?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

among other things

... the mutations are usually recessive traits - how can they make all of a sudden and out of nowhere a brand new species. FM, why I have the suspicion that you are missing sound assumptions to your theory of Evolution ... and I wonder from where this 'fake assumptions' is so familiar to me.

1 Reply

@Herald,

you've just summarized Mendelian theory of inheritance and computational evolution without understanding it. Even if "Most genes are recessive", their alleleic versions are described in two forms , say" A and a". A is dominant and a is recessive. That means that there are 3 allelic combinations aa, AA and Aa, of which AA and Aa can both be dominnt and, according to Hardy Weinberg, these 2 allelic forms could mathematically express themselves in a manner GREATER than their mere percentages For computational genetics we also consider that at least two of these allelic forms are possibly "epistatic" (where on gene can only be expressed by the presence of another allelic form of a totally different gene).
You seem to be obsessed with something about mathematics so Id suggest you get a volume of computational genetics and see what some of the inputs to various equations actually are.

2 Replies

@Herald,

we don't seem to have ANY DNA from any of those species. Remember what I said about ages of DNA?? Apparently not.
Pterodactyls were also around with birds so its hard for two contemporarily living species to be "common ancestors" of each other isn't it?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

you've just summarized Mendelian theory of inheritance and computational evolution without understanding it. Even if "Most genes are recessive", their alleleic versions are described in two forms , say" A and a". A is dominant and a is recessive. That means that there are 3 allelic combinations aa, AA and Aa, of which AA and Aa can both be dominnt and, according to Hardy Weinberg, these 2 allelic forms could mathematically express themselves in a manner GREATER than their mere percentages For computational genetics we also consider that at least two of these allelic forms are possibly "epistatic" (where on gene can only be expressed by the presence of another allelic form of a totally different gene).
You seem to be obsessed with something about mathematics so Id suggest you get a volume of computational genetics and see what some of the inputs to various equations actually are.

But of course you haven't lost yourself in the details?

What idiocy it all is!

0 Replies

It's you he's lost in the details, quahog. Not himself.
It's much easier when you don't pay attention to, or understand,the details but can just grandly say, with no proof whatsoever, it's idiocy, isn't it? Of course then you're paying no attention to reality, but we all know that that's your position, don't we?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I'd suggest you get a volume of computational genetics and see what some of the inputs to various equations actually are.

FM, you would hardly pass with one volume ... only - and are you curious to know why? Because you don't have the big data sets in beautiful form and the formal computational models to do the computations concerned ... not to say that you don't even have the computer and the operation system that can do the job.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Remember what I said about ages of DNA?? Apparently not. Pterodactyls were also around with birds so its hard for two contemporarily living species to be "common ancestors" of each other isn't it.

Yes, but your fellow evolutionists are claiming otherwise. 'The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era.'
So, let's see what we have now: with every day and in any way T. Rex started becoming (by reason unknown) lighter and lighter. In the end from 6.5 m.t. he melted down to 1 kg. Gradually with the time he started looking for an appropriate runway, and when in the end he found the best runway, long enough to provide the acceleration and the lift force to hang into the air any shut put weighting 6.5 m.t. as a minimum (presented by the evolutionists as 1 kg) - it started running and running along the runway, accelerating and lifting ... and in the end it took off ... and become a bird.

1 Reply

@Herald,

That is stupid, herald. There were birds millions of years before there were T. Rexes. T. REX HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVOLUTION OF BIRDS. There were many different lineages of therapods, Rex and birds were in two entirely different strains. The ancestors of birds got steadily smaller (they've been documented). Ancestors of rex got steadily bigger (documented too).

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRC4WfZytcZwhSGJy_RsypwPthhXddixlBfnZ3xnRV29M1qLYSs

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

T. REX HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVOLUTION OF BIRDS.

What about this text:

*Origin of Birds-Wikipedia* wrote:

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator.

     Are you curious to get knowing what this text is saying - it claims that:
--    The Birds are not Alligators
--    T Rex has nothing to do with Alligators - it is a non-correlated Genus of reptiles (notwithstanding that the morphology shows otherwise)
--    the probability for T Rex to be a Bird is much greater than the probability for T Rex to be an Alligator. WFM
--    Actually T Rex is much more an Alligator, than the Birds are Alligators Hence T Rex must be some kind of a bird. If you don't believe it - read the quote again.
     Do you want some subtitles to the underlying logic: The Glass is not a Stone; the Steel is not a Stone; hence the Glass must be some kind of a Steel.

2 Replies

@Herald,

You don't seem to understand the concept of common ancestry. Nobody is saying birds descended from T Rex's, any more than saying you descended from your cousin.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

You don't seem to understand the concept of common ancestry.

Obviously I am not alone ... in not understanding 'the concept of common ancestry'. Why don't you take the DNA sequence of T Rex and derive on the computer the DNA sequence of the birds that are so close to T Rax ... and prove that their DNA sequence can be obtained on the basis of the DNA sequence of T Rex ... and of the mind-blowing theories of FM. Even if you succeed to prove that, it will prove only plausibility. In order to prove feasibility you have to make in the lab a Bird on the grounds of using DNA from T Rex. ... and even that will not be enough, for you will have to eliminate the ID component and to prove that all the processes that are driving that transformation can 'operate on autopilot'. You and FM cannot explain how a wound catches bacteria from the air, but are very great in explaining DNA sequences and inheritance.

Quote:

Nobody is saying birds descended from T Rex ...

It is exactly what the said wiki quote is claiming. You may read it again ... and pay attention to the phrase 'a ground-breaking discovery' and tell us for example how you understand that phrase in the context of the remaining text.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors. The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator

There is NOTHING in this Wiki that even mentions DNA, let alone compares DNA of birds to that of t REX.
Reading comprehension is a skill .

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know