@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:How is it possible to be so stupid?
It appeared for the first time when I started communicating with people like you.
cicerone imposter wrote:A dictionary defines the meaning of words.
... and the formal models use their own definitions in order to avoid any misconceptions, misunderstanding, and misrepresentations. The dictionaries deal with the general case, and the formal theories deal with the special case. Thus for example in the dictionary
light is defined as: the natural agent that stimulates the sense of sight; and in physics
light may be defined as: electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight. Visible light is usually defined as having a wavelength in the range of 400 nm to 700 nm.
Obviously the definition 'in the dictionary' is not sufficient for the purposes of the studies in physics. The same is with
evolution.
Quote: 1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
... and it might be also evidence for the circumstance that the intelligent designer is one and the same of the whole biosphere, or that the processes of creating life and variety of life are one and the same ... which is not necessary to be
evolution based on 'positive mutations'. BTW how are these 'positive mutations' happening in one and the same way - aren't the mutations a random process ... and if so, where is the stochastic distribution of that process as an evidence (I am not going to comment whether it is strong or weak).
Quote: 2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
... it may show smooth and gradual transition, but it does not show 'from one form of life into another' ... let alone 'as a result of positive mutations'.
Quote: 3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees
... and how much is 4% difference over 3 billion ... and how did it happen so that all that 120 mln changes are all simultaneously possible as a 'positive mutation' & all of them are dominant (in order to be manifested in the future generations) ... & all of them are hereditary?
Quote: 4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.
If you don't know the very process of appearance, development and diversity of life, how did you come to know that the phases of the embryo are exactly history record and not necessary steps to build a given bio-functionality, for example?
Quote:These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
... This is not true in the general case. The birds and the airplanes have common features, but this does not necessarily mean that they have common ancestor ... for one of them might have an intelligent designer that has copied the 'stochastic design' of the other one. A single negative example is enough to prove that some statement is not universally valid ... as it is presented.
Quote: 5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
This example is absolutely invalid ... as an example, because at first the antibiotics are product of ID and violate the assumptions of the evolution theory, and could not be interpreted as stochastic processes in any case scenario, and second one doesn't know whether the bacteria acquire resistance to antibiotics due to 'evolution' based on 'positive mutations' or due to evolution based on some other complex processes that have nothing to do with any evolution. Just don't tell that you understand anything of bacteria ... and viruses, for if you were at that level you would have been able to print out a bio-polimer of a vaccine against any newly-emerged virus in not more than an hour. The understanding of the processes and their modeling and testing are very different from phenomenological trial & error 'blind tests'. The very fact that you have found some exfoliant by trial and error does not necessarily mean the you understand the biology of the cell to the 18th digit after the decimal point.
Quote:When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.
I don't know about the mutations, but when some wide-spectrum antibiotic is applied, it sends the equilibrium of the bacteria and the yeasts in the intestine in the dimension X, and hence the whole body metabolism is teleported into the 11th dimension of the hyperspace.
Quote:In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony, where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action.
This 'natural selection in action' does not explain why the Crocodiles have not become birds in the past 250 million years ... and have achieved only elementary hybridization of the species.
