Why do people deny evolution?

How many times you gonna post that dribble gunga?? Its been so easily debunked thatwe can just refer to pages and make the argument by numbers. Also, the C14 dta, really? you still buying that **** even after the real lbs hve separated themselves from the samples collected and submitted because they were SCAMS by Creationists.
You guys not only lie but you use criminal methods to make believe you are making sense.
Dont you want to explain to your flocks that
you were lying and practicing frud all along??


What a joke you guys are.

THERES A BRIGHT SIDE

Gungasnale and Grumpety have found each other and can fall into each others arms like good Creationists (YECs too)

Wouldn't argue with that.

But then who sleeps in the wet spot?

Some say it doesn't have any, but I'd say, good call.

Used to drag my ass through the mud in the delta looking up at F4s, A10s and even the damn Hueys with the the BG's singing "I'm going to join the Air Force today" going thru my head.

Holy **** farmer, they just handed out a Nobel for that. Try to keep up.

Well **** me. All this time I thought you had some idea of what ID was really about.

No, really, you should keep up. Youre trying to conflate what Arnold did as design engineering going forward. NO, she DISCOVERED how nture works and its really interesting that her work parallels Bob Hazens own "reaction connectivity" ( also ala J Maynard Smith) for the evolution of complexity in minerals since the foundation of this planet. Her work was one of discovery, not design. (THAT becomes a new discovery of how nature does it).

We discussed this before and what Arnold didnt realize , was that "IN THE BEGINNING, the amunt of proteins, enxymes and other catalysts, WERE LIMITED in number. The actual skull numbing numbers grew with time. Thats the complexity issue.

Remember, Darwin himself had his own work of DISCOVERY grow out of an experimental project of ARTIFICIAL SELECTION of pigeons, plants, and barnacles and where mutability and heritability is affected.

You seem to be like gungsnale, who is buy trying to shoehorn things into your worldview..

Stop trying to be a huckster,
We discussed Arnolds researchmethods. It was a whole lot pf hunt and peck and dumping huge piles of data until a desirable outcome was realized. Then the protein catalysts refine the next paths by removing what doesnt work.
Id said many times, there are only a few methods of peptide catalyses and these methods will LIMIT the reactions that can occur. Its not "design" as you are wanting, its more a search for the needle in a haystack.Nature doesnt select the best fit, instead it "settles " for what works at the time.
I think you can see how her studies with available grad students told us that.

I hope you d especially been paying attention without too much conclusion.

Im thinking of introducing Hazens work to her,because theres much in common, growth and diversification of mineral species seems to be a conjugate with Smiths conjoined network among all increasing numbers of species (minerals, enzymes, etc).

I dont think that we are really far apart in that while I accept (actually I started) the concept of limited methodologies of organic chemical reactions by several root processes to which life arose and developed as a reaction to changing environmenta, You said to me that "you think the chemical reactions were "front loaded". I cut you off (mostly cause you icalled it design aand said its algorithms, on these chemicals. that do designing).

I said that it was fixed chem responses, to which I now add that its responses but to a growing complexity of organic chemicals. We started with a few fatty acids and esters, along with a few amino acids . Just like all life, the building blocks also grew in number and complexity. (we sorta know this from the "Fossil chemicals" that we see in C12 rich sediments of the Archean periods.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 was divided, one half awarded to Frances H. Arnold "for the directed evolution of enzymes", the other half jointly to George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter "for the phage display of peptides and antibodies." To cite this section MLA style: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2018.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 - NobelPrize.org
www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2018/summary/

so dont make me squirm here. Whats the point you wanna make?? Im sure youre busting to announce it.

don't make you squirm??? ha ha ha ha it seems you do that all the time!!!

lol

Conclusion - he has no point or anything else to offer. He just likes to use exclamation points.

lol. we call that 'jumping to conclusions'
ah well, the whole of the evil-lotion THEORY is build on '"jumping to conclusions"

oh and don't forget their '"circular reasoning" & "appeal to authority (father-figures)".

If you understood the actual mechanics behind what she accomplished, you would not have to ask.

She was not awarded the Nobel for discovering what nature does, she discovered a way to accomplish what it could not do on its own.

whhhhaaaaat? I cant let you off the hook with that one. You need to explain much better.

Shes learned to emulate nature not "teach it what it cannot do". Nature has been the biggest
tinkerer" with itself for almost 4 BILLION years. Shes learned (mostly by trial and error, how to shortstop what nature takes the longest time doing. If you get confused by her use of "design" remember, shes an engineer and not subject to the precision of language.
BUT, having said that, engineers are really the best ones to develop technology because "tinkering " and trial and error is a powerful concept development methodology.

as I was first a chemist so I always was not as impressed with "How did we replace the RNA world as readers of pop science.
When you look at what replaced what in RNA to DNA and look at the chem structures, its not surprising that we go from Uracil to thymine (and vicee versa)by what??? METHYLATION. (A walk in the pre oxygen "contaminated" park).
To say that nature couldnt accomplish this stuff is kind of a mind fart.
Never say never when it comes to evolving biotic chemicals in harsh environments.
Youve got to admire her years of mind grinding work tht it took to discover what nature does in huge expanses of time by itself.

Now if your going where I think you are, Im probably going to look up what Discovery Institute has to say because Im sure thats where you may have gotten it from NO?

THAT's WHAT THE GUYS AT DISCOVERY INSTITUTE HAVE BEEN SPINNING

I think you folks are purposely misrepresenting the facts. Yeh we can make a beagle dog from a wolf, THATS artificial selection also.

There were several kinds of dinosaurs. Evidence seems to suggest that the therapods and raptor types may have had feathers and that does not bother me so long as you're talking about down feathers for insulation. You might even be talking about hair or scales mutating into down feathers and that still wouldn't bother me terribly much. But the problem involved with trying to mutate your way into having flight feathers is gigantic.

From my canned rhetoric collection...

Chuck Darwin himself said that if anybody could ever demonstrate a single feature of a living creature which could not conceivably have arisen step-wise via mutations with each step representing some sort of an advantage over the previous, than his theory would crash and burn.
There is more than one choice for such a feature but,of all the things which could never possibly evolve, my pick for #1 is flight feathers.

Consider feathers, which come in more than one form. Down feathers serve for insulation and are not that much different from hair or fur. An evolutionist could talk about fur mutating into down feathers and not sound totally stupid. But flight feathers are so totally different from down feathers that you'd need TWO mutations to get to them i.e. one mutation to get from fur to down feathers and then another to get from down feathers to flight feathers.




Flight feathers involve a complex system of barbules and hooks as the image shows to create the strength needed to bear weight. Down feathers don't have any of that stuff.

Flight feathers are asymmetric (one side shorter than other) and they pivot so as to open and let air pass through on upstrokes and close again on down-strokes and the short side is the locking side.

The question is, what kind of a mutation would cause down feathers to mutate into flight feathers ONLY ON THE CREATURE'S ARMS where they will be needed after other mutations turn those arms into wings??

How is that not talking about magic??

The Bible contains a few dozen stories about historical miracles, things which appear magical if you don't have any real idea as to how they might have worked.

Evolutionism requires an essentially infinite sequence of probabilistic miracles and outright zero probability events.

You could make up a new religion by taking the single stupidest idea or doctrine from each of the existing religions and even that would make more sense than evolution. To believe in evolution at this juncture, you have to be really, really stupid.

It's a pretty far reach to claim that something is beyond "what nature could not do on its own" You simply don't know everything nature has done.

Beyond that, human scientists and engineers are a part of nature as well. Just as plants and insects have evolved to find mutual benefit in spreading seed and nutrition, human intervention for gene editing in plants and other like activities are also aspects of nature.

Anything goes it seems. So building robots is also part of nature, hence robots are natural!


lol