Shon. ERV’s… is … Shon. ERV’s… is that your proof?
“Evolutionist Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, was spot on in his essment of the gravity of the junk DNA error:
The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.
Shon: Human Tails?! … Shon: Human Tails?! I guess you got the tall tale from your favourite talking origins website…
As one modern human embryology textbook puts it, Supernumerary vertebral centra that would later degenerate are not present and hence no tail exists and the caudal tip of the trunk appears particularly tapered at 5 weeks, because it contains merely neural tube, but is in no sense a (future) vertebrated tail.
I suppose you’ll be defending Haeckels Embryo chart next too… or piltdown man…
Shon. Yet again … Shon. Yet again more smoke and mirrors from yourself – still you wont accept the truth, despite your evidence being shown to be fraudulent.
One has to wonder how much of this same kind of “proof” you have been duped by.
The “statistics” that you quoted are debunked by Gallup himself. Do you not have access to the Gallup website? Or do you claim that they are biased because the name of their company begins with a letter “G”?!
No. We have … No. We have observed speciation to the point of subspecies, not taxonimical groups.
endogenous retroviral DNA sequences-actually function as promoters that regulate gene activity. This discovery adds to the growing recognition of the functional importance of junk DNA and undermines one of evolutions best arguments
helo – Part2: … helo – Part2: Actually the whole point of the statistics was to show that Atheistic populations plain & simple have morals & they’re not any worse than Religious populations. But you can’t see past that. You think all I’m out to do, is to prove that your way of life is wrong. I never claimed that
Snakes with legs. Humans with tails. Chickens with reptillian teeth, etc etc etc. All coming from information in the DNA that is “locked” away, but occasionally expressed. Thats not proof to you? Haha.
coreva – … coreva – Technically, your “macro” Evolution applies to speciation, right? So we have observed it.
I’ll simplify it for you, because I know I overwhelm people with the evidences sometimes. How do you explain Endogenous Retroviruses?
How do you explain that some humans are born with fully functional tails? I can tell you why. It’s a trait previously expressed in our ancestors. An inhibitor that stops non-coding DNA (junk DNA) from working ceases to function for some reason, causing the tail
helo – I honestly … helo – I honestly cannot believe you. You’re such a liar it’s incredible. Lets see your statistics probably derived from yet another biased Christian website propogating false information like usual.
So I must be suicidal, constantly forcing my wife to get abortions, strung up with every STD known to man, more jail time than not, and on my 4th or 5th wife by now. Oh, and I must not give money to homeless peeps.
But of course, I don’t represent the majority, but I sure do stray from it. Haha.
Shon. I think you … Shon. I think you should apologise to the readers of this forum for presenting deceptive data or promise to check your data more thoroughly to make sure it is accurate, reliable and honest data before using it to attack other people’s faith.
Furthermore, … Furthermore, fossils prove nothing. You cannot prove those fossils ever reproduced so that speciation could take place till the point of the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Shon. You keep … Shon. You keep mentioning those “statistcs” that prove that Atheist countries are more moral.
What you don’t reveal though is that those statistics are completely fallacious. They have been debunked and scorned by respectable survey organisations, including Gallop himself!
You really should check your sources before you post them. I’m hoping it wasn’t a deliberate attempt at deception on your part…
No proof of macro … No proof of macro at all. You have not observed macro, you just ume it happened. There are no transitional fossils, just pre applied evolutionary idea’s applied to those fossils.
Shon. Bringing up … Shon. Bringing up vestigial organs is a strawman as you know, however, there is an unfortunate kick back for you too.
What has long been claimed of support of evolution is merely just not yet knowing the function of the organ. Sure enough, years after the “vestigial” claim, real science shows us the real function. Oops – there goes another “proof”.
It used to be “look at all this junk DNA” now it’s “Oh, it might have a function afterall”.
Shon. Your ring … Shon. Your ring species example is not proof of evolution at all.
All it shows is that from the existing genetic material of one God created kind, there is enough to create closely related species. Hardly evidence of evolution.
The wolf, the dingo and the coyote are all regarded as separate species and yet evolutionists and creationists believe they all have a common ancestor (a wolf like creature).
letsdance – My … letsdance – My definition for simple in this context would be “simple self replicating single celled organisms”. Why are you supplying biblical verses? Does it mention in the bible why god put vestigal structures in Organisms? Like the Whale you brought up. Today, the whale hind parts are internal and reduced. Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop miniature legs (known as atavism). Why does this happen unless Evolution is true?
shon-”and god … shon-”and god created great whales,and every living creature that moveth.” genesis 1:21.
i was wondering what your deffinition of simple is.
coreva- If you … coreva- If you accept “micro” Evolution, then you must accept “macro” because it is just many instances of micro. And like I stated earlier, if you take a look at “Ring Species” you’ll quickly understand how fast speciation can occur from a parental species. Sure, it may still be a bird, but if we know the populations used to mate, and can no longer because of those adaptations adding up… what do you think happens when we add millions of years into the mix? Take a look at Transitional Fossils.
letsdance – Thats … letsdance – Thats fine and all. Since I argue for the fact of Evolution more so than anything else. Abiogenesis is not in my arsenal of things to argue for, since it is not completely understood by Science. I think it’s entirely possible that a god created simple life, and then Evolution picked up afterwards.
That is micro … That is micro evolution, not macro. Im not questioning micro but rather macro. No evidence of the formation of new taxonimic groups have ever been observed, they are always the same species but a sub species, never does a new group emerge from micro evolution that has been observed.
Darwin said, [ ... Darwin said, [Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist
helo – Well, for … helo – Well, for example, I do not think the War in Iraq was a good idea. Christopher Hitchens does. That doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the mans work, or enjoy his debates.
I enjoy how abstract you are. Pulling away from the discussion, ignoring the points being made and just claim this and that about it all. “You’re arguments are weak Shon, because I said so!” This, coming from a man that is bashing Science fact while hypocritically using a Computer derived from the same methods. Haha.
Brandon Heath Give Me Your Eyes
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. ERV’s… is …
Shon. ERV’s… is that your proof?
“Evolutionist Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, was spot on in his essment of the gravity of the junk DNA error:
The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon: Human Tails?! …
Shon: Human Tails?! I guess you got the tall tale from your favourite talking origins website…
As one modern human embryology textbook puts it, Supernumerary vertebral centra that would later degenerate are not present and hence no tail exists and the caudal tip of the trunk appears particularly tapered at 5 weeks, because it contains merely neural tube, but is in no sense a (future) vertebrated tail.
I suppose you’ll be defending Haeckels Embryo chart next too… or piltdown man…
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. Yet again …
Shon. Yet again more smoke and mirrors from yourself – still you wont accept the truth, despite your evidence being shown to be fraudulent.
One has to wonder how much of this same kind of “proof” you have been duped by.
The “statistics” that you quoted are debunked by Gallup himself. Do you not have access to the Gallup website? Or do you claim that they are biased because the name of their company begins with a letter “G”?!
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
No. We have …
No. We have observed speciation to the point of subspecies, not taxonimical groups.
endogenous retroviral DNA sequences-actually function as promoters that regulate gene activity. This discovery adds to the growing recognition of the functional importance of junk DNA and undermines one of evolutions best arguments
Humans with tails? Website?
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
helo – Part2: …
helo – Part2: Actually the whole point of the statistics was to show that Atheistic populations plain & simple have morals & they’re not any worse than Religious populations. But you can’t see past that. You think all I’m out to do, is to prove that your way of life is wrong. I never claimed that
Snakes with legs. Humans with tails. Chickens with reptillian teeth, etc etc etc. All coming from information in the DNA that is “locked” away, but occasionally expressed. Thats not proof to you? Haha.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
coreva – …
coreva – Technically, your “macro” Evolution applies to speciation, right? So we have observed it.
I’ll simplify it for you, because I know I overwhelm people with the evidences sometimes. How do you explain Endogenous Retroviruses?
How do you explain that some humans are born with fully functional tails? I can tell you why. It’s a trait previously expressed in our ancestors. An inhibitor that stops non-coding DNA (junk DNA) from working ceases to function for some reason, causing the tail
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
helo – I honestly …
helo – I honestly cannot believe you. You’re such a liar it’s incredible. Lets see your statistics probably derived from yet another biased Christian website propogating false information like usual.
So I must be suicidal, constantly forcing my wife to get abortions, strung up with every STD known to man, more jail time than not, and on my 4th or 5th wife by now. Oh, and I must not give money to homeless peeps.
But of course, I don’t represent the majority, but I sure do stray from it. Haha.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. I think you …
Shon. I think you should apologise to the readers of this forum for presenting deceptive data or promise to check your data more thoroughly to make sure it is accurate, reliable and honest data before using it to attack other people’s faith.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. Speaking of …
Shon. Speaking of statistics, the REAL surveys and FACTS show:
Far more suicides in Atheist Population
Far more abortions
Far more STD’s
Far more jail time
Far more Divorce (Yes, really!)
Far less giving/charitable deeds
Conclusion: Life without God is NOT good for society.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Furthermore, …
Furthermore, fossils prove nothing. You cannot prove those fossils ever reproduced so that speciation could take place till the point of the formation of new taxonomic groups.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. You keep …
Shon. You keep mentioning those “statistcs” that prove that Atheist countries are more moral.
What you don’t reveal though is that those statistics are completely fallacious. They have been debunked and scorned by respectable survey organisations, including Gallop himself!
You really should check your sources before you post them. I’m hoping it wasn’t a deliberate attempt at deception on your part…
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
No proof of macro …
No proof of macro at all. You have not observed macro, you just ume it happened. There are no transitional fossils, just pre applied evolutionary idea’s applied to those fossils.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. Bringing up …
Shon. Bringing up vestigial organs is a strawman as you know, however, there is an unfortunate kick back for you too.
What has long been claimed of support of evolution is merely just not yet knowing the function of the organ. Sure enough, years after the “vestigial” claim, real science shows us the real function. Oops – there goes another “proof”.
It used to be “look at all this junk DNA” now it’s “Oh, it might have a function afterall”.
Your evolution “proof” is very elusive!
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. To suggest …
Shon. To suggest that God created vestigial organs, really does reveal your ignorance of the Christian position.
When God created life (the only possible scenario according to the LAWS of nature) he created KINDS.
These Kinds were perfect before the Fall of Man. As a result, God removed some of His sustaining power and as a consequence, all of creation suffered.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. Your ring …
Shon. Your ring species example is not proof of evolution at all.
All it shows is that from the existing genetic material of one God created kind, there is enough to create closely related species. Hardly evidence of evolution.
The wolf, the dingo and the coyote are all regarded as separate species and yet evolutionists and creationists believe they all have a common ancestor (a wolf like creature).
Same thing.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. Natural …
Shon. Natural selection is clearly in keeping with God’s created order.
The fact that he has designed each kind with an amount of adaptation would makes sense, so that each kind can adapt to it’s surroundings.
As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions:
A loss of information in each species does not create a net gain. It’s kind of basic and you really should consider your position more carefully.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Shon. Still here …
Shon. Still here pushing your pseudoscience I see.
What people mean by micro evolution is generally equivalent to Natural selection. Your extrapolation beyond that is clearly a strawman.
I find it funny (and telling) when you try to claim that Natural laws are merely abstract ideas and as such are irrelevant.
I notice that you cannot answer the problem or follow the logic and therefore resort to strawman arguments.
Let’s hear your version of how information arose…
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
letsdance – My …
letsdance – My definition for simple in this context would be “simple self replicating single celled organisms”. Why are you supplying biblical verses? Does it mention in the bible why god put vestigal structures in Organisms? Like the Whale you brought up. Today, the whale hind parts are internal and reduced. Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop miniature legs (known as atavism). Why does this happen unless Evolution is true?
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
shon-”and god …
shon-”and god created great whales,and every living creature that moveth.” genesis 1:21.
i was wondering what your deffinition of simple is.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
coreva- If you …
coreva- If you accept “micro” Evolution, then you must accept “macro” because it is just many instances of micro. And like I stated earlier, if you take a look at “Ring Species” you’ll quickly understand how fast speciation can occur from a parental species. Sure, it may still be a bird, but if we know the populations used to mate, and can no longer because of those adaptations adding up… what do you think happens when we add millions of years into the mix? Take a look at Transitional Fossils.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
letsdance – Thats …
letsdance – Thats fine and all. Since I argue for the fact of Evolution more so than anything else. Abiogenesis is not in my arsenal of things to argue for, since it is not completely understood by Science. I think it’s entirely possible that a god created simple life, and then Evolution picked up afterwards.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
That is micro …
That is micro evolution, not macro. Im not questioning micro but rather macro. No evidence of the formation of new taxonimic groups have ever been observed, they are always the same species but a sub species, never does a new group emerge from micro evolution that has been observed.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Darwin said, [ ...
Darwin said, [Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
shon-u wrote a …
shon-u wrote a response to me,i have no idea what u r talking about because i cant find my comment or helo’s
August 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
helo – Well, for …
helo – Well, for example, I do not think the War in Iraq was a good idea. Christopher Hitchens does. That doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the mans work, or enjoy his debates.
I enjoy how abstract you are. Pulling away from the discussion, ignoring the points being made and just claim this and that about it all. “You’re arguments are weak Shon, because I said so!” This, coming from a man that is bashing Science fact while hypocritically using a Computer derived from the same methods. Haha.