Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Thanks for Asking, though!

We just finished making the "Save the Dates" for the Wedding.

I can't wait.

Sad thing is, though; Since my Wife and I live together, there has not been a Single Pastor who will perform the Ceremony for Us.

What do you make of that, AL?


Now, I have to Use a "Judge", from my Government to "Marry" us.

I say it means the Pastors of the Current Churches don't follow God's Word.

I guess we could just "Sign the Paper", and Go on with our Lives without a Nice Ceremony in a Church; But, Why should I?

I'm doing this to you Girly men, now; So My Children don't have to Grow Up in a World full of Morons that are filled with Masonic/Popery, raping and pillaging because they thing "Survival of the Fittest".

You Whores!

All churches look alike to me and the need for a wedding in a particular one doesn't seem as important to me as it perhaps it does to you.
Anyway, you really do seem to have a large number of issues going on Mark to be a bull in a china shop about, not just with "evolutionists" either by the look of it.

 

[6days]

Designing a gene requires taking an existing gene and modifying it to some specified purpose. The natural way is for an existing gene, usually a duplicate of the original, to mutate repeatedly in the population, each time being preserved or removed by natural selection. At some point, it might become useful in a new way. Mostly, it doesn't, and just becomes yet another functional allele of the gene. That's why we have so many allles for each gene, even though we all came from a single pair of humans. The rest evolved over time. But not by design; God is a lot better than that.

"Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory, and mathematical studies that have attempted to study the issue have run into a wall of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes. This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution. In fact, gene deletions and loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common.Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops?

But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number. If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects). Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people), this is an example of a mutation that changes information. Notice I did not say ‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Word duplication is usually frowned upon as being unnecessary (ask any English teacher). Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information. Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not.

Several creationists have written on this subject, including Lightner, Liu and Moran. Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme. There is no reason to expect otherwise. New functions arising through duplication are not impossible, but they are vanishingly unlikely, and they become more unlikely with each degree of change required for the development of each new function.


Evolution has to explain how the four-dimensional genome, with multiple overlapping codes and chock full of meta-information, came about. Can a mutation create new information? Perhaps, but only in the most limited sense. Can it create the kind of information needed to produce a genome? Absolutely not!" Biologist Robert Carter

http://creation.com/mutations-new-information

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

All churches look alike to me and the need for a wedding in a particular one doesn't seem as important to me as it perhaps it does to you.
Anyway, you really do seem to have a large number of issues going on Mark to be a bull in a china shop about, not just with "evolutionists" either by the look of it.

Dearest ALice, My Favorite "Little Girly man";

My wife cares about the Ceremony way more than I do, AL.

This is her Present.

These Churches will change their Ways, or they will all shake to the Ground in Fear.

That's my Decision, and I will not turn Back from it; I have decided.

This is my Religion; If the Bible does not Fit in the Church: "the Church" does not fit in this World.

The Church should be forgotten, but God's Word should be Preserved.


=M=


The Church - Any Extra-Biblical Belief, or action being taught by those who Claim to Teach from God's Word.

In my thoughts bout "Observable Truth" about the "Catholic Church", they are the Source of my Problems; they will fall.

If you don't like it; Go get it off the Roof, you silly little Whores, that can only destroy yourselves: taking down all of Christianity with you, you dumb Whore Catholic ****s!!!


The RCC is riding the Teachings of the Bible into the Ground, and then Claiming "All Christians" as Theirs.

I'm a Christian, I am not yours.

I'm not riding your Fake Belief System train to Hell, I believe in Death, and Can fully handle it; you silly Whores.

Whore, Whore, Whores!!!

You are all a bunch of Morons, and are going to Indirectly Kill My Family!!!

Yes, I don't like you.

My God is the God of Knowledge, and you Spit in His Face; Every time you act like a freaking Whore!!!


I'm not saying "burn down all the Churches"; I'm just telling them to start Teaching From the Word of God, if they are Claiming to: because, I believe in My Religion that you are not supposed to Go against the "Laws of God".


If the Churches are Teaching that they are Teaching the Bible, and they are not; they are "a bunch of Hypocrite Whores".


Barbie says he believes in a "god"; Which "god" is that, you Whore?


Is that Better for you "men" that act like Little Girls?

I wont call you "Girls" anymore, I'll just call you a bunch of Whores, that don't know how to ask Questions, or Answer Questions; Even If somebody "Bolds them", and Highlights them in "Royal Blue".

You are a Bunch of Whores, that sleep around with Concepts/Thoughts/Ideas/Terms/Scientists; which completely discredit and contradict one another.

You are all Reasonably a bunch of Whores!!!

Now, Find me some proof for your Fake Theories, or a Reason to believe them; Or, You can go get it Off The Roof.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

hey seaslime, look up at the red face - i posted in your quote :nono:

I could't care less.

My words will not change, unless I or a Mod Edits them.



=M=


===================================

To "The Church":


The Church told me that my wife has to "Wear A Red Dress"; You are In SO Much Trouble!!!

And; I DOn'T Care about You!!!

Do you understand Now, Girls?


Why don't I post at "Nature.Com"?

Which one of you Evolutionist Morons really asked me that, Again?

Was it Trace Bullets?

Was it that Whore Josie?


Go On and Ban me; then you Moronic Cop Mods can remove my work, too!!!

I don't Care!!!

All of you are a bunch of Biased Racist Sexist Whores, anyway!!!

You are all going to destroy yourselves!!!
What The Hell!

LOL!!!


I'm so through with you All!!!

Stop asking men/women "What God Wants", God's word Exists for a Reason; read it.


better Wipe out both of my User Name Works, to make these Whores happy again!!! LOL!!!


Go back to God's Word Churches;

or, you wont just have to worry about some Man from NY Calling you a Bunch of Whores!!!

LOL!!!


If you don't like it, feel free to leave your "Opinion" or "reason" for what you believe, as Well.

 

[alwight]

My wife cares about the Ceremony way more than I do, AL.

This is her Present.

These Churches will change their Ways, or they will all shake to the Ground in Fear.

That's my Decision, and I will not turn Back from it; I have decided.

This is my Religion; If the Bible does not Fit in the Church: "the Church" does not fit in this World.

The Church should be forgotten, but God's Word should be Preserved.


=M=


The Church - Any Extra-Biblical Belief, or action being taught by those who Claim to Teach from God's Word.

In my thoughts bout "Observable Truth" about the "Catholic Church", they are the Source of my Problems; they will fall.

If you don't like it; Go get it off the Roof, you silly Whores that will destroy yourselves!!!


The RCC is riding the Teachings of the Bible into the Ground, and then Claiming "All Christians" as Theirs.

I'm a Christian, I am not yours.

I'm not riding your Fake Belief System train to Hell, I believe in Death, and Can fully handle it; you silly Whores.

Whore, Whore, Whores!!!

You are all a bunch of Morons, and are going to Indirectly Kill My Family!!!

Yes, I don't like you.

My God is the God of Knowledge, and you Spit in His Face; Every time you act like a freaking Whore!!!

Yes, well, rather a lot of issues going on here then. lain:

However some of us "evolutionists" don't think of it as anything other than a good, sensible and rational naturalistic explanation, not as a threat to anyone's life or perhaps afterlife?
I at least don't regard such a scientific theory as the ToE to be an attack on anyone's god, it's just an explanation that seems to make rather more sense to me than creationism, while based solidly in facts and evidence.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Yes, well, rather a lot of issues going on here then. lain:

However some of us "evolutionists" don't think (That I'd Believe, but more like All Evolutionists =M=) of it as anything other than a good, sensible and rational naturalistic explanation, not as a threat to anyone's life or perhaps afterlife?
I at least don't regard such a scientific theory as the ToE to be an attack on anyone's god, it's just an explanation that seems to make rather more sense to me than creationism, while based solidly in facts and evidence.

It's not a Threat to Creationism; There is no Proof of the Theory of Evolution.


=M=

What have you got against girls Mark, didn't you recently marry one?
Or is that the reason?

Go on and say something about My Wife, again; you "dumb Whore".


If there is no Proof for "Common Descent"; How could it Ever be a "Threat" to Creation Science?

Your Theory says Magic and time did everything, and anything can change into anything with time; your beliefs are Obviously created by a bunch of *****.


The Existence of a "Fine-Tuned Reality"; Proves a Creator.

What proves "Common Descent" of any two Major Groups of Modern Animals, is based in truth to you Personally; Whatsoever?

Where is the Evidence for what you believe; if it's So "Reasonable"?


That's what I thought, Whores.

If you Ignore Knowledge;
The only reason I've been Nice to you Whores, is for Michael and Six Day's Sake.

I don't like you.


When they do remove me, I'm sure you will all Dance and laugh about Non-sense, Again.

 

[6days]

Many of us do see the 'design' of God in nature.

Where I grew up, there was a guy who saw God hiding in his shed. Get some evidence, then we'll talk.

Many of us also see evidence of God in His Word. You can deny it but it, makes it no less truth that any of us do see the 'design' of God in nature

His Word tells us "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

No "design", though. Creation. God isn't limited, and has no need of design.

In the design of creation of the world we see God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature, which have been clearly seen. Not just believers but even atheists like Antony Flew followed the evidence, admitting the argument for Intelligent Design was strong.

Unfortunately, many people see the design, but fail to acknowledge the Designer.
Bill Gates see the design, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Funny, but people who actually know about DNA don't agree.

To be honest you should have said 'evolutionists don't agree'. You of course know there are geneticists, bologists etc who totally agree with that statement from Bill Gates.

"Philosopher of science Stephen C, Meyer show how the digital code in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence behind the origin of life."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWKPO5xLZ3o

And a philosopher with an unorthodox religious axe to grind.

??
What I said was that " Unfortunately, many people see the design, but fail to acknowledge the Designer."

Francisco Ayala, (evolutionary biologist) "The functional design of organisms and their features would therefore seem to argue for the existence of a designer....(But Darwins accomplishment was to show there is no need to resort to a Creator)"

I'm thinking those ellipses are hiding something you don't want us to know. How about filling it in for us? Just so we all know there's nothing funny going on?
Prediction: that isn't going to happen

Haaa. You could easily google it and see I paraphrased what Ayala said but here it is... Ayala " It was Darwin's greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. The origin and adaptation of organisms in their profusion and wondrous variations were thus brought into the realm of science."
Another failed prediction by an evolutionist :sheep:


As I said about Ayala "Some scientists see the design but try explain it away..."

Other scientists see the design and acknowledge The Creator God of the Bible.

Me, for example. IDers say the "designer" might be a "space alien." But I see a Creator.

I'm glad you see the design and acknowledge the Creator. (I wasn't referring to IDers with that comment).

Werner Gitt , Information scientist "The design of such an incredible system of information storage indicates a vastly intelligent Designer."

Werner, it turns out, uses a private definition of "information" .......

Moving the goal post fallacy. What I said about Werner is "Other scientists see the design and acknowledge The Creator God of the Bible"

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbie Girl has come back, For a Kiss?

**** Off Barbie *****.

Or, Learn to answer, when a Man asks you a Question.

Where is the Proof for your Crap Theory of "Common Descent", of any Two Major Groups of animals?


If there isn't any "at all"; Why Do you believe in Evolution?


=M=


If you "are a Catholic":

Why do Catholics think Man was a Chimp-Like Being, when he was "Originally Created"; If God's Word says that Adam was able to walk talk and name all the animals, before he ate from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil"?

(Do you know?)

Because, I really want to know.

: D

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds like all that stuff is starting to unhinge Mark a little, poor fellah.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Nice, answer Barbara; to Obvious Questions...


=================================

Here they are, again; Specially Tailored for you, Girl:


Where is the Proof for your Crap Theory of "Common Descent", of any Two Major Groups of animals?


If there isn't any "at all", whatsoever; Why Do you believe in Evolution?


=M=


If you "are a Catholic":

Why do Catholics think Man was a Chimp-Like Being, when he was "Originally Created"; If God's Word says that Adam was able to walk talk and name all the animals, before he ate from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil"?

(Do you know?)

Because, I really want to know.

: D

 

[The Barbarian]

"Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary,

Once. A single gene duplication, can make it possible for one copy to mutate and assume a different function.

nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome,

Depends on the size of the genome, sexual, asexual, given mutation rate for that organism, etc. Give us some specifics.

nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene,

Depends on the population and the environment. Look up "stabilizing selection" and "directional selection."

nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism

Being on a chromosome, it gets copied with the rest of it.

nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection.

See above. The mutational clock varies depending on the group. Give us some specifics.

These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory

But he can't actually show them to us. That's S.O.P. for creationists.

This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution. In fact, gene deletions and loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common.Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops?

How do you think all that non-coding DNA got there? For example, the GULO gene is still there, albeit broken, for many millions of years. And it's had a few further mutations, which is about right for mammalian introns.

But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number.

Sometimes, sometimes not. Would you like to learn about some cases where it doesn't?

If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects).

Your "expert" has confused gene duplication with aneuploidy.

Aneuploidy is a condition in which the number of chromosomes in the nucleus of a cell is not an exact multiple of the monoploid number of a particular species.
Wikipedia

Gene duplication is any duplication of DNA that duplicates a gene. Most often not by aneuploidy.

Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people), this is an example of a mutation that changes information.

It's addition of information in the strict sense, since (as your author admits) it can change the organism. But a duplication that then is mutated to form a different allele, increases the genetic information by adding one more gene.

Notice I did not say ‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Word duplication is usually frowned upon as being unnecessary (ask any English teacher).

So, "2" is the same thing as "22" according to your English teacher? Good thing she wasn't your math teacher.

Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information.

Always. As in a case of monkeys where a new duplicated gene produced a new enzyme, it would be pretty silly to deny the obvious.

Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not.

There are lots of ways genomes can change, and yes, evolution can proceed by other means. However, gene duplication seems to be a common form of evolution.

Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme.

So the Type III secretory apparatus has the same function as a common form of bacterial flagellum? You seriously believe that?

What kind of a "biologist" doesn't know the difference between gene duplication and aneuploidy?

And I notice that gender-confused Mark has again dodged my challenge. Touchy little fellah, isn't he?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbie;

You do believe the "First Bacteria" that existed on this planet, moved by means of a Flagellum, right Barbie?


=M=


If you don't, are there Other Evolutionists that believe there was a "Time" that Bacteria did not move by the Functional Anatomy known as a Flagellum?

==================================

Irreducible Complexity; Flagellum

Irreducible Complexity; Biochemist: Michael J. Behe

 

[alwight]

Sounds like all that stuff is starting to unhinge Mark a little, poor fellah.

Just a bit unhinged. :idunno:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Somehow, though; I knew you girls would stick around, anyway.

LOL!!!


=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

music ? and who are you, really ?

play my music and i'll leave you alone - Patrick Jane

I guess, I will play Mine; Then... : )

==================================

MUSIC!!!

Missing Persons 1 & 2 - One Republic

=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Neil Of Grassy; On Religious People:

=M=



If they asked everybody in America about their "Religion"; They didn't ask me, so I can already tell you tyson's numbers are "off", already: whether it's to a Small or Great Degree, Who Cares?

The Man is Wrong. Doesn't even understand that "Science" means "Observable Truth"; and not "Any Bogus Idea he Believes in with no Reason to back the Idea or Belief/theory".

Tyson uses Science created by a Creationist. ( Isaac Newton )

Then he talks down to people that Believe in a Creator?

Tyson is not a "Scientist", he's more of an actor; given he pretends that theories are "Science" (Observed Truth), yet lies on a Daily basis to the World, because he cares so little about the terms/words he's using, that he doesn't know the Definition of the Term "Science".

He shouldn't be allowed to "Teach" people anything, the man is a walking contradiction.

Just listen to that man emphasize, the 'P'ronunciation of his "P"s.

LOL!!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Sounds like all that stuff is starting to unhinge Mark a little, poor fellah.

Michael observes:

Sounds more like Mark is unhinging you Barbarian! Give us a real answer to his poignant questions, instead of LOL and all of that ridiculousness. You know that evolution cannot be proven, no matter what you try to do. At least 6days tries to remain unbiased. He is a hero and so is Mark!!

Michael

:nono:

:comeout:

:duh:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Barbarian,

Why is it that it's useless to read what you've written. You constantly get stomped on and are found to be wrong, and instead you keep coming back with the same old like nothing ever happened??

What gives?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Barbarian,

Mark is FAR from 'unhinged.' And is also not a poor fella. He has wiped the floor with your evolution and still you persist in believing lies. Our Universe was created already before God created man and woman. Barbarian, you are Catholic. Why do you choose to not believe in the Creation as it is written in the Bible?? If there were a discrepancy about the Creation, don't you think Jesus would have cleared it up when He was down here?? It just seems very unholy of you to do so. If I am wrong and God tells me different when I meet Him, you'll be one of the first whom I will apologize to. Till then, I will believe what is in the written word.

Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

Dr. Michael and Mr. Mark?