Evolution for disabled people

[Pwntlolz]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Caused by what? The difference between you and me is, that us creatiolutionists don't just put all mutations to the same catergory. As such, we are far more accurate when it comes to science.

No fantasizing, just keeping to pure cold evolution-crushing facts.

Because Genetics. You're not identical to your brothers and sisters, I assume?
Evolution crushing fact my ass.

Problem is such genetic variations can either come from an intelligent, not random progress behind the genes, or as a result of say, gamma rays or free radicals damaging part of the genes, causing them to lose some their original function.

Ok, but it can also come from random genetic variations.

Most of all antibiotic etc. resistances are not becouse of evolution(random chances caused by nature by instances such as free radicals or gamma ray) but by intelligent, cooperative effort in genes, much like one would except if he believed this world to be intelligently designed, like I do.

They build up a resistance/tolerance the same way the native americans built up a resistanceto the European diseases. Those that are weak, die. Those that are very tolerant survive and have children that are also strong against the disease.

Correct, except that remember some attributes are actually the result of an intelligent, already programmed behaviour in the genes, and not random mutations or random chance.

being?

Wrong. Italian Wall Lizards prove that the chances initiated by a chance of habitat are the result of an intelligent behaviour within the genes, not random chance or mutation like evolution would except.

And how exactly does it prove that? There's clearly more to evolution than what's in my post but certain people on this forum that may or may not include you don't seem to understand anything more in detail

You forgot the part where ameba becomes a human. But of course you would only choose talk of the parts wich are beneficial to your theory.. and not the part wich clearly, according to the evidence, contradicts the nature.

I didn't realize describing natural selection meant I had to explain how we come from amoebas. Best let one of the more knowledgable people on the subject explain that.

It seems like you just like to rename evolution intelligent design and then say that God did it. I think it's silly, but not as silly as trying to use it as an argument that evolution does not exist.

We're not taller because of evolution, btw. We're taller because we eat better. We haven't evolved all that much against disease since the Middle Ages either. We just eat better and have better healthcare. It's not evolution and no one tried to pretend it was.

If I was so stupid to believe that evolution states my grandfather was an amoeba I'd be skeptical too, so I can understand some of your skepticism.

[TwoHourMotel]

Kaiverrettu, I highly recommend (again) that you should watch these lecture series Here by Richard Dawkins. It is a bit old, but still very much relevant. The audience is mostly children so you won't find the language intimidating or hard to understand.

[Ali Radicali]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Im quite sure it is a common claim amongst the advocators of evolution that all human life originated from a same ancestor of some sort, be it amebas then or some other.

Humans are (distant) descendants of microscopic organisms.
No human being was ever born from a microscopic organism.

Do you understand the difference?

If yes, can you stop equivocating the two KTHX?

[BenderRodriguez]

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

Humans are (distant) descendants of microscopic organisms.
No human being was ever born from a microscopic organism.

Do you understand the difference?

If yes, can you stop equivocating the two KTHX?

It's like saying living beings are made out of Hydrogen,Oxygen and Carbon; a atheist nonsense!

[Hey00]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Problem is such genetic variations can either come from an intelligent, not random progress behind the genes, or as a result of say, gamma rays or free radicals damaging part of the genes, causing them to lose some their original function.

Most of all antibiotic etc. resistances are not becouse of evolution(random chances caused by nature by instances such as free radicals or gamma ray) but by intelligent, cooperative effort in genes, much like one would except if he believed this world to be intelligently designed, like I do.

Right, right... Oh wait:

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

CCR5-Delta is not the result of an intelligent progress in the genes, but the result of damage in a gene. Very similarly as to how a person with this "disability" gave it's bearer a more greater chance to survive in the more hostile bacterial environment after-flood.

So, beneficial mutations comes from ID, but CCR5-Δ32 doesn't... õ_Ô
Indeed, hiv is god's punishment, so resistance to it isn't beneficial, it can't comes from him, right?

You acknowledged more than once that new features appear through non god controlled mutations. That also contradicts one of your old claim that every new features was already coded in the genes by your sky daddy.

By the way, you never explained how that "intelligent, cooperative effort in genes" is working. But since you are as knowledgeable as top-class biologists, you can probably explain it to me, poor ignorant sheep, right? Or you will just ignore that question.


This is just too cute to see you struggling, ignoring example and arguments, twisting facts, etc. to hold a position so stupid... Keep up the good work!

[Kaiverrettu]

Originally Posted by Pwntlolz

Ok, but it can also come from random genetic variations.

Can you actually prove that there are instances of genetic variations that are random that are relevant for this field, eg. disease resistance? Based on past evidence we have, there is no reason to assume that disease resistance, either on bacteria or on us humans - is the result of a random process.

They build up a resistance/tolerance the same way the native americans built up a resistanceto the European diseases. Those that are weak, die. Those that are very tolerant survive and have children that are also strong against the disease.

Exactly. Imagine an HIV disease spreading across the country on air. Just imagine. People with CCR5 delta survive. But does this prove evolution? No.

Natural selection is about as good argument as saying, putting a finger on a hot stove will cause irreversible burn damage to it. Becouse if someone is born with a natural disability in the nature, like with one eye, or eye-less, of course he is going to have a less chance of survival.

And how exactly does it prove that? There's clearly more to evolution than what's in my post but certain people on this forum that may or may not include you don't seem to understand anything more in detail

Becouse how, if according to the advocators of evolution, radical chances take MILLIONS of years.. is this supposed good evidence for evolution?

The thing is you do a good job at explaining evolution as it is explained in the textbooks, but you have yet to actually prove it happens.

I didn't realize describing natural selection meant I had to explain how we come from amoebas. Best let one of the more knowledgable people on the subject explain that.

Natural selection has actually nothing to do with evolution. It's the same as saying if you put your finger on a hot stove, it'll burn. There is absolutely nothing "scientifical" about it - it is much like gravity or like the attributes of atoms in this regard.

It seems like you just like to rename evolution intelligent design and then say that God did it. I think it's silly, but not as silly as trying to use it as an argument that evolution does not exist.

No, intelligent design is a new, emerging theory with some significant differences to evolution.

- We don't except that in the nature, new attributes like IWL fermentation chamber occur becouse of random mutations
- We don't except that biological life on it's own is billions of years old
- We don't think that all life is the result of a step-by-step progress

The thing with you, as is always, is that you fail to portray us as enemies of science. There are proven parts in evolution and then there are unproven parts, seemingly illogical parts in evolution.

Well, if evolution is like this, then why is it spread in our textbooks? The answer it simple. Evolution is actually irreversibly connected to the modern atheism. Thus evolution is pretty much the main thing wich modernday-atheist attempt to defend their religion.

As such, evolution has become much more of an ideological question, rathern than a question of mere science - wich is the case usually on other fields of science.

We're not taller because of evolution, btw. We're taller because we eat better. We haven't evolved all that much against disease since the Middle Ages either. We just eat better and have better healthcare. It's not evolution and no one tried to pretend it was.

Becouse there is no disease "evolution" as you claim there is. Disease resistance is the result of an intelligent programming in genes - the immune system of human attempts to produce antibodies to destroy the intruders under our skin.

It's the same thing with every other being and not just us humans. The organism causing the TseTse Fly disease attempts to intellectually intercept and stop the antibiotics from actually penetrating it's skin.

(Apologoies, I wasn't really able to find out that study in english, but it basically states that the parasite learns to stop letting 3 effective drugs from penetrating it's cell layer - once again sign of intelligent desing in the genes. But, for any would-be finnish readers, the study mentioned is here: http://tieku.fi/psykologia-ja-kaytta...-heikot-kohdat)

Some diseases are so potent that they would simply overwhelm our bodys defenses. Even a simple E.Coli disease would be much more more dangerous or even fatal if we didn't have a mutation wich has disabled the genes producing 2 proteins that were once relevant to our immune function.

If I was so stupid to believe that evolution states my grandfather was an amoeba I'd be skeptical too, so I can understand some of your skepticism.

Quite sure evolution states we evolved from some same primordial "ameba-like" lifeform(s).

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Natural selection is about as good argument as saying, putting a finger on a hot stove will cause irreversible burn damage to it. Becouse if someone is born with a natural disability in the nature, like with one eye, or eye-less, of course he is going to have a less chance of survival.

You don't mention the conditions, so you are wrong. A finger on a hot stove won't cause irreversible burn damage, if you touch it for a fraction of a second. What's the connection with the natural selection? That it is obvious? In that case yes, what's your point? Why can't it be a good argument?
And having no eyes, or eyesight, doesn't prevent the bats to survive.

No, intelligent design is a new, emerging theory with some significant differences to evolution.

Yes. The latter is true scientifically.

The thing with you, as is always, is that you fail to portray us as enemies of science.

Straw-man argument.

Well, if evolution is like this, then why is it spread in our textbooks? The answer it simple. Evolution is actually irreversibly connected to the modern atheism. Thus evolution is pretty much the main thing wich modernday-atheist attempt to defend their religion.

Only thing, evolution is not "modern" as you imply. It's Darwin in the 19th century that published it, and , btw, he was religious.

I won't quote the other parts of the post, as i have answered them before. I refer you to my previous replies.

[CynthiaCrescent]

Originally Posted by TwoHourMotel

Well I don't know about gay, but he did have 2 dads.

Something to quote for the road.

[Kaiverrettu]

Originally Posted by Mousatos

You don't mention the conditions, so you are wrong. A finger on a hot stove won't cause irreversible burn damage, if you touch it for a fraction of a second. What's the connection with the natural selection? That it is obvious? In that case yes, what's your point? Why can't it be a good argument?

That natural selection is not an argument against creation.

And having no eyes, or eyesight, doesn't prevent the bats to survive.

That's what I said, in this or some other thread. Apologies mr. rocket scientists if I don't wish to type the exact same sentence when answering to similar arguments everytime.

Straw-man argument.

Rofl. Nope.

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

That natural selection is not an argument against creation.

It's part of evolution though.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

That's what I said, in this or some other thread. Apologies mr. rocket scientists if I don't wish to type the exact same sentence when answering to similar arguments everytime.

You generalized eyesight as being an important ability. I simply pointed out that, that is not the case always.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Rofl. Nope.

"nope" Then where did you see me calling you "enemy of science"

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Pretty sure he was agnostic when he published his theory of evilution.

Pretty sure agnostic has nothing to do with religion. Or atheism. They are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist, for instance, and you a gnostic theist. That doesn't mean there are no agnostic theists or gnostic atheists.

[Banned]

Always wondered why some people believe in evolution yet do not believe in race

[Banned]

double post

[Kaiverrettu]

Originally Posted by Hey00

So, beneficial mutations comes from ID, but CCR5-Δ32 doesn't... õ_Ô
Indeed, hiv is god's punishment, so resistance to it isn't beneficial, it can't comes from him, right?

When were we talking about what are beneficial mutations and what are not? Holy shit! You're being paranoid.

You acknowledged more than once that new features appear through non god controlled mutations.

Straw-man.

That also contradicts one of your old claim that every new features was already coded in the genes by your sky daddy.

Every feature IS pretty much pre-coded in genes, like we can see in the nature. When certain conditions apply, eg. for lizards, change in diet, those attributes that are already pre-existant in the genes, re-surface.

By the way, you never explained how that "intelligent, cooperative effort in genes" is working.

We don't know exactly how, but it is clear from observing Lizards that genes wich weren't active beacme active after just 34 years their reintroduction to those islands.

So here we have 2 premises confirmed that are made or based upon creation
1. Existance of information in genes regarding to these lizards diet
2. Fast changes that fit well within the creation theory - microevolution and such don't take millions of years

There are plenty of non-used genes in the part of the DNA previously coiled by the evolutionists wich you revere so high as the "Trash-DNA." Of course us creationists knew all along that there is no such thing as trash in the DNA, that is intelligently created by God, but the arrogant evolutionists are too proud to admit their theory is not based upon good, solid evidence.

So it's funny to see people who don't believe in creation constantly come up with results that disprove their results that we knew as facts all along. They're explainig to themself: look we did wrong, but science progresses! Nothing wrong with evolution! Heh!

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Of course there is some random variation as well. But in the Lizard's case we can clearly see intelligent design - the genes are responding to the new diet by adapting the Lizard's stomatch to be more suitable for digesting it.

Busted. Random = non-controlled/luck controlled
so

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Straw-man.

No, just pointed why.

[Kaiverrettu]

Originally Posted by Mousatos

It's part of evolution though.

Well as already explained, it's not in conflict with creation.

You generalized eyesight as being an important ability. I simply pointed out that, that is no the case always.

And you really think I didn't acknowledge this possibility? I've given a similar reply already.

The fact that you choose to reply like this only tells me that you're:
1. Arrogant
2. Underestimating creationists intelligence

Once again hurting my intelligence. Ouch.

"nope" Then where did you see me calling you "enemy of science"

It's actually a rather common strategy by evolutionists. I suppose you don't know your kind very much.

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Well as already explained, it's not in conflict with creation.

So evolution process does not conflict with creation? That's new.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

And you really think I didn't acknowledge this possibility? I've given a similar reply already, not sure if it was you or someone else but quite sure you've read it.

The fact that you choose to reply like this only tells me that you're:
1. Arrogant
2. Underestimating creationists intelligence

Once again hurting my intelligence. Ouch.

You didn't acknowledge many things, why would i suspect you will agree on that? Anyway, the way you phrased it, it's wrong.
Also, i don't underestimate creationists intelligence here, i underestimete your intelligence.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

It's actually a rather common strategy by evolutionists. I suppose you don't know your kind very much.

Well, i am not "evolutionists". I am me, and i never called you "enemy of science". So it's still a straw-man argument.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Agnostic theist? Do you even know what the term means?

Poor english again?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

So, agnostic theist;
A person that believes in a deity, but thinks the his belief is based on an unknowable truth.
That truth being whether god exists or not.

[Kaiverrettu]

Originally Posted by Mousatos

So evolution process does not conflict with creation? That's new.

To call it an "evolutionistic term" is an overstatement. 10 year old child could come to the conclusion and understand that an animal with a disability will not be able to get as much offspring or survive as well than what an animal without this disability would.

Busted. Random = non-controlled/luck controlled
so

I edited it away becouse of a concern that it would be misunderstood.

There is variation in genes, but it is preprogrammed to very specific parts of the animal. For example, if there is a mutation like CCR5-delta or any similar "mutation" in one of the receptors of your most vital internal organs, consequences are more likely than not going to be catastrophic.

Animals like giraffe aren't going to adapt eating meat, but Lizards and some other animals can. This proves only that animals are different, wich fits well into the creation theory.

All animals were meant to eat vegetables, non-living creatures, in the beginning. But becouse of sin, some animals started to digest meat. These Lizards who started eating 100% meat would survive better than Lizards who did not, and thus the population wich ate 100% meat became more succescuful.

After the migration to the islands however, the grass-eating genes became active once again, allowing the Lizards to adapt.

Irrefutable evidence for creation.

[Mousatos]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

To call it an "evolutionistic term" is an overstatement. 10 year old child could come to the conclusion and understand that an animal with a disability will not be able to get as much offspring or survive as well than what an animal without this disability would.

And yet you claimed that this, as a part of the evolution methods, is not in any conflict with creation?

[565656]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Animals like giraffe aren't going to adapt eating meat, but Lizards and some other animals can. This proves only that animals are different, wich fits well into the creation theory.

I don't know an animal that can't eat meat.

[KingsofCreation]

Originally Posted by 565656

I don't know an animal that can't eat meat.

They're called herbivores.