Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[Dan From Smithville]

Obviously you have nothing to add to the discussion.

And you have? No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can not get from a fish to a bird for example without remaking the whole system. It's not just small changes, but it would be like saying you could program a unicycle a certain way and turn it into a 747.
Just not possible.

I see you offering here was a straw man. If evolution is like a magical unicycle, it cannot be true. Beating up a scientific theory, because it is not a magical unicycle doesn't make any sense. I suppose that is why you chose it as your straw.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just did.

No you did not explain your declaration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, not without adding a lot of extra parts and not without an intelligent designer. Impossible.
Where are the extra parts coming from? Poof, magic?

You are not explaining anything here. You just just keep doubling down and adding to your claim without explaining it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it is impossible. You can not get from a single celled organism to the diverse life on this planet without added information.
You can't make a house from a single tree either.

More not explaining and poor analogies. You're the expert here on impossibility. Dazzle us.

You literally can make a house out of a single tree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you started trying to rearrange the parts of a unicycle in order to make it into a jet? How's that going for you?

I am more interested how you are going to magically poof an argument with the claims you have made. I think you are going to have to pull it from somewhere other than a hat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution can't work unless there's a beginning mechanism to kick start it. There's no selection without something to select.

Genotypic and phenotypic variation.

It would help your case if you actually knew the subject. I recommend reading some popular books explaining evolution and the evidence for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only that doesn't work either. It's only mechanism is blind chance.

The mechanism is selection. Is it that you have no idea about the science? Surely not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, a human has a host. It doesn't just grab extra material from nowhere to create itself.

What? I know you won't explain this incomprehensible statement, but it demands explanation. What is the host that humans have? What does that mean? How does it relate to the discussion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The old " you just don't understand" nonsense. No one can understand what is illogical. No scientists really understand it either, but they still promote it.

It is not just that you don't understand, and clearly you don't, it is that you believe you do understand and at a level greater than the experts.

It is true that no scientist fully understands biology or this particular aspect of biology, but much is understood.

Scientists are not part of some great conspiracy to promote a theory that has no validity.

You just express belief-based thinking at its worst.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Statistically impossible.
First, tell us the rate of duplication necessary, and how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, and the needed rate of turning on and off, and the statistical possiblity of a new function arising in the silenced gene, and how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, and the rate at which the ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost to genetic drift or through natural selection.

Does a deactivated gene stick around for few million years or more while a new function develops?

Gene duplication is usually a negative, not a positive. The whole theory has holes an elephant can walk through.

Now you are a statistician. I thought you hated that college stuff.

This is just claims and random noise without the benefit of anything that might even look like an argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obviously you have nothing to add to the discussion.

I think I may have added something to the discussion. Hope it helps.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Now you are a statistician. I thought you hated that college stuff.

What? In all your blathering nonsense this has to be the most nonsensical statement.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I think I may have added something to the discussion. Hope it helps.

Nope you added nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope you added nothing.

You keep believing that. It is all you have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What? In all your blathering nonsense this has to be the most nonsensical statement.

No. It is not nonsense. You made comments here on the forum extolling your regards for higher education. Statistics would fit in that and your having a statistics degree would be ironic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope you added nothing.

Do you actually have something to explain and support your claims or are we down to the "I lost bad, so I gotta insult my way out of this" phase of your presence here?

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. It is not nonsense. You made comments here on the forum extolling your regards for higher education. Statistics would fit in that and your having a statistics degree would be ironic.

I have no problem with higher education... my kids are going to college.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with higher education... my kids are going to college.

Then maybe you have them explain things to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with higher education... my kids are going to college.

How is evolution like the magical transformation of a unicycle to a 747? Please explain and support your answer.

How is evolution impossible? Please explain and support your answer.

How is belief not a valid proposal to counter a theory that is internally and externally logical and based on existing evidence?