The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[ChristineM]

You cannot promote ideas as fact. There's all kinds of research out there, new and old. You found one you didn't understand and thought it supported your claim of mutations being random.

Oh jeez. Another with the ad hom.

Dont understand what?

It not only supports what i said it is the basis of what i said.

 

[ChristineM]

No. It's incomplete. Just because something is published online doesn't make it peer reviewed.

Correct. did i say it was peer reviewed? I did say it was new research

 

[We Never Know]

It was published 2 weeks ago. What do you think?

Why imply its peer reviewed?

 

[ChristineM]

Why imply its peer reviewed?

Where did i imply it is peer reviewed.

I suggest you reread my posts

 

[We Never Know]

Where did i imply it is peer reviewed.

I suggest you reread my posts

Peer reviewed?

It was published 2 weeks ago. What do you think?

Hmmmm.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I disagree.
One has a multitude of what you accept as evidence, the other has another type of evidence you probably don't accept.
I accept both.
I cannot argue evolution is wrong and i cannot argue God is false.
I have see evidence for both.

What objective evidence do you have for a god? You do know the difference between subjective and objective?

 

[ratiocinator]

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones

Are mutations truly random?

OK, that's interesting (thanks!) but it's just a new hypothesis at present and it appears to be about mutation locations being concentrated around previous mutations, not about the actual mutations being non-random.

Part of the beauty and simplicity of evolution by natural selection is that it doesn't need mutations to be driven by anything. They are the "white noise" that gets filtered by natural selection.

 

[ChristineM]

Hmmmm.

Yes, published 2 weeks ago.

Not a word about peer review but about published. Why did you imply otherwise?

 

[We Never Know]

OK, that's interesting (thanks!) but it's just a new hypothesis at present and it appears to be about mutation locations being concentrated around previous mutations, not about the actual mutations being non-random.

Part of the beauty and simplicity of evolution by natural selection is that it doesn't need mutations to be driven by anything. They are the "white noise" that gets filtered by natural selection.

I agree. It's about location, mutation hot spots. That's what I understood it to be as well. Either she didn't read it well or didn't completely understand it.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, published 2 weeks ago.

Not a word about peer review but about published. Why did you imply otherwise?

Ok. When asked if it's peer reviewed, instead of admitting it wasn't, you say it was published. Looks like you like to play word games. I will keep that in mind when responding to you.

 

[ChristineM]

OK, that's interesting (thanks!) but it's just a new hypothesis at present and it appears to be about mutation locations being concentrated around previous mutations, not about the actual mutations being non-random.

Part of the beauty and simplicity of evolution by natural selection is that it doesn't need mutations to be driven by anything. They are the "white noise" that gets filtered by natural selection.

More that may interest you
Physiology and the revolution in Evolutionary Biology

 

[ChristineM]

Ok. When asked if it's peer reviewed, instead of admitting it wasn't, you say it was published. Looks like you like to play word games. I will keep that in mind when responding to you.

Why is telling the truth a word game?

If you misunderstood me that is hardly my fault

 

[YoursTrue]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

What I find interesting is that no earlier form of "evolution," such as shrimp, apes, bears and the like feel the need to make and put on clothing. (Neither do butterflies, moths, worms, birds...etc. None of them make, put on, and wear clothing.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct. did i say it was peer reviewed? I did say it was new research

Peer reviewed? By those who have done other analysis of details along the same manner under similar circumstances?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is telling the truth a word game?

If you misunderstood me that is hardly my fault

Now just imagine how that thought might be evolved.

 

[ChristineM]

Peer reviewed? By those who have done other analysis of details along the same manner under similar circumstances?

Ahh another one who cant read

And you really have no idea what peer review entails, have you?

 

[ChristineM]

Now just imagine how that thought might be evolved.

?

 

[ChristineM]

What I find interesting is that no earlier form of "evolution," such as shrimp, apes, bears and the like feel the need to make and put on clothing. (Neither do butterflies, moths, worms, birds...etc. None of them make, put on, and wear clothing.)

Wearing of clothes is not an evolutionary thing. Clothes sid not evolve, they were made to combat weather conditions.

 

[viole]

The bible is the only explanation of the history of life on earth

You forget Bob, the invisible uncaused turtle that is the ultimate explanation for life and the Universe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”




To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.



What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists, the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.



That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.

But in general terms I agree the article is silly.

I think a Chihuahua looks more different from a wolf, that a human from an orangutan. That seems to indicate we and orangutang might be the same kind.

Right?

Ciao

- viole