Replies

Ugggh- another long post to respond to-

first of all, all those links are NOT evidences- they are a priori ASSUMPTIONS and wild imaginary scenarios plain and simple. As I said- ‘Real science’ according to who? Those who are great storytellers and just happen to have an a priori religious belief in macorevolution and hte power of nature to ‘just do it’?

[[According to those who go out into the field and work very hard to gather data for months or even years at a time rather then just sitting in an arm-chair.]]

Ah- I see- so field workers imaginations are more ‘scientific’ than are arm chair investiogators? How do you know htis? Have you asked me to make up a story yet? I’ll bet you’ll be quite surprised should you ask- I have an active imagiantion too ya know!

[[I have already discussed the different types of mutations. Did you bother to look them up?]]

I’ve not only looked htem up, but have discussed those claims in detail in many htreads here i nthe past- my answer still stands

[[There is no difference between the processes that lead to small changes and the processes that lead to enough small changes to eventually amount to big ones.]]

And you called me silly? Of course there is a difference- you can’t get new non species specific info by simply modifying info already present in a species that is precoded to have limitation boundaries. You MUST introduce non species specific info from a ‘higher’ source- but as we know, there were no ‘higher sources’ of complexity available to draw from if we’re to think molecules turned into man Mind just briefly running htrough the process of simple chemical assemblies turning into highly complex info for say wings? Or hearing? or Skin? or any number of other complex systems? You demanded I provide a precise biolgoical breakdown of how a Creator created previously, so I’ll throw the ball right back in your court and ask you to provide those examples of chemical arrangements self organizing, mutating,. and evolving complex self assembling complex systems- and remember, we’re literally talking that this must have occured trillions of times for each and every macroevolutionary change, so surely you will be able to provide good examples starting from the very basics of early evolution?

[[You realize that I can read previous posts don’t you?]]

Woops- You can? Shhhh Don’t tell anyone- don’t want anyone catchign onto my tactics

[[the whole field of phylogenetic systematics. I’ve already discussed the different ways that genes affect morphology.]]

you did? Was that in another thread that’s being kept secret from me? Because I certainly saw no such discussion here.

[[You weren’t even paying attention to what I was writing.]]

I’m sorry- what did you say?

[[No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail.]]

And that has to do with hte price of tea in china how again? Programmed systems aren’t allowed to fail otherwise they are noty to be concidered programmed? you’re trapsing far from the trail here-

[[You are angry because they didn’t draw comparative structures to scale?]]

Lol- yeah, that’s it- the deception is all just in my head- there was no intentional deception goign on there at ll- nothign to see here folks- move right along- Silly me. Kids will instantly realize hte two species are the wrong size, and automatically know that millions of years supposedly seperate the two ‘closely related different sized species’ and will.... oh wait- no they won’t- the chart makes NO mention of htose little facts- but wait- there’s no itnentional deception... but wait- maybe hterew might be.... but htere couldn’t be... blah blah blah.

[[We are discussing living systems here. A living system needs energy for chemical reactions but not too much energy in the wrong place or that will denature the proteins.]]

Yes indeed we are- however, this admission does nothign to support hte idea that species somehow miraculously escaped entropy at every single stage of macroevolution, and pointing to an ‘open system’ just makes matters worse, not better- it’s all explained in the link to trueorigins I linked you to.

[[Why should I argue with a definition that you made up? This is getting silly.]]

Yep- it’s made up but it ACCURATELY and PRTECISELY depicts the real problems associated with macroevolution in a way that ‘species’ and ‘similarities’ can not even begin to describe. But if you want ot just wave it aside, I’ll understand- hard to defend a dying hypothesis I’m sure. No sense treading out onto thin ice to do so- too risky- You may be excused from this discussion.

[[ I wrote “hypothesis”. Do you know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory? Hint: they are NOT the same.]]

My apologies- I thought you said theory- I write quickly with lots of htoughts goign on at once and lost track of what you actually wrote- do I know hte difference? Of course, a hypothesis is what you get when it’s too cold outside, and your toes turn black and fall off, a hteory is what you get when you watch a running segment of shows- a theory of shows

[[That would be very enlightening if true so where are you getting this information?]]

youy’ll find it on the net by htose hwo have studied the structures first hand- Safarati is the name coming ot mind right now, might be someone else- Do I really gotta spend all night looking it up? Whiel I’m doign so, would you mind findign info that states they coudl infact bear hteir weight? I’ll wait