The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[Gumlegs]

You have delusions of adequacy.

Also, delusions of coherence.

[gore3000]

It's a highly conserved gene to have had only one mutation since humans and chimps diverged.

Your usual garbage.

First of all the article says the cytochrome c's of chimps and humans are identical. ARE YOU NOW SAYING THAT THE ARTICLE THAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSTANTLY GIVE AS PROOF OF EVOLUTION WAS A LIE?????????

Second of all, cytochrome c is the gene chosen by evolutionists for their 'molecular clock' because it changes so much between species.

Therefore Vade, the question needs to be posed - are your article and the majority of evolutionists lying or are you lying? Take your choice.

[VadeRetro]

First of all the article says the cytochrome c's of chimps and humans are identical. ARE YOU NOW SAYING THAT THE ARTICLE THAT YOU AND OTHERS CONSTANTLY GIVE AS PROOF OF EVOLUTION WAS A LIE?????????

No, I am not. Calm down.

I agree that the cytochrome cs are identical.

I also insist that there has been one mutation to the genome.

I also insist that you cannot have carefully read the article you claim to have rebutted. How do I know this?

[gore3000]

You have delusions of adequacy.

I am going to tell you something Vade, if you disagree with what I post, if you think it's wrong - PROVE IT. There is no call for insults and it only shows your utter desperation in seeing your phony atheistic/materialist theory torn to shreds and not being able to defend it with facts.

[VadeRetro]

Second of all, cytochrome c is the gene chosen by evolutionists for their 'molecular clock' because it changes so much between species.

Again, no. That statement's as well founded as your assertion that DNA evidence has eliminated a hippo-whale relationship. It's as well-founded as your statement that no amino acids have ever been found in a meteorite.

It is without foundation.

[gore3000]

since man and chimp branched apart over 5 million years ago..-me-

You really do believe in evolution.

No I do not. I forgot to put a caveat on there like supposedly or according to evolutionists, in that you are correct. However, I put enough of them in my statements to make it quite clear that I do not.

[VadeRetro]

I am going to tell you something Vade, if you disagree with what I post, if you think it's wrong - PROVE IT. There is no call for insults and it only shows your utter desperation in seeing your phony atheistic/materialist theory torn to shreds and not being able to defend it with facts.

I see you're back to crying to the moderator when your tactics generate the reaction such obvious dishonesty is going to generate. I refer to the deletion of 660.

If you really want respect, try being respectable.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Basically there is no Junk DNA which is what you are hanging your hat on. All DNA has a purpose.

Your post #379, this thread.

[PatrickHenry]

If you really want respect, try being respectable.

Hee hee.

[gore3000]

No single species has even close to a half of the distinct characteristics of the platypus which I stated in the post you responded to. -me-

I doubt everyone would agree. There are lots of funny animals out there.

You were posed a challenge and you have failed miserably in meeting it so in total Darwinian fashion you try to explain it away by putting the burden of proof on others than yourself. You have insulted me many times for making the claim that the platypus disproves evolution. You have not met the challenge and I have proven my claim. So go back to work and find the species which has all those eleven traits of the platypus. Facts talk, rhetoric walks.

[VadeRetro]

You were posed a challenge and you have failed miserably in meeting it so in total Darwinian fashion you try to explain it away by putting the burden of proof on others than yourself.

Your disproofs of evolution consist of your infallible ability to misunderstand same, to ignore evidence, to remember nothing, and to abuse logic.

Facts talk, rhetoric walks.

Bozo squawks.

[gore3000]

It's a highly conserved gene to have had only one mutation since humans and chimps diverged.

in post#650 you said the above, you now say:

I agree that the cytochrome cs are identical.
I also insist that there has been one mutation to the genome.

You are trying to weasel out of your statement. Furthermore, even your last statement is contradictory (like the article that Stultis posted and you agreed was the best proof of evolution in those 29 evidences). Things cannot be identical if there is something different about them. If you try to weasel out of that by saying that you were speaking of the total genome of man and chimp then that is also nonsense since there is far more difference between man and chimp than one DNA base pair difference in the 3 billion DNA base pairs in humans and chimps.

[VadeRetro]

You cannot, cannot, cannot have read the article you are claiming to debunk and still be making the egregious error you are making here.

Give up?

[gore3000]

Therefore, it is way more than a lack of fossils that is at work here, there is a complete lack of even the remotest proof of any descent of the platypus from any single species. -me-

No.

What a brilliant refutation! How many years did you research that answer?

[VadeRetro]

What a brilliant refutation! How many years did you research that answer?

A better question, how many times have I already told you? But still you say there is nothing.

Two species of Obduron, one Steropodon, and one Monotrematum sudamericanum. Not much, but 4 does not equal zero. Thus, "No."

[VadeRetro]

You've also been saying dicksoni is only a bit of jawbone.

This was followed in 1985 by a spectacular find: an almost complete skull of a fossil platypus about 15 to 20 million years old. This has been named Obdurodon dicksoni (Archer, Jenkins, Hand, Murray, & Godthelp. 1992; Archer, Hand, & Godthelp, 1994). Its skull is more generalized, and about 25% longer, than that of the modern platypus. Some other fossils, including a partial lower jaw, have since been discovered at Riversleigh.

So, you're going to drop that, right? A nearly complete skull and a partial jaw is more than a partial jaw, would you agree?

[VadeRetro]

Obduron

Memory bad. Obdurodon.

[gore3000]

Since the evolutionist assumption that non-coding DNA was disproven, and since other evolutionist assumptions that "useless" organs were not useless such as the appendix and the tonsils, I think evolutionists have a very big credibility problem when they make such claims. Therefore, it is now up to the evolutionists to prove that non-coding DNA is indeed junk. It is an assumption without any proof to back it. The statement that non-coding DNA is not junk, has been proven. In addition, even with genes, we do not know what all of them do. However, enough have been proven to have a purpose that no one assumes that the rest of them do not have a purpose. Scientific assumptions are only legitimate when they have facts to back them up. The evolutionist assumption that junk DNA is junk is not science, it is total nonsense. As I said about medicine regarding the appendix and the tonsils, I can also say about biologists - lucky they did not listen to the phony theory of the Darwinists otherwise we would have closed up some of the most interesting discoveries yet to be made.

[VadeRetro]

I'm going off for the night and don't want to leave you in suspense.

There are 10⁴⁹ ways to code just that one version of cytochrome c that humans and chimps share. The proteins are identical. The genomes responsible differ by one base pair, a difference that happens to be non-functional.

All of which and more the 29 Evidences article you've supposedly "been there and done" explains fully. You need to give it a real study sometime, with the brain switch in the ON position.