Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
I used to have a closed mind ... when I was an evolutionist ... and it took me 10 years to prize it open!!!
Everything is 'in an environment that is suited to them' in many respects ... so WHY did the starfish not change one iota over 500 Million Evolutionist years ... while Humans were supposedly evolving from something that supposedly looked like a fish?!!!
I don't mean to insult you, but if you don't know the answer to this
extremely trivial question you never were an "evolutionist".
If you check the links I gave you on page 20 you'll see that starfish
have changed link. There have been plenty of evolutionary divergences
from the old 500 million year starfish. Here is another example of how
they've diverged throughout time. The key point I want to explain to
you is that a starfish population living 500 million years ago can be
alive today as long as the environment they live in is suitable.
If the environment changes in a crazy enough way then the starfish will
die. When things like that happen there can be small sections of the
starfish population whose genetic makeup is internally different in such a
way so that they can withstand the changes. That would be an example
of how starfish would change over time.
There is every reason to think that many, many starfish over 500 million
years had "random" genetic variations. However, if you'd even read the
full book by Dawkins that you quote in your signature you'd realise that
most of these genetic variations are extremely bad for an organism and
it will die. Basically while many members of the species throughout time
would have had genetic variations we can clearly see most were bad
and led to that animal either dying of being unable to sufficiently
reproduce.
If you want to learn this properly why don't you give this set of lectures
a chance:
If those lectures seem a bit too serious then you could just enjoy this
brilliant lecture:
You'll learn more from the first one though.
There's more in this playlist but you'll love this one on it's own anyway!0 -
-
-
Daftendirekt wrote: »Okay, I've racking my brains for at least 30 seconds, trying to figure this out, but I'm going to have to ask... What in hell is the point he's trying to make about foetuses not wrinkling in amniotic fluid?
I think you're under the mistaken impression that there is some point beyond what you see in exhibit A:
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
darjeeling wrote: »Just in case anyone's blood pressure is running a bit low, here's Kevin Myers' contribution from today's Indo: link
I do have a nagging doubt though: how many people who tell you they believe (I use the word advisedly) in evolution could give you a run-through of the basic evidence supporting it? I suspect we'd find a much greater level of ignorance than we might hope.
What is that babble about insulin, the only semi-credible point he made in
his diatribe? "Evolution cannot explain the most basic question about how a
simple protein like insulin could have first been formed". I don't know how
you're supposed to find the origins of a biochemical like insulin in rocks but
when we read of reports like Factors Responsible for the evolution of
insulin resistance in Japanese type 2 diabetric patients I suppose evolution
can't explain that either :rolleyes:
I'll bet Kevin Myers has read and posted his arguments against such
articles as The Insulin Family: Evolution of Structures and Functions in
Vertebrates and Invertebrates or christmas classics like the
Molecular Evolution of Insulin in Non-Mamallian Vertebrates.
Again I posted a video link to a 10 part course by Stanford going through
some of the evidence for Evolution:
Kevin, give it the 20 hours of research :cool:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
... Geocentrism is just as invalid as Evolution
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Kevin Myers 'hit the nail on the head', as far a Evolutionism is concerned ... "Theories of evolution when tested on the origin of protein molecules, not to speak of DNA, usually imitate Mr Gladstone when replying to Queen Victoria's question: "Yes, prime minister, but what is it exactly that lesbians do in bed?"sponsoredwalk wrote: »
Evolution cannot explain the most basic question about how a simple protein like insulin could have first been formed. "Simple" is a relative term: insulin is composed of 51 amino acids and has a molecular weight of 5808. Water is just 18. You can boil the primeval molecular broth for an awful long time and put it under enormous pressures, but you will not spontaneously create an insulin molecule, never mind one of the titin molecules, that have a molecular mass of almost 3,000,000 and a total length of almost 27,000 amino acids."
Like I have said Geocentrism and Evolution complement each other perfectly, in the 'observationally challenged' stakes!!!0 -
-
-
Irish times:
Madam, — Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland disapproves of Minister of Science Conor Lenihan’s appearance at the launch of a book arguing against belief in evolution. How times change! Fifty years ago we can imagine The Irish Timesreporting that representatives of religion are aghast at the idea of public figures appearing at launches of books promoting evolution!
It seems science has become the new orthodoxy and woe betide any humble person who takes a different view. The imposition of science over God is truly the exaltation of man, the created being, over and above his Creator.
Perhaps some scientists and humanists just cannot imagine any higher form of life than themselves. What arrogance! – Yours, etc,
JASON O’DONNELL,
St Michael’s Avenue,
Tipperary.
lolwut
Shouldn't that read "the created being finally below it's creator."
0 -
-
-
-
darjeeling wrote: »And if anyone's not heard enough of John J May yet, here he was yesterday on Phantom FM in debate with TCD Genetics lecturer Aoife McLysaght: link
(scroll down to 'Evolution Discussion')
She creamed him, wish it went on for longer.
More scientists showing his inconsistencies via mp3 please 0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fysSblKjjvA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncgm9QOzQsA
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement