"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You may be right. Warfarin has only really been used for the last 60 years. Even the most promiscuous mice couldn't manage a tiny fraction of the generational turnover of bacteria over that time, and they managed this.

Warfarin resistance is achieved by a mutation that results in damage to vitamin K metabolism mechanisms. The mutations that confer resistance are highly selective and affect vitamin K 2,3-epoxide reductase.
Quote:-
Mutations have been shown to cause two different hereditary phenotypes: warfarin-resistance and defective blood coagulation owing to vitamin K-dependent coagulation factor deficiency.

... so what we have is not a new, useful gene, but instead a damaged version of an existing one. The spread of the damaged gene through the population is limited by its bad effects when not paired with the normal gene.
With Warfarin resistance, the efficiency of a vitamin K enzyme is sacrificed to confer resistance to warfarin. Its the same as sickle cell anaemia, where haemoglobin's efficiency at carrying oxygen is sacrificed to confer resistance to malaria. In both cases damage to an existing gene results in resistance. A rat with only the resistant enzyme will die from internal bleeding if it cannot obtain enough Vitamin K — even if it never encounters warfarin.
A rat that is heterozygous for Warfarin resistance metabolises Vitamin K almost as efficiently as a suceptible (normal) rat - but because of the damage caused to their CFSI, rats that are homozygous for Warfarin resistance can die of vitamin K deficiency.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/4/
Quote:-
Field investigations of the relative fitness of warfarin-resistant rats on a farm in Shropshire showed that when selection pressure from anticoagulant use was removed, the frequency of the warfarin resistance gene fell from 80 to 33% over 18 months

This is a pendulum swing type of 'evolution' that swings one way in the presence of the poison ... and back to where it started in the absence of the poison.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

How would you like it if i replied to your posts with "evolution...the best answer" ?

C'mon JC. You can do better.

I would have to accept it ... if it were true!!!!:)
... but of course Evolution is just a mechanism that facilitates adaptation within Kinds to environmental factors, at a population level, using pre-existing CFSI diversity ...
... while Jesus Christ loves us all ... and He can Save you ... and has Saved me ... from the eternal consequences of our sin.
... no comparison, really !!!!:)

clever_name

the question

swiftblade wrote: »

It has no purpose. Unless of coarse you can find one?

So if it has no CFSI, who put it there?

Your answer

J C wrote: »

How about Jesus Christ ... the best answer for your eternal destiny.:)

A real answer to the question or an acknowledgement that you are unwilling/unable to answer the question would be appreciated.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I take back what I said about you debating properly.

Don't be like that, Doctor Jimbob ... there is life after evolution.:)

J C

wrote:

clever_name
the question

Originally Posted by swiftblade
It has no purpose. Unless of coarse you can find one?

So if it has no CFSI, who put it there?

clever_name
A real answer to the question or an acknowledgement that you are unwilling/unable to answer the question would be appreciated.

I thought that the answer was self-evident ... that something with no functionality doesn't have definitive CFSI ... and therefore we can't say definitively if anybody put it there ... and its likely that it arose spontaneously.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

I thought that the answer was self-evident ... that something with no functionality doesn't have definitive CFSI ... and therefore we can't say definitively if anybody put it there ... and its likely that it arose spontaneously.

Wait, a muscle just appeared out of nowhere? If by your accounts God designed the rest of the body why is it there?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nothing has definitive any CFSI.

Anything that contains Complex Functional Specified Information (like yourself) definitively has CFSI.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Anything that contains Complex Functional Specified Information (like yourself) definitively has CFSI.:)

with the absence of a clear definition of CFSI, that statement has no merit.

also, why is that 'damaged' organisms have better immunity to certain diseases?

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Anything that contains Complex Functional Specified Information (like yourself) definitively has CFSI.:)

But how come, as I have shown, parts of a human can contain no CFSI? (Im going by what little info you have given us on this CFSI stuff)

clever_name

J C wrote: »

I thought that the answer was self-evident ... that something with no functionality doesn't have definitive CFSI ... and therefore we can't say definitively if anybody put it there ... and its likely that it arose spontaneously.

Well as you have yet to define CFSI its impossible to know if it has CFSI. So humans are designed by an inteligent force who put in something useless thereby meaning the force was not too inteligent or as you say "it arose spontaneously" that sounds like evolution.

Dont worry about coming up with an obtuse reply to that, in fact just dont reply at all.

J C

koth wrote: »

also, why is that 'damaged' organisms have better immunity to certain diseases?

the damage prevents the disease developing ... because the disease only can develop in the normal organism.
Its the same with most antibiotic resistance ... which is achieved by damage to the ability of the bacterium to metabolise/ingest the antibiotic ... which is the reason why the antibiotic normally kills the bacterium.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Warfarin resistance is [copy/paste that pretty much proves the point I was making, although J C added in some bollocks about genetic damage because he doesn't understand how change is an evolutionary essential]

This is a pendulum swing type of 'evolution' that swings one way in the presence of the poison ... and back to where it started in the absence of the poison.

Obviously if you remove a selective pressure, certain traits will stop being selected for. That's how evolution works. You've said nothing here that discredits evolution. In fact, you've supported it. Just like every paper you ever link to that's not from a creationist whackjob site.

Now, could you please post that rigorous mathematical definition of cfsi that Dembski told us all he had, or admit he was lying about it?

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

It is common across most land animals.

The reason we didn't need them anymore was because we became the dominant predator. The lower down the food chain the bigger these muscles are usually. It is criticle in animals such as rabbits and hares to focus the sound from behind them.

They could be beneficial ... but we never had them.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

They could be beneficial ... but we never had them.

Are you referring to these

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

They could be beneficial ... but we never had them.

We did have them and we still do.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

How do you explain wisdom teeth JC?

We needed them in the past but now they are defunct. Some people have them some don't. What's your take on this?

They could still be useful ... and, just like the problems that some people have with other teeth ... they are indicative of a once perfect Creation that is 'running down' ... and not some kind of spontaneous 'evolution' that is defying the Laws of Thermodynamics to 'run up' from microbes to man.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

They could still be useful ... and, just like the problems that some people have with other teeth ... they are indicative of a once perfect Creation that is 'running down' ... and not some kind of spontaneous 'evolution' that is defying the Laws of Thermodynamics to 'run up' from microbes to man.

O..kay

What about the diagram posted?

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Are you referring to these

I was referring to directional ears ... which are found in some mammals ... but not Man

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

I was referring to directional ears ... which are found in some mammals ... but not Man

But which we still have the muscles present for. They are also evident in the diagram.

J C

koth wrote: »

Abnormality isn't an argument against evolution. A thumb is an abnormal digit compared to our ape-like ancestors, but is perfectly normal for the modern human.

Because the vast majority of mutations are observed to be deleterious and the tiny minority that are beneficial are the result of damage to some system, this is incontrovertible evidence of a once perfect Creation 'running down'.

koth wrote: »

Please don't insult my intelligence. I know I don't have a college level science education, but I know enough to know that it's a scientific definition of CFSI.

... its a valid definition.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

But which we still have the muscles present for. They are also evident in the diagram.

Like I have previously said, they're a common design feature that is largely turned off in Humans.:)

J C

koth wrote: »

with the absence of a clear definition of CFSI, that statement has no merit.

I have defined it here

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Like I have previously said, they're a common design feature that is largely turned off in Humans.:)

But if we are designed by a creator, why would he put small versions of them there? Why not just leave them off?

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

But if we are designed by a creator, why would he put small versions of them there? Why not just leave them off?

They have the important function of holding our ears firmly in place, by anchoring them.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

They have the important function of holding our ears firmly in place, by anchoring them.

You win

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

You win

The truth always wins ... and will also set you free.:)

... so its 'game set and match' ... to Creation Science.:D

... love and logic to you all.

dlofnep

Why did God give the Kiwi useless wings?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Why did God give the Kiwi useless wings?

Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.:D
The presence of flightless birds with wings argues for a designer, because such structures cannot be explained by natural selection for the simple reason that they confer no known survival advantage ... and should have been eliminated by NS.
Even in the plant world there are many examples of structures that cannot be explained by natural selection. Some flowering plants (such as dandelions) are self-pollinating and consequently have no need for flowers. NS should have ensured that these plants lost their bright yellow flowers millions of years ago ... but then they haven't been around for millions of years ... so perhaps that explains it.:)

Sonics2k

Why do men have nipples?

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Why do men have nipples?

Male mammals need the genetic CFSI to ensure female Mammals have mammary glands ... with which to produce milk to feed their young ... and that is also why men (and other male mammals) have hormonally controlled (non-functional) nipples !!!