Discussion:
EVIDENCE OF DESIGN HENCE A DESIGNER
(too old to reply)
R. Dean
2018-03-13 04:58:05 UTC
Permalink
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation

is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved

in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair which is
designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations to correct the
errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.



Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because

the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to
explain.

By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.

No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means

and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
From article on DNA proofreading and repair:

"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can
occasionally occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base.
Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as
cancer. Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases
mistakes are not corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair
enzymes are themselves mutated or defective.



Mutations: In this interactive, you can “edit” a DNA strand and cause a
mutation. Take a look at the effects!



Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by
DNA polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In
proofreading, the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the
next one so a correction can be made.



The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly
with the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the
next nucleotide is added. If an incorrect base has been added, the
enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester bond and releases the incorrect
nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease action of DNA pol III.
Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one will be added
again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/




It seems clear that this is design.
Ted
2018-03-13 05:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair which is
designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations to correct the
errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can
occasionally occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base.
Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as
cancer. Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases
mistakes are not corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair
enzymes are themselves mutated or defective.
Mutations: In this interactive, you can “edit” a DNA strand and cause a
mutation. Take a look at the effects!
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In
proofreading, the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the
next one so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly
with the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next
nucleotide is added. If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme
makes a cut at the phosphodiester bond and releases the incorrect
nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease action of DNA pol III.
Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
Idiot.
R. Dean
2018-03-13 20:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair which is
designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations to correct the
errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can
occasionally occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base.
Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as
cancer. Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases
mistakes are not corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair
enzymes are themselves mutated or defective.
Mutations: In this interactive, you can “edit” a DNA strand and cause a
mutation. Take a look at the effects!
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In
proofreading, the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the
next one so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly
with the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next
nucleotide is added. If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme
makes a cut at the phosphodiester bond and releases the incorrect
nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease action of DNA pol III.
Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
Idiot.
You can't refute it, so you would kill the messenger.
Gospel TT
2018-03-13 21:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair which is
designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations to
correct the
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is
difficult to explain.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can
occasionally occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base.
Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as
cancer. Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases
mistakes are not corrected, leading to mutations; in other
cases, repair
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
enzymes are themselves mutated or defective.
Mutations: In this interactive, you can edit a DNA strand and
cause a
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
mutation. Take a look at the effects!
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly
corrected by DNA
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In
proofreading, the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before
adding the
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
next one so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly
with the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next
nucleotide is added. If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme
makes a cut at the phosphodiester bond and releases the incorrect
nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease action of DNA pol III.
Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
Post by R. Dean
Post by Ted
Post by R. Dean
It seems clear that this is design.
Idiot.
You can't refute it, so you would kill the messenger.
Intelligent Design is blasphemy cause it put's the creation ahead of
the Creator.
Andrew
2018-03-13 03:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.

These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.

Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified-->

Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Malte Runz
2018-03-13 12:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
2018-03-13 12:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
One of the early pioneers in DNA replication, Nobel prize winning
Authur Kornberg mentioned in his book "For the Love of Enzymes"
that the human DNA polymerase has an error rate of 10^7. Or one
mistake per 10,000,000 nucleotides. So yes, not "fool proof". But
only a fool could fail to appreciate it and see how it would prevent
evolution to occur per the Darwinian paradigm.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
Is that your studied conclusion?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
No, but please tell us how.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
OK.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
He is the Awesome One.

Glory to Him.

Amen.
Kevrob
2018-03-13 18:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
He is the Awesome One.
So, he strikes fear into you....
Post by Andrew
Glory to Him.
...and you grovel.

Do you really claim to be an intelligent being with a will
of your own? Why worship something that is, at best, a bully?

Kevin R
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-13 18:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
One of the early pioneers in DNA replication, Nobel prize winning
Authur Kornberg mentioned in his book "For the Love of Enzymes"
that the human DNA polymerase has an error rate of 10^7. Or one
mistake per 10,000,000 nucleotides. So yes, not "fool proof". But
only a fool could fail to appreciate it and see how it would prevent
evolution to occur per the Darwinian paradigm.
Either he was wrong or else you got that wrong. Or whatever site
you copied from got it wrong -- I don't get the impression you
actually know a whole lot about all this yourself.

It's one mistake per 10^8 bases, or one tenth of the rate you said.
However, you also did not mention that the human genome contains
30 times that number of nucleotides -- 3.2 billion -- so that means
that there will be 30 copying errors every time a cell divides.

The repair mechanisms catch 99 percent of those errors, so the
overall rate of errors is about one in ten billion base pairs.

If we're going to talk science, then let's start out by geting the basic science right.

BR-8
Post by Andrew
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
Is that your studied conclusion?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
No, but please tell us how.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
OK.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
He is the Awesome One.
Glory to Him.
Amen.
R. Dean
2018-03-13 20:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Nothing works 100%, but you haven't explained exactly how or when or
why the mechanisms of proofreading and repair became into existence.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
It's better than no system. Which doesn't explain for how it arose
or why. Can you claim that mutations arose to repair mutations?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
This explains nothing to you, but you have _no_ explanation that's
naturalistic.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
Where there is design a designer is inferred.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
At no time or not point have you offered an alternative other than it
was design by a designer.
Malte Runz
2018-03-14 03:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Nothing works 100%, but you haven't explained exactly how or when or
why the mechanisms of proofreading and repair became into existence.
The mechanism evolved I suppose... I haven't the foggiest exactly how
it happened, but if it hadn't things would have been different I
assume.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
It's better than no system. Which doesn't explain for how it arose
or why. ...
The 'hows' can be investigated scientifically, but the 'whys' I leave
up to those who believe in those things. 'Because He wanted it!'
Post by R. Dean
... Can you claim that mutations arose to repair mutations?
Nope, but I suggest you google it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
This explains nothing to you, but you have _no_ explanation that's
naturalistic.
As I said, no, I can't explain it, but I'm sure you could find
something on the www. Have you tried, or are you waiting for someone
to dig up some material for you to reject?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
Where there is design a designer is inferred.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
At no time or not point have you offered an alternative other than it
was design by a designer.
There is no design. It just looks like it.
--
Malte Runz
R. Dean
2018-03-14 04:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Nothing works 100%, but you haven't explained exactly how or when or
why the mechanisms of proofreading and repair became into existence.
The mechanism evolved I suppose... I haven't the foggiest exactly how
it happened, but if it hadn't things would have been different I
assume.
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
It's better than no system. Which doesn't explain for how it arose
or why. ...
The 'hows' can be investigated scientifically, but the 'whys' I leave
up to those who believe in those things. 'Because He wanted it!'
Science answers the whys. Why do some species of birds fly south? To
avoid the cold. Why do rivers run downhill to the oceans? because of
the pull of gravity. Why do freezers make ice?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... Can you claim that mutations arose to repair mutations?
Nope, but I suggest you google it.
I have spent time doing just that. This topic is not something
that has attracted attention.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
This explains nothing to you, but you have _no_ explanation that's
naturalistic.
As I said, no, I can't explain it, but I'm sure you could find
something on the www. Have you tried, or are you waiting for someone
to dig up some material for you to reject?
I have tried, finding nothing. This is the reason I brought it to
the newsgroup.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
Where there is design a designer is inferred.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
At no time or not point have you offered an alternative other than it
was design by a designer.
There is no design. It just looks like it.
Exactly how do you make the distinction: how do you know this? Truth
is you _cannot_ know this. It's only your belief based upon faith.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 05:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Nothing works 100%, but you haven't explained exactly how or when or
why the mechanisms of proofreading and repair became into existence.
The mechanism evolved I suppose... I haven't the foggiest exactly how
it happened, but if it hadn't things would have been different I
assume.
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
It's better than no system. Which doesn't explain for how it arose
or why. ...
The 'hows' can be investigated scientifically, but the 'whys' I leave
up to those who believe in those things. 'Because He wanted it!'
Science answers the whys. Why do some species of birds fly south? To
avoid the cold. Why do rivers run downhill to the oceans? because of
the pull of gravity. Why do freezers make ice?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... Can you claim that mutations arose to repair mutations?
Nope, but I suggest you google it.
I have spent time doing just that. This topic is not something
that has attracted attention.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
This explains nothing to you, but you have _no_ explanation that's
naturalistic.
As I said, no, I can't explain it, but I'm sure you could find
something on the www. Have you tried, or are you waiting for someone
to dig up some material for you to reject?
I have tried, finding nothing. This is the reason I brought it to
the newsgroup.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
Where there is design a designer is inferred.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
At no time or not point have you offered an alternative other than it
was design by a designer.
There is no design. It just looks like it.
Exactly how do you make the distinction: how do you know this? Truth
is you _cannot_ know this. It's only your belief based upon faith.
Ah, the nature of knowing and the ideal of absolute certainty. People have been having the same unimaginative argument at alt.atheism for years.
R. Dean
2018-03-14 16:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Nothing works 100%, but you haven't explained exactly how or when or
why the mechanisms of proofreading and repair became into existence.
The mechanism evolved I suppose... I haven't the foggiest exactly how
it happened, but if it hadn't things would have been different I
assume.
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
It's better than no system. Which doesn't explain for how it arose
or why. ...
The 'hows' can be investigated scientifically, but the 'whys' I leave
up to those who believe in those things. 'Because He wanted it!'
Science answers the whys. Why do some species of birds fly south? To
avoid the cold. Why do rivers run downhill to the oceans? because of
the pull of gravity. Why do freezers make ice?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... Can you claim that mutations arose to repair mutations?
Nope, but I suggest you google it.
I have spent time doing just that. This topic is not something
that has attracted attention.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
This explains nothing to you, but you have _no_ explanation that's
naturalistic.
As I said, no, I can't explain it, but I'm sure you could find
something on the www. Have you tried, or are you waiting for someone
to dig up some material for you to reject?
I have tried, finding nothing. This is the reason I brought it to
the newsgroup.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Because you say so.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Godditit!!!
Where there is design a designer is inferred.
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Godditit!!!
At no time or not point have you offered an alternative other than it
was design by a designer.
There is no design. It just looks like it.
Exactly how do you make the distinction: how do you know this? Truth
is you _cannot_ know this. It's only your belief based upon faith.
Ah, the nature of knowing and the ideal of absolute certainty. People have been having the same unimaginative argument at alt.atheism for years.
So what: it's a fact!
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-14 09:03:21 UTC
Permalink
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
______________

And yet there is no concrete evidence that indicates ANYTHING else.

Ain't nature grand?
aaa
2018-03-14 12:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
______________
And yet there is no concrete evidence that indicates ANYTHING else.
Ain't nature grand?
No. Your imaginary thinking is grand. You have a lot of faith in the
copying errors of DNA. The stupid copying error made by a DNA almost
looks like the very foundation of evolutionary science.

What else can be more grand?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
R. Dean
2018-03-14 16:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
______________
And yet there is no concrete evidence that indicates ANYTHING else.
This still does not explain anything regarding the proofreading and
repair mechanisms. Even though this mechanism is made up of DNA itself
it must be separate, independent and apart from the information which
it is designed to repair.
Post by R. Dean
Ain't nature grand?
Yes, it is.
Malte Runz
2018-03-14 13:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
But those mechanisms aren't working 100%. Well... in your case they
seem to prevent any new information to penetrate your mind.
Nothing works 100%, but you haven't explained exactly how or when or
why the mechanisms of proofreading and repair became into existence.
The mechanism evolved I suppose... I haven't the foggiest exactly how
it happened, but if it hadn't things would have been different I
assume.
I would say so! I assume we would not exist. There's absolutely no
reason to suppose that random, mindless unguided natural processes
could come up with workable proofreading and repair mechanisms.
You mean you can't think of a reason. Your personal incredulity
doesn't count as an argument.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Again, we're not talking about a fool proofed system.
It's better than no system. Which doesn't explain for how it arose
or why. ...
The 'hows' can be investigated scientifically, but the 'whys' I leave
up to those who believe in those things. 'Because He wanted it!'
Science answers the whys. Why do some species of birds fly south? To
avoid the cold. Why do rivers run downhill to the oceans? because of
the pull of gravity. Why do freezers make ice?
Okay. I was thinking about the other 'whys'. Those who presuppose a
conscious entity with needs and desires and the ability to fulfill
them.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... Can you claim that mutations arose to repair mutations?
Nope, but I suggest you google it.
I have spent time doing just that. This topic is not something
that has attracted attention.
And you say you have absolutely no idea how it could happen? You
simply can't imagine how a mutation, that is beneficial to the
individual, can be selected for?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Right. When in doubt: goddidit!!!
This explains nothing to you, but you have _no_ explanation that's
naturalistic.
As I said, no, I can't explain it, but I'm sure you could find
something on the www. Have you tried, or are you waiting for someone
to dig up some material for you to reject?
I have tried, finding nothing. This is the reason I brought it to
the newsgroup.
At one point we didn't know how photo synthesis worked but now we do.
History tells us that eventually scientists will be able to give us
the answers to your question, and in the meantime you're free to
believe that 'it can't be done, I see no reason to believe that it
can, and therefore I claim it was God'. But if you still believe that
after the proper answer has been given then you lose credibility. Big
time!

(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
At no time or not point have you offered an alternative other than it
was design by a designer.
There is no design. It just looks like it.
Exactly how do you make the distinction: how do you know this? Truth
is you _cannot_ know this. ...
I am not aware of any observed and documented phenomenon that we know
has no natural explanation. The 'self repairing genome' is not one.
Neither is the coming into being of life or even the Universe itself.
The fact that scientist haven't found all the 'hows' does not mean
that they know that there is no natural explanation. This is pretty
basic stuff, really.
Post by R. Dean
... It's only your belief based upon faith.
Yes, I know. 'Atheistic evolution is just another religion based on
faith... how pathetic!!!'

Isn't faith a virtue by your standards?
--
Malte Runz
Don Martin
2018-03-14 22:27:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:41:09 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
At one point we didn't know how photo synthesis worked but now we do.
History tells us that eventually scientists will be able to give us
the answers to your question, and in the meantime you're free to
believe that 'it can't be done, I see no reason to believe that it
can, and therefore I claim it was God'. But if you still believe that
after the proper answer has been given then you lose credibility. Big
time!
This guy has credibility? Who knew?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
j***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 17:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Since mutations occur, the corrective mechanism does not fully prevent mutations. Therefore natural selection and evolution are able to occur.
Gospel TT
2018-03-13 20:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Since mutations occur, the corrective mechanism does not fully
prevent mutations. Therefore natural selection and evolution are
able to occur.

Andrew is a liar for Satan.
R. Dean
2018-03-13 20:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Since mutations occur, the corrective mechanism does not fully prevent
mutations. Therefore natural selection and evolution are able to occur.
This does not explain exactly how or why random mutations can come
into existence to proofread and repair mutations.
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-13 18:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.

The repair mechanisms are not perfect. Every child is born with 100-200
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.

And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.

Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible. In fact an omnipotent
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.

BR-8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Kevrob
2018-03-13 18:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible. In fact an omnipotent
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.
Could be "planned obsolescence." Old models break down, as designed?

It is shitty craft, but Detroit ate high on the hog doing that for
decades.

Kevin R
R. Dean
2018-03-13 21:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.

Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs down,
we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during reproduction
of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to function
properly, resulting in
old age and death. Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our
bodies.


Telomeres are shortened as we age, but telomeres can also be shortened
by stress, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise and a poor diet 3,4,6,7
Post by Blue Ringed 8
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.
BR-8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-13 21:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to survive
and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm not sure why you
assume "perfect at the beginning".
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about
error correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs down,
we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during reproduction
of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to function
properly, resulting in
old age and death. Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our
bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.

I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these marvelous
mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not the equivalent
to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is one of shrinking the gaps
and reducing their number.


BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Telomeres are shortened as we age, but telomeres can also be shortened
by stress, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise and a poor diet 3,4,6,7
Post by Blue Ringed 8
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.
BR-8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
R. Dean
2018-03-14 02:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to survive
and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm not sure why you
assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about
error correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs down,
we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during reproduction
of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to function
properly, resulting in
old age and death. Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our
bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these marvelous
mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not the equivalent
to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is one of shrinking the gaps
and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Telomeres are shortened as we age, but telomeres can also be shortened
by stress, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise and a poor diet 3,4,6,7
Post by Blue Ringed 8
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.
BR-8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-14 02:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to survive
and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm not sure why you
assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about
error correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Well, again: germ cells do contain on the order of some hundreds of
mutations, which means that the repair mechanisms -- the original topic here --
aren't perfect. And while telomerase allows the telomere count to stay
higher than in (most, but not all) somatic cells, the likelihood of birth defects
increases with the increasing age of either parent. So again: incomplete copy editing.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs down,
we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during reproduction
of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to function
properly, resulting in
old age and death. Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our
bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
All right, but now your argument presupposes design. You've gone from
citing repair mechanisms as evidence of design to declaring senescence necessary,
because design.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these marvelous
mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not the equivalent
to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is one of shrinking the gaps
and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
True, and I'm not denying that possibility.

But I will note that the "intelligent design" movement arose as a direct
consequence of the courts ruling that creationism cannot be taught
in public schools. Their counter move was to disingenuously claim that
they're not pitching any particular deity at all, just a dispassionate
examination showing that there is design, whatever its source, and surely you
can teach that in public schools.

Disingenuous, as I say: I doubt you'll find a single non-Christian
in the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute.



BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Telomeres are shortened as we age, but telomeres can also be shortened
by stress, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise and a poor diet 3,4,6,7
Post by Blue Ringed 8
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.
BR-8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
which is designed to detect faulty new DNA and begin operations
to correct the errors by removing and replacing the faulty DNA.
Here it is simplified--> http://youtu.be/HYS6EKnQcv0
Post by R. Dean
Possibly the reason this topic is not so commonly discussed is because
the origin of this process of proofreading and repair is difficult to explain.
It is impossible to explain by any evolutionary pathway.
Post by R. Dean
By what procedure could mutation create the proofreading and repair.
It could not have.
Post by R. Dean
No one that I've read provides any details as to how, by what means
Because it is inexplicable by any 'naturalistic only' means.
Post by R. Dean
and what steps could this have come about.
To provide the standard
line of mutation and natural selection explains nothing where
error in copying occurs.
"DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally
occur as when a DNA polymerase inserts a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes
may sometimes lead to serious consequences, such as cancer.
Repair mechanisms can correct the mistakes, but in rare cases mistakes are not
corrected, leading to mutations; in other cases, repair enzymes are themselves
mutated or defective.
Most of the mistakes during DNA replication are promptly corrected by DNA
polymerase which proofreads the base that has just been added. In proofreading,
the DNA pol reads the newly-added base before adding the next one
so a correction can be made.
The polymerase checks whether the newly-added base has paired correctly with
the base in the template strand. If it is the correct base, the next nucleotide is added.
If an incorrect base has been added, the enzyme makes a cut at the phosphodiester
bond and releases the incorrect nucleotide. This is performed by the exonuclease
action of DNA pol III. Once the incorrect nucleotide has been removed, a new one
will be added again."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-biology/chapter/dna-repair/
It seems clear that this is design.
If this did not exist, we would have been -extinct- long ago.
Gospel TT
2018-03-14 03:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that
mutation
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and
repair
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good
enough to survive
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm not sure why you
assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its
parents: mutations
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations,
copying errors
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about
error correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs down,
we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to function
properly, resulting in
old age and death. Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our
bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and
omnipotent
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells
continue. But
Post by R. Dean
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
There's no such design nor foresight in nature. If you're really
interested in truth then read some some books on evolution.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these marvelous
mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not the equivalent
to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is one of shrinking the gaps
and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past
involvement
Post by R. Dean
with the universe and life.
Correct. Not if you offer a broad enough definition.
Smiler
2018-03-15 23:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Street
2018-03-15 23:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Acme.
Gospel TT
2018-03-16 01:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about
it in
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that
mutation
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good
enough to
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all.
I'm
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations,
copying
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss
during
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and
omnipotent
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells
continue. But
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past
involvement
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
If it's just another dishonest christer liar then he's aiming for the
whiskered old geezer just above the clouds but he needs to set up his
bait&switch first.
Don Martin
2018-03-16 02:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Have you any idea of how many hours one must spend at the drawing
board for one of those?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
R. Dean
2018-03-16 03:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Are you not capable of thinking for yourself. Countless numbers of
people have asked this question since Richard Dawkins asked the
same question. This copycatting is endless.
Malte Runz
2018-03-16 11:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Are you not capable of thinking for yourself. Countless numbers of
people have asked this question since Richard Dawkins asked the
same question. This copycatting is endless.
Imagine would happen if someone came up with a satisfying answer.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2018-03-16 12:21:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:39:31 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Are you not capable of thinking for yourself. Countless numbers of
people have asked this question since Richard Dawkins asked the
same question. This copycatting is endless.
Imagine what would happen if someone came up with a satisfying answer.
--
Malte Runz
R. Dean
2018-03-16 16:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:39:31 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Are you not capable of thinking for yourself. Countless numbers of
people have asked this question since Richard Dawkins asked the
same question. This copycatting is endless.
Imagine what would happen if someone came up with a satisfying answer.
Who or what designed the designer? Who or what says the designer needed
a designer. The question of eternal has existed for numerous decades,
even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. Until it was proven
that the universe had a beginning. But there is no reason to believe
that the designer is not eternal. There is modern laws of physics which
says there is always cause and effect. So, according to modern physics
the designer must have had a cause. However, modern laws of physics
did not exist until after Planck time, which ended 10^-43 seconds after
the Big Bang. No one knows what laws existed before Planck time. But
cause and effect as part of modern laws of physics did _not_ exist.
Kevrob
2018-03-16 20:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:39:31 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Countless numbers of
people have asked this question since Richard Dawkins asked the
same question. This copycatting is endless.
This goes back much farther than Dawkins, if you include the
"cause of the `uncaused' First Cause." See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Of course, many religions don't have a "first cause."
The universe or cosmos has always been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_cosmology
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Imagine what would happen if someone came up with a satisfying answer.
Who or what designed the designer? Who or what says the designer needed
a designer. The question of eternal has existed for numerous decades,
even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. Until it was proven
that the universe had a beginning. But there is no reason to believe
that the designer is not eternal. There is modern laws of physics which
says there is always cause and effect. So, according to modern physics
the designer must have had a cause. However, modern laws of physics
did not exist until after Planck time, which ended 10^-43 seconds after
the Big Bang. No one knows what laws existed before Planck time. But
cause and effect as part of modern laws of physics did _not_ exist.
I've tried "you can't say anything meaningful about Time `t' when
`t' is _before_ the singularity started expanding." Some people
can't grasp the idea that the physical laws of the universe as
we know it didn't exist yet, and that "before t" whatever rules
the singularity operated under are, as yet, undiscoverable. Maybe
you have to have the habit of mind of

a) a physicist, who grapples with these ideas for a living, or

b) a life-long science fiction fan, who has been presented with all
sorts of weird scenarios.

All us old folk have seen a lot change over the decades, some of it
weirder than fiction. It wouldn't shake my foundations if someone
eventually figured out what was on the "other side" of the
singularity, but, in some sense, that would make it part of our
universe, wouldn't it? If there's information exchanged, it would
be included. Just one POV, not anything set in stone.

Kevin R
Davej
2018-03-16 20:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Who or what designed the designer? Who or what says the designer needed
a designer. The question of eternal has existed for numerous decades,
even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. Until it was proven
that the universe had a beginning. But there is no reason to believe
that the designer is not eternal. There is modern laws of physics which
says there is always cause and effect. So, according to modern physics
the designer must have had a cause. However, modern laws of physics
did not exist until after Planck time, which ended 10^-43 seconds after
the Big Bang. No one knows what laws existed before Planck time. But
cause and effect as part of modern laws of physics did _not_ exist.
Once you "figure out" that there is a designer, then what? Seems like a
dead-end to me. Like the foolish child who "figures out" that there is
a monster under his bed.
aaa
2018-03-16 18:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Smiler
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
It's just an assumption and perhaps not a very good one.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error
correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
It's incredible but germ cell's telomeres do not shorten with age as
somatic cells do: which means middle aged people can have as a baby as
normal as the young. This would not be possible if germ cells were as
subject to decay as our somatic cells are.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to
function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act like
a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
It did with amebas for example: single cell don't age and die, they
reproduce by division where both mother and daughter cells continue. But
with higher organisms death is a necessity since the planet would become
over stocked in time as new births take up space.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
You can call the designer by what ever nomenclature you choose, it
doesn't alter the possibility of it's existence or it's past involvement
with the universe and life.
What or who designed your supposed designer?
Are you not capable of thinking for yourself. Countless numbers of
people have asked this question since Richard Dawkins asked the
same question. This copycatting is endless.
Imagine would happen if someone came up with a satisfying answer.
The answer has been well known. God is the eternal truth that has no
beginning or end. The creator does not need to be created because God's
existence is the eternal _spiritual_ existence. It's why all spiritual
things are also eternal because of God. It's also why heaven is forever,
and heavenly life is everlasting.

When atheists limit themselves in this physical existence, they just
can't understand God's spiritual existence.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Street
2018-03-14 04:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to survive
and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm not sure why you
assume "perfect at the beginning".
Because, like all creationists, he deliberately misunderstands. He wants to
be stupid.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells,
three paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about
error correcting mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs down,
we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during reproduction
of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell reproduces.
We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one with each
reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short to function
properly, resulting in
old age and death. Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our
bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these marvelous
mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not the equivalent
to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is one of shrinking the gaps
and reducing their number.
BR-8
Pearls - swine. If the loser you're addressing gave s flying fuck about
truth, he wouldn't be here lying.
aaa
2018-03-14 12:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about
it in public or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims
that mutation is a source of new information and natural
selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and
repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents
evolution to occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the
natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in
fact the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations,
copying errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring,
but rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells, three
paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error correcting
mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces. We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose
one with each reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become
too short to function properly, resulting in old age and death.
Telomeres act like a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and
omnipotent designer would create.
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is
not the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of
science is one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
If evolution fails to explain it, why not try intelligent design?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Smiler
2018-03-16 00:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in
public or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that
mutation is a source of new information and natural selection
becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells, three
paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error correcting
mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces. We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one
with each reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short
to function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act
like a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
If evolution fails to explain it, why not try intelligent design?
Just because there is a gap in our knowledge doesn't mean that your supposed
god is hiding there.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
aaa
2018-03-16 02:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in
public or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that
mutation is a source of new information and natural selection
becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA code.
Um, why? Biology is a an exercise in "good enough". Good enough to
survive and pass on an organism's genes is the basis of it all. I'm
not sure why you assume "perfect at the beginning".
Post by R. Dean
Every child is born with 100-200
Post by Blue Ringed 8
mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
But it's not the somatic genes that's passed down to offspring, but
rather it's germ cells.
Yes, but I also mentioned the rate of mutations in germ cells, three
paragraphs back. Further, the discussion is about error correcting
mechanisms, which are at work in both types of cells.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible.
Why?our bodies are not infallible. Decay happens: everything runs
down, we are programed to age and die due to telomere loss during
reproduction of cells. Telomeres become shorter every time a cell
reproduces. We human are born with about 49 "rungs" and we loose one
with each reproduction of a cell. Over time telomeres become too short
to function properly, resulting in old age and death. Telomeres act
like a clock aging in every cell of our bodies.
Which to me is quite the opposite of what an benevolent and omnipotent
designer would create.
I'm not saying you are wrong. Perhaps Brahma did design these
marvelous mechanisms. But I am saying that "We do not know yet" is not
the equivalent to ceding intelligent design. The history of science is
one of shrinking the gaps and reducing their number.
If evolution fails to explain it, why not try intelligent design?
Just because there is a gap in our knowledge doesn't mean that your supposed
god is hiding there.
No. The reason there is a gap is that evolution isn't the right piece in
the puzzle. Take out evolution, and you will find God's intelligent
design a better piece for the puzzle.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-16 17:25:00 UTC
Permalink
No . The reason there is a gap is that evolution isn't the right piece in
the puzzle. Take out evolution, and you will find God's intelligent
design a better piece for the puzzle.
- hide quoted text -

When you take out the fact of evolution all that's left is fiction.

You believe in fiction.
aaa
2018-03-16 18:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No . The reason there is a gap is that evolution isn't the right piece in
the puzzle. Take out evolution, and you will find God's intelligent
design a better piece for the puzzle.
- hide quoted text -
When you take out the fact of evolution all that's left is fiction.
You believe in fiction.
There is no fact of evolution. Evolution is nothing but an empty
man-made philosophical theory with random mutation and natural
selection. It has no real facts of its own. The supposed facts are all
plagiarized from modern biology. The same facts of modern biology can
always be better explained by intelligent design, and intelligence
design is nothing like evolution that needs scientific facts as its
justification. It's a real philosophical theory based on the better
understanding and explanation of intelligence as a philosophical
subject. It can always stand on its own without relying on science.
Intelligent design can actually predict what happens in any discovery of
biology. That is what a real philosophical theory of life should have done.

For evolution, which is an actual philosophical theory of life, to rely
on science as its justification, evolution has broken all the rules
between philosophy and science. It hasn't just corrupted science alone.
It has made philosophy nothing but wishful thinking and making up shit
after the fact as well.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-16 20:37:53 UTC
Permalink
show quoted text -
There is no fact of evolution.

Yes, there is.


Evolution is nothing but an empty
man-made philosophical theory with random mutation and natural
selection.

Bullshit. Evolution is based on observations and testing that have been co firming for over 150 years.

It has no real facts of its own.

Another lie.


The supposed facts are all
plagiarized from modern biology.

Wrong again.


The same facts of modern biology can
always be better explained by intelligent design, and intelligence
design is nothing like evolution that needs scientific facts as its
justification.

More bullshit.


It's a real philosophical theory based on the better
understanding and explanation of intelligence as a philosophical
subject. It can always stand on its own without relying on science.
Intelligent design can actually predict what happens in any discovery of
biology. That is what a real philosophical theory of life should have done.


You have just made another bullshit claim with no evidence.
Gospel TT
2018-03-14 02:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you think that's reasonabler?????
R. Dean
2018-03-14 02:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it
in public
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
   or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes
involved
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.  >
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA
Post by R. Dean
code.
Why do you think that's reasonabler?????
Why not?
Gospel TT
2018-03-14 03:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:17:52 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it
in public
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
   or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes
involved
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible
Post by R. Dean
Post by Andrew
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.  >
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the
DNA
Post by R. Dean
code.
Why do you think that's reasonabler?????
Why not?
You're making groundless assumptions designed to guide your argument
in the direction you want it to go.
Davej
2018-03-14 14:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents
evolution to occur? Because that is exactly what we have in
the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning
of the DNA code.
So then Jesus was only visiting to ensure the salvation of the
Blue-Green Algae who were made "perfect" by GAWD?
Malte Runz
2018-03-14 15:11:18 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.

(snip)
--
Malte Runz
R. Dean
2018-03-14 21:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times.
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Malte Runz
2018-03-14 23:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.

I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.

What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
--
Malte Runz
R. Dean
2018-03-15 00:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-15 01:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial.
I'd quibble with that: most of what I've read says that the great majority
are neutral. There aren't a lot of enzymes which are strongly conserved,
because changing one amino acid here or there rarely makes a difference.
It would have to impact the active site or else affect the way the protein folds.

And there are beneficial ones: I for one am glad I can eat ice cream.

And there's one in a very small population in Italy with a single point mutation
that renders those who carry it very unlikely to have cardiovascular problems,
even though the have (according to one researcher) very poor diets, and
they smoke as well.
Post by R. Dean
Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
Quite true. But this doesn't really argue for our genome having been pristine
at some remote point; it just means there will be a greater overall burden
in the future.

BR-8
R. Dean
2018-03-15 02:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial.
I'd quibble with that: most of what I've read says that the great majority
are neutral. There aren't a lot of enzymes which are strongly conserved,
because changing one amino acid here or there rarely makes a difference.
It would have to impact the active site or else affect the way the protein folds.
And there are beneficial ones: I for one am glad I can eat ice cream.
And there's one in a very small population in Italy with a single point mutation
that renders those who carry it very unlikely to have cardiovascular problems,
even though the have (according to one researcher) very poor diets, and
they smoke as well.
Post by R. Dean
Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
Quite true. But this doesn't really argue for our genome having been pristine
at some remote point; it just means there will be a greater overall burden
in the future.
Ok, I agree with that.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
b***@m.nu
2018-03-15 03:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
you do realize that you are a theist, uneducated, and incredibly
fucking stupid right?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
R. Dean
2018-03-15 04:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
you do realize that you are a theist, uneducated, and incredibly
fucking stupid right?
You are so typical of braggarts who cannot answer a legitimate rational
question so what do you do rather than respond in a logical and honest
way saying simply I don't know. What you do instead is engage in
personal and verbal assaults and character assassination. This shows
that you recognize your own ignorance and evil and faulty character. >>>
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
b***@m.nu
2018-03-15 18:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
you do realize that you are a theist, uneducated, and incredibly
fucking stupid right?
You are so typical of braggarts who cannot answer a legitimate rational
question so what do you do rather than respond in a logical and honest
way saying simply I don't know. What you do instead is engage in
personal and verbal assaults and character assassination. This shows
that you recognize your own ignorance and evil and faulty character.
And you are typical of those that believe in fairies. You are a
fucking liar. I in fact answered all of your questions but you, none
of mine... now why is that??? You just completely stopped responding
because I made you look like a total idiot. Although you pretty much
did that to yourself
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
R. Dean
2018-03-15 19:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
you do realize that you are a theist, uneducated, and incredibly
fucking stupid right?
You are so typical of braggarts who cannot answer a legitimate rational
question so what do you do rather than respond in a logical and honest
way saying simply I don't know. What you do instead is engage in
personal and verbal assaults and character assassination. This shows
that you recognize your own ignorance and evil and faulty character.
And you are typical of those that believe in fairies.
You are dedicated to an adult fairy tail (evilution)

You are a fucking liar. I in fact answered all of your questions
You're the godamn liar. All you ever do is give opinions and engage
in personal assaults and character assassination.


but you, none
Post by b***@m.nu
of mine... now why is that??? You just completely stopped responding
because I made you look like a total idiot. Although you pretty much
did that to yourself
YOu've asked no honest reasonable questions. I see one of your questions
just above and I answer - not I'm not stupid!

If you cannot behave in a civil, responsible mannor, not like a caveman
I will respond to you. If not, I won't bother reading your slimly
pointless nonsinse!
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
b***@m.nu
2018-03-15 20:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome. >
At least in theory. But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
you do realize that you are a theist, uneducated, and incredibly
fucking stupid right?
You are so typical of braggarts who cannot answer a legitimate rational
question so what do you do rather than respond in a logical and honest
way saying simply I don't know. What you do instead is engage in
personal and verbal assaults and character assassination. This shows
that you recognize your own ignorance and evil and faulty character.
And you are typical of those that believe in fairies.
You are dedicated to an adult fairy tail (evilution)
Wow look at the totally original theist use someone else's idea for
itself.... Wow, theists are fucking stupid.
Post by R. Dean
You are a fucking liar. I in fact answered all of your questions
You're the godamn liar. All you ever do is give opinions and engage
in personal assaults and character assassination.
Hey buddy when the shoe fits...

And by the way, I present facts that have been put through
experimentation. You are the one that has a firm belief that all
fairies are real and exist in a magical realm....
Post by R. Dean
but you, none
Post by b***@m.nu
of mine... now why is that??? You just completely stopped responding
because I made you look like a total idiot. Although you pretty much
did that to yourself
YOu've asked no honest reasonable questions. I see one of your questions
just above and I answer - not I'm not stupid!
Questions you have not answered
Post by R. Dean
I want an answer as to why exactly your perfect fairy/god is not
quite so perfect. And why would you want to worship an imperfect being
that has created something so full of errors
There is design? Where? What was designed? If the designer is so good
and perfect then why are the design
Post by b***@m.nu
As high as 99% of species that ever lived have become extinct.
But why? I thought your god was perfect and everything it created what
designed perfectly. Wow bruno you are fucking stupid
Post by b***@m.nu
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
what the fuck are you talking about?
So what you are saying is that an eternal everlasting/living harry
potter spirit, that has no way to sustain itself nor having the energy
available to create itself just simply exists and all of a sudden just
one day popped into existence at a period of forever ago and has been
ever since forever ago has magically existed doing its magic (from
where the enormous amounts of unexplained energy would have been
required to generate all the stars planets and various other space
objects) and casting various other spells to control the flow of time
and the outcome of various other "earth" born life forms all the while
minding its own business while other alien gods are doing their alien
life creating tricks?
OR would it sound much more plausible that energy came in to this
universe through a process of vacuum energy and quantum physics to
populate the universe as it is today with the various galaxies?
Wake up and smell the fucking coffee because your bullshit stories and
fairy/gods do NOTHING on this earth but cause death and harm to
EVERYONE. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM??.
so there you go those are perhaps just a few of the question I have
posed and you have ignored
Post by R. Dean
If you cannot behave in a civil, responsible mannor, not like a caveman
I will respond to you. If not, I won't bother reading your slimly
pointless nonsinse!
LOL he said caveman, dude I am not the one that believes in ghosts and
fairies.
Malte Runz
2018-03-15 12:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
I know what genetic disorders are.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
No, but you're the one assuming they didn't. And even if Hunter
syndrome were a relatively modern genetic defect, you can't use that
to conclude that the human genome once was 'better', and far less that
it was "perfect".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
And disregarding the possibility that many terrible defects can have
been bread out of the genome, by means of natural selection.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.
At least in theory. ...
So you do accept that the genome could have been 'worse' than it is
today. Good.
Post by R. Dean
... But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Today we can edit genes and remove a genetic disorder from a lineage.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
I believe the future is bright, and with our modern techniques we can
not only 'clean up' the human genome, but actually improve it.
--
Malte Runz
R. Dean
2018-03-15 17:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
I know what genetic disorders are.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
No, but you're the one assuming they didn't. And even if Hunter
syndrome were a relatively modern genetic defect, you can't use that
to conclude that the human genome once was 'better', and far less that
it was "perfect".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
And disregarding the possibility that many terrible defects can have
been bread out of the genome, by means of natural selection.
Not necessarily, probably there is no such thing as a neutral, as the
neutral mutation is passed down generation after generation after
generation it would gradually result in negative effects later.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.
At least in theory. ...
So you do accept that the genome could have been 'worse' than it is
today. Good.
I doubt it, not if this is true. Our future looks bleak so, the present
genome is better than in the future, so it followers that the past was
better than the present. But hopefully, this is wrong.

thetruthwins.com/archives/the-human-race-is-dying-dna-degeneration-would-eventually-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Today we can edit genes and remove a genetic disorder from a lineage.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
I believe the future is bright, and with our modern techniques we can
not only 'clean up' the human genome, but actually improve it.
I certainly hope so!
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-15 18:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
I know what genetic disorders are.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
No, but you're the one assuming they didn't. And even if Hunter
syndrome were a relatively modern genetic defect, you can't use that
to conclude that the human genome once was 'better', and far less that
it was "perfect".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
And disregarding the possibility that many terrible defects can have
been bread out of the genome, by means of natural selection.
Not necessarily, probably there is no such thing as a neutral, as the
neutral mutation is passed down generation after generation after
generation it would gradually result in negative effects later.
I'm not quite sure why you think that. True, there are indeed genes and proteins in which any
alteration would apparently be quite deleterious; we can surmise that by
noting that they are "highly conserved": they show little or no variation
within species, across species, and thus (apparently) through time:

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence

But only a few examples of this conservatism are known compared to
the thousands of known genes and the tens of thousands or more known proteins.
In most cases a change in a nucleotide here or an amino acid there makes
no functional difference.

As I mentioned above, every newborn carries on the order of a few
hundred mutations. If all mutations were ultimately deleterious, I can't
see how our species, could have survived.

BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.
At least in theory. ...
So you do accept that the genome could have been 'worse' than it is
today. Good.
I doubt it, not if this is true. Our future looks bleak so, the present
genome is better than in the future, so it followers that the past was
better than the present. But hopefully, this is wrong.
thetruthwins.com/archives/the-human-race-is-dying-dna-degeneration-would-eventually-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Today we can edit genes and remove a genetic disorder from a lineage.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
I believe the future is bright, and with our modern techniques we can
not only 'clean up' the human genome, but actually improve it.
I certainly hope so!
R. Dean
2018-03-15 19:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
I know what genetic disorders are.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
No, but you're the one assuming they didn't. And even if Hunter
syndrome were a relatively modern genetic defect, you can't use that
to conclude that the human genome once was 'better', and far less that
it was "perfect".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
And disregarding the possibility that many terrible defects can have
been bread out of the genome, by means of natural selection.
Not necessarily, probably there is no such thing as a neutral, as the
neutral mutation is passed down generation after generation after
generation it would gradually result in negative effects later.
I'm not quite sure why you think that. True, there are indeed genes and proteins in which any
alteration would apparently be quite deleterious; we can surmise that by
noting that they are "highly conserved": they show little or no variation
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence
I read the article. I found it surprising that it did not mention
the recently discovery (1983) of homeobox genes. They were seen before,
but not analyses. These genes called "master control genes" are said
to be very ancient, existing before the Cambrian radiation 500 millions
years ago, "highly conserved" and common in all animals (so far tested)
and thought to be common throughout the animal kingdom.
These homeobox genes are called a "toolkit" because they are used to
control the development of the body shape, parts, organs and the
location of parts throughout the body, of all animals in the animal
kingdom.
I'm an engineer MsEE (N.C State) this to me is an incredible, elegant
and highly efficient design, far beyond anything we are capable of.

There are 100s of these genes, not all have been analyzed, But the
first to be, was a master control gene called Pax 6 which was found
to be instrumental in the formation of all eyes in the animal kingdom.
A mouse Pax6 gene was discovered by the worker, in the lab of a
scientist, Prof. Walter J. Gehring of
Switzerland, who noticed it was exactly the same as the Pax 6 gene in
fruit flies. This was met with disbelief by other scientists and scorned
by the outside world.
Prof, Gehring decided to remove the pax6 gene from the fruit fly
and replace it with a Pax6 gene from a mouse. To everyone amazement
the mouse Pax6 gene produced a normal complex multi-faceted fruit
fly in the fly. These genes were discovered independently and they were
initially given different names, but after Gehring's experiment the
genes are called Pax 6 genes.

And this is only one Master Control gene the Tinman (from Wizard of OZ)
gene controls the development of hearts, the Dll gene controls the
formation of limbs throughout the animal kingdom just to mention a few.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
But only a few examples of this conservatism are known compared to
the thousands of known genes and the tens of thousands or more known proteins.
In most cases a change in a nucleotide here or an amino acid there makes
no functional difference.
As I mentioned above, every newborn carries on the order of a few
hundred mutations. If all mutations were ultimately deleterious, I can't
see how our species, could have survived.
I suspect that this is where the proofreading and repair systems come
into play. The question in my mind is when and how could random
mutations devise a system to correct random mutations.
To say evolution did it, is little different than saying goddidit.
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.
At least in theory. ...
So you do accept that the genome could have been 'worse' than it is
today. Good.
I doubt it, not if this is true. Our future looks bleak so, the present
genome is better than in the future, so it followers that the past was
better than the present. But hopefully, this is wrong.
thetruthwins.com/archives/the-human-race-is-dying-dna-degeneration-would-eventually-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Today we can edit genes and remove a genetic disorder from a lineage.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
I believe the future is bright, and with our modern techniques we can
not only 'clean up' the human genome, but actually improve it.
I certainly hope so!
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-15 19:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
New mutations cause abnormalities in the genome which result in
new heritable genetic diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
I know what genetic disorders are.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Here is a list of heritable genetic diseases and disorders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Do you suppose the diseases _all_ existed 200,000 years ago?
No, but you're the one assuming they didn't. And even if Hunter
syndrome were a relatively modern genetic defect, you can't use that
to conclude that the human genome once was 'better', and far less that
it was "perfect".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
That was just an assumption based upon the fact that new genetic
diseases crop up recently, so the further back you go I suspect the more
perfect our DNA was.
And disregarding the possibility that many terrible defects can have
been bread out of the genome, by means of natural selection.
Not necessarily, probably there is no such thing as a neutral, as the
neutral mutation is passed down generation after generation after
generation it would gradually result in negative effects later.
I'm not quite sure why you think that. True, there are indeed genes and proteins in which any
alteration would apparently be quite deleterious; we can surmise that by
noting that they are "highly conserved": they show little or no variation
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence
I read the article. I found it surprising that it did not mention
the recently discovery (1983) of homeobox genes. They were seen before,
but not analyses. These genes called "master control genes" are said
to be very ancient, existing before the Cambrian radiation 500 millions
years ago, "highly conserved" and common in all animals (so far tested)
and thought to be common throughout the animal kingdom.
These homeobox genes are called a "toolkit" because they are used to
control the development of the body shape, parts, organs and the
location of parts throughout the body, of all animals in the animal
kingdom.
I'm an engineer MsEE (N.C State) this to me is an incredible, elegant
and highly efficient design, far beyond anything we are capable of.
There are 100s of these genes, not all have been analyzed, But the
first to be, was a master control gene called Pax 6 which was found
to be instrumental in the formation of all eyes in the animal kingdom.
A mouse Pax6 gene was discovered by the worker, in the lab of a
scientist, Prof. Walter J. Gehring of
Switzerland, who noticed it was exactly the same as the Pax 6 gene in
fruit flies. This was met with disbelief by other scientists and scorned
by the outside world.
Prof, Gehring decided to remove the pax6 gene from the fruit fly
and replace it with a Pax6 gene from a mouse. To everyone amazement
the mouse Pax6 gene produced a normal complex multi-faceted fruit
fly in the fly. These genes were discovered independently and they were
initially given different names, but after Gehring's experiment the
genes are called Pax 6 genes.
And this is only one Master Control gene the Tinman (from Wizard of OZ)
gene controls the development of hearts, the Dll gene controls the
formation of limbs throughout the animal kingdom just to mention a few.
Yep, I am very aware of the homeobox genes. First read about them q number
of years ago. And they are indeed quite marvelous.

(and actually the Wikipedia article did mention them, in fact it was their second example.
but not important)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
But only a few examples of this conservatism are known compared to
the thousands of known genes and the tens of thousands or more known proteins.
In most cases a change in a nucleotide here or an amino acid there makes
no functional difference.
As I mentioned above, every newborn carries on the order of a few
hundred mutations. If all mutations were ultimately deleterious, I can't
see how our species, could have survived.
I suspect that this is where the proofreading and repair systems come
into play. The question in my mind is when and how could random
mutations devise a system to correct random mutations.
Certainly these mechanisms are indispensable, but you're not saying,
are you, that they somehow restore what were neutral mutations some
generations down the line? I want to be sure of that before I reply.
Post by R. Dean
To say evolution did it, is little different than saying goddidit.
Oh, I fully agree that we don't know how evolution could have resulted
in these marvelous mechanisms (or if we have some clues, I really
haven't looked deeply enough into the topic to be aware of it).
In fact this, and other phenomena, are one reason I'm an agnostic.
I just don't think the tribal patriarch with serious anger management
issues I read about in the Old Testament is up to the job. But I certainly
do not rule out the idea of some Designer.

BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.
At least in theory. ...
So you do accept that the genome could have been 'worse' than it is
today. Good.
I doubt it, not if this is true. Our future looks bleak so, the present
genome is better than in the future, so it followers that the past was
better than the present. But hopefully, this is wrong.
thetruthwins.com/archives/the-human-race-is-dying-dna-degeneration-would-eventually-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
... But modern medicine keeps people burdened with
many serious genetic disorders alive, that in centuries past would
have died, but who thrive and pass on their defects to their offspring.
Today we can edit genes and remove a genetic disorder from a lineage.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
It obvious that some mutations that get past proofreading and repair.
These genes are almost always detrimental, rarely neutral and almost
never beneficial. Over time with the overwhelming rate of defective
genes are not fatal except in extreme instances and especially today
with advanced medical procedures people with defective genes pass on
their defective genes to their offspring thereby causing increasing
determent to our gene pool, hence the deterioration of the human genome.
I believe the future is bright, and with our modern techniques we can
not only 'clean up' the human genome, but actually improve it.
I certainly hope so!
b***@m.nu
2018-03-15 03:27:10 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:14:07 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times. ...
Citation needed.
It seems to think that because the doctors of yesterday did not know
about genetic diseases that they automatically did not exist

Did you also know that this sock puppet is in fact joe bruno just
begging for more attention.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by R. Dean
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. ...
The fact they were identified and named recently does not indicate
that they didn't exist in earlier times. Cancer is as old as humanity,
and I have no reason to doubt that also Down's Syndrome was known in
the stone age. You make assumptions where you have no basis for doing
so. Take "Gillespie syndrome" (not to be confused with 'magnis buccis
syndrome'). How do you know that no Cro-magnon suffered from it?
Post by R. Dean
... So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
You have given me no reason to assume that any of those diseases are
the result of a degenerating human genome that once was "perfect". You
merely stated that in ye old days things were better than they are
now.
A "perfect gene" WILL NOT EVER go through a mutation. It will remain
the exact same forever; thusly, making it perfect.
Post by Malte Runz
I'd argue that the most devastating heritable diseases known to early
man were bread out of our species long time ago. Nobody suffers from
Ostioproctolysis of the Inner Ear anymore. Evolution by natural
selection hones the genome.
What is your explanation for what you describe as the deterioration of
the human genome?
Dude you do realize that it is a total idiot right?
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-15 19:55:24 UTC
Permalink
It seems to think that because the doctors of yesterday did not know
about genetic diseases that they automatically did not exist

Did you also know that this sock puppet is in fact joe bruno just
begging for more attention.
________________

No, but it is nice to see him converse in a less confrontational, albeit still wrong) manner without the usual profanity and ad hominems.

Cue Wizard of Oz music.....

If he only had a brain..
Gospel TT
2018-03-14 23:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:17:52 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R.
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times.
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the
medical
Post by R. Dean
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the
disease
Post by R. Dean
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
No, it doesn't follow, it's just what you want to believe.
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-15 00:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
Post by R. Dean
Post by Blue Ringed 8
The repair mechanisms are not perfect.
It's reasonable to assume they were perfect at the beginning of the DNA
code.
Why do you assume that DNA was closer to 'perfect' in earlier times?
Take us through your reasoning.
Today there are Genetic diseases, mental and physical diseases and
disorders that are heritable that didn't exist at earlier times.
Entirely new heritable diseases diseases are diagnosed by the medical
profession with the passage of time year after year. Often the disease
is given the Doctors name to identify the disease. Such as Hunter
syndrome, Gillespie syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc. So, given the
huge list of such diseases and disorders there is justification to
think our DNA was far more perfect in the distant past than today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Post by Malte Runz
(snip)
A sad list indeed. But I'd suggest a few things.

1) Even those listed as most common are still rare. The
only one of the list that rises to the level of a few percent
is color blindness, and that is hardly of recent origin. Most
of the rest are on the order of 1 in thousands to 1 in hundreds of thousands.
It's not as if the overall gene pool is getting eutrophied.

2) Characterizing a previously unrecognized syndrome does not
mean that it arose recently. And recognizing it as genetic
may rely on methods that are recent.

3) We're a lot better at recognizing, characterizing, and
finding the cause diseases of all types than we were in the past.

4) Improved survival rates mean that more of the afflicted will
live and have children than was once true.


BR-8
Malte Runz
2018-03-14 03:07:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Blue Ringed 8
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect. Every child is born with 100-200
genes which differ from those same genes in each of its parents: mutations
which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying errors
that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible. In fact an omnipotent
intelligent designer would not have needed to create such mechanisms,
because Its chromosomal replication process would never ever fail in the first place.
I'm sure it was all part of the plan. Andrew claims that the ability
of the genome to 'devolve' was programmed into the first perfectly
created kinds. Godditit, ya' know.
--
Malte Runz
aaa
2018-03-14 12:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it
in public or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that
mutation is a source of new information and natural selection
becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function during
the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it
possible for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents
evolution to occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the
natural world.
Actually, it isn't.
The repair mechanisms are not perfect. Every child is born with
100-200 genes which differ from those same genes in each of its
parents: mutations which got by the repair process.
And somatic mutations continue to accumulate until we die -- in fact
the cause of death is frequently due to those mutations, copying
errors that the repair mechanisms failed to correct.
Presumably an intelligent designer would have made sure that the
repair mechanisms It created were not so fallible. In fact an
omnipotent intelligent designer would not have needed to create such
mechanisms, because Its chromosomal replication process would never
ever fail in the first place.
Genetic variation is necessary to life. It shouldn't be considered as
part of copying error.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-03-14 14:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by R. Dean
It's an interesting fact, but evolutionist rarely talk about it in public
or on public forums. While Neo Darwinism claims that mutation
is a source of new information and natural selection becomes involved
in the evolution of organisms, there is proofreading and repair
There are proofreading and *repair mechanisms* that function
during the process of *DNA replication*.
These are molecular biological mechanisms that *prevent* neo-
Darwinian evolution to occur.
Here's the question that thinking people need to ask. Is it possible
for evolution to evolve a mechanism that prevents evolution to
occur? Because that is exactly what we have in the natural world.
If the mutation rate were too high, then clearly genetics would be in chaos, and organisms lacking the mechanism would either die out, or the only surviving progeny would be the ones that mutated to acquire such mechanisms.

If, on the other hand, the mutation rate were too low, then the gene lines that contained them would be unable to mutate, and would sooner or later become extinct due to a changing world.

Remember that what puts the neo into neodarwinism is that the unit of evolution is not the species, not the individual, but the gene.

The ability to evolve is, thus, something that can be refined by evolution.
b***@m.nu
2018-03-13 23:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
It seems clear that this is design.
It also seems clear that you are a moron.
Lets just say there is a designer, then who/what designed the
designer. Who or what designed the designer that designed the
designer.....

I was not about to read all of that crap just the last line LOL. You
theists just don't ever ask the proper questions. Just a bunch of crap
that will make your lies see a bit less obvious.
R. Dean
2018-03-14 02:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
It seems clear that this is design.
It also seems clear that you are a moron.
This is a lie, but the truth is you are a bastard!
Post by b***@m.nu
Lets just say there is a designer, then who/what designed the
designer. Who or what designed the designer that designed the
designer.....
Never understood the term eternal, without beginning or end. There
are many people including Albert Einstein who believed this about the
universe.
Post by b***@m.nu
I was not about to read all of that crap just the last line LOL. You
theists just don't ever ask the proper questions. Just a bunch of crap
that will make your lies see a bit less obvious.
Then you cannot have an opinion beyond your extreme bias and closed mind..
b***@m.nu
2018-03-14 17:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
It seems clear that this is design.
It also seems clear that you are a moron.
This is a lie, but the truth is you are a bastard!
If you are in fact an adult or at least over say the age of 16 and you
believe wholeheartedly that fairies exist and control the lives of
humans then yes you are an incredible moron, so in fact no that is not
in any way a lie of any kind at all.
FWIW no, I am not a bastard I know who my father is and he was my
parent all of my life and is still alive today.
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Lets just say there is a designer, then who/what designed the
designer. Who or what designed the designer that designed the
designer.....
Never understood the term eternal, without beginning or end. There
are many people including Albert Einstein who believed this about the
universe.
So what you are saying is that an eternal everlasting/living harry
potter spirit, that has no way to sustain itself nor having the energy
available to create itself just simply exists and all of a sudden just
one day popped into existence at a period of forever ago and has been
ever since forever ago has magically existed doing its magic (from
where the enormous amounts of unexplained energy would have been
required to generate all the stars planets and various other space
objects) and casting various other spells to control the flow of time
and the outcome of various other "earth" born life forms all the while
minding its own business while other alien gods are doing their alien
life creating tricks?

OR would it sound much more plausible that energy came in to this
universe through a process of vacuum energy and quantum physics to
populate the universe as it is today with the various galaxies?
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
I was not about to read all of that crap just the last line LOL. You
theists just don't ever ask the proper questions. Just a bunch of crap
that will make your lies see a bit less obvious.
Then you cannot have an opinion beyond your extreme bias and closed mind..
This is what you and your fellow fairy believers do not understand, no
you do not understand it at all.
closed-minded
[klohzd-mahyn-did]
adjective
1.
having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-minded

The idea that there are fairies that created everything is a very old
(most likely) children's story that is a very very old and much
plagiarized tale (the first of which perhaps being the epic of
Gilgamesh) So a person that thinks out of the box (in other words
different from how things were done in the past) is not in any way
closed minded and the person or persons that argue a point based on
tradition and fable are the ones that are in fact closed minded.

I am in the group of the former, I do not believe tall tales that have
been proven time and time again to be false (the stories of Odin and
Thor, Osiris and Horus, Zeus and Hercules, and god and jesus.) So
perhaps you see not that your stories that have been told again and
again and again and again and again for a countless amount of times
show you that you are the one that is surely closed minded and reject
new ideas and new and more evolved ways of thinking that are about
spreading the truth and not more lies.

Wake up and smell the fucking coffee because your bullshit stories and
fairy/gods do NOTHING on this earth but cause death and harm to
EVERYONE. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM??
R. Dean
2018-03-14 20:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
It seems clear that this is design.
It also seems clear that you are a moron.
This is a lie, but the truth is you are a bastard!
If you are in fact an adult or at least over say the age of 16 and you
believe wholeheartedly that fairies exist and control the lives of
humans then yes you are an incredible moron,
But I don't believe in fairies. OTOH you probably believe in
the fairy tale called evolution.


so in fact no that is not
Post by b***@m.nu
in any way a lie of any kind at all.
FWIW no, I am not a bastard I know who my father is and he was my
parent all of my life and is still alive today.
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Lets just say there is a designer, then who/what designed the
designer. Who or what designed the designer that designed the
designer.....
Never understood the term eternal, without beginning or end. There
are many people including Albert Einstein who believed this about the
universe.
So what you are saying is that an eternal everlasting/living harry
potter spirit, that has no way to sustain itself nor having the energy
available to create itself just simply exists and all of a sudden just
one day popped into existence at a period of forever ago and has been
ever since forever ago has magically existed doing its magic (from
where the enormous amounts of unexplained energy would have been
required to generate all the stars planets and various other space
objects) and casting various other spells to control the flow of time
and the outcome of various other "earth" born life forms all the while
minding its own business while other alien gods are doing their alien
life creating tricks?
OR would it sound much more plausible that energy came in to this
universe through a process of vacuum energy and quantum physics to
populate the universe as it is today with the various galaxies?
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
I was not about to read all of that crap just the last line LOL. You
theists just don't ever ask the proper questions. Just a bunch of crap
that will make your lies see a bit less obvious.
Then you cannot have an opinion beyond your extreme bias and closed mind..
This is what you and your fellow fairy believers do not understand, no
you do not understand it at all.
<
Post by b***@m.nu
closed-minded
[klohzd-mahyn-did]
adjective
1.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-minded
The idea that there are fairies that created everything is a very old
(most likely) children's story that is a very very old and much
plagiarized tale (the first of which perhaps being the epic of
Gilgamesh) So a person that thinks out of the box (in other words
different from how things were done in the past) is not in any way
closed minded and the person or persons that argue a point based on
tradition and fable are the ones that are in fact closed minded.
I am in the group of the former, I do not believe tall tales that have
been proven time and time again to be false (the stories of Odin and
Thor, Osiris and Horus, Zeus and Hercules, and god and jesus.) So
perhaps you see not that your stories that have been told again and
again and again and again and again for a countless amount of times
show you that you are the one that is surely closed minded and reject
new ideas and new and more evolved ways of thinking that are about
spreading the truth and not more lies.
Wake up and smell the fucking coffee because your bullshit stories and
fairy/gods do NOTHING on this earth but cause death and harm to
EVERYONE. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM??
I am curious as to why you wrote all this. It has absolutely nothing to
do with how and when the proofreading an repair mechanisms originated.

Since, it doesn't what is the reason for going into this spiel?
b***@m.nu
2018-03-14 22:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
It seems clear that this is design.
It also seems clear that you are a moron.
This is a lie, but the truth is you are a bastard!
If you are in fact an adult or at least over say the age of 16 and you
believe wholeheartedly that fairies exist and control the lives of
humans then yes you are an incredible moron,
But I don't believe in fairies. OTOH you probably believe in
the fairy tale called evolution.
Oh but you do, you belief in a fairy tale god with a fairy tale hero
jesus christ. Which by default means you Must believe in every single
fairy tale that exists our there or you don't believe in yours. You
know all of this joe bruno as I have told you all of this before.
Post by R. Dean
so in fact no that is not
Post by b***@m.nu
in any way a lie of any kind at all.
FWIW no, I am not a bastard I know who my father is and he was my
parent all of my life and is still alive today.
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Lets just say there is a designer, then who/what designed the
designer. Who or what designed the designer that designed the
designer.....
Never understood the term eternal, without beginning or end. There
are many people including Albert Einstein who believed this about the
universe.
So what you are saying is that an eternal everlasting/living harry
potter spirit, that has no way to sustain itself nor having the energy
available to create itself just simply exists and all of a sudden just
one day popped into existence at a period of forever ago and has been
ever since forever ago has magically existed doing its magic (from
where the enormous amounts of unexplained energy would have been
required to generate all the stars planets and various other space
objects) and casting various other spells to control the flow of time
and the outcome of various other "earth" born life forms all the while
minding its own business while other alien gods are doing their alien
life creating tricks?
OR would it sound much more plausible that energy came in to this
universe through a process of vacuum energy and quantum physics to
populate the universe as it is today with the various galaxies?
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
I was not about to read all of that crap just the last line LOL. You
theists just don't ever ask the proper questions. Just a bunch of crap
that will make your lies see a bit less obvious.
Then you cannot have an opinion beyond your extreme bias and closed mind..
This is what you and your fellow fairy believers do not understand, no
you do not understand it at all.
<
Post by b***@m.nu
closed-minded
[klohzd-mahyn-did]
adjective
1.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/closed-minded
The idea that there are fairies that created everything is a very old
(most likely) children's story that is a very very old and much
plagiarized tale (the first of which perhaps being the epic of
Gilgamesh) So a person that thinks out of the box (in other words
different from how things were done in the past) is not in any way
closed minded and the person or persons that argue a point based on
tradition and fable are the ones that are in fact closed minded.
I am in the group of the former, I do not believe tall tales that have
been proven time and time again to be false (the stories of Odin and
Thor, Osiris and Horus, Zeus and Hercules, and god and jesus.) So
perhaps you see not that your stories that have been told again and
again and again and again and again for a countless amount of times
show you that you are the one that is surely closed minded and reject
new ideas and new and more evolved ways of thinking that are about
spreading the truth and not more lies.
Wake up and smell the fucking coffee because your bullshit stories and
fairy/gods do NOTHING on this earth but cause death and harm to
EVERYONE. WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM??
I am curious as to why you wrote all this. It has absolutely nothing to
do with how and when the proofreading an repair mechanisms originated.
For which you never answered my question WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT MORON????
Post by R. Dean
Since, it doesn't what is the reason for going into this spiel?
I went into that just to show you that you believe in god and jesus
and thor and hercules and all the rest, which includes but not limited
to superman, harry potter, and tinkerbell
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-14 09:00:06 UTC
Permalink
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.

Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically follow that it was.

Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.

What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?

That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost more amazing than I can stand.

The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in the diverse life that has been changing and adapting over time.

Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.

Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature to find ways to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful to the most bizarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not only more interesting, but mind blowingly awe inspiring.

YMMV
R. Dean
2018-03-14 16:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.
Actually science says nothing about design. Science is indifferent,
however there are scientist like all humans have personal biases.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
As high as 99% of species that ever lived have become extinct.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost more amazing than I can stand.
The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in the diverse life that has been changing and adapting over time.
Ok, there is the 1% that did not become extinct. This would include
us and our ancestors.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature to find ways to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful to the most bizarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not only more interesting, but mind blowingly awe inspiring.
YMMV
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-14 17:00:23 UTC
Permalink
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
______________

Not yet.
Saying that the answer is not known doesn't mean an Unevidenced designer had anything to with it.

Knowledge can take centuries to be discovered.

Believe what you want but don't expect you can legitimize your beliefs when you can't demonstrate your designer exists.
R. Dean
2018-03-14 17:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
______________
Not yet.
Saying that the answer is not known doesn't mean an Unevidenced designer had anything to with it.
Knowledge can take centuries to be discovered.
Believe what you want but don't expect you can legitimize your beliefs when you can't demonstrate your designer exists.
When I lived in Bolder Co. I found mountain lion tracks in my
back yard. I didn't see the lion, but the tracks were evidence
that a lion was there and my German Shepard was missing. So,
either my dog ran away or it was killed and taken away by the
lion. Which would you choose was the case? I would like to
think she just ran away and got lost. But this is not likely.

So, the evidence suggest design and design infers a designer.
There is nothing suggesting natural processes as the cause of
the mechanism under discussion.
Street
2018-03-14 17:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by R. Dean
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
______________
Not yet.
Saying that the answer is not known doesn't mean an Unevidenced
designer had anything to with it.
Knowledge can take centuries to be discovered.
Believe what you want but don't expect you can legitimize your beliefs
when you can't demonstrate your designer exists.
When I lived in Bolder Co. I found mountain lion tracks in my
back yard. I didn't see the lion, but the tracks were evidence
that a lion was there and my German Shepard was missing. So,
either my dog ran away or it was killed and taken away by the
lion. Which would you choose was the case? I would like to
think she just ran away and got lost. But this is not likely.
So, the evidence suggest design and design infers a designer.
There is nothing suggesting natural processes as the cause of
the mechanism under discussion.
You can broaden your definitions of "design" and "designer" sufficiently
to make your statement true. (But it isn't as though we don't know where
you're planning to go from there.)
Malte Runz
2018-03-14 23:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by R. Dean
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
______________
Not yet.
Saying that the answer is not known doesn't mean an Unevidenced designer had anything to with it.
Knowledge can take centuries to be discovered.
Believe what you want but don't expect you can legitimize your beliefs when you can't demonstrate your designer exists.
When I lived in Bolder Co. I found mountain lion tracks in my
back yard. I didn't see the lion, but the tracks were evidence
that a lion was there and my German Shepard was missing. So,
either my dog ran away or it was killed and taken away by the
lion. Which would you choose was the case? I would like to
think she just ran away and got lost. But this is not likely.
Sure. But it has nothing to do with design. I have sound and coherent
explanations for everything you mentioned above that does not need a
designer.
Post by R. Dean
So, the evidence suggest design ...
'Some things can be inferred, therefore lions were designed.'
Post by R. Dean
... and design infers a designer.
Like a trickster needs a sucker.
Post by R. Dean
There is nothing suggesting natural processes as the cause of
the mechanism under discussion.
'Lion tracks infer a lion, Hunter syndrome was named in 1917 and
therefore not known in earlier times, which shows that the genome was
once perfect, and could not have developed the ability to protect
itself without the help of a designer.'

Be honest now. Do you really believe that you have made your case?
--
Malte Runz
b***@m.nu
2018-03-14 19:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
There is design? Where? What was designed? If the designer is so good
and perfect then why are the design
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.
Actually science says nothing about design. Science is indifferent,
however there are scientist like all humans have personal biases.
Actually it does. It says anyone that thinks that everything was
"designed" is a fucking moron
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
As high as 99% of species that ever lived have become extinct.
But why? I thought your god was perfect and everything it created what
designed perfectly. Wow bruno you are fucking stupid
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost more amazing than I can stand.
The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in the diverse life that has been changing and adapting over time.
You make no fucking sense bruno
Post by R. Dean
Ok, there is the 1% that did not become extinct. This would include
us and our ancestors.
Wow, yup you are a fucking moron
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.
This doesn't explain how or when the proof and repair mechanisms
originated.
what the fuck are you talking about?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature to find ways to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful to the most bizarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not only more interesting, but mind blowingly awe inspiring.
YMMV
R. Dean
2018-03-14 21:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
There is design? Where? What was designed? If the designer is so good
and perfect then why are the design
If you cannot explain exactly how and when the proofreading and repair
mechanisms arose through some natural process, then what is left is
design. Another question is the origin of homeobox genes that existed
long before the Cambrian explosion and remain today "highy conserved"
(fixed) and called _master_control_genes_ which are common throughout
the animal kingdom. Indeed it was once believed that sight arose
independantly at least 40 times. However, it is known today that this
gene the Pax6 gene is the master control for every animal in the
animal kingdom. To prove it the Pax6 gene was removed from a mouse
and replaced the Pax6 gene in a fruit fly. The mouse eye gene
controlled the development of a fruit fly eye, in the fly - not
a variety of mouse eye. It's important to note that mammals and
insects ancestry divulged 100s of million years ago. No one has
been able to explain the origin of these homeobox genes. But there
is the design possibility.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.
Actually science says nothing about design. Science is indifferent,
however there are scientist like all humans have personal biases.
Actually it does. It says anyone that thinks that everything was
"designed" is a fucking moron
No, it does not. You can make up these and other old wives tales,
but these takes have nothing to do with explaining anything. You haven't
explained how proofreading and repair mechanisms came about.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
As high as 99% of species that ever lived have become extinct.
But why? I thought your god was perfect and everything it created what
designed perfectly. Wow bruno you are fucking stupid
At one time in human history the powerful people upon receiving
unwelcome messages would kill the messenger. What you are doing
is a take off of this gambit. When you dislike the message you
try to "kill" the person's image through personal assault and
character assassination.

<snip further unrelated crap>
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
YMMV
b***@m.nu
2018-03-14 22:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
There is design? Where? What was designed? If the designer is so good
and perfect then why are the design
If you cannot explain exactly how and when the proofreading and repair
Well I will say this and it should answer all of your questions and
fully satisfy your curiosity about weather your fairy god is real or
not.

If you are talking about
The term proofreading is used in genetics to refer to the
error-correcting processes, first proposed by John Hopfield and
Jacques Ninio, involved in DNA replication, immune system specificity,
enzyme-substrate recognition among many other processes that require
enhanced specificity. The proofreading mechanisms of Hopfield and
Ninio are non-equilibrium active processes that consume ATP to enhance
specificity of various biochemical reactions.

Then you could not be more wrong thinking that a god designed it.
Because if your god designed it then it would be perfect. In fact it
would not even be needed because the human design would be perfect
because humans were made in gods image or at least that is how your
book of fables goes.

Next if you want to get technical and say that this proof reading and
such was designed by your god because you god knew that his design was
imperfect then please tell me why is the proof reading and error
correcting so imperfect that a mutation can occur and all the genes
that are produced through gene replication are also given this
mutation and are not corrected by anything? Also tell me why is it
people get cancer when it is in fact the job of these error correcting
things to repair damaged or mutated cells.


I want an answer as to why exactly your perfect fairy/god is not
quite so perfect. And why would you want to worship an imperfect being
that has created something so full of errors. Face is your god is
basically a charlatan that does half ass work at best.
Post by R. Dean
mechanisms arose through some natural process, then what is left is
design. Another question is the origin of homeobox genes that existed
actually A homeobox is a DNA sequence, around 180 base pairs long,
found within genes that are involved in the regulation of patterns of
anatomical development (morphogenesis) in animals, fungi and plants.

Which means that it is most likely part of the original dna strand
that first evolved to form plants and animals. So it should be proof
to YOU and every idiot like you that if plants have it and animals
<including humans> have it then we are ALL from the same exact
ancestor. YOU FUCKING MORON

<Snip data that you have no clue what the hell it means>
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.
Actually science says nothing about design. Science is indifferent,
however there are scientist like all humans have personal biases.
Actually it does. It says anyone that thinks that everything was
"designed" is a fucking moron
No, it does not. You can make up these and other old wives tales,
but these takes have nothing to do with explaining anything. You haven't
explained how proofreading and repair mechanisms came about.
No it is no wives tale. You are in fact a moron. If you want
explanations, find out why your fairy is such an imperfect being...
Post by R. Dean
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
As high as 99% of species that ever lived have become extinct.
But why? I thought your god was perfect and everything it created what
designed perfectly. Wow bruno you are fucking stupid
At one time in human history the powerful people upon receiving
unwelcome messages would kill the messenger. What you are doing
is a take off of this gambit. When you dislike the message you
try to "kill" the person's image through personal assault and
character assassination.
Nice dodge, but you did not answer the question, why is your fairy
such an imperfect being?
Post by R. Dean
<snip further unrelated crap>
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
YMMV
Malcolm McMahon
2018-03-15 10:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
It's called "evolution". You might call it meta-evolution. Organisms which can evolve, but aren't killed by rampant cancer due to out of control mutation are more likely to give birth to whole families of life forms.

Now when you're a bacteria you can probably get away with rampant mutation, though its hardly a benefit, but once you start cooperating with other bacteria to make more complex, composite life forms it's a definite no-no.

It would follow that the bacteria that have evolved these proof reading mechanisms are the ancestors of the ones from which you and I are made.
R. Dean
2018-03-15 17:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
It's called "evolution". You might call it meta-evolution. Organisms which can evolve, but aren't killed by rampant cancer due to out of control mutation are more likely to give birth to whole families of life forms.
Now when you're a bacteria you can probably get away with rampant mutation, though its hardly a benefit, but once you start cooperating with other bacteria to make more complex, composite life forms it's a definite no-no.
It would follow that the bacteria that have evolved these proof reading mechanisms are the ancestors of the ones from which you and I are made.
Ok this is theory, where is you evidence. How did bacteria evolve these
facilities?
Malcolm McMahon
2018-03-15 19:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically
follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
It's called "evolution". You might call it meta-evolution. Organisms which
can evolve, but aren't killed by rampant cancer due to out of control mutation
are more likely to give birth to whole families of life forms.
Now when you're a bacteria you can probably get away with rampant mutation,
though its hardly a benefit, but once you start cooperating with other bacteria
to make more complex, composite life forms it's a definite no-no.
It would follow that the bacteria that have evolved these proof reading
mechanisms are the ancestors of the ones from which you and I are made.
Ok this is theory, where is you evidence. How did bacteria evolve these
facilities?
The way anything evolves any mechanism - trial and error.
b***@m.nu
2018-03-15 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:31:08 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically
follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
It's called "evolution". You might call it meta-evolution. Organisms which
can evolve, but aren't killed by rampant cancer due to out of control mutation
are more likely to give birth to whole families of life forms.
Now when you're a bacteria you can probably get away with rampant mutation,
though its hardly a benefit, but once you start cooperating with other bacteria
to make more complex, composite life forms it's a definite no-no.
It would follow that the bacteria that have evolved these proof reading
mechanisms are the ancestors of the ones from which you and I are made.
Ok this is theory, where is you evidence. How did bacteria evolve these
facilities?
The way anything evolves any mechanism - trial and error.
If there is no harry potter tricks then it just will not understand.
R. Dean
2018-03-16 23:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically
follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
It's called "evolution". You might call it meta-evolution. Organisms which
can evolve, but aren't killed by rampant cancer due to out of control mutation
are more likely to give birth to whole families of life forms.
Now when you're a bacteria you can probably get away with rampant mutation,
though its hardly a benefit, but once you start cooperating with other bacteria
to make more complex, composite life forms it's a definite no-no.
It would follow that the bacteria that have evolved these proof reading
mechanisms are the ancestors of the ones from which you and I are made.
Ok this is theory, where is you evidence. How did bacteria evolve these
facilities?
The way anything evolves any mechanism - trial and error.
The problem is no one can give any details as to exactly how evolution
of the mechanisms could occur when mindless, brainless and random
natural processes could proofread and repair faulty DNA. You say
trial and error, But with how could this ability provide mindless
brainless processes any benefit from locking on to proofreading and
repair? No guesses please.
Blue Ringed 8
2018-03-17 00:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by R. Dean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
There is no scientific proof but there is design. It should be noted
that science is not in the proof business.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically
follow that it was.
Yes, this is often the case. But proofreading and repair has functions
that serve a purpose. There is no data regarding how mindless, random
unguided natural processes could have devised proofreading and repair
of newly formed DNA. Indeed random mutations and natural selection
is said the be a cause of change, which requires random mutations
to create new information. So, what advantage does a system which
moves to eliminate mutations bestow?
It's called "evolution". You might call it meta-evolution. Organisms which
can evolve, but aren't killed by rampant cancer due to out of control mutation
are more likely to give birth to whole families of life forms.
Now when you're a bacteria you can probably get away with rampant mutation,
though its hardly a benefit, but once you start cooperating with other bacteria
to make more complex, composite life forms it's a definite no-no.
It would follow that the bacteria that have evolved these proof reading
mechanisms are the ancestors of the ones from which you and I are made.
Ok this is theory, where is you evidence. How did bacteria evolve these
facilities?
The way anything evolves any mechanism - trial and error.
The problem is no one can give any details as to exactly how evolution
of the mechanisms could occur when mindless, brainless and random
natural processes could proofread and repair faulty DNA. You say
trial and error,
1) You're quite right: no one knows. Not yet, anyhow.
Post by R. Dean
But with how could this ability provide mindless
brainless processes any benefit from locking on to proofreading and
repair? No guesses please.
2) Obviously more accurate self-replication will, well, better self-replicate.
If something is making more accurate copies of itself, it will propagate itself
more successfully than will an organism with error-ridden replication.
This seems like a tautology to me.


Tangential: as you've brought up homeobox genes, I'll mention I just watched
a very interesting video about everybody's favorite phylum, the tardigrades.
Basically it's a head walking on its mouth parts with genitals tacked on to the rear.

--



BR-8

b***@m.nu
2018-03-14 17:20:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 02:00:06 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
Still waiting for this evidence, as far as I know the only actual
"evidence" is that against design. I wonder if it knows what actual
evidence is.

I know that arty joe AKA bruno AKA moron is desperate to get attention
and have someone talk to it about whatever just so that it can feel
normal, but if it actually believes in shit like this then it has a
lot of other problems that are more serious that believing in fairies
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically follow that it was.
There is nothing that exists naturally on this earth (not man made)
that looks designed.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost more amazing than I can stand.
The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in the diverse life that has been changing and adapting over time.
I don't think it can fathom what over 4 billion years can mean
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.
For which there is no need of at all
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature to find ways to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful to the most bizarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not only more interesting, but mind blowingly awe inspiring.
YMMV
Yap Honghor
2018-03-14 23:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
Something may look as it were designed but it does not automatically follow that it was.
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design. I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way they have.
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost more amazing than I can stand.
The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in the diverse life that has been changing and adapting over time.
Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.
Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature to find ways to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful to the most bizarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not only more interesting, but mind blowingly awe inspiring.
YMMV
Ask these creationist idiots if the rivers running downstream, does it mean they are designed by the designer to do so????

Or that salmons returning to their birth place after a life time in the vast ocean are at the direction of a designer????
Gospel TT
2018-03-15 00:09:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Yap Honghor
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 5:00:09 PM UTC+8, Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
Something may look as it were designed but it does not
automatically foll=
ow that it was.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design.
I find=
it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple
explanation is=
that evolution caused a particular living thing to develop the way
they ha=
ve.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost
more am=
azing than I can stand.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in
the divers=
e life that has been changing and adapting over time.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.
Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature
to find w=
ays to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful to
the most b=
izarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not only more
interesting,=
but mind blowingly awe inspiring.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
YMMV
Ask these creationist idiots if the rivers running downstream, does
it mean=
they are designed by the designer to do so????
Or that salmons returning to their birth place after a life time in
the vas=
t ocean are at the direction of a designer????
Creationist liar's don't want to no cause they lie to everybody
including there selves.
aaa
2018-03-15 03:18:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 5:00:09 PM UTC+8, Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"Evidence" of design is not proof of design.
Something may look as it were designed but it does not
automatically follow that it was.
Apparently, science disagrees that there is "evidence" of design.
I find it infinitely more amazing that the more natural and simple
explanation is that evolution caused a particular living thing to
develop the way they have.
What did we miss seeing that was not fit and became extinct?
That creatures as varied as spiders and kangaroos exist is almost
more amazing than I can stand.
The evidence for a common ancestor is solid and spectacular in the
diverse life that has been changing and adapting over time.
Mind boggling. Much more BECAUSE it doesn't require an unproven deity.
Hell, that would be easy for an omnipotent being but for nature to
find ways to adapt over time and produce some of the most beautiful
to the most bizarre seems to me to be not only more probable, not
only more interesting, but mind blowingly awe inspiring.
YMMV
Ask these creationist idiots if the rivers running downstream, does
it mean they are designed by the designer to do so????
Actually, the natural physical laws are an indication of design. Things
in the universe only follow the law. They don't establish their own law
by themselves. So the laws should have existed before the universe came
into existence.
Or that salmons returning to their birth place after a life time in
the vast ocean are at the direction of a designer????
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-15 07:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Actually, the natural physical laws are an indication of design. Things
in the universe only follow the law. They don't establish their own law
by themselves. So the laws should have existed before the universe came into existence.
___________

Actually?

It's amazing how much imaginary information you seem to possess.

Actually, you are a loon.
b***@m.nu
2018-03-15 20:38:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:43:49 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by aaa
Actually, the natural physical laws are an indication of design. Things
in the universe only follow the law. They don't establish their own law
by themselves. So the laws should have existed before the universe came into existence.
___________
Actually?
It's amazing how much imaginary information you seem to possess.
Actually, you are a loon.
It is a theist of course it is.


"There are two types of people in this world,
those that can count, and monotheists."
Loading...