Monday, November 26, 2012

So Unique, So Exceptional—The Miracles of Evolution



Here is a must see video that is well worth the five minutes of your time. It will have you asking, with evolutionist Ed Scholes, “Why?”
Posted by at
Labels:

65 comments:

  1. bornagain77November 26, 2012 at 4:25 AM

    Thanks Dr. Hunter, a truly amazing miracle to wake up to that, despite the blind faith of evolutionists, evolution did not even have a hand in the origination of a single protein of that amazing miracle.

    Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011
    Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
    The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science. Scientific theories often go wrong, but not by 27 orders of magnitude. And that is conservative.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html

    The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study - Cornelius Hunter - January 2011
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/hierarchy-of-evolutionary-apologetics.html

    Here is the closest evolutionists have come to mimicking the evolution of a single protein:

    A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells
    Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division."
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385

    How Proteins Evolved - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-proteins-evolved.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ketoalmanacMay 28, 2017 at 9:17 PM

      evolution is a lie from satan. do not belive

      Jesus Christ is the creator. that is the mirical

      Delete
  2. Joe GNovember 26, 2012 at 6:23 AM

    Yes, evolutionism is all about miracles-> miracles via magical mystery mutations...

    ReplyDelete
  3. GhostriderNovember 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    We'll add sexual selection to the big list of topics in evolutionary biology that Creationists don't have a clue on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GNovember 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM

      So sexual selection can account for the birds of paradise?

      Sexual selection is a dagger through the heart of universal common descent.

      Delete
    2. GhostriderNovember 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      Joe G

      So sexual selection can account for the birds of paradise?

      Yes, it can.

      Sexual Selection and Taxonomic Diversity in Passerine Birds

      Sexual selection is a dagger through the heart of universal common descent.

      Did the voices from the pyramid antenna tell you that Joe? Or maybe you're just reincarnated from a bird in a past life.

      Delete
    3. Joe GNovember 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

      Selectual selection tends to keep the norm- tat is what all observations say. And observations are the stuff of science.

      Chapter IV of prominent geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why is a Fly Not a Horse? is titled "Wobbling Stability". In that chapter he discusses what I have been talking about in other threads- that populations oscillate. The following is what he has to say which is based on thorough scientific investigation:



      Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.

      (snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)

      Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.




      Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.




      It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.

      Delete
    4. troyNovember 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM

      Joe G wrote

      Selectual selection tends to keep the norm- tat is what all observations say.

      A bit early in the day to be drunk isn't it?

      Those Sermonti quotes do not address sexual selection at all. They concern natural selection in sexual species. What a surprise you wouldn't know the difference.

      Delete
    5. Joe GNovember 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

      troy,

      Sexual selection is part of natural selection, according to Darwin. And your position cannot account for sexual reproduction and it cannot account for the production of gametes via meiosis.

      Obviously it isn't too early in the day for your stupidity.

      Delete
    6. troyNovember 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

      How does your "position" account for sex and meiosis? Magic man dunnit?

      Delete
    7. Joe GNovember 26, 2012 at 2:23 PM

      And another prediction fulfilled.

      Hey troy, did a magic men design and build all the worlds' cars?

      Delete
  4. National VelourNovember 26, 2012 at 9:33 PM

    Well...ummmmm...there MUST be an evolutionary reason for why those birds do what they do because...ummmm...molecule to man evolution is a fact {praise darwin}

    ReplyDelete
  5. GhostriderNovember 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM

    National Velour

    Well...ummmmm...there MUST be an evolutionary reason for why those birds do what they do because...

    There is. It's called sexual selection. Sometimes passing on your genes doesn't go to the biggest or strongest male. Sometimes it goes to the most showy, the one that can best woo a mate into selecting him to breed with. The phenomenon is particularly prevalent among bird species.

    There's tons of scientific info readily available on the topic, which is probably why you've never heard of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GNovember 27, 2012 at 4:07 AM

      Thorton lies gaian, as usuaul. Evos don't know what makes a bird a bird, let alone what makes each species so unique.

      Heck evos still cannot account for sexual reproduction nor the production of gametes via meiosis

      Delete
  6. Joe GNovember 27, 2012 at 4:14 AM

    thorton:
    Sometimes passing on your genes doesn't go to the biggest or strongest male. Sometimes it goes to the most showy, the one that can best woo a mate into selecting him to breed with. The phenomenon is particularly prevalent among bird species.

    Which proves my point about natural selection- you just don't know who the fittest are going to be and it is all after-the-fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe GNovember 27, 2012 at 4:26 AM

    And thorton lies:

    I asked:
    So sexual selection can account for the birds of paradise?

    thorton lied:
    Yes, it can.

    Sexual Selection and Taxonomic Diversity in Passerine Birds

    Nope. Nothing in that article that says anything about the origin of the birds of paradise. Thorton is a liar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GhostriderNovember 27, 2012 at 7:22 PM

      Joe G

      Sexual Selection and Taxonomic Diversity in Passerine Birds

      Nope. Nothing in that article that says anything about the origin of the birds of paradise. Thorton is a liar.

      Ignoring for the moment the fact that birds of paradise are passerine birds, let's see what else Joe missed.

      Oops! Looks like Joe's too lazy to read. From the article:

      "Examples consistent with the idea that sexual selection promotes increased clade size include birds of paradise (West-Eberhard 1983), Hawaiian Drosophilla (Carson 1978, 1986) and the cichlid fishes of the African Great Lakes (Dominey 1984)."

      Increased clade size, i.e. speciation driven in part by sexual selection. Just what I said.

      There's no cure for willful ignorance like Joe's. None.

      Delete
    2. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 6:05 AM

      There isn't anything in that article about the origins of the birds of paradise. Thorton is lying, or ignorant

      Delete
    3. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 7:55 AM

      The part you quoted doesn't say anything about the origins of the birds of paradise.

      The paper is about how they think the DIVERSITY of the clade arose. Not the origin of the clade nor the origin of each variety.

      You are either totally ignorant or totally dishonest.

      Delete
    4. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 8:11 AM

      I don't have to scream it. The facts speak for themselves.

      Your position is totally useless and untestable. YOU are totally useless.

      Heck evos still cannot account for sexual reproduction nor the production of gametes via meiosis.

      Delete
    5. troyNovember 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM

      At least "evos" are investigating and collecting evidence regarding their hypotheses on the evolution of sex and meiosis. What are you doing? Wait, let me answer that for you: you're doing nothing except repeating your mantra Magic man dunnit! Magic man dunnit! Magic man dunnit!

      How's that working out for you?

      Delete
    6. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

      They are? What do they have? And what is the hypothesis wrt unguided evolution?

      And as I said before, by your "logic" cars arose by magic.

      Delete
    7. troyNovember 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM

      They are indeed. You would know that if you would take the trouble to read some of the scientific literature about it.

      But you didn't answer my questions. What's your theory?

      Delete
    8. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM

      I have read it and your position has nothing- not even a testable hypothesis.

      And yes my position is that it arose by design. Now we study it in that light- just as with all investigative venues.

      Delete
    9. troyNovember 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM

      I have read it and your position has nothing- not even a testable hypothesis.

      I don't believe you, Joe. What papers or books did you read?

      And yes my position is that it arose by design. Now we study it in that light- just as with all investigative venues.

      That's wonderful. Where can I find the results of those design-based studies of sexual selection?

      Delete
    10. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

      I don't care what you believe troy. I can't believe there are people as stupid as you and thorton, yet here you are.

      And it is very telling that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution producing meiosis.

      Where can I find the results of those blind watchmaker-based studies of sexual REPRODUCTION?

      Delete
    11. troyNovember 28, 2012 at 1:58 PM

      That's what I thought, Joe - you can't or won't name a single paper or book that you read on the subject you're pontificating about.

      And how about the results of the design-based studies of sexual selection that you claimed you were doing? Until you provide some details, I think it's safe to assume you were just making that up.

      Come on, Joe. Show us you know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    12. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM

      troy,

      I don't have to prove anything to you because you are a nobody. And a bloody ignorant nobody at that. Heck you can't even follow the discussion we are having.

      YOU can't show us anything, not even a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution. So obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

      Where can I find the results of those blind watchmaker-based studies on the origin sexual REPRODUCTION?

      put up or shut up- but I am sure you will do neither...

      Delete
    13. troyNovember 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

      Joe, the discussion is about sexual selection. You claim you did design-based studies on sexual selection. Where are the results?

      I just published a review paper about sexual selection in a prestigious journal. It's right here. Please let me know if you have some questions or comments.

      Delete
    14. GhostriderNovember 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM

      Joe G

      This branch of the discussion is about the origin of sexual reproduction and the production of gametes via meiosis.

      No it's not Joe. The OP and discussion are about sexual selection. We all get that you know nothing on the topic and are desperately looking for a way to weasel out, but it won't work.

      Tell us more about how the female bird always picks a mate who doesn't look like her father.

      Delete
    15. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 4:22 AM

      No thorton.

      THIS BRANCH of the discussion- THIS BRANCH- is about the origin of sexual reproduction and the production of gametes via meiosis.

      Each thread can have side discussions. And thorton should know that seeing all he does it take thread off-topic.

      Delete
  8. National VelourNovember 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM

    Sexual selection is just another way of saying: "What reproduced, reproduced because they found a quality attractive in another mate." Well duh!

    It offers no explanation as to how such a trait(s) came about in the first place, especially if multiple proteins are required for it. In other words, natural selection would not be a factor in helping retain those proteins until a beneficial effect was eventually produced....such as that little dance the bird was doing, etc. But it's all a moot point anyway, because darwin's myth is fact and God help anyone who dares not worship the great darwin and his preposterous fairytale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. troyNovember 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM

      Sexual selection is just another way of saying: "What reproduced, reproduced because they found a quality attractive in another mate." Well duh!

      Oh, is that all it is? This is your summary based on reading the scientific literature? It would be nice if you could tell us what sources you consulted to reach these profound insigts.

      Delete
    2. National VelourNovember 28, 2012 at 7:01 PM

      Sure troy....sex selection 101, by moi!

      The strong will propagate, the weak will perish. For example, the stronger lions will have their pick of females while the weaker ones will have to settle for the rest.

      Anything that gives some organisms a leg up (so to speak) over their competition will have a better chance of reproducing. Those with traits attractive to the opposite gender will have a better chance of mating and producing offspring etc etc etc. Like I said, duh!

      Now care to answer the questions I posed in my earlier post?

      How such traits came about in the first place, especially if multiple proteins are required for them.

      You can't just claim materialistic evolution is true and then attribute everything to it and call it 'evidence' for materialistic evolution. That's circular reasoning, and it's the cornerstone of the darwinian myth.

      Delete
  9. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    Back to the article thorton linked to:

    Sexual Selection and Taxonomic Diversity in Passerine Birds

    The paper is about sexual dichromatic species and how that can lead to diversification. The two sexes are so different that a female can choose a mate that does not look like her father. Pretty much like a female being able to mate with a bird from a different species.

    The paper does not explain how sexual dichromatic species arose. Just what they are capable of and why.

    But that the female can choose to mate with an apparently different species should tell us that our classification system may not be correct and what we think are different species could very well be just different races/ varieties of the same species.

    ReplyDelete
  10. GhostriderNovember 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    Joe G

    Back to the article thorton linked to:

    Sexual Selection and Taxonomic Diversity in Passerine Birds

    The paper is about sexual dichromatic species and how that can lead to diversification. The two sexes are so different that a female can choose a mate that does not look like her father. Pretty much like a female being able to mate with a bird from a different species."

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    "a female can choose a mate that does not look like her father."

    So that's what you think sexual selection is??? That's a keeper Joe. It's going in the "Joe G's Most Incredibly Stupid Things Said" hall of shame.

    I see you're still too stupid to understand what a clade is, or that the paper was describing the correlation between sexual selection and the diversification of the passerine clade. Sexual selection increases the speciation rate of the group.

    There's no cure for such willful ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 4:53 AM

      I know what a clade is and nothing I have said demonstrates otherwise.

      Your continued cowardly false accusations are duly noted.

      And HOW does sexual selection increase the speciation rate? It just does?

      Delete
    2. GhostriderNovember 29, 2012 at 7:53 AM

      Joe G

      And HOW does sexual selection increase the speciation rate? It just does?

      It's explained in the first paragraph of the paper you were too lazy to read.

      Delete
    3. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 8:50 AM

      Yeah "explained" by a bunch of "if"s- why did the female choose whatevber trait she did? "Just because" isn't scientific. And the paper does NOT address the ORIGIN of the traits that females can choose from.

      What stops a polygamous female from choosing mates with different traits? Nothing.

      As I said it is all post hoc/ ad hoc guessing based on a specific untestable framework.

      Delete
    4. GhostriderNovember 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM

      Joe G

      As I said it is all post hoc/ ad hoc guessing based on a specific untestable framework.

      You say a lot of really stupid things that have no connection to reality, like "the Great Pyramid is an antenna" and "sexual selection means the female bird picks a mate who doesn't look like her father".

      That's why you're universally considered nothing but a blustering scientifically illiterate clown in C/E discussion circles.

      Delete
    5. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

      No thorton- only in your twisted little mind did I say "sexual selection means the female bird picks a mate who doesn't look like her father".

      Or perhaps you are just a pathological liar.

      And as far as the authors know, sexual selection has kept the existing diversity, as opposed to causing it.

      Also what you say people think of me is meaningless as you are a proven liar and coward. Proven to 38 decimal places.

      Delete
  11. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

    Was that supposed to refute what I posted?

    1- Sexual selection means that one of the sexes actually chooses. In this paper it was the female

    2- The DIVERSIFICATION comes from the female choosing another type of male, that is other than the type of her father

    IOW thorton is too stupid to understand what I posted and lashes out out of ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. GhostriderNovember 28, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    Joe G

    The DIVERSIFICATION comes from the female choosing another type of male, that is other than the type of her father

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Oh, this is just precious. Even better than your 'pyramid is an antenna' woo idiocy!

    Tell us Joe, since virtually all birds of paradise species are polygamous and only the females build nests and take care of the young, how do the female birds know what type their father was?

    The stupid things that come out of your mouth are just incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM

    thorton:
    Tell us Joe, since virtually all birds of paradise species are polygamous and only the females build nests and take care of the young, how do the female birds know what type their father was?

    It doesn't matter, moron. The point is, seeing that you are too stupid to grasp it, that the female does not look for a specific looking male to mate with. The female doesn't have to mate with a male with the same traits as its father. Whereas in a monochromatic population she would, even if she didn't know who her father was.

    ReplyDelete
  14. GhostriderNovember 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM

    DOUBLE BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Joe continues to pull the stupid train! This is just priceless!

    Joe G. above: Sexual selection means that one of the sexes actually chooses. In this paper it was the female

    Joe G. an hour later: the female does not look for a specific looking male to mate with.

    So according to Joe the Bird Expert, sexual selection means the female selects her mate based on his physical/behavioral characteristics. But she also doesn't look at his physical/behavioral characteristics when choosing a mate!

    It takes a special kind of stupid to directly contradict yourself in the span of two posts - Joe G's our "special" Creationist!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

      Nope, not even close. Apparently sexual selection means whatever the female chooses. And being polygamous each mating time they could choose a different partner for whatever reason. Mr Right (whatever that is) vs Mr Right Now vs "I couldn't find any other single males so you will do"

      Unless you follow one female for all of her sexcapades you can't put together any pattern.

      Delete
    2. GhostriderNovember 28, 2012 at 6:26 PM

      Joe G

      Unless you follow one female for all of her sexcapades you can't put together any pattern.

      TRIPLE BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

      Sorry Joe but the scientists can and did establish a correlating pattern by measuring color differential across the whole population. That you're so ignorant as to think they had to follow each individual female bird across her whole lifespan just highlights how scientifically inept you really are.

      Just like with antennas and just like with genetic algorithms, with evolutionary processes like sexual selection you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. You try to BS your way through but only stick your foot in your mouth deeper with every word you type. You're a shining example of everything the ID movement is all about.

      Delete
    3. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

      thorton:
      Sorry Joe but the scientists can and did establish a correlating pattern by measuring color differential across the whole population.

      Yes, you are sorry. They did a post-hoc/ ad hoc assessment.

      And if you don't follow the female around then you have no idea why she selected the mates she did and you have no idea what mates she selected.

      IOW you don't have any science...

      Delete
  15. Joe GNovember 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

    We know remarkably little about the origins of sexual selection. Why, for example, do female widowbirds prefer long-tailed males? Possibly females choose such males because the ability to grow and display long tails reflects their overall genetic "quality" as mates -- and the females are thus choosing a superior father for their offspring. Or the choice may have no present adaptive basis, but merely be the result of an evolutionary sequence that started for another reason. For instance, perhaps the ancestors of Long-tailed Widowbirds once lived together with a population of near relatives whose males had slightly shorter tails. The somewhat longer tails of males of the "pre-Long-tailed" Widowbirds were the easiest way for females to recognize mates of their own species. Such a cue could have led to a preference for long tails that became integrated into the behavioral responses of females. Although we are inclined to think the former scenario is correct, the data in hand do not eliminate the second possibility.

    And if you don't follow the female around then you have no idea why she selected the mates she did and you have no idea what mates she selected.

    IOW you don't have any science, you are just guessing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. GhostriderNovember 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM

    Joe G

    And if you don't follow the female around then you have no idea why she selected the mates she did and you have no idea what mates she selected.

    IOW you don't have any science, you are just guessing

    Tell you what Joe. Why don't you write the authors of the study and Proceedings of the Royal Society / Biological Sciences who published it, tell them that they don't have any science, they are just guessing.

    Post their reply here so we all may enjoy it, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 4:19 AM

    Whatever science you think they are using it is a safe bet that it has NOTHING to do with unguided evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM

    So for all of thorton's bluster, it has no idea how nor why sexual selection originated. Nor does it have any idea why the females make the selections that they do.

    It even linked to an article that says that.

    IOW thorton proves that evolutionists agree with Dr Hunter, more than what the OP says, yet sez that Dr Hunter doesn't understand sexual selection.

    "Dr Hunter you don't have a clue about sexual selection but just wait and I will reference other evolutuionists who agree with you to support my claim."

    Well done slimey...

    ReplyDelete
  19. GhostriderNovember 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

    LOL! Whatever you say pyramid antenna boy. :D

    Did you write those letters to the authors and the journals yet telling them they don't have any science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

      Umm it has nothing to do with what I say. Everyone can see that is exactly what happened.

      And it doesn't matter what the authors say. it is obvious that the paper has nothing to do with unguided evolution. Nor does it have anything to do with the OP as it does NOT address the "why and how" of sexual selection.

      As far as the authors know, sexual selection has kept the existing diversity, as opposed to causing it.



      Delete
  20. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM

    And I see that thorton is still upset because there is more evidence that pyramids are antennas than there is for his position.

    Try to ridicule me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are an intellectual coward who couldn't support its position if your life depended on it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. GhostriderNovember 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

    Joe G

    And I see that thorton is still upset because there is more evidence that pyramids are antennas than there is for his position.

    Here come the Joe G stupid train again! The whistle goes WOO! WOO!

    Try to ridicule me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are an intellectual coward who couldn't support its position if your life depended on it.

    (Looks around at the thousands of top tier colleges and universities that offer degrees in the evolutionary sciences at the undergrad and grad level. Looks at the millions of professional scientists and researchers in biology, genetics, paleontology, medicine, etc. who successfully use the evolutionary paradigm in their work every day. Looks at the hundreds of professional science journals publishing hundreds of studies with more evidence on the details of evolution every week.)

    (Then looks at the handful of cranks at UD and the DI with zero research, zero results, zero evidence, and who so resemble the drunk nutter on the corner screaming at the street lamp)

    Right. Whatever you say pyramid antenna boy. :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM

      thorton,

      So what is the evidence supporting materialism and evolutionism? Your bluff means nothing.

      What is the evidence that accumulations of genetic accidents can produce any bacterial flagellum? What would the testable hypothesis for such a thing be?

      Not one person from any of your top tier colleges and universities can answer that. Not one of those scientists can answer that.

      There aren't any details of evolution. No one knows how many mutations it takes to get an upright biped from a knuckle-walker/ quadraped. No one knows if changes to the genome can account for all the transformations required to do such a thing.

      So what, exactly, do you think you have? Do you have anything other than your cowardly equivocating and bluffing? Anything at all?

      Delete
    2. GhostriderNovember 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

      Get a new writer Joe. You've been belching the same pointless one-liners forever. They're boring.

      If you're going to be an internet clueless IDiot, at least be creative.

      Delete
    3. Joe GNovember 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM

      Pointless? "Pointless" because you can't answer any of them. And that proves yur entire position is pontless and that you are a bluffing coward.

      BTW I don't need to be creative. The facts work just fine.

      OTOH your position relies solely on the creative imaginations of zealot idealogues and charlatans. And it reads just like a fairy tale.

      Oh and people notice that you don't post any actual evidence that supports your position. And they know why...

      Delete
    4. GhostriderNovember 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

      Joe G

      BTW I don't need to be creative. The facts work just fine.

      Show us how much you understand about science Joe. Go ahead and provide some scientific 'facts' and evidence for reincarnation.

      If it's half as funny as that new age woo about 'pyramid antennas' you face-planted on, we'll be laughing for a week!

      Delete
    5. Joe GNovember 30, 2012 at 3:55 AM

      Whatever thorton. Your position has nothing but cowards like you for support. And that means you don't know anything about science, and it shows.

      Delete
    6. GhostriderNovember 30, 2012 at 6:34 AM

      Joe G

      Whatever thorton. Your position has nothing but cowards like you for support. And that means you don't know anything about science, and it shows

      I know the difference between real science and new age woo like pyramid antennas and reincarnation. Apparently that makes one of us. :)

      Delete
    7. Joe GNovember 30, 2012 at 7:00 AM

      No thorton, you don't know anything about science. And the proof is that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis and supporting evidence for your position.

      You are a liar, a loser and a coward.

      Delete
    8. GhostriderNovember 30, 2012 at 7:37 AM

      C'mon Joe, tell us about your reincarnations!

      I bet in a past life you were once the north end of a southbound horse, right? :D

      Maybe next life you'll come back as a guy with a brain.

      Delete
  22. Joe GNovember 30, 2012 at 4:31 AM

    Show us how much you understand about science thorton. Go ahead and provide some scientific 'facts' and evidence for evolutionism and materialism.

    How about providing a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)