Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Andrew Xiao Confirms Adenine Methylation in Mammals—Thinks it Evolved

This Isn’t Working

Evolutionists are going to need a bigger rug as Yale professor Andrew Xiao now has a new pile of stuff he is absurdly trying to ascribe to evolution. Xiao’s team has confirmed that in mammals the fundamental epigenetic signal—the methyl group—is sometimes attached to a second type of DNA base. DNA is made up of four types of bases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] and thymine [T]) and, as in the lower species, methyl groups are sometimes attached to adenine in mammals as well.

Such epigenetic signals help to cause directed adaptation in organisms—the ability to rapidly respond to new environmental challenges. And this new finding means that not just with cytosine, but with adenine as well, random mutations must have created the proteins (i) to attach the methyl groups and (ii) to remove them.

Both types of proteins are needed to make the epigenetic response work. With either protein alone, you just have chaos.

You also need the network of signals and regulation to set these proteins in action at the proper times, and only at the proper times. And of course these epigenetic signals must somehow influence the transcription process.

This isn’t going to happen with random mutations. And, no, natural selection doesn’t help.

But this is only the beginning.

In the lower species, attaching the methyl group to adenine caused gene activation. But in the mammals studied, the new research found that adenine methylation caused gene inactivation. In other words, the exact same methylation signal attached to the same nitrogen atom in the same base, somehow reversed polarity.

That makes no sense. Any change in polarity in the circuitry logic would throw the system into chaos. Imagine your thermostat now works in reverse. When you adjust the temperature lower, the heater rather than the air conditioner, turns on. You wanted it to be cooler, but instead it got even hotter.

Such a change in polarity in the circuitry would have to take place simultaneously, at several functions throughout the logic. This isn’t going to happen with random mutations. And, no, natural selection doesn’t help.

This is all a bad joke. The science makes no sense on evolution, and like the drunk at the party, evolutionists are the only ones who don’t get it.

130 comments:

  1. Cornelius:

    You also need the network of signals and regulation to set these proteins in action at the proper times, and only at the proper times.

    It seems to me that the nervous system, including various sensors and dedicated parts of the brain must be involved in the epigenetic signalling/regulation mechanism. This could also explain the placebo effect whereby the brain has a direct influence on the body at the genetic level.

    Anyone who claims that all of this emerged via RM+NS is a psychopathic liar, a pathological deceiver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/08/exaptation-vs-front-loading-wh/
      Describes the origins and evolution of the neuro-processing capabilities. If these molecules had not been present in the sponges then no doubt some analog of neural processing would have developed in it's place just because it's so beneficial. When you fail to take into account all the things that did not develop (and why)you find it takes quite a lot of the wind out of those "impossibility" arguments.

      Delete
  2. Louis, as an ex-evolution believer I think you should cut them some slack . I think most of them have been brainwahsed. Very few people would choose evolution as a rational explanation for life in this world if they were left to think it out for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will never cut them any slack. The world does not need another chicken feather voodoo religion with a bunch of stupid, brain-dead fanatics running around.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Mapoo: "The world does not need another chicken feather voodoo religion with a bunch of stupid, brain-dead fanatics running around."

      I agree. Christianity should be enough chicken feather voodoo religion for a lifetime.

      Delete
    4. Dirt worshipping, spineless maggot:

      I agree. Christianity should be enough chicken feather voodoo religion for a lifetime.

      Well, I have to agree that most of what passes for Christianity is chicken feather voodoo. But you would not recognize true Christianity if it bit your in the arse (which it will). You worship dirt, after all.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
  3. Mapou: "Anyone who claims that all of this emerged via RM+NS is a psychopathic liar, a pathological deceiver."

    Well Cornelius, how do you like the quality of discussion on your blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spineless maggot whining again. Grow a backbone, goddammit.

      Delete
  4. Wow. Evolution disproven yet again but no one in the actual scientific community recognizes it. Shocking.

    I wonder why no one will accept the claims of the creationists on this matter? Maybe it's because science has know about epigenetic effects and methyl groups for over 50 years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ghostrider, your comment does nothing to refute the OP. In fact, you exemplify the attitude the OP attributes to evolutionists while trying to mock the criticism. Truly ironic.


      Delete
    2. Science does not belong to you, dirt worshipper. Science has known about exponential math for centuries. Why is it that you dirt worshippers still can't understand that it squashes your little dirt-worshipping hypothesis dead before it's even born? Why are you people so stupid?

      Microcephalic morons.

      Delete
    3. ohandy1

      ghostrider, your comment does nothing to refute the OP.


      There's no need to refute such silly over-the-top rhetoric. Fantastic claims made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

      Delete
    4. The dirt worshipper complains about fantastic claims while ignoring the fantastic claims of his own chicken-feather voodoo hypothesis.

      Go find some dirt and worship it, dirt worshipper. You will feel better.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Mapou: "Science does not belong to you, dirt worshipper."

      Quite true. ID is welcome to use it as well. I look forward to all of their work being published in the science journals.

      "Science has known about exponential math for centuries."

      Again, quite true. But you have failed to prove that it has any impact on evolution. We have been over this before. Using the same false assumptions that you use in your combinatorial nonnsense, I can prove that the probability of you being born is astronomically small.

      "Microcephalic morons."

      When Mapou finds a new term he uses it until he figures out what it means.

      Delete
    6. Dirt worshipper:

      I look forward to all of their work being published in the science journals.

      "Science journals", my foot. Your religious publications have little to do with science and a lot more to do with a chicken feather voodoo cult.

      "Science has known about exponential math for centuries."

      Again, quite true. But you have failed to prove that it has any impact on evolution. We have been over this before. Using the same false assumptions that you use in your combinatorial nonnsense, I can prove that the probability of you being born is astronomically small.


      LOL. What a mental midget. The problem is not one of astronomically small probability. The problem is one of ZERO probability. There is zero probability that order can arise from chaos. Chaos simply destroys any order that arises. You idiots need to grow a few more neurons to add the the two you got between your ears. LOL

      "Microcephalic morons."

      When Mapou finds a new term he uses it until he figures out what it means.


      LOL

      I also like "small cranium", "mental midget", "tree-dwelling primitive", "cargo cult brainiac", "dirt worshipper", "chicken-feather voodoo monger" and "barber shop philosopher".

      But don't worry, I will add plenty more until your pathetic and gutless little religion disappears from the face of the earth. Believe me, you fake scientists don't have much time left.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    7. ghostrider, that silly over-the-top rhetoric makes sense. The evolutionary claims don't. The only solution to this problem, as posited in the Guardian article last post, is to teach kids in kindergarden to stop looking for purpose in life.

      Calling criticisms stupid is not a refutation. Calling a challenge answered isn't in itself an answer.

      I'm coming to think the best defense of evolution is to so anger the opposition that they all sound like Louis, so as to dismiss them on style.

      Your ivory tower is built on quicksand yet you continue to poo-poo the people pointing that out for your own benefit.

      Delete
    8. Maybe it's because science has know about epigenetic effects and methyl groups for over 50 years?

      No thanks to evolution, your disgusting whitewashing of history notwithstanding.

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-evolutionists-have-vigorously.html

      Delete
    9. No thanks to evolution, your disgusting whitewashing of history notwithstanding

      LOL! How did little old me manage to whitewash history? How did I manage to convince millions of professional scientists in countries all over the globe to accept evolutionary theory? I suppose I should be flattered. :)

      Delete
    10. ohandy1

      ghostrider, that silly over-the-top rhetoric makes sense.


      Maybe to uneducated laymen who have zero understanding of the subject. To the professional scientific community the claims really are just silly rhetoric.

      Delete
    11. LOL! How did little old me manage to whitewash history? How did I manage to convince millions of professional scientists in countries all over the globe to accept evolutionary theory? I suppose I should be flattered. :)

      Pathetic.

      Delete
    12. Pathetic.

      No, seriously. I am, flattered you think I lead the World Wide Science Conspiracy to Discredit Creationism (WWSCDC) and can control what our millions of scientist members accept.

      Delete
    13. chosthumper:

      No, seriously. I am, flattered you think I lead the World Wide Science Conspiracy to Discredit Creationism (WWSCDC) and can control what our millions of scientist members accept.

      Millions of scientist members? You mean a bunch of voodoo cult members pretending to be scientists. Brainless maggot.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    14. ghostrider: I'm not a biologist but you're incorrect to suggest I'm uneducated. My IT degrees may not require microscopes but i certainly have to be able to follow logic with precision.

      As you are well aware, academic pursuits are no replacement for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Just because you have a few letters behind your name isn't cause to claim understanding. Nor is the absence of such letters a guarantor of ignorance.

      So you have continued to validate my point which was an endorsement of the point made in the OP. Those with the strongest claim on knowing are the very ones showing contempt for the truth.

      Will you ever attempt more than ridicule as rebuttal? Is the ridicule of a fool really an insult? Are you more than a fool?

      Delete
    15. ohandy1

      So you have continued to validate my point which was an endorsement of the point made in the OP.


      The big problem is there weren't any points made in the OP. It was the usual "it's impossible for evolution to have done this!!" followed by the usual silly rhetoric.

      If the OP author had actual rebuttal material against the Xiao research he could write it up and submit it to Nature for publication. That's how honest scientists critique each others' work. But this blog has never been about science.

      Delete
    16. GR:

      You keep on saying that it doesn't disprove evoltuion without saying why it doesn't disprove evolution, beyond saying that Dr. Hunter isn't following protocol. He said why it contradicts evolution. Is the evolutionary answer, "we hope to have an answer for you someday," again? Or is it "you know, in science, it isn't about proof, but the preponderance of evidence, and the preponderance of evidence is for evolution?" Just saying that his point isn't peer reviewed is just a little pathetic.

      Delete
    17. natschuster

      You keep on saying that it doesn't disprove evoltuion without saying why it doesn't disprove evolution,


      Evolutionary theory isn't based just on this experiment. It's based on literally millions of pieces of consilient evidence from research in hundreds of scientific disciplines over the last 150 years. Even if this Xiao work was 100% wrong it's wouldn't cast the slightest doubt on the rest of the evidence.

      He said why it contradicts evolution.

      Creationists say a lot of things that have no connection to reality. If there was evidence to back up this remarkable "evolution disproven" claim let's see it written up and published in the proper scientific venue.

      Delete
    18. Okay, so it's preponderance of evidence. Got it.

      Now, I'm not sure how valuable peer review is. Lot's of fraud nowadays gets published. There's even software that generates fake papers that have been published. So maybe peer review is nothing more than proofreading. Young children can proof read. That;s why I think insisting on peer review is just a little pathetic.

      Now, about those millions of pieces of evidence, every organism at every level has lots of things that have characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only. Are you sure the preponderance of evidence is fro evolution?

      Delete
    19. I know the last time you made the same dumb claim you were asked to list the "characteristics of all designed things" and you fled the thread.

      Delete
    20. "That's why I think insisting on peer review is just a little pathetic."

      If you have a better suggestion, I am all ears. Fraud and unethical behaviour in science journals is not new. And, surprise, these incidents are generally identified by other scientists.

      Why are ID researchers so reluctant to submit their papers to peer reviewed journals? Claiming that they don't submit them because they won't get published is like saying that I am not going to apply for a job because I won't get hired. It is just the coward's way out. Blame others for your failings.

      I have asked Cornelius in the past to post a paper of his that is critical of current evolutionary theory that was rejected. He could also post the editors reasons for rejecting the paper. We could then discuss the merits of the paper and the merits of the critiques by the editors. But he has never responded to this. I can only assume that this is because he has never made the attempt.

      Delete
    21. Cornelius Hunter
      "Pathetic."

      Yes it would seem this non-scientist Layman's knowledge on any of the subjects you post on here can be summed up in "LOL", with a little cut n paste added here and there in an attempt to give the appearance of 6th grade education. Looking back through your blog's history of his mockery sport, nothing has changed for years, even under his old cowardly cloak.

      BTW, I love this subject on Epigenetics. It really allows something that anyone can grasp and latch onto in understanding mechanisms of change in the natural world, even when things go radically wrong. Also increases practical application in the real of biomimicry, which is yet another fascinating subject. Thanks for posting this.

      Delete
    22. Dirt worshipper:

      Creationists say a lot of things that have no connection to reality. If there was evidence to back up this remarkable "evolution disproven" claim let's see it written up and published in the proper scientific venue.

      LOL! You mean in arse-review journals controlled by butt-kissing dirt worshippers? No thanks, Mr. Evotard. We're happy to kick your stupid arses right here on the internet.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    23. You know Frankfurter instead of just the snarky mouthing off why don't you explain: if everything in evolutionary theory is wrong then what is the right explanation? Any coward can stand in the shadows throwing rocks and bleating the non-explanation "design". Commit to a position and back it up with some evidence and details.

      Delete
    24. Dirt worshipper:

      Why are ID researchers so reluctant to submit their papers to peer reviewed journals?

      Only dirt worshippers want to submit papers to arse-review journals. Kissing butt is one of their favorite pastimes. ID researchers should form their own journals, IMO.

      You are a mental midget, Billy boy.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    25. Dirt worshipper Timothy Horton:

      Commit to a position and back it up with some evidence and details.

      The evidence and the details are right in your face. You mental midgets are too busy worshipping dirt to see it. Go back to your little dirt worshipping church and light a candle or something.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    27. ghostrider:

      Again you're wrong and by being so you reinforce my statement and that in the OP.
      "The science makes no sense on evolution, and like the drunk at the party, evolutionists are the only ones who don’t get it."
      This statement is making a claim and the claim was explained many times over. Your answer to that claim is "yer stupid and don't get it"

      You lay claim to higher understanding yet rely on ridicule to support that claim. I find that foolish, but what do I know right?

      I don't take issue with your faith in naturalism. I see no reason to agree with you, but you do get to choose what you believe. The thing naturalists rarely admit is that naturalism isn't the product of scientific investigation, it's the starting premise.

      Naturalism, and by extension evolutionary theory, is by necessity born of an a priori, presumed framework. What I enjoy about this blog is watching how often that theory doesn't actually fit within that framework. I've seen the math argued a thousand times and it always ends the same, the universe is WAY too young for evolution to work but would burn out long before it's old enough.

      Your snobbery (and i mean that in the general evolutionists sense), and the imposition of it throughout academia, is what drives people to become like Louis. When challenges are dismissed in favor of a chosen belief you make a mockery of science. It is your faith in naturalism that must be preserved at any cost, integrity be damned.

      Delete
    28. The real problem ohandy1 is that the "challenges" you (plural) issue are based on a severe ignorance and misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory. Or in the case of professional Creationists it's a deliberate and willful misrepresentation of the evidence. When I suggest you take a class or read up on the topic online so you understand it before blindly attacking it I get accused of snobbery.

      I've seen the math argued a thousand times and it always ends the same, the universe is WAY too young for evolution to work but would burn out long before it's old enough.

      That's a perfect example of why real scientists get frustrated with Creationist fools. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, life has been here evolving for at least 3.8 billion years and possibly longer. There's no valid math anywhere which shows that's too short a time for evolution to occur. There's ridiculous Creationist BS that is spread around the web but that's not gonna do the job.

      Delete
    29. No ghostrider, I'm not ignorant of evolutionary theory. I've read a lot more than the average person and I can see where certain ideas seem plausible. But under scrutiny, plausible becomes supremely unlikely. When compiled together, the theories beg to be called impossible. The only way to justify so many of the positions taken is the "we're here" factor, which is to say we had to have evolved because we're here. We simply have to figure out how it happened.

      So many current theories that try to explain how it happened are absurd but accepted because "there is no acceptable alternative". Cornelius does a fine job of pointing these out and you often reply "what's your explanation", as though lack of alternatives makes it right.

      My main point was that your devotion is not as much to evolution as it is naturalism. You will let your evolutionary theories evolve and change, abandoning one in favor of another; but your commitment to naturalism is hard and fast. Snobbery comes in when this belief is touted as superior to a creationist belief. The both are a priori knowledge. Neither can be disproven nor proven without God's (creator's) direct intervention. Both create a framework that science can operate in. Yet, creation is called foolish and naturalism hailed as enlightened. Snobbery.

      I believe in the creationist paradigm because I also believe that empiricism isn't the only way to gain knowledge. Funny that naturalists are so committed to empiricism yet begin with a premise that cannot be empirically tested.

      So there is no special way of understanding evolutionary theory that makes it work. The only way it "works" is by a picking a naturalist framework. By work I mean cannot be falsified, which should give you pause.

      Delete
    30. ohandy1

      But under scrutiny, plausible becomes supremely unlikely. When compiled together, the theories beg to be called impossible.


      Then write up these things that make evolution impossible and submit them to a proper scientific journal for publication. If you do you'll be the first. The internet is full of creationist making wild unsupported assertions about how evolution is impossible.

      By work I mean cannot be falsified, which should give you pause.

      Sigh. Of course ToE can be falsified. I've given examples here a dozen times. Not falsified doesn't mean not falsifiable.

      BTW science relies on naturalism for the simple reason that it works. It produces tangible results. What has reliance on supernatural intervention ever done for us in science?

      Delete
    31. GR:

      "I know the last time you made the same dumb claim you were asked to list the "characteristics of all designed things" and you fled the thread."

      First of all, it isn't characteristics of all designed things we are discussing. Rather, it is characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only that is important.

      And I don't recall running away when asked for a list. Oh well, here's a list: irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, functional integration of parts, information codes, y'know, like DNA.

      Delete
    32. *Heavy Sigh*
      ToE is not falsifiable. It's an extension of the origin by naturalistic means which cannot be empirically established. Except, as I said, by the direct intervention of God, ToE cannot be falsified. It's not even a single comprehensive theory, rather a composite of related theories. Falsify one and the overarching theory remains to grow a new head. (hail Hydra)

      I use the term naturalism as it relates to origins. Creation doesn't mean nature has no predictable mechanisms. Science works just as well (or perhaps better) under a creationist paradigm. One doesn't rely on supernatural intervention to study science, but it does offer freedom to explore natures mechanisms as they are rather than trying to grind square pegs into round holes.

      And what do you mean by "it works"? There is no explanation under naturalism for life that "works". There is no explanation under naturalism for the required mechanisms that "work". The very subtitle of this OP is "This isn't working" and for a very plausible reason. You cannot credit evolution with scientific advancement unless you call the theory itself advancement. Genetic research would fare just fine under a creationist paradigm. I do recall an example (on this blog) where it actually took abandoning the evolutionary model to make progress, though I don't have time to look it up I'm sure you read it.

      Science relies on natural laws where evolution relies on naturalism. There is a difference. A created universe wouldn't change the natural laws we observe nor their influence on science. Name a single benefit to science for believing the premise that life (and the universe for that matter) arose spontaneously.

      Delete
    33. And I don't recall running away when asked for a list. Oh well, here's a list: irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, functional integration of parts, information codes, y'know, like DNA.

      Sorry nat but you haven't shown those attributes are exclusive to purposely designed objects. We see the same things in naturally occurring biological life. We know from lab experiments and genetic algorithm testing that unguided evolutionary processes can produce the same features. We know that humans can produce abstract codes to pass messages but DNA isn't an abstract code.

      Your claim is completely circular. Like saying "human designed bed sheets are white, clouds are white, so clouds must be designed". Typically dumb Creationist logic.

      Delete
    34. ohandy1

      ToE is not falsifiable.


      Of course it is. Finding that different animal "kinds" have different forms of incompatible DNA would do it. Finding a population of chimera animals like six-limbed flying horses or crocoducks would do it.

      Not falsified doesn't mean not falsifiable. If you can't grasp that simple idea there's no hope of a rational discussion.

      The very subtitle of this OP is "This isn't working" and for a very plausible reason

      The unsupported assertion in every OP is that "evolution is impossible". But that's all they are, empty assertions completely devoid of any supporting facts or data. It's one long episode of personal incredulity theater. That doesn't impress the scientific community even a little.

      I note you can't give any way for science to rely on supernatural intervention for results. That's exactly why science doesn't use the supernatural for explanations.

      Delete
    35. What I read is that genetic algorithms don't do much more than improve pre-existing designs. And DNA codes for proteins and the morphology, doesn't it? If it codes, it's a code.

      And I don't recall reading about irreducibly complex things being produced in a lab. Perhaps you could provide an example. The standard answer is usually functional intermediates. But the intermediates are all hypothetical. So, there is evidence for design, but evolutionists explain it away, just like creationists explain away the evidence for evolution, usually by pointing out the holes and contradictions. Are you still sure that th proponderance of evidence favors evolution?

      Delete
    36. natschuster

      If it codes, it's a code.


      There is more than one definition of code. DNA is not an abstract code.

      And I don't recall reading about irreducibly complex things being produced in a lab.

      That's because you don't read the scientific literature, period.

      Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

      Delete
    37. "Finding that different animal "kinds" have different forms of incompatible DNA would do it."

      Really? Introduce the Hydra effect. Whenever problems with common descent arise the theory is patched and amended. The duck-billed platypus is that crocoduck and it's hailed as an evolutionary milestone. Hail Hydra.

      You have a fundamental misunderstanding of creationism. I've never suggested that science "rely" on the supernatural. Though if the evidence points there it should be accepted. If the universe were created rather than spontaneously arisen it would have the same natural laws we now see. It is the DIS-allowance of ID that puts science in a box. And in spite of your assertions, it is NOT working.

      What exactly is unsupported when the claim in the OP is exactly what logic predicts? I don't have access to the full paper (not a prof) but if the claim is accurately described then the objection to that claim is definitely valid.

      Delete
    38. I was just given this quote. It speaks perfectly to what I've said.
      __________________________________

      "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment,a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
      compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow
      a Divine Foot in the door. (…) Anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen”
      - Richard Lewontin, American evolutionary biologist.
      ____________________________________

      I'm not makin' this stuff up...

      Delete
    39. Whenever problems with common descent arise the theory is patched and amended.

      You basic lack of science understanding is showing again. ALL scientific theories work by being modified as new evidence becomes available. The things I described would have falsified the ToE when it was introduced but those things weren't found. It's stupid to ask what would falsify ToE now after 150+ years of positive evidence. What would falsify the germ theory of disease now?

      It is the DIS-allowance of ID that puts science in a box.

      ID isn't disallowed. ID is just required to provide its own positive evidence, something it has been completely unable to do. Even if ToE was discredited tomorrow that still wouldn't be evidence for ID.

      I don't have access to the full paper (not a prof) but if the claim is accurately described then the objection to that claim is definitely valid.

      I do have access to the paper. The claim "evolution of this feature is impossible" is unsubstantiated garbage. It's the person making the claim's job to support the claim, not science's job to disprove the assertions.

      Delete
    40. "I do have access to the paper. The claim "evolution of this feature is impossible" is unsubstantiated garbage. It's the person making the claim's job to support the claim, not science's job to disprove the assertions."

      No, the claim by the author of the study is described in the OP. Which is then refuted with logic in the OP. The burden is on the original claimant.

      My basic understanding of science is just fine. Your acceptance of "just-so" stories isn't, in the real world, science. As my quote from Richard Lewontin evidences, modern science doesn't operate completely in the real world.

      Have you ever stopped to think maybe it's you who doesn't get it?

      To my knowledge, the original claimant (Xiao) has not adequately defended his position as noted by the objections raised in the OP. If this isn't the case, please feel free to explain or show how the apparent logic of the objection is flawed.

      Delete
    41. GR:

      I didn't say abstract code. But DNA is a code, since it codes.

      And the article you linked doesn't show that an irreducible system was actually made, just how it could have evolved. And I'm not sure that since it had only two parts, and each part functioned on it's own, that it meets the criterion for irreducibly complex. I'm not sure that you can demonstrate from there that a falgellum could evolve.

      Delete
    42. Ohandy1

      No, the claim by the author of the study is described in the OP. Which is then refuted with logic in the OP.


      Nothing in the paper is refuted by the "I don't believe it!" assertions in the OP. N6-ma is already known to be present in prokaryotes and a few insect families. In wasn't known in mammals before because basically no one had looked. The paper outlined a hypothesis for the evolution of the N6-ma in mammals along with some supporting evidence.

      We already have a huge amount of knowledge on the evolution of mammals over the last 150 MY. There is nothing in this blog or any other creationist site that suggests the methyladenine fairy came by and POOFED these changes into mammals.

      Delete
    43. natschuster

      But DNA is a code, since it codes.


      So? There are many known natural processes that encode data. Trees encode seasonal rainfall amounts in the thickness of their rings. Starlight encodes the chemical composition of the star that produced it. "Code" doesn't have to mean "conscious design".

      Delete
    44. Dirt worshipping evotard:

      "Code" doesn't have to mean "conscious design".

      LOL. The evotard has no clue what a code means. What else is new? Somebody please help the moron. I don't have the heart to crush the mental midget like a bug.

      Delete
    45. ghostrider

      " There are many known natural processes that encode data. Trees encode seasonal rainfall amounts in the thickness of their rings. Starlight encodes the chemical composition of the star that produced it. "Code" doesn't have to mean "conscious design"."

      None of the "codes" you mention have any computer program-like coded instructions such as DNA.

      Delete
    46. If the "code" from the stars showed you how to build a "Stargate" you'd be pretty sure an intelligence sent it but if the code is for building living beings it "doesn't have to mean "conscious design"???"

      Delete
    47. PhillyMike

      None of the "codes" you mention have any computer program-like coded instructions such as DNA.


      Again so? People sometimes use computer code as an analogy for some of the biochemical processes involved with DNA. That doesn't make DNA be computer code. Analogies aren't evidence. A complex natural process is still a natural process.

      Delete
    48. I guess only your analogies count.

      Delete
    49. Dirt worshipper Timothy Horton must be the most clueless mental midget in the Darwinist/evotard camp. He makes YEC Robert Byers look like a brilliant mind. LOL

      A code is a symbolic arrangement that, not only has a predetermined meaning, but also has a predetermined means/mechanism or method to decode it.

      You can say that about computer codes, Morse codes, language codes, DNA codes, etc. But you can't say that about tree rings or the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars.

      Go back to school, idiot. And grow a pair of gonads while you're at it.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    50. PhillyMike

      I guess only your analogies count.


      Science doesn't use analogies for evidence. Science uses empirical research results published in the peer reviewed professional scientific literature.

      Contrast that with ID-Creationism which only uses analogies and only publishes in popular press books or ID-Creationist web sites.

      No one is stopping the ID-Creationists from doing science the proper way except the ID-Creationists themselves.

      Delete
    51. Timothy Horton the evotard:

      peer reviewed professional scientific literature

      LOL What the dirt worshipper really means is "arse-review Darwinist religious literature."

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    52. You use an analogy to try and prove a point and fail miserably and the declare analogies are only used by Creationists?? Lol You crack me up ghost. BTW how did your bracket work out?

      Delete
    53. PhillyMike

      You use an analogy to try and prove a point and fail miserably and the declare analogies are only used by Creationists??


      Using an analogy to illustrate a point is not the same as using an analogy as your primary scientific evidence. I do the former. ID-Creationists do the later.

      BTW how did your bracket work out?

      By dumb luck I won the lab pool because I had Villanova making the finals. :)

      Delete
    54. Evotard Horton:

      Using an analogy to illustrate a point is not the same as using an analogy as your primary scientific evidence. I do the former. ID-Creationists do the later.

      Arguing with a lying psychopath is worse than arguing with a watermelon.

      Delete
    55. ghostrider:
      "There is nothing in this blog or any other creationist site that suggests the methyladenine fairy came by and POOFED these changes into mammals."

      I really don't think you understand creationism at all. You say I don't understand science, but in reality it's you who can't get past the first step in understanding creationism and how it relates to science. The idea that both creationism and naturalism require a commitment to a priori knowledge and are merely a paradigm through which to evaluate evidence.

      As much as you say a creator cannot be proven, evolution cannot be shown to work. They are exercises in faith.

      You are, however, very good at dragging a conversation away from the main points. You use mockery most when trying to deflect from a real question.

      Why is it so hard to admit your position is first and foremost one of faith?

      Delete
    56. ohandy1

      Why is it so hard to admit your position is first and foremost one of faith?


      Because it's not true. In their campaign of deceit claiming "evolution is a religion" is one of the biggest lies Creationists have concocted. Creationists can't get their stupidity reintroduced into public school science classes so they think they'll discredit the solid science of evolutionary theory by calling it religion. It's a desperate act by dishonest scoundrels.

      evolution cannot be shown to work.

      Another lie since examples of evolution's processes can be seen every day and found by the thousands with a simple Google search. Lying comes as easy as breathing to Creationists.

      Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth about science?

      Delete
    57. Lying psychopath Timothy Horton asks:

      Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth about science?

      The irony is completely lost on the evotard, no doubt about it. He must have knocked himself out after he wrote it.

      Delete
    58. GR:

      Okay, then. DNA is a functional code. It does something. The only other functional codes we know of were designed.

      Delete
    59. natschuster "logic":

      Rain clouds are functional, they water the lawn. They do something. The only other things we know that water the lawn, sprinklers and garden hoses, were designed. Therefore rain clouds were designed.

      Delete
    60. It's the code in the DNA that is functional. It's not just functional things, it's functional codes.

      Delete
    61. It's the water in the rain cloud that is functional. It's not just functional things, it's functional water.

      Delete
    62. natschuster,

      You should be cognizant of the fact that you're arguing with a religious psychopath, a fanatic. You might as well be arguing with a Jehovah's witness or an ISIS fanatic.

      The dirt worshipper will never admit that a code comes with a decoder or interpreter. Both are required for there to be a code. DNA code is decoded by a decoding mechanism within the organism, one which is purposely designed for that purpose. By comparison, Morse code also has a decoder, a way to translate the code into something else.

      The evotards will never admit to anything until they get hit with the proverbial two-by-four between the eyes. This battle will not be won until some new development is revealed that knocks their socks off.

      Wait for it. It won't be much longer.

      Delete
    63. GR:

      See, it's like this: we have never seen a functional code that wasn't designed.

      Delete
    64. natnologic

      See, it's like this: we have never seen a functional code that wasn't designed.


      Yes you have. One example is called DNA.

      BTW all chemistry is a "functional code". Sodium and chlorine "code" for table salt. That doesn't make table salt be designed.

      Sooner or later you IDiots will have to come to grips with your fatally flawed logic.

      Delete
    65. Dirt worshipper:

      Sooner or later you IDiots will have to come to grips with your fatally flawed logic.

      Evotards will NEVER accept ANY criticism of their voodoo religion. You are wasting your time, natschuster.

      The only way to deal with evotards is to ridicule them and rub their noses in their own excrement. Just for grins and giggles.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    66. "BTW all chemistry is a "functional code". Sodium and chlorine "code" for table salt. That doesn't make table salt be designed."

      ROTFL You're right ghost, and making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich takes the same info as writing computer programs. LOL

      Delete
    67. We don't know that DNA wasn't designed. And it is the nature of sodium and chloride that make them turn into salt. There is nothing in the chemistry of DNA that makes it turns into proteins or organism morphology or control systems. It's the code itself that is functional. That's different.

      Delete
    68. Sorry ghostrider but you're at odds with your own peers. So unless you alone speak for "science", you're not accurately reflecting the general consensus, as noted in my quote from the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin.

      That is assuming you're a peer to Richard Lewontin. I really don't know how the social structure of academia works.

      Delete
    69. Evotard Timothy Horton, aka ghostrider, is one the most stupid dirt worshippers I have had the displeasure of knowing about.

      Horton is fiendishly stupid, on a par with chickens. But then again, what more can be expected from a bunch of morons who worship dirt as the mother life on earth.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    70. ID is just required to provide its own positive evidence,

      We have but you are too stupid to understand any of it. OTOH your position doesn't have any positive evidence. Heck no one knows how to test the claims your position makes.

      Delete
    71. "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
      why? Because this... http://tinyurl.com/opsrq78
      makes no sense.

      Delete
    72. "your position doesn't have any positive evidence. "
      Studying biology without evolution is like studying math without numbers or variables.

      Empirical Evidence of Evolution:
      1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

      a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

      b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

      c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

      d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

      2. Fossil evidence - The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows. transitional forms:
      scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/03/07/yet-another-transitional-form/

      sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406100543.htm

      3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).

      4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock'nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-molecular-clock-and-estimating-species-divergence-41971 and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).

      5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly different proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.

      6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; eye sockets in eyeless cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).

      Delete
    73. 7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.

      8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.

      9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.

      10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.

      Now you don't need faith anymore, now you have the evidence! And this isn't even all of it ;)

      Delete
    74. 3dPrinter...the countervailing evidence is pretty staggering. Really. And most of what you have declared has been struck down at this point in time.

      Delete
    75. 3dPrinter...the countervailing evidence is pretty staggering. Really. And most of what you have declared has been struck down at this point in time.

      Delete
    76. cheap unsupported claims make for such a convincing argument... not.

      Delete
  5. ghostrider

    "Wow. Evolution disproven yet again but no one in the actual scientific community recognizes it. Shocking." ( Interpretation = The Emperor does have clothes! And they are most Royal! All of us here in the court can see them!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this Prof is taking better peoples jobs from them.
    It seems more lame then the usual lame stuff from these circles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, this site is attracting the best and the brightest of the ID intelligentsia. First the abusive rantings of Mapou and Joe the toaster repairman. And now the bigoted, moronic rankings of Robert Byers. It almost makes me embarrassed to be Canadian.

      Cornelius, you must be impressed with the ID geniuses flocking to your site.

      And I apologize to Nic and Bill. They don't deserve to be lumped amongst this crowd.

      Delete
    2. Dirt worshipper:

      Cornelius, you must be impressed with the ID geniuses flocking to your site.

      You should be ashamed of yourself then. Why are you so obsessed with Cornelius's site since you think it attracts only idiots? Hell, even common sense-challenged YECs like Nic and Byers make you dirt worshippers look stupid. I mean, I'm sure Byers has no problem grasping the notion that order does not spring out of chaos.

      Why don't you go light a candle or sacrifice some furry animals to the Flying Dirt Monster and leave the rest of the world alone? You mental midget.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    3. Ahh, Mapou. Always entertaining. Never informative. Please don't change. Society has said that it is not appropriate to go to freak shows and derive pleasure from their deformities. You are all we have left.

      Delete
    4. The problem with you, dirt worshipper, is that you are neither informative nor entertaining. Like all dirt worshippers, you're a complete bore. I just enjoy bashing you and watch you squirm like the spineless maggot that you are.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Bill Spearshake.
      I insist i'm right. this prof is taking better peoples jobs from them in these positions. I can tell. its more lame then usual.
      Saying its bigoted ain't changing the facts.
      there is not quality control. One should rant about that in the nations.

      Delete
  7. I think this Prof is taking better peoples jobs from them.
    It seems more lame then the usual lame stuff from these circles.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "But this is only the beginning."

    How well this describes the evolutionists ability to disregard mountains of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      "How well this describes the evolutionists ability to disregard mountains of evidence."

      For evolutionists being buried under a mountain of negative evidence is akin to not seeing the forest because of the trees.

      Delete
  9. "But this is only the beginning."

    How well this describes the evolutionists ability to disregard mountains of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ghostrider:
    Maybe to uneducated laymen who have zero understanding of the subject. To the professional scientific community the claims really are just silly rhetoric.

    So here we go again. Everyone on this board is uneducated and ignorant except for ghostrider.

    Hey ghostrider, I've implored you for some kind of indication that you yourself are highly educated. Won't you please indicate to us, in good faith, how far you progressed in your career both academically and professionally? What is your specialization?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Timothy Thorton has a Ph.D in ghost humping and dirt worshipping from the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster. Why do you ask?

      Delete
  11. Anonymous
    "You know Frankfurter instead of just the snarky mouthing off why don't you explain: if everything in evolutionary theory is wrong then what is the right explanation?"

    Wow, "Pot calling Kettle Black", we still haven't heard from you as to who you are and what a famous Scientist you are. Why not share those holier than thou credentials ?

    Anonymous
    "Any coward can stand in the shadows throwing rocks and bleating the non-explanation "design".

    This is hilarious. I'm not the coward hiding behind a sock-puppet cloak of anonymity, who gets banned for nothing but disrespectful behavior, then tries on another sock and reappears. BTW, this blog's purpose and subject matter is about Darwin's god, not Cornelius' God. The fact that you and others are incapable of proving and demonstrating how blind unguided mysterious forces acting on chemicals created epigenetic mechanisms is not our problem. If you wish to prosyletize your blind faith, then do so with evidence to back it up instead of insults and mockery.


    Anonymous
    "Commit to a position and back it up with some evidence and details."

    And then what after that ? More mockery, belligerence, insults and derogatory name calling ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly as expected Kevin Frankfurter runs his mouth but can't provide any alternative to the solid scientific theory he's attacking.

      Take a number and get in line with the rest of the Creationist dullards.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous
      "can't provide any alternative to the solid scientific theory he's attacking."

      This was not a subject about Cornelius' God, this is about your god and blind faith in that mysterious god and inability to explain how blind undirected force aacomplish anything. Try again after giving all of us your 6th grade credentials.

      Actually folks, this has always been about worldview and justification of a chosen lifestyle. Pathetic really.

      Delete
    3. Get back in line with the rest of the dullards Frankfurter. All you can do is cowardly throw rocks at the science you don't understand because you think it threatens your religious beliefs. When you have something to offer by way of an alternate explanation for the deep time fossil and genetic records get back to us.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous
      "Get back in line with the rest of the dullards Frankfurter. All you can do is cowardly throw rocks at the science"

      Once again, I'm not the one coward hiding myself behind a collection of mysterious avatars and sock-puppets which provides me an imaginary measure of perverted freedoms to spew insults as I please. That is your tactic, not mine. But it is illustrative of how evolution has to be defended.

      Anonymous
      ". . you don't understand because you think it threatens your religious beliefs."

      This is an odd accusation since you are the one defending Mr Xaio and his team's faith affirmations that epigenetics is evolutionary without them actually having to prove anything about the mechanism's origins. The imaginary proof seems to be the mere act of of inserting blind faith statements into a paper and this alone makes it true for no other reason than a consensus scientific orthodxy approves it ?

      Delete
    5. Frankfurter

      BWAAK! BWAAK! buk buk buk BWAAAK!


      Poor Frankfurter. Still scared to death of the science he doesn't understand. Still too cowardly to offer his own, better explanation for the empirical data in the deep time fossil and genetic records. So it goes.

      Delete
    6. Timothy Horton the dirt whoreshipper (LOL),

      The biggest and most gutless moron here is you. You evotards still can't figure out that order cannot possibly spring out of chaos using stochastic search methods such as RM+NS.

      Why are Darwinists so stupid? Why do they hunger to kiss each other's butts day in and day out? Why are they so gutless? Why are they so afraid?

      It does not matter. Salmons, too, are driven by fear and hunger. But the bears still catch them and devour them.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    7. Mapou: "The biggest and most gutless moron here is you."

      Woohoo, I have been dethroned.

      Delete
    8. Spineless evotard:

      Woohoo, I have been dethroned.

      I'm still waiting for you evotards to demonstrate how order can spring out of chaos. Put your evotard crap where your mouths are, goddammit.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    9. The order of the fossils in the geological column still wants a better explanation than evolution. We're still waiting.

      Delete
    10. LoL! 1- ID is not anti-evolution
      2- unguided evolution cannot account for animals so that would be a problem

      Delete
    11. Intelligent design and evolutionary design have very different characteristics. Do you even know what they are?

      Delete
    12. Look you have already shown that you don't understand the debate. The only way evolution can design anything is if it was intelligently designed to do so.

      Tell us how to test the claim that natural selection and drift- unguided evolution- can produce ATP synthase. I dare you to try

      Delete
  12. The silliness continues. Darwinists know they are wrong, but they don't have the wisdom or maturity to admit it. That are really starting to look ridiculous.

    Kevin Franck makes an excellent point above: "The fact that you and others are incapable of proving and demonstrating how blind unguided mysterious forces acting on chemicals created epigenetic mechanisms is not our problem. If you wish to prosyletize your blind faith, then do so with evidence to back it up instead of insults and mockery."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Both types of proteins are needed to make the epigenetic response work. With either protein alone, you just have chaos."
      More precisely both types of proteins are needed to make any cellular response to stimuli work.

      "natural selection doesn’t help."In a world full of predators that evolve strategies that depend on knowing what response to expect, a flip that effects the opposite response can be a significant survival strategy.

      Delete
  13. BTW...the following link reveals how Darwinists get it wrong (once again) when discussing odds and probabilities.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/probability_mis102748.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is most difficult to defend a fictional story against mathematical equations.

      Delete
    2. The following link shows how Kirk gets it wrong when discussing odds and probabilities.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8xjjZpstk

      Delete
    3. LoL! Evidence, not rhetoric, is the only way to show that he is wrong and you don't have any

      Delete
    4. Um therein his "arguments" are shown to be rhetoric. His fatuous exhortations are contrived and not in keeping with the methods of evolution. The only reason his arguments seem to work at all is because the are working out side the envelope of evolution. Each step of the way I show (in the annotations exactly how and why he has gotten it wrong. If you wish to go through it and correct me at any point I would gladly revise the video.
      Meanwhile, lol does not refute evolution

      Delete
    5. LoL! Yours doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing proteins. All you have is to rely on father time. Too bad that isn't science.

      Refute evolution? My you have no idea what is being debated. ID is not anti-evolution. The debate is over if evolution is guided or not. Unguided evolution is impotent and can't be modelled whereas genetic algorithms model guided evolution, ie evolution by design.

      Delete
  14. Phillymike

    It is most difficult to defend a fictional story against mathematical equations.


    Just one of the reasons a 6000 year old Earth and literal Noah's Flood / Noah's Ark so easy to falsify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. But it's not unlike the fictional story of life emerging out of dirt and the one about single cell organisms turning into whales and alligators. You know. Dirt begets life and all that other woo-woo magic from the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    2. ghostrider

      I hope you have dug a good size hole in the sand to hide your head in after you see the next blog. :)

      Delete
  15. Louis said, "There is zero probability that order can arise from chaos."
    Lose heat from chaotic water an you obtain the crystal form of it we call ice. Take a cloud of dust in space and gravity will form a solar system out of it.
    A deer and it's sibling are nearly identical genetically. Nearly identical. Are you telling me that selection can't remove one and keep the other for breeding those genes that gave it the ever so slight edge over it's sibling? Undetectable infinitesimal indistinguishable differences do accumulate, but Sanford (the godfather of the idea of genetic entropy) is in error suggesting that it amounts to accumulative degradation. WHY? For a number of very good reasons, none of which Sanford reveals to his audience.

    It's lion's expending the least energy that leads to predominantly culling the slow deer that jacks up the population of faster deer.
    It's the predator not using more energy than needed that is satisfied with the easy to see prey that leaves the camouflaged ones to breed their tricks
    That there are energy limits on both sides - is a very significant factor.
    Question: Does it take more energy to copy version A of a mutation or to copy version B? Child & sibling.
    If one has a beneficial affect & the other does not, which one will more likely get passed on to the next generation?
    There is zero thermodynamic difference between copying one offspring or another. One may be a better survivor or more attractive mate than the other due to a mutation or recombination of genes. There is nothing but extinction to stop the accumulation of beneficial new genes. Thus evolution has to happen & does not violate the 2nd law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the OoL that violates the 2nd law. ID is not anti-evolution- it says evolution happens by design

      Delete
    2. Fat Joke

      It's the OoL that violates the 2nd law.


      Ooh, that IDiot nugget of wisdom from Joke is a keeper! FSTDT here we come!

      Delete
    3. And another typical cowardly response from the coward master.

      Too bad your position doesn't have any science, Timmy Twerp

      Delete
    4. The origin of life no more violates the 2nd law than gravity causing the formation of planets and stars from nebulae does. The harder you push to imagine what would fulfill your goals, the more blind you become to the alternative possibilities.

      Delete
    5. Blah, blah, blah. Too bad you don't have any evidence that mother nature and father time can produce a living organism. BTW imagination is not evidence but I understand that is all that you have

      Delete