Creationism is nonsense

I asked you a question - can you prove your claims?
So you will neither answer a simple question nor, as I politely asked, keep your spam to the thread to which it is related. I didn't think so. Back to ignore for a while for you. Putting you on ignore enables me to find posts with actual substance more easily, because the waste of space that is your posts are out of the way.
 
You are arguing against a straw man. To my knowledge no one has ever said that there are no mutations and ABO blood group is just some fabrication in your straw man that you feel addresses the issues to which you seem unclear.
Even though you are a straw man grasping at straws, why do you claim that the ABO blood groups are just "some fabrication"?
And how does your ID hypothesis explain why there are three alleles and that Asian people have mainly B blood group, whereas Western people are mainly A or O?
 
Even though you are a straw man grasping at straws, why do you claim that the ABO blood groups are just "some fabrication"?
And how does your ID hypothesis explain why there are three alleles and that Asian people have mainly B blood group, whereas Western people are mainly A or O?
That is a problem that you have to answer since according to your theory, we all came from a common ancestor. The theory of Intelligent Design does not have the same obstacles as Darwinism and accepts evolution up to a point such not ascribing unlimited creative resources to NSRM in its ability to create vast variety of species.
 
. I apologise. I didn't realise just how ignorant you are of how evolution works. Natural selection creates nothing. There is a clue in the name. It selects from things that have already been created. The creative force is the mutation, which creates blindly, all manner of novel things, some of which will be diseased or deformed, some of which will appear normal and some of which will have an advantage over the original form. Natural selection weeds out the damaged and diseased, while giving preferential treatment to the advantaged. Again, all completely blind. No forethought or intelligence is required. The next generation, the new baseline, will have an increased proportion of those lucky organisms with the beneficial mutation, inherited from their lucky parents.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Evolutionary Genetics, "natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, ..., or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift". Your argument sounds like some one who took a biology course or two and now thinks they know it all. Next time stay awake in class.
You are confusing yourself. Switches are encoded in DNA. They are proteins that turn genes on or off. Proteins are manufactured by DNA coding. Switches are as liable to mutation as any other part of the genome.
The human genome is made up of 1.5% that codes for genes and the rest was previously classified as "junk DNA" which Darwinists claimed served no purpose. That was before ENCODE discovered that "junk DNA" was composed of as least 18% switches (WHICH ARE NOT GENES or else they would be part of the encoding process) that turned the GENES on or off depending on which cell type.
 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Evolutionary Genetics, "natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, ..., or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift". Your argument sounds like some one who took a biology course or two and now thinks they know it all. Next time stay awake in class.
As this is compatible with what I said, and you don't understand that, I would suggest that it is your learning that is inadequate here. Or maybe you are just dishonest. Let's look at the full paragraph from which you selected this quote:

" The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift."

Just for fun, I highlighted the sections you redacted. Guess what? They blow your position out of the water. What you have been caught red-handed doing here is selective quote mining, as close to outright lying as makes no difference. Not only does it highlight your dishonesty but it also reveals a significant fact regarding your position in general. The only way to get authoritative figures with a known pedigree in this field to agree with your position is to lie about what they actually say.
The human genome is made up of 1.5% that codes for genes and the rest was previously classified as "junk DNA" which Darwinists claimed served no purpose. That was before ENCODE discovered that "junk DNA" was composed of as least 18% switches (WHICH ARE NOT GENES or else they would be part of the encoding process) that turned the GENES on or off depending on which cell type.
Gosh! Science makes new discovery about gene switches! That's what science is all about. Uncovering the real world, expanding knowledge and banishing lies.
 
That is a problem that you have to answer since according to your theory, we all came from a common ancestor. The theory of Intelligent Design does not have the same obstacles as Darwinism and accepts evolution up to a point such not ascribing unlimited creative resources to NSRM in its ability to create vast variety of species.
No. The ABO system exists, so ID has to supply an explanation as well. If ID cannot explain why then ID fails as an explanation.

What was the design specification that the ABO system met? Or is it an unspecified, and so open to evolution as a cause? If you want us to take ID seriously then you need to supply the ID explanation of the ABO system.
 
That is a problem that you have to answer since according to your theory, we all came from a common ancestor. The theory of Intelligent Design does not have the same obstacles as Darwinism and accepts evolution up to a point such not ascribing unlimited creative resources to NSRM in its ability to create vast variety of species.
But according to your biblical ID theory we all came from only one person, and we should therefore all be mirror images of each other.
So what blood group was that person, and was it AA or BB or AB or AO or BO or OO?
And did that person have blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes?
And was that person a blonde or a brunette or a redhead?
 
Atheism is not science. Naturalism is not science.

Opinion not compelling.

Which has not one thing to do with mindless common descent.

Mindless Common Descent is myth, pseudoscience.
And your ID theory is just myth unless it can explain why there are six distinct bio-geographical zones.
 
Back
Top