Evos pushers. Why didn't you tell us Darwin cursed GOD?
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
CrowCross
Well-known member
...and?????
rossum
Well-known member
I am awaiting your calculations showing the amount of new information required, compared with the original amount of information.
You keep assuming more information is needed without justifying your assumption.
You were the one who raised the issue of blowholes; was I wrong to assume that you had something to back up your claims?
CrowCross
Well-known member
Do you know how complex the blowhole actually is? Apparently not. Get back to me once you understand.
rossum
Well-known member
No calculations. Just as I expected; all hat and no cattle.
Have you forgotten we are talking about the evolution of the organelle assembly line? Do try to keep up, CrowCross; you are just embarringing yourself now.
Again, we are talking about the evolution of the organelle assembly line. This happened a long, long time ago, in single-celled organisms that reproduced asexually.
Do you actually think before you post this nonsense?
CrowCross
Well-known member
When will you show me how the organelle assembly lines evolved...a long long time ago. (they are not single celled organisms)
You have nothing.
Every discussion with you ends you in you showing the world that your claims are just make-believe based on ignorance, and you are obliged to trot out this same tired refrain. I swear you get more and more like ferengi every week.
Organelles are not single celled organisms, but they did evolve when there were only single celled organisms around. The single celled organisms evolved to have organelles.
Therefore your comment "Oh my, so, a squirrel in Kansas that has a slight bit more ability to open up walnuts is going to meet up with and mate another squirrel in England which also received a mutation with an enhanced nut opening ability and make a super nut opener?" really only served to show how lost you are in this discussion.
You claimed:
FACT....the process of so-called descent with modification...using random chance mutations and natural selection doesn't have the ability to create an assembly line of organelle.
The odds of developing one organelle considering the complexity and sophistication is impossible....but....to now have one organelle interacting with another in a precise fashion...with an outcome that interacts with yet another organelle....that produces a new organelle that "works" to achieve an outcome....make me laugh real hard at the possibly of such so-called evolutionism occurring.
Looks as though that "FACT" was based on the probability of a squirrel in Kansas mating with a squirrel in England. What a joke creationist is.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Actually I discussed this on another thread in some detail.
- Evolution of the Organelle Assembly Line
Background Proteins are made in cells in a complex system. A protein is a long sequence of amino acids. There are twenty different amino acids used in nature; different sequences give different proteins. The sequence is encoded in DNA, with a set of three bases signalling a specific amino acid...
forums.carm.org
But the point was what the theory of evolution proposes. According to the theory of evolution, the organelle evolved a long time ago, before multi-cellular organisms were around.
You calculation, based on a squirrel in Kansas mating with a squirrel in England, is therefore utterly unrelated to anything evolution is claiming, and served only to expose your own ignorance in the matter.
I think not. While you continue to spout drivel, I will call you on it.
So far you have been defeated on your claim about the ratio of biologists who accept evolution, you have been defeated on your so-called FACT that the organelle could not have evolved, you have been defeated on your ludicrous probability calculation and squirrels. Maybe you should exit the thread?
When you stacked up your ill-informed opinions against the actual science I found?
You are showing you have quite the knack for declaring victory when you lost. I think this is the fourth time this thread.
CrowCross
Well-known member
YAWN.
You are bored of being proved wrong so often?
And yet I am confident you will not be able to resist replying to the post.
mikeT
Well-known member
On the contrary, I think he may actually be addicted to it.
What better way to spur on your ideological opponents than to respond to a substantive thoughtful reply with a single bolded word, set to a font size three times larger than normal, colored in red?
I think he's asking you to continue proving him wrong...