The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You're misusing the phrase 'new traits' again, even though I've explained to you that all animals carry the potential for every trait you can possibly think of.

No, they don't if they did then they could interbreed successfully and what about plant's do we have their traits also, look up genetic homeostasis my friend.

No, the correction would be that you just refuse to see what the hell I am talking about. You agree to micro -evolution, which says mutations change the physical anatomy of an animal in one way or another. Now compound those physical changes hundreds of times over. Just keep changing things. Suddenly you end up with something different.[/B][/QUOTE]

And you refuse to pay attention, I've asked you to show me an observation that proves mutations create traits in generally and so far nothing.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

Last I checked amphibians were amphibians. What the hell is your point? Evolution is a web, not a chain. One species evolving from another doesn't mean the extinction of the previous species. A lung fish's respiratory system isn't supposed to be the same as a lizard's...because then it'd be called a lizard and not a ****ing lung fish.

Bingo, mutation, you got it. Hard shells are suitable for land. Survival of the fittest, remember.

Originally posted by jaden101
of course its been proven...hence it is the dictionary definition of the word mutation

Mutation is an alteration, Again where has it been proven they create traits?

Originally posted by jaden101

because you choose not to believe doesn't make it untrue...and the fact that you choose to ignore completely all the evidence that i and others have given you despite the fact that you've put nothing to support your own belief...

Ignore, you mean like when I responded to all your claims like msra and herring seagulls?
🙄

Originally posted by jaden101

besides if genetic drift causes loss of information and traits then why is there constantly new species being discovered despite the fact that there are many going extinct all the time?

Who says the species where never there in the first place?

Originally posted by jaden101

if evolution doesnt occur that why is the fact that many animals have adaptations to enviroments they did not originate from

I explained it when I responded to your seagull claim.

Originally posted by lord xyz
to be honest, I knew I'd get banned, I just never got banned before. And I bash to stop. Stupid I know, but I'm a very stupid person 😉

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blue Nocture in a nutshell:

"crybaby Wa wa wa evolution is wrong and I know it therefore it must be true. I'm not a creationist, but I support ID even though it's the same ****ing thing. Wa wa wa, I know I'm right therefore I'll post crap, and change what I say every 5 seconds without them noticing and then I'll look smart. Yeah, that'll work. baby

XYZ just because I change the wording of my definitions doesn't change the meanings 🙄

And last time I checked you can't even understand evolution:
XYZ explains evolution and how it works

Originally posted by lord xyz
no, the creature does it. Animal brains notice the change, and go into survival state. If this state remains constant, then the offspring would also be in this state. We are what we are by how we were made in the womb. If the women is in the environment, then wouldn't she design the offspring to be in the environment aswell? THAT'S EVOLUTION *******.

Survival state 😕 , designing in the womb?

No, they don't if they did then they could interbreed successfully and what about plant's do we have their traits also, look up genetic homeostasis my friend.

obviously you have no clue how chromosomes and meiosis actually work

And you refuse to pay attention, I've asked you to show me an observation that proves mutations create traits in generally and so far nothing

no...you've just tried to deny the facts with unproven gibberish

Ignore, you mean like when I responded to all your claims like msra and herring seagulls?

yes you have responded...but see above for how you did that

Mutation is an alteration, Again where has it been proven they create traits?

generally a phenomena is observed before it is given a name...new traits were observed...it was given the name "mutation"...thats why its in the dictionary...

Originally posted by jaden101
obviously you have no clue how chromosomes and meiosis actually work

Why is it everytime I offer a rebuttal you guy's respond with that?

Originally posted by jaden101

no...you've just tried to deny the facts with unproven gibberish

Un proven jibberish, are you so blinded by darwins theory that you can't accept facts, no where have you proven mutations create traits

Originally posted by jaden101

generally a phenomena is observed before it is given a name...new traits were observed...it was given the name "mutation"...thats why its in the dictionary...

I didn't expect you to post something like that, so a mutation is a new trait? A mutation is an alteration look it up study it.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
XYZ just because I change the wording of my definitions doesn't change the meanings 🙄

And last time I checked you can't even understand evolution:
XYZ explains evolution and how it works

Survival state 😕 , designing in the womb?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Why is it everytime I offer a rebuttal you guy's respond with that?...

That is because the people who are reasonable have already given up on you. 😛

BTW no intended insult to jaden101, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to ras Blue nocture.

Why is it everytime I offer a rebuttal you guy's respond with that?

because its true...you shown many times your ignorance of biology

Un proven jibberish, are you so blinded by darwins theory that you can't accept facts

we've asked for your facts for intelligent design many times...so what are these facts you keep refering to yet never provide any evidence for?

I didn't expect you to post something like that, so a mutation is a new trait? A mutation is an alteration look it up study it.

dictionary definition

A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.

seems pretty straight forward to me

Blue Nocture you're a ****ing moron.

Just tell me, how can Micro Evolution be true and science but Macro Evolution is religious and false, when they are both caused, part of, happen due to, and almost are, the same thing? There's no difference, except the fact that Micro produces a new breed, and Macro produces a new species.

They're the same process. If one's scientifically true/possible, then the other definaltely is.

Fact: No scientist has ever shown any fact that even makes people think ID is true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm sorry, is it too hard to understand? EVOLUTION IS A SCIENCE AND MAKES SENSE. What have YOU done to show it's stupid and wrong? Oh that's right.

I never said it was stupid, I said there is no evidence suggesting organism evolve which is true, while natural selection with a combination of genetic drift and genetic variation can result speciation it does not validate macro evolution because the organism did not gain any new traits.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I never said it was stupid, I said there is no evidence suggesting organism evolve which is true, while natural selection with a combination of genetic drift and genetic variation can result speciation it does not validate macro evolution because the organism did not gain any new traits.

Originally posted by jaden101
because its true...you shown many times your ignorance of biology

Because I don't agree that all organisms share the same gene pool(Ignoring genetic homeostasis) and that mutations are traits( ignoring the definition Mutation-A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA. Mutations can be caused by many factors including environmental insults such as radiation and mutagenic chemicals. Mutations are sometimes attributed to random chance events.
www.als.net/als101/glossary.asp)

Originally posted by jaden101

we've asked for your facts for intelligent design many times...so what are these facts you keep refering to yet never provide any evidence for?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I said there is no evidence suggesting organism evolve which is true

well many years of scientific reseach and hundreds upon hundreds of scientific papers disagree

where as the proof for ID and creationism... is as follows

v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

0

Originally posted by lord xyz
so what you're saying is an organism has never developed and never changed? That's what you're saying?

Jaden your argument sums up to: "Evolution is real because I was told so" You say I have no understanding of biology instead of ranting why not post an intelligent respond to your "Herring seagull" claim.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I never said it was stupid, I said there is no evidence suggesting organism evolve which is true,

then again, you never did understand people's posts.

while natural selection with a combination of genetic drift and genetic variation can result speciation it does not validate macro evolution because the organism did not gain any new traits.

All the evidence against 'macro' is also against 'micro' what's your comment on that?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Jaden your argument sums up to: "Evolution is real because I was told so" You say I have no understanding of biology instead of ranting why not post an intelligent respond to your "Herring seagull" claim.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
What's a "FACT-Based-theory?" if evolution was a fact then it wouldn't be a theory.

EDIT: You have know idea what your talking about, I mean at all.

edit: sorry about the triple post

Originally posted by lord xyz
this means you're saying animals don't evolve. Evolve means change and develop dictionary definition
google definition

then again, you never did understand people's posts. this says there are no changes in species, but you said so yourself that micro-evolution happens, so species do change.

All the evidence against 'macro' is also against 'micro' what's your comment on that?

XYZ, answer me this please, How can a combination of traits that is ALREADY THERE be similar to a theory that believes NEW TRAITS FORM FROM MUTATIONS?

And there is variations in a species, the only changes that can happen are when mutations or genetic drift occur, none of which add new characteristics to the species.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
XYZ, answer me this please, How can a combination of traits that is ALREADY THERE be similar to a theory that believes NEW TRAITS FORM FROM MUTATIONS?

And there is variations in a species, the only changes that can happen are when mutations or genetic drift occur, none of which add new characteristics to the species.

Originally posted by lord xyz
when did I say that? 'Micro' doesn't mean 'genetic variation' and 'Macro' doesn't mean 'mutations' and 'environmental variation' you moron.

You, constantly avoid my questions, did I say you did not know that "micro evoltion" and genetic variation were the same, did I say "macro evolution" means mutations? If you read more then I guess you would get things better but it seems that you don't.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't read 😉