The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Then what the hell was that whole rant of Complex what-the-****-ever about if you didn't mean that? If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up.

I'd like you know how you support micro-evolution, and then bash macro-evolution, and in turn say evolution is false. Its a little contradictory.

I already explained DNA copying errors to you, which result in mutations. If a DNA wrongly copies a trait, like let's say its supposed to copy the code for normal nails, but a protein is encoded improperly, it could result in denser claw like finger nails. zOMG 'tis a new trait! claws in a human NOES IT CANT BE TRU!11!!

Also, fortunately for you, the experiment is ongoing indefenitly. Like I said, which you flat out refuse to accept for some unknown reason, it takes time. Scientists have found, are finding, and will continue to find evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, and until they find undisputable evidence that denies evolution, it will continue to be the most acceptable theory we have.

The problem is that you can't prove a negative(which is what you're trying to do by trying to disprove evolution), so until we have evidence that supports a positive that contradicts evolution, its the best bet.

Exactly right. A few things if I might add. It takes 100,000,000 billion years for speciation to occur. And the more complex an organism is, the more likely it is to have spontaneously evolved over a billion year period. Man made things like computers, cars, airplanes, boats, and modern medicines of course, being the exception to this rule.

Originally posted by teh smart guy
Exactly right. A few things if I might add. It takes 100,000,000 billion years for speciation to occur. And the more complex an organism is, the more likely it is to have spontaneously evolved over a billion year period. Man made things like computers, cars, airplanes, boats, and modern medicines of course, being the exception to this rule.

It takes 100,000,000 billion years to happens
It happened in dogs EX: Chihuahua's and great danes do not interbreed though they are capable of interbreeding. so by the law of species classification they are different species, did that take billions of years?
also like I said you need to post proof that mutations can add genetic information leading to speciation.

Here's another example I posted

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
When a population gets isolated a reproductive barrier may arise stopping the the same species from interbreeding. Loss of information through a combination of mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that they will no longer interbreed. For example, changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Thus a new ‘species’ is formed, but this does not support macro evolution why because no new information has been introduce In fact genes have been lost from the population and the population may eventually become a homozygous population but it can not gain completely different traits that were never present in the species gene pool.

Originally posted by PVS
so, when do we get the privilege of watching whob argue with himself 😱

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It takes 100,000,000 billion years to happens
It happened in dogs EX: Chihuahua's and great danes do not interbreed though they are capable of interbreeding. so by the law of species classification they are different species, did that take billions of years?
also like I said you need to post proof that mutations can add genetic information leading to speciation.

Thank you for giving us yet another example of evolution at work kid. They're not teh same "species" of dogs. The dogs have "evolved" into different "species" of dogs through random mutations.

Now if you're talking about "speciation" on a familial level, that takes 100,000,000 billions of years. Where's my proof?

Check the fossil record for numerous examples.

Not only do you need to study up on evolution, but apparently you need to study up on paleontology.

Originally posted by teh smart guy
Thank you for giving us yet another example of evolution at work kid. They're not teh same "species" of dogs. The dogs have "evolved" into different "species" of dogs through random mutations.

Your confusing , genetic variation with evolution as usually all of a Chihuahua's traits can be found in the gene pool of a wolf nice try.

Originally posted by teh smart guy

Now if you're talking about "speciation" on a familial level, that takes 100,000,000 billions of years. Where's my proof?

Check the fossil record for numerous examples.

Not only do you need to study up on evolution, but apparently you need to study up on paleontology.

Tell me how we would be able to differentiate between breeds and species by fossils alone? and showing fossils don't prove mutations add traits (beacause showing something is not he same as explaining how it works.)

Originally posted by teh smart guy
Thank you for giving us yet another example of evolution at work kid. They're not teh same "species" of dogs. The dogs have "evolved" into different "species" of dogs through random mutations.

Now if you're talking about "speciation" on a familial level, that takes 100,000,000 billions of years. Where's my proof?

Check the fossil record for numerous examples.

Not only do you need to study up on evolution, but apparently you need to study up on paleontology.

Blue is not going to listen. 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blue is not going to listen. 🙄

Right, I mean I never do 🙄

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Your confusing , genetic variation with evolution as usually all of a Chihuahua's traits can be found in the gene pool of a wolf nice try.

But a Chihuahua is not a wolf. They are of a diffent "species" of the familia canine. Thus since they are a different "species" of dog, this is proof of speciation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Tell me how we would be able to differentiate between breeds and species by fossils alone? and showing fossils don't prove mutations add traits (beacause showing something is not he same as explaining how it works.) [/B]

Why don't you tell me how the double stranded helix of the DNA molecule with each spiraling strand which consists of thousands of nucleotides, and is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone with attached bases, and is connected to a complementary strand by non-covalent hydrogen bonding between paired bases can be designed by an "Intelligent Designer"?

Face it Blue, you are way out of your league when it comes to this issue.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blue is not going to listen. 🙄

I'm starting to understand that. You would think that after scientists found 2 or 3 examples of "missing links" after having combed through 1000's of fossils, people would start to understand how factual evolutionary theory is. I tell you the things they seem to be teaching kids nowadays in public schools.

Originally posted by teh smart guy
But a Chihuahua is not a wolf. They are of a diffent "species" of the familia canine. Thus since they are a different "species" of dog, this is proof of speciation.

I'm not debating speciation, The Chihuahua lost information due to genetic drift, natural selection, and genetic variation that does not support evolution because no "NEW" traits were added. the Chihuahua lost traits and a species barrier appeared. How does that support evolution, because speciation happened? 😆 Where are the new traits?

Originally posted by teh smart guy

Why don't you tell me how the double stranded helix of the DNA molecule with each spiraling strand which consists of thousands of nucleotides, and is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone with attached bases, and is connected to a complementary strand by non-covalent hydrogen bonding between paired bases can be designed by an "Intelligent Designer"?

Face it Blue, you are way out of your league when it comes to this issue.

Nice job ignoring my question, whenever I ask for proof mutations create traits you EVO's pull this stunt, Is it because there currently isn't any.
fear

🙄 oh yes Blue, I can see your intelligence sky-rocket.

You've clearly shown you're an even bigger arse than before.

Originally posted by teh smart guy
I'm starting to understand that. You would think that after scientists found 2 or 3 examples of "missing links" after having combed through 1000's of fossils, people would start to understand how factual evolutionary theory is. I tell you the things they seem to be teaching kids nowadays in public schools.

How do fossils prove mutations add traits, and how do you differentiate between breed and species just by fossils. I'm just waiting for you to shift your inability to answer this question on me.

Originally posted by teh smart guy
I'm starting to understand that. You would think that after scientists found 2 or 3 examples of "missing links" after having combed through 1000's of fossils, people would start to understand how factual evolutionary theory is. I tell you the things they seem to be teaching kids nowadays in public schools.

If you corner him, he will just change the subject and insult you. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you corner him, he will just change the subject and insult you. 😉

like whob...but you never met him teh...well you saw him when you were shaving....

Originally posted by PVS
like whob...but you never met him teh...well you saw him when you were shaving....

What? 😆 I have no idea why that was funny.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How do fossils prove mutations add traits, and how do you differentiate between breed and species just by fossils. I'm just waiting for you to shift your inability to answer this question on me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you corner him, he will just change the subject and insult you. 😉

Just like you changed the subject and accused me of believeing in "Little Green Men" . 🙄

Originally posted by lord xyz
it's too hard to explain. Hence the links we post refering to OFFICIAL pages. Unlike ID, evo can't be summed up in one tiny little belief that things don't happen by chance.

Yeah, the links that mention nothing about new traits arising from mutations.

Originally posted by lord xyz
it's too hard to explain. Hence the links we post refering to OFFICIAL pages. Unlike ID, evo can't be summed up in one tiny little belief that things don't happen by chance.

Things don't happen by chance. Cause and effect rules. But that dose not require a designer.

Originally posted by teh smart guy
Thank you for giving us yet another example of evolution at work kid. They're not teh same "species" of dogs. The dogs have "evolved" into different "species" of dogs through random mutations.

Now if you're talking about "speciation" on a familial level, that takes 100,000,000 billions of years. Where's my proof?

Check the fossil record for numerous examples.

Not only do you need to study up on evolution, but apparently you need to study up on paleontology.

Probably one of the most uneducated opinions ever posted in this forum.

Well I can see that obviously this thread has become nothing more than a spam fest at this point. I find it hilarious that no one in this thread has even bothered to adress my initial post on this topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Things don't happen by chance. Cause and effect rules. But that dose not require a designer.

ID: Everyone is designed and can't change from mutations even though it's been proven. And evolution means chance.

Evo: Species change to fit the environment due to natural laws acting arround us.

Fin.