The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
But you never,ever,ever show me any proof of mutations creating new traits. All I get is "It takes millions of years" How is that evidence.

That's a blatant lie and you know it. It actually doesn't take millions of years to see copying errors and genetic mutations in animals. I have shown you at least a dozen articles on this shit man. I'm sure you've seen mutations in animals and humans, didn't take millions of years to get that mutation, did it? An extra finger here, immunity to malaria, extra dense muscle, etc

Genetics man, genetics. I suggest you take a course.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
That's a blatant lie and you know it. It actually doesn't take millions of years to see copying errors and genetic mutations in animals. I have shown you at least a dozen articles on this shit man. I'm sure you've seen mutations in animals and humans, didn't take millions of years to get that mutation, did it? An extra finger here, immunity to malaria, extra dense muscle, etc

Genetics man, genetics. I suggest you take a course.

Right since we've been around for millions of years 🙄

all examples you give me are genetic variation I suggest you take course or mutations removing traits, I suggest you take a course.

The complexity of nature only prooves that there is complexity in nature, nothing else.

Many organisms even show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:

In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnemdophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard.
These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.

In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of how evolution does not produced designed, but "jury-rigged" traits is the panda's thumb. If you count the digits on a panda's paw you will count six. Five curl around and the "thumb" is an opposable digit. The five fingers are made of the same bones our (humans and most other vertebrates) fingers are made of. The thumb is constructed by enlarging a few bones that form the wrist in other species. The muscles that operate it are "rerouted" muscles present in the hand of vertabrates (see S.J. Gould book "The Panda's Thumb" for an engaging discussion of this case). Again, this is not good design.

Originally posted by The Omega
The complexity of nature only prooves that there is complexity in nature, nothing else.

Yet, this complexity is an accident, that's kept in check by a random force 😆

EDIT: which makes it more complex, So how does one futher a concept without intelligence, you guy's are rich.

Blue Nocturne>
29+ proofs of macro-evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Who said it takes millions and millions of years? Aside from you?

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Originally posted by The Omega
Blue Nocturne>
29+ proofs of macro-evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Who said it takes millions and millions of years? Aside from you?

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

EDIT: Honestly these link wars are pointless I could easily get a link from trueorigins.com and we could debate the credability of the source.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No you don't understand some traits make people more susceptible to disease, by not having this trait then they become immune.

hahahaha 😆 😆 😆

did you even read the article...its speaks of a mutation of a gene that makes the people who have the rare mutation immune

its not that everyone has resistance and only a minority who have a different genetic make up are suceptible to HIV

and the mutations in the gene have been proven

if you're hypothesis was right then the numbers of people infected would be decreasing and those suceptible to HIV gradually died off

given that HIV numbers are increasing year on year...it shows your idea to be false

even if your idea were true it would still show a mutation making people more suceptible to a disease and hence the emergence of a new trait...and thus you prove something you say there isn't any evidence of

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right since we've been around for millions of years 🙄

all examples you give me are genetic variation I suggest you take course or mutations removing traits, I suggest you take a course.

Do you even read what I post? No, you don't, or else you wouldn't be asking the same stupid ass questions. I just said it DOESN'T take millions of years to see mutations in animals and humans. DUHR I R GOOD AT R3ADIN!

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word 'trait'. A human being having eleven fingers instead of ten is a NEW TRAIT. It's NOT NORMAL.

Coincidentally, EVERY animal has nearly identical genepools, only differing in what genes are actually active. All animal cells on the planet earth are made out of the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS.

Or would you like to explain how a human ear can grow on a ****ing RAT.

Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word 'trait'. A human being having eleven fingers instead of ten is a NEW TRAIT. It's NOT NORMAL.

Last I checked 11 fingers was a domonite trait.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

Coincidentally, EVERY animal has nearly identical genepools, only differing in what genes are actually active. All animal cells on the planet earth are made out of the EXACT SAME COMPONENTS.

Originally posted by jaden101
hahahaha 😆 😆 😆

even if your idea were true it would still show a mutation making people more suceptible to a disease and hence the emergence of a new trait...and thus you prove something you say there isn't any evidence of

How does loss of traits, support the emergence of new traits?

Originally posted by jaden101
hahahaha 😆 😆 😆

if you're hypothesis was right then the numbers of people infected would be decreasing and those suceptible to HIV gradually died off

given that HIV numbers are increasing year on year...it shows your idea to be false

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Last I checked 11 fingers was a domonite trait.

You're actually right, it is a dominant trait...but compare the number of people with ten fingers to the number of people with eleven fingers. Oh shit, more people have ten fingers!? NO WAI! That would mean I'm still right and having 11 fingers is not normal!

Right I have the trait for wings in my genepool, and if we have the same traits why can't we all interbreed?

I JUST answered that! We have different traits active! If DNA from the egg and sperm don't match in number of chromosomes and DNA sequence, then it's seen as a foreign body and it's attacked by the immune system. In fact, there are many many cases in which human female's body reject the zygote as a foreign body even though it is completely human.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You're actually right, it is a dominant trait...but compare the number of people with ten fingers to the number of people with eleven fingers. Oh shit, more people have ten fingers!? NO WAI! That would mean I'm still right and having 11 fingers is not normal!

You know they usually cut it off.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

I JUST answered that! We have different traits active! If DNA from the egg and sperm don't match in number of chromosomes and DNA sequence, then it's seen as a foreign body and it's attacked by the immune system. In fact, there are many many cases in which human female's body reject the zygote as a foreign body even though it is completely human.

When has the trait for wings been found in the genepool of a human?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How does loss of traits, support the emergence of new traits?

so you're arguing that the person hasn't gained resistance to HIV but merely lost suceptibility to it...which is actually the same thing

and given that the trait of resistance has been shown to, in some cases, NOT be passed onto the offspring...then how do you pass on a trait that has been lost

namely that the parent loses the trait of non resistance...yet still manages to pass this non resisitance onto its offspring...despite your argument saying that they no longer have it to pass on

😑

Originally posted by jaden101
so you're arguing that the person hasn't gained resistance to HIV but merely lost suceptibility to it...which is actually the same thing

No, I'm arguing some traits make an organism less susceptible to disease and by not having them via mutation then they are not susceptible. if not having a trait is considered a trait then that is the only time a mutation creates a trait other then that a mutation does not create a new trait that adds information to gene pool that was never there.

Right I have the trait for wings in my genepool,

well you have the same basic bone structure in your arm as a bat has in its wing...given that they have 2 completely different purposes then why design them to be similar would you

i mean you wouldn't design a hammer shaped instrument to do the job of a needle would you?

Originally posted by jaden101
well you have the same basic bone structure in your arm as a bat has in its wing...given that they have 2 completely different purposes then why design them to be similar would you

i mean you wouldn't design a hammer shaped instrument to do the job of a needle would you?

Similar design structure doesn't mean they are the same, homology is not a fact.

Read what whob posted.

Arachnoidfreak & Jaden101> BN is incapable of grasping genetics. It's ok...
You've offered plenty of proof to support evolution. If he doesn't WANT to understand, there is nothing you can do.

Ask, instead, that he proves ID. 😉

Blue Nocturne>
29+ proofs of macro-evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Who said it takes millions and millions of years? Aside from you?

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You know they usually cut it off.

Yes I do know. Which leaves a scar. Throw them in the mix with the eleven finger guys and I'm still right. If having eleven fingers was normal, they wouldn't be getting cut off in the first place.

When has the trait for wings been found in the genepool of a human?

First of all, the human genome has not been completely researched yet, and we've spent decades on disecting it. Which should give you an idea of how complex it is.

Secondly, human beings have the necessary biological materials to create wings, yes, but our DNA structure does not permit it. We have the biological ability to develop nearly ANY organ or limb(because we have all the necessary biological components), but we have the traits that we do because we evolved that way. We had the best traits to survive in our enviroment(mostly our large brains).

There are human babies born with tails, with bones in them. So they are actual tails and not just skin. They aren't quite the wings you are looking for, but I think they are close enough to prove my point.

Originally posted by The Omega
Arachnoidfreak & Jaden101> BN is incapable of grasping genetics. It's ok...
You've offered plenty of proof to support evolution. If he doesn't WANT to understand, there is nothing you can do.

Right, I don't understand I ask you to name one instance where mutations are observed adding new traits and you keep linking me to talk origins, maybe you should take a lesson in your own thread art of debating.