The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
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.

😆 😆 😆

so your saying that in order for a trait to be considered a trait...then the absence of the trait must also have been a trait?...otherwise its not a new trait

that makes no sense really does it?

lets simplify it for you

most people have the normal gene...most people aren't immune to HIV

a small amount of people have a mutated gene that is different from the majority....they ARE immune

that seems like a perfectly clear example of a trait of immunity being caused by a non normal change in DNA (a mutation)

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471

BLue Nocturne: Im going to ask you again, even though you completely ignored it the first time...

How do you explain growing a HUMAN ear on a RODENT if what I am saying is false?

Ask, instead, that he proves ID

have already...many times...i know...you know...and he/she knows...that he/she cant

Come on: Proof of ID! Proof of ID!

Stuff happened that I don't understand and can't explain, therefor ID is true.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Im going to ask you again, even though you completely ignored it the first time...

How do you explain growing a HUMAN ear on a RODENT if what I am saying is false?

Geeze I dunno, genetic manipulation, forcing traits into the genepool of another.

Originally posted by jaden101
😆 😆 😆

so your saying that in order for a trait to be considered a trait...then the absence of the trait must also have been a trait?...otherwise its not a new trait

that makes no sense really does it?

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471

No I'm saying in order for a trait to be new it can't have exsited in the first place within the species.

Originally posted by jaden101
:
most people have the normal gene...most people aren't immune to HIV

a small amount of people have a mutated gene that is different from the majority....they ARE immune

that seems like a perfectly clear example of a trait of immunity being caused by a non normal change in DNA (a mutation)

Have you heard of malaria and sickle cell anemia look it up, certian traits are mutate causing them to be immune.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Geeze I dunno, genetic manipulation, forcing traits into the genepool of another.

Sweet, you ignored (or missed) the post I made on the last page, with the human tails.

Also, did you know that human nails and hair is made out of the exact same thing that makes up the wings of the common housefly(keratin)? Or that our fat is the same as a whale's fat, only the whale has much much more of it. Maybe you'd like to explain how the teeth, which are not actually bone, but made of a denser material, are made of the same material in every mammal?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Sweet, you ignored (or missed) the post I made on the last page, with the human tails.

Also, did you know that human nails and hair is made out of the exact same thing that makes up the wings of the common housefly(keratin)? Or that our fat is the same as a whale's fat, only the whale has much much more of it. Maybe you'd like to explain how the teeth, which are not actually bone, but made of a denser material, are made of the same material in every mammal?

It's called homology I'll debate you on that some other time.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It's called homology I'll debate you on that some other time.

No, it's called the ****ing answer you are looking for. There's no such thing as new information popping up spontaneously and that's what you want. Science doesn't claim that that is what happens AT ALL. A new trait in science is something that is not present in the majority of the species. What you want is for us to show you that a bunny will turn into an eight legged dragon with a slinky for a tail. Not going to happen, science doesn't proclaim any such thing.

Still no proof of ID?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
One concept is that god is the universe

Then if the universe is complex and efficient then it is intelligent.

Once again, this is not proof.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No I'm saying in order for a trait to be new it can't have exsited in the first place within the species.

Have you heard of malaria and sickle cell anemia look it up, certian traits are mutate causing them to be immune.

yes i know of sickle cell anemia and the fact that immunity to malaria exists because of a certain genetic factor which determines to which degree the sickle cell anemia persists

its also widely realised that if sickle cell anemia didn't give some immunity to malaria then it wouldn't persist within the population

the problem is that people with normal blood die from malaria and people with sickle cell disease die from sickle cell disease

its only when they inherit 1 sickle cell gene and one normal gene that they show resitance to malaria

but the sickle cell trait persisting isn't because the same mutation happens in everyone...it because it happened in the past to 1 or several people and because these people had a better likelyhood of surviving from malaria that the trait persists

STILL no proof of ID??

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
No, it's called the ****ing answer you are looking for. There's no such thing as new information popping up spontaneously and that's what you want.

Don't confuse me with you, If no new information is "Created" then how does a species gain new traits in order to become another species, a mutation of a trait does not make it a completely new one,so what proof do you have.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
A new trait in science is something that is not present in the majority of the species. What you want is for us to show you that a bunny will turn into an eight legged dragon with a slinky for a tail. Not going to happen, science doesn't proclaim any such thing.

Right, but a fish turning in to a lizard is proclaimed by you so called "SCIENTIST" and traits that are not present in the majority of species are either recessive traits or mutations.

Originally posted by jaden101
😆 😆 😆

most people have the normal gene...most people aren't immune to HIV

a small amount of people have a mutated gene that is different from the majority....they ARE immune

that seems like a perfectly clear example of a trait of immunity being caused by a non normal change in DNA (a mutation)

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4471

How does this advocate evolution, the mutation does not change the species regardless if a trait is mutated the organism is still the same species.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Once again, this is not proof.

Pay attention, Natural systems are usually complex and more importantly have a purpose, take your circulatory system it's purpose is to provide blood to your various organs that it is purpose, if life is an accident then how do things have purpose furthermore why would life have a design that weeds at the weak according to you Darwinist when it's all an accident. In other words how can something have a purpose without being made with out a purpose. does this sentence make sense

"I accidentally created it for this purpose" No it doesn't it's an oxymoron, yet you Darwinist are basically saying that.

Sorry for the double post.

god invented evolution

debate over

or it would be without the addition of an ancient book of translated fairy tales, of which its very followers selectively enforce or ignore, depending on their own agenda. oh well

Originally posted by PVS
god invented evolution

Evolution has not been proven, nor is it a fact debate over.

Don't confuse me with you, If no new information is "Created" then how does a species gain new traits in order to become another species, a mutation of a trait does not make it a completely new one,so what proof do you have.

you dont have to change an existing trait to create a new one...that just idiotic...because non resistance isn't a trait

unless your saying that everyone has genes that are deliberately not for certain traits, in which case you are saying that while i have blue eyes...i also have genes that make sure i DONT have green eyes and brown eyes

this is would be bad "design"...not to mention that the human genome project already showed that idea to be absurd

How does this advocate evolution, the mutation does not change the species regardless if a trait is mutated the organism is still the same species.

i've already given several documented examples of a single species become 2 separate species...its documented...it's fact...it happened with a variety of north american frog so rapidly that we were able to document easily...its also happened with north European Seagulls

Natural systems are usually complex and more importantly have a purpose,

their only purpose to ensure they survive

if life is an accident then how do things have purpose furthermore why would life have a design that weeds at the weak according to you Darwinist when it's all an accident.

you really REALLY dont understand it do you...yes the mutations are random...but the forces that act on that mutation aren't random...say you are born with a mutation that means you dont have a mouth...you wont be able to eat and you'll die...your genes wont get passed on...that natural selection weeding out a detrimental mutation...

then say i'm a animal born with a trait that allows me to utilise my food source better than other males of my species...i have a better chance of surviving

so unless you can prove that process is somehow designed (bearing in mind that you've failed to prove any point of ID so far)

"I accidentally created it for this purpose" No it doesn't it's an oxymoron, yet you Darwinist are basically saying that.

look what happens when someone is born with a genetic defect that makes their heart extremely weak...what happens?...they die...its not that a working heart is designed to work...it just that a working heart trait has a better chance of being passed on than one that doesn't function properly

quite simplistic really

Evolution has not been proven, nor is it a fact debate over.

is this where you pipe in with the bullshit line that "nothing can be proven"

i have a question for you

what has more evidence to back it up...evolution, creationism or intelligent design?

Originally posted by jaden101
you dont have to change an existing trait to create a new one...that just idiotic...because non resistance isn't a trait

unless your saying that everyone has genes that are deliberately not for certain traits, in which case you are saying that while i have blue eyes...i also have genes that make sure i DONT have green eyes and brown eyes

this is would be bad "design"...not to mention that the human genome project already showed that idea to be absurd

I did not say that lack of trait is a trait, I thought you were implying that.

Originally posted by jaden101

you really REALLY dont understand it do you...yes the mutations are random...but the forces that act on that mutation aren't random...say you are born with a mutation that means you dont have a mouth...you wont be able to eat and you'll die...your genes wont get passed on...that natural selection weeding out a detrimental mutation...

Natural selection is random, there is no conscious behind it, what natural selection does is change the ratio of traits in a population.
EX: Let's say there existed 20 people living in an island, now out of the 20 5 had a mutation of a certain trait, let's say some random disease is introduce by natural selection, now a few months later the population of the island has gone down from 20 to 5, scientist discovered the reason why the 5 survived is because they had a mutated trait now as they reproduce the offspring will have that mutated trait but regardless of how many times they reproduce they will still remain humans.

Natural selection is random, there is no conscious behind it, what natural selection does is change the ratio of traits in a population.

and thats what drives evolution...some traits die out and some new traits are introduced

EX: Let's say there existed 20 people living in an island, now out of the 20 5 had a mutation of a certain trait, let's say some random disease is introduce by natural selection, now a few months later the population of the island has gone down from 20 to 5, scientist discovered the reason why the 5 survived is because they had a mutated trait now as they reproduce the offspring will have that mutated trait but regardless of how many times they reproduce they will still remain humans.

they will remain evolving the same if the same factors are acting on them...if they all live in the same place under the same conditions they will evolve over time but they will all evolve the same way

whereas if you move 1 group into a completely different habitat they will change to suit that habitat

this is what drove the evolution of the 2 examples i gave earlier...

I did not say that lack of trait is a trait, I thought you were implying that.

then once again you were mistaken

and you still haven't answered my question