If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

iolo said:
It must be very odd to live in a society where educated people have to pretend to be living in the mid-Nineteenth Century and argue with long-dead believers. All this creationist nonsense a sort of training-run for Trump's unfacts and tantrums. I suppose you have a sort of duty to keep the Country together, but I do wonder it is worth it.
Click to expand...

So you know everything and do not converse. Can you explain to us again how Trump will never be President?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

 
TheDonald said:
The current evolutionary theory actually hails that all mutations are errors in code transcription. The theory further says that bad errors will make the organism less likely to produce offspring and good errors will make the organism more successful. The fact is that you do not understand the theory, and are actually arguing with it the same as I am.
Click to expand...
Really? Show me a peer reviewed paper that says that.
 
TheDonald said:
That is not a weak analogy at all, since your brain transmits information using electricity. Take the electricity out of your brain and it has an equal data crunching ability as your computer without electricity as they will both be flatlined.......................you are a computer, one more advanced than we can actually comprehend
Click to expand...
You not only do not understand evolution but action potentials either. They are electrochemically propagated.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Really? Show me a peer reviewed paper that says that.
Click to expand...

Dude, what I listed is Darwins theory in a nutshell, if you do not understand the basic concept of evolution I can't explain it to you. It's pretty basic and has been thrown around for a couple hundred years.

Seriously if you disagree tell us where mutations come from?

Again every bad mutation and good one is an error in Darwinism, you might read a couple books on Darwin, it doesn't seem to me that you agree with much of it, yet are trying to defend it in some way but then back up and denounce it.

Which is the schizophrenia that you have listed in your Beavis and Butthead rant.

Next
 
TheDonald said:
Dude, what I listed is Darwins theory in a nutshell, if you do not understand the basic concept of evolution I can't explain it to you. It's pretty basic and has been thrown around for a couple hundred years.

Seriously if you disagree tell us where mutations come from?

Again every bad mutation and good one is an error in Darwinism, you might read a couple books on Darwin, it doesn't seem to me that you agree with much of it, yet are trying to defend it in some way but then back up and denounce it.

Which is the schizophrenia that you have listed in your Beavis and Butthead rant.

Next
Click to expand...
a mutation is a mutation. Some have beneficial results. They are naturally selected. Some mutations cause harm and most mutations have no effect. They are not selected. That's how evolution works. You may want to read it again.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Scientific skepticism is not about some vague unstated doubt that is only informed by faith. It's about doubting claims for which there is no scientific support. There is no scientific support for the claim that evolution hits a wall at some point just beyond speciation. You guys can't/won't even articulate what the wall is. But you feel it is there based on your religious beliefs or remnants of those beliefs.
Click to expand...

There's a three letter wall---DNA lol.

Crick was a great scientist: he and Watson elucidated the molecule back in the 50's. Crick was doubtful enough that he postulated Directed Panspermia as a means to explain the origin of life on earth.

And guess what? His doubt was informed by science.

I'm as skeptical as the Nobel Prize winner was. It has nothing to do with religion.
 
TheDonald said:
So you know everything and do not converse. Can you explain to us again how Trump will never be President?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

Click to expand...

I don't know who Rachel Maddow may be, but I am certainly not that person. I suppose that without the NHS, you can't get an eye test, particularly when you are always pissed out of your tiny mind. Grow up!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
a mutation is a mutation. Some have beneficial results. They are naturally selected. Some mutations cause harm and most mutations have no effect. They are not selected. That's how evolution works. You may want to read it again.
Click to expand...

Ok that is all correct as far as the theory says. However it is a theory and not fact, and thus is only words. That said all mutations good or bad result from errors in DNA so the theory either says or speculates. If the mutations are not from errors then they are deliberate, which means that an organism is actively trying to better itself or running a code that creates mutations on purpose to improve the species. The fact is that all beneficial mutations are errors in code transcription, which is an oxymoron as an error mutation that is seriously beneficial can not be described as an error. We do not understand how DNA works, we only understand the framework, so called scientist and professors that know everything seriously need to be laughed at
 
Darth Omar said:
There's a three letter wall---DNA lol.

Crick was a great scientist: he and Watson elucidated the molecule back in the 50's. Crick was doubtful enough that he postulated Directed Panspermia as a means to explain the origin of life on earth.

And guess what? His doubt was informed by science.

I'm as skeptical as the Nobel Prize winner was. It has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...


This is not at all relevant to these vague claims about the limits of evolution to changes within some undefined groups. It's just you trying to change the subject away from the facts that show your beliefs and claims of doubt are religious nonsense and not based on any science.
 
TheDonald said:
There is no stretch at all, 2000 years ago the only way to reproduce was have physical sex. Now this is not the case at all, in fact in some dog breeds they can not have sex at all, and artificial is the only way to go.

It's fact, just like the bible says that we are created in Gods image, which would allow for us to build spacecraft and travel around the Universe.

Face it, it's happening
Click to expand...

You are correct on one thing. 2000 years ago, the only way to reproduce was to have sex. So much for that virgin.
 
domer76 said:
You are correct on one thing. 2000 years ago, the only way to reproduce was to have sex. So much for that virgin.
Click to expand...

You are deflecting away from the fact that 2000 years ago reproduction without sex would be a thing that could only be possible if a God were involved. By the 2000 year old definition, since we can do this today, we would be Gods..................

Much has changed, such as we are now leaving the Earth in search of our creator in the Universe
 
iolo said:
I don't know who Rachel Maddow may be, but I am certainly not that person. I suppose that without the NHS, you can't get an eye test, particularly when you are always pissed out of your tiny mind. Grow up!
Click to expand...

Tell us again how Trump can't win....................................

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
TheDonald said:
You are deflecting away from the fact that 2000 years ago reproduction without sex would be a thing that could only be possible if a God were involved. By the 2000 year old definition, since we can do this today, we would be Gods..................

Much has changed, such as we are now leaving the Earth in search of our creator in the Universe
Click to expand...

You're avoiding the fact there was no such thing as virgin birth 2000 years ago. A common myth. Your's is not unique. Half man, half god. Virgin birth. Resurrection. Rinse and repeat..
 
domer76 said:
You're avoiding the fact there was no such thing as virgin birth 2000 years ago. A common myth. Your's is not unique. Half man, half god. Virgin birth. Resurrection. Rinse and repeat..
Click to expand...

You are also failing to comprehend that a virgin birth is 100 percent possible today, so your claim that it could not have been possible 2000 years ago fails. The fact is that it was equally possible 2000 years ago, to anyone with the knowledge of how to do such a thing.

Yawning at the atheist wanking
 
Last edited:
Dick from the Internet said:
This is not at all relevant to these vague claims about the limits of evolution to changes within some undefined groups. It's just you trying to change the subject away from the facts that show your beliefs and claims of doubt are religious nonsense and not based on any science.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Where have I made such claims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top