Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

Ok... so now you know one of the functions of goose pimples.


BTW... My car has rear heated seats. The car would still function without them...but, what do details matter?

And it warms you by 10s of degrees. Not a fraction of a fraction of a degree. It's pretty clear to anyone being honest that goosebumps are vestiges from when we had fur to fluff, which would actually create an insulated shield from cold air. I'm afraid our nearly hairless skin doesn't serve that function any longer, no matter what your obstetrician says.

Sure! Although this was sort of answered already I think. Even[/b] IF [/b] this '3rd eyelid' had no function, it is easy to understand how several thousand years of mutations can destroy functionality. We see this all the time in genetic disorders. The nicitating membrane though does serve important function in helping to prevent eye infection. Even secular Wiki from an evolutionary perspective says "The plica semilunaris is a small fold of bulbar conjunctiva on the medial canthus of the eye. It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement

Way to leave the next sentence out. No matter, I'll provide it for you:
"It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is drawn across the eye for protection, and is present in other animals such as birds, reptiles, and fish, but is rare in mammals, mainly found in monotremes and marsupials."

 

[Clete]

I have very well established and undisputed science proving the moon is made of cheese.

Empty assertions....so easy to do.

You're simply a liar. There's no disputing the science behind what is presented in that video.

Good bye, Jose. I ignore people who intentionally lie.

 

[6days]

[Quote-=Jose Fly]Shall I post Hitler's quotes again where he justifies his policies via appeals to Christianity? Shall I post Martin Luther's antisemitic quotes again? Shall I post Henry Morris' racist quotes about blacks being subservient again? [/quote] Sure.

You are welcome to post whatever you wish. I can also post quotes showing that the Nazis justified genocide and eugenics with Darwinism.

I don't think Henry Morris had much influence on increasing racism in the world but evolutionist Stephen Gould thinks Darwinism did.

[Quote-=Jose Fly]

You've been provided the data showing that evolutionary common ancestry is the framework by which genetic function is discerned.[/quote] You have claimed that in the past but it simply is not true. Creationist geneticists like evolutionist geneticists discern function based on similarity of design and other measures.

The belief in common ancestry has often harmed people ( everything from unnecessary surgeries to genocides) and hindered science.

 

[Clete]

Thanks for reminding me how hopelessly ignorant the lot of you are (with rare exception)


Present to me any science supporting your "theory" por favor

I love it!

This is the reaction 100% of the time (seemingly) when you guys get presented with something you can't touch with your doctrines of scientism (a.k.a. evolution).

Not that I don't understand it. I mean, what other option do you have besides dropping the basis of your entire worldview? I admit that doing so would likely be too much to ask in response to something you saw on a theology forum. It is, however, not to much to ask in a more general sense, in your own life, in the privacy of your own bedroom when you're alone with your thoughts. Think about what evolutionists are asking you to believe and ask yourself whether it's plausible? You basically believe that even the most primitive forms of life are, in effect, little tiny molecular Rube Goldberg machines that not only pull off the most astoundingly complex tasks but that reproduce themselves!

What you do every day is the equivalent of having attended the competition in that video and come away from it amazed at how such things could happen by accident. Only its worse than that because what happens inside a cell is literally billions of time more complex AND part of what it pulls off is for it make another Rube Goldberg machine identical to itself. Just go to anyone of the people involved in making that rather impressive Rube Goldberg machine and ask them to make such a machine that reproduces itself and then sit back to see how many of them pass out for laughing so hard.

You live in fantasy land. You believe in miracles more fervently than do any of the Christians whom you despise.


Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

You're simply a liar. There's no disputing the science behind what is presented in that video.

Er....um.....what? The video makes no mention at all of negating or falsifying evolution. It's a guy describing how he animated various cellular functions, so how you went from "I animated these functions" to "therefore evolution has been falsified" is a complete mystery.

Perhaps we should ask the group.....

Does anyone else here have any idea what Clete's argument is regarding the video he posted?

Good bye, Jose. I ignore people who intentionally lie.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure.

You are welcome to post whatever you wish. I can also post quotes showing that the Nazis justified genocide and eugenics with Darwinism.

Of course. The point is, evil people justify their evil acts by appealing to all sorts of things....science, tradition, tribalism, religion.

I don't think Henry Morris had much influence on increasing racism in the world but evolutionist Stephen Gould thinks Darwinism did.

Funny how that works. If an "evolutionist" says something racist, that's an indication of the inherent racism of evolutionary biology. But if a creationist says something racist, that's just one person's insignificant views.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

You have claimed that in the past but it simply is not true. Creationist geneticists like evolutionist geneticists discern function based on similarity of design and other measures.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....you and I both know how this works. I show you the paper that describes how evolutionary common ancestry is the basis for discerning genetic function, you make some sort of empty assertion (as above), and then I spend the next several days chasing you around trying to get you to back up those assertions.....which you never do.

As I said, I'm not interested in doing that. You made a claim ("Creationist geneticists like evolutionist geneticists discern function based on similarity of design and other measures"). Either you can back that up or you can't. You and I both know that you can't and won't, so I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

I love it!

This is the reaction 100% of the time (seemingly) when you guys get presented with something you can't touch with your doctrines of scientism (a.k.a. evolution).

Not that I don't understand it. I mean, what other option do you have besides dropping the basis of your entire worldview? I admit that doing so would likely be too much to ask in response to something you saw on a theology forum. It is, however, not to much to ask in a more general sense, in your own life, in the privacy of your own bedroom when you're alone with your thoughts. Think about what evolutionists are asking you to believe and ask yourself whether it's plausible? You basically believe that even the most primitive forms of life are, in effect, little tiny molecular Rube Goldberg machines that not only pull off the most astoundingly complex tasks but that reproduce themselves!

What you do every day is the equivalent of having attended the competition in that video and come away from it amazed at how such things could happen by accident. Only its worse than that because what happens inside a cell is literally billions of time more complex AND part of what it pulls off is for it make another Rube Goldberg machine identical to itself. Just go to anyone of the people involved in making that rather impressive Rube Goldberg machine and ask them to make such a machine that reproduces itself and then sit back to see how many of them pass out for laughing so hard.

You live in fantasy land. You believe in miracles more fervently than do any of the Christians whom you despise.

So it's exactly as I described....."Gosh, this is so complex. I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore all of evolutionary biology is falsified!"

Well done Clete.

 

[The Barbarian]

[Quote-=Jose Fly]Shall I post Hitler's quotes again where he justifies his policies via appeals to Christianity? Shall I post Martin Luther's antisemitic quotes again? Shall I post Henry Morris' racist quotes about blacks being subservient again?

Sure.

You are welcome to post whatever you wish. I can also post quotes showing that the Nazis justified genocide and eugenics with Darwinism.[/quote]

No, that wouldn't be possible. You see, Darwin himself in The Descent of Man argued that eugenics would not only give little benefit, but would be an "overwhelming evil." Even worse for your argument, Darwinians like Reginald Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenic ideas were scientifically unsupportable; they don't work.

Among the first and most important critics in the United States was Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866–1945), a geneticist at Columbia University and prior to 1915 a moderate supporter of eugenics. Morgan felt that the movement had become more propagandistic than scientific and criticized eugenical claims in print, starting with his book Evolution and Genetics (1925). He chastised eugenicists for lumping many mental and behavioral conditions together under a rubric like "feeblemindedness" and treating it as if it had a single underlying cause in a single gene. He argued that because environmental influences on mental and nervous development are so strong and since it is impossible to raise humansunder controlled conditions like fruit flies, no rigorous claims could be made about a genetic basis for such traits...Furthermore, as Reginal C. Punnett (1875–1967) noted, even if a trait were found to be controlled by a single Mendelian gene, unless it was a dominant, it would take hundreds of generations of rigorous selection to eliminate it from the population.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/9250/Eugenics-Criticisms-Eugenics.html


On the other hand, creationists like Dr. William J. Tinkle )co-founder of the ICR) were enthusiasic eugenicists:

Much more troubling, however, are Tinkle’s opinions of almost 30 years later, in his book “Heredity. A study in science and the Bible” published in 1967, while Tinkle was the Secretary of the Creation Research Society. In its chapter “The prospect for eugenics”, far from having abandoned his support for the practice, Tinkle sounds more radical about it. He writes positively about sterilization for the “feeble-minded” (carefully classified as “morons”, “imbeciles” and “idiots”) and people with other hereditary conditions. Sterilization in a male, he says “is a simple operation”, and “in a girl or woman, [it] is as serious as removal of the vermiform appendix” [11, p. 139]. While he admits that it is impractical to sterilize all “defectives”, he still thinks it’s worth a shot when possible:

At the present time there are in the United States more than a million people with serious hereditary defects, and to reduce their numbers by even a few thousand would reduce the amount of discomfort and hardship in the future. Unfortunate births are reduced by segregation also but there are not enough institutions to house nearly all the ones who have unfortunate genes. Institutional care is expensive but as compared to total government expenditure it is small.

Sterilization is sometimes employed with the consent of the patient for non-eugenic purposes. An example is a woman who has borne three children by Caesarean section and could not stand another birth. Persons who are on the borderline of normal mentality may be able to marry and care for themselves but would not be good parents. Their children might be normal or might be defective, and at any rate would have poor home discipline. Such persons sometimes are prevailed upon to submit to sterilization, to their own advantage. [11, pp140-141]
William J Tinkle Heredity: A Study in Science and the Bible, St. Thomas Press, 1967

To be fair, Tinkle did argue that Hitler went to far, and sometimes liquidated perfectly good humans:
Tinkle was well aware of the dangers of eugenics, and mentions the horrors of Nazism (though he disturbingly feels it necessary to specifically note that among the millions of people killed by that regime “many [were] of the highest types”)
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr-west-meet-dr.html

Still, creationists who play the Nazi card are attacking from a very exposed position. With the racist blather of Henry Morris (co-founder of the ICR) and Tinkle's enthusiasm for "prevailing" on people with "inferior genes" to be sterilized, creationist would be wise to be very quiet when the subject comes up.

 

[6days]

You are welcome to post whatever you wish. I can also post quotes showing that the Nazis justified genocide and eugenics with Darwinism.

No, that wouldn't be possible. You see, Darwin himself in The Descent of Man argued that eugenics would not only give little benefit....

Do you think you need to be dishonest to 'win'? Would you care to argue against st what was actually said? Or do you feel better with your straw man?

 

[SUTG]

I finally watched the video. Some pretty amazing stuff!

 

[Greg Jennings]

I love it!

This is the reaction 100% of the time (seemingly) when you guys get presented with something you can't touch with your doctrines of scientism (a.k.a. evolution).

Not that I don't understand it. I mean, what other option do you have besides dropping the basis of your entire worldview? I admit that doing so would likely be too much to ask in response to something you saw on a theology forum. It is, however, not to much to ask in a more general sense, in your own life, in the privacy of your own bedroom when you're alone with your thoughts. Think about what evolutionists are asking you to believe and ask yourself whether it's plausible? You basically believe that even the most primitive forms of life are, in effect, little tiny molecular Rube Goldberg machines that not only pull off the most astoundingly complex tasks but that reproduce themselves!

What you do every day is the equivalent of having attended the competition in that video and come away from it amazed at how such things could happen by accident. Only its worse than that because what happens inside a cell is literally billions of time more complex AND part of what it pulls off is for it make another Rube Goldberg machine identical to itself. Just go to anyone of the people involved in making that rather impressive Rube Goldberg machine and ask them to make such a machine that reproduces itself and then sit back to see how many of them pass out for laughing so hard.

You live in fantasy land. You believe in miracles more fervently than do any of the Christians whom you despise.


Clete

You honestly believe that, don't you?

Ignorance is bliss, truly

May I venture to ask where you studied evolution?

 

[Clete]

You honestly believe that, don't you?

In actual fact, referring to biological processes as Rube Goldberg machines is a nearly perfect analogy - perhaps totally perfect. Evolution's prime directive, to engage a Star Trek idiom, is that all of biology arose from a non-directed process and that any suggestion to the contrary must be rejected without consideration. You do, in fact, believe in randomly and spontaneously created, wildly complex, self-replicating, information based Rube Goldberg machines!

Just think of that for a second...

Wildly complex, randomly generated, INFORMATION BASED (actually not merely information based but actually symbolic logic / language based) Rube Goldberg machines.

That is what you believe in! There's no denying it. What else would you call it? What else could it be called?

Ignorance is bliss, truly

May I venture to ask where you studied evolution?

I've made an argument, Greg. Can you refute it or not? My education is not relevant to whether the argument I've made is valid. Any third grader is smart enough to understand that complex machines don't just fall into place by accident.

Here's a question for you...

How are proteins made?

No matter what answer you give, no matter how vague or detailed, it will boil down to this...

Proteins are made by other proteins - lots and lots of other proteins.

Please tell me which came first, the proteins that assemble DNA molecules, the proteins that unzip DNA molecules, the molecules that create messenger RNA molecules by snipping specific pieces of the unzipped DNA or the proteins that translate RNA to produce a protein?

And there are several other steps that I've skipped! There are in fact approximately 150 proteins that are required to produce a protein. The actual number varies depending on, for example, what sort of chemical bonds need to be made or broken (e.g. carbon-carbon bonds, oxygen-carbon bonds, nitrogen-carbon bonds, hydrogen bonds, sugar-phosphate bonds, etc, etc, etc.) each of which is handled by a different enzyme (a.k.a catalytic protein). Then there are ribosomes, where proteins are actually synthesized. Ribosomes are made of about two-thirds RNA and one third, you guessed it, proteins! In fact, each ribosome is made up of about 55 different proteins all of which were synthesized in other ribosomes and then assembled into a new ribosome by - wait for it - other proteins!

So the question is this, which came first, a protein or the proteins that made it?

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


Now, anyone who can think and who hasn't turned off their mind would be persuaded by what I just said. And it would persuade you if it were aimed at any other topic besides evolution. But I know as I sit here typing this that it will not persuade you. It won't even move you an inch toward being persuaded nor will you even make an attempt to refute it. You will right me off as an ignorant fool who doesn't know what he's talking about because I didn't attend a college that is on your approved list of evolutionary education providers. Or if not that, you'll find some other reason to dismiss it from your consciousness - any reason will do. You'll go find your favorite Carl Sagan quote of the day and allow it to eclipse your mind back into the black abyss that permits you to reject the God Who made you in blissful ignorance of the irrefragable truth that some ignorant, uneducated moron showed you on a theology forum.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by 6days
You are welcome to post whatever you wish. I can also post quotes showing that the Nazis justified genocide and eugenics with Darwinism.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, that wouldn't be possible. You see, Darwin himself in The Descent of Man argued that eugenics would not only give little benefit, but would be an "overwhelming evil." Even worse for your argument, Darwinians like Reginald Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenic ideas were scientifically unsupportable; they don't work.

Do you think you need to be dishonest to 'win'?

I cited the facts above. Do you really think people didn't see them?

Would you care to argue against st what was actually said?

You might as well claim that Hitler justified genocide and eugenics with Christianity.

Hitler did cite Martin Luther; about 90% of the "Final Solution" is in Luther's The Jews and Their Lies.

Hitler's failure was assuming that Luther's attack on Jews was Christian behavior. Just as he (and you) falsely assumed eugenics to be Darwinian. I've now shown you that they are not, and never were.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

And, as you see above, racism and eugenics were embraced by the founders of the YE creationist movement. So you're really not doing yourself any good by bringing up that stuff.

 

[Clete]

Quote Originally Posted by 6days
You are welcome to post whatever you wish. I can also post quotes showing that the Nazis justified genocide and eugenics with Darwinism.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, that wouldn't be possible. You see, Darwin himself in The Descent of Man argued that eugenics would not only give little benefit, but would be an "overwhelming evil." Even worse for your argument, Darwinians like Reginald Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenic ideas were scientifically unsupportable; they don't work.



I cited the facts above. Do you really think people didn't see them?



You might as well claim that Hitler justified genocide and eugenics with Christianity.

Hitler did cite Martin Luther; about 90% of the "Final Solution" is in Luther's The Jews and Their Lies.

Hitler's failure was assuming that Luther's attack on Jews was Christian behavior. Just as he (and you) falsely assumed eugenics to be Darwinian. I've now shown you that they are not, and never were.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

And, as you see above, racism and eugenics were embraced by the founders of the YE creationist movement. So you're really not doing yourself any good by bringing up that stuff.

This is the most dishonest post I can remember see you write.

You can't seriously be trying to deny that eugenic policies, regardless of who implemented them, were based on evolutionary thinking. In fact, modern eugenics was originally developed by Francis Galton and was closely linked to Darwinism. Galton was not only a contemporary of Charles Darwin, he was his half-cousin. What Galton kicked off turned into an international movement that culminated in Nazi Germany and declined afterward due to Hilter having taken it to its logical extreme.

And isn't it obvious anyway? How would it not make sense to use selective breeding to "improve" the human genome if you think that the human genome was created by random mutation and natural non-directed processes? The line of thinking is identical in essence to the invention of Velcro. All eugenics attempts to do is to use ideas that nature already "thought" of. But, just like so many mistakes the atheist makes, the error isn't in the logic, it's in the premise. The atheist doesn't merely think he's smarter than God, he thinks he is God and as such there is nothing to prevent him from playing God, except, of course, the too often tragic, deadly and even horrific consequences that reality hits him over the head with.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

This is the most dishonest post I can remember see you write.

All of it was true.

You can't seriously be trying to deny that eugenic policies, regardless of who implemented them, were based on evolutionary thinking.

I'm pointing out that Darwinian scientists showed that eugenics was not only morally wrong, but scientifically insupportable; it doesn't work. And I showed that Darwin called such things "overwhelming evil."

And I noted that one of the founders of the Institute for Creation research was an enthusiastic eugenicist.

In fact, modern eugenics was originally developed by Francis Galton and was closely linked to Darwinism.

Don't see how. As you see, Darwin bluntly rejected the idea as "evil." And later Darwinists showed that it wouldn't work.

Reginald Punnett, for example, showed that it would take centuries to remove harmful recessives from a population even with strict eugenic rules imposed by law:
In 1917 Punnett again sought Hardy’s help over a similar problem, and this time Hardy himself calculated how slowly a recessive lethal is eliminated from a population, thus apparently discrediting the eugenicists’ claim that deleterious recessives could be eliminated in a few generations (Punnett 1917b)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3430543/

I think you're thinking of "social Darwnism", the "might makes right" notion that the wealthy and powerful are somehow more "fit" than poor or powerless people. It has very little to do with Darwin's theory or modern evolutionary theory, and indeed is scientifically wrong.


At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler's march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Spencer's beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work.
https://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

And isn't it obvious anyway? How would it not make sense to use selective breeding to "improve" the human genome if you think that the human genome was created by random mutation and natural non-directed processes?

If one didn't understand genetics and selection, perhaps. As I said, Darwinians showed that it wouldn't work, even with draconian laws enforcing it.

The line of thinking is identical in essence to the invention of Velcro. All eugenics attempts to do is to use ideas that nature already "thought" of.

No. It just doesn't work. Eugenics depends on an erroneous idea of the way nature works, and had lost all credibility with scientists before Hitler began his "Final Solution."

By the mid-1930s, eugenics research came under increasing scrutiny, and independent analysis revealed that most eugenic data were useless. A committee of the American Neurological Association reported that "[The definitional problem] invalidates, we believe, the earlier work which comes from Davenport, Rosanoff and the American Eugenics School with its headquarters at Cold Spring Harbor." According to an external visiting committee assembled by the Carnegie Institution of Washington: "Some traits such as 'personality' or 'character' lack precise definition or quantitative methods of measurement; some traits such as 'sense of humor,' 'self respect', 'loyalty' or 'holding a grudge' could seldom be known outside an individual's close friends and associates…Even more objective characteristics, such as hair form or eye color, become relatively worthless items of genetic data when recorded by an untrained observer."

These critiques, among other factors, prompted the Carnegie Institution to withdraw its funding and permanently close down the ERO in December, 1939.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay5text.html

Regardless, YE creationist William Tinkle (co-founder of the ICR) continued to promote eugenics into the 1960s.

And I'm not saying that means that all creationists are or were eugenicists. I'm just pointing out that creationists were advocating eugenics long after Darwinians had demonstrated that such ideas are scientifically wrong.

To recap:
1. Eugenics was initially denounced by Darwin as evil.
2. By the 1920s, Darwinans had shown that eugenic ideas were scientifically wrong.
3. "Social Darwinism" which has little to do with the real thing, led some to favor eugenics.
4. Some leaders of the creationist movement embraced eugenics.

It would be difficult to find a racist evolutionist today,since evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. Yet, into the 1990s, a founder of the ICR (Henry Morris) was still asserting that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

I don't think that creationists are generally racist; I think most are not. However, racism is clearly consistent with the sort of creationism advocated by the ICR.

 

[6days]

You can't seriously be trying to deny that eugenic policies, regardless of who implemented them, were based on evolutionary thinking.

Ha... Of course evolutionists will try deny It, or... as Barbarian does try to justify it saying 'some Christians are bad also.


As you pointed out the eugenics movement is largely rooted very close to Darwin himself, and For sure it is rooted in Darwinism.


Clete... if you haven't seen this Nazi video before...please watch "Smoking Gun Proof Nazis were Evolutionists.flv" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/QdH0c2FS-Wg


Also, as you are likely aware the eugenics movement known as planned parenthood was started by Margret Sanger. She said" It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

 

[6days]

Way to leave the next sentence out. No matter, I'll provide it for you:
"It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is drawn across the eye for protection, and is present in other animals such as birds, reptiles, and fish, but is rare in mammals, mainly found in monotremes and marsupials."

BUT Greg my friend.... that sentence had nothing to do with your 'challenge' about function. That sentence has to do with their evolutionary beliefs... which I did mention in my answer.


Now... let's keep playing 'Name the function'. Can we do ear wax next? That one has some cool design features!

 

[The Barbarian]

Ha... Of course evolutionists will try deny It, or... as Barbarian does try to justify it saying 'some Christians are bad also.

Dr. Tinkle didn't advocate eugenics as a way to force "inferior people" to be sterilized because he was a Christian. He didn't even do it because he was a creationist. He did in the 1960s, because he wouldn't accept the findings of Darwinians that eugenic ideas were faulty.

Most of his fellow Christians, and likely, most of his fellow creationists did not share his prejudices.

As you learned, out the eugenics movement was condemned by Darwin, and later Darwinian scientists showed that the creationists advocating eugenic ideas were wrong.

Also, as you are likely aware the eugenics movement known as planned parenthood was started by Margret Sanger. She said" It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

Just like ICR founders Henry Morris (who said blacks were inferior) and Dr. Tinkle, who agreed with her on eugenics.

 

[6days]

Just like ICR founders ...

AS I said, you try justify genocides, scientific racism and eugenics by comparing it to incorrect things a few Christians said. Those crimes against humanity are not rooted in Christianity.

 

[Greg Jennings]

In actual fact, referring to biological processes as Rube Goldberg machines is a nearly perfect analogy - perhaps totally perfect. Evolution's prime directive, to engage a Star Trek idiom, is that all of biology arose from a non-directed process and that any suggestion to the contrary must be rejected without consideration. You do, in fact, believe in randomly and spontaneously created, wildly complex, self-replicating, information based Rube Goldberg machines!

Just think of that for a second...

Wildly complex, randomly generated, INFORMATION BASED (actually not merely information based but actually symbolic logic / language based) Rube Goldberg machines.

That is what you believe in! There's no denying it. What else would you call it? What else could it be called?


I've made an argument, Greg. Can you refute it or not? My education is not relevant to whether the argument I've made is valid. Any third grader is smart enough to understand that complex machines don't just fall into place by accident.

Here's a question for you...

How are proteins made?

No matter what answer you give, no matter how vague or detailed, it will boil down to this...

Proteins are made by other proteins - lots and lots of other proteins.

Please tell me which came first, the proteins that assemble DNA molecules, the proteins that unzip DNA molecules, the molecules that create messenger RNA molecules by snipping specific pieces of the unzipped DNA or the proteins that translate RNA to produce a protein?

And there are several other steps that I've skipped! There are in fact approximately 150 proteins that are required to produce a protein. The actual number varies depending on, for example, what sort of chemical bonds need to be made or broken (e.g. carbon-carbon bonds, oxygen-carbon bonds, nitrogen-carbon bonds, hydrogen bonds, sugar-phosphate bonds, etc, etc, etc.) each of which is handled by a different enzyme (a.k.a catalytic protein). Then there are ribosomes, where proteins are actually synthesized. Ribosomes are made of about two-thirds RNA and one third, you guessed it, proteins! In fact, each ribosome is made up of about 55 different proteins all of which were synthesized in other ribosomes and then assembled into a new ribosome by - wait for it - other proteins!

So the question is this, which came first, a protein or the proteins that made it?

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


Now, anyone who can think and who hasn't turned off their mind would be persuaded by what I just said. And it would persuade you if it were aimed at any other topic besides evolution. But I know as I sit here typing this that it will not persuade you. It won't even move you an inch toward being persuaded nor will you even make an attempt to refute it. You will right me off as an ignorant fool who doesn't know what he's talking about because I didn't attend a college that is on your approved list of evolutionary education providers. Or if not that, you'll find some other reason to dismiss it from your consciousness - any reason will do. You'll go find your favorite Carl Sagan quote of the day and allow it to eclipse your mind back into the black abyss that permits you to reject the God Who made you in blissful ignorance of the irrefragable truth that some ignorant, uneducated moron showed you on a theology forum.

Clete

It's not random. The mutations are random. They can be good, though usually they are neutral (will not affect the organisms) or bad (usually results in an organism that is deficient, and dies before reproducing).

Good mutations are preserved bc they help that organism live longer and reproduce more than its peers. Due to being able to reproduce more and have more offspring than its peers, its positive mutation gets spread throughout the population over time. This is something we have observed in real time, a notable example off the top of my head being the moths in Britain. Prior to the industrial revolution they were almost always white in color. But after smog and soot covered London, the dark moths suddenly had the best camouflage. In less than a decade the moths turned completely black

Natural selection is not random. The mutations in DNA are.