How are people like this getting elected?

[buckshot24]

So you want me to do the research for you?

I just want evidence that genetic copying errors really can produce humans from microbes via natural selection.

What do you mean by power?

Ability.

There is no want, merely probability.

I put "want to" in quotes for a reason. You can substitute "want to" with affinity if you like.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I just want evidence that genetic copying errors really can produce humans from microbes via natural selection.
Ability.
I put "want to" in quotes for a reason. You can substitute "want to" with affinity if you like.

So, you want me to prove the whole of evolution to you? But you won't accept sources?

What do you want me to do, read the selfish gene to you?

Great book btw,
http://www.amazon.com/The-Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925

It's all about probability.

How about this. Why don't you provide evidence to disprove evolution? It would only take one piece of evidence to destroy the mountain sized foundation of evolution. So where is it?

Honestly, it looks like you are trying to ask an intelligent question to hide the fact you are completely ignorant on the subject. These mental gymnastics might seem convincing in your mind, but no one else is impressed.

 

[DrDoug]

Already posted:

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

Your response: Purposely ignoring and hiding from it

That's because he isn't interested in information that proves him wrong, he wants YOU to prove he's right. Anything less and he will keep demanding more information that he won't read. Why? Because it's against his religious beliefs. What he is doing right now is reaffirming his beliefs by asking others to challenge him and then dismissing them out of hand. He's having a religious experience here...lol!

You may as well be talking to a wall, at least it won't waste your time with useless responses.

 

[bshole]

Would you kindly give me your best evidence for the power of genetic copying errors and selection to create molecular machinery?

Many papers too complex for me to figure out. Here are some that engage that. Go to the link below and it has clickable links to each of the papers. Good luck disproving that.

Forgac, M. Vacuolar ATPases: rotary proton pumps in physiology and pathophysiology. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 917–929 (2007)
Article
Pallen, M. J. & Matzke, N. J. From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 4, 784–790 (2006)
ChemPortISIArticle
Liu, R. & Ochman, H. Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7116–7121 (2007)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Mulkidjanian, A. Y., Makarova, K. S., Galperin, M. Y. & Koonin, E. V. Inventing the dynamo machine: the evolution of the F-type and V-type ATPases. Nature Rev. Microbiol. 5, 892–899 (2007)
ChemPortISIArticle
Dolezal, P., Likic, V., Tachezy, J. & Lithgow, T. Evolution of the molecular machines for protein import into mitochondria. Science 313, 314–318 (2006)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Clements, A. et al. The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15791–15795 (2009)
PubMedArticle
Archibald, J. M., Logsdon, J. M., Jr & Doolittle, W. F. Origin and evolution of eukaryotic chaperonins: phylogenetic evidence for ancient duplications in CCT genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 1456–1466 (2000)
ChemPortISIPubMed
Gabaldón, T., Rainey, D. & Huynen, M. A. Tracing the evolution of a large protein complex in the eukaryotes, NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase (complex I). J. Mol. Biol. 348, 857–870 (2005)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Thornton, J. W. Resurrecting ancient genes: experimental analysis of extinct molecules. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 366–375 (2004)
Article
Liberles, D., ed. Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007)
Harms, M. J. & Thornton, J. W. Analyzing protein structure and function using ancestral gene reconstruction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 20, 360–366 (2010)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Frattini, A. et al. Defects in TCIRG1 subunit of the vacuolar proton pump are responsible for a subset of human autosomal recessive osteopetrosis. Nature Genet. 25, 343–346 (2000)
Pérez-Sayáns, M., Somoza-Martìn, J. M., Barros-Angueira, F., Rey, J. M. & Garcìa-Garcìa, A. V-ATPase inhibitors and implication in cancer treatment. Cancer Treat. Rev. 35, 707–713 (2009)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Xu, L. et al. Inhibition of host vacuolar H+-ATPase activity by a Legionella pneumophila effector. PLoS Pathog. 6, e1000822 (2010)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Hirata, T. et al. Subunit rotation of vacuolar-type proton pumping ATPase: relative rotation of the g and c subunits. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 23714–23719 (2003)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Imamura, H. et al. Rotation scheme of V1-motor is different from that of F1-motor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 17929–17933 (2005)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Powell, B., Graham, L. A. & Stevens, T. H. Molecular characterization of the yeast vacuolar H+-ATPase proton pore. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 23654–23660 (2000)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Umemoto, N., Yoshihisa, T., Hirata, R. & Anraku, Y. Roles of the VMA3 gene product, subunit c of the vacuolar membrane H+-ATPase on vacuolar acidification and protein transport. A study with VMA3-disrupted mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biol. Chem. 265, 18447–18453 (1990)
ChemPortISIPubMed
Umemoto, N., Ohya, Y. & Anraku, Y. VMA11, a novel gene that encodes a putative proteolipid, is indispensable for expression of yeast vacuolar membrane H+-ATPase activity. J. Biol. Chem. 266, 24526–24532 (1991)
ChemPortISIPubMed
Taylor, J. W. & Berbee, M. L. Dating divergences in the fungal tree of life: review and new analyses. Mycologia 98, 838–849 (2006)
ISIPubMedArticle
Yang, Z., Kumar, S. & Nei, M. A new method of inference of ancestral nucleotide and amino acid sequences. Genetics 141, 1641–1650 (1995)
ChemPortISIPubMed
Kane, P. M. The where, when, and how of organelle acidification by the yeast vacuolar H+-ATPase. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70, 177–191 (2006)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Hirata, R., Graham, L. A., Takatsuki, A., Stevens, T. H. & Anraku, Y. Vma11 and vma16 encode second and third proteolipid subunits of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae vacuolar membrane H+-ATPase. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 4795–4803 (1997)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Wang, Y., Cipriano, D. J. & Forgac, M. Arrangement of subunits in the proteolipid ring of the V-ATPase. J. Biol. Chem. 282, 34058–34065 (2007)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Ohno, S. Evolution by Gene Duplication (Springer, 1970)
Jacob, F. Evolution and tinkering. Science 196, 1161–1166 (1977)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Lynch, M. The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8597–8604 (2007)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Hietpas, R. T., Jensen, J. D. & Bolon, D. N. Experimental illumination of a fitness landscape. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 7896–7901 (2011)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Tong, A. H. Y. et al. Global mapping of the yeast genetic interaction network. Science 303, 808–813 (2004)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Pereira-Leal, J. B., Levy, E. D., Kamp, C. & Teichmann, S. A. Evolution of protein complexes by duplication of homomeric interactions. Genome Biol. 8, R51 (2007)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Ryan, M., Graham, L. A. & Stevens, T. H. Voa1p functions in V-ATPase assembly in the yeast endoplasmic reticulum. Mol. Biol. Cell 19, 5131–5142 (2008)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Löytynoja, A. & Goldman, N. An algorithm for progressive multiple alignment of sequences with insertions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10557–10562 (2005)
ChemPortPubMedArticle
Löytynoja, A. & Goldman, N. Phylogeny-aware gap placement prevents errors in sequence alignment and evolutionary analysis. Science 320, 1632–1635 (2008)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Whelan, S. & Goldman, N. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximum-likelihood approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 691–699 (2001)
ChemPortISIPubMed
Abascal, F., Zardoya, R. & Posada, D. Prottest: selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 21, 2104–2105 (2005)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Guindon, S. & Gascuel, O. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst. Biol. 52, 696–704 (2003)
ISIPubMedArticle
Anisimova, M. & Gascuel, O. Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Syst. Biol. 55, 539–552 (2006)
ISIPubMedArticle
Aguinaldo, A. M. A. et al. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods, and other moulting animals. Nature 387, 489–493 (1997)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Yang, Z. PAML 4: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1586–1591 (2007)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Fitch, W. M. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst. Zool. 20, 406–416 (1971)
ISIArticle
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. CLUSTALW: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4673–4680 (1994)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Do, C. B., Mahabhashyam, M. S., Brudno, M. & Batzoglou, S. ProbCons: Probabilistic consistency-based multiple sequence alignment. Genome Res. 15, 330–340 (2005)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Fletcher, W. & Yang, Z. Indelible: a flexible simulator of biological sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 26, 1879–1888 (2009)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Sambrook, J. & Russel, D. W. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual 3rd edn (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001)
Goldstein, A. L. & McCuster, J. H. Three new dominant drug resistance cassettes for gene disruption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 15, 1541–1553 (1999)
ChemPortISIPubMedArticle
Zheng, L., Baumann, U. & Reymond, J. L. An efficient one-step site-directed and site-saturation mutagenesis protocol. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, e115 (2004)
PubMed

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html

 

[buckshot24]

So, you want me to prove the whole of evolution to you? But you won't accept sources?

No, just that the molecular machinery we find in cells can be produced by DNA replication errors and selection.

What do you want me to do, read the selfish gene to you?

No thanks. Do you have any evidence or not or do you believe on faith?

It's all about probability.

Explain yourself.

How about this. Why don't you provide evidence to disprove evolution?

That doesn't seem fair now does it?

It would only take one piece of evidence to destroy the mountain sized foundation of evolution.

How about a pebble from that mountain then? A pebble sized bit of evidence that shows mutation and selection created brains or any other biophysical phenomenon by accumulating certain replication errors?

So where is it?

Where is your mountain?

Honestly, it looks like you are trying to ask an intelligent question to hide the fact you are completely ignorant on the subject. These mental gymnastics might seem convincing in your mind, but no one else is impressed.

I'm not trying to impress anybody I want some evidence. Instead of this useless post why don't you just post some evidence?

 

[zinfamous]

buckshot:

are you ever actually going to participate in the discussion?

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot:

are you ever actually going to participate in the discussion?

Yes, please produce some evidence. Did you want to talk about that paper you were talking about now? You bailed.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, and what are the inherent properties of mass and energy that make them "want to" form into living things?

there is no "want" you ignorant sockpuppet.

is that the problem that you are having with all this?

That there must be"purpose?"

I think this is your problem--you assume that you re infinitely special because something that you refuse to define has decided to make you special. You can't refuse the reality of that in your head; so any counterargument or counter-evidence to your reality must also contain the same level of "specialness" or "creation."

everything must have "Want," because in the vast complexity of the universe, your human form is clearly the most amazing.


...and I get it. It's easy to fall prey to such thoughts. It's easy for stupid people to stop asking questions, because human are pretty fucking awesome. We don't really know of any more complex living structure--the human brain--but there are plenty of living entities in this, our own planet, that are as uniquely and profoundly as complex as humans.

But our brains are so fucking awesome--we use them to replace our physical flaws (those which would limit other creatures to specific environments), we use them to create Gods which we arbitrarily use to explain ourselves, we use them to kill gods and ask better questions, we use them to escape the bounds of our planet. All of these things, as far as we know, no other living matter has been able to achieve. It doesn't mean that we haven't; but many humans now understand the difference between not knowing that it has not yet happened, so it could still be possible, vs. not yet knowing and therefore it's impossible and we should shut up about it and sit in our piles of pooh and fling it at others.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, please produce some evidence. Did you want to talk about that paper you were talking about now? You bailed.

you failed to engage.

engage once. evidence has been given to you. you don't care.

why do you ask answers for questions which you refuse to accept?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm definitely not using an uncommon definition of life either.

Well that remains to be seen. Go ahead and submit it and we'll find out.

You get to throw the term around without defining it but I can't?

If there is a place where you think that I am using the term in an uncommon way you are invited to point it out. That's what I did, and of course you got all defensive and evasive.

No, that isn't suspicious at all.

You should also note that in almost all cases I have said "X is alive" not "life is X." That you fail to recognize that distinction only further bolsters a fact that has frankly become common knowledge: You have the intellectual fortitude of a doorstop.

Hackery.

When you have been reduced to calling academic rigor "hackery" it should be clear that you have lost all credibility.

No you didn't. You just made an accusation and an assertion. This is completely and ridiculously irrelevant anyway.

I made a statement of fact that you (like you usually do) have rejected without any explanation. Why was what I said wrong? Why won't you answer this simple question. WHY WON'T YOU DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS?

They were presented to show that you were talking about the wrong phenomenon as far as living systems are concerned.

And they did not accomplish that at all. Way to fail.

The fact that while in the arrangement we find "living systems" that they act with explicable chemical reactions has NOTHING TO DO WITH how they got in that arrangement in the first place.

What first place? You keep claiming that this "first place" exists, but you won't support that claim. WHY WON'T YOU DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS?

Crystals form BECAUSE of the straight forward chemistry of their parts. Living things do not. (use any text book definition of life you want).

But they do, and you have not shown that they do not. WHY WON'T YOU DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS?

Again, you're wrong.

Again you have made a claim without any evidence.

I know. You know. How about we cut the crap?

If you know then you shouldn't shy away from proving it, since it actually seems highly doubtful. But of course, you won't because you can't. WHY WON'T YOU DEFEND YOUR CLAIMS?

hehaheha. You are an idiot. haha.

I'm sorry for you that you cannot seem to recognize the correct answers even when they are right in front of your face.

Why? Because you moronically assumed I thought dominos were a model for living things?

If they aren't to model living things then they have no relevance to evolution. Evolution is a model of living things.

Only to how you were missing the point and continue to miss the point.

Miss what point? That you can't show that there was a "beginning of life"? No, I we all got that point quite easily.

Why don't you explain how I was using dominos, I've explained it a few times now.

Now you're asking me to defend your silly arguments? That's just pathetic.

Moron or incompetent or dishonest?

I am not afraid for a moment that anyone but you thinks those things of me. Since we have established that you are a abysmal judge of reality, your opinion on these matters can be summarily dismissed.

Is the fact that "alive" things once did not exist an actual point of contention? I don't think so, you just like to filibuster absurd quibbles to avoid any actual discussion.

If you don't think so then you have not been paying attention.

How can you say something is NOT alive when you won't define what alive actually is?

If you agree that they are not alive then your question is disingenuous.

You're throwing this term around as if it means something but can't or won't simply define it.

Where have I used it in a way that you find contentious? Are you saying the dominoes ARE alive?

This is the ridiculous argumentation you're applying to my words while not applying them to your own.

It's not my problem that you have used the words in a contentious manner while I have not.

I've already told you why.

No you didn't.

I understand them perfectly well, you either don't or you are a liar when talking about them.

No, you really don't, and this is evidenced by the fact that you couldn't even acknowledge the argument which refuted it that was contained in the very passage from me that you quoted!

Now this is just ridiculous. Are you serious with this?

I'm absolutely serious.

First, you can't do this

Even though I just did.

...since you'll never get to an infinite number of "marks" ever.

But I did get them. All of them. Tell me which one is missing. I guarantee that you can't. Hell, I'll give you $50 if you can tell me which mark(s) I missed.

Secondly, this is basically Zeno's paradox but reversed.

So what? A paradox is not any problem with reality.

Thirdly, if I am wrong and you can count to infinity within 2 seconds make a youtube video of yourself counting to infinity within that time frame.

Don't need to. Already did it right here on the forum.

Fourthly, this is confirmation that you don't care about truth but complete hackery.

No, this is confirmation that you haven't anywhere near the intellectual capacity to match me in debate.

You didn't count an infinite number of marks.

Then it should be easy to tell me which one I didn't count.

youtube.com, lets see it.

Why would I need that?

No this shows I am human and only so much idiocy and dishonesty that I can take. I'll be done with you forever soon enough.

Promises, promises...

Still waiting on that demonstration....

Again, and still, it isn't a problem of my arguments that you are too stupid to recognize their attainment over your puerile objections.

Which part? The time or the near zero part?

Both.

Thank you for being so nice then.

You're welcome, and still go fuck yourself.

You couldn't be more wrong but why stop now? You're saying that there is no limit,

No, I'm saying there's no evidence of any obstacle that should fatally impede macroevolution. It is an important distinction.

well show this and prove your own case don't ask me to disprove your own assertions. This is completely inappropriate. PROVE YOUR CASE! Prove your own assertions! Prove there is a "limitless" progression from a microbe to you.

Again, your wanton stupidity is manifest.

(1) Science doesn't deal with "proof." As the saying goes, "proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science works on induction, while "proof" follows from deduction. If you had a proper education, you'd know that

(2) All we've ever said is that there is no apparent evidence that anything should be different in principle between evolution from early hominids to human beings or evolution from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms. There does not appear to be any big pink elephant, and you're still screaming that we need to prove it doesn't exist.

Does anyone want to take a bet that at some point in a debate on the existence of god, buckwheat here has foisted an argument that take the approximate form of "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore atheism is unjustified." ?

Remember why I brought this up? Probably not.

Yes, and I showed why it fails to support your claim. So?

At this point, you're back on the list and will not be taken off. You are a complete waste of time.

What did you think was going to happen, genius? You were going to singlehandedly refute evolution, the fundamental framework of all modern biology? Holy shit, do you ever even stop to think for a minute, or has all that religion just reduced your brain to jelly?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, just that the molecular machinery we find in cells can be produced by DNA replication errors and selection.

How else could it have happened?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yer doin' God's work, Cerpin.

:thumbsup:

 

[Meghan54]

I just wonder why everyone is still engaging that BS24 troll.

All that ever happens is BS asking for evidence and when provided, rejects it as insufficient or not relevant and asks for more evidence or for evidence that cannot be obtained.

Meanwhile, when asked for his own beliefs on the subject, along with proofs/evidence of those beliefs, he dodges, deflects, belittles, basically refuses to do what he asks for from anyone else who falls for his trolling, although it is amusing to read his responses. Never knew someone could tap dance so well while doing contortions.

 

[DrDoug]

I just wonder why everyone is still engaging that BS24 troll.

All that ever happens is BS asking for evidence and when provided, rejects it as insufficient or not relevant and asks for more evidence or for evidence that cannot be obtained.

Meanwhile, when asked for his own beliefs on the subject, along with proofs/evidence of those beliefs, he dodges, deflects, belittles, basically refuses to do what he asks for from anyone else who falls for his trolling, although it is amusing to read his responses. Never knew someone could tap dance so well while doing contortions.

If we're lucky he's blocked everybody in this thread...lol! His use of "The List" comes across as some kind of power trip he enjoys where he can control your access to him, as if it's something we would value. Religious zealots are weird people...

Unfortunately it's really sad to see someone go through life wearing blinders, thinking their ignorance is intelligence.

 

[ivwshane]

To answer the OP'S question; the answer is people like buckshot are the reason idiot politicians get elected.

 

[Meghan54]

Religious zealots are weird people...

Unfortunately it's really sad to see someone go through life wearing blinders, thinking their ignorance is intelligence.

That they are. I think he's actually afraid of owning up to the fact he's actually a young Earth, Creationist, evangelical fundamentalist Christian.

 

[buckshot24]

there is no "want" you ignorant sockpuppet.

Did you not notice the quotes? Of course there isn't a literal "want". Goodness.

But our brains are so fucking awesome--we use them to replace our physical flaws (those which would limit other creatures to specific environments), we use them to create Gods which we arbitrarily use to explain ourselves, we use them to kill gods and ask better questions, we use them to escape the bounds of our planet.

And you believe these organs were "created" because some mysterious self replicating molecule couldn't replicate itself 100% and over a few billion years these replication errors accumulated until jelly fish, pine trees, bananas, and rhinos were produced. What empirical evidence do you have that mutation can accomplish these miraculous tasks?

All of these things, as far as we know, no other living matter has been able to achieve.

Apparently because we have the right genetic errors?

It doesn't mean that we haven't; but many humans now understand the difference between not knowing that it has not yet happened, so it could still be possible, vs. not yet knowing and therefore it's impossible and we should shut up about it and sit in our piles of pooh and fling it at others.

If you look at this thread I think the poo flingers are sitting in your camp. Quit flinging your useless insults and produce some actual demonstrations that your assertions are true.

 

[buckshot24]

you failed to engage.

engage once. evidence has been given to you. you don't care.

why do you ask answers for questions which you refuse to accept?

What does the paper show, how does this show genetic copying errors can build molecular machinery? Make your case.

 

[shady28]

Is there any way to block a thread so it doesn't show up under a list of topics in the forum anymore?

 

[Jeff7]

I just wonder why everyone is still engaging that BS24 troll.

All that ever happens is BS asking for evidence and when provided, rejects it as insufficient or not relevant and asks for more evidence or for evidence that cannot be obtained.

Meanwhile, when asked for his own beliefs on the subject, along with proofs/evidence of those beliefs, he dodges, deflects, belittles, basically refuses to do what he asks for from anyone else who falls for his trolling, although it is amusing to read his responses. Never knew someone could tap dance so well while doing contortions.

Boredom. OT really needs to pick up again, or I might just have to spend more time on Imgur.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

to answer the question in the OP,
the above is how/why people like those mentioned in the OP are getting elected.

To answer the OP'S question; the answer is people like buckshot are the reason idiot politicians get elected.

bingo

 

[Erithan13]

Quit flinging your useless insults and produce some actual demonstrations that your assertions are true.

 

[DrDoug]

...

... Quit flinging your useless insults and produce some actual demonstrations that your assertions are true.

The only answer anyone needs to give him is "Take off your fucking blinders, the evidence is all around you. Nobody can help you understand what you refuse to see."

Repeat it over and over, just like BS24 does. Watch how fast he loses interest when all he gets is the same sentence, over and over again.

I had a forum troll who used to like to abuse the Ignore feature on one of my forums so I eventually suggested that everyone he was jerking around to just quote each other. Some others people who weren't involved jumped in and soon the troll had just about everyone on ignore...lol!

The troll lost interest and the thread died...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And you believe these organs were "created" because some mysterious self replicating molecule couldn't replicate itself 100% and over a few billion years these replication errors accumulated until jelly fish, pine trees, bananas, and rhinos were produced. What empirical evidence do you have that mutation can accomplish these miraculous tasks?

Very simply, genetic mutation accomplishes similar smaller feats in smaller scales of time.

And these things aren't at all "miraculous." Then only appear so to you because you are a religious moron that failed to get even a basic education.

Evolution is what happens to imperfect replicators over time. Living things are imperfect replicators, therefore evolution is how they have changed over time.

Apparently because we have the right genetic errors?

There is no such thing as a "genetic error," strictly speaking. The idea assumes the existence of an ideal genotype, but there is no such thing.

If you look at this thread I think the poo flingers are sitting in your camp. Quit flinging your useless insults and produce some actual demonstrations that your assertions are true.

That's already been done. It has been quite clear for a long time now that you're lying about some 'lack of evidence' being at the root of your rejection of evolution. Rather, you reject evolution because you are an imbecile and because you are religious.

But I repeat myself.

 

[buckshot24]

All that ever happens is BS asking for evidence and when provided, rejects it as insufficient or not relevant and asks for more evidence or for evidence that cannot be obtained.

The evidence I've asked for hasn't been provided.