Quote:

You won't find "devolution" in any textbook, because it is not a scientific concept. Its a dead horse, stop beating it.



Heh. For someone who thought mitochondria would be a good food source for the first living cell, you focus on this so called 'true science' far too often.

Matt, its impossible to argue with you on a scientific level. When I bring science into the discussion all you do is insult and say it isn't science. If you're right, back it up. There should be an abundance of evidence on your side.

But you can't. That's why you don't. Your entire post didn't even consist of an argument, it was all aimed at trying to make ME look bad. You have nothing. The simple fact that you can rationalize sickle cell anemia as a positive mutation is disguisting and goes to show how a blind belief in evolution twists logic. You also don't show how sickle cell anemia is positive on a genetic level, but I assume this is because you understand absolutely nothing of genetics. Which you have also demonstrated time and time again.

Once again, sickle cell anemia might be 'good' in the sense that it prevents malaria, but it corrupted the genetic data on hand within humans (so genetically speaking it was bad). So its still proof against your version of evolution. Once again, you might be right that you don't die of malaria (and even that has been known to happen from time to time). But you need to try again to show how mutations like sickle cell anemia can eventually allow humans to become anything other than another human, instead of just breeding humans with a disease. Simple logic. Sickle cell anemia is evolution, its just evolution in the wrong direction. If genetics becoming corrupted isn't a good enough definition of devolution, then let's use a term you're more comfortable with: evolution. Its just evolution at the hands of a bad mutation and bad mutations (as shown in my scientific proof) either lead to death, or sterility (thus cutting off the line). Its a fact geneticists have been dealing with for a long time when trying to find proof of materialist evolution.

Quote:

To deny evolution is to deny more than Darwin. It means you deny all biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and in fact all science, because evolution is the result of the scientific method.



No...it does not. Biology would still exist, it just means that biology would work within the framework of creation, which is obviously something you're deathly afraid of or you wouldn't resort to 'psychological terrorism' in your arguments against me.

Same can be said of the other sciences.

You're trying to put me on the defensive because then you don't actually have to argue using logic and reason, both of which you do not posess.

I'll keep making one simple request: Back up your 'ideas' with proof. I've shown how it works. All you have to do is make a claim, and then provide a link to more information that proves it.

Quote:

You offer no evidence but your own blazing certainty that everyone is wrong and you and ONLY YOU are right.



Then you obviously didn't read the plethora of quotes that I pasted of scientists basically admitting that it was IMPOSSIBLE to create one mutation that could change an animal from one kind to another. The ONLY mechanism scientists have that could explain materialist evolution is one form or another of 'positive' mutations. Scientists will admit that there is no such thing, as evidenced in my posts. So...try again.

Marco, you're an intelligent guy, can you at least set him straight on this one point? That sickle cell anemia is, in fact, bad on a physical and genetic level. Whether or not it prevents malaria doesn't change the fact that it too can kill and that it was born within a genetic corruption. That said, I'm not going to think you're unintelligent if you agree with him. I'm sure you would at least have a logical reason for believing it.

Matt, look at it this way. Let's pile 100 or more of these corruptiosn of data into people and watch what happens. Eventually its going to lead to outright lethality and the end of any line that carries these mutations. You cannot argue with this logic. Who cares about malaria in the long run? You have to look at it on the genetic level, but once again its obvious you don't know the first thing about genetics or you would have figured this out on your own.

Sickle cell anemia also exists in america, where malaria isn't even really a concern. So, forget about malaria and now explain to me how having sickle cell anemia in America is helpful.

Quote:

In this analogy, when you say "adds new data" you are looking for a process that appends pages ?



Not necessarily. Since in the alphabet of genetics there are only four letters, we don't really run into the problem of spelling mistakes per se. However, let's say you look at this 'story' of genetics, I'm not saying it isn't possible to move words or paragraphs. What I'm saying is that is impossible to insert (or it might be more accurate to say remix) a paragraph/sentence made up of random words and expect an improvement. And it still has to somehow fit in with the overall story to an extent or its still harmful or outright useless.

If the means were there for this to happen, don't you think they would have discovered it somewhere within the 60 years of mutating flies? Instead, what they found was that they deleted entire paragraphs, added random words and remixed entire sentences to the loss of general fitness of the fly. Or the outright loss of internal and external organs like eyes, legs, etc.

I've provided evidence of these results in my paper, where scientists are basically bewildered by the fact that essentially millions of years worth of evolution not only didn't produce a new fly (a new creature), but they actually managed to damage most of the data that was already there (not necessarily all at once, but at one time or another just about each and every expressible gene was corrupted or outright lost).

This proves that the genetics have to be organized into these stories before hand, or they simply won't be able to randomly come up with anything that makes sense or even helps. Maybe you can challenge this point, I don't know. I think, however, that the evidence speaks for itself. Unless you're Matt, in which case the loss of organs like eyes, legs, wings, pigment, and overall loss of fitness when combined over millions of years will eventually lead to a new creature.

For people like Matt who like to believe in theories that they don't even understand I'll give a loose definition of fitness, too so that we're on the same page.

Fitness is the general ability of a creature to survive and produce offspring without unnatural aid within a natural environment.

Quote:

Not to mention all those nobel prize winners...



To me, in a world where a lie like materialist evolution (not evolution), is allowed to be perpetuated, these prizes mean nothing. But I see your point.

Quote:

While similar characteristics are to be expected there is no reason to expect identical genes. Given the redundancy of codons to encode amino acids (3 codons to 1 acid) you could have exactly the same individual with a genetic code that is 99% different (you just need to keep the START and STOP markers in place). So why then is there a 96% similarity if only 1% is required ?



edit: I no longer need clarification, I have researched and I came up with a response in the post below.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/05/06 06:15.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."