Then present it to the scientific community. Become the first person to actually disprove what is already proven and to prove there is a deity. Come on, I dare you.
The theory of Macro-Evolution is NOT proven at all! Speciation is mere conjecture & speculation of the fossil record in that all animal types are similar & some closer than others. Variation is real but has been known about for thousands of years. Variation (micro-evo) has been "claimed" as the mechanism for Speciation (macro-evo) without ANY empirical evidence at all & even when variation has been demonstrated every time to be limited & never lead to Speciation in the real world.
@WILLTHEWGMAN Speciation is observed, just google it and you will see dozens of examples. What you call micro-evolution may be all we can directly observe in this time frame, but when you look at the evidence of the past you can see that it's been happening. There's no explanation for the nested hierarchy and transitional fossils besides evolution, or God making it to look like evolution, but that's not very scientific.
If you've observed limits to evolution you'd be the first.
I tell you what; Send me 1 sample of Macro-evolution in which there was an anatomical structure change. Not larger, smaller or more but a anatomical structure change! Post a comment & send me a message with the link. All the claims of macro-evolution that are out there are still speculation from bio-chemical changes with NO anatomical structure changes ever! Macro-evo claims by definition that anatomical changes Must occur, please give me just 1 sample of a New anatomical change?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Um hello, dogs! But I assume that's not enough for you, you probably want to see a new organ evolve. That would take millions of years. That's a typical creationist tactic, asking for impossible standards of evidence, and insisting everything else isn't enough. Sorry bud, science doesn't work the way you want it to. What's wrong with the other evidence that's been presented (nested hierarchy, fossil record, observed evolution)? They're just as damning to you.
All dogs have the same Anatomy, that is what makes them and keeps them dogs! I want any sample of a new anatomical structure in which there was no code in the specie DNA prior to the added "new" part. Not a larger, smaller, extra or less part... these codes would already be in the DNA! LOL, millions of years again; The universe came about over time & chance, life first emerged from time & chance and now life evolves from time & chance. Chance and time are not Magical powers!!!
@WILLTHEWGMAN There has been countless examples of new code added to DNA. In fact, every mutation is new code. Again, what you're asking for is impossible, why is the other evidence I presented not enough? No one says anything like that happened by chance. Natural laws are not chance. You don't actually know what evolution is do you? Science is allowed to factor in lots of time because evidence says we have lots of time. Why do you have a problem with things that take a long time?
Thank you for showing you did not read on the matter since, after all, micro and macro are the same thing over a longer period of time. Speciation have been observed, might I suggest reading about the three-spined stickleback, the different species of cichlids of lake Nabudago, the italian wall lizards of Pod MrCaru, the results of experiments with flies, plants and, of course, Lenski's experiments.
I have done more than read... I breed corn snakes, I use micro-evo and micro evo prevents marco evo from occuring Every time! It NEVER Adds code that is not already in the DNA so it does not add any new non-corn snake parts! When I take a 1.1 Corn snake and breed them I will only get a corn snake clutch, why because only corn snake DNA is present. All these cases you have listed already have codes for such in their DNA, this is micro, NOT Macro samples!!! There are no Macro Samples!
@WILLTHEWGMAN Still in denial about what mutations can do. If you deny mutations add new code you must deny mutations all together. Every change to DNA, the kind that occurs every generation, is new code.
Are you trying to say that one generation of breeding not producing a new species is proof that micro-evolution doesn't build up to macro-evolution? Do you think macro-evolution is a monkey giving birth to a human?
Most pattern mutations in the Cornsnake are simple traits, inherited in typical Mendelian recessive fashion. In at least two cases, the traits are allelic (residing at the same locus). Another appears to be the first documented dominant trait in Cornsnakes, and yet another stems from a combination of selected appearance and a recessive trait or traits. THUS, you cannot get a blue or green corn snake ever because what the don't have they can't make or give! This is Variation Only!
@WILLTHEWGMAN So because what you breed doesn't involve mutations (though I assure you if you'd look you'd find plenty) nothing does? Reality disagrees, examples of beneficial mutations have already been presented to you.
Look, you are not understanding any of the facts I am tell you... I do work with mutations within corn snakes! These mutations are recessive or dominant but have NOTHING to do with becoming another type of animal or even other type of snake or giving corn snakes something that is Non-Corn Snake! These mutations are only mixing or subtracting DNA for things like color and pattern. There is not 1 sample of macro evolution (Speciation) because it does not happen and is not real.
@WILLTHEWGMAN I understand what you're saying perfectly. It's you that's not understanding me. Why don't you look to the other mutations that do "add code", instead of the ones you know don't. That's an argument from exclusion, it's a logical fallacy.
Do you realise that in order for an organism to eat something new it must have the enzymes to digest it? Those enzymes are specific for citrate, hence why the E. Coli has evolved "new code".
Adding DNA codes (turning on and off DNA Switches-RNA) has nothing to do with macro evolution (Speciation). There is no new morphological anatomy changes to that species and before "Speciation" can be claimed to be observed, the species would have to have undergone a new morphological anatomy change because this is what "Speciation" is claimed to be; one species morphologically changing it's anatomy to become another new species! This never has Never been "observer", Ever!
@WILLTHEWGMAN Mutations aren't a switch. They don't just switch proteins on and off (which can happen). If a mutation changes a base it changes the protein that's produced, thus new code. Anatomical changes are observed, they've been given to you, they're just not up to your unreasonable standards of an animal growing a new heart or something. Now I'll ask you again; What is wrong with the current evidence of macro-evolution (the nested hierarchy and transitional fossils)?
What Anatomical changes are observed? What new morphology within any given structure of a specie have we observed? DNA is an amazing design of working reactionary codes but in no way has this been demonstrated to produce any new morphological structures within a specie's anatomy nor have you provided any such sample that shows DNA does so! What specie changed it's morphology & what is this new morphed specie with new anatomy now called? All you have gave me are samples of adaption.
It seems you didn't read about the Pof MrCaru italian wall lizards and their new cecal valve not found in the original population (and in the general reptile kingdom).
All observed changes in the Pod Mrcaru lizards are in fact epigenetic, that appeared during onto genesis because if distinct environmental factors. The DNA does not differ between lizards any of them! Also, the lizards revered back to their 1971 version in just 8 weeks after being forced back to the 1971 diet again! No one claims that marcoevolution is very fast OR reversible, but these are facts in this case! How can you call this macro-evo when the DNA is the same & all reversible.
Ah, you actually don't know what you are talking about. Thank you for showing it.
1. You''d need to be able to check the DNA of every cornsnakes in your population
2. Select those you want a particular trait to be passed on.
3. Breed them until a particular mutation is passed through the whole population. Usually those are minors, but, when cumulative, they result in greater changes. Per instance, if you only mate the tamest ones for each generation (cont)
See the comment I just sent @Impaler1815, same thing. Mutation Variations are produced from already existing DNA traits as well as your fox sample. We know this within like corn snakes because there are only limited pattern types and colors produced; only existing ones mixed or subjected, NO NEW ones created otherwise! There will never be a solid green or blue corn snake ever without first having some hybrid project with another type colubrid that my have traits for green or blue...
Again Will, unless you make a mutation pass through the whole population, it won't settle. Heck, if you don't even know what traits you want to pass, do it only in one or two generations, no wonder your "experiments" fails.
And what you are describing at the end sounds like ring species.
You seem not to understand the mutations are recessive or dominant. In the E.Coli, just because some E.Coli can now consume citrate and others still can't does not mean the ones that now can are no longer E.Coli! We as humans can build up tolerance, produce new digestive enzymes and well as new immunity by complement binding to antibodies. All these things have Nothing to do with becoming another specie in doing such things! These things are merely adaptation!!!
More specifically, with regards to the E. coli that can digest citrate -- this adaptation requires only a few specific mutations. However, highly specified biochemical systems -- like the flagellum -- require many specific mutations. This is what makes it unlikely for the flagellum to evolve, and what makes it reasonable for the ability to digest citrate to evolve.
(cont) you'd end up with a result similar to the domesticated silver fox results. However, this would take decades of careful breeding. One or two generation is nothing. Again, learn what you are trying to disprove because your example only makes you look like a hillbilly.
@Atharkas I believe it was Darwin himself who said in order for his theory of evolution to work there must be simplicity at the micro scale. Otherwise it would show some sort of programming thus a consciousness or prior intent as Hitler explains in this video. Evolution needs some sort of catalyst besides time. Using time as the reason is truly speculative seeing we cannot live millions of years to test the hypothesis. If we go by fossil evidence they say the opposite. Life sprung up suddenly.
@GateMessenger Even if Darwin did say that (he didn't) it wouldn't make it so. No one denies life is complex. You don't need to live millions of years to know what happened over millions of years. Events in the past leave evidence in the present. To deny that is wilful ignorance. It's far better to accept an idea on scarce evidence than no evidence at all (faith). The Cambrian explosion is neither sudden nor representative of all life. You won't find a Cambrian amphibian.
Actually, the "catalyst" is simply the changing ecosystem. And sorry to say this, but life began even before the oldest prokaryotes fossils found. And one do not need to witness millions of years when experiments uses quickly reproducing species as in Lenski's experiments.
Also, might I suggest reading about Julius Rebek's autocatalyst self replicating molecule experiment?
A catalyst that is an outside force like a "changing ecosystem" is no answer for the what the mechanism with-in the DNA would need to be for such changes. Again, all you are doing is speculating. In regard to Richard Lenski's experiments; mutation without any new anatomy for E. coli is still Variation and not Speciation. The E. coli always remains E. coli! Julius Rebek devised synthetic, self-replicating molecules; how is this an augment for evolution and against Intelligent Design?
Actually, the ara-3 population displayed mutations and increase information which makes it something which is not E.Coli anymore. Sorry Will, but again, read about the experiments.
And actually, yes, a change in the ecosystem would exert pressure on the population and, via natural selection, traits that helps them to survive would be passed on the population.
And Rebek's experiment is one of the numerous hints toward the RNA world since RNA can be it's own autocatalyst.
The incapacity to consume citrate is a trait of E.Coli. The ara-3 population has, with a combination of two mutations which spread through the population which allowed it to consume citrate. As such, it is not E.Coli anymore.
So, are you claiming adaption within a species without any new morphological anatomy to that species is proof or evidence that new morphological anatomy can occur? You are still speculating that one leads to other other... E.Coli being able to now consume citrate is simply adaption and in no way proof of Speciation! Are you getting all this???
Wow, that is like saying that Timothy Mcveigh was an American Patriot because he called himself one, pure ignorance on your part!
What makes a person a Christian is not them calling themselves one no more than being a doctor is not by simply referring to yourself as one. There is Christian doctrine in which one must live by which includes the love taught by Jesus Christ. Hitler was very similar to what the Anti-Christ will be and the Anti-Christ will claim to be Christ...
The christians killed more people than Hitler with the Inquisition among plenty of methods, they also supported slavery, according to that bible book we all have to right to kill rape etc our enemies and their families.
The Inquisition was un-Godly and unchristian! Christianity is the faith and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no Bible verse that promotes Slavery! Slavery in the Bible was in many cases not forced bondage cases but people working off their dept, I will call this sample "A". In other cases God's people (the Hebrews) were the slaves in bondage, this I will call Sample "B".
Show me a verse that is not a sample of A or B? Read the Bible and learn reading comprehension!!!
Alien residents, not having any land inheritance, might be merchants or hired laborers. There was a possibility of their becoming wealthy. (Le 25:47; De 28:43) Generally, however, the Law classified them as among the poor and outlined arrangements for protecting and providing for them!
@WILLTHEWGMAN Burning babies is also subjectively wrong. If someone had no emotional attachment to babies, was indifferent to the great pain burning gives and thought taking 9 months to produce an hours worth of fuel was efficient they would probably burn babies. Those people are called psychopaths, our REASON tells us they're dangerous and should be treated appropriately. Most people don't think like that.
I've never heard an atheist deny humanity. Do you think atheists are psychopaths?
Burning babies is not subjectively wrong, it is objectively 100% wrong. You have the freedom to deny God but you have no such freedom to deny humanity itself. In your would-view a "psychopath" is no less than a free-thinker. I am not sure why you can see all this....
@WILLTHEWGMAN I just gave you an example of a way a person could subjectively view burning babies as right, but thankfully sane people can use reason to decide those people are dangerous, and burning babies is wrong. Are you trying to say you need a religious text to tell us not to do that?
A psychopath is mentally ill, someone with the emotional detachment to burn a baby is hardly thinking freely.
What a drawn out piece of writing. Let me give you a summary without the crack induced ramblings:
Atheists think everything was created by chance- wrong, we don't think that at all.
Atheists say there's no objective moral law- how is that a problem? Reason gives you guidance on treating others well.
Bible quote saying everyone who disagrees with the Bible are wrong- in other words "the Bible's right because it says it's right". Not very logical, Jim.
Comment Pending Approval? lol, theists with the worst arguments tend to censor the most.
Pelonetillo 9 months ago
@Pelonetillo haha come back with facts, not theorized assumptions u live on, coward.
1billion1deaths1 7 months ago
Love your Romans 1:20-22 quote in the information about the video!
abaneyone 9 months ago
yep, uh-huh, supppper.
KilliansIrishRex 1 year ago
Life without God is ABSURDITY. This video wins.
9pt9 1 year ago
willthewgman, you are a genius, this is the most intelligent use of the hitler parody ever!
rltroup33 1 year ago
@FranksVoice
Isn't it kind of hard to do what when every evidences and observation in biology only proves evolution?
On one side you have the evidence for evolution, on the other you have the absence of evidence for your deity. Guess which will win. :p
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
I have over 30 hours of evidence for God, ID, Creation and the Bible on my playlist. Speculation is all there is for Macro-evolution (speciation).
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Then present it to the scientific community. Become the first person to actually disprove what is already proven and to prove there is a deity. Come on, I dare you.
Evolution is proven, I doubt you can disprove it.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
The theory of Macro-Evolution is NOT proven at all! Speciation is mere conjecture & speculation of the fossil record in that all animal types are similar & some closer than others. Variation is real but has been known about for thousands of years. Variation (micro-evo) has been "claimed" as the mechanism for Speciation (macro-evo) without ANY empirical evidence at all & even when variation has been demonstrated every time to be limited & never lead to Speciation in the real world.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Speciation is observed, just google it and you will see dozens of examples. What you call micro-evolution may be all we can directly observe in this time frame, but when you look at the evidence of the past you can see that it's been happening. There's no explanation for the nested hierarchy and transitional fossils besides evolution, or God making it to look like evolution, but that's not very scientific.
If you've observed limits to evolution you'd be the first.
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
I tell you what; Send me 1 sample of Macro-evolution in which there was an anatomical structure change. Not larger, smaller or more but a anatomical structure change! Post a comment & send me a message with the link. All the claims of macro-evolution that are out there are still speculation from bio-chemical changes with NO anatomical structure changes ever! Macro-evo claims by definition that anatomical changes Must occur, please give me just 1 sample of a New anatomical change?
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Um hello, dogs! But I assume that's not enough for you, you probably want to see a new organ evolve. That would take millions of years. That's a typical creationist tactic, asking for impossible standards of evidence, and insisting everything else isn't enough. Sorry bud, science doesn't work the way you want it to. What's wrong with the other evidence that's been presented (nested hierarchy, fossil record, observed evolution)? They're just as damning to you.
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
All dogs have the same Anatomy, that is what makes them and keeps them dogs! I want any sample of a new anatomical structure in which there was no code in the specie DNA prior to the added "new" part. Not a larger, smaller, extra or less part... these codes would already be in the DNA! LOL, millions of years again; The universe came about over time & chance, life first emerged from time & chance and now life evolves from time & chance. Chance and time are not Magical powers!!!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN There has been countless examples of new code added to DNA. In fact, every mutation is new code. Again, what you're asking for is impossible, why is the other evidence I presented not enough? No one says anything like that happened by chance. Natural laws are not chance. You don't actually know what evolution is do you? Science is allowed to factor in lots of time because evidence says we have lots of time. Why do you have a problem with things that take a long time?
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Thank you for showing you did not read on the matter since, after all, micro and macro are the same thing over a longer period of time. Speciation have been observed, might I suggest reading about the three-spined stickleback, the different species of cichlids of lake Nabudago, the italian wall lizards of Pod MrCaru, the results of experiments with flies, plants and, of course, Lenski's experiments.
Really, you seem to ignore a lot about biology..
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
I have done more than read... I breed corn snakes, I use micro-evo and micro evo prevents marco evo from occuring Every time! It NEVER Adds code that is not already in the DNA so it does not add any new non-corn snake parts! When I take a 1.1 Corn snake and breed them I will only get a corn snake clutch, why because only corn snake DNA is present. All these cases you have listed already have codes for such in their DNA, this is micro, NOT Macro samples!!! There are no Macro Samples!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Still in denial about what mutations can do. If you deny mutations add new code you must deny mutations all together. Every change to DNA, the kind that occurs every generation, is new code.
Are you trying to say that one generation of breeding not producing a new species is proof that micro-evolution doesn't build up to macro-evolution? Do you think macro-evolution is a monkey giving birth to a human?
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
Most pattern mutations in the Cornsnake are simple traits, inherited in typical Mendelian recessive fashion. In at least two cases, the traits are allelic (residing at the same locus). Another appears to be the first documented dominant trait in Cornsnakes, and yet another stems from a combination of selected appearance and a recessive trait or traits. THUS, you cannot get a blue or green corn snake ever because what the don't have they can't make or give! This is Variation Only!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN So because what you breed doesn't involve mutations (though I assure you if you'd look you'd find plenty) nothing does? Reality disagrees, examples of beneficial mutations have already been presented to you.
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
Look, you are not understanding any of the facts I am tell you... I do work with mutations within corn snakes! These mutations are recessive or dominant but have NOTHING to do with becoming another type of animal or even other type of snake or giving corn snakes something that is Non-Corn Snake! These mutations are only mixing or subtracting DNA for things like color and pattern. There is not 1 sample of macro evolution (Speciation) because it does not happen and is not real.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I understand what you're saying perfectly. It's you that's not understanding me. Why don't you look to the other mutations that do "add code", instead of the ones you know don't. That's an argument from exclusion, it's a logical fallacy.
Do you realise that in order for an organism to eat something new it must have the enzymes to digest it? Those enzymes are specific for citrate, hence why the E. Coli has evolved "new code".
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
Adding DNA codes (turning on and off DNA Switches-RNA) has nothing to do with macro evolution (Speciation). There is no new morphological anatomy changes to that species and before "Speciation" can be claimed to be observed, the species would have to have undergone a new morphological anatomy change because this is what "Speciation" is claimed to be; one species morphologically changing it's anatomy to become another new species! This never has Never been "observer", Ever!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Mutations aren't a switch. They don't just switch proteins on and off (which can happen). If a mutation changes a base it changes the protein that's produced, thus new code. Anatomical changes are observed, they've been given to you, they're just not up to your unreasonable standards of an animal growing a new heart or something. Now I'll ask you again; What is wrong with the current evidence of macro-evolution (the nested hierarchy and transitional fossils)?
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
What Anatomical changes are observed? What new morphology within any given structure of a specie have we observed? DNA is an amazing design of working reactionary codes but in no way has this been demonstrated to produce any new morphological structures within a specie's anatomy nor have you provided any such sample that shows DNA does so! What specie changed it's morphology & what is this new morphed specie with new anatomy now called? All you have gave me are samples of adaption.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
It seems you didn't read about the Pof MrCaru italian wall lizards and their new cecal valve not found in the original population (and in the general reptile kingdom).
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
All observed changes in the Pod Mrcaru lizards are in fact epigenetic, that appeared during onto genesis because if distinct environmental factors. The DNA does not differ between lizards any of them! Also, the lizards revered back to their 1971 version in just 8 weeks after being forced back to the 1971 diet again! No one claims that marcoevolution is very fast OR reversible, but these are facts in this case! How can you call this macro-evo when the DNA is the same & all reversible.
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Ah, you actually don't know what you are talking about. Thank you for showing it.
1. You''d need to be able to check the DNA of every cornsnakes in your population
2. Select those you want a particular trait to be passed on.
3. Breed them until a particular mutation is passed through the whole population. Usually those are minors, but, when cumulative, they result in greater changes. Per instance, if you only mate the tamest ones for each generation (cont)
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharka
See the comment I just sent @Impaler1815, same thing. Mutation Variations are produced from already existing DNA traits as well as your fox sample. We know this within like corn snakes because there are only limited pattern types and colors produced; only existing ones mixed or subjected, NO NEW ones created otherwise! There will never be a solid green or blue corn snake ever without first having some hybrid project with another type colubrid that my have traits for green or blue...
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Again Will, unless you make a mutation pass through the whole population, it won't settle. Heck, if you don't even know what traits you want to pass, do it only in one or two generations, no wonder your "experiments" fails.
And what you are describing at the end sounds like ring species.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharka
You seem not to understand the mutations are recessive or dominant. In the E.Coli, just because some E.Coli can now consume citrate and others still can't does not mean the ones that now can are no longer E.Coli! We as humans can build up tolerance, produce new digestive enzymes and well as new immunity by complement binding to antibodies. All these things have Nothing to do with becoming another specie in doing such things! These things are merely adaptation!!!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
More specifically, with regards to the E. coli that can digest citrate -- this adaptation requires only a few specific mutations. However, highly specified biochemical systems -- like the flagellum -- require many specific mutations. This is what makes it unlikely for the flagellum to evolve, and what makes it reasonable for the ability to digest citrate to evolve.
FirstFreedomFighter 1 year ago
(cont) you'd end up with a result similar to the domesticated silver fox results. However, this would take decades of careful breeding. One or two generation is nothing. Again, learn what you are trying to disprove because your example only makes you look like a hillbilly.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas I believe it was Darwin himself who said in order for his theory of evolution to work there must be simplicity at the micro scale. Otherwise it would show some sort of programming thus a consciousness or prior intent as Hitler explains in this video. Evolution needs some sort of catalyst besides time. Using time as the reason is truly speculative seeing we cannot live millions of years to test the hypothesis. If we go by fossil evidence they say the opposite. Life sprung up suddenly.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Even if Darwin did say that (he didn't) it wouldn't make it so. No one denies life is complex. You don't need to live millions of years to know what happened over millions of years. Events in the past leave evidence in the present. To deny that is wilful ignorance. It's far better to accept an idea on scarce evidence than no evidence at all (faith). The Cambrian explosion is neither sudden nor representative of all life. You won't find a Cambrian amphibian.
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@GateMessenger
Actually, the "catalyst" is simply the changing ecosystem. And sorry to say this, but life began even before the oldest prokaryotes fossils found. And one do not need to witness millions of years when experiments uses quickly reproducing species as in Lenski's experiments.
Also, might I suggest reading about Julius Rebek's autocatalyst self replicating molecule experiment?
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
A catalyst that is an outside force like a "changing ecosystem" is no answer for the what the mechanism with-in the DNA would need to be for such changes. Again, all you are doing is speculating. In regard to Richard Lenski's experiments; mutation without any new anatomy for E. coli is still Variation and not Speciation. The E. coli always remains E. coli! Julius Rebek devised synthetic, self-replicating molecules; how is this an augment for evolution and against Intelligent Design?
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
Actually, the ara-3 population displayed mutations and increase information which makes it something which is not E.Coli anymore. Sorry Will, but again, read about the experiments.
And actually, yes, a change in the ecosystem would exert pressure on the population and, via natural selection, traits that helps them to survive would be passed on the population.
And Rebek's experiment is one of the numerous hints toward the RNA world since RNA can be it's own autocatalyst.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharka
What anatomical changes do you claim happen to the E.Coli that made it no longer E.Coli?
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
The incapacity to consume citrate is a trait of E.Coli. The ara-3 population has, with a combination of two mutations which spread through the population which allowed it to consume citrate. As such, it is not E.Coli anymore.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas
So, are you claiming adaption within a species without any new morphological anatomy to that species is proof or evidence that new morphological anatomy can occur? You are still speculating that one leads to other other... E.Coli being able to now consume citrate is simply adaption and in no way proof of Speciation! Are you getting all this???
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
You do know that Hitler was a christian, right?
voiceoftruth2006 1 year ago
@voiceoftruth2006
Wow, that is like saying that Timothy Mcveigh was an American Patriot because he called himself one, pure ignorance on your part!
What makes a person a Christian is not them calling themselves one no more than being a doctor is not by simply referring to yourself as one. There is Christian doctrine in which one must live by which includes the love taught by Jesus Christ. Hitler was very similar to what the Anti-Christ will be and the Anti-Christ will claim to be Christ...
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN
The christians killed more people than Hitler with the Inquisition among plenty of methods, they also supported slavery, according to that bible book we all have to right to kill rape etc our enemies and their families.
FallenPaladin85 1 year ago
@FallenPaladin85
The Inquisition was un-Godly and unchristian! Christianity is the faith and teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no Bible verse that promotes Slavery! Slavery in the Bible was in many cases not forced bondage cases but people working off their dept, I will call this sample "A". In other cases God's people (the Hebrews) were the slaves in bondage, this I will call Sample "B".
Show me a verse that is not a sample of A or B? Read the Bible and learn reading comprehension!!!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN So you deny the existence of Leviticus 25:44-46? You know, the bit specifying that foreigners held as slaves were chattel property?
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Alien residents, not having any land inheritance, might be merchants or hired laborers. There was a possibility of their becoming wealthy. (Le 25:47; De 28:43) Generally, however, the Law classified them as among the poor and outlined arrangements for protecting and providing for them!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
You state; "Atheists say there's no objective moral law- how is that a problem? Reason gives"
Reason is not objective nor is empathy.
So even to throw babies into a fire to reduce overpopulation and stay warm can be only "subjectively" wrong? Yes or no?
The problem is, is that your world-view is not a denial of God, it is the denial of humanity!
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Burning babies is also subjectively wrong. If someone had no emotional attachment to babies, was indifferent to the great pain burning gives and thought taking 9 months to produce an hours worth of fuel was efficient they would probably burn babies. Those people are called psychopaths, our REASON tells us they're dangerous and should be treated appropriately. Most people don't think like that.
I've never heard an atheist deny humanity. Do you think atheists are psychopaths?
Impaler1815 1 year ago
@Impaler1815
Burning babies is not subjectively wrong, it is objectively 100% wrong. You have the freedom to deny God but you have no such freedom to deny humanity itself. In your would-view a "psychopath" is no less than a free-thinker. I am not sure why you can see all this....
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I just gave you an example of a way a person could subjectively view burning babies as right, but thankfully sane people can use reason to decide those people are dangerous, and burning babies is wrong. Are you trying to say you need a religious text to tell us not to do that?
A psychopath is mentally ill, someone with the emotional detachment to burn a baby is hardly thinking freely.
Again, since when do atheists deny humanity?
Impaler1815 1 year ago
What a drawn out piece of writing. Let me give you a summary without the crack induced ramblings:
Atheists think everything was created by chance- wrong, we don't think that at all.
Atheists say there's no objective moral law- how is that a problem? Reason gives you guidance on treating others well.
Bible quote saying everyone who disagrees with the Bible are wrong- in other words "the Bible's right because it says it's right". Not very logical, Jim.
Impaler1815 1 year ago
Thanks for the video!
ChristiansofAsia 1 year ago
All Atheists,
Please read the info section and letter to you before responding...
Wg
WILLTHEWGMAN 1 year ago