Problem solved!: CrEvo rant #35 with Wazooloo

http://wazooloo.com
http://ianjuby.org
In this rant, Ian deals with the idea that errors can accumulate information in the DNA over time. Duplications of DNA cannot be the driving force behind an alleged increase in information.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• ian
• juby
• crevo
• rant
• creation
• evolution
• intelligent
• design
• DNA
• information
• 777quip
• Creationism
• Intelligent Design
• Darwin
• Charles Darwin
• funny
• Wazooloo

[Aleksamson]

Great. So now that Obama IS born in USA - that mean evolution is also true

[TheScienceFoundation]

@BenWalburn You might consider discussions like these more worth your time if you would actually realize that you have no idea what you're talking about. Then maybe you could learn something instead of regurgitating the same nonsense you've been fed by people like Ian who are no more scientifically literate than yourself.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@BenWalburn That coming from the person that compared me to a groundworm, we can add hypocrisy. Ad hominem would imply you've offered any argumentation that would have been dismissed in order to employ a personal attack. Either way I've done nothing but attempt to help you understand that your inability to comprehend basic genetics is not an actual argument. No signs of bottlenecks means no bottlenecks, I always thought even creationists could grasp that one.

[BenWalburn]

@TheScienceFoundation Alright, you have reduced yourself to ad hominem. Insulting is the last resort, so I assume you're out of your half-thoughts and repetitive baseless assertions, so I'm done. Goodnight. I wish you were worth my time.

Goodnight, PsuedoScienceFoundation

[TheScienceFoundation]

@BenWalburn No, creation is the assertion, just saying 'we were created' is not sufficient evidence.

No, this video was rebutted in my video. You're going to need to realize ignorance doesn't make the refutation of Ian's garbage go away.

Evolution is non-random. Beneficial traits move through the populations at a higher frequency. No, there was never just one male and one female, I already pointed out that entire populations evolve.

No, we're not. Our variability is fine.

[BenWalburn]

@TheScienceFoundation Again, you're missing the point. Creation IS the known mechanism. "With justification at all"? I'll ignore that gibberish.

Your video was rebutted by this video, so you're going to need a new one.

Populations evolve randomly. One would get the mutation while many won't. eventually there would be a single male/female and there starts the bottleneck. And it just gets worse and more obvious from there.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That is where we are at today

[TheScienceFoundation]

@BenWalburn I've already destroyed every bit of garbage you've brought up. You're suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger here. Your overconfidence is definitely disproportional to your competence. Your only technique thus far has been to ignore the most basic concepts of genetics, etc. and pretend like they don't exist. Facts don't disappear just because they utterly refute you bronze age mysticism.

If you were capable of thought, you wouldn't argue what you've argued.

[BenWalburn]

@TheScienceFoundation Now do you have anything remotely intelligent or thought provoking? If I wanted to argue with a groundworm, I'd dig one up and not waste my precious time on the internet to argue with one online.

So, if you have nothing interesting to say, I guess I'm done. You are boring, all you do is contradict me and yourself. You make baseless assertions and baseless assertions to back up those assertions. You are the least thought provoking atheist I've ever met.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@BenWalburn Horribly erroneous analogy, cars are produced through known mechanism, welding, riveting etc. You're just asserting that life was designed with justification at all. Again, I linked to a video, with numerous sources, explaining how information is added genetically in the reply to this video.

No, you won't because populations evolve not individuals.

Yes and if only the descendants of those two animals were allowed to breed with one another, variability would vanish.

[BenWalburn]

@TheScienceFoundation There's no mechanism? How do you figure that? If I design two cars, they will have a similar design. That is a mechanism. And if you disagree and require a mechanism, then where is the mechanism for adding information?

You're missing the point entirely. At some point, you will have a male/female setup that will be a bottleneck.

How does that make it impossible? take two of any animals and put them in a cage together and you get a bottleneck.