Thread: Like arguing in Evolution debates?
i don't enjoy it because it's so full of straw man arguments.
The fact is, evolution requres an increase in genetic information. There is no example in existance of genetic information EVER increasing.
End of all arguments.
You might as well argue with someone over why they say the sky is green. i don't care how many arguments they put up, it's a waste of precious time when all of science disproves it.
49 comments
1.) Irony
2.) In japanese, the word they use for the color of the sky (Aoi) can be "blue", but can also mean what we consider "green" in some cases. For instance, the word "Aoi" is also used to describe the color of the sea, the "green" traffic light, and grass.
Thread: Like arguing in Evolution debates?
Indeed, it is. Unfortunately for you, said arguments aren't made from the Evolution side of the stage.
The fact is, evolution requres an increase in genetic information.
No it doesn't.
A simple organism like a Ebola is much more genetically complex than a human being.
There are plants that have more base pairs than humans do. But when shit comes from RR you know it's stinking before you get in range to smell their crap.
"The fact is, evolution requres an increase in genetic information"
Over 80 years in genetic experiments and study disagrees with you.
And that's not how you spell 'requires'.
Every species with a greater number of genes than the first gene-using lifeform is an example of genetic information increasing.
Your argument is so often been shown to be specious, I wonder if there are any examples of YOUR increasing in information.
Indeed, is full of strawman arguments.
Of course, the authors of those are creationists.
I don't like it because, frankly, neither of us are even qualified to 'debate' such an issue.
It's a bit like if I debated you about different kinds of jet turbines. You probably don't know jackshit about jet turbines, and I only know what I've learned from the Wikipedia, certainly not enough to run simulations or discuss fuel injection methods or whatever.
Genetic information capacity increases whenever a chromosome is mistakenly duplicated (the process is well understood).
Genetic information increases when, by either mutation or sexual recombination of genes, novel combinations of DNA sequences code for new functionality, whether intended or otherwise.
"i don't enjoy it because it's so full of straw man arguments."
It's not my fault that's the best you've got to argue with.
"The fact is, evolution requres an increase in genetic information. There is no example in existance of genetic information EVER increasing."
I've yet to have a creationist define "information" as they use it in any meaningful way. So, how about you give it a shot, Valerie?
"You might as well argue with someone over why they say the sky is green. i don't care how many arguments they put up, it's a waste of precious time when all of science disproves it."
Actually, green skies can occur during severe weather. It's a fairly well documented meteorological event so, no, "all of science" doesn't disprove it.
The fact is, evolution requires an increase in genetic information.
No it doesn't. Most of the genetic differences between life forms are at the phylum level. The phyla were established 600 million years ago. Since then, within phyla, most of the differences are in the expression of genes, not in the genes themselves. And the changes needed to alter the expression are remarkably small. The change of a single nucleotide can turn a gene on or off - no increase in information required.
The sky is obviously orange. Everyone knows that!
Seriously, though, big irony there. Do you even know what a Straw Man argument is?
This is the"Atheists nailed us with this years ago so we'll throw it back at them' defense. The "So are you" retort.
been seeing quite a lot of them trying to call atheist what they are. Self loathing maybe? wonder were they learnt that?
What I love is, "i don't enjoy it because it's so full of straw man arguments", and then she pulls a strawman out her ass to argue with. She is right though "it's a waste of precious time when all of science disproves it". So why doesn't she shut the hell up since science disproves everything she just said?
Hello Valerie my dear. I see that you've decided to use a clever, nuanced approach. Yes, you're right, sometimes a gentle-hand and a subtle touch can work wonders.
But, I must say, that's dashed spunky of you though to submit such an unarguable statement. Top hole ol' girl. Top hole. I'd like to see someone worm their way round that one all right.
"i don't enjoy it because it's so full of straw man arguments."
Very true. If you have a problem with it, stop dragging them into the fray.
"There is no example in existance of genetic information EVER increasing"
The fail. It has begun.
Wow. That just stands on its own. With all the scientists that work as hard as ever making life livable as we know it today, yet somehow they are wrong. Bravo Valerie. *clap clap clap* What you have just said proves you have ended all arguments. Why bother thinking, what does science know?
Just remember what science doesn't know when you type on your keyboard, talk on your cell phone, listen to your tunes, drive your car, don't starve, don't die of disease, in the event of catastrophe and the ambulance comes to save you remember how you spit in its face because you know so much more.
Down Syndrome is an example of increased information (21st chromosome).
Genetic information does not need to increase in order for change to occur. Genes that influence eye color underwent a mutation around 10,000 years ago and gave rise to blue eyes. No information was added, just changed.
In actuality, colors do not exist. The brain processes wave lengths of light: the sky translating and appearing blue, during the day, to humans. To a dog, the sky appears in shades of grey. It is entirely possible that a species exists that sees the sky as green.
"There is no example in existance of genetic information EVER increasing."
^^^---- LOSE! ----^^^
vvv---- WIN!! ----vvv
"A Retrotransposon-Mediated Gene Duplication Underlies Morphological Variation of Tomato Fruit" - Han Xiao, Ning Jiang, Erin Schaffner, Eric J. Stockinger, and Esther van der Knaap, Science 14 March 2008 319:1527-1530.
Well yeah, if you keep screaming about the sky being green, no argument we use will change your mind.
Actually with the sky, I'm going to assume you have some colour deficiency. Personally I can't see teal, it always looks either blue or green to me. There's other colours I have problems with too, that's why I never pick house paint.
Every Creationism v.s. Evolution Thread Ever:
Creationist: God did it.
'Evolutionist': Why is evidence of common ancestry so apparent then? Why can some animals of different species produce offspring? Why do endogenous retroviruses follow the hierarchy predicted by evolution? Why does no animal violate that hierarchy? Why is our DNA so similar to other apes? Why does one of our chromosomes look like two chimp chromosomes fused together (which coincides with the fact that we have one less pair of chromosomes than other apes)?
Creationist: Ummm, because God wanted it to be like that.
The "increase in genetic information" canard is part of the "irreducable Compexity" argument. Both ignore that evolution claims no plan but instead says (even in Darwins theory) that SOME had adaptions and passed those onto SOME offspring until SOME colonies had MOSTLY that advantatious aspect.
DIFFERENT, not increased, to suggest it's increased information is to suggest Fundies can define the perimiters of change or that they can at least admit to the extinct species.
There were creatures that lived 65 million years ago that have no direct lineage to today.
But I'm not gonna talking dinosaurs anymore Fundies, there's a long list of creatures from 12,000 years ago that are GONE but theres also a very long list of many just over the last 100 years.
Lot of it dying off, some entire species lines and a lot of slightly disadvantaged species. Evolution means change, not planned change, not superior change but change that worked with tons of change that failed behind it. This is what we see when you dig down to the old world.
Valerie, in your own words define "straw man", "evolution", "genetic information", and "fact". No cut-and-paste, please.
Now go and do penance for quoting someone who was just as stupid as you (Kent Hovind, perhaps?), and for blindly believing all that nonsense in the first place.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
