Has nature ever created a code?

1352 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
J N Vanderbilt III"

J N Vanderbilt III" Scientific literature does not apply any further than the random mutation effects for this particular discussion"

Please cite a peer reviewed scientific paper that falsifies the scientific fact of species evolution. Otherwise your duplicitous creatard verbiage is always going to bead up and roll off, just like Breezy's.

I see you're still ignoring my requests for evidence and explanations of how your deity used magic to create humans from clay, along with magic apples and talking snakes. Do you think we won't notice this dishonest evasion?

Oh dear...

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
I also understand that to get

I also understand that to get 2 eyespots, replete w all the likeness of its camouflage counterpart including perfect alignment of the iris in the correct color, w perfect proportion to the rest of the eye, in the creature, most beneficial to looking like, an owl, the creature that scares off the moths predators is an absolute stretch of belief to a sound mind. But if you’re an evolutionist you can look the other way

Sheldon's picture
Science doesn't "look the

Science doesn't "look the other way" that's a preposterously stupid lie. I have no idea what you mean by "evolutionist" either. The pinnacle of scientific endeavour is to create an accepted scientific theory, the scientifoc method is the same for validating all scientific theories. It's risible to delude yourself a global scientific concensus is ever reached by "looking the other way", or without sufficient objective evidence.

A large clue for any remotely open minded person would be the sole demographic who object to this scientific fact are creationists, and the only reject scientific facts and evidence when it runs contrary to their religious beliefs.

You have also ignored every request to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for your creationist myth with its talking snakes and magic apples. So you claiming evolution stretches your imagination is pretty fucking hilarious I must say.

Another belly laugh provided by creationism.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Old man that vid was too

Old man that vid was too complex, I gave up on it

Sheldon's picture
"Old man that vid was too

"Old man that vid was too complex, I gave up on it"

Quelle surprise...

creatard finds facts unsettling non-shocker.

Nevertheless species evolution remains an accepted scientific theory that explains a scientifically accepted fact, just like relativity, gravity, germ theory et al.

It's as if there is a single objective standard....

PMLMAO

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JNV3

@ JNV3
It figures.

Old man that vid was too complex, I gave up on it

The Khan videos are aimed specifically at junior high school students.

Unsurprising.

arakish's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: "My

J N Vanderbilt III: "My questions are clear, and simple, if you are unwilling to take a stab at them, so be it."

Another theist tactic. Change the subject and shift the burden of proof.

You came here making a claim. We not only debunked it, but completely demolished it.

Please provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back up your claim.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.

rmfr

Randomhero1982's picture
Old man that vid was too

Old man that vid was too complex, I gave up on it

And there we have it, dumb shit 101.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Yeah, I need a simpler video,

Yeah, I need a simpler video, can you point me to one that even I could understand? I’m not too bright as you know.

However I can grasp that to get 2 eyespots, replete w all the likeness of its camouflage counterpart including perfect alignment of the iris in the correct color, w perfect proportion to the rest of the eye, in the creature, most beneficial to looking like, an owl, the creature that scares off the moths predators is an absolute stretch of belief to a sound mind. EXCEPT to an evolutionist.
PS, I like that the exact colors match that of an actual owl, Heh heh

Sheldon's picture
"I need a simpler video"

"I need a simpler video"

They don't come much simpler than this, just for you...

https://youtu.be/cRFarRkQl1w

arakish's picture
Good one Sheldon. I forgot

Good one Sheldon. I forgot about having seen that one before. Thanks for refresher.

rmfr

arakish's picture
J N Vanderbilt III: "Yeah, I

J N Vanderbilt III: "Yeah, I need a simpler video, can you point me to one that even I could understand? I’m not too bright as you know."

Well I'll be damned. He has finally spoken the truth. It is a miracle. We need a scientific investigation team.

rmfr

arakish's picture
J N Vanderbilt III:

J N Vanderbilt III: "including perfect alignment of the iris in the correct color, w perfect proportion to the rest of the eye"

Yet if you look REALLY close, you will they are not perfect. Just good enough.

rmfr

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
Good vid from the evotard

Good vid from the evotard religion, but it doesn’t answer how differing insects are winning the camouflage lottery repeatedly, replete w feature details that would make a sketch artist jealous.
So we have a moth looking like an owl, just the creature that probably offers it the best predator protection. Thank you lucky mutations!!!

Sheldon's picture
You don't need a video for

You don't need a video for that, random mutations over vast timescales means only the changes to camouflage best suited to its environment survives, as of course you have been told. No luck is required, which has also been explained. You are using the tried old creationist lie that changes must happen all at once to be of use, which of course is not true. A small advantage increases the likelihood the mutation will increase in any population, these changes are incremental and occur at the genetic level.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=camouflage+evolution+in+moths&hl=...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

Variation within genes leads to different genotypes, and this can be seen by a different phenotype. Genetic and environmental variation combine together to produce these different phenotypes. All variants arise from mutations and most have no effect on the phenotype.

A mutation is a change in a gene or chromosome. Mutations arise spontaneously and happen continually. A mutation rarely creates a new phenotype, but if the phenotype is suited to a particular environment, it can lead to rapid change in a species.

For example, if a mutation leads to a change, such as feather colouring in birds, this new change may allow those individuals to reproduce more frequently, due to them being more attractive and seen as a more desirable mate. This would result in this phenotype being passed on more successfully than the birds of the same species without the new phenotype.

Natural selection is a process where organisms that are better adapted to an environment will survive and have more offspring. This means their genes are passed on to the future generations. This process is fundamental to the process of evolution.

Survival of the fittest describes how natural selection works, by selecting the best examples of an organism to survive. For example, individuals that are best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and therefore reproduce. A famous example of this is the peppered moth.
-----------------------------------------------

Now are you ever going to explain how this deity you believe is real created humans instantly from clay, along with magic apples and talking snakes. I think we all know the answer to this one.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
You are aware that the

You are aware that the peppered moth theory has been debunked right? Read up on it.

But how is it that we have a moth that looks just like what it needs to look like, an owl? Not luck eh Sheldon?

Sheldon's picture
How did your fictional sky

How did your fictional sky fairy create a human instantly from clay? How did it create a talking snake, and magic apples?

That's the unevidenced fantasy, I already told you if you have a problem with the scientific fact of species evolution take it up with science. You can't even evidence your own superstition, let alone falsify a known scientific fact.

Sheldon's picture
J N Vanderbilt III "You are

J N Vanderbilt III "You are aware that the peppered moth theory has been debunked right?"

No it hasn't, this is another creationist lie. I suggest you read up on it, as new studies have been published on this as recently as 2012. Oh dear another creatard fail...

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-peppered-moths-an-example-for-evolution-fal...

"Changes in local populations of the peppered moth Biston betularia had been noticed as early as the 1890s in the UK.

Lying about B. betularia is a favored occupation of young Earth creationists. These lies take several forms, including claiming that there is no evolution since no new species has emerged, or claiming that the work done in the 1950s and through to about 1970 by Bernard Kettlewell had been faked.

He died in 1979, and the young Earth creationists have been lying about his work since the 1990s at least, which shows that they have no compunction about defaming the dead.

The usual claim by these creationist frauds is that some errors in his methods were deliberate fakery. In fact there were genuine objections to some of his methods. It is very easy for creationist frauds to seize on some reported error in such a study and represent it as a fake, accompanied by a suitable set of lies and false arguments tinged with paranoia.

In answer to these objections large scale experiments were done with the moths from about 2001 to 2008 by Prof. Michael Majerus. These results were published in 2012 after very careful scrutiny in the USA and the UK.

These showed without any doubt that Kettlewell’s general conclusions had been correct."

The problem is you are so gullible that you will swallow any lie creatards spew out. Not that it matters, Species evolution remains a scientific fact, and creationism remains an unevidenced superstitious bronze age myth. No matter how many creationist lies you parrot.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JNV3

@ JNV3

You are aware that the peppered moth theory has been debunked right? Read up on it.

No, it has not. In fact the findings have been reinforced by a later study. Read up on it.

Once again you lie. Just another to add to the lengthening list.

arakish's picture
@ J N Vanderbilt III

@ J N Vanderbilt III

Why are you so afraid to research our assertions and prove us wrong?

We have researched your assertions and proven them to be wrong.

rmfr

rat spit's picture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ RatSpit

@ RatSpit

Anything higher than grade school (Primary) Level seems to be too hard for JNV3....Perhaps you could get the Overlord to speak at him....

rat spit's picture
@ Old Man Shouts ...

@ Old Man Shouts ...

He’s a busy Deity - but I’ll see if I can set up JNV3 with “An Introduction to Hell” beginners course. See if that doesn’t set him straight.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Seeing as JNV3 refuses to

Seeing as JNV3 refuses to answer a single question, I put this to any theist or ID proponent.

Describe your god and the mechanics and/or mechanism for creating any change in even one individual creature.

What is the probability of this occurring?

arakish's picture
TheBlindWatchmaker: "What is

TheBlindWatchmaker: "What is the probability of this occurring?"

I'd say about a -3 on a scale of 1 to 10.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
@ J N Vanderbilt III

@ J N Vanderbilt III

Why has species evolution been an accepted scientific fact for over 160+ years? No less than all other accepted scientific theories, like relativity, germ, gravity or probability theories?

If there were any valid scientific objections they'd have been peer reviewed and published and evolution falsified. So why hasn't this happened?

Do you accept the scientific age of the universe as 13.772 billion years? You've has enough time to check that this is a scientifically accepted fact by now.

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
“I already told you if you

“I already told you if you have a problem with the scientific fact of species evolution take it up with science”

I’m taking it up w you, I want to know your opinion. You think that a moth can end up looking just like a creature that it needs to look like, an owl? No problem stretching credibility to the point of nonsense? You evotards see no problem here?

Sheldon's picture
Species evolution is a

Species evolution is a scientific fact, and personal opinion won't change this. However my opinion has remained the same, you ought to learn some basic facts about it before entering into these asinine lies about how evolution functions, as you;re just making yourself look foolish.

Now how did your deity Zap a human into existence using magic and clay? You keep avoiding this question, why is that?

J N Vanderbilt III's picture
You keep invoking “science “

You keep invoking “science “ like it’s going to save you and your ridiculous notion that a moth can end up looking just like a creature that it needs to look like, an owl.
Really now, you’re defending this nonsense?

Sheldon's picture
You're the one bringing

You're the one bringing science up not me, by your risible denials of a scientific fact that you haven't even a basic understanding of.

Now how did your deity magic a talking snake into existence?

Why has evolution remained an accepted scientific fact for over 160 years supported by all the scientific evidence?

You can't deny what science accepts as fact, then go to cry when people point out it remains a scientific fact after over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny.

Why does the RCC accept it as a fact? They have virtually limitless resources to challenge it and find evidence that falsifies it after all?

Why hasn't the Templeton foundation funded Breezy's crackpot objections and got them peer reviewed and published, thus falsifying evolution?

Come to that why does evolution bother you so much? Is it because you have no evidence for creationism?

It must be sad to be so scared that you live your life denying facts you are scared might be true, because they challenge your worldview.

I could never live my life that closed minded. If science falsified evolution tomorrow I'd accept that evidence as I do all scientifically validated research.

Tell me, why have creationists in the states dishonestly tried to rebrand their movement as intelligent design? Is it to distancece themelves from all their failures in challenging the scientific fact of evolution over the last century and a half?

They've even created risible pseudoscientific "museums" where they shamefully teach children nonsense about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans. They even tried to create their own "scientific" journals because no credible peer reviewed journal will publish the fantasies or myths about magic apples and talking snakes that make up the nonsense of creationism.

That's pretty sad, to be that blinkered and dishonest. I feel sorry for children, like you, who have had their education ruined and been so indoctrinated. It's criminal really. You ought to sue...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.