Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for Darwinism

[Bob Duncan]

Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
Darwinism
by David Coppedge

Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.

<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/gene-sharing-is-more-widespread-than-thought-with-implications-for-darwinism/>

--
God exists, uncreated and transcendental to space and time.
.

[Cloud Hobbit]

From your link: Figure 1 in this open-access paper shows nine photos of creatures where “gene flow” has been inferred. They include vastly different organisms, from bacteria to birds, fish, and mammals — including humans. The authors strive to maintain Darwinism in their explanation, but this realization undermines what previously was explained by convergence or by independent origins of traits:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So they learned something new. Good for them. It will be added to the store of knowledge we alreeady have and will probably help in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of waiting for a beneficial mutation to arise, gene flow can instead introduce variation that has been ‘pre-tested’ by selection, allowing species to evolve rapidly. For instance, alleles causing brown winter coat color in snowshoe hares (Figure 1E), early flowering time in sunflowers or serpentine soil tolerance in Arabidopsis have introgressed from closely related species, which has facilitated adaptation to new environments.

No matter how you try to spin it, they are still talking about evolution, unless you think that being "pretested by selection" means something else.

Abolish qualified immunity.

There no gods.

[Bob Duncan]

I'll only do this one time. Try keeping up.

Every scientist knows that micro-evolution happens. That was proved by
the Finch beaks on Galapagos Islands. But not every scientist believes
that macro-evolution happens. I'll leave it up to you to figure out
which one they're talking about.

HTH.

Don't bother me any more.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<bfaa3a02-c3cf-4f4f...@googlegroups.com>,

Cloud Hobbit <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Instead of waiting for a beneficial mutation to arise, gene flow can
> instead introduce variation that has been ‘pre-tested’ by selection,
> allowing species to evolve rapidly. For instance, alleles causing brown
> winter coat color in snowshoe hares (Figure 1E), early flowering time in
> sunflowers or serpentine soil tolerance in Arabidopsis have introgressed
> from closely related species, which has facilitated adaptation to new
> environments.

Darwin didn't need mutations or DNA. He assumed inheritted
descriptions of what we become and that variations occur.

Then he proposed that by mechanical means favourable
variations tend to become dominant and unfavourable
tend to disappear.

I don't really understand biochemistry but the glimpses
I get boggle my brain. It's hard for me to believe this
can all happen randomly. Then again reality is not
constrained by what I can believe.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/22/2022 1:31 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <bfaa3a02-c3cf-4f4f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Cloud Hobbit <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Instead of waiting for a beneficial mutation to arise, gene flow can

>> instead introduce variation that has been ‘pre-tested’ by selection,

>> allowing species to evolve rapidly. For instance, alleles causing brown
>> winter coat color in snowshoe hares (Figure 1E), early flowering time in
>> sunflowers or serpentine soil tolerance in Arabidopsis have introgressed
>> from closely related species, which has facilitated adaptation to new
>> environments.
>
> Darwin didn't need mutations or DNA. He assumed inheritted
> descriptions of what we become and that variations occur.
>
> Then he proposed that by mechanical means favourable
> variations tend to become dominant and unfavourable
> tend to disappear.
>
> I don't really understand biochemistry but the glimpses
> I get boggle my brain. It's hard for me to believe this
> can all happen randomly. Then again reality is not
> constrained by what I can believe.

Not even what you believe through common sense?

I believe that God gave us common sense so that we could figure
out a few things for ourselves, so we wouldn't need a book or a
professor.

I could be wrong. But common sense tells me I'm not.

[aaa]

On 2022-09-22 01:31, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <bfaa3a02-c3cf-4f4f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Cloud Hobbit <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Instead of waiting for a beneficial mutation to arise, gene flow can
>> instead introduce variation that has been ‘pre-tested’ by selection,
>> allowing species to evolve rapidly. For instance, alleles causing brown
>> winter coat color in snowshoe hares (Figure 1E), early flowering time in
>> sunflowers or serpentine soil tolerance in Arabidopsis have introgressed
>> from closely related species, which has facilitated adaptation to new
>> environments.
>
> Darwin didn't need mutations or DNA. He assumed inheritted
> descriptions of what we become and that variations occur.
>
> Then he proposed that by mechanical means favourable
> variations tend to become dominant and unfavourable
> tend to disappear.

The word favourable is by definition a scientific bias. There is no
favor in the study of science. Favor or grace is only found in philosophy.

>
> I don't really understand biochemistry but the glimpses
> I get boggle my brain. It's hard for me to believe this
> can all happen randomly. Then again reality is not
> constrained by what I can believe.
>


--

God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!

[Ted]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:47:40 -0400, Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Stupid assholes like you don't have any common sense, moron.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <almarsoft.2350...@news.easynews.com>,

Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Stupid assholes like you don't have any common sense, moron.

My education is mathematics. Common sense will always lead you
wrong in mathematics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA
The Banach­Tarski Paradox

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/25/2022 8:54 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.2350...@news.easynews.com>,
> Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stupid assholes like you don't have any common sense, moron.
>
> My education is mathematics. Common sense will always lead you
> wrong in mathematics.

And that's just your unsubstantiated opinion.

What else is new?

[Ted]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 17:54:42 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.2350...@news.easynews.com>,
> Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > Stupid assholes like you don't have any common sense, moron.


> My education is mathematics. Common sense will always lead you
> wrong in mathematics.


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86-Z-CbaHA
> The Banach�Tarski Paradox

Thanks Siri.

[Ted]

DNA that effectively duplicates itself tend to outcompete those that
don't. I'm sure that's what she meant.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <almarsoft.4507...@news.easynews.com>,

Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The word favourable is by definition a scientific bias. There is no
> > favor in the study of science. Favor or
> > grace is only found in philosophy.
>
>
>
> DNA that effectively duplicates itself tend to outcompete those that
> don't. I'm sure that's what she meant.

Increases probability of survival long enough to reproduce.

[Ted]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:20:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.4507...@news.easynews.com>,
> Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > The word favourable is by definition a scientific bias. There
is no
> > > favor in the study of science. Favor or
> > > grace is only found in philosophy.
> >
> >
> >
> > DNA that effectively duplicates itself tend to outcompete those
that
> > don't. I'm sure that's what she meant.


> Increases probability of survival long
> enough to reproduce.

Ah yes. Thank you, Siri.

[Ted]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:33:02 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.2041...@news.easynews.com>,

> Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > > My education is mathematics. Common sense will always lead you
> > > > wrong in mathematics.
> >
> >
> > > And that's just your unsubstantiated
> > > opinion.
> >
> >

> > No it isn't, you stupid asshole. She cited a url
> > explaining it. Which you dishonestly deleted
> > from your reply. Because you're a fucking
> > liar.


> The video involves nondenumerable infinite sets (a larger
> infinity than the infinity of natural numbers). Such sets are
> notoriously non-intutitive. Or common insensible.


> So it is an example of rigorously logic which is difficult for
> anyone to understand, and people depending on common sense are
> not going to understand why some of the steps are described the
> way they are.


> The little I know of biochemistry is that common sense is that it
> cannot arise at random. I don't believe randomness can result in
> such an integrated success. I also don't have an alternate
> explanation. I don't demand reality honour
> my common sense.


You're a kewl lady, Siri, thanks.

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/26/2022 12:33 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

> Common sense will always lead you wrong in mathematics.

I can prove you are wrong.

I don't use anything other than common sense to know that
1 + 2 = 3. I'm holding up one finger on my left hand and two
fingers on my right hand. If I hold both hands together I see
three fingers. Nothing but common sense tells me that one
plus two equals three.

So your assertion above is a lie.

If you had left out the word "always" you would have been right.

See how that works?

[Frank Lee]

Bob Duncan <bob7d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/26/2022 12:33 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> > Common sense will always lead you wrong in mathematics.
>
>
> I can prove you are wrong.
>
> I don't use anything other than common sense to know that
> 1 + 2 = 3. I'm holding up one finger on my left hand and two
> fingers on my right hand. If I hold both hands together I see
> three fingers. Nothing but common sense tells me that one
> plus two equals three.

So counting on your fingers is your concept of
theoretical mathematics.

You didn't prove anything. It's pointless to explain to
you why that is.

[Frank Lee]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <almarsoft.2041...@news.easynews.com>,
> Ted <tedsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > My education is mathematics. Common sense will always lead you
> > > > wrong in mathematics.
> >
> >
> > > And that's just your unsubstantiated
> > > opinion.
> >
> >

> > No it isn't, you stupid asshole. She cited a url
> > explaining it. Which you dishonestly deleted
> > from your reply. Because you're a fucking
> > liar.
>
> The video involves nondenumerable infinite sets (a larger
> infinity than the infinity of natural numbers). Such sets are
> notoriously non-intutitive. Or common insensible.
>
> So it is an example of rigorously logic which is difficult for
> anyone to understand, and people depending on common sense are
> not going to understand why some of the steps are described the
> way they are.
>
> The little I know of biochemistry is that common sense is that it
> cannot arise at random. I don't believe randomness can result in
> such an integrated success. I also don't have an alternate
> explanation. I don't demand reality honour my common sense.

The classic example of the failure of "common sense" is
quantum mechanics. This very newsgroup has people who
deny the facts because they don't fit their rules.

[aaa]

That is only the evidence of intelligent design other than the aimless
random chance that is physically impossible to establish a new DNA
structure under the second law of thermodynamics in this universe.

Favor only belongs to the intelligence which is again a study of
philosophy. When talking about life, it's all philosophy. This is why
the evolutionary science should shut the fuck up already. Failing to do
so is only the evidence of ignorant arrogance.

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/27/2022 7:35 AM, Attila wrote:

> Common sense says gods make it rain so they require sacrifices.
> Common sense says the Earth is flat.
> Common sense says the Earth is the center of the universe.
> Common sense says a witch made me sick.
> Common sense says the Sun goes around the Earth.
> Common sense says gods run everything.


Yours might, but not mine.

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/27/2022 9:33 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 07:44:57 -0400, Bob Duncan
> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tgunnp$1tpa$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/2022 7:35 AM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> Common sense says gods make it rain so they require sacrifices.
>>> Common sense says the Earth is flat.
>>> Common sense says the Earth is the center of the universe.
>>> Common sense says a witch made me sick.
>>> Common sense says the Sun goes around the Earth.
>>> Common sense says gods run everything.
>>
>>
>> Yours might, but not mine.
>

> Based upon the comment you carefully removed I would surmise
> you find just about anything acceptable as "common sense".


That's just another one of your unsubstantiated opinions, that you
cannot prove, i.e. just another one of your lies.

Thanks for once again proving you're a totally depraved liar.

<smirk>

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/27/2022 1:06 PM, Attila wrote:

> There is nothing there to "prove".

Nor is there anything to believe.
I believe it's just your way of getting attention.

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/27/2022 4:42 PM, Attila wrote:

> Belief is irrelevant. If I wanted attention I would post a
> lot more.


You're a liar. I don't believe you.

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/27/2022 8:50 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:55:59 -0400, Bob Duncan

> <bob7d...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> <tgvrhf$8ud$1...@gioia.aioe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/2022 4:42 PM, Attila wrote:
>>
>>> Belief is irrelevant. If I wanted attention I would post a
>>> lot more.
>>
>>
>> You're a liar. I don't believe you.
>

> OK.


Now you're agreeing you're a liar.
That's a step in the right direction.

[Bob Duncan]

On 9/28/2022 1:47 AM, Attila wrote:

> You don't believe me.


No. As usual, you took it out of context.

It's always for the last thing you've posted.

Try keeping up, and not taking everything out of context.

Only idiots do that sort of thing.

[tesla sTinker]

On 9/27/2022 2:55 PM, Bob Duncan scribbled:

> On 9/27/2022 4:42 PM, Attila wrote:
>
>> Belief is irrelevant. If I wanted attention I would post a
>> lot more.
>
>
> You're a liar. I don't believe you.
>

cannot expect more from an Attila, God kicked its ass once already.
huns my ass. this person is of the devil. I suggest you watch it, or
you will wind up thinking like he does.

Attila \"at-el-e, e-"til-e\, byname Flagellum Dei \fla-"jel-um-"da-'e\
(Latin: “Scourge of God”), also called Etzel \"et-sel\, Atli \"at-le\,
or Attila the Hun (d. 453) King of the Huns from 434 to 453 (ruling
jointly with his elder brother Bleda until 445). He was one of the
greatest of the barbarian rulers who assailed the Roman Empire, invading
the southern Balkan provinces and Greece and then Gaul and Italy. In
legend he appears under the name Etzel in the Nibelungenlied and under
the name Atli in the Icelanders’ sagas.

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All
rights reserved

A real fucking ass hole. Problem is, the Pope prayed to God, and the
son of bitch died. oops. End of story devil. But, he is of his
reincarnation now, in some stupid son of a bitch,....

[JWS]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 5:11:06 PM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
> Darwinism
> by David Coppedge
>
> Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
> horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
> neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
>
> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/gene-sharing-is-more-widespread-than-thought-with-implications-for-darwinism/>

Foreign genetic material infecting GOB's own
perfect genetic code? Say it isn't so!

[JWS]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 9:05:59 PM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
> On 9/20/2022 9:11 PM, Cloud Hobbit wrote:

> > On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
> >> Darwinism
> >> by David Coppedge
> >>
> >> Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
> >> horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
> >> neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
> >>
> >> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/gene-sharing-is-more-widespread-than-thought-with-implications-for-darwinism/>
> >>

> >> --
> >> God exists, uncreated and transcendental to space and time.
> >> .

> > From your link: Figure 1 in this open-access paper shows nine photos of creatures where “gene flow” has been inferred. They include vastly different organisms, from bacteria to birds, fish, and mammals — including humans. The authors strive to maintain Darwinism in their explanation, but this realization undermines what previously was explained by convergence or by independent origins of traits:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > So they learned something new. Good for them. It will be added to the store of knowledge we alreeady have and will probably help in the future.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Instead of waiting for a beneficial mutation to arise, gene flow can instead introduce variation that has been ‘pre-tested’ by selection, allowing species to evolve rapidly. For instance, alleles causing brown winter coat color in snowshoe hares (Figure 1E), early flowering time in sunflowers or serpentine soil tolerance in Arabidopsis have introgressed from closely related species, which has facilitated adaptation to new environments.
> >

> > No matter how you try to spin it, they are still talking about evolution, unless you think that being "pretested by selection" means something else.
> I'll only do this one time. Try keeping up.
>
> Every scientist knows that micro-evolution happens. That was proved by
> the Finch beaks on Galapagos Islands. But not every scientist believes
> that macro-evolution happens. I'll leave it up to you to figure out
> which one they're talking about.
So now you are admitting to the viral
genetic codes in the human genome?

And also, describe the functional differences
between micro and macro evolution.

[Oko Tillo]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
> Darwinism
> by David Coppedge

//

> Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
> horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
> neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.

Late breaking news ... which I read about in New Scientist fourteen years ago.


Sri

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:59:26 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
> > Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
> > Darwinism
> > by David Coppedge
> //

//

> > Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
> > horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
> > neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.

> Late breaking news ... which I read about in New Scientist fourteen years ago.

This issue:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life/

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:59:24 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo
<f.spl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
>> Darwinism
>> by David Coppedge
>
>//
>
>
>> Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
>> horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
>> neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
>
>Late breaking news ... which I read about in New Scientist fourteen years ago.

...and how does it affect Darwinism, which was the label given to
Darwin's explanation in 1859, long before genes were discovered>
Natural selection still applies, even to gene transfer.

It's one of the many discoveries since then, which have been
incorporated into the modern synthesis.

[John Baker]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:48:34 -0800 (PST), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 5:11:06 PM UTC-5, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
>> Darwinism
>> by David Coppedge
>>
>> Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
>> horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
>> neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.

Yes it does, Boob, but you have no idea what those implications might
be, nor would you understand them if you did. Let's just suffice it to
say they don't support creationism.

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:b17cb0cd-dba2-441b...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:59:26 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> > Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
>> > Darwinism
>> > by David Coppedge
>

>> > Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
>> > horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
>> > neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
>
>> Late breaking news ... which I read about in New Scientist fourteen years ago.
>
> This issue:
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life/

Although you talk about the role of genetic information
in the context of evolution, you won't consider its prime
origin.

Why?

We know why.

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:b17cb0cd-dba2-441b...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:59:26 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
> >> > Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
> >> > Darwinism
> >> > by David Coppedge
> >
> >> > Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
> >> > horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
> >> > neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
> >

//

> >> Late breaking news ... which I read about in New Scientist fourteen years ago.
> >
> > This issue:
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life/

> Although you talk about the role of genetic information
> in the context of evolution, you won't consider its prime
> origin.

> Why?

Wrongo, liar boi.

I've considered the scientific explanation, worked out by countless
biologists, both theoretical and empirical.

And then I've heard your "explanation", in the mythology which was, um, evolved by
a nomadic tribe of Late Iron Age pastoralists.

I didn't see a whole lot about genes in it.

But hey -- I did see an "experiment" in selective breeding. In Genesis 30.

Straight Lamarckian pseudoscience -- Lysenko would have been proud.


> We know why.

No, ~now~ you know why



Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:d5c4009b-c664-4614...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Oko Tillo" wrote:
>> > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 11:59:26 AM UTC-7, Oko Tillo wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
>> >> > Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
>> >> > Darwinism
>> >> > by David Coppedge
>> >
>> >> > Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
>> >> > horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
>> >> > neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
>> >

>> >> Late breaking news ... which I read about in New Scientist fourteen years ago.
>> >
>> > This issue:
>> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life/
>
>> Although you talk about the role of genetic information
>> in the context of evolution, you won't consider its prime
>> origin.
>
>> Why?
>

> I've considered the scientific explanation, worked out by countless
> biologists, both theoretical and empirical.

Then cite the origin of the *code* that would
be necessary for a living thing to be alive...by
a 'naturalistic process'; without using fantasy.

If you cannot, then we know why.

> And then I've heard your "explanation", in the mythology which was, um, evolved by
> a nomadic tribe of Late Iron Age pastoralists.

You say ~ "my explanation"?

That is a lie. Evidence you are - a liar.

> I didn't see a whole lot about genes in it.

That was not "my explanation". You lied.

> But hey -- I did see an "experiment" in selective breeding. In Genesis 30.

You are obfuscating because you
cannot answer the above question.

You obfuscate and throw dust
in the air. A clear sign that you
cannot answer, yet foolishly try
to argue > against the truth.

> Straight Lamarckian pseudoscience -- Lysenko would have been proud.

More dust.

>> We know why.
>
> No, ~now~ you know why

Just answer my question.

Here it is again.

"Although you talk about the role of genetic information
in the context of evolution, you won't consider its prime
origin. Why?"

We know why.

[Oko Tillo]

//

> You obfuscate and throw dust
> in the air. A clear sign that you
> cannot answer, yet foolishly try
> to argue against the truth.

That would be your version of the "truth".
And you're well know for your careless disregard for it

> > Straight Lamarckian pseudoscience -- Lysenko would have been proud.

Andrew Scissorhands strikes again: cutting out my pointing
out how bogus the "genetics" in Genesis 30 is.

Can't say that I blame you -- if you believe that that was
the inspired word of your God, then it's pretty damn embarrassing.

I myself don't find it to be risible -- all cultures have their
pre-scientific mythology; this is just one more example.

> More dust.
> >> We know why.

> > No, ~now~ you know why
> Just answer my question.

Already did, five months ago: genes arose in the pre-DNA world
to catalyze the reactions in the Krebs Cycle.
Remember?


Oh, and if you now chant your Magic World of Warding, "fantasy",
I'll simply point out that if it's a question of your neigh comprehensive
ignorance of science versus this guy:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=nick+lane&btnG=

then guess who any sane person would choose.

> Here it is again.
> "Although you talk about the role of genetic information
> in the context of evolution, you won't consider its prime
> origin. Why?"

See above.

Sri




> We know why.

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:925fd08e-4058-4c77...@googlegroups.com...

> Andrew wrote:

< > Just answer my question.
>
> Already did, five months ago:
>
> genes arose in the pre-DNA world

Yes, thanks for your answer. They "arose" in
your fantasy, in the realm of Fantasy...that is
inhabited by fools.

[Oko Tillo]

Once again Andrew Scissorhands snips out that which he cannot
respond to -- which was virtually all of my post.
What a surprise.

Short version: Andrew asked, I responded, he tried to make
it disappear. Three year old, hand, cookie jar..

Come back when you:
1) quote my post in its entirety, and
2) can actually debate my points, keeping in mind that
2a) shrieking "fantasy" proves that I called and you folded.



Oh, and about that "fools"?
I guess we'll have to add Matthew 5:22 to our regular
citing of Revelation 21:8


Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:de6c6011-6603-4535...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Oko Tillo" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>>
>> < > Just answer my question.
>> >
>> > Already did, five months ago:
>> >
>> > genes arose in the pre-DNA world
>
>> Yes, thanks for your answer. They "arose" in
>> your fantasy, in the realm of Fantasy...that is
>> inhabited by fools.
>
> Once again Andrew Scissorhands snips out
> that which he cannot respond to -- which was
> virtually all of my post. What a surprise.

You plainly stated what your belief is.

"genes arose in the pre-DNA world"

But that is~your fantasy-not Science.

Thank you.

Furthermore, the issue has to do with
the "information" that is in the genes,
rather than the genes themselves.

But that would be no problem for you,
since you have the ability to fantasize.

[Oko Tillo]

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 9:29:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

You snip and snip and snip, so this time I snip.

Come back when you actually want to quote in full and respond to my
uneviscerated post.

Got it?

Good.

Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:05ba2c76-27b1-455b...@googlegroups.com...

> Andrew wrote:
>
> You snip and snip and snip, so this time I snip.

I snipped absolutely nothing in my last
reply. So your above statement is a lie.

And you 'run away' (trot trot) because
your mendacity > has been > exposed.

> Come back when you actually want
> to quote in full and respond to my
> uneviscerated post.
>
> Got it?

The problem here is that you accept
*fantasy* as an explanation - I do not.

Got it?

You plainly stated your fantasy belief.

""genes arose in the pre-DNA world""

But that is your fantasy - not Science.

I also told you that the issue has to do
with the "information" that is IN the

genes, rather than the genes themselves.

> Good.

Yes, come back when you have some
~real science~ to back up your claim.

Ya hear?

[Oko Tillo]

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/vnqxRsxJayw/m/jBcAkMbJAQAJ


Sri

[JWS]

On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 11:39:44 PM UTC-6, Andrew wrote:
> "Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:05ba2c76-27b1-455b...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> > You snip and snip and snip, so this time I snip.
> I snipped absolutely nothing in my last
> reply. So your above statement is a lie.
>
> And you 'run away' (trot trot) because
> your mendacity > has been > exposed.
> > Come back when you actually want
> > to quote in full and respond to my
> > uneviscerated post.
> >
> > Got it?
> The problem here is that you accept
> *fantasy* as an explanation - I do not.
>
> Got it?
>
> You plainly stated your fantasy belief.
> ""genes arose in the pre-DNA world""
> But that is your fantasy - not Science.
>
> I also told you that the issue has to do
> with the "information" that is IN the
> genes, rather than the genes themselves.

The information "in" the gene is the
triplet codons of three nucleotides each.
Right?

[Oko Tillo]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 12:53:08 PM UTC-7, JWS wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 11:39:44 PM UTC-6, Andrew wrote:
> > "Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:05ba2c76-27b1-455b...@googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > >
> > > You snip and snip and snip, so this time I snip.
> > I snipped absolutely nothing in my last
> > reply. So your above statement is a lie.
> >
> > And you 'run away' (trot trot) because
> > your mendacity > has been > exposed.
> > > Come back when you actually want
> > > to quote in full and respond to my
> > > uneviscerated post.
> > >
> > > Got it?
> > The problem here is that you accept
> > *fantasy* as an explanation - I do not.
> >
> > Got it?
> >
> > You plainly stated your fantasy belief.
> > ""genes arose in the pre-DNA world""
> > But that is your fantasy - not Science.
> >

//

> > I also told you that the issue has to do
> > with the "information" that is IN the
> > genes, rather than the genes themselves.

> The information "in" the gene is the
> triplet codons of three nucleotides each.
> Right?

It's a bizarre observation on his part.

The information in this post is in the words, not in the letters themselves.
Both trivially true and hardly worth pointing out.

I'm endlessly amused by Andrew's trying to argue science when
all you have to do is ask him some question about the actual details
of some bit of science and he flees.

For example I've asked him something along the lines
of which codon codes for leucine.

Or why the genetic code is what cryptographers label a degenerate code.

Or which amino acid the codons UAA and UAG code for (trick question)


Care to give those last three a shot, Andrew?



Sri

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:34b19f6a-bffe-4969...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Oko Tillo" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >
>> > You snip and snip and snip, so this time I snip.
>> I snipped absolutely nothing in my last
>> reply. So your above statement is a lie.
>>
>> And you 'run away' (trot trot) because
>> your mendacity > has been > exposed.
>> > Come back when you actually want
>> > to quote in full and respond to my
>> > uneviscerated post.
>> >
>> > Got it?
>> The problem here is that you accept
>> *fantasy* as an explanation - I do not.
>>
>> Got it?
>>
>> You plainly stated your fantasy belief.
>> ""genes arose in the pre-DNA world""
>> But that is your fantasy - not Science.
>>
>> I also told you that the issue has to do
>> with the "information" that is IN the
>> genes, rather than the genes themselves.
>
> The information "in" the gene is the
> triplet codons of three nucleotides each.
> Right?

DNA contains the code of life for all living things
in a ~ quaternary digital code ~ which is the format
of where genetic information is stored.

It is composed of FOUR building blocks known as
~~~~> "nucleotides" <~~~~.

The four nucleotides found in DNA are adenine
cytosine..guanine, and thymine, The genetie recipe
written in this code, determines our most precise
identity. It is a seemingly endless run-on sentence
of these four letters.

An estimated 6 to 7 billion nucleotide pairs make
up the genetic content of each diploid human cell.

For more information on how this code is used
by our most awesome and wonderful Creator to
synthesize all living things, please look up . . . . .

-----> "The Central Dogma of Biology" <-----

Here you will learn how this vital code in DNA
is used to make each specific protein for living
things.

No code - no life.

No Intelligent Agent - no code.

Who is this Intelligent Agent?

The One that only a complete
fool would say...

"There is no evidence for"

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:dv97tht67igphe4ua...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

> Which is a clear indication all living things are related
> and can be traced back to a single source.

It shows we have > the same Creator.

>>It is composed of FOUR building blocks known as
>> ~~~~> "nucleotides" <~~~~.
>>
>>The four nucleotides found in DNA are adenine
>>cytosine..guanine, and thymine, The genetie recipe
>>written in this code, determines our most precise
>>identity. It is a seemingly endless run-on sentence
>>of these four letters.
>>
>>An estimated 6 to 7 billion nucleotide pairs make
>>up the genetic content of each diploid human cell.
>>
>>For more information on how this code is used
>>by our most awesome and wonderful Creator to
>>synthesize all living things, please look up . . . . .
>
>>-----> "The Central Dogma of Biology" <-----
>

> No reason to think some creator was involved.

Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.

>>Here you will learn how this vital code in DNA
>>is used to make each specific protein for living
>>things.
>>
>>No code - no life.
>>
>>No Intelligent Agent - no code.
>>
>>Who is this Intelligent Agent?
>>
>>The One that only a complete
>>fool would say...
>>
>> "There is no evidence for"
>

> Oh? Do you have evidence" What is it?

See above.

[Oko Tillo]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:09:33 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "JWS" wrote in message news:34b19f6a-bffe-4969...@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Oko Tillo" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You snip and snip and snip, so this time I snip.
> >> I snipped absolutely nothing in my last
> >> reply. So your above statement is a lie.
> >>
> >> And you 'run away' (trot trot) because
> >> your mendacity > has been > exposed.
> >> > Come back when you actually want
> >> > to quote in full and respond to my
> >> > uneviscerated post.
> >> >
> >> > Got it?
> >> The problem here is that you accept
> >> *fantasy* as an explanation - I do not.
> >>
> >> Got it?
> >>
> >> You plainly stated your fantasy belief.
> >> ""genes arose in the pre-DNA world""
> >> But that is your fantasy - not Science.
> >>

> >> I also told you that the issue has to do
> >> with the "information" that is IN the
> >> genes, rather than the genes themselves.

//

> > The information "in" the gene is the
> > triplet codons of three nucleotides each.

> > Right?

> DNA contains the code of life for all living things
> in a ~ quaternary digital code ~ which is the format
> of where genetic information is stored.

That's nice. It's also not a response to his question about codons
(and he is of course correct)

> It is composed of FOUR building blocks known as
> ~~~~> "nucleotides" <~~~~.

You mean "nucleotides" as in his statement:

"The information "in" the gene is the

triplet codons of three nucleotides each."?
Are you even reading what you're responding to?

> The four nucleotides found in DNA are adenine
> cytosine..guanine, and thymine, The genetie recipe
> written in this code, determines our most precise

> identity. The information "in" the gene is the

> triplet codons of three nucleotides each.

It is a seemingly endless run-on sentence
of these four letters.

You know, I was positive that paragraph could not be due to Andrew
And it wasn't:
Lifted directly -- without attribution -- from
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape10/PQDD_0004/MQ44234.pdf

> An estimated 6 to 7 billion nucleotide pairs make
> up the genetic content of each diploid human cell.

> For more information on how this code is used
> by our most awesome and wonderful Creator to
> synthesize all living things, please look up . . . . .
>
> -----> "The Central Dogma of Biology" <-----

Please don't. Crick wrote that almost three quarters
of a century ago, when only the tiniest fraction of
the huge amount of knowledge about the mechanisms
of genetics we were to learn was available to him.

Also, it's flat out wrong: information can and does flow from
proteins to genes: epigenetics allows external events
to modify gene expression.

> Here you will learn how this vital code in DNA
> is used to make each specific protein for living
> things.
>
> No code - no life.
>
> No Intelligent Agent - no code.
>
> Who is this Intelligent Agent?
>
> The One that only a complete
> fool would say...
>
> "There is no evidence for"

That being the One who allows a whole panoply
of genetic diseases -- sickle cell anemia,
Huntingtons' chorea (alas, Woody Guthrie),
Down's Syndrome, Klinefelter's, on and on and on.
That One?

And if you try your totally unprovable and
non Scriptural claim that Adam and Eve's genetic
makeups were perfect, and all of the above was
due to the Fall, please tell us why your One couldn't
build in multiple failsafes against such disasters, and any
decent human engineer does on a routine basis.


Sri

.

[Oko Tillo]

//

> > No reason to think some creator was involved.

> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.

Speaking of codes, remember where I wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm endlessly amused by Andrew's trying to argue science when
all you have to do is ask him some question about the actual details
of some bit of science and he flees.

For example I've asked him something along the lines
of which codon codes for leucine.

Or why the genetic code is what cryptographers label a degenerate code.

Or which amino acid the codons UAA and UAG code for (trick question)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ready to give those a shot now, Andrew?



Sri

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:GaOAL.2882718$miq3....@fx02.ams4:

>
>
> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.

Who made the code maker?

[JWS]

Can you substantiate this claim?

> Who is this Intelligent Agent?

No one knows. Or at least, no
one will say. No one has ever
substantiated the identity of
an intelligent agent.

> The One that only a complete
> fool would say...
>
> "There is no evidence for"

I happen to know that the intelligent
designer is Ralph. Only Ralph can
make a tree. Only a fool would
reject Ralph. And there is plenty
of evidence. It's been presented
many times. Only a fool would
reject this evidence.

[Oko Tillo]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:09:33 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

//

> No Intelligent Agent - no code.

> Who is this Intelligent Agent?

> The One

...who not so intelligently created Lucifer, who would lead
countless multitudes into sin and damnation.

Not that One's best idea.


Sri

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF994F2B372CB...@69.80.101.58...

> "Andrew" wrote:
<>
>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>
>
> Who made the code maker?

Your question goes back to "first cause".

Which we may not understand.

Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.

A fact that only a fool would deny.

Because the evidence is in --> every living thing.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:CkUAL.2108541$odm4.1...@fx14.ams4:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF994F2B372CB...@69.80.101.58...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
> <>
>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>>
>>
>> Who made the code maker?
>
> Your question goes back to "first cause".

So does yours.

>
> Which we may not understand.

We understand it, you don't.

>
> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.

So who made the code maker?

>
> A fact that only a fool would deny.

You haven't posted any facts yet.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Andrew also seems entirely unaware of Copilot and ChatGPT which are
prime examples of "CODE" not coming from an intelligent code maker.

I'm willing to bet that he'll mumble something about the person who
created those systems in the first place.

If a software engineer created something as faulty as genetics is, I'd
fire them on the spot. And honestly, a being that would deliberately
create a system that produces malaria, the plague and Covid is beyond
psychopathic.

And yet, it's fairly trivial to do the math required for determining
that such things can evolve over time, let alone mutate in response to
environmental factors.

An inquiring mind isn't what Andrew demonstrates, though. He's locked
into a mental model of simplicity that stops at "The Creator", without
considering the absolute multitude of questions such a theoretical
entity poses.

--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the
universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case,
it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe
began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not
necessary."

Stephen Hawking

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF998168D10E1...@69.80.101.54...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> <>
>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>>>
>>> Who made the code maker?
>>
>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>
> So does yours.
>
>> Which we may not understand.
>
> We understand it, you don't.

If you do, then explain.

If you don't, then you lied.

>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.
>
> So who made the code maker?

That's what we're talking about.

>> A fact that only a fool would deny.
>
> You haven't posted any facts yet.

You must've been sleeping.

[Andrew]

"Dreamer In Colore" wrote in message news:et88th9lbmdre034r...@4ax.com...

> Oko Tillo wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:

>>> > No reason to think some creator was involved.
>>
>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE

>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER. <---******

>>
>>Speaking of codes, remember where I wrote:
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>I'm endlessly amused by Andrew's trying to argue science when
>>all you have to do is ask him some question about the actual details
>>of some bit of science and he flees.

This is "Oko Tillo" refusing to address the above
facts, and instead jumps in and throws dust in the
air! A tactic used only by thone who are adverse
to truth .

>>For example I've asked him something along the lines
>>of which codon codes for leucine.

Who wrote these "codes"?

>>Or why the genetic code is what cryptographers label a degenerate code.
>>
>>Or which amino acid the codons UAA and UAG code for (trick question)

See above.

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andrew also seems entirely unaware of Copilot and ChatGPT which are
> prime examples of "CODE" not coming from an intelligent code maker.
>
> I'm willing to bet that he'll mumble something about the person who
> created those systems in the first place.

The fact that you already KNEW that, shows that you were dishonest.

> If a software engineer created something as faulty as genetics is, I'd
> fire them on the spot.

The fact you cannot create 'something better' exposes your foolishness,
as well as your mendacity.

> And honestly, a being that would deliberately
> create a system that produces malaria, the plague and Covid is beyond
> psychopathic.

Covid was created in a bio-lab.

[Oko Tillo]

//

> >>> >>-----> "The Central Dogma of Biology" <-----

> >>> > No reason to think some creator was involved.

Nor is there any reason to think that Andrew understands
Crick's "dogma", nor why it has since been proven wrong.

(Crick himself later noted that he had not understood
what the term "dogma" signified)

> >>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
> >>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER. <---******

> >>Speaking of codes, remember where I wrote:
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >>I'm endlessly amused by Andrew's trying to argue science when
> >>all you have to do is ask him some question about the actual details
> >>of some bit of science and he flees.

> This is "Oko Tillo" refusing to address the above
> facts,

... and right on schedule there Andrew goes, fleeing again...

> and instead jumps in and throws dust in the
> air! A tactic used only by thone who are adverse
> to truth .

Late Iron Age folk tales are no more "truth" than the Bhagavad Gita is truth.
And far less entertaining to boot; at least the Gita is a classic of literature.

> >>For example I've asked him something along the lines
> >>of which codon codes for leucine.

> Who wrote these "codes"?

Hey, I asked first, dust flinging boi: which codon codes for leucine?
(a trick question, by the way, as anyone who actually knows the
first thing about the topic would recognize)

> >>Or why the genetic code is what cryptographers label a degenerate code.

Well, Andrew?

> >>Or which amino acid the codons UAA and UAG code for (trick question)
> See above.

"See above" is a non-answer, also known as an attempt at evasion.
Try again: which amino acids do UAA and UAG code for?

(watch Andrew throw yet more dust in "response". it's starting
to look like Oklahoma in the 30's in here)


Summing it up: what we're seeing here is your once again illustrating your total ignorance
of the actual science, by not even attempting to answer those -- rather
elementary and basic -- questions.

Care to finally give them a shot?
(the smart money is on "hell no")

> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Andrew also seems entirely unaware of Copilot and ChatGPT which are
> > prime examples of "CODE" not coming from an intelligent code maker.

> > I'm willing to bet that he'll mumble something about the person who
> > created those systems in the first place.

> The fact that you already KNEW that, shows that you were dishonest.

Watch out, Dreamer -- Andrew's got non sequiturs, and he's not afraid to use them!

> > If a software engineer created something as faulty as genetics is, I'd
> > fire them on the spot.


> The fact you cannot create 'something better' exposes your foolishness,
> as well as your mendacity.

> > And honestly, a being that would deliberately
> > create a system that produces malaria, the plague and Covid is beyond
> > psychopathic.

> Covid was created in a bio-lab.

And for the Grand Finale, a desert of conspiracy-head nonsense!
Should we start referring to him as QAndrew?


Sri

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-7, Bob Duncan wrote:
> Gene Sharing Is More Widespread than Thought, with Implications for
> Darwinism
> by David Coppedge
>
> Evidence is growing that organisms share existing genetic information
> horizontally, not just vertically. This has immense implications for
> neo-Darwinian theory that are not yet fully recognized.
>

> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/09/gene-sharing-is-more-widespread-than-thought-with-implications-for-darwinism/>
>
> --
> God exists, uncreated and transcendental to space and time.
> .

"Isn't this a pseudo-scientific concept?"

[%]

no

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:3xgBL.2111874$odm4....@fx14.ams4:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF998168D10E1...@69.80.101.54...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> <>
>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>>>>
>>>> Who made the code maker?
>>>
>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>>
>> So does yours.
>>
>>> Which we may not understand.
>>
>> We understand it, you don't.
>
> If you do, then explain.
>

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
Replication Machineries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

> If you don't, then you lied.
>
>>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.
>>
>> So who made the code maker?
>
> That's what we're talking about.

That is your claim, you explain it.

>
>>> A fact that only a fool would deny.
>>
>> You haven't posted any facts yet.
>
> You must've been sleeping.

Show us the "repeatable, predictable"
science behind this creator of yours.


"Real science includes that which is observable,
repeatable, testable and predictable as opposed
to a fantasy."
Andrew, Dec 28 2019
https://tinyurl.com/sdvd57d

[Oko Tillo]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 8:06:34 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
> news:3xgBL.2111874$odm4....@fx14.ams4:
> > "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> > news:XnsAF998168D10E1...@69.80.101.54...
> >> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>> <>
> >>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
> >>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who made the code maker?
> >>>
> >>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
> >>
> >> So does yours.
> >>
> >>> Which we may not understand.
> >>
> >> We understand it, you don't.
> >

//

> > If you do, then explain.

> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
> Replication Machineries
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
> > If you don't, then you lied.

> >>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.

> >> So who made the code maker?

> > That's what we're talking about.

> That is your claim, you explain it.

> >>> A fact that only a fool would deny.

Note that "fool" has joined "fantasy" as another of Andrew's
Magic Words of Warding that is supposed to end the debate.
(note also that it's equally unsuccessful in doing so)

> >> You haven't posted any facts yet.
>
> > You must've been sleeping.

> Show us the "repeatable, predictable"
> science behind this creator of yours.

> "Real science includes that which is observable,
> repeatable, testable and predictable as opposed
> to a fantasy."
> Andrew, Dec 28 2019
> https://tinyurl.com/sdvd57d

Andrew believes that the Noachic Flood myth actually happened.
and unless he knows how to invoke another one, it meets
none of his criteria.

(yeah yeah yeah, we know: fire next time)



Sri

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9AD4F716587...@69.80.102.50...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> <>
>>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who made the code maker?
>>>>
>>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>>>
>>> So does yours.
>>>
>>>> Which we may not understand.
>>>
>>> We understand it, you don't.
>>
>> If you do, then explain.
>
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
> Replication Machineries
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Your citing fantasized hypothesis expose the
fact that you are among the *gullible* masses.

>> If you don't, then you lied.

Like our late friend "John Locke" at least
you tried. But too bad you failed miserably.

>>>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.
>>>
>>> So who made the code maker?
>>
>> That's what we're talking about.
>
> That is your claim, you explain it.

I did explain we have evidence
of the work of a "code maker".

[JWS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-FtDGIb20

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:d6c53742-dda4-47c7...@googlegroups.com...

Sorry to see what happened to your brain.

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:30:36 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9AD4F716587...@69.80.102.50...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> <>
> >>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
> >>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who made the code maker?
> >>>>
> >>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
> >>>
> >>> So does yours.
> >>>
> >>>> Which we may not understand.
> >>>
> >>> We understand it, you don't.
> >>
> >> If you do, then explain.
> >
> > Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
> > Replication Machineries
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
> Your citing fantasized hypothesis expose the
> fact that you are among the *gullible* masses.
> >> If you don't, then you lied.
> Like our late friend "John Locke" at least
> you tried. But too bad you failed miserably.

//

> >>>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.

> >>> So who made the code maker?

> >> That's what we're talking about.

> > That is your claim, you explain it.

> I did explain we have evidence
> of the work of a "code maker".

No, you did not present any evidence;
you only claimed that it just has to be the case.

Well, OK, not only that, you also threw in...

> A fact that only a fool would deny.

...the gratuitous insult, as if calling someone
a fool is additional evidence.

There must be an awful lot of fools among actual
practicing scientists then, as I suspect that Goddidit
is very much a minority view among geneticists.




Sri

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:bVrBL.2100731$nwq3....@fx13.ams4:

> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsAF9AD4F716587...@69.80.102.50...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> <>
>>>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>>>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who made the code maker?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>>>>
>>>> So does yours.
>>>>
>>>>> Which we may not understand.
>>>>
>>>> We understand it, you don't.
>>>
>>> If you do, then explain.
>>
>> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
>> Replication Machineries
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
>
> Your citing fantasized hypothesis expose the
> fact that you are among the *gullible* masses.
>

Oh, yes, I forget.

You demand scientific proof,
dismiss it when it gets posted,
and retreat behind your Bible
passages.

No wonder Christianity is
disappearing..........





Abandoned churches for sale that are simply divine
Nov 5 2020
https://tinyurl.com/y69jymhe



What to Do With Empty Churches
Jan. 31, 2019
https://tinyurl.com/y2cpncjr



Former churches for sale: These holy properties
can be yours
Jan. 23, 2018
https://tinyurl.com/y2o2cwd3



More news about old churches being sold and flipped
August 27, 2019
https://tinyurl.com/y3aatq64

[Oko Tillo]

And a Church got turned into Alice's Restaurant.



Sri

[JWS]

Andrew is going to the Group W Bench.

[Oko Tillo]

//

> > And a Church got turned into Alice's Restaurant.
> Andrew is going to the Group W Bench.

LOL!!


Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:107a7df5-b8dc-477c...@googlegroups.com...

> ndrew wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>> <>
>> >>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>> >>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Who made the code maker?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>> >>>
>> >>> So does yours.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Which we may not understand.
>> >>>
>> >>> We understand it, you don't.
>> >>
>> >> If you do, then explain.
>> >
>> > Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
>> > Replication Machineries
>> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
>> Your citing fantasized hypothesis expose the
>> fact that you are among the *gullible* masses.
>> >> If you don't, then you lied.
>> Like our late friend "John Locke" at least
>> you tried. But too bad you failed miserably.
>

>> >>>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.
>
>> >>> So who made the code maker?
>
>> >> That's what we're talking about.
>
>> > That is your claim, you explain it.
>
>> I did explain we have evidence
>> of the work of a "code maker".
>
> No, you did not present any evidence;
> you only claimed that it just has to be the case.
>
> Well, OK, not only that, you also threw in...
>> A fact that only a fool would deny.
> ...the gratuitous insult, as if calling someone
> a fool is additional evidence.
>
> There must be an awful lot of fools among actual
> practicing scientists then, as I suspect that Goddidit
> is very much a minority view among geneticists.

Explain precisely what their origins model
is,.wither resorting to unscientific fantasy.

You won't answer the above, but I suspect
will likely start throwing dust unto the air.

The actions of a fool when he sees that he
cannot fight against the truth.

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:77c90d8a-df43-4de8...@googlegroups.com...
> JWS wrote:

>> > And a Church got turned into Alice's Restaurant.
>> Andrew is going to the Group W Bench.
>
> LOL!!

"For as the crackling of thorns under
a pot, so is the laughter of the fool:"
~ Eccl 7:6

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9B568F9C858...@69.80.102.48...

Your link had absolutely nothing to
do with "scientific proof",

The fact you said that it did, tells
us that you didn't even read the
thing!!!!

> No wonder Christianity is
> disappearing..........

Just like the Bible said would
happen towards the end.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:pEHBL.2104561$nwq3....@fx13.ams4:

Everything that proves you wrong is "unscientific fantasy"

And nothing you post proves you right.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9C4F95FE250...@69.80.102.55...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Oko Tillo" wrote:

>>> ndrew wrote:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> >>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> >>>> <>
>>>> >>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>>>> >>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Who made the code maker?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So does yours.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Which we may not understand.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We understand it, you don't.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you do, then explain.
>>>> >
>>>> > Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
>>>> > Replication Machineries
>>>> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
>
>>>> Your citing fantasized hypothesis expose the
>>>> fact that you are among the *gullible* masses.

>.
>>>> Like our late friend "John Locke" at least
>>>> you tried. But too bad you failed miserably.
>>>
>>>> >>>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.
>>>
>>>> >>> So who made the code maker?
>>>
>>>> >> That's what we're talking about.
>>>
>>>> > That is your claim, you explain it.
>>>
>>>> I did explain we have evidence
>>>> of the work of a "code maker".
>>>
>>> No, you did not present any evidence;
>>> you only claimed that it just has to be the case.
>>>
>>> Well, OK, not only that, you also threw in...
>>>> A fact that only a fool would deny.
>>> ...the gratuitous insult, as if calling someone
>>> a fool is additional evidence.
>>>
>>> There must be an awful lot of fools among actual
>>> practicing scientists then, as I suspect that Goddidit
>>> is very much a minority view among geneticists.
>>
>> Explain precisely what their origins model

>> is,.without resorting to unscientific fantasy.

>
> Everything that proves you wrong is "unscientific fantasy"

You're the one who posted the above link that
was >> an unscientific fantasized hypothesis.

> And nothing you post proves you right.

Unfortunately you are unable to support your
claim. Especially when you keep posting links
like you did above.

However you did try, but you must try harder.

[Oko Tillo]

//

> >> > And a Church got turned into Alice's Restaurant.

> >> Andrew is going to the Group W Bench.

> > LOL!!

> "For as the crackling of thorns under
> a pot, so is the laughter of the fool:"
> ~ Eccl 7:6

"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Matthew 5:22.

Of course you don't believe in Scripture anyhow,
at least not the parts you don't care for.


Sri

[Oko Tillo]

//

> >> I did explain we have evidence
> >> of the work of a "code maker".

> > No, you did not present any evidence;
> > you only claimed that it just has to be the case.

> > Well, OK, not only that, you also threw in...

> >> A fact that only a fool would deny.

> > ...the gratuitous insult, as if calling someone
> > a fool is additional evidence.

> > There must be an awful lot of fools among actual
> > practicing scientists then, as I suspect that Goddidit
> > is very much a minority view among geneticists.

> Explain precisely what their origins model
> is,.wither resorting to unscientific fantasy.

Same answer as I've give you twice already.
Remember?

> You won't answer the above,

Why should I indulge you when you ignored
my telling you twice now?

Answer me that, and I'll indulge you for the third time.

> but I suspect
> will likely start throwing dust unto the air.

> The actions of a fool when he sees that he
> cannot fight against the truth.

"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire"

Matthew 5:22


Sri

[Oko Tillo]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:24:57 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

//

> > There must be an awful lot of fools among actual
> > practicing scientists then, as I suspect that Goddidit
> > is very much a minority view among geneticists.

> Explain precisely what their origins model
> is,.wither resorting to unscientific fantasy.

> You won't answer the above,

See my post preceding this one.

But speaking of not answering, why is it you keep running away from
my little Genetics 101 first week pop quiz?

You know, where I asked you:

1) Which codon codes for the amino acid leucine?
2) Why is the genetic code what cryptographers describe as a degenerate code?
3) What do the codons UAA and UAG code for?

This is really basic stuff. It's almost like you don't have the
slightest idea of the simplest concepts of the topic.

I'm tempted to ignore all your future posts until you either
at least try to come up with answers or simply -- and honestly --
admit you don't know.


Sri

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:5eb69fa0-0da0-43b4...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Oko Tillo" wrote:
>> > ndrew wrote:
>> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >>>> <>
>> >> >>>>>> Then who wrote the *Code* Because CODE
>> >> >>>>>> only comes from an intelligent CODE MAKER.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Who made the code maker?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Your question goes back to "first cause".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So does yours.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Which we may not understand.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We understand it, you don't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you do, then explain.
>> >> >
>> >> > Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA
>> >> > Replication Machineries
>> >> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
>
>> >> Your citing fantasized hypothesis expose the
>> >> fact that you are among the *gullible* masses.

>.
>> >> Like our late friend "John Locke" at least
>> >> you tried. But too bad you failed miserably.
>> >
>> >> >>>> Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'.
>> >
>> >> >>> So who made the code maker?
>> >
>> >> >> That's what we're talking about.
>> >
>> >> > That is your claim, you explain it.
>> >
>> >> I did explain we have evidence
>> >> of the work of a "code maker".
>> >
>> > No, you did not present any evidence;
>> > you only claimed that it just has to be the case.
>> >
>> > Well, OK, not only that, you also threw in...
>> >> A fact that only a fool would deny.
>> > ...the gratuitous insult, as if calling someone
>> > a fool is additional evidence.
>> >

>> > There must be an awful lot of fools among actual
>> > practicing scientists then, as I suspect that Goddidit
>> > is very much a minority view among geneticists.
>
>> Explain precisely what their origins model
>> is,.wither resorting to unscientific fantasy.
>
>> You won't answer the above,
>
> See my post preceding this one.

My prediction was correct.

> But speaking of not answering, why is it you keep running away from
> my little Genetics 101 first week pop quiz?

Then he throws dust in the air, like
he's doing right now.

This is also called, the "red herring"
fallacy.

A tactic used by those who argue
~ against~ the truth.

> You know, where I asked you:
>
> 1) Which codon codes for the amino acid leucine?
> 2) Why is the genetic code what cryptographers describe as a degenerate code?
> 3) What do the codons UAA and UAG code for?
>
> This is really basic stuff. It's almost like you don't have the
> slightest idea of the simplest concepts of the topic.
>
> I'm tempted to ignore all your future posts until you either
> at least try to come up with answers or simply -- and honestly --
> admit you don't know.
>
> Sri
>
>> but I suspect will likely start throwing dust
>> unto the air.

Called it!

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:VXQBL.755690$US27....@fx01.ams4:

That is just what I said. You reject everything
that proves you wrong.

>> And nothing you post proves you right.
>
> Unfortunately you are unable to support your
> claim.

Nope, it is YOUR claim that hasn't been proven.

Your claim, above:

"Nevertheless there WAS a 'code maker'"

Your proof?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:JkTBL.2847188$WRz3.1...@fx03.ams4:

You mean your "Nevertheless there
WAS a 'code maker'" truth?

[Oko Tillo]

//

> > You know, where I asked you:

> > 1) Which codon codes for the amino acid leucine?
> > 2) Why is the genetic code what cryptographers describe as a degenerate code?
> > 3) What do the codons UAA and UAG code for?

> > This is really basic stuff. It's almost like you don't have the
> > slightest idea of the simplest concepts of the topic.

> > I'm tempted to ignore all your future posts until you either
> > at least try to come up with answers or simply -- and honestly --
> > admit you don't know.

> >> but I suspect will likely start throwing dust
> >> unto the air.
> Called it!

Correct: I did call it: you don't have the slightest idea of the most fundamental
processes involved in genetics.

Do you really think that anyone with a basic grounding in science
can read three of your posts without realizing that you're blowing
hot air, cannot answer the simplest challenges, and are trying
to bluff your way out of being called on it?


Sri

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You don't think evolution is true? Oh, you do? But you post these things anyway?"

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9C79EFAC252...@69.80.101.51...

The "proof" that you ask for is there in the
biological "code" that is in all the cells of
your mortal body. And without which you
would not be.

Who wrote this "code"? It could only have
been, an intelligent ""code maker"".

That should answer your question.

Thank you.

[Andrew]

"Jeffrey Rubard" wrote in message news:419e7163-fa23-4522...@googlegroups.com...

> "You don't think evolution is true? Oh, you do?
> But you post these things anyway?"

If you would explain what your problem
is, then I am sure that we can help you.

Provided you are not wedded to pseudo-
scientific hypothesis that are based upon
fantasy.Yet are embraced by the gullible
masses.

Therefore if you are not afraid of the
truth, speak up.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:U10CL.2454522$JNZ4.2...@fx12.ams4:

You tell us, you claim it was "created".

> It could only have
> been, an intelligent ""code maker"".

Repeating your claim is not proof.

Post your proof.

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsAF9D50A7975C3...@69.80.102.49...

It happens to be a "fact" of information
science. A code requires a maker of the
code

The maker of the code of necessity must
be an intelligent agent who had a purpose
for making the code.

Got it now?

[Andrew]

"Attila" wrote in message news:1kehthd528q2tjd2h...@4ax.com...

> Too vague to be of any use.

Not vague for those who know basic
biology.

The folks here do know. They know.

You? I don't think you want to know.

Because it's not that difficult to look
up.

Biological "code. Genetic "code".

DNA has the code for the synthesis
of all living things.

This is basic stuff.

>>Who wrote this "code"? It could only have
>>been, an intelligent ""code maker"".
>

> A WAG based on no direct evidence.

No.

[Oko Tillo]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 8:27:08 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:

//

Well, there you are, Andrew.
I believe I mentioned https://tinyurl.com/ypmtwjej.
Well?...


Sri

[Oko Tillo]

Andrew, I believe I mentioned https://tinyurl.com/ypmtwjej.
Are you running away again?


Sri

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:05:59 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in

He's been posting this bullshit for a looooong time, but what does he
mean by "Darwinism". If he means evolution, he should say so. If he
means Darwin's 1869 explanation which fitted the facts known at the
time, he should say so. If he means the modern synthesis which
includes the knowledge gained by objective research since then, he
should say so.

But in any case, he has never said what these "implications" of gene
sharing, which is simply part of the modern synthesis, are for what he
imagines "Darwinism" is.

[Oko Tillo]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:05:59 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>

//

> >"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
> He's been posting this bullshit for a looooong time, but what does he
> mean by "Darwinism". If he means evolution, he should say so. If he
> means Darwin's 1869 explanation which fitted the facts known at the
> time, he should say so. If he means the modern synthesis which
> includes the knowledge gained by objective research since then, he
> should say so.

> But in any case, he has never said what these "implications" of gene
> sharing, which is simply part of the modern synthesis, are for what he
> imagines "Darwinism" is.

Shorter version: it contradicts Genesis, so it's wrong.
Everything he fights against stems from that.


Sri

[JWS]

Because we have made "codes' long before
DNA was understood at all, it was only
natural for us to identify the nucleotide
sequences we found as a "code". It made
it easy to then construct the simple charts
that you see linking the groups of three
nucleotides to the amino acid that they
"select".

> The maker of the code of necessity must
> be an intelligent agent who had a purpose
> for making the code.

The code is assembled by ionic bonds
(this is just chemistry) between the sugars
and the phosphates. The two halves of the
helix are joined by hydrogen bonding. We
can see the cell making new nucleotides
in preparation for mitosis. We can watch
mitosis where duplicate strings of DNA
are made up by CELL CHEMISTRY, rejoined
as the double strand helix and no GOB is
seen or required.

> Got it now?
Do you?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Does he actually believe his ridiculous nonsense?

[Oko Tillo]

//

> Because we have made "codes' long before
> DNA was understood at all, it was only
> natural for us to identify the nucleotide
> sequences we found as a "code".

> It made
> it easy to then construct the simple charts
> that you see linking the groups of three
> nucleotides to the amino acid that they
> "select".

And using those charts, I've posed the following questions to Andrew.
And posted them more than once:

Which codon codes for leucine?

Why is the "genetic code" is what cryptographers label a degenerate code?

Which amino acid do the codons UAA and UAG code for?

And <WHOOSH!> Andrew is suddenly nowhere to be found.

He's got his little bag of terms which he's googled up,
like "quaternary code" ... but he shows not the slightest
evidence of actually understanding the biology.
Zero. None. His God should have gone into more detail
in Genesis, that being the main book of the Bible that
leads Andrew to question so much science, from
life sciences to astronomy to cosmology and more.

Incidentally, JWS, google image up one of those
codon-to-amino acid charts and check out
the answer for Which amino acid do the codons UAA and UAG code for.
You'll be amused. Actually two out of my three questions could be
regarded as trick questions.

Sri

[Oko Tillo]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 10:40:10 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 08:54:29 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo
> <f.spl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 9:42:53 AM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:05:59 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> >> <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >//
> >> >"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in

//

> >> He's been posting this bullshit for a looooong time, but what does he
> >> mean by "Darwinism". If he means evolution, he should say so. If he
> >> means Darwin's 1869 explanation which fitted the facts known at the
> >> time, he should say so. If he means the modern synthesis which
> >> includes the knowledge gained by objective research since then, he
> >> should say so.

> >> But in any case, he has never said what these "implications" of gene
> >> sharing, which is simply part of the modern synthesis, are for what he
> >> imagines "Darwinism" is.


> >Shorter version: it contradicts Genesis, so it's wrong.
> >Everything he fights against stems from that.

> Does he actually believe his ridiculous nonsense?

Absolutely. Welcome to Christian Fundamentalism.
I understand it's not nearly so widespread in your mother country.



Sri

[JWS]

And UGA. But I always thought there
should be a "rinse" and "repeat".

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Maybe evolution is a true theory, though?"

[Ted]

No way.

[Andrew]

"Jeffrey Rubard" wrote in message news:70e28b95-a846-4cb2...@googlegroups.com...

> "Maybe evolution is a true theory, though?"

The "goo to you" story has deceived the gullible masses
who do not understand the practical science that would
be involved in the issue. Therefore we ought to concede
that the creation model better explains our origins.

"We must concede that there are presently NO
detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
of ANY biochemical or cellular system; only
a variety of ~ wishful speculations."

~ Franklin Harold, Emeritus Professor
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology