Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 10:02 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 09:16 AM)Ace Wrote:  ...........

long post

you didn't explain how your design stuff is right. all you said is so far ni this entire thread amounts to "I don't understand how it could have happened and since science doesn't have a good idea it must be the magic man in the sky"

AronRa's video will be very entertaining for you


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ace's post
19-07-2015, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2015 01:28 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 10:40 AM)Godexists Wrote:  the most funny is , that millers lecture has nothing to do with the issue and challenge in question. Laugh out loadRolleyes

Actually the funniest thing here is that you don't actually know what the fuck was in the lecture since you didn't fucking watch it. The video is over an hour long and you responded with it not having anything to do with the issue (which it does actually) within 16 minutes of it being up. That's just ONE of the 4 videos he linked which demolishes your silly superstitious ignorance.

You didn't watch it, you don't know what it's content is, you are lying and full of shit son.

P.S If I set a rock on my keyboard for a hour the end result would be a website with more intelligence and less blatant dishonesty then what you keep linking to. Serious kid, that website is pathetic, and I can safely dismiss everything on it due to a total lack of peer-review for any of your inane bullshit. Feel free to submit it to an ACTUAL peer-review board and I might be interested in reading it. As it stands now I have no interest in entertaining the unproven rambling delusions of your pet myth.

Shoo.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
19-07-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 12:03 PM)Ace Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 10:02 AM)Godexists Wrote:  long post

you didn't explain how your design stuff is right. all you said is so far ni this entire thread amounts to "I don't understand how it could have happened and since science doesn't have a good idea it must be the magic man in the sky"

AronRa's video will be very entertaining for you




[Image: meme_g11.jpg]

[Image: meme_g10.png]

Is intelligent design generally, and  irreducible complexity particularly, a mere argument of ignorance ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1983-is...=ignorance

According to Wiki: Argument from ignorance , also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"),  asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false . According to Rationalwiki The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can't possibly evolve naturally. Another example is : You can’t prove that there aren’t Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are.

ID Theory inferes that a intelligence must be involved for the creation of  irreducible and interdependent complex biological systems,  organelles and body parts, as well as coded, specified, complex information stored in  DNA. It does not however point out who that agent might be, if natural , or supernatural.

ID predicts  irreducible complexity and interdependence  in molecular machines and whole biological systems. The prediction can be falsified , showing that a stepwise, gradual change and increase of complexity can be achieved through natural biochemical interactions, darwinian evolution, and eventually other natural mechanisms, where no intelligence is involved, and furthermore that given biochemical structure can still keep the same function, when reduced of  any component and part, andany gene that encodes given part.

Irreducible complexity is not based  on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway. Rather than that, it makes a positive claim, which can be falsified, upon :  (a) gene knockout, (b) reverse engineering, © examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure. ( Dennis Jones ) Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means. 1 The absence of evidence that evolution is not capable to replace given part is empirical evidence, that falsifies the claim of the ToE. Its therefore not justified to claim the inference is a argument of ignorance. Quit the contrary is the case. As for example, if i ask you : can you change a us$100 bill ? and you answer: sorry, i have no smaller bills. You open your wallet, and and its confirmed, no change in your wallet, then you have proven that you have indeed no smaller bills. You have proven a negative, which is not a argument of ignorance, since you checked and got a empirical proof.

Ifs a fact that i have presented inumerous examples of irreducible and interdependent system  during several years, beside the ones well known and widely propagated by Behe, the Discovery Institute et al, as of the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, Heme, the signal transduction pathway in the eye, DNA, the Cell, human body parts, as the circulatory system, nitrogenase, the ribosome, chaperones etc., and they have shown to be IC until now. These systems do have no precursor. Many enzymes involved in the process have no know different function, and could not have been co-opted at other places. Thats a well founded scientific conclusion. And the hypothesis and theory can be falsified. And some examples are so patently obvious, that there is no need to make scientific experiments to understand that ic is granted. Take photosynthesis for example. Take off chlorophyll, and no light is captures anymore, and the whole process ceases to exist. Take away the blood, and the circulatory system ceases. Take away any one of the 17 enzymes required in the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, and the end product is not synthesized anymore. Neither could the proteins,  organelles and enzymes have any function by their own. So why in the first place would the arise at all ?

Stephen Meyer puts it that way :

Let's take a closer look. In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the
form:

Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.

Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer."  In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:


Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.


If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument  takes the following form:


Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.  


Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:


Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.


In addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, the argument for intelligent design as the best explanation also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. This argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition. Instead, it specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not commit the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. It's really as simple as that.

1) http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1995-bi...w-proteins
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 12:39 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 10:40 AM)Godexists Wrote:  the most funny is , that millers lecture has nothing to do with the issue and challenge in question. Laugh out loadRolleyes

Actually the funniest thing here is that you don't actually know what the fuck was in the lecture since you didn't fucking watch it. The video is over an hour long and you responded with it not having anything to do with the issue (which it does actually) within 16 minutes of it being up. That's just ONE of the 4 videos he linked which demolishes your silly superstitious ignorance.

You didn't watch it, you don't know what it's content is, you are lying and full of shit son.

P.S If I set a rock on my keyboard for a hour the end result would be a website with more intelligence and less blatant dishonesty then what you keep linking to. Serious kid, that website is pathetic, and I can safely dismiss everything on it due to a total lack of peer-review from any of your inane bullshit. Feel free to submit it to an ACTUAL peer-review board and I might be interested in reading it. As it stands now I have no interest in entertaining the unproven rambling delusions of your pet myth.

Shoo.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide, to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide, to show the importance of logic?" - Sam Harris.

I think this applies neatly to the clown you're currently arguing with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xieulong's post
19-07-2015, 02:36 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2015 03:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 11:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 11:03 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  That link... makes NO frikkin' sense!

I'm quite possibly an average blue collar worker and even I can see how the comments in that link shotgun their ideas all over the page.

I see no refutation of Miller's seminar. I don't have and wont have the time to explain things here. Others might do so but it's obvious even with a quick read through

Well, then you will have it at least now :

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Fusion

chromosomal fusions happen to be fairly common - even within the same species. In fact, there are humans alive today that have chromosomal fusions - and surprise surprise, they're still human! - morphologically and functionally indistinguishable from other modern humans. Another example can be found with horses. Hybrids of the wild horse have 33 pairs while the domesticated horse has 32 chromosomal pairs. Also, domestic dogs and wolves of the genus canis have 78 chromosomes while foxes have a varied number from 38-78 chromosomes. Yet another example is the house mouse Mus Musculis, which has 40 chromosomes, while a population of mice form the Italian Alps was found to have only 22 chromosomes

If fused chromosomes were "intelligently designed" why wouldn't the great Jebus-god just have "intelligently" made them one together in the first place ? Bad design ? Poor planning ?
Weeping

This is what I mean. This fool is SO ignorant of genetics and biology, that he doesn't even get that chromosomal fusion is an argument AGAINST ID, not for it. He desperately needs help. Big Grin

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2...awIfPlBGh9

From PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/

"We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 01:27 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 12:03 PM)Ace Wrote:  you didn't explain how your design stuff is right. all you said is so far ni this entire thread amounts to "I don't understand how it could have happened and since science doesn't have a good idea it must be the magic man in the sky"

AronRa's video will be very entertaining for you




[Image: meme_g11.jpg]

[Image: meme_g10.png]

Is intelligent design generally, and  irreducible complexity particularly, a mere argument of ignorance ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1983-is...=ignorance

According to Wiki: Argument from ignorance , also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"),  asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false . According to Rationalwiki The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can't possibly evolve naturally. Another example is : You can’t prove that there aren’t Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are.

ID Theory inferes that a intelligence must be involved for the creation of  irreducible and interdependent complex biological systems,  organelles and body parts, as well as coded, specified, complex information stored in  DNA. It does not however point out who that agent might be, if natural , or supernatural.

ID predicts  irreducible complexity and interdependence  in molecular machines and whole biological systems. The prediction can be falsified , showing that a stepwise, gradual change and increase of complexity can be achieved through natural biochemical interactions, darwinian evolution, and eventually other natural mechanisms, where no intelligence is involved, and furthermore that given biochemical structure can still keep the same function, when reduced of  any component and part, andany gene that encodes given part.

Irreducible complexity is not based  on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway. Rather than that, it makes a positive claim, which can be falsified, upon :  (a) gene knockout, (b) reverse engineering, © examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure. ( Dennis Jones ) Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means. 1 The absence of evidence that evolution is not capable to replace given part is empirical evidence, that falsifies the claim of the ToE. Its therefore not justified to claim the inference is a argument of ignorance. Quit the contrary is the case. As for example, if i ask you : can you change a us$100 bill ? and you answer: sorry, i have no smaller bills. You open your wallet, and and its confirmed, no change in your wallet, then you have proven that you have indeed no smaller bills. You have proven a negative, which is not a argument of ignorance, since you checked and got a empirical proof.

Ifs a fact that i have presented inumerous examples of irreducible and interdependent system  during several years, beside the ones well known and widely propagated by Behe, the Discovery Institute et al, as of the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, Heme, the signal transduction pathway in the eye, DNA, the Cell, human body parts, as the circulatory system, nitrogenase, the ribosome, chaperones etc., and they have shown to be IC until now. These systems do have no precursor. Many enzymes involved in the process have no know different function, and could not have been co-opted at other places. Thats a well founded scientific conclusion. And the hypothesis and theory can be falsified. And some examples are so patently obvious, that there is no need to make scientific experiments to understand that ic is granted. Take photosynthesis for example. Take off chlorophyll, and no light is captures anymore, and the whole process ceases to exist. Take away the blood, and the circulatory system ceases. Take away any one of the 17 enzymes required in the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll, and the end product is not synthesized anymore. Neither could the proteins,  organelles and enzymes have any function by their own. So why in the first place would the arise at all ?

Stephen Meyer puts it that way :

Let's take a closer look. In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the
form:

Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.

Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer."  In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:


Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.


If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument  takes the following form:


Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.  


Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:


Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.


In addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, the argument for intelligent design as the best explanation also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. This argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition. Instead, it specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not commit the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. It's really as simple as that.

1) http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1995-bi...w-proteins

There is no such word as "innumerous". It's "innumerable".
You didn't even graduate from High School, did you ?
Maybe you could start back at 6th Grade, maybe 5th ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2015 04:30 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
The little purple box declaring that "No material causes have been discovered to produce coded information and irreducible complex systems": is a flat out lie.
(besides the fact that it should be "irreducibly complex systems)

Here are examples of both in the same system :

https://books.google.com/books?id=BkKKde...ms&f=false

More :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 04:12 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 06:45 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 02:08 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  DNA being IC has been debunked for quite some time.

oh wow. Really ?? That is new to me. Because i developed the argument without knowing anyone else bringing it forward. Please point out where else you saw someonw making it. ( and please dont say to watch ken millers video ) he defintively never thought about that. He is a stupid parrot.

thanks.


So you actually think your the first to think up the IC idea? How fucking concieted of you.

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

Seriously, you are not the first. Its been debunked for quite some time and only people like WLC and Michael hebe...oh and Ham as well.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 06:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 02:08 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  There you go sweet heart! Now go learn why IC is a lie and then become an atheist like all of us after learning that everything you have been told is a lie.

Yeah, so sweet how non thinking atheists link to the video and parrot the argument of a individual, which brings forward a perfect example of stupid pseudo science.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1528-th...=flagellum

Millers refutation of irreducible complexity of the Flagellum through co-option  is a prima facie example of a pseudo scientific argument. Since Miller recognizes implicitly that a gradual evolutionary step by step development of the flagellum is not possible, he comes up with a ad hoc explanation, namely co-opting parts from other biological systems. That copying, modifying, and combining together preexisting parts , already operating in other systems, would do the job. But, is it really ? Could it be, that super evolutionary mechanisms would act that way, borrowing parts from other biological systems and assemble them to a flagellum with a new function , perfectly ordered, with perfect fits, and new functions,with the help of saint time , that would do that miracle ? Even thinking, that time in this case would rather be detrimental, than help ? Would it really be, that the most perfect and efficient motor in the universe could arise by copy/pasta , by a supernatural pick and add , a molecular quilt and patchwork mechanism? The question that follows is what exactly did the recruiting? What provokes recruitment to another system? and you believe in Santa Claus, as well ? Thats not only insane, but completely impossible.

[Image: meme_g10.jpg]

For a working biological system to be built by exaptation , the five following conditions would all have to be met:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the system, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of individual parts, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.


( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2091-te...ion-option

Everything in that post is nothing but pseudo science. You claim that miller is using it than you don't know what real science actually is since if what you claim is real science AND is true, then the vast majority of reputable scientists would believe in it. But the opposite is true.

Ever wonder why?

Because YOU are the one spouting off pseudo science bull shit. Using a car engine to show that DNA cannot work in its own parts? Are you fucking insane? A mother fucking car engine IS NOT DNA YOU RETARDED FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(19-07-2015 06:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-07-2015 02:08 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  There you go sweet heart! Now go learn why IC is a lie and then become an atheist like all of us after learning that everything you have been told is a lie.

Yeah, so sweet how non thinking atheists link to the video and parrot the argument of a individual, which brings forward a perfect example of stupid pseudo science.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1528-th...=flagellum

Millers refutation of irreducible complexity of the Flagellum through co-option  is a prima facie example of a pseudo scientific argument. Since Miller recognizes implicitly that a gradual evolutionary step by step development of the flagellum is not possible, he comes up with a ad hoc explanation, namely co-opting parts from other biological systems. That copying, modifying, and combining together preexisting parts , already operating in other systems, would do the job. But, is it really ? Could it be, that super evolutionary mechanisms would act that way, borrowing parts from other biological systems and assemble them to a flagellum with a new function , perfectly ordered, with perfect fits, and new functions,with the help of saint time , that would do that miracle ? Even thinking, that time in this case would rather be detrimental, than help ? Would it really be, that the most perfect and efficient motor in the universe could arise by copy/pasta , by a supernatural pick and add , a molecular quilt and patchwork mechanism? The question that follows is what exactly did the recruiting? What provokes recruitment to another system? and you believe in Santa Claus, as well ? Thats not only insane, but completely impossible.

[Image: meme_g10.jpg]

For a working biological system to be built by exaptation , the five following conditions would all have to be met:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the system, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of individual parts, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.


( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2091-te...ion-option

Everything in that post is nothing but pseudo science. You claim that miller is using it than you don't know what real science actually is since if what you claim is real science AND is true, then the vast majority of reputable scientists would believe in it. But the opposite is true.

Ever wonder why?

Because YOU are the one spouting off pseudo science bull shit. comparing the bacteria to a car engine to show that DNA cannot work in its own parts? Are you fucking insane? A mother fucking car engine IS NOT DNA YOU RETARDED FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: