Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not much to add but "Yes". I have seen a goodly number of examples (and argued with them, too) of evolution - denyers(1) who say that it cannot work, and trot out something lifted from a Creationist website, and is nothing like actual evolution theory.
I can get the different interpretation and the back to front logic and the argument that all the fossil evidence of speciation is misinterpreted, but I cannot Get (though I think I know what's Going On, I can't get my head around that sort of thinking) that, when you say that 'Criocoduck' is not evolution and explain what it is, they argue that it is 'Cats from dogs' and not was evolutionists say it is. Eusebius (bless his inflated heart) even argued that evolution scientists know that the theory Is Crocoduck, but they Huss It Up because they Know it doesn't work, and pretend that it is cumulative changes within a species until it becomes so changed that it cannot interbreed and needs a new species -name, because that (the mechanism) actually does Work.
It was even odder because he also argued that there was no evidence that such "macro" changes actually happened, even if it was possible - so he KNEW what the real evolution -theor said, and I must conclude that it was just Fight, deny, and Win for Jesus whatever it takes, and a meanigful argument was not the purpose of the debate.
He was not the only example but his stood out from the rest. But it's the same thinking throughout, and that's why I say understanding the Thinking is more important now than understanding the evidence.
(1) I know it's spelt 'Deniers', but that always makes me think of black fishnet stockings and, at my time of life, I shouldn't do it.
Is laminin important in immunity? Well, I suppose it would be important in how pathogens get around, but all extracellular matrix proteins would be important in that, wouldn't you say?
Take for example a DNA sequence generating a short protein just 150 amino acids in length.
For every 1 workable arrangement of amino acids, there are 10 to the 77th possible unworkable amino acid arrangements.
To put this number in perspective, this would equate to a combination dial type lock containing 77 dials with 10 digits per dial.
So for even a small DNA sequence as described above to just from pure chance it must randomly dial up the correct combination on that lock.
Remember also that our DNA is far more complex than the short 150 amino acid DNA sequence mentioned above. Yet we are supposed to believe that some primordial soup eventually produced a single amino acid and over billions of years kept mutating into more and more complex creatures?
The mutations we HAVE seen since we became aware of DNA back some 60 years ago ALWAYS produce a degradation of the species and not an improvement of it.
Can anyone point to any example of a "net gain" regarding the mutation of a DNA sequence?
I think that atheists have figured out that is no way evolution happened 95% have jumped the evolution titanic and climbed onto the even more wicked
the "pan spermia" flying saucer .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There really is a Lamb gene - I thought it was trying to say that that Jesus will cure all ills. 
