Proteins argue against evolution


Except the article ( that you did not read) points out we’re talking about O2, and then I emphasized this, in the very next post:

So no excuse Dave. That’s where your “misunderstanding” should have ended, but you pursued it, because you did not pay attention.

You did not read my post and you fooled yourself.


BS. Fish don’t “breathe” free oxygen MOLECULES. They utilize the oxygen that’s inherent in water…the O that’s part of H2O.


@Pappadave, AS says a lot of outrageous things, but don’t give him ammunition. Fish don’t dissociate water, they breathe oxygen dissolved in water. Otherwise, fish aquariums wouldn’t need an air pump to keep replenishing the air in the water.


An error as KJ points out, and I was talking about O2 from the start.

You didn’t pay attention, and you fooled yourself.

Your rear-end covering doesn’t do a damn thing Dave.


Well this can’t be one of them; two other planetoids in our solar system have H2O, without having large amounts of O2, because they either don’t have life, or that life doesn’t produce oxygen.

A primordial Earth without life would have been in the same state.


You’re right, of course. It’s dissolved oxygen that allows fish to breathe and not “atomic oxygen.” Chalk it up to one of my brain farts. That doesn’t negate the FACT that water CONTAINS oxygen, however.


The ancient oceans didn’t contain O2.

I was talking about O2, the article was talking about O2, and the moment I responded with “Oxygen Molecules”, you should have known I was talking about O2.

That you didn’t, was your own fault Dave. You didn’t pay attention when I clarified, you didn’t read the article, and so you fooled yourself.


Curious as to your reference, about Jacob thinking that what the animals saw when they conceived would affect the offspring. Later on, however, God gave Jacob - in a dream - a lesson in genetics - that the offsprings’ characteristics were determined by the characteristics of their parents. Gen. 31: 11-12


Which is itself a hallmark of both the shuffling of genetic traits and Epigenetics, the frontline process of Evolution.

I’ll say it once more, whether Evolution is God’s process and he’s directly guiding it is up to you, but the fact that biological progression happens is something that’s well established.

To claim otherwise, would be to invalidate practical science we see operating in the world, not simply a questioning of theory or experimentation.




Do you see what you’ve done here, AS? You’ve referenced the process that is observed and declared that the controversial theoretical process that is not observed is well established. That’s called conflation. It’s not science.

BTW, @qixlqatl, I never commented on your posts, but meant to. You posted a prime example of microevolution taken advantage of by breeding, and pretended it had some relevance to the macroevolution being discussed here.


It is, because practical science is involved.

Epigenetics, was not discovered as a means to substantiate Evolution.

It was looked at to try and understand how genes change expression within the lifetime of one person, and what caused those changes.

When it was first found in the 1970s, scientists thought that these genetic “tags” were not hereditary; as soon as a baby was born, the slate was wiped clean.

Turned out this wasn’t true, some of these tags are hereditary, and if consistent over enough generations, it will change the genome. This has been observed. That’s neither an exaggeration, nor conflation.

It greatly impacts human disease and your chances of exhibiting it. Diabetes and cancer are both affected by it.

And once again, it’s also responsible for racial differences. Changes in diet, activity, and climate, molds the genome. That’s why we look different, and have genes that are different from one another, despite all of us descending from the same ancestors.

That’s why isolated populations of closely related birds in the Galapagos have different beaks. That’s why a lake that started with one fish species split into two.


Since one side of the argument is ‘intelligent design’, I offered a biblical passage dealing with genetics in action, to all appearances reacting in a single generation to environmental factors. Is not macro-evolution made up of repeated interactions of micro-evoltion? Whether it Is relevant or not Is up to the members who are taking part in the discussion.


So I’ll say it once more:

Biological progression is observed: Speciation.

We see macro changes in shorter-lived animal species and plants.

American goatsbeards, the Apple Maggot fly, the Heliconius butterflies. these all split into two or more species within the last two hundred years.

You then have things like the yellow bellied three-toed skink, where populations that lived in mountains instead of on the beach went from laying eggs, to having live births.

Or the Italian Wall Lizards introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru in the 1970s; whose bodies have since adapted to an all-plant diet, rather than an insect diet. The most important development being cecal valves, new muscles that the original species did not have, that slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption.

Or the Blue Moon Butterfly, where males went to less than 1% of the population due to a parasite which destroyed male embryos. Today males are 40% of the population, because a male butterfly developed a mutation that made it resistant to the parasite.

And that’s not all. There’s a way for species to get genetic innovations from other species without mating; viruses. We’ve observed this too.

Horizontal gene transfer is something that happens among bacteria and archaea all the time; it turns out that higher organisms aren’t entirely left out.


Scientists create a new DNA with 8 base pairs, rather than just the usual 4.

The point? DNA can exist in other ways from the one that formed us. Our base pairs were selected, but they aren’t unique.

Also, DNA has application in data storage (terabytes worth of data stored at a molecular scale), and this form is exponentially more useful since 8 > 4.


Nothing in the creation story indicates it is a parable. While there are some snippets in Genesis that may be a parable, such as Jacob wrestling with God - even that is dubious. I’m inclined to think Genesis is 100% free of parables.

Use of parables doesn’t seem to have been a feature of Hebrew culture, it first appeared from writings flowing out of the Babylonian captivity. Israelis were exposed to this - but not back when they were Hebrews. While a portion of Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity, most of it came from before then. Jesus was a big fan of parables, but they were really used sparsely in the OT. Some of the prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah used them. I don’t think there is anything in the Torah that’s clearly a parable.

There is a big problems with stating that Genesis is a parable - despite no evidence. If Genesis is a parable with no marking of a parable, how can anyone state that anything is certainly not a parable? If the creation story is a parable, I don’t see why Abraham, Moses, King David, or Jesus can’t be.

The creation story is not some disposable collection of eight verses designed to get a single point across(like all other parables). It’s a very detailed story, which is loaded with theological implications - the most important of which is the concept of Original Sin. To suggest the entire premise for the fall of man - and their subsequent need for salvation through Christ is told via a parable… strikes me as highly incredulous.


Not everything in Genesis is made equal; the first 11 chapters are cited as likely add-ons, dating to Babylonian captivity or later.

The Story of Noah certainly was; it borrows character names and salient details from the Epic of Gilgamesh.


Wrong. We know that Moses wrote the first 5 books.

Macroevolution and millions of years are myths based on key assumptions made in the early days of ‘science’ by the same overwhelmingly leftist acedemic establishment that would go on to give us the climate change hoax as well as 72 genders, and fetuses not being human. Macroevolution has never been observed repeated or tested.


Of COURSE the story of creation is a parable. Only an utter idiot wouldn’t understand it that way. Genesis emanated from an ORAL history of an unsophisticated, uneducated people who were also generally illiterate. It’s a story told to those people in terms they were psychologically and socially capable of UNDERSTANDING. A story told by POETS rather than “scientists,” in other words. If you read it carefully, Genesis relates creation in fairly close line with the so-called “Big Bang” theory. What does a cosmic EXPLOSION produce first and foremost? LIGHT. It tells of Cain leaving Eden and going to the land of Nod, east of Eden, “where he knew his wife.” If there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth, where did this “wife” COME from? Use your BRAINS, folks.


Respectfully, you first please(use your brains). People lived hundreds of years then. Plus brother would have had to marry sister at the begining. In fact the hebrew word for cains wife shows that she was a daughter of adam.

The bibles accuracy has stood the test of time and has been proven reliably accurate over and over again.

On the other hand, macroevolution and millions of years struggles to find any iron clad evidence and fails to overcome some immense logical hurdles.

The bible will still be here in 200+ years. Macroevolution will not.