201. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164101 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Quetz, I cant possibly work out how you did that. My personal ignorance of this matter convices me even more that you are god. Quetzdidit!

202. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164091 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 1:57 pm

perhaps I could use the pics in a post that discusses the punishment for those who do not believe in my divine status :-)

Or we could just feed them to my nun eating venus fly trap (aka Quetzian nun traps) http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-army-grows-stronger.html

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164083 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm

You must be very welcome at parties :)

Not at christian ones :-)

204. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164078 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I thought maggots only ate pus and dead tissue?

The victim was a creationist!

Seriously though, some species (generally called bot flies) do eat living flesh. I could probably look out some pictures if you ever want to do a blog post on gods love

205. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164076 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Thanks.. That is going to really help me have pleasant dreams tonight.

Typical atheist, disgusted at any show of love by your creator. I'll pray for you

206. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164073 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Just came back from a trip to Europe. The area I was visiting abounded with rabbits. There I saw a baby rabbit with it's eyes picked out, probably by ravens or other such bird - the remainder of it was virtually untouched! So I suppose that was part of God's plan as well.

I have seen human brains eaten by maggots (while the person lived). All praise the loving YAHWEH!

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164067 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Is that you absolute determination?

When you say something that is untrue, by definition that is absolutely a lie. So why did you do it?

I am not going down the morality line until you answer your questions and also tell us why you accused me of saying you swore? But I am not appealing to god - you presumably believe lying is wrong - but that is what you did! By definition you lied, I want to know why.

Thought you had gone out. Another lie?

208. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164037 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Remnant. Why did you lie?

209. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164028 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Remnant, Why did you lie? Is this ethical? Why should we believe anything you should say now?

210. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164025 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm

And you have not answer the questions that are put to you except repeating the questions in rhetorical "answers" like a bot. Why don't you answer epeeist's questions for a start.

Is it possible that remnant is not a real person? Amazing, non intelligence can pass for a creationist and fool us all

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164013 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Pardon me, but it seems that you are the one that is lying now. I have not used profanity, called anyone a name, or made any sort of personal attack. Why do you have to resort to that?

I did not say that you had used profanities - why did you lie and say I did?

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164010 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Really, is that your argument from authority?

That is my observation - not authority! Lets put it to the test - speak up anyone he who is interested in his argument from authority

Rather that discuss you adult fairy tales which are nothing more than speculations, why don't you show me just one living transitional creature.

This is one of your most ignorant questions yet. To be transitional, there must be something that it has changed into - that would have to be something in the future and not existing in the present

Your muslim mate has the right and free will to believe whatever he wants, act accordingly, and receive the fate he chooses, and so do you.

Why cant you actually read? I askes why you did not accept his authority when he says christianity is wrong?

Last chance now, provide your evidence

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163999 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Looks like remnant has given up on evidence and started throwing general insults. Living up to creotard ideal.

Offend
Lie
provide no evidence
lie some more
avoid the issue
quote mine
be rude
ignore question
get pwned and throw about more insults

214. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163993 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Remnant,
Do you deny natural selection as a mens of non randomly generating change?

Only bother answering if you are willing to provide some scientific proof for creationism, cos I wont bother replying if you dont. All you creationists do by refusing to provide testable evidence is confirm what we already know. ID/creationism is not science

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163986 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Remnant,
No one is interested in the argument from authority fallacy. How about you actually prouce some evidence - we can - oh look, an archaeopteryx - oh look, telomere sequences inside chromosome 2 - oh look fossilised ofactory genes - oh look, pakicetus exactly where you would expect to find it - both spatially and temporally. So, forget the fact that you personally just cant come to terms with probability arguments based on an misunderstanding/misrepresentation of evolution, prvide some evidence for creation in a scientific manner.

PS, my muslim mate says christianity is wrong - think about why you dont accept this argument from authority

216. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163941 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 10:24 am

See, that's what happens when you read only creationist misrepresentations of the theory of evolution.

Yeah, they have to lie or they will be found out

217. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163921 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Pacman, I really love the date of your references. Not only do they fail to actually take account of how evolution actually works (oh and sex increases rates of evolution too), they are from a time when few genes were actually sequenced and molecular relationships determined. Known base pairs now run into billions

218. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163913 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 9:18 am

Creationist probability arguments
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

219. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163909 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 9:13 am

Only from prior research I have done. Give it a minute or two to sink in.

????????

220. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163906 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 9:10 am

Pacman,

What part of my previous post concerning these calculations being flawed did you not understand? What parts of creating new genes did you ignore? Oh, that's right, all of it!

I'm guessing you are also misrepresenting abiogenesis too!

221. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163902 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

I can't see my farts either but I believe in them.

Try doing one in the bath. In fact, fill a jam jar with water, put it into the bath and collect the fart. It smells of ... of... creationism!

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163898 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 9:02 am

Only responding to your insult asking for an open mind. Yours seems to be quite closed concerning alternative explanations. I really have to go.

Strange you took a request for honest debate as an insult. Strange you think I should accept your belief without evidence. Strange that you said we dont want to explore other alternatives when I told you exactly what it would take to destroy evolution.

Perhaps you will spend your time away looking for evidence. I want some positive evidence from you - none of this attacking what evolution is not about. I want to see the evidence of your belief.

223. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163891 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 8:55 am

Sometimes, I wonder if your minds are so open that your brains have fallen out.

Really? Do you think an insult is evidence for creationism?

He pulled a "number 10". Quele suprise! :)

Is there a list of theist excuses somewhere for future reference?

224. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163886 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 8:49 am

I would love to continue but have to go to a conference. I will be back early next week.

Run creationist run! :-)

I hope if you do come back it is with an open mind and some evidence. Most of us would appreciate answers to our questions on your return. Many theists just appear on different threads with the same old refuted comments

225. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163882 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 8:42 am

I can't see God, I can only see the effects of Him.

Does that include making small pox?
How do you know what you see is god?

God is. He wasn't created. Simple as that.

How do you know? If the universe needs a designer, why does the designer not need one? Your whole argument seems to be that things need a designer. It is then inconsistent to then say god does not need one.

Could you answer the many other questions put to you here? Creationists always. ignore the toughies and come away with unsubstantiated claims like your last response. If you want us to take your case seriously, then you have to do a lot better.

226. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163847 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 7:01 am

I want details: which angels were assigned to the task, and how long they took.

And what tools were used. I also want to see a film of them doing it, and see them being designed

227. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163844 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 6:57 am

All that is within a living cell could not be placed ther by chance.

How? and define chance! God could not exist by chance - discuss!

A million page book would be required to contain all the DNA coding contained in one mammalian cell. "... about 2000mpages of this type would be required to show the nucleotide sequence for the DNA in the chromosome of a typical single-cell bacterium; roughly a million pages would be needed to similarly display the genetic code embodied in DNA molecules that make up chromosomes of a typical mammalian cell." LL Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities, (1984)

That's interesting. What font size was that? How does this statement mean evolution is wrong? These calculations usually start from the assumption that all these sequences must just come together by chance to make a species. This is not how evolution works. The calculations are therefore irrelevant.
Again, hard evidence shows this - gene duplications etc!

The probability of complex molecules is similar for human proteins. The probabilities of biological evolution of each one (over 200,000) are the same as thoseagainst a random solution of a Rubik's cube (less than 1 chance in one billion).

This is actually an argument for creation of a species in its current form. Again, it ignores the basics of evolution - that things start off simple and expand. You seem to here that the ancestral species has the same content - therefore it is the same species - so, where is the allowance for evolution and gradual change.

These are roughly the same as you could give to the idea of just one of our body's proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Again, not how evolution works. proteins evolved from genes for other proteins. These duplicate, mutate, gain insertion or deletions, fuse with other genes etc, and those that give an advantage are selected - this is non random!

However, we use about 200,00 types of protein in our cells. If the odds against random creation of one protein are the same as those against a random solution of a Rubik's cube, then the odds against a random creation of 200,000 are immensely vast.

See above. Also get your facts right. We contain about 30 000 genes. Some of these are differentially spliced or transcribed from alternate start codons - this produces variations of products of the same gene.

Where is your positive evidence of creation? Even if you were to refute Darwinism - and on current form, there is no danger of that - that does not mean creation wins.

So, where is the evidence?

What about chromosome 2?

228. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163838 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 6:37 am

As for bacterial reistance, these adaptations are in fact evidence for change over time,

In other words evolution The very thing you sweepingly said has never been observed and does not happen does not happen!

but not the kind that would change a microbe into a man.

Are you honestly expecting a microbe to become a human in one step?

When it becomes resistant to an antibiotic it remains staphylococcus and doesn't become a different kind of bacterium altogether. It remains staphylococcus.

It is a slightly different Staphylococcus - accumulate enough changes or significant speciating changes and it slowly becomes something else.

I also provided some links to 4 finned whales and toothed chickens the other day. Perhaps you missed it?

There are documented cases of multicellularity evolving in species of single celled algae in the presence of predatory rotifers. I dont know anything of the genetics of it though, but in terms of whether large phenotypic changes can occur suddenly or not, we dont need a mechanism.
There are also dolphins with 4 flippers. http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/fourfinned-dolphin-an-evolutionary-throwback/2006/11/05/1162661544728.html
Or chickens producing teeth http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

Again, the mechanism is not important, these changes can and do happen. When a cretinist talks of increased information, he is using a straw man as he somehow thinks a functional camera eye should evolve in one generation by accident. As with some examples I have given earlier (AbdA) increased "information" can also reduce complexity - but still alter body plans.
It is a load of bollocks which keeps getting repeated. They seem to think that if there is no evidence for incresed information, that some how invalidates macro evolution. It is a clear misunderstanding of how evolution works(although I suspect many dont want to understand).
At best all that could be said is that there is gap in our knowlegde - that invalidates nothing.
However, there is no gap. I doubt any of the fundies will read this, but here are some known mechanisms.

Genome duplication
Pseudogene generation
convertion of processed pseudogenes
Gene duplication
Duplication and transposition
Horizontal gene transfer
Nucleotide insertion
Crossover errors at meiosis
Retroviral insertion.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page45#163117

Therefore, if any complex change is to take place to turn an organism from one kind to another "more complex" kind, it must add new information to that kind's, i.e organism's, DNA

How does it? Where is your evidence? I can provide evidence that shows reducing content can build more comlex body plans - Shortening the Alx4 gene increases the complexity of mammals. AbdA mutations increase appendage number in insects - You need to get your info from somewhere other than AIG or CMI. I Also mentioned some observed mechanisms of information increase above.

That is not what we observe taking place in bacteria at all. New information is never created. Existing information may modified, lost or even exchanged between bacteria, but never created.

Now you are just getting confused. Some of these resistence genes in bacteria are the result of aquiring new DNA and it doesn't matter where it comes from, it is still new DNA, so it still satisfies the criteria of your strawman of how evolution works.

I still see absolutly no evidence of creationism from you, or whether god made small pox.

229. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163799 by BillySands on April 19, 2008 at 4:14 am

With some creotards, counter-questioning is effective.

Love the name creotard. It sums them up so nicely. Not a single piece of evidence amongst them, yet they are so sure we are wrong. Creationist, thy name is spacktard.

230. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163635 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Pacman, Dont you have any evidence then? Don't worry, Michael Behe has none either!

No idea who Ellen Degeneres is - there is a world outside the US you know, which also means its time for bed - feel free to provide evidence for design.

A few simple question
Do you believe that god is loving?
Do you believe god designed the small pox virus

Now the hard question.

If the answer to either is yes, where is your evidence?

231. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163630 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Critical thinking isn't a skill they have.

Yes, they are constrained by their paradigm and if they step out of it, everything else collapses.

Interesting, but apparantly critical thinking was what really separated holocaust rescuers from non rescuers. If any one can suppy a source to that I would be grateful (It was a brief slide in a talk by Stephen Law)

232. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163627 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Zaphod, I do find it offensive when creationists produce no evidence and tell us we dont want to consider other options.
I have considered the other option and it is just silly - and not supported by evidence. If someone can find me a 500 million year old rabbit, then I will of course re-evaluate my position based on evidence
In my experience it is creationists that do not want to consider the other options

233. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163621 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Evolution has never been observed and will never be observed.

Antibiotic resistance!

PS I didn't see any evidence of design from you!

234. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163606 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Pacman, You sound rather unpleasant. Why is sex a problem? It evolved gradually
Perhaps you could explain chromosome 2 to me and how that is not evidence for evolution. I'm sure you are obviously informed and I dont need to explain it to you (sarcasm)

Provide one piece of evidence for design that doesnt rely on you saying explain that! Or wow, that is complex and I am a retard and cant possibly imagine how that could have evolved

235. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163598 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Paulgnewton

If you read this thread, you will see others have pointed out why hitler was not a darwinist. Any way, I would like you explain these in terms of Darwinism if you can:

1073: Pope Gregory VII prohibited Jews from holding office in Christian Europe.


1096: the first Crusade in Germany resulted in the killing of 12,000 Jews along cities of
the Rhine River; also, Jews were massacred en route to Jerusalem by the Crusaders.

1121: Jews were driven out of Belgium until they repented of killing Christ.

1144: Norwich, England, reported blood libel (the charge that Jews kidnapped Christian
children, sacrificed them, and used their blood in the Passover ritual).

1146: The Catholic Church decreed that any Christians volunteering to fight in the
Crusade would be released from all debts owed to Jews.

1145-1153: Jews who purchased protection in fortified castles of barons and noblemen
in the Rhineland during the Second Crusade were betrayed to ravaging mobs.

1147: Jews in North Africa were persecuted by the Almohades and fled the area, were
converted to Islam, or were forced to wear distinctive clothing.

1170: the Third Crusade ?quot; Jews accused of blood libel and massacred.

1182: King Philip of France expelled the Jews, confiscated their property, turned
synagogues into churches, and forced Jews to wear identification badges.

1189: at the coronation of Richard the Lionhearted, a persecution against Jews broke out
unexpectedly ?quot; many were killed, their houses burned, and their property confiscated.

1198-1216: Pope Innocent III promoted Fourth Crusade, demanding Christian rulers
make Jews atone for the sin of "deicide" ?quot; in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council introduced the idea that European Jews wear special badges.

1226-1274: King Louis IX demanded all Jews be baptized, and burned 24 cartloads of
the Talmud in Paris, with the approval of Pope Gregory IX.

1260: the Mameluks defeated the Mongols and took control of Syria ?quot; anti-Semitic laws
re-enacted, including forcing Jewish women to wear one black shoe and one red.

1261: Archbishop Robert seized all Jewish property and held influential Jews for ransom
by relatives (inspiration for Goering in WWII).

1267: Jews forced to wear cone-shaped hats in addition to badges in Vienna.

1290: King Edward I banished Jews from England, forcing 16,000 to leave.

1298: the German Knight Rindfleisch alleged he had received divine orders to kill all
Jews ?quot; persecution broke out in Franconia, Bavaria, and Austria, resulting in 140 Jewish
communities being destroyed and 100,000 Jews being killed.

1306: Philip the Tall expelled 100,000 Jews from France and seized all their property,
and from 1322-1359 France was officially without a Jewish population ?quot; elsewhere they
were denied the right to hold public office, keep Christian servants, and work or eat
meat on Christian holidays; accused of desecrating the Host (wafer of communion) and
poisoning wells, their villages were systematically destroyed by mobs incited to
violence.

1336-1338: "Armleder", a systematic campaign by German peasants to murder, rob and
annihilate whole Jewish communities was begun.

1348-1350: Jews were accused of poisoning wells and causing the Black Death
(Bubonic Plague, so called because it turned the victim's skin black ?quot; this epidemic did
not infect the Jewish population because of their strict sanitary practices, but their
immunity from it led to rumors that lepers and Jews had plotted against Christians by
poisoning their wells ?quot; Emperors granted immunity to anyone who murdered a Jew)

1391: In Spain, Jews were forced to leave or be massacred and have their bodies
dismembered; 70 communities were destroyed.

1411-1412: Jews were forced to listen to Christian preaching in synagogues and be
converted.

1421: Jews in Vienna had possessions confiscated and children forcibly converted; 270
were burned at the stake.

1453: Jews of Poland had all civil rights withdrawn.

1483-1492: the Spanish Inquisition, under direction of General Torquemada of the
Roman Catholic Church, perpetrated against Jews (and non-Catholics). Torture, heavy
fines, confiscation of property, banishment, and often death resulted; 300,000 Jews were
expelled from Spain in 1492.

Gott mit uns! http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

236. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163117 by BillySands on April 18, 2008 at 2:37 am

Quetz

This morning I received an e-mail from David Robertson telling me that my response will not be displayed, in the interests of keeping the thread "on topic".

Interesting. It was definately there last night!
Since only moderated comments appear, someone must have OKed it only for Robertson to censor it. Why does that not surprise me? Booooo! Bad Dave! Silencing your critics cos you cant cope no doubt!

Steve

The macro/micro evolution distinction is confusing. My sense of what macro-evolution is supposed to be is some significant change in a single generation. That does happen!

There are documented cases of multicellularity evolving in species of single celled algae in the presence of predatory rotifers. I dont know anything of the genetics of it though, but in terms of whether large phenotypic changes can occur suddenly or not, we dont need a mechanism.
There are also dolphins with 4 flippers. http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/fourfinned-dolphin-an-evolutionary-throwback/2006/11/05/1162661544728.html
Or chickens producing teeth http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

Again, the mechanism is not important, these changes can and do happen. When a cretinist talks of increased information, he is using a straw man as he somehow thinks a functional camera eye should evolve in one generation by accident. As with some examples I have given earlier (AbdA) increased "information" can also reduce complexity - but still alter body plans.
It is a load of bollocks which keeps getting repeated. They seem to think that if there is no evidence for incresed information, that some how invalidates macro evolution. It is a clear misunderstanding of how evolution works(although I suspect many dont want to understand).
At best all that could be said is that there is gap in our knowlegde - that invalidates nothing.
However, there is no gap. I doubt any of the fundies will read this, but here are some known mechanisms.

Genome duplication
Pseudogene generation
convertion of processed pseudogenes
Gene duplication
Duplication and transposition
Horizontal gene transfer
Nucleotide insertion
Crossover errors at meiosis
Retroviral insertion.

I notice FDI has not been back - no suprise there!

237. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162861 by BillySands on April 17, 2008 at 3:28 pm

FDI,
I dont for one second believe you are genuine here. You seem to think evolution is a law. I dont think you know what you mean about increasing the genetic code.

Anyway, how about duplication and mutation of opsin genes?
What about a gene which makes animals sprout extra fingers when it is shortened Like ALX-4.
How about the constant transfer of genes between species by horizontal gene transfer?

238. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162484 by BillySands on April 17, 2008 at 2:50 am

Ego

What is the correct way to say scone?

239. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162103 by BillySands on April 16, 2008 at 6:52 am

Ah yes, before I forget, all those people who said they would pray for me, I have something to say on the matter.

I deny the Holy Ghost, Jesus and God!


Right, thats that sorted, I am hell bound and there aint a thing you can do about it!

Still praying for me now?

I claim apostatic status - lets see your superstition work on me too

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162094 by BillySands on April 16, 2008 at 6:42 am

Al, it would appear so, or at least he is on the way http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=79bce46b434b28dc7336ebb5c9952d17&topic=25.msg261#msg261

I find this line strange "I can turn the cold, unrelenting spotlight of "rational thinking" on it - it doesn't make one jot of difference."

It's clearely not a rational thing then!

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162086 by BillySands on April 16, 2008 at 6:32 am

Irate,

I think I'll not waste my time on the FCOS. Robertson would no doubt claim we are hastling the clearly needy RM. It seem he has a need in his life and if he wants to delude himself, then so be it. David will probablky no doubt exploit this poor man though and wheel him out to do tricks as his performing re-re-re-re-convert.

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162036 by BillySands on April 16, 2008 at 3:08 am

Pointing out that the majority of biomass is composed of simple creatures does not impress me. It is a red herring. I did not say that the end result of evolution is that all animals that live are extremely complex. I just said that the process of evolution will generate increasingly complex phenotypes, given the energy (and time) to explore the space of possible phenotypes. Complexity itself is certainly not a survival advantage... which brings me to:

And I am pointing out that evolution need not increase complexity. It is not an inevitability. You have already been supplied with examples. Athropod appendages for example. Lets consider the pentadactyl limb of tetrapods. Early tetrapods had more digits - lots more when you consider the fin rays of fish. How many fingers does a bird have? How many teeth do they have.
You also need to consider time in this. Obviously you need to increase complexity to produce an amoeba from simpler forms, but does that mean that you have to further increase molecular complexity after that? Lets not forget that it is the genes that determines the "complexity" of the organism. So you cant discuss one with out the other.

Well mutations will make some of them have six, and both species will survive for a while... until the extra space on their hard drives (chromosomes) is needed to code some other survival advantage, leading to the extinction of the ten legged guys.

Totally wrong and decapods still exist (although not necessarily derived from insects. It is actually the evolution of new genes like AbdA(increased complexity) that decreases leg number (decreased complexity).

You can therefore infer nothing about evolution and complexity interms of a possible ultimate outcome.

If 6 legs are an advantage, nothing else needs to be addeded to chromosomes.

Ten legged guys need to eat more too, what of it?

Even the small ones?

But just because evolution tends to refine the "design" of a species, does not mean that the overall process does not lead to more complex species in the big picture.

Except we have just shown otherwise.

If that were not so, the rodents of 150 million years ago would not have turned into the wide variety of mammals we have today (many of which are more complex to my gumby mind, if not as measured by their number of base pairs).

Like I said, you do not need to increase complexity to speciate. Remember the M. leprae exmple?

What makes modern rodents more complex? And how does any of this indicate evolution is directed?

So while you can recommend that I read about parasitic reductionism, I can note that the variety of parasites, as well as all of the other creatures in the ecosystem, is increasing as evolution explores the phase space of viable phenotypes.

Heard of the permian/triassic or cretatious/tertiary extinction events? By all accounts, it looks like we have lost diversity and complexity - look at the burgess shale for example. Again you are only considering a snap shot in time.
Evolution is not concerned with ecosystems either and what does that have to do with evidence for direction? Why claim it is even directed at humans? Why not ants or bacteria?

I'd be willing to bet that the total number of genes is increasing, generally (neglecting setbacks)

Dont bet, provide evidence! I have provided evidence that gene numbers decrease too, and that increase is not a requirement for evolution.

So why is that important to my God-theory? Only peripherally (ask me if you're curious), but you all are the ones arguing that evolution decreases complexity in the face of overwhelming fossil evidence.

Do tell. Also, look at what has disappeared from the fossil record. We also see digit, tooth and limb reductions taking place, so where is the neccessity of increased complexity in evolution?

You cannot sit here and tell me about the complexity of amoeba DNA and ignore the majesty of the human brain.

And vice-versa! Evolution has provides the amoeba with a genome more complex than a human's, so what is your point? Where is the need to increase complexity?

243. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161740 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Why are a lot of you lauding this man (human being) as some sort of "messiah". You are worse then those evangalists... and thats saying alot!

I was under the impression we were discussing evolution.
Why do christians treat some heretical dead jew on a stick as some sort of messiah?

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161719 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 2:26 pm

The idea that we, and all of the other animals that are gifted with complexity in excess of a single cell, are just lucky campers... is ludicrous.

Why?

The overwhelming evidence is that evolution produces complexity, in spite of randomness.

I think you must have closed your eyes when exmples to the contrary were given. Of course random events can increase complexity, but that is not the point. The point is that complexity is not inevitable.

Where is your evidence.

If I were to infer a purpose for the universe, it would have to be cause as much suffering as possible. I dont however see evidence for a purpose. Can you provide some?

245. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161697 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Those are fascinating trees you're examining... meanwhile the whole forest is growing from single celled organisms to a planet that includes a species with a brain that consists of billions of neurons and tens of thousands of connections between them (on average).

Ah, your ignorance is sweet. Evolution is not about building humans. We are but a tiny part of the biosphere. Most species in existance are microscopic. Furthermore most species have many dependant species of parasites or viruses. You may want to look up the phenomenom of parasitic reductionism where parasites inevitably loose genes. Mycobacterium leprae for example, has lost functionality in around 1100 genes.

Do let me know when you've grasped the point.

Wake me up when you actually have an informed opinion and not a demonstrably false ad hom!

246. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161684 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Epeeist,
2 hands working can achieve more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer

247. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161682 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 1:57 pm

The point is that in spite of the randomness, evolution generally leads to more and more complex forms of organization, assuming that you keep pouring energy into the system.

Not necessarily. Insects have fewer appendages than theur ancestors. We have lost olfactory genes, ice fish have lost haemoglobin genes, genomes become less organised etc

248. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161672 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm

A fascinating trend I have seen in recent discussions on this, and other forums has been the desperate attempts of theists to squint in various ways at evidence in order to try and detect the slightest sign of purpose or God.

A position that they never backup with evidence.

249. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161668 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Come on Dr. Dawkins, keep your dignity while you're still the pope of Darwinism.

Hands up anyone who does not think the irony went straight over his head here.

250. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161662 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Al is that why they get to kiss the popes ring?

(I did well to resist the acne joke. Anyone wants it PM me)