John Read

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@Fx1Jonny Quran 4:24: “And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess…” In traditional jurisprudence (fiqh), female captives from war could be taken as concubines. Sexual access was permitted without formal marriage, and as property

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@AtheistTakes “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@Maximumatheist You have no actual argument-> you lose!

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@athiestboi

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@AtheistTakes You appear to worship a goat

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@AtheistPhoenix Nonsense:

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@gumseewadaa No:

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@r_graus Mathematics says that there was!

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@TheExBeliever The great flood was to save mankind from the infiltration & corruption of the nephilim -> it ensured that Jesus would be born fully human and qualify as the saviour of mankind (point #2 below):

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix I did, though many years ago. You have the great privilege of working in the domain of molecular biology that very obviously declares the glory of God. You more than most should recognise the sheer wonder of life.

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix To prove your case you just need to provide one experimental demonstration of undirected mutation creating a completely novel functional protein fold. Otherwise it remains a ‘god of the gaps’ fairy tale.

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix Mutations break normal function. The amount of light reaching the retina is governed by pupil size, not iris pigment density. But less pigment means LESS effective blocking of oblique light entering around the iris margin -> this slightly REDUCES contrast and acuity.

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix Blue eyes are the result of a mutation that caused a LOSS of function -> a regulatory switch turned down OCA2 expression. It was not a change to the coding sequence of OCA2 itself and is NOT an example of evolution.

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix You still have to find an example to prove your claim. Until then it is fake news!

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix No:

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix My challenge to you remains -> to justify mutation as a mechanism that enables the development of entirely novel functional proteins, show me an experimental demonstration of even one example.

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix To justify your wild claim, see if you can find even one experimental demonstration of a truly novel functional protein fold arising from mutation.

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix You fail to understand the point that I made about all claimed examples (such as the one you quote, as below) of evolution failing to show any truly novel function -> this is NOT evolution!

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix Neo-Darwinian theory is bankrupt!

[John Read @Jiii_16]

@fjc0000 @AtheistPhoenix The RNA World only has experimental support for some components (some nucleotide synthesis, some ribozyme activity). Jack Szostak, leading RNA World researcher and Nobel laureate, has acknowledged that the path from chemistry to a self-replicating RNA system remains unclear.