QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 18 2005, 11:19 PM)
Bilderback
There are currently no known"major flaws" in the BB theories, just areas needing further study, but you don't understand anything about that, you think it means the theory is invalidated because we haven't worked out all the details.
There are currently no known"major flaws" in the BB theories, just areas needing further study, but you don't understand anything about that, you think it means the theory is invalidated because we haven't worked out all the details.
I feel sorry for your students for not being taught about objectivity in your classes, the best thing I found for student is give them "pros and cons " on theoretical information and let them reason for them selves.
That statement alone proves you have never taught a single student in your life. Critical thinking has it's place but the only information you can teach is that which has been supported by the science, controversies have no place in a classroom. That is why we have boards in each state which determine the lesson plans approved for use in class. After the student has a firm foundation in the known and proven facts and have their BS detecters turned on by teaching critical thinking they are well armed to dismiss the claptrap your kind spews and see the reality that science shows them.
Things like Quantum theory and Relativity built on the science of Newton and did not make it "all but obsolete" but expanded our understanding beyond what it was.
There is zero proof any species has ever changed from one species into another that it cannot breed with. "
I sure wish I had a mind crowbar to help you get yours opened.
Are you blind as well as stupid??? Dinosaur--(see above)--Bird, is that simple enough for you???
Grumpy
Assumption, faith. You are looking for evidence to match you preconceived outcome, you want to prove the BB theory and will only except the data that fits your theory, the CBR is a major flaw in the theory, the theoretic physics explaining the BB need to changed enough to have to re-theorize the chain of events to make the theory work, that sounds major to me.
Assumption, faith. You are looking for evidence to match you preconceived outcome, you want to prove the BB theory and will only except the data that fits your theory, the CBR is a major flaw in the theory, the theoretic physics explaining the BB need to changed enough to have to re-theorize the chain of events to make the theory work, that sounds major to me.
That statement alone proves you have never taught a single student in your life. Critical thinking has it's place but the only information you can teach is that which has been supported by the science, controversies have no place in a classroom. That is why we have boards in each state which determine the lesson plans approved for use in class. After the student has a firm foundation in the known and prove facts and have their BS detecters turned on by teaching critical thinking they are well armed to dismiss the claptrap your kind spews and see the reality that science shows them.
I don't know where you teach, but our curriculum allows for teacher independents, as long as the basic standards are met, we are free to teach to the basic standards how we see fit.
That is only one fossil, and it can display "a" possibility, proof, no. Have you ever done a complete study on hominid fossils? The evidence has been manipulate to show a false set of events. When looking at the fossil records by type, age, and location found, the picture is far from clear, and then of course, all the gaps in the records. One skull with an estimated date from China is used, the the next skull used in the set comes from Africa and so on. If the skull from each location are set in chronological order, it can be seen that some of the older skull are more human like than much younger one in a different location. The data is "stacked in an attempt to prove a preconceived out come. I guarantee the fossil record isn't the "slam-dunk" you think it is.
QUOTE
I did not say the BB didn't happen I stated that there are major flaws to the theory -
There are currently no known"major flaws" in the BB theories, just areas needing further study, but you don't understand anything about that, you think it means the theory is invalidated because we haven't worked out all the details.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I did not say the BB didn't happen I stated that there are major flaws to the theory - |
There are currently no known"major flaws" in the BB theories, just areas needing further study, but you don't understand anything about that, you think it means the theory is invalidated because we haven't worked out all the details.
I feel sorry for your students for not being taught about objectivity in your classes, the best thing I found for student is give them "pros and cons " on theoretical information and let them reason for them selves.
That statement alone proves you have never taught a single student in your life. Critical thinking has it's place but the only information you can teach is that which has been supported by the science, controversies have no place in a classroom. That is why we have boards in each state which determine the lesson plans approved for use in class. After the student has a firm foundation in the known and proven facts and have their BS detecters turned on by teaching critical thinking they are well armed to dismiss the claptrap your kind spews and see the reality that science shows them.
Things like Quantum theory and Relativity built on the science of Newton and did not make it "all but obsolete" but expanded our understanding beyond what it was.
QUOTE
"By the definition of science, a fact needs to be provable and repeatable, with millions of living species on the Earth, science has never seen one species mutate or evolve into a new one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "By the definition of science, a fact needs to be provable and repeatable, with millions of living species on the Earth, science has never seen one species mutate or evolve into a new one. |
There is zero proof any species has ever changed from one species into another that it cannot breed with. "
QUOTE
How would you like me to prove something that never happened - I can't, other that posting a list of every known species and say: nope, nope , not that one, not that one either . . .
All you have to do to prove me wrong is show one, just one species that has been observered to spontaneous mutation in to a new species. A fossil record may show a change but it doesn't show or prove how.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is show one, just one species that has been observered to spontaneous mutation in to a new species. A fossil record may show a change but it doesn't show or prove how.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How would you like me to prove something that never happened - I can't, other that posting a list of every known species and say: nope, nope , not that one, not that one either . . . All you have to do to prove me wrong is show one, just one species that has been observered to spontaneous mutation in to a new species. A fossil record may show a change but it doesn't show or prove how. |
I sure wish I had a mind crowbar to help you get yours opened.
Are you blind as well as stupid??? Dinosaur--(see above)--Bird, is that simple enough for you???
Grumpy
QUOTE
There are currently no known"major flaws" in the BB theories, just areas needing further study, but you don't understand anything about that, you think it means the theory is invalidated because we haven't worked out all the details.
Assumption, faith. You are looking for evidence to match you preconceived outcome, you want to prove the BB theory and will only except the data that fits your theory, the CBR is a major flaw in the theory, the theoretic physics explaining the BB need to changed enough to have to re-theorize the chain of events to make the theory work, that sounds major to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are currently no known"major flaws" in the BB theories, just areas needing further study, but you don't understand anything about that, you think it means the theory is invalidated because we haven't worked out all the details. |
Assumption, faith. You are looking for evidence to match you preconceived outcome, you want to prove the BB theory and will only except the data that fits your theory, the CBR is a major flaw in the theory, the theoretic physics explaining the BB need to changed enough to have to re-theorize the chain of events to make the theory work, that sounds major to me.
That statement alone proves you have never taught a single student in your life. Critical thinking has it's place but the only information you can teach is that which has been supported by the science, controversies have no place in a classroom. That is why we have boards in each state which determine the lesson plans approved for use in class. After the student has a firm foundation in the known and prove facts and have their BS detecters turned on by teaching critical thinking they are well armed to dismiss the claptrap your kind spews and see the reality that science shows them.
I don't know where you teach, but our curriculum allows for teacher independents, as long as the basic standards are met, we are free to teach to the basic standards how we see fit.
QUOTE
Are you blind as well as stupid??? Dinosaur--(see above)--Bird, is that simple enough for you???
That is only one fossil, and it can display "a" possibility, proof, no. Have you ever done a complete study on hominid fossils? The evidence has been manipulate to show a false set of events. When looking at the fossil records by type, age, and location found, the picture is far from clear, and then of course, all the gaps in the records. One skull with an estimated date from China is used, the the next skull used in the set comes from Africa and so on. If the skull from each location are set in chronological order, it can be seen that some of the older skull are more human like than much younger one in a different location. The data is "stacked in an attempt to prove a preconceived out come. I guarantee the fossil record isn't the "slam-dunk" you think it is.
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 19 2005, 03:22 AM)
........As for evidences we do have, the split merge fits the bill real well. If we look at tigers and elephants for example, they came from a common ancestor. Just like the bible indicates......
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So-o-o....according-to-dadl, we HAVE evolution (and HYPER evolution, to boot!). I wonder if dadl's 'interpretation' will be good enough for SoLoved&Mess (and that other 'self-aware' tomato plant, S. Bilderback); I wonder....do they NOW AGREE that evolution CAN and DOES occur?
S. Bilderback
Do you agree with dad1 that evolution is a fact supported by the bible?
Curious
S. Bilderback
Do you agree with dad1 that evolution is a fact supported by the bible?
Curious
QUOTE (Guest_Curious+Dec 19 2005, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 19 2005, 03:22 AM)
........As for evidences we do have, the split merge fits the bill real well. If we look at tigers and elephants for example, they came from a common ancestor. Just like the bible indicates......
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So-o-o....according-to-dadl, we HAVE evolution (and HYPER evolution, to boot!). I wonder if dadl's 'interpretation' will be good enough for SoLoved&Mess (and that other 'self-aware' tomato plant, S. Bilderback); I wonder....do they NOW AGREE that evolution CAN and DOES occur?
S. Bilderback
Do you agree with dad1 that evolution is a fact supported by the bible?
Curious
I believe that evolution is fact.
I believe that life starting spontaneously as a set of random events in 3.5 billion years is fiction.
I believe resulting spontaneous evolution is also fiction.
S. Bilderback
Do you agree with dad1 that evolution is a fact supported by the bible?
Curious
I believe that evolution is fact.
I believe that life starting spontaneously as a set of random events in 3.5 billion years is fiction.
I believe resulting spontaneous evolution is also fiction.
Bilderback
The reason I accept the BB theory is that it DOES answer the cosmological questions of the origin of the universe based on the EVIDENCE. The CBR totally supports the findings of the cosmologists so far(notice the caviat), but the fine grained texture of the minute differences in background temp have until recently not been detectable, so it would be understandable by normal people that all the answers are not yet known. You call that a "major flaw", I call that an opportunity to learn more about the universe. Nothing we have found so far(again the caviat) has invalidated the current theories concerning the BB.
The reason I accept the BB theory is that it DOES answer the cosmological questions of the origin of the universe based on the EVIDENCE. The CBR totally supports the findings of the cosmologists so far(notice the caviat), but the fine grained texture of the minute differences in background temp have until recently not been detectable, so it would be understandable by normal people that all the answers are not yet known. You call that a "major flaw", I call that an opportunity to learn more about the universe. Nothing we have found so far(again the caviat) has invalidated the current theories concerning the BB.
I don't know where you teach, but our curriculum allows for teacher independents, as long as the basic standards are met, we are free to teach to the basic standards how we see fit.
Do you mean teacher independence? And if you teach in a public school I hope you do try to teach your crap in a classroom, that will insure that at least one crappy teacher will soon be gone.
That is only one fossil,
Actually there were six found in the 1850s and several dozen simular species found since, to me that indicates a(or several) species.
I think I will just let you argue this one out with yourself.
Actually, I did do extensive research and on site digging in the homidae line at Olduvai in Africa back in the late sixties and early seventies as a student and actually knew the Leakeys at least as the high mucky mucks at the site and they knew me as"Hey you". Part of the reason I decided to concentrate on Physics and Chemistry is because it involved no digging.
The hominids leading to man are well documented in Africa by the Leakeys and others. Do we understand everything about that lineage? No, and we will probably not do so for several more decades, but what we have found is solid evidence for man's ascent out of Africa from more primative ancestors and from a common source as the other tailless apes. Nit pick all you like, those are the facts. Slam Dunk? No, just good solid scientific evidence.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Assumption, faith. You are looking for evidence to match you preconceived outcome, you want to prove the BB theory and will only except the data that fits your theory, the CBR is a major flaw in the theory, the theoretic physics explaining the BB need to changed enough to have to re-theorize the chain of events to make the theory work, that sounds major to me.
The reason I accept the BB theory is that it DOES answer the cosmological questions of the origin of the universe based on the EVIDENCE. The CBR totally supports the findings of the cosmologists so far(notice the caviat), but the fine grained texture of the minute differences in background temp have until recently not been detectable, so it would be understandable by normal people that all the answers are not yet known. You call that a "major flaw", I call that an opportunity to learn more about the universe. Nothing we have found so far(again the caviat) has invalidated the current theories concerning the BB.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Assumption, faith. You are looking for evidence to match you preconceived outcome, you want to prove the BB theory and will only except the data that fits your theory, the CBR is a major flaw in the theory, the theoretic physics explaining the BB need to changed enough to have to re-theorize the chain of events to make the theory work, that sounds major to me. |
The reason I accept the BB theory is that it DOES answer the cosmological questions of the origin of the universe based on the EVIDENCE. The CBR totally supports the findings of the cosmologists so far(notice the caviat), but the fine grained texture of the minute differences in background temp have until recently not been detectable, so it would be understandable by normal people that all the answers are not yet known. You call that a "major flaw", I call that an opportunity to learn more about the universe. Nothing we have found so far(again the caviat) has invalidated the current theories concerning the BB.
I don't know where you teach, but our curriculum allows for teacher independents, as long as the basic standards are met, we are free to teach to the basic standards how we see fit.
Do you mean teacher independence? And if you teach in a public school I hope you do try to teach your crap in a classroom, that will insure that at least one crappy teacher will soon be gone.
QUOTE
All you have to do to prove me wrong is show one, just one species that has been observered to spontaneous mutation in to a new species. A fossil record may show a change but it doesn't show or prove how.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All you have to do to prove me wrong is show one, just one species that has been observered to spontaneous mutation in to a new species. A fossil record may show a change but it doesn't show or prove how. |
That is only one fossil,
Actually there were six found in the 1850s and several dozen simular species found since, to me that indicates a(or several) species.
I think I will just let you argue this one out with yourself.
QUOTE
Have you ever done a complete study on hominid fossils? The evidence has been manipulate to show a false set of events. When looking at the fossil records by type, age, and location found, the picture is far from clear, and then of course, all the gaps in the records. One skull with an estimated date from China is used, the the next skull used in the set comes from Africa and so on. If the skull from each location are set in chronological order, it can be seen that some of the older skull are more human like than much younger one in a different location. The data is "stacked in an attempt to prove a preconceived out come. I guarantee the fossil record isn't the "slam-dunk" you think it is.
Actually, I did do extensive research and on site digging in the homidae line at Olduvai in Africa back in the late sixties and early seventies as a student and actually knew the Leakeys at least as the high mucky mucks at the site and they knew me as"Hey you". Part of the reason I decided to concentrate on Physics and Chemistry is because it involved no digging.
The hominids leading to man are well documented in Africa by the Leakeys and others. Do we understand everything about that lineage? No, and we will probably not do so for several more decades, but what we have found is solid evidence for man's ascent out of Africa from more primative ancestors and from a common source as the other tailless apes. Nit pick all you like, those are the facts. Slam Dunk? No, just good solid scientific evidence.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 19 2005, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Curious+Dec 19 2005, 07:56 AM)
QUOTE (dad1+Dec 19 2005, 03:22 AM)
........As for evidences we do have, the split merge fits the bill real well. If we look at tigers and elephants for example, they came from a common ancestor. Just like the bible indicates......
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So-o-o....according-to-dadl, we HAVE evolution (and HYPER evolution, to boot!). I wonder if dadl's 'interpretation' will be good enough for SoLoved&Mess (and that other 'self-aware' tomato plant, S. Bilderback); I wonder....do they NOW AGREE that evolution CAN and DOES occur?
S. Bilderback
Do you agree with dad1 that evolution is a fact supported by the bible?
Curious
I believe that evolution is fact.
I believe that life starting spontaneously as a set of random events in 3.5 billion years is fiction.[/b]
[b]I believe resulting spontaneous evolution is also fiction.
S. Bilderback
Then How and Where in the universe do you believe life first "started"?
And When and How in your opinion did life first become established on Earth?
Curious
If they are no my own words, who wrote them for me?
Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's what you put as your definition:
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Here is the very first definition from dictionary.com:
sci·ence
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So I call bullsh!t on your "they were my words" BS. You looked it up and added some words in. They're even in the same order in both definitions.
I hate nothing more than liars.
Hey liar, you've ignored this.
If they are no my own words, who wrote them for me?
Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's what you put as your definition:
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Here is the very first definition from dictionary.com:
sci·ence
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So I call bullsh!t on your "they were my words" BS. You looked it up and added some words in. They're even in the same order in both definitions.
I hate nothing more than liars.
Hey liar, you've ignored this.
I would bet that you could go to almost any dictionary and find definitions that don't vary more than a few words, does that mean Webster plagiarizes from F&W?
Your assumption are the displays of some of the worst logic I've ever witnessed.
If they are no my own words, who wrote them for me?
Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's what you put as your definition:
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Here is the very first definition from dictionary.com:
sci·ence
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So I call bullsh!t on your "they were my words" BS. You looked it up and added some words in. They're even in the same order in both definitions.
I hate nothing more than liars.
Hey liar, you've ignored this.
I would bet that you could go to almost any dictionary and find definitions that don't vary more than a few words, does that mean Webster plagiarizes from F&W?
Your assumption are the displays of some of the worst logic I've ever witnessed.
Yeah, no crap, but YOU SAID it was YOUR OWN words. It obviously wasn't. It was plagiarized and you added a few words to it so as to make it not seem plagiarized.
Liars suck.
S. Bilderback
Do you agree with dad1 that evolution is a fact supported by the bible?
Curious
I believe that evolution is fact.
I believe that life starting spontaneously as a set of random events in 3.5 billion years is fiction.[/b]
[b]I believe resulting spontaneous evolution is also fiction.
S. Bilderback
Then How and Where in the universe do you believe life first "started"?
And When and How in your opinion did life first become established on Earth?
Curious
Bilderback
I meant to address this straight-from-answers-in-genises misunderstanding(the Horizon Problem) earlier and got sidetracked by blatant displays of abject ignorance(AKA Bilderbacks posts).
The reason that the CBR shows such uniformaty coming from oposite ends of the universe is because the source of that radiation was the BB and at one time it(the universe) was very small and of uniform(1 part in 100,000) density and energy level.The CBR is the image of that initial radiation which, due to the expansion of the universe, has cooled to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. The reason it is the same in all directions is we are seeing it from inside the explosion.
The Horizon"Problem" turns out to actually be a further proof of the BB theories.
The reason we all know you are a religious kook is because you have the same lack of understanding of what science is and because you use the same erronious arguments in your posts. You are all easy to recognize by having the same misconceptions of scientific facts even if you try to hide it or don't quote scripture.
Just like if two people get the same grade on a test and make the same exact errors you can be sure that one copied from the other, you,ve been copying from the creationist/ID arguments and you are just as wrong as they are.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Next, there's the so-called Horizon Problem. There is a maximum distance, called the horizon distance, that a light signal could have traveled since the beginning of the universe. The cosmic radiation that reaches our radio antennas from opposite directions, say east and west, originated in regions 30 billion light years apart. Information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light, so how could two disconnected regions be so uniform?
I meant to address this straight-from-answers-in-genises misunderstanding(the Horizon Problem) earlier and got sidetracked by blatant displays of abject ignorance(AKA Bilderbacks posts).
The reason that the CBR shows such uniformaty coming from oposite ends of the universe is because the source of that radiation was the BB and at one time it(the universe) was very small and of uniform(1 part in 100,000) density and energy level.The CBR is the image of that initial radiation which, due to the expansion of the universe, has cooled to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. The reason it is the same in all directions is we are seeing it from inside the explosion.
The Horizon"Problem" turns out to actually be a further proof of the BB theories.
The reason we all know you are a religious kook is because you have the same lack of understanding of what science is and because you use the same erronious arguments in your posts. You are all easy to recognize by having the same misconceptions of scientific facts even if you try to hide it or don't quote scripture.
Just like if two people get the same grade on a test and make the same exact errors you can be sure that one copied from the other, you,ve been copying from the creationist/ID arguments and you are just as wrong as they are.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 20 2005, 12:31 AM)
Bilderback
I meant to address this straight-from-answers-in-genises misunderstanding(the Horizon Problem) earlier and got sidetracked by blatant displays of abject ignorance(AKA Bilderbacks posts).
The reason that the CBR shows such uniformaty coming from oposite ends of the universe is because the source of that radiation was the BB and at one time it(the universe) was very small and of uniform(1 part in 100,000) density and energy level.The CBR is the image of that initial radiation which, due to the expansion of the universe, has cooled to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. The reason it is the same in all directions is we are seeing it from inside the explosion.
The Horizon"Problem" turns out to actually be a further proof of the BB theories.
The reason we all know you are a religious kook is because you have the same lack of understanding of what science is and because you use the same erronious arguments in your posts. You are all easy to recognize by having the same misconceptions of scientific facts even if you try to hide it or don't quote scripture.
Just like if two people get the same grade on a test and make the same exact errors you can be sure that one copied from the other, you,ve been copying from the creationist/ID arguments and you are just as wrong as they are.
Grumpy
I think I like the new version of Grumpy!
Straight to the point with out the editorials.
You are right, the problem CBR presents is not with the BB itself but how to explain it using General Relativity. What can I say, I don't have time to proof read or "proof think" everything I say, if I miss the mark a little, I'll admit it.
I am not a blinded follower of anything, I took a non-provable question, did the research for both sides of the argument and drew my own conclusions. I am not a spokesman for anybody, I speak for science and logic the best way that I can. My stubborn side won't let someone tell me I'm wrong not knowing or listening to the evidence. Some of the arguments posted by both sides of the issue are, well. . . unscientific to an extreme. This argument cannot be won by anybody, it doesn't matter which side one takes, scrapping it out in the trenches is the best way to learn - it is important to know both, what is right and what is wrong - that doesn't make anyone a "kook", only informed. Just so you know, I've been on the other side of this argument also, they were using inaccurate evidence and false logic, I can't let that happen.
It is nice not having shovel the manure to find the substance, keep this up and we'll have to start calling you Smiley.
P.S. You are still wrong about evolution theory.
QUOTE
Next, there's the so-called Horizon Problem. There is a maximum distance, called the horizon distance, that a light signal could have traveled since the beginning of the universe. The cosmic radiation that reaches our radio antennas from opposite directions, say east and west, originated in regions 30 billion light years apart. Information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of light, so how could two disconnected regions be so uniform?
I meant to address this straight-from-answers-in-genises misunderstanding(the Horizon Problem) earlier and got sidetracked by blatant displays of abject ignorance(AKA Bilderbacks posts).
The reason that the CBR shows such uniformaty coming from oposite ends of the universe is because the source of that radiation was the BB and at one time it(the universe) was very small and of uniform(1 part in 100,000) density and energy level.The CBR is the image of that initial radiation which, due to the expansion of the universe, has cooled to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. The reason it is the same in all directions is we are seeing it from inside the explosion.
The Horizon"Problem" turns out to actually be a further proof of the BB theories.
The reason we all know you are a religious kook is because you have the same lack of understanding of what science is and because you use the same erronious arguments in your posts. You are all easy to recognize by having the same misconceptions of scientific facts even if you try to hide it or don't quote scripture.
Just like if two people get the same grade on a test and make the same exact errors you can be sure that one copied from the other, you,ve been copying from the creationist/ID arguments and you are just as wrong as they are.
Grumpy
I think I like the new version of Grumpy!
Straight to the point with out the editorials.
You are right, the problem CBR presents is not with the BB itself but how to explain it using General Relativity. What can I say, I don't have time to proof read or "proof think" everything I say, if I miss the mark a little, I'll admit it.
I am not a blinded follower of anything, I took a non-provable question, did the research for both sides of the argument and drew my own conclusions. I am not a spokesman for anybody, I speak for science and logic the best way that I can. My stubborn side won't let someone tell me I'm wrong not knowing or listening to the evidence. Some of the arguments posted by both sides of the issue are, well. . . unscientific to an extreme. This argument cannot be won by anybody, it doesn't matter which side one takes, scrapping it out in the trenches is the best way to learn - it is important to know both, what is right and what is wrong - that doesn't make anyone a "kook", only informed. Just so you know, I've been on the other side of this argument also, they were using inaccurate evidence and false logic, I can't let that happen.
It is nice not having shovel the manure to find the substance, keep this up and we'll have to start calling you Smiley.
P.S. You are still wrong about evolution theory.
Bilderback
You keep saying I'm wrong about Evo theory after I post evidence easily seen to support my interpretation yet you offer absolutely no evidence of that assertion. Acording to the rules of debate you are losing. Your repeated erronious assertions do not further your cause, you must do better than that.(though, knowing the subject, I doubt you can).
Archeoptrix was found in Germany just before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" and went a long way towards convincing the scientific community of Darwin's veracity. It is only one of hundreds of thousands of facts that support the theory of evolution. The theory is as well supported as any scientific theory today and no amount of saying "it ain't so" is going to change that.
That's why evolution is taught in our public schools(despite the efforts of the religious zealots) and ID is not, and it will continue to be that way. Your statements about no evolution being seen by scientists is just wrong, and I have demonstrated that fact and will do so again as often as necessary to show how uninformed those statements are.
Grumpy
You keep saying I'm wrong about Evo theory after I post evidence easily seen to support my interpretation yet you offer absolutely no evidence of that assertion. Acording to the rules of debate you are losing. Your repeated erronious assertions do not further your cause, you must do better than that.(though, knowing the subject, I doubt you can).
Archeoptrix was found in Germany just before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" and went a long way towards convincing the scientific community of Darwin's veracity. It is only one of hundreds of thousands of facts that support the theory of evolution. The theory is as well supported as any scientific theory today and no amount of saying "it ain't so" is going to change that.
That's why evolution is taught in our public schools(despite the efforts of the religious zealots) and ID is not, and it will continue to be that way. Your statements about no evolution being seen by scientists is just wrong, and I have demonstrated that fact and will do so again as often as necessary to show how uninformed those statements are.
Grumpy
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 17 2005, 06:06 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 17 2005, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
If they are no my own words, who wrote them for me?
Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's what you put as your definition:
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Here is the very first definition from dictionary.com:
sci·ence
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So I call bullsh!t on your "they were my words" BS. You looked it up and added some words in. They're even in the same order in both definitions.
I hate nothing more than liars.
Hey liar, you've ignored this.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 20 2005, 01:44 AM)
Bilderback
You keep saying I'm wrong about Evo theory after I post evidence easily seen to support my interpretation yet you offer absolutely no evidence of that assertion. Acording to the rules of debate you are losing. Your repeated erronious assertions do not further your cause, you must do better than that.(though, knowing the subject, I doubt you can).
Archeoptrix was found in Germany just before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" and went a long way towards convincing the scientific community of Darwin's veracity. It is only one of hundreds of thousands of facts that support the theory of evolution. The theory is as well supported as any scientific theory today and no amount of saying "it ain't so" is going to change that.
That's why evolution is taught in our public schools(despite the efforts of the religious zealots) and ID is not, and it will continue to be that way. Your statements about no evolution being seen by scientists is just wrong, and I have demonstrated that fact and will do so again as often as necessary to show how uninformed those statements are.
Grumpy
Sure I have, you just ignore it or say it doesn't matter. Such as genetic studies show that species, especially advanced species, cannot "jump" into another species with a different amount of chromosomes, or how the rate of evolution is not consistent, or how life started from non-life. Your would haves, could haves and should haves, assumptions have no more proof or credibility than my wouldn't have, couldn't have or shouldn't haves. As an opinion, my evidence is scientifically more credible. One is alway safer claiming an improbable event didn't happen as stated than insisting on "it did happen" because it the rest of the evidence is dependent on it.
You have a house of cards, careful, if someone removes one of your bottom cards bad things can happen to your home.
You keep saying I'm wrong about Evo theory after I post evidence easily seen to support my interpretation yet you offer absolutely no evidence of that assertion. Acording to the rules of debate you are losing. Your repeated erronious assertions do not further your cause, you must do better than that.(though, knowing the subject, I doubt you can).
Archeoptrix was found in Germany just before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" and went a long way towards convincing the scientific community of Darwin's veracity. It is only one of hundreds of thousands of facts that support the theory of evolution. The theory is as well supported as any scientific theory today and no amount of saying "it ain't so" is going to change that.
That's why evolution is taught in our public schools(despite the efforts of the religious zealots) and ID is not, and it will continue to be that way. Your statements about no evolution being seen by scientists is just wrong, and I have demonstrated that fact and will do so again as often as necessary to show how uninformed those statements are.
Grumpy
Sure I have, you just ignore it or say it doesn't matter. Such as genetic studies show that species, especially advanced species, cannot "jump" into another species with a different amount of chromosomes, or how the rate of evolution is not consistent, or how life started from non-life. Your would haves, could haves and should haves, assumptions have no more proof or credibility than my wouldn't have, couldn't have or shouldn't haves. As an opinion, my evidence is scientifically more credible. One is alway safer claiming an improbable event didn't happen as stated than insisting on "it did happen" because it the rest of the evidence is dependent on it.
You have a house of cards, careful, if someone removes one of your bottom cards bad things can happen to your home.
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 20 2005, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 17 2005, 06:06 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 17 2005, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
If they are no my own words, who wrote them for me?
Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's what you put as your definition:
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Here is the very first definition from dictionary.com:
sci·ence
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So I call bullsh!t on your "they were my words" BS. You looked it up and added some words in. They're even in the same order in both definitions.
I hate nothing more than liars.
Hey liar, you've ignored this.
I would bet that you could go to almost any dictionary and find definitions that don't vary more than a few words, does that mean Webster plagiarizes from F&W?
Your assumption are the displays of some of the worst logic I've ever witnessed.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 20 2005, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 20 2005, 07:08 AM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 17 2005, 06:06 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 17 2005, 01:37 AM)
QUOTE
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
If they are no my own words, who wrote them for me?
Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here's what you put as your definition:
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Here is the very first definition from dictionary.com:
sci·ence
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So I call bullsh!t on your "they were my words" BS. You looked it up and added some words in. They're even in the same order in both definitions.
I hate nothing more than liars.
Hey liar, you've ignored this.
I would bet that you could go to almost any dictionary and find definitions that don't vary more than a few words, does that mean Webster plagiarizes from F&W?
Your assumption are the displays of some of the worst logic I've ever witnessed.
Yeah, no crap, but YOU SAID it was YOUR OWN words. It obviously wasn't. It was plagiarized and you added a few words to it so as to make it not seem plagiarized.
Liars suck.
Bilderback
Are you a Farmer??? You must be to set up so many straw men.
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
how the rate of evolution is not consistent
It's called punctuated equilibrium where environmental stress and isollation of small populations causes rapid evolution followed by long periods of little change in less stressful times, a now well understood and accepted process of evolution proposed by Steven J. Gould as the cause of sudden(within a few million years) proliferation of species such as the Cambrian expansion(which took 10 million years)
Not our problem, evo is not concerned in the least about how life began or how the universe came to be, those are entirely unrelated disciplines in science. You can pick a fight with the cosmologists and biogenetic scientists if you like, but if you know as little about these subject as you've shown with the above quotes to not know about evolution, I would not advise it.
Not our problem, evo is not concerned in the least about how life began or how the universe came to be, those are entirely unrelated disciplines in science. You can pick a fight with the cosmologists and biogenetic scientists if you like, but if you know as little about these subject as you've shown with the above quotes to not know about evolution, I would not advise it.
Your would haves, could haves and should haves, assumptions have no more proof or credibility than my wouldn't have, couldn't have or shouldn't haves. As an opinion, my evidence is scientifically more credible. One is alway safer claiming an improbable event didn't happen as stated than insisting on "it did happen" because it the rest of the evidence is dependent on it.
You have a house of cards, careful, if someone removes one of your bottom cards bad things can happen to your home.
Bilderback, what you DO NOT know about which you speak far outweighs the little that you DO know(Though we have not seen anything you DO know) .
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
To those who have seen these quotes before, I have yet to find the truth stated so well and so plainly so, if need be, I must repeat the relavent and knowledgeable posting thereof. Emphasis mine.
Grumpy
I can't stop you from assuming anything or believing anything, you are wrong, so be wrong it is of no consequence to me. Your credibility was gone a long time ago, you don't understand the science you are trying to defend, you know nothing of logical deductions (other than consistently getting it wrong), I think you should stick to arguing who would win a fight between The Hulk and Superman. Your opinion is nothing more than background noise to be ignored.
I can't stop you from assuming anything or believing anything, you are wrong, so be wrong it is of no consequence to me. Your credibility was gone a long time ago, you don't understand the science you are trying to defend, you know nothing of logical deductions (other than consistently getting it wrong), I think you should stick to arguing who would win a fight between The Hulk and Superman. Your opinion is nothing more than background noise to be ignored.
Everything you said was just false. Good job.
On top of that, you forgot to log in again, idiot.
I stated an abbreviated version of what I have already posted, if you can't extrapolate the intended meaning from my previous posting, let me clarify it for you.
One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example.
You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men?
I stated an abbreviated version of what I have already posted, if you can't extrapolate the intended meaning from my previous posting, let me clarify it for you.
One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example.
You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men?
It's called punctuated equilibrium where environmental stress and isollation of small populations causes rapid evolution followed by long periods of little change in less stressful times, a now well understood and accepted process of evolution proposed by Steven J. Gould as the cause of sudden(within a few million years) proliferation of species such as the Cambrian expansion(which took 10 million years)
I've read the "straw House" postulations on punctuated evolution, once again, such situations would only be triggering the gene to activate the changes in their programming. Also, there is alway environmental crisis and isolated species somewhere on the Earth. It is another attempt to make the theory match the preconceived outcome.
A house made of cards.
I know plenty on the subject, I can hold my own with anybody, but you on the other hand, you are displaying argumental avoidance, it is a topic you know you can't win, it is detrimental to your theory and your house of cards will fall addressing it. I'm sorry if you can't/won't see the logic in how the means of the start of life is a direct precursor to the processies for its evolution, maybe you should find a different field of studies, one where you can keep you head in the sand humming to yourself so you don't have to hear anything that you don't agree to.
"Stay with the Web Bible, it holds everything that is true and good. If understanding is needed, consult the All Knowing Web, it has all the answers needed. But careful, the Web Satan has posted His traps of false sites, don't read them your mind will expand and you might start questioning ideas and have some ideas of you own. You will be ridiculed by the believers as an unbeliever; tread with caution."
Are you a Farmer??? You must be to set up so many straw men.
QUOTE
Such as genetic studies show that species, especially advanced species, cannot "jump" into another species with a different amount of chromosomes,
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Such as genetic studies show that species, especially advanced species, cannot "jump" into another species with a different amount of chromosomes, |
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
how the rate of evolution is not consistent
It's called punctuated equilibrium where environmental stress and isollation of small populations causes rapid evolution followed by long periods of little change in less stressful times, a now well understood and accepted process of evolution proposed by Steven J. Gould as the cause of sudden(within a few million years) proliferation of species such as the Cambrian expansion(which took 10 million years)
QUOTE
how life started from non-life.
Not our problem, evo is not concerned in the least about how life began or how the universe came to be, those are entirely unrelated disciplines in science. You can pick a fight with the cosmologists and biogenetic scientists if you like, but if you know as little about these subject as you've shown with the above quotes to not know about evolution, I would not advise it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how life started from non-life. |
Not our problem, evo is not concerned in the least about how life began or how the universe came to be, those are entirely unrelated disciplines in science. You can pick a fight with the cosmologists and biogenetic scientists if you like, but if you know as little about these subject as you've shown with the above quotes to not know about evolution, I would not advise it.
Your would haves, could haves and should haves, assumptions have no more proof or credibility than my wouldn't have, couldn't have or shouldn't haves. As an opinion, my evidence is scientifically more credible. One is alway safer claiming an improbable event didn't happen as stated than insisting on "it did happen" because it the rest of the evidence is dependent on it.
You have a house of cards, careful, if someone removes one of your bottom cards bad things can happen to your home.
Bilderback, what you DO NOT know about which you speak far outweighs the little that you DO know(Though we have not seen anything you DO know) .
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
To those who have seen these quotes before, I have yet to find the truth stated so well and so plainly so, if need be, I must repeat the relavent and knowledgeable posting thereof. Emphasis mine.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Yeah, no crap, but YOU SAID it was YOUR OWN words. It obviously wasn't. It was plagiarized and you added a few words to it so as to make it not seem plagiarized.
I can't stop you from assuming anything or believing anything, you are wrong, so be wrong it is of no consequence to me. Your credibility was gone a long time ago, you don't understand the science you are trying to defend, you know nothing of logical deductions (other than consistently getting it wrong), I think you should stick to arguing who would win a fight between The Hulk and Superman. Your opinion is nothing more than background noise to be ignored.
Applause. Hear, hear.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 21 2005, 12:42 AM)
QUOTE
Yeah, no crap, but YOU SAID it was YOUR OWN words. It obviously wasn't. It was plagiarized and you added a few words to it so as to make it not seem plagiarized.
I can't stop you from assuming anything or believing anything, you are wrong, so be wrong it is of no consequence to me. Your credibility was gone a long time ago, you don't understand the science you are trying to defend, you know nothing of logical deductions (other than consistently getting it wrong), I think you should stick to arguing who would win a fight between The Hulk and Superman. Your opinion is nothing more than background noise to be ignored.
Everything you said was just false. Good job.
On top of that, you forgot to log in again, idiot.
QUOTE
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
I stated an abbreviated version of what I have already posted, if you can't extrapolate the intended meaning from my previous posting, let me clarify it for you.
One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example.
You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits). |
I stated an abbreviated version of what I have already posted, if you can't extrapolate the intended meaning from my previous posting, let me clarify it for you.
One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example.
You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men?
It's called punctuated equilibrium where environmental stress and isollation of small populations causes rapid evolution followed by long periods of little change in less stressful times, a now well understood and accepted process of evolution proposed by Steven J. Gould as the cause of sudden(within a few million years) proliferation of species such as the Cambrian expansion(which took 10 million years)
I've read the "straw House" postulations on punctuated evolution, once again, such situations would only be triggering the gene to activate the changes in their programming. Also, there is alway environmental crisis and isolated species somewhere on the Earth. It is another attempt to make the theory match the preconceived outcome.
A house made of cards.
QUOTE
Not our problem, evo is not concerned in the least about how life began or how the universe came to be, those are entirely unrelated disciplines in science. You can pick a fight with the cosmologists and biogenetic scientists if you like, but if you know as little about these subject as you've shown with the above quotes to not know about evolution, I would not advise it.
I know plenty on the subject, I can hold my own with anybody, but you on the other hand, you are displaying argumental avoidance, it is a topic you know you can't win, it is detrimental to your theory and your house of cards will fall addressing it. I'm sorry if you can't/won't see the logic in how the means of the start of life is a direct precursor to the processies for its evolution, maybe you should find a different field of studies, one where you can keep you head in the sand humming to yourself so you don't have to hear anything that you don't agree to.
"Stay with the Web Bible, it holds everything that is true and good. If understanding is needed, consult the All Knowing Web, it has all the answers needed. But careful, the Web Satan has posted His traps of false sites, don't read them your mind will expand and you might start questioning ideas and have some ideas of you own. You will be ridiculed by the believers as an unbeliever; tread with caution."
Bilderback
What sort of gobbledegoop is this??? I made myself perfectly clear in my response
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
That is how evolution works, descent with modification filtered through the mechanical logic of natural selection, and it works very well indeed.
I don't even think you know what you attempted to convey in your above quote.
What sort of gobbledegoop is this??? I made myself perfectly clear in my response
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
That is how evolution works, descent with modification filtered through the mechanical logic of natural selection, and it works very well indeed.
I don't even think you know what you attempted to convey in your above quote.
I've read the "straw House" postulations on punctuated evolution, once again, such situations would only be triggering the gene to activate the changes in their programming. Also, there is alway environmental crisis and isolated species somewhere on the Earth. It is another attempt to make the theory match the preconceived outcome.
So you admit you know nothing about genetic mutations and the several different processes which cause it???
Punk-eek is a process of evolution which gives a good explanation of the copious evidence which you evidently know nothing about. That ignorance has to be willful due to the ease with which you could gain that knowledge if you were to look.
You know nothing about the subject and you wouldn't know logic if it bit you on your tush. You have been embarrassed in this forum every time you post
Does a souffle' care where the eggs come from? No.
When the cement truck pulls up to pour your driveway does it matter where they got the gravel or sand in the mix? No.
When you fill your car up with gas do you ask the clerk if it came from Saudi Arabia or from Venezuella(as if he would know) and would it make any difference in how your car ran? No.
When a pipe bomber mixes his sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter for his bombs is he any less guilty if he got his charcoal at the grocery store than if he got it at a hardware store? No. Will his bombs still explode the same? Of course, don't be silly!!!
So, does a scientist care where a lifeform came from when all he is studying is the changes in that lifeform due to evolution? No.
Logic is so simple one must work hard to misunderstand it as you do. Relax and take the simplest path and you may learn something...Nah, your hopeless.
The BB is a theory for the start of the universe leading to the study of Astrology, Astronomy and Cosmology(no evolution or biogenesis in here).
Biogenesis is the study of prebiotic chemistry and the first chemical life. Biochemistry degrees are needed here.
Evolution is the study of changes in lifeforms and the rise of different species from other living species via changes over time(digging skills needed here, not chemistry). You cannot study the evolution of lifeforms until AFTER they exist, AFTER they exist the study of biogenesis no longer applies.
None of the above studies are dependent on the input of any of the others.
That's logic for you, you ought to try it sometime.
Our house is made from fossil bones and you can huff and you can puff and all you've done is generate a lot of foul smelling hot air and a red face, or is that embarrassment over having your clock cleaned everytime you crawl out from under that rock you hide under???
By the way, a US Federal court banned ID from public schools for being a religion yesterday. Ouch, I bet that stings!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
I stated an abbreviated version of what I have already posted, if you can't extrapolate the intended meaning from my previous posting, let me clarify it for you.
One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example.
You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men?
One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example.
You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men?
What sort of gobbledegoop is this??? I made myself perfectly clear in my response
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
That is how evolution works, descent with modification filtered through the mechanical logic of natural selection, and it works very well indeed.
I don't even think you know what you attempted to convey in your above quote.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I stated an abbreviated version of what I have already posted, if you can't extrapolate the intended meaning from my previous posting, let me clarify it for you. One species will never "spontaneously" jump from one number of chromosomes into another species by a random set of events - the 90+% of undetermined genetic information is responsible for the changes in the DNA structures. They are pre-programmed to change to the traits that are needed, proven by Darwin's finches as one example. You know what I meant. You are grabbing at straws now, must be ready to start making some men? |
What sort of gobbledegoop is this??? I made myself perfectly clear in my response
So? Evolution only goes on within a species. One species never jumps from one species to another. A monkey which for whatever reason continues to evolve will NEVER evolve into a human, once the branch on a tree has split they never grow back together, it's the same in evolution. two species may have a common ancestor but they can never evolve into the same creature, they must each evolve into seperate species(which may or may not have simular traits).
That is how evolution works, descent with modification filtered through the mechanical logic of natural selection, and it works very well indeed.
I don't even think you know what you attempted to convey in your above quote.
I've read the "straw House" postulations on punctuated evolution, once again, such situations would only be triggering the gene to activate the changes in their programming. Also, there is alway environmental crisis and isolated species somewhere on the Earth. It is another attempt to make the theory match the preconceived outcome.
So you admit you know nothing about genetic mutations and the several different processes which cause it???
Punk-eek is a process of evolution which gives a good explanation of the copious evidence which you evidently know nothing about. That ignorance has to be willful due to the ease with which you could gain that knowledge if you were to look.
QUOTE
I know plenty on the subject, I can hold my own with anybody, but you on the other hand, you are displaying argumental avoidance, it is a topic you know you can't win, it is detrimental to your theory and your house of cards will fall addressing it. I'm sorry if you can't/won't see the logic in how the means of the start of life is a direct precursor to the processies for its evolution, maybe you should find a different field of studies, one where you can keep you head in the sand humming to yourself so you don't have to hear anything that you don't agree to.
You know nothing about the subject and you wouldn't know logic if it bit you on your tush. You have been embarrassed in this forum every time you post
Does a souffle' care where the eggs come from? No.
When the cement truck pulls up to pour your driveway does it matter where they got the gravel or sand in the mix? No.
When you fill your car up with gas do you ask the clerk if it came from Saudi Arabia or from Venezuella(as if he would know) and would it make any difference in how your car ran? No.
When a pipe bomber mixes his sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter for his bombs is he any less guilty if he got his charcoal at the grocery store than if he got it at a hardware store? No. Will his bombs still explode the same? Of course, don't be silly!!!
So, does a scientist care where a lifeform came from when all he is studying is the changes in that lifeform due to evolution? No.
Logic is so simple one must work hard to misunderstand it as you do. Relax and take the simplest path and you may learn something...Nah, your hopeless.
The BB is a theory for the start of the universe leading to the study of Astrology, Astronomy and Cosmology(no evolution or biogenesis in here).
Biogenesis is the study of prebiotic chemistry and the first chemical life. Biochemistry degrees are needed here.
Evolution is the study of changes in lifeforms and the rise of different species from other living species via changes over time(digging skills needed here, not chemistry). You cannot study the evolution of lifeforms until AFTER they exist, AFTER they exist the study of biogenesis no longer applies.
None of the above studies are dependent on the input of any of the others.
That's logic for you, you ought to try it sometime.
Our house is made from fossil bones and you can huff and you can puff and all you've done is generate a lot of foul smelling hot air and a red face, or is that embarrassment over having your clock cleaned everytime you crawl out from under that rock you hide under???
By the way, a US Federal court banned ID from public schools for being a religion yesterday. Ouch, I bet that stings!!!
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene tranfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene tranfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 21 2005, 08:26 AM)
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene tranfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
It's obvious to me that wherever he supposedly got a job as a teacher needed teachers BADLY.
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene tranfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
It's obvious to me that wherever he supposedly got a job as a teacher needed teachers BADLY.
triplicate posting now removed
quadruplicate posting now removed
duplicate posting now removed
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 21 2005, 09:05 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 21 2005, 08:26 AM)
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene tranfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
It's obvious to me that wherever he supposedly got a job as a teacher needed teachers BADLY.
MX,
It must have been VERY BADLY indeed!....so much so, that they settled for a 'self-aware' tomato plant instead of a "teacher"!
RC.
.
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene tranfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
It's obvious to me that wherever he supposedly got a job as a teacher needed teachers BADLY.
MX,
It must have been VERY BADLY indeed!....so much so, that they settled for a 'self-aware' tomato plant instead of a "teacher"!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 21 2005, 08:26 AM)
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
Hi S Bilderback, I don't believe we've met.
I've been following this one for a few days to get away from the sheer lunacy of dad1's PO universe rubbish. I'm sure you'd agree he's a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But anyway, onto the topic at hand, Grumpy has given sound and supported arguments consistently here, and you've got nothing but "but you're wrong!" to give back.
I've been following this one for a few days to get away from the sheer lunacy of dad1's PO universe rubbish. I'm sure you'd agree he's a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But anyway, onto the topic at hand, Grumpy has given sound and supported arguments consistently here, and you've got nothing but "but you're wrong!" to give back.
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Dec 21 2005, 01:55 PM)
Hi S Bilderback, I don't believe we've met.
I've been following this one for a few days to get away from the sheer lunacy of dad1's PO universe rubbish. I'm sure you'd agree he's a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But anyway, onto the topic at hand, Grumpy has given sound and supported arguments consistently here, and you've got nothing but "but you're wrong!" to give back.
There is no evidence for what he claims.
What do you expect of him? He's not a magician.
I've been following this one for a few days to get away from the sheer lunacy of dad1's PO universe rubbish. I'm sure you'd agree he's a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But anyway, onto the topic at hand, Grumpy has given sound and supported arguments consistently here, and you've got nothing but "but you're wrong!" to give back.
There is no evidence for what he claims.
What do you expect of him? He's not a magician.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 21 2005, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 21 2005, 08:26 AM)
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
.
Poor S. Bilderback.
Bold words from such a little intellect, mate! I notice you don't refute the facts I stated in my post....both regarding your lack of any coherent understanding of whatever you MAY have read; and your overall incompetence in putting whatever 'minuscule understanding' you MAY have into any honest practice.
And as for assumptions and the asses who make some doozies of such; you obviously didn't comprehend my earlier post where I explained that "I" am more the type to "contribute" original knowledge to such websites than to 'depend' on them (as you obviously do...or you wouldn't automatically assume that everyone else does also). But what is much worse, is that YOUR dependence on such sites to do YOUR 'thinking' for you, is only equalled by your wilful MISunderstanding and twisting of any information to be found there so that it 'seems' to suit your pre-conceived notions based not only on FAULTY LOGIC (as has been demonstrated), but ALSO on demonstrably UNscientific so-called 'observations/knowledge' you continue to PRETEND to. And as to our "assuming" what you know or don't know, well, we don't HAVE to assume on that score...for your self-demonstrated total ignorance/misconstruing of any and all "knowledge" you 'profess to have' speaks VOLUMES; and requires no further assumptions from anyone here on that score.
All in all a sad case of delusions stemming from 'religious' training in lieu of 'scientific' thinking. Some "teacher"; some "scientist".... non-sentient shrubs have more going for them in those areas than YOU, mate! At least they don't go round pretending to (haha) 'knowledge/wisdom' they don't possess/comprehend.
Like I said some time ago: If you wish to act condescendingly to those here, it would be a good idea to ensure you have some basis for being so....HINT: Your wilful ignorance and 'pseudo-logic/-science' does NOT such a basis make.
RealityCheck.
.
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
.
Poor S. Bilderback.
Bold words from such a little intellect, mate! I notice you don't refute the facts I stated in my post....both regarding your lack of any coherent understanding of whatever you MAY have read; and your overall incompetence in putting whatever 'minuscule understanding' you MAY have into any honest practice.
And as for assumptions and the asses who make some doozies of such; you obviously didn't comprehend my earlier post where I explained that "I" am more the type to "contribute" original knowledge to such websites than to 'depend' on them (as you obviously do...or you wouldn't automatically assume that everyone else does also). But what is much worse, is that YOUR dependence on such sites to do YOUR 'thinking' for you, is only equalled by your wilful MISunderstanding and twisting of any information to be found there so that it 'seems' to suit your pre-conceived notions based not only on FAULTY LOGIC (as has been demonstrated), but ALSO on demonstrably UNscientific so-called 'observations/knowledge' you continue to PRETEND to. And as to our "assuming" what you know or don't know, well, we don't HAVE to assume on that score...for your self-demonstrated total ignorance/misconstruing of any and all "knowledge" you 'profess to have' speaks VOLUMES; and requires no further assumptions from anyone here on that score.
All in all a sad case of delusions stemming from 'religious' training in lieu of 'scientific' thinking. Some "teacher"; some "scientist".... non-sentient shrubs have more going for them in those areas than YOU, mate! At least they don't go round pretending to (haha) 'knowledge/wisdom' they don't possess/comprehend.
Like I said some time ago: If you wish to act condescendingly to those here, it would be a good idea to ensure you have some basis for being so....HINT: Your wilful ignorance and 'pseudo-logic/-science' does NOT such a basis make.
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 22 2005, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 21 2005, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 21 2005, 08:26 AM)
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
.
Poor S. Bilderback.
Bold words from such a little intellect, mate! I notice you don't refute the facts I stated in my post....both regarding your lack of any coherent understanding of whatever you MAY have read; and your overall incompetence in putting whatever 'minuscule understanding' you MAY have into any honest practice.
And as for assumptions and the asses who make some doozies of such; you obviously didn't comprehend my earlier post where I explained that "I" am more the type to "contribute" original knowledge to such websites than to 'depend' on them (as you obviously do...or you wouldn't automatically assume that everyone else does also). But what is much worse, is that YOUR dependence on such sites to do YOUR 'thinking' for you, is only equalled by your wilful MISunderstanding and twisting of any information to be found there so that it 'seems' to suit your pre-conceived notions based not only on FAULTY LOGIC (as has been demonstrated), but ALSO on demonstrably UNscientific so-called 'observations/knowledge' you continue to PRETEND to. And as to our "assuming" what you know or don't know, well, we don't HAVE to assume on that score...for your self-demonstrated total ignorance/misconstruing of any and all "knowledge" you 'profess to have' speaks VOLUMES; and requires no further assumptions from anyone here on that score.
All in all a sad case of delusions stemming from 'religious' training in lieu of 'scientific' thinking. Some "teacher"; some "scientist".... non-sentient shrubs have more going for them in those areas than YOU, mate! At least they don't go round pretending to (haha) 'knowledge/wisdom' they don't possess/comprehend.
Like I said some time ago: If you wish to act condescendingly to those here, it would be a good idea to ensure you have some basis for being so....HINT: Your wilful ignorance and 'pseudo-logic/-science' does NOT such a basis make.
RealityCheck.
.
Is that background noise I hear?
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
.
Poor S. Bilderback.
Bold words from such a little intellect, mate! I notice you don't refute the facts I stated in my post....both regarding your lack of any coherent understanding of whatever you MAY have read; and your overall incompetence in putting whatever 'minuscule understanding' you MAY have into any honest practice.
And as for assumptions and the asses who make some doozies of such; you obviously didn't comprehend my earlier post where I explained that "I" am more the type to "contribute" original knowledge to such websites than to 'depend' on them (as you obviously do...or you wouldn't automatically assume that everyone else does also). But what is much worse, is that YOUR dependence on such sites to do YOUR 'thinking' for you, is only equalled by your wilful MISunderstanding and twisting of any information to be found there so that it 'seems' to suit your pre-conceived notions based not only on FAULTY LOGIC (as has been demonstrated), but ALSO on demonstrably UNscientific so-called 'observations/knowledge' you continue to PRETEND to. And as to our "assuming" what you know or don't know, well, we don't HAVE to assume on that score...for your self-demonstrated total ignorance/misconstruing of any and all "knowledge" you 'profess to have' speaks VOLUMES; and requires no further assumptions from anyone here on that score.
All in all a sad case of delusions stemming from 'religious' training in lieu of 'scientific' thinking. Some "teacher"; some "scientist".... non-sentient shrubs have more going for them in those areas than YOU, mate! At least they don't go round pretending to (haha) 'knowledge/wisdom' they don't possess/comprehend.
Like I said some time ago: If you wish to act condescendingly to those here, it would be a good idea to ensure you have some basis for being so....HINT: Your wilful ignorance and 'pseudo-logic/-science' does NOT such a basis make.
RealityCheck.
.
Is that background noise I hear?
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 22 2005, 01:00 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 22 2005, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 21 2005, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 21 2005, 08:26 AM)
Hi Grumpy!
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
.
Poor S. Bilderback.
Bold words from such a little intellect, mate! I notice you don't refute the facts I stated in my post....both regarding your lack of any coherent understanding of whatever you MAY have read; and your overall incompetence in putting whatever 'minuscule understanding' you MAY have into any honest practice.
And as for assumptions and the asses who make some doozies of such; you obviously didn't comprehend my earlier post where I explained that "I" am more the type to "contribute" original knowledge to such websites than to 'depend' on them (as you obviously do...or you wouldn't automatically assume that everyone else does also). But what is much worse, is that YOUR dependence on such sites to do YOUR 'thinking' for you, is only equalled by your wilful MISunderstanding and twisting of any information to be found there so that it 'seems' to suit your pre-conceived notions based not only on FAULTY LOGIC (as has been demonstrated), but ALSO on demonstrably UNscientific so-called 'observations/knowledge' you continue to PRETEND to. And as to our "assuming" what you know or don't know, well, we don't HAVE to assume on that score...for your self-demonstrated total ignorance/misconstruing of any and all "knowledge" you 'profess to have' speaks VOLUMES; and requires no further assumptions from anyone here on that score.
All in all a sad case of delusions stemming from 'religious' training in lieu of 'scientific' thinking. Some "teacher"; some "scientist".... non-sentient shrubs have more going for them in those areas than YOU, mate! At least they don't go round pretending to (haha) 'knowledge/wisdom' they don't possess/comprehend.
Like I said some time ago: If you wish to act condescendingly to those here, it would be a good idea to ensure you have some basis for being so....HINT: Your wilful ignorance and 'pseudo-logic/-science' does NOT such a basis make.
RealityCheck.
.
Is that background noise I hear?
Considering that particular 'self-aware' tomato plant is both DEAF and BLIND to anything remotely involving logic/knowledge, it is a MIRACLE "it" hears/sees anything at all.
I don't know.
"For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion."
This, to me, is an agreeable Bilderback.
MrB.
>>> What about natural selection? <<<
The problem is that there can be no selection in the genomic space between functional genes which is most likely a desert. The problem is equivalent to transforming one written sentence into another by randomly altering letters asking for meaning on all intermediates. It is this observation that one cannot “hit” functional genes by random neutral mutations that essentially leads to the 4th law - i.e. CSI information conservation (or decrease under noisy transfer conditions).
This is topic Is ID theory falsifiable?
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance,"
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
[Panda's Thumb is no bastion of free speech. Quite a few people are banned there including myself and University of Vermont Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison. Before they outright banned John and I they were arbitrarily erasing and/or disemvoweling our comments without warning, rhyme, or reason. At least Dembski will tell you why you're banned and won't childishly mangle your comments into gibberish by removing all the vowels.
antievolution.org/features/mtexp.php?form_author=Alan%20Fox]
"The race is not to the swift; nor the battle to the strong ... but time and chance happeneth to them all" --(Eccles. 9:11).
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Larson.html
For purposes of studying evolution, therefore, RNA viruses are ideal.
Their rapid mutation rate implies that they could in principle refresh their entire genome in several thousand generations, which, thanks to their short reproductive cycle time, is no more than a few years! In addition, RNA viruses have genomes of modest size. In some cases, only around ten thousand bases, or "letters" of the genetic code, are enough to specify the entire virus. While this many letters might be analogous to, e.g., a whole chapter of reading material, it is a far cry from the whole library of genetic material present in the three-billion-base genome of a human. Thus, comparisons of the evolutionary family tree of viruses should be readily possible at a level of detail that extends down to that of individual bases. One might even hope eventually to reproduce biochemically the "stepping stones" by which virus "A" might have evolved into a completely different virus "B" by creating in the laboratory "missing-link" viruses that have attributes intermediate to those of "A" and "B." Thus, viral evolution is an area ripe for testing evolutionary hypotheses. Domingo and Holland, for example, note:
Limited complexity of genomes ..., their high mutability, rapid replication rate, and the possibility of testing the effects of several millions-fold differences in the population numbers of replicating genomes, confer great value upon viruses as model systems for understanding molecular evolution.25
While work on RNA viral evolution is in its infancy, early work has already yielded results that bear directly on the "Blind Watchmaker" hypothesis. Remember that, as stated by Dawkins, this hypothesis asserts that when a self-replicating system faces a fitness hurdle to its survivability, it will evolve novel and unanticipated functions. In the case of RNA viruses, experimental versions of the monkeys with typewriters have recently been realized. In these experiments, viruses are allowed to reproduce in a cellular culture; progeny viruses are harvested, and a randomly-chosen fraction of the resulting viruses are then used to infect a fresh cellular culture. Changes in the "fitness" of a viral population from generation to generation are directly measured by its infectiousness (that is, the number of progeny produced) relative to a reference virus grown under the same conditions.26
... Furthermore, whichever scenario one might favor, each constitutes non-Darwinian evolution; that is, evolution not by small changes as Darwin envisioned, but by "saltation," that is, large changes whose occurrence is far from commonplace, very unlike the small mutations upon which Darwinism rests. Thus, even in the most favorable of circumstances of the high-speed mutations and short reproductive cycle of RNA viruses, scientific demonstration of the evolutionary radiation of different viral strains from a single progenitor seems to be beyond the reach of known empirical science. Appearance of new viral forms seems to depend on highly fortuitous circumstances, odd twists of nature, and freakish events that are both unpredictable and impossible to reconstruct with any confidence.
You know what really frightens me about this particular 'self-aware' tomato plant? To hear him say it, he has obviously fooled some 'employer' into thinking he is 'qualified' to be a "teacher"! How on earth has he done it? For he has no idea about 'lateral transfer' mechanisms for gene transfer between-bacteria and viruses-bacteria! Or about virally-introduced genes into living human sperm/eggs/stem cells so that they are mutated to behave differently in those rare instances that the cell is NOT triggered into apoptosis! (The latter even demonstrated every day in labs by the Genetic-modification techniques using bacteria and viruses to change the genetic 'instructions' in the target plant/animal). Is he so 'limited' in imagination that he can't see what the CUMULATIVE results/effects of such things would be over 'gazillion-scattergun-recombination-directed-by-selection' in Nature over millions/billions of years?
This 'barely-sentient shrub' is truly a marvel of genetically-modified stupidity genes which have gone troppo! His delusion doesn't stop at thinking himself a "teacher". NO. He ALSO is deluded into thinking that he is a "scientist" as well! Oh, the humanity! Where do these 'braniacs' come from so 'thick' and so 'frequent'?
I hope his particular 'genetic template' dies off with him; and that any possible progeny is spared this DE-volutionary branch of the 'lesser ape' species of which I hope he is the only member.
See ya round, Grumps! And you're right...The result in Dover has somewhat re-kindled respect for you yanks as a nation (I never gave up on you yanks as individuals, though; since there were still many such as yourself over there, hehehe). Ciao, mate.
RealityCheck.
.
So who would win, The Hulk or Superman?
Looking up words and phrases that you don't understand on the Internet only shows how little you know. And again, you are assuming what I know and don't know.
Please explain to me in your own words the definition of:
1. Fact
2. Assumption
3. Opinion
Hint: They all have different meanings.
Assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume, assume.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think I hear background noise.
.
Poor S. Bilderback.
Bold words from such a little intellect, mate! I notice you don't refute the facts I stated in my post....both regarding your lack of any coherent understanding of whatever you MAY have read; and your overall incompetence in putting whatever 'minuscule understanding' you MAY have into any honest practice.
And as for assumptions and the asses who make some doozies of such; you obviously didn't comprehend my earlier post where I explained that "I" am more the type to "contribute" original knowledge to such websites than to 'depend' on them (as you obviously do...or you wouldn't automatically assume that everyone else does also). But what is much worse, is that YOUR dependence on such sites to do YOUR 'thinking' for you, is only equalled by your wilful MISunderstanding and twisting of any information to be found there so that it 'seems' to suit your pre-conceived notions based not only on FAULTY LOGIC (as has been demonstrated), but ALSO on demonstrably UNscientific so-called 'observations/knowledge' you continue to PRETEND to. And as to our "assuming" what you know or don't know, well, we don't HAVE to assume on that score...for your self-demonstrated total ignorance/misconstruing of any and all "knowledge" you 'profess to have' speaks VOLUMES; and requires no further assumptions from anyone here on that score.
All in all a sad case of delusions stemming from 'religious' training in lieu of 'scientific' thinking. Some "teacher"; some "scientist".... non-sentient shrubs have more going for them in those areas than YOU, mate! At least they don't go round pretending to (haha) 'knowledge/wisdom' they don't possess/comprehend.
Like I said some time ago: If you wish to act condescendingly to those here, it would be a good idea to ensure you have some basis for being so....HINT: Your wilful ignorance and 'pseudo-logic/-science' does NOT such a basis make.
RealityCheck.
.
Is that background noise I hear?
Considering that particular 'self-aware' tomato plant is both DEAF and BLIND to anything remotely involving logic/knowledge, it is a MIRACLE "it" hears/sees anything at all.
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 31 2005, 07:17 PM)
It is still entirely a bacterium, is it not? If there was even a very small step towards being something very slightly different, it would be fine. But it would seem that even if you compiled thousands of mutations that involved becoming immune to an antibiotic, it would be no closer to being anything other than a bacterium.
OK so you agree DNA can mutate and different sequences can be selected because they confer advatage to their organism etc etc but you draw the line at the change from one species to another.
What would constitute a definitive answer for you about species formation or evolution? The time scales over which life has evolved are so huge that direct experimentation over the lifetime of a research grant seems hardly long enough!!
We tend to fall back on extrapolation of the real time evolution of viruses etc - but you don't regard that as proof of species evolution.
Another approach is to compare DNA sequences of different species to look for evidence of past shared evolution. Gene synteny is just such evidence. Sequenceing DNA regions of chromosomes between different species has revealed large stretches - even whole chromosomes that are shared. The sequences are not identical but they are obviously the same sequence on a large scale but carrying numerous minor differences. Amongst the genes which are active and code for proteins there are psuedo genes that can be surmised at one time to have been active genes but are no longer capable of coding for a protein. Occasionally genes are destroyed or turned into psuedogenes by insertion of a DNA copy of a retrovirus. (A number of cancer genes have been discovered because of retroviruses picking up bits of genes during the DNA insertion life cycle of the virus).
Anyway getting back to the synteny between species - comparing humans with mice for example - large regions of DNA have been found to be syntenic - not only the active genes but also psuedo genes. So in a long string of genes in one species we find the same string of genes (say A-B-C-D-E-F-G) in the same order in another species. What's more remarkable is in both species it's gene D that is a psuedo gene and in both species it has become a psuedogene because the same retrovirus has inserted itself into the same location in gene D. To an evolutionist that is evidence that long ago in a member of a species that predates either mice or humans, a retrovirus infected it, inserted itself into a gene and killed that gene. The effect wasn't lethal to the animal because all these years later after years of evolution, that species evolved into mice and humans as well as many more mammals. How else can you explain the presence of that retrovirus insertion? Good evidence Id say for evolution of species.
OK so you agree DNA can mutate and different sequences can be selected because they confer advatage to their organism etc etc but you draw the line at the change from one species to another.
What would constitute a definitive answer for you about species formation or evolution? The time scales over which life has evolved are so huge that direct experimentation over the lifetime of a research grant seems hardly long enough!!
We tend to fall back on extrapolation of the real time evolution of viruses etc - but you don't regard that as proof of species evolution.
Another approach is to compare DNA sequences of different species to look for evidence of past shared evolution. Gene synteny is just such evidence. Sequenceing DNA regions of chromosomes between different species has revealed large stretches - even whole chromosomes that are shared. The sequences are not identical but they are obviously the same sequence on a large scale but carrying numerous minor differences. Amongst the genes which are active and code for proteins there are psuedo genes that can be surmised at one time to have been active genes but are no longer capable of coding for a protein. Occasionally genes are destroyed or turned into psuedogenes by insertion of a DNA copy of a retrovirus. (A number of cancer genes have been discovered because of retroviruses picking up bits of genes during the DNA insertion life cycle of the virus).
Anyway getting back to the synteny between species - comparing humans with mice for example - large regions of DNA have been found to be syntenic - not only the active genes but also psuedo genes. So in a long string of genes in one species we find the same string of genes (say A-B-C-D-E-F-G) in the same order in another species. What's more remarkable is in both species it's gene D that is a psuedo gene and in both species it has become a psuedogene because the same retrovirus has inserted itself into the same location in gene D. To an evolutionist that is evidence that long ago in a member of a species that predates either mice or humans, a retrovirus infected it, inserted itself into a gene and killed that gene. The effect wasn't lethal to the animal because all these years later after years of evolution, that species evolved into mice and humans as well as many more mammals. How else can you explain the presence of that retrovirus insertion? Good evidence Id say for evolution of species.
Regarding evolution I will provide one example for now. Most have heard of antibiotic resistance and not finishing the antibiotics for a given infection/and or not being addressed by it is a major reason certain antibiotics become useless, even if they worked well in the past for an individual. One reason there are physically useless now. The Internet is a good general data source, but how to add to it?
Try your local University library which will have more detailed materials. I certainly will remember the patience, and never forget what help full, fantastic people librarians are.
Try your local University library which will have more detailed materials. I certainly will remember the patience, and never forget what help full, fantastic people librarians are.
Regarding Bilderbecks question, the following areas provided food for thought. (these views are only mine). A "fact" is determined by varied degree of consent, with reproducible observations, with peer review. An assumption is based on an initial theory from which a fact may be derived. by an individual or group who have come to a conclusion, yet not quite established to be called a fact. To me an opinion is an "assumption" based on limited and yet to be tested ideas. The last item can have common associations with assumptions, but with out the scientific review. One can also have an opinion totally influenced by ones experience/education and personality. then there are those who confuse "fact" with "opinion" for narcissistic reasons, or the "because I said so" mentality
Regarding confirmation of evolution, we have learned a bit since Darwin's voyage on the HMS Beagle in the 1840's. First, life forms do not change in an appreciable way unless provided with an "incentive". In the grand scheme of things, all of us, and all other life forms appear to very gently introduce changes that are passed along to the next generation. Almost none will come close to being noticed, because were talking about events at the genetic level that builds to expression at the cellular level, and from there at a progressively macro level. Events that trigger change in progressive progeny are usually very subtle, such as exposure to toxins at a sub-acute dose. (In this case I use the term "toxin" in the broadest sense, and may be an artifact of viral, fungal, bacterial or other exposure). The old saying what does not kill you makes you stronger couldn't be more correct. Also when you introduce puctuated equilibrium into evolution it explains a lot, as even very complex life forms can have a radical jump in a very short period of time, then things get really interesting, more on that later.
To see evolutionary events on a human scale, one needs only look at the physical traits of persons in different environmental climates over tens of thousands (or more) years. The genetic blueprint of all humans is 99.99plus percent the same, yet we see obvious physical difference between people of the polar regions, and those of the equatorial regions. The reason appears to be simple environmental adaptation to very different environments. People who's ancestors lived at the colder latitudes will be shorter, and more "pear shaped" then some one from Kenya for example. Persons from polar regions will have a much higher percentage of body fat then those of us us whose ancestors came from warmer regions.
Regarding comment by Verdad that bacteria is just bacteria, and such variations do not occur at more complex levels, keep in mind the life expectancy of bacteria, (or fungi, etc.) is measured in hours to days. Although this can be "stretched" given the fact that many very simple organisms can under the right conditions go semi-dormant over a long period of time. Certain fungi if dehydrated can stick around for centuries until something gives their motor a "jump start". We use fruit fly's and May flays to study areas of molecular biology and genetics because these flays have such short life spans. We can see near real time results with primitive insects that we couldn't hope to see in more complex animals and still expect to get out of the lab by 5pm...
To see evolutionary events on a human scale, one needs only look at the physical traits of persons in different environmental climates over tens of thousands (or more) years. The genetic blueprint of all humans is 99.99plus percent the same, yet we see obvious physical difference between people of the polar regions, and those of the equatorial regions. The reason appears to be simple environmental adaptation to very different environments. People who's ancestors lived at the colder latitudes will be shorter, and more "pear shaped" then some one from Kenya for example. Persons from polar regions will have a much higher percentage of body fat then those of us us whose ancestors came from warmer regions.
Regarding comment by Verdad that bacteria is just bacteria, and such variations do not occur at more complex levels, keep in mind the life expectancy of bacteria, (or fungi, etc.) is measured in hours to days. Although this can be "stretched" given the fact that many very simple organisms can under the right conditions go semi-dormant over a long period of time. Certain fungi if dehydrated can stick around for centuries until something gives their motor a "jump start". We use fruit fly's and May flays to study areas of molecular biology and genetics because these flays have such short life spans. We can see near real time results with primitive insects that we couldn't hope to see in more complex animals and still expect to get out of the lab by 5pm...
Why did you bump a thread that's almost three years old?
QUOTE
Why did you [hawksecho] bump a thread that's almost three years old?
I don't know.
"For the simplest cell to live, millions of chemical reactions need to work in a symbiotic relationship, proteins, RNA, DNA, mRNA, tRNA, all need to be moved to the correct location at the correct time and have a means of locomotion and available energy and... needs a reason to do it. Stripping a cell down to its most basic fundamentals, these function require massive amounts of energy and orchestration, it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off. The chances that entropy wouldn't win the battle are non-existent. Your scenario of how life could have started is no different, or in some cases, less credible than the stories in the Bible. You have no proof it happened as stated, you put your faith in an improvable story; you are following a religion."
This, to me, is an agreeable Bilderback.
MrB.
Bats
No, just YOUR understanding of science, of time and of evolution. 3.5 BILLION years is a long, LOOONNG time for evolution to develop these systems, each advancement adding to all that came before. The first 2.75 BILLION years were spent developing the internal processes of a "simple" single cell before a single multicellular creature even existed. If the entire history of life was a one hundred story building, man's entire existence would be contained by the coat of paint on the roof.
Grumpy
QUOTE
it defies science for a group of non-living chemical compounds to pull this off
No, just YOUR understanding of science, of time and of evolution. 3.5 BILLION years is a long, LOOONNG time for evolution to develop these systems, each advancement adding to all that came before. The first 2.75 BILLION years were spent developing the internal processes of a "simple" single cell before a single multicellular creature even existed. If the entire history of life was a one hundred story building, man's entire existence would be contained by the coat of paint on the roof.
Grumpy
"Take the time from the origin of life some 3800Mya and a very fast cellular replication cycle of 1 per 10 mins – this would give a total of 2x10^14 replications (cf. key typings per monkey). Take the case of evolutionary advance in the earth's ocean ( volume 1.4x10^24cm3) filled with densely populated bacteria or protists (max concentration ~ 2x10^9cm-3) giving a total of 3x10^33 organisms (cf: maximum number of monkeys-typewriters). The total replication resource is thus 6x10^47. Although this is a large number it is not sufficient to give a credible chance of producing a novel protein from an existing one – since number of bits of information in a typical protein is around 200 thus giving a probability of 2^-200 , or 10^-61 Yockey p29 . Even with these most optimal probabilistic resources there is insufficient opportunity to discover even a single new gene – and novel biological functions often require more than one new gene. What about natural selection?"-- Christopher D. Beling
"Darwinism is a dismal failure, being unable to demonstrate anything beyond varieties and many life forms are incapapble[sic] of even that. Natural Selection is anti-evolutionary and sexual reproducion is incompetent as a creative device. Intelligent Design is transparent everywhere..."-- John A. Davison
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi...ic;f=6;t=000589
"Darwinism is a dismal failure, being unable to demonstrate anything beyond varieties and many life forms are incapapble[sic] of even that. Natural Selection is anti-evolutionary and sexual reproducion is incompetent as a creative device. Intelligent Design is transparent everywhere..."-- John A. Davison
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi...ic;f=6;t=000589
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 12 2008, 06:28 AM)
"Take the time from the origin of life some 3800Mya and a very fast cellular replication cycle of 1 per 10 mins – this would give a total of 2x10^14 replications (cf. key typings per monkey). Take the case of evolutionary advance in the earth's ocean ( volume 1.4x10^24cm3) filled with densely populated bacteria or protists (max concentration ~ 2x10^9cm-3) giving a total of 3x10^33 organisms (cf: maximum number of monkeys-typewriters). The total replication resource is thus 6x10^47. Although this is a large number it is not sufficient to give a credible chance of producing a novel protein from an existing one – since number of bits of information in a typical protein is around 200 thus giving a probability of 2^-200 , or 10^-61 Yockey p29 . Even with these most optimal probabilistic resources there is insufficient opportunity to discover even a single new gene – and novel biological functions often require more than one new gene. What about natural selection?"-- Christopher D. Beling
"Darwinism is a dismal failure, being unable to demonstrate anything beyond varieties and many life forms are incapapble[sic] of even that. Natural Selection is anti-evolutionary and sexual reproducion is incompetent as a creative device. Intelligent Design is transparent everywhere..."-- John A. Davison
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi...ic;f=6;t=000589
Why did you quote those?
I would honestly like to understand what your objective was.
That is what did you think could be accomplished.
"Darwinism is a dismal failure, being unable to demonstrate anything beyond varieties and many life forms are incapapble[sic] of even that. Natural Selection is anti-evolutionary and sexual reproducion is incompetent as a creative device. Intelligent Design is transparent everywhere..."-- John A. Davison
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi...ic;f=6;t=000589
Why did you quote those?
I would honestly like to understand what your objective was.
That is what did you think could be accomplished.
Bats
Alan Fox
http://antievolution.org/features/mtexp.ph...thor=Alan%20Fox
Even one of your own recognizes that ID is RUBBISH.
Christopher D. Beling's analysis of probability is obviously bogus, as are Behe's, Dumbsky's and Gish's. Preconceptual scientists all.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Finally, I should point out that there are two categories of Intelligent Design. In one, the designer is supernatural and uses means that cannot be described by science. That view deserves no place in the science classroom, though I have no objection to its presentation as religion. In the other category, the designer (or designers) is material and located within this universe. This idea has been presented in books by such prominent scientists as Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. It does qualify as science, but it is speculative and unsupported by evidence. In debates with William Dembski earlier this year (they were officially called "panels"), I asked him which type of Intelligent Design he was advocating. He specifically denied the supernatural interpretation. But when I then asked him why he did not grant priority to Crick and especially to Hoyle, and endorse their ideas, he could give no good answer. I believe that this line of questioning strikes at the most vulnerable weakness in the Intelligent Design position, and should be used more frequently.
Alan Fox
http://antievolution.org/features/mtexp.ph...thor=Alan%20Fox
Even one of your own recognizes that ID is RUBBISH.
Christopher D. Beling's analysis of probability is obviously bogus, as are Behe's, Dumbsky's and Gish's. Preconceptual scientists all.
Grumpy
>>> What about natural selection? <<<
The problem is that there can be no selection in the genomic space between functional genes which is most likely a desert. The problem is equivalent to transforming one written sentence into another by randomly altering letters asking for meaning on all intermediates. It is this observation that one cannot “hit” functional genes by random neutral mutations that essentially leads to the 4th law - i.e. CSI information conservation (or decrease under noisy transfer conditions).
This is topic Is ID theory falsifiable?
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance,"
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
[Panda's Thumb is no bastion of free speech. Quite a few people are banned there including myself and University of Vermont Professor Emeritus of Biology John Davison. Before they outright banned John and I they were arbitrarily erasing and/or disemvoweling our comments without warning, rhyme, or reason. At least Dembski will tell you why you're banned and won't childishly mangle your comments into gibberish by removing all the vowels.
antievolution.org/features/mtexp.php?form_author=Alan%20Fox]
"The race is not to the swift; nor the battle to the strong ... but time and chance happeneth to them all" --(Eccles. 9:11).
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Larson.html
For purposes of studying evolution, therefore, RNA viruses are ideal.
Their rapid mutation rate implies that they could in principle refresh their entire genome in several thousand generations, which, thanks to their short reproductive cycle time, is no more than a few years! In addition, RNA viruses have genomes of modest size. In some cases, only around ten thousand bases, or "letters" of the genetic code, are enough to specify the entire virus. While this many letters might be analogous to, e.g., a whole chapter of reading material, it is a far cry from the whole library of genetic material present in the three-billion-base genome of a human. Thus, comparisons of the evolutionary family tree of viruses should be readily possible at a level of detail that extends down to that of individual bases. One might even hope eventually to reproduce biochemically the "stepping stones" by which virus "A" might have evolved into a completely different virus "B" by creating in the laboratory "missing-link" viruses that have attributes intermediate to those of "A" and "B." Thus, viral evolution is an area ripe for testing evolutionary hypotheses. Domingo and Holland, for example, note:
Limited complexity of genomes ..., their high mutability, rapid replication rate, and the possibility of testing the effects of several millions-fold differences in the population numbers of replicating genomes, confer great value upon viruses as model systems for understanding molecular evolution.25
While work on RNA viral evolution is in its infancy, early work has already yielded results that bear directly on the "Blind Watchmaker" hypothesis. Remember that, as stated by Dawkins, this hypothesis asserts that when a self-replicating system faces a fitness hurdle to its survivability, it will evolve novel and unanticipated functions. In the case of RNA viruses, experimental versions of the monkeys with typewriters have recently been realized. In these experiments, viruses are allowed to reproduce in a cellular culture; progeny viruses are harvested, and a randomly-chosen fraction of the resulting viruses are then used to infect a fresh cellular culture. Changes in the "fitness" of a viral population from generation to generation are directly measured by its infectiousness (that is, the number of progeny produced) relative to a reference virus grown under the same conditions.26
... Furthermore, whichever scenario one might favor, each constitutes non-Darwinian evolution; that is, evolution not by small changes as Darwin envisioned, but by "saltation," that is, large changes whose occurrence is far from commonplace, very unlike the small mutations upon which Darwinism rests. Thus, even in the most favorable of circumstances of the high-speed mutations and short reproductive cycle of RNA viruses, scientific demonstration of the evolutionary radiation of different viral strains from a single progenitor seems to be beyond the reach of known empirical science. Appearance of new viral forms seems to depend on highly fortuitous circumstances, odd twists of nature, and freakish events that are both unpredictable and impossible to reconstruct with any confidence.
bats....do you even have a grade school comprehension of genetics?
Your posts are ridiculous
Your posts are ridiculous
Who has a grade school comprehension of genetics but the idiots who don't put information first?
Bats
Information is simply the accumulation of inheritable mutations that worked(IE gave a slight advantage in reproductive success. Is that just TOO simple for you to understand???
Grumpy
Information is simply the accumulation of inheritable mutations that worked(IE gave a slight advantage in reproductive success. Is that just TOO simple for you to understand???
Grumpy
Darwinism has been falsified.
" Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification.""
--Larson.
MrB.
" Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification.""
--Larson.
MrB.
Bats
It most certainly has not, it is more certain than that the sun will appear in the west tomorrow morning.
It most certainly has not, it is more certain than that the sun will appear in the west tomorrow morning.
" Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification.""
--Larson.
So??? Eyes have developed in all sorts of different creatures INDEPENDENTLY. Hemoglobin is a protein that ALL creatures and organisms that live in an O2 atmosphere could find useful(though all do not develop it). The fact that there are things we yet need to understand does not falsify the single greatest understanding of the development of life ever discovered. Dawkins would laugh his head off at any fool who tried to say so. That includes Larson and most certainly applies to you.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Darwinism has been falsified.
It most certainly has not, it is more certain than that the sun will appear in the west tomorrow morning.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Darwinism has been falsified. |
It most certainly has not, it is more certain than that the sun will appear in the west tomorrow morning.
" Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification.""
--Larson.
So??? Eyes have developed in all sorts of different creatures INDEPENDENTLY. Hemoglobin is a protein that ALL creatures and organisms that live in an O2 atmosphere could find useful(though all do not develop it). The fact that there are things we yet need to understand does not falsify the single greatest understanding of the development of life ever discovered. Dawkins would laugh his head off at any fool who tried to say so. That includes Larson and most certainly applies to you.
Grumpy
"It most certainly has not, it is more certain than that the sun will appear in the west tomorrow morning." -Grumpy.
William A. Dembski - Wikiquote
Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we
simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its ...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski - 25k -
Off to infinity and beyond,
MrB.
---->Showtopic= 22979
William A. Dembski - Wikiquote
Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we
simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its ...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski - 25k -
Off to infinity and beyond,
MrB.
---->Showtopic= 22979
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 13 2008, 04:47 PM)
Darwinism has been falsified.
" Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification.""
--Larson.
MrB.
That's like saying photography doesn't exist because of a problem with daguerretypes.
Transposons also don't fit with classical genetics. But neither necessitates divine intervention to explain.
" Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification.""
--Larson.
MrB.
That's like saying photography doesn't exist because of a problem with daguerretypes.
Transposons also don't fit with classical genetics. But neither necessitates divine intervention to explain.
Philosophies
...
It remains to be seen how much of evolution must be accounted for by non- Darwinian "borrowing," as more and more genomes are sequenced. Of course, "non-Darwinian" does not necessarily imply "improbable," let alone "miraculous." Broadly speaking, one can look on the question of origins in one of five ways, allowing for gradations within and between each way.
1. Darwinian Evolution: Accumulation of small mutations by natural selection. The pace of evolution may vary from "slow" (little change over millions of years) to "fast" (substantial change over millions of years), as long as no large step occurs in a single generation.
2. Random Saltation: Major changes by large "jumps" in a single generation, either by "borrowing" genetic material from another organism, frame shifts in the genome, increase in chromosome number, etc. While these changes are very rarely favorable, enough time is available to make them probable.
3. "Anthropic" Saltation: As in position 2, except that the changes are so rarely favorable that large-scale evolution is unlikely to occur in any one universe. With infinite numbers of possible universes, any universe with observers (like ours) is inevitably one in which these overwhelmingly unlikely events have occurred.
4. "Providential" Saltation: As in position 3, except that the extremely improbable events in a single universe were foreordained and planned by God, who "engineered" them without violating physical laws, either through setting of initial conditions, exploiting of quantum uncertainty, or other, perhaps unknowable, methods.
5. Miraculous Creation: Transformation or creation of organisms by divine processes that supercede physical laws or principles.
Of course, "hybrid" positions combining two or more of the above are possible. Dawkins's position is 1, with some admixture of 2 to account for the origin of life.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Larson.html
...
It remains to be seen how much of evolution must be accounted for by non- Darwinian "borrowing," as more and more genomes are sequenced. Of course, "non-Darwinian" does not necessarily imply "improbable," let alone "miraculous." Broadly speaking, one can look on the question of origins in one of five ways, allowing for gradations within and between each way.
1. Darwinian Evolution: Accumulation of small mutations by natural selection. The pace of evolution may vary from "slow" (little change over millions of years) to "fast" (substantial change over millions of years), as long as no large step occurs in a single generation.
2. Random Saltation: Major changes by large "jumps" in a single generation, either by "borrowing" genetic material from another organism, frame shifts in the genome, increase in chromosome number, etc. While these changes are very rarely favorable, enough time is available to make them probable.
3. "Anthropic" Saltation: As in position 2, except that the changes are so rarely favorable that large-scale evolution is unlikely to occur in any one universe. With infinite numbers of possible universes, any universe with observers (like ours) is inevitably one in which these overwhelmingly unlikely events have occurred.
4. "Providential" Saltation: As in position 3, except that the extremely improbable events in a single universe were foreordained and planned by God, who "engineered" them without violating physical laws, either through setting of initial conditions, exploiting of quantum uncertainty, or other, perhaps unknowable, methods.
5. Miraculous Creation: Transformation or creation of organisms by divine processes that supercede physical laws or principles.
Of course, "hybrid" positions combining two or more of the above are possible. Dawkins's position is 1, with some admixture of 2 to account for the origin of life.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Larson.html
Bats
Quoting Dumbski will get you nowhere fast here.
Darwinian evolution includes all changes in a species, even if it occurs overnight. Punctuated Equilibrium is Darwinian evolution that occurs over several generations, followed(or preceded) by long periods of little change. Saltations of any type are still evolution(except magical intervention)
Darwinian evolution includes all changes in a species, even if it occurs overnight. Punctuated Equilibrium is Darwinian evolution that occurs over several generations, followed(or preceded) by long periods of little change. Saltations of any type are still evolution(except magical intervention)
"borrowing" genetic material from another organism
Are you daft??? Such things only occur at the simplest level of one celled organisms, though "insertions" by viruses can occur to two(or more) species(in theory).
Stupid people shouldn't try to tell others anything, and boy, are you stupid.
Grumpy
It remains to be seen how much of evolution must be accounted for by non- Darwinian "borrowing," as more and more genomes are sequenced. Of course, "non-Darwinian" does not necessarily imply "improbable," let alone "miraculous."
I think to be more accurate you should say non-Mendalian(sp) genetics.
>>> and long-winded paragraphs. Yet, he refuses to format his posts for readability. <<<
That is just wrong when compared to the original format.
>>> It is obvious that he is very dedicated to his beliefs <<<
No, I am being faithful to the thread's subtitle. In theology, I am not a real fan of T.U.L.I.P. Preservation of the saints and the hearing of the gospel is not something that I think is strictly determined. Though I have to say, I think Professor Davison is more right than wrong on life following a pre-determined, not up to chance, path and the place for natural selection. I can't say where "tulip" fails in its argument** {Except, maybe it is just a little too arrogant. But that is just taste.}.
So, I think it is honest to stay somewhat neutral!
>>> They aren't trying to convince the world that they are right, they are trying to convince themselves. <<<
LOL
MrB.
** Maybe it is in the L.&I. because I forget what those letters are suppose to represent(in the Calvinist make-up), haha.
Again, Darwinism has been falsified {in as much as Newtonian Gravity has been falsified}.
MrB.
i.e. in a non-relevant way, that doesn't really change any fundamentals.
Quoting Dumbski will get you nowhere fast here.
QUOTE
1. Darwinian Evolution: Accumulation of small mutations by natural selection. The pace of evolution may vary from "slow" (little change over millions of years) to "fast" (substantial change over millions of years), as long as no large step occurs in a single generation.
Darwinian evolution includes all changes in a species, even if it occurs overnight. Punctuated Equilibrium is Darwinian evolution that occurs over several generations, followed(or preceded) by long periods of little change. Saltations of any type are still evolution(except magical intervention)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Darwinian Evolution: Accumulation of small mutations by natural selection. The pace of evolution may vary from "slow" (little change over millions of years) to "fast" (substantial change over millions of years), as long as no large step occurs in a single generation. |
Darwinian evolution includes all changes in a species, even if it occurs overnight. Punctuated Equilibrium is Darwinian evolution that occurs over several generations, followed(or preceded) by long periods of little change. Saltations of any type are still evolution(except magical intervention)
"borrowing" genetic material from another organism
Are you daft??? Such things only occur at the simplest level of one celled organisms, though "insertions" by viruses can occur to two(or more) species(in theory).
Stupid people shouldn't try to tell others anything, and boy, are you stupid.
Grumpy
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 13 2008, 07:04 PM)
It remains to be seen how much of evolution must be accounted for by non- Darwinian "borrowing," as more and more genomes are sequenced. Of course, "non-Darwinian" does not necessarily imply "improbable," let alone "miraculous."
I think to be more accurate you should say non-Mendalian(sp) genetics.
Of course, "hybrid" positions combining two or more of the above are possible. Dawkins's position is 1, with some admixture of 2 to account for the origin of life.-- Larson.
Welcome to the Virosphere August 2008
Garry Hamilton is a writer in Seattle, Washington
>>> though "insertions" by viruses can occur to two(or more) species(in theory) <<<
Viral Evolution:
Climbing Mount Molehill?
From PSCF 52 (September 2000): 169.
Richard Dawkins' defense of Darwinism, which he describes as a climb up the "backside of 'Mount Improbable'," is challenged by direct observations of the evolution of RNA viruses, whose mutation rates are a million times faster than that of other organisms. These studies suggest severe limitations to gradualism, or "descent with modification" that Dawkins insists is an essentially complete explanation of origins. Comparisons of the genomes and biochemical machinery of viruses, as well as those of simple single-celled organisms, suggest that numerous lateral transfers of genetic material, or other non-Darwinian "saltations," are needed for a naturalistic explanation of origins.
Ronald G. Larson
2624 Pin Oak Dr.
rlarson AT engin.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
...
The modular arrangement of the genomes of viruses creates many possibilities for genetic "mixing and matching," whereby modular genetic units are swapped. Thus, when gene re-assortment occurs (which can be very rare or perhaps nonexistent in some viruses),39 it usually produces relatively minor changes, at least when compared to the changes required for the appearance of altogether new viral forms.
In fact, there is an enormous diversity of viral forms. Viruses differ one from another in their genetic material (RNA vs. DNA, double stranded vs. single stranded), in their shape (cylindrical, spherical, head-tail), in their mode of entry into the cell, in their biochemistry of replication, in the presence or absence of a lipid envelope, and in other important ways. Even allowing for genetic re-assortment and environmental change, in most cases, it is difficult to visualize how one class of viruses could have given rise to a different one by a process of gradual change. Thus, a transition from one class to another, if it occurred, would seem to have occurred in one sudden jerk, or "saltation,"40 an occurrence explicitly rejected by Darwin and Dawkins (although Dawkins allows the possibility of saltations in rare cases, such as the origin of life).41
39 J. P. Icenogle, P. Sathya, D. I. Miller, R. A. Tucker, and W. E. Rawls, "Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Variation in the L1 and E7 Open Reading Frames of Human papillomavirus Type 6 and Type 16," Virology 184 (1991): 101-7; and T. C. Yamada, C. M. Wheeler, A. L. Halpern, A-C. M. Stewart, A. Hildesheim, S. A. Jenison, "Human papillomavirus Type 16 Variant Lineages in United States Populations Characterized by Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of the E6, L2, and L1 Coding Segments," Journal of Virology 69 (1995): 7743-53.
40 A large step, or jump, in a single generation is known as a "saltation." Evolution by saltations is firmly rejected by both Darwin and Dawkins (with some exceptions, in the case of Dawkins). Now that we know the genetic basis of life, we can discern two kinds of saltation. One of these was recognized, and dismissed, by Darwin. It is a large jump in "phenotype"--that is, the outward form and function of the organism. These are considered to be virtually impossible, because any large jump, if it is random, is almost certain to be a disaster for the organism. Hitting a malfunctioning watch with a sledge hammer may produce change, but not likely for the better. Such "phenotype" saltations need not be produced by a large change in the underlying genetic code. For instance, replacement of a single amino acid by another can sometimes cause the resulting protein to fold improperly, or to fail to function, with sometimes disastrous consequences.
Most cases of the disease cystic fibrosis are produced by a deletion of the three-base codon for the single amino acid phenylalanine in a protein that controls the regulation of salt concentration in cells. The external change produced by this mutation is a large one, and is highly unfavorable to the survival of the person possessing it. Another example of a small change in the DNA that produces large phenotypic changes is a "frame shift." This occurs when one base pair of the DNA sequence is either accidentally left out or added to a DNA sequence. Since the sequence is read in triplets, such a deletion or insertion will result in a shift to the left or to the right by one letter in the assignment of codons.
Hence, downstream of the "error," practically every amino acid assignment will be altered, with massive changes to the protein, and likely catastrophic consequences for the organism. A second kind of saltation is a "genotypic" saltation, wherein large changes randomly occur within protein-coding regions of the genome. Such a saltation is unlikely to produce favorable change because, if it is truly random, it will almost certainly produce a large phenotypic change, and therefore be unfavorable.
In principle, a "genotypic" saltation could produce only a small change in "phenotype," if the genotypic changes somehow cancel each other out, leading to only a small change in phenotype. But such a near-perfect cancellation is unlikely to arise from a random change, just as it is unlikely that a large, random, phenotypic change will be beneficial.
41 The possibility of impediments to gradualism are acknowledged by Dawkins. For example, despite the supposed ease and rapidity of evolution of the camera eye from a simple photoreceptor cell, the inefficient compound eye of insects has been unable, after millions of years, to evolve into the camera eye. Dawkins suggests that the inverted image of the camera eye represents an inherently discontinuous change from the right-side-up image of the more primitive compound eye. "Finding an intermediate between these two is a tough proposition, to put it mildly," he writes. Thus, the compound eye, though non-optimal, might represent a foothill, separated by an impassable valley from the true optimal eye, which resides on the peak of Mount Improbable itself. The obvious question, then, is "How common are such impasses?" or "How smooth really is the backside of Mount Improbable?"
Welcome to the Virosphere August 2008
Garry Hamilton is a writer in Seattle, Washington
>>> though "insertions" by viruses can occur to two(or more) species(in theory) <<<
Viral Evolution:
Climbing Mount Molehill?
From PSCF 52 (September 2000): 169.
Richard Dawkins' defense of Darwinism, which he describes as a climb up the "backside of 'Mount Improbable'," is challenged by direct observations of the evolution of RNA viruses, whose mutation rates are a million times faster than that of other organisms. These studies suggest severe limitations to gradualism, or "descent with modification" that Dawkins insists is an essentially complete explanation of origins. Comparisons of the genomes and biochemical machinery of viruses, as well as those of simple single-celled organisms, suggest that numerous lateral transfers of genetic material, or other non-Darwinian "saltations," are needed for a naturalistic explanation of origins.
Ronald G. Larson
2624 Pin Oak Dr.
rlarson AT engin.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
...
The modular arrangement of the genomes of viruses creates many possibilities for genetic "mixing and matching," whereby modular genetic units are swapped. Thus, when gene re-assortment occurs (which can be very rare or perhaps nonexistent in some viruses),39 it usually produces relatively minor changes, at least when compared to the changes required for the appearance of altogether new viral forms.
In fact, there is an enormous diversity of viral forms. Viruses differ one from another in their genetic material (RNA vs. DNA, double stranded vs. single stranded), in their shape (cylindrical, spherical, head-tail), in their mode of entry into the cell, in their biochemistry of replication, in the presence or absence of a lipid envelope, and in other important ways. Even allowing for genetic re-assortment and environmental change, in most cases, it is difficult to visualize how one class of viruses could have given rise to a different one by a process of gradual change. Thus, a transition from one class to another, if it occurred, would seem to have occurred in one sudden jerk, or "saltation,"40 an occurrence explicitly rejected by Darwin and Dawkins (although Dawkins allows the possibility of saltations in rare cases, such as the origin of life).41
39 J. P. Icenogle, P. Sathya, D. I. Miller, R. A. Tucker, and W. E. Rawls, "Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Variation in the L1 and E7 Open Reading Frames of Human papillomavirus Type 6 and Type 16," Virology 184 (1991): 101-7; and T. C. Yamada, C. M. Wheeler, A. L. Halpern, A-C. M. Stewart, A. Hildesheim, S. A. Jenison, "Human papillomavirus Type 16 Variant Lineages in United States Populations Characterized by Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of the E6, L2, and L1 Coding Segments," Journal of Virology 69 (1995): 7743-53.
40 A large step, or jump, in a single generation is known as a "saltation." Evolution by saltations is firmly rejected by both Darwin and Dawkins (with some exceptions, in the case of Dawkins). Now that we know the genetic basis of life, we can discern two kinds of saltation. One of these was recognized, and dismissed, by Darwin. It is a large jump in "phenotype"--that is, the outward form and function of the organism. These are considered to be virtually impossible, because any large jump, if it is random, is almost certain to be a disaster for the organism. Hitting a malfunctioning watch with a sledge hammer may produce change, but not likely for the better. Such "phenotype" saltations need not be produced by a large change in the underlying genetic code. For instance, replacement of a single amino acid by another can sometimes cause the resulting protein to fold improperly, or to fail to function, with sometimes disastrous consequences.
Most cases of the disease cystic fibrosis are produced by a deletion of the three-base codon for the single amino acid phenylalanine in a protein that controls the regulation of salt concentration in cells. The external change produced by this mutation is a large one, and is highly unfavorable to the survival of the person possessing it. Another example of a small change in the DNA that produces large phenotypic changes is a "frame shift." This occurs when one base pair of the DNA sequence is either accidentally left out or added to a DNA sequence. Since the sequence is read in triplets, such a deletion or insertion will result in a shift to the left or to the right by one letter in the assignment of codons.
Hence, downstream of the "error," practically every amino acid assignment will be altered, with massive changes to the protein, and likely catastrophic consequences for the organism. A second kind of saltation is a "genotypic" saltation, wherein large changes randomly occur within protein-coding regions of the genome. Such a saltation is unlikely to produce favorable change because, if it is truly random, it will almost certainly produce a large phenotypic change, and therefore be unfavorable.
In principle, a "genotypic" saltation could produce only a small change in "phenotype," if the genotypic changes somehow cancel each other out, leading to only a small change in phenotype. But such a near-perfect cancellation is unlikely to arise from a random change, just as it is unlikely that a large, random, phenotypic change will be beneficial.
41 The possibility of impediments to gradualism are acknowledged by Dawkins. For example, despite the supposed ease and rapidity of evolution of the camera eye from a simple photoreceptor cell, the inefficient compound eye of insects has been unable, after millions of years, to evolve into the camera eye. Dawkins suggests that the inverted image of the camera eye represents an inherently discontinuous change from the right-side-up image of the more primitive compound eye. "Finding an intermediate between these two is a tough proposition, to put it mildly," he writes. Thus, the compound eye, though non-optimal, might represent a foothill, separated by an impassable valley from the true optimal eye, which resides on the peak of Mount Improbable itself. The obvious question, then, is "How common are such impasses?" or "How smooth really is the backside of Mount Improbable?"
It amazes me....
MisterBelfry takes the time to post complex, thoughtful, and long-winded paragraphs. Yet, he refuses to format his posts for readability.
It is obvious that he is very dedicated to his beliefs. He seems to dedicate a lot of time to reading articles and books that agree with his view, or twisting ones that don't agree to his viewpoint to his way of thinking.
Yet, I am still amazed that this serial poster refuses to try and make his posts more readable. I think that this facet of his posts demonstrates that he is absolutely not interested in debating or discussing the topic with the other posters. He seems content with reading his own posts. This self-grandizing attitude is evident of a greater problem with creationists. They aren't trying to convince the world that they are right, they are trying to convince themselves.
MisterBelfry takes the time to post complex, thoughtful, and long-winded paragraphs. Yet, he refuses to format his posts for readability.
It is obvious that he is very dedicated to his beliefs. He seems to dedicate a lot of time to reading articles and books that agree with his view, or twisting ones that don't agree to his viewpoint to his way of thinking.
Yet, I am still amazed that this serial poster refuses to try and make his posts more readable. I think that this facet of his posts demonstrates that he is absolutely not interested in debating or discussing the topic with the other posters. He seems content with reading his own posts. This self-grandizing attitude is evident of a greater problem with creationists. They aren't trying to convince the world that they are right, they are trying to convince themselves.
And I would love it if he would explain what he means by "Darwinian Evolution".
Most times he seems to be talking about Mendelian genetics.
And I would love it if he would either admit there is no definition whereby you can classify all animals into salient species with no arbitrary decisions, or give us such a definition.
Most times he seems to be talking about Mendelian genetics.
And I would love it if he would either admit there is no definition whereby you can classify all animals into salient species with no arbitrary decisions, or give us such a definition.
>>> and long-winded paragraphs. Yet, he refuses to format his posts for readability. <<<
That is just wrong when compared to the original format.
>>> It is obvious that he is very dedicated to his beliefs <<<
No, I am being faithful to the thread's subtitle. In theology, I am not a real fan of T.U.L.I.P. Preservation of the saints and the hearing of the gospel is not something that I think is strictly determined. Though I have to say, I think Professor Davison is more right than wrong on life following a pre-determined, not up to chance, path and the place for natural selection. I can't say where "tulip" fails in its argument** {Except, maybe it is just a little too arrogant. But that is just taste.}.
So, I think it is honest to stay somewhat neutral!
>>> They aren't trying to convince the world that they are right, they are trying to convince themselves. <<<
LOL
MrB.
** Maybe it is in the L.&I. because I forget what those letters are suppose to represent(in the Calvinist make-up), haha.
>>> And I would love it if he would explain what he means by "Darwinian Evolution". <<<
Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification."
Gradualism is the key to Darwinism. Darwin said it himself: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."5 Dawkins echos this key point
--Larson. Emphasis Mr Belfry.
5 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, sixth ed. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991), 139.
6 Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, 91.
>>> salient species <<<
What is speciation?
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature(hence: the renowned Jesus\Yashua) and that are reproductively isolated(hence: Heaven)?
MrB.
Dawkins himself notes one example. The gene for hemoglobin (a key protein in the red blood cells of higher animals) has been found to exist in plants of the pea family, and hemoglobin itself exists in the roots of this plant! Hemoglobin has not been found in any other plant families, and so could not have been passed down to this species by "descent with modification."
Gradualism is the key to Darwinism. Darwin said it himself: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."5 Dawkins echos this key point
--Larson. Emphasis Mr Belfry.
5 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, sixth ed. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991), 139.
6 Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, 91.
>>> salient species <<<
What is speciation?
What is speciation but the creation and diversity of life from two or more individuals of a pre-existing species that have the potential to interbreed in nature(hence: the renowned Jesus\Yashua) and that are reproductively isolated(hence: Heaven)?
MrB.
I think people should say post-Darwinian Evolution when talking to MB.
Gradualism wasn't the main point that Darwin made,
It was that God didn't kill Cock Robin.
i.e. that animals live and die without direct intervention from God.
http://www.rhymes.org.uk/who_killed_cock_robin.htm
Gradualism wasn't the main point that Darwin made,
It was that God didn't kill Cock Robin.
i.e. that animals live and die without direct intervention from God.
http://www.rhymes.org.uk/who_killed_cock_robin.htm
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Now that is how to post, Bats. But, then, you haven't shown that you know much about anything, have you.
Grumpy
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Now that is how to post, Bats. But, then, you haven't shown that you know much about anything, have you.
Grumpy
Climate change.
Matthew 10:28-34
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
(KJV)
Matthew 10:28-34
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
(KJV)
A Repost From Showtopic= 22979 <--------->
"We believe, if it is possible at all, that it is within our grasp to determine whether viruses evolved from cells or vice-versa."--Randen Patterson.
----->Showtopic= 3414 as it has been continued from its 2005 start.
Welcome to the virosphere
"In the 1970s... Scientists had only just learned that cellular life comprises three domains - bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - and... While some components showed the expected signs of common ancestry across all domains, others displayed more puzzling relationships. ...This patchwork of shared features means it is impossible to arrange the three domains in a standard family tree."
Again, Darwinism has been falsified {in as much as Newtonian Gravity has been falsified}.
MrB.
"We believe, if it is possible at all, that it is within our grasp to determine whether viruses evolved from cells or vice-versa."--Randen Patterson.
----->Showtopic= 3414 as it has been continued from its 2005 start.
Welcome to the virosphere
"In the 1970s... Scientists had only just learned that cellular life comprises three domains - bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - and... While some components showed the expected signs of common ancestry across all domains, others displayed more puzzling relationships. ...This patchwork of shared features means it is impossible to arrange the three domains in a standard family tree."
Again, Darwinism has been falsified {in as much as Newtonian Gravity has been falsified}.
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 16 2008, 04:07 AM)
"We believe, if it is possible at all, that it is within our grasp to determine whether viruses evolved from cells or vice-versa."--Randen Patterson.
----->Showtopic= 3414 as it has been continued from its 2005 start.
Welcome to the virosphere
"In the 1970s... Scientists had only just learned that cellular life comprises three domains - bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - and... While some components showed the expected signs of common ancestry across all domains, others displayed more puzzling relationships. ...This patchwork of shared features means it is impossible to arrange the three domains in a standard family tree."
Again, Darwinism has been falsified {in as much as Newtonian Gravity has been falsified}.
MrB.
(((My own repost of my reply to MrB's same post in the "A New Method For Investigating The Origin Of Life." topic thread.....for your information.)))
Are you implying that 'life' arose in THREE OR MORE different occassions/times/types?
That's great!
Evolution works for all of them!
Thanks MrB. Evolution MORE THAN ONCE-OFF. Now where does that leave your stance about ANY ONE OF THEM, let alone all of them?
Cheers, MrB, all!....and g'night.
RC.
.
----->Showtopic= 3414 as it has been continued from its 2005 start.
Welcome to the virosphere
"In the 1970s... Scientists had only just learned that cellular life comprises three domains - bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - and... While some components showed the expected signs of common ancestry across all domains, others displayed more puzzling relationships. ...This patchwork of shared features means it is impossible to arrange the three domains in a standard family tree."
Again, Darwinism has been falsified {in as much as Newtonian Gravity has been falsified}.
MrB.
(((My own repost of my reply to MrB's same post in the "A New Method For Investigating The Origin Of Life." topic thread.....for your information.)))
Are you implying that 'life' arose in THREE OR MORE different occassions/times/types?
That's great!
Evolution works for all of them!
Thanks MrB. Evolution MORE THAN ONCE-OFF. Now where does that leave your stance about ANY ONE OF THEM, let alone all of them?
Cheers, MrB, all!....and g'night.
RC.
.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 16 2008, 04:29 AM)
Again, Darwinism has been falsified {in as much as Newtonian Gravity has been falsified}.
MrB.
i.e. in a non-relevant way, that doesn't really change any fundamentals.
The biggest problem with evolution is it also produces mucazoid blobs like RseCrack and Mr. Bollockbreath
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 16 2008, 05:10 AM)
The biggest problem with evolution is it also produces mucazoid blobs like RseCrack and Mr. Bollockbreath
The biggest problem with evolution is it provided a means for creatures the likes of neonom to roam the earth.
hehehe... hahaha... hohoho
The biggest problem with evolution is it provided a means for creatures the likes of neonom to roam the earth.
hehehe... hahaha... hohoho
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 16 2008, 11:16 AM)
The biggest problem with evolution is it provided a means for creatures the likes of neonom to roam the earth. hehehe... hahaha... hohoho
Ive just done that one, stalker. I guess once your a follower thats all you ever really can do.
hehehe... hahaha... hohoho Ive just done that one, stalker. I guess once your a follower thats all you ever really can do.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 16 2008, 08:12 AM)
Ive just done that one, stalker. I guess once your a follower thats all you ever really can do.
some just deserve to be stalked, and iterations reworded and redirected.
some just deserve to be stalked, and iterations reworded and redirected.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 16 2008, 03:40 PM)
some just deserve to be stalked, and iterations reworded and redirected.
Hence your feedback, spunkbubble.
Hence your feedback, spunkbubble.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 16 2008, 09:49 AM)
Hence your feedback, spunkbubble.
Don't expect any feed (back) from me, neonom. You're not worthy enough for me to bother. Just send me a portion of your prize for keeping your good? numbers. Consider me partially responsible for not dragging down your scores. hehehe
Oh! back to the OP... problems with evolution . Its unpredictable and can be reversible as evidenced by neonom's existence.
Don't expect any feed (back) from me, neonom. You're not worthy enough for me to bother. Just send me a portion of your prize for keeping your good? numbers. Consider me partially responsible for not dragging down your scores. hehehe
Oh! back to the OP... problems with evolution . Its unpredictable and can be reversible as evidenced by neonom's existence.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 16 2008, 04:00 PM)
You're not worthy enough for me to bother.
And yet here you are following me around like a little lost boy. Trying to boost your score by osmosis?
And yet here you are following me around like a little lost boy. Trying to boost your score by osmosis?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 16 2008, 10:43 AM)
And yet here you are following me around like a little lost boy. Trying to boost your score by osmosis?
not quite! (using your terminology)...
Oh neonom. You have a name here that suits you. NEO....you are definity but relatively new, and absolutely abnormal. hehehe
How off base can you stoop to? ..... If you think I will raise my score responding to YOUR utterances. hey hey the gangs are here! Your accomplices will certainly see to it that the score increases....negatively that is. hehehe
not quite! (using your terminology)...
Oh neonom. You have a name here that suits you. NEO....you are definity but relatively new, and absolutely abnormal. hehehe
How off base can you stoop to? ..... If you think I will raise my score responding to YOUR utterances. hey hey the gangs are here! Your accomplices will certainly see to it that the score increases....negatively that is. hehehe
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 16 2008, 05:28 PM)
not quite! (using your terminology)...
Oh neonom. You have a name here that suits you. NEO....you are definity but relatively new, and absolutely abnormal. hehehe
How off base can you stoop to? ..... If you think I will raise my score responding to YOUR utterances. hey hey the gangs are here! Your accomplices will certainly see to it that the score increases....negatively that is. hehehe
Your still bothering, even though you say its not worth it. That makes you a liar. But we already knew that as can be seen from your feedback over nearly 3 (count 'em!) years.
And even after that we STILL offer you a choice. Post some science or fukoff.
Oh, its neon om, btw. I'm a very spiritual person.
Oh neonom. You have a name here that suits you. NEO....you are definity but relatively new, and absolutely abnormal. hehehe
How off base can you stoop to? ..... If you think I will raise my score responding to YOUR utterances. hey hey the gangs are here! Your accomplices will certainly see to it that the score increases....negatively that is. hehehe
Your still bothering, even though you say its not worth it. That makes you a liar. But we already knew that as can be seen from your feedback over nearly 3 (count 'em!) years.
And even after that we STILL offer you a choice. Post some science or fukoff.
Oh, its neon om, btw. I'm a very spiritual person.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 16 2008, 11:39 AM)
And even after that we STILL offer you a choice. Post some science or fukoff.
O0oooooo....steady guy, doesn't your own medicine set well with you?
edit...oh forgot....hehehe harharhar
just let me experience youthfulness...as your "lost boy" quip summates.
O0oooooo....steady guy, doesn't your own medicine set well with you?
edit...oh forgot....hehehe harharhar
just let me experience youthfulness...as your "lost boy" quip summates.
>>> Thanks MrB. Evolution MORE THAN ONCE-OFF. Now where does that leave your stance about ANY ONE OF THEM, let alone all of them? <<<
Devolution isn't gradualism.
Devolution isn't gradualism.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Are you implying that 'life' arose in THREE OR MORE different occassions/times/types?
No, I have been led to believe the term is reticular evolution or better, cooperation for a set purpose at a set time for a special location---->Jerusalem and what I call the battle for New Jerusalem at the conclusion of a thousand years-not yet started.
Are we not, through research, creating a new pathway through science which changes evolution to interference? and doesn't that now mean that evolution is probably so altered as to not be a relevant medium any more.
Cheers
Iseason
We are a part of evolution as well. If we 'interfere' as you put it (as we have been doing for thousands of years via selective breeding for instance) Then yes in some respects we take over the role of Natural selection to some degree in some instances. Our very presence has an effect on other things as they are interconnected.
If you think to ask "...evolution is probably so altered as to not be a relevant medium any more...?"
It sounds like you miss understand what evolution essentially is at it's simplest level - Change over Time.
QUOTE (Buttershug+)
i.e. in a non-relevant way, that doesn't really change any fundamentals.
It is relevant to Darwinism, isn't it? That's news in my book.
MrB.
MrB.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 14 2008, 06:50 PM)
Of course, "hybrid" positions combining two or more of the above are possible. Dawkins's position is 1, with some admixture of 2 to account for the origin of life.-- Larson.
Welcome to the Virosphere August 2008
Garry Hamilton is a writer in Seattle, Washington
>>> though "insertions" by viruses can occur to two(or more) species(in theory) <<<
Viral Evolution:
Climbing Mount Molehill?
From PSCF 52 (September 2000): 169.
Richard Dawkins' defense of Darwinism, which he describes as a climb up the "backside of 'Mount Improbable'," is challenged by direct observations of the evolution of RNA viruses, whose mutation rates are a million times faster than that of other organisms. These studies suggest severe limitations to gradualism, or "descent with modification" that Dawkins insists is an essentially complete explanation of origins. Comparisons of the genomes and biochemical machinery of viruses, as well as those of simple single-celled organisms, suggest that numerous lateral transfers of genetic material, or other non-Darwinian "saltations," are needed for a naturalistic explanation of origins.
Ronald G. Larson
2624 Pin Oak Dr.
rlarson AT engin.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
...
The modular arrangement of the genomes of viruses creates many possibilities for genetic "mixing and matching," whereby modular genetic units are swapped. Thus, when gene re-assortment occurs (which can be very rare or perhaps nonexistent in some viruses),39 it usually produces relatively minor changes, at least when compared to the changes required for the appearance of altogether new viral forms.
In fact, there is an enormous diversity of viral forms. Viruses differ one from another in their genetic material (RNA vs. DNA, double stranded vs. single stranded), in their shape (cylindrical, spherical, head-tail), in their mode of entry into the cell, in their biochemistry of replication, in the presence or absence of a lipid envelope, and in other important ways. Even allowing for genetic re-assortment and environmental change, in most cases, it is difficult to visualize how one class of viruses could have given rise to a different one by a process of gradual change. Thus, a transition from one class to another, if it occurred, would seem to have occurred in one sudden jerk, or "saltation,"40 an occurrence explicitly rejected by Darwin and Dawkins (although Dawkins allows the possibility of saltations in rare cases, such as the origin of life).41
39 J. P. Icenogle, P. Sathya, D. I. Miller, R. A. Tucker, and W. E. Rawls, "Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Variation in the L1 and E7 Open Reading Frames of Human papillomavirus Type 6 and Type 16," Virology 184 (1991): 101-7; and T. C. Yamada, C. M. Wheeler, A. L. Halpern, A-C. M. Stewart, A. Hildesheim, S. A. Jenison, "Human papillomavirus Type 16 Variant Lineages in United States Populations Characterized by Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of the E6, L2, and L1 Coding Segments," Journal of Virology 69 (1995): 7743-53.
40 A large step, or jump, in a single generation is known as a "saltation." Evolution by saltations is firmly rejected by both Darwin and Dawkins (with some exceptions, in the case of Dawkins). Now that we know the genetic basis of life, we can discern two kinds of saltation. One of these was recognized, and dismissed, by Darwin. It is a large jump in "phenotype"--that is, the outward form and function of the organism. These are considered to be virtually impossible, because any large jump, if it is random, is almost certain to be a disaster for the organism. Hitting a malfunctioning watch with a sledge hammer may produce change, but not likely for the better. Such "phenotype" saltations need not be produced by a large change in the underlying genetic code. For instance, replacement of a single amino acid by another can sometimes cause the resulting protein to fold improperly, or to fail to function, with sometimes disastrous consequences.
Most cases of the disease cystic fibrosis are produced by a deletion of the three-base codon for the single amino acid phenylalanine in a protein that controls the regulation of salt concentration in cells. The external change produced by this mutation is a large one, and is highly unfavorable to the survival of the person possessing it. Another example of a small change in the DNA that produces large phenotypic changes is a "frame shift." This occurs when one base pair of the DNA sequence is either accidentally left out or added to a DNA sequence. Since the sequence is read in triplets, such a deletion or insertion will result in a shift to the left or to the right by one letter in the assignment of codons.
Hence, downstream of the "error," practically every amino acid assignment will be altered, with massive changes to the protein, and likely catastrophic consequences for the organism. A second kind of saltation is a "genotypic" saltation, wherein large changes randomly occur within protein-coding regions of the genome. Such a saltation is unlikely to produce favorable change because, if it is truly random, it will almost certainly produce a large phenotypic change, and therefore be unfavorable.
In principle, a "genotypic" saltation could produce only a small change in "phenotype," if the genotypic changes somehow cancel each other out, leading to only a small change in phenotype. But such a near-perfect cancellation is unlikely to arise from a random change, just as it is unlikely that a large, random, phenotypic change will be beneficial.
41 The possibility of impediments to gradualism are acknowledged by Dawkins. For example, despite the supposed ease and rapidity of evolution of the camera eye from a simple photoreceptor cell, the inefficient compound eye of insects has been unable, after millions of years, to evolve into the camera eye. Dawkins suggests that the inverted image of the camera eye represents an inherently discontinuous change from the right-side-up image of the more primitive compound eye. "Finding an intermediate between these two is a tough proposition, to put it mildly," he writes. Thus, the compound eye, though non-optimal, might represent a foothill, separated by an impassable valley from the true optimal eye, which resides on the peak of Mount Improbable itself. The obvious question, then, is "How common are such impasses?" or "How smooth really is the backside of Mount Improbable?"
Hi Mr
Interesting post..
Begs a question. Do viruses interact with each other to form a new virus?
I remember a biology book I read where strains of flys were checked to find mutations. It was only through major numbers of samples that a mutation was discovered. The chances then of two such mutated flys breeding with each other was impressive.
Are we not, through research, creating a new pathway through science which changes evolution to interference? and doesn't that now mean that evolution is probably so altered as to not be a relevant medium any more.
Cheers
Iseason
Welcome to the Virosphere August 2008
Garry Hamilton is a writer in Seattle, Washington
>>> though "insertions" by viruses can occur to two(or more) species(in theory) <<<
Viral Evolution:
Climbing Mount Molehill?
From PSCF 52 (September 2000): 169.
Richard Dawkins' defense of Darwinism, which he describes as a climb up the "backside of 'Mount Improbable'," is challenged by direct observations of the evolution of RNA viruses, whose mutation rates are a million times faster than that of other organisms. These studies suggest severe limitations to gradualism, or "descent with modification" that Dawkins insists is an essentially complete explanation of origins. Comparisons of the genomes and biochemical machinery of viruses, as well as those of simple single-celled organisms, suggest that numerous lateral transfers of genetic material, or other non-Darwinian "saltations," are needed for a naturalistic explanation of origins.
Ronald G. Larson
2624 Pin Oak Dr.
rlarson AT engin.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
...
The modular arrangement of the genomes of viruses creates many possibilities for genetic "mixing and matching," whereby modular genetic units are swapped. Thus, when gene re-assortment occurs (which can be very rare or perhaps nonexistent in some viruses),39 it usually produces relatively minor changes, at least when compared to the changes required for the appearance of altogether new viral forms.
In fact, there is an enormous diversity of viral forms. Viruses differ one from another in their genetic material (RNA vs. DNA, double stranded vs. single stranded), in their shape (cylindrical, spherical, head-tail), in their mode of entry into the cell, in their biochemistry of replication, in the presence or absence of a lipid envelope, and in other important ways. Even allowing for genetic re-assortment and environmental change, in most cases, it is difficult to visualize how one class of viruses could have given rise to a different one by a process of gradual change. Thus, a transition from one class to another, if it occurred, would seem to have occurred in one sudden jerk, or "saltation,"40 an occurrence explicitly rejected by Darwin and Dawkins (although Dawkins allows the possibility of saltations in rare cases, such as the origin of life).41
39 J. P. Icenogle, P. Sathya, D. I. Miller, R. A. Tucker, and W. E. Rawls, "Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Variation in the L1 and E7 Open Reading Frames of Human papillomavirus Type 6 and Type 16," Virology 184 (1991): 101-7; and T. C. Yamada, C. M. Wheeler, A. L. Halpern, A-C. M. Stewart, A. Hildesheim, S. A. Jenison, "Human papillomavirus Type 16 Variant Lineages in United States Populations Characterized by Nucleotide Sequence Analysis of the E6, L2, and L1 Coding Segments," Journal of Virology 69 (1995): 7743-53.
40 A large step, or jump, in a single generation is known as a "saltation." Evolution by saltations is firmly rejected by both Darwin and Dawkins (with some exceptions, in the case of Dawkins). Now that we know the genetic basis of life, we can discern two kinds of saltation. One of these was recognized, and dismissed, by Darwin. It is a large jump in "phenotype"--that is, the outward form and function of the organism. These are considered to be virtually impossible, because any large jump, if it is random, is almost certain to be a disaster for the organism. Hitting a malfunctioning watch with a sledge hammer may produce change, but not likely for the better. Such "phenotype" saltations need not be produced by a large change in the underlying genetic code. For instance, replacement of a single amino acid by another can sometimes cause the resulting protein to fold improperly, or to fail to function, with sometimes disastrous consequences.
Most cases of the disease cystic fibrosis are produced by a deletion of the three-base codon for the single amino acid phenylalanine in a protein that controls the regulation of salt concentration in cells. The external change produced by this mutation is a large one, and is highly unfavorable to the survival of the person possessing it. Another example of a small change in the DNA that produces large phenotypic changes is a "frame shift." This occurs when one base pair of the DNA sequence is either accidentally left out or added to a DNA sequence. Since the sequence is read in triplets, such a deletion or insertion will result in a shift to the left or to the right by one letter in the assignment of codons.
Hence, downstream of the "error," practically every amino acid assignment will be altered, with massive changes to the protein, and likely catastrophic consequences for the organism. A second kind of saltation is a "genotypic" saltation, wherein large changes randomly occur within protein-coding regions of the genome. Such a saltation is unlikely to produce favorable change because, if it is truly random, it will almost certainly produce a large phenotypic change, and therefore be unfavorable.
In principle, a "genotypic" saltation could produce only a small change in "phenotype," if the genotypic changes somehow cancel each other out, leading to only a small change in phenotype. But such a near-perfect cancellation is unlikely to arise from a random change, just as it is unlikely that a large, random, phenotypic change will be beneficial.
41 The possibility of impediments to gradualism are acknowledged by Dawkins. For example, despite the supposed ease and rapidity of evolution of the camera eye from a simple photoreceptor cell, the inefficient compound eye of insects has been unable, after millions of years, to evolve into the camera eye. Dawkins suggests that the inverted image of the camera eye represents an inherently discontinuous change from the right-side-up image of the more primitive compound eye. "Finding an intermediate between these two is a tough proposition, to put it mildly," he writes. Thus, the compound eye, though non-optimal, might represent a foothill, separated by an impassable valley from the true optimal eye, which resides on the peak of Mount Improbable itself. The obvious question, then, is "How common are such impasses?" or "How smooth really is the backside of Mount Improbable?"
Hi Mr
Interesting post..
Begs a question. Do viruses interact with each other to form a new virus?
I remember a biology book I read where strains of flys were checked to find mutations. It was only through major numbers of samples that a mutation was discovered. The chances then of two such mutated flys breeding with each other was impressive.
Are we not, through research, creating a new pathway through science which changes evolution to interference? and doesn't that now mean that evolution is probably so altered as to not be a relevant medium any more.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Sep 17 2008, 09:16 AM)
Are we not, through research, creating a new pathway through science which changes evolution to interference? and doesn't that now mean that evolution is probably so altered as to not be a relevant medium any more.
Cheers
Iseason
We are a part of evolution as well. If we 'interfere' as you put it (as we have been doing for thousands of years via selective breeding for instance) Then yes in some respects we take over the role of Natural selection to some degree in some instances. Our very presence has an effect on other things as they are interconnected.
If you think to ask "...evolution is probably so altered as to not be a relevant medium any more...?"
It sounds like you miss understand what evolution essentially is at it's simplest level - Change over Time.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 17 2008, 07:52 AM)
>>> Thanks MrB. Evolution MORE THAN ONCE-OFF. Now where does that leave your stance about ANY ONE OF THEM, let alone all of them? <<<
Devolution isn't gradualism.
It is relevant to Darwinism, isn't it? That's news in my book.
MrB.
But the way you use the term "darwinism" would be like a photographer only talking about techniques Daguerre used.
Devolution isn't gradualism.
It is relevant to Darwinism, isn't it? That's news in my book.
MrB.
But the way you use the term "darwinism" would be like a photographer only talking about techniques Daguerre used.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Sep 17 2008, 07:52 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Thanks MrB. Evolution MORE THAN ONCE-OFF. Now where does that leave your stance about ANY ONE OF THEM, let alone all of them?
Devolution isn't gradualism.
Devolution isn't gradualism.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Are you implying that 'life' arose in THREE OR MORE different occassions/times/types?
No, I have been led to believe the term is reticular evolution or better, cooperation for a set purpose at a set time for a special location---->Jerusalem and what I call the battle for New Jerusalem at the conclusion of a thousand years-not yet started.
....
MrB.
Hi MrB.
Can you explain what you wrote in reply? It all sounds a bit confused. Back tomorrow.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Devolution isn't gradualism.
[QUOTE=RealityCheck]Are you implying that 'life' arose in THREE OR MORE different occassions/times/types?[/QUOTE]
No, I have been led to believe the term is reticular evolution or better, cooperation for a set purpose at a set time for a special location---->Jerusalem and what I call the battle for New Jerusalem at the conclusion of a thousand years-not yet started.
....
MrB.[/QUOTE]
Hi MrB.
Can you explain what you wrote in reply? It all sounds a bit confused. Back tomorrow.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Yeah please do keep spamming the forum with all your godsuckintripe and we'll keep pretending were not religius as well.
..and he is losing his marbles but still insists on playing.
Yeah lets change it to marbles cos feedback score is a bit embarrising for you isnt it?
Pathetic bottomburp.
No, I have been led to believe the term is reticular evolution or better, cooperation for a set purpose at a set time for a special location---->Jerusalem and what I call the battle for New Jerusalem at the conclusion of a thousand years-not yet started.
....
MrB.
Hi MrB.
Can you explain what you wrote in reply? It all sounds a bit confused. Back tomorrow.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 12:48 PM)
Devolution isn't gradualism.
[QUOTE=RealityCheck]Are you implying that 'life' arose in THREE OR MORE different occassions/times/types?[/QUOTE]
No, I have been led to believe the term is reticular evolution or better, cooperation for a set purpose at a set time for a special location---->Jerusalem and what I call the battle for New Jerusalem at the conclusion of a thousand years-not yet started.
....
MrB.[/QUOTE]
Hi MrB.
Can you explain what you wrote in reply? It all sounds a bit confused. Back tomorrow.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Yeah please do keep spamming the forum with all your godsuckintripe and we'll keep pretending were not religius as well.
.
Now 'it' can't even tell who's who or who's talking the religious crap! Hilarious!
.
.
g'night all.
.
Now 'it' can't even tell who's who or who's talking the religious crap! Hilarious!
.
.
g'night all.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 03:22 PM)
.
Now 'it' can't even tell who's who or who's talking the religious crap! Hilarious!
.
.
g'night all.
.
Yeah thats why your so riled is it?
Now 'it' can't even tell who's who or who's talking the religious crap! Hilarious!
.
.
g'night all.
.
Yeah thats why your so riled is it?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 09:22 AM)
.
Now 'it' can't even tell who's who or who's talking the religious crap! Hilarious!
.
.
g'night all.
.
yup... neonom is missing MORE cards than I suspected...heh.
..and he is losing his marbles but still insists on playing.
neonom is becoming quite the clown!. Like the clown from the movie "IT".. har har har
Now 'it' can't even tell who's who or who's talking the religious crap! Hilarious!
.
.
g'night all.
.
yup... neonom is missing MORE cards than I suspected...heh.
..and he is losing his marbles but still insists on playing.
neonom is becoming quite the clown!. Like the clown from the movie "IT".. har har har
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 17 2008, 03:27 PM)
..and he is losing his marbles but still insists on playing.
Yeah lets change it to marbles cos feedback score is a bit embarrising for you isnt it?
Pathetic bottomburp.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 09:34 AM)
Yeah lets change it to marbles cos feedback score is a bit embarrising for you isnt it?
Pathetic bottomburp.
can't believe it! You still think that feedback scores are of any importance? geeesh hehehe Most of my score is derived from purposefully drawing out and exposing those who only snipe..... in baseball they call that a sacrifice...hehheh
you definitely need a transplant ....your brain.... following with your heart...
Pathetic bottomburp.
can't believe it! You still think that feedback scores are of any importance? geeesh hehehe Most of my score is derived from purposefully drawing out and exposing those who only snipe..... in baseball they call that a sacrifice...hehheh
you definitely need a transplant ....your brain.... following with your heart...
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 17 2008, 03:46 PM)
can't believe it! You still think that feedback scores are of any importance? geeesh hehehe Most of my score is derived from purposefully drawing out and exposing those who only snipe..... in baseball they call that a sacrifice...hehheh
you definitely need a transplant ....your brain.... following with your heart...
Ah your some kind of jesus figure, eh? Maybe that's why you enjoy being crucified so much?
you definitely need a transplant ....your brain.... following with your heart...
Ah your some kind of jesus figure, eh? Maybe that's why you enjoy being crucified so much?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 09:50 AM)
Ah your some kind of jesus figure, eh? Maybe that's why you enjoy being crucified so much?
neonom can't rationalize so he grasps for any quick response that suits his clouded/foggy perception of how a fellow human conducts oneself. He can speak but a smidgen of science/physics, but he speaks volumes of detracting nonsense....all in the name of defending his warpped sense of alliance. A true low life in the hierarchy of a mafia. keep control...don't let a single idea that clashes pass....eliminate through intimidation....
It would be so easy to just pass a thread that doesn't fit his scheme....but no he has to create defiance in stead.
neonom can't rationalize so he grasps for any quick response that suits his clouded/foggy perception of how a fellow human conducts oneself. He can speak but a smidgen of science/physics, but he speaks volumes of detracting nonsense....all in the name of defending his warpped sense of alliance. A true low life in the hierarchy of a mafia. keep control...don't let a single idea that clashes pass....eliminate through intimidation....
It would be so easy to just pass a thread that doesn't fit his scheme....but no he has to create defiance in stead.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 17 2008, 05:07 PM)
neonom can't rationalize so he grasps for any quick response that suits his clouded/foggy perception of how a fellow human conducts oneself. He can speak but a smidgen of science/physics, but he speaks volumes of detracting nonsense....all in the name of defending his warpped sense of alliance. A true low life in the hierarchy of a mafia. keep control...don't let a single idea that clashes pass....eliminate through intimidation....
It would be so easy to just pass a thread that doesn't fit his scheme....but no he has to create defiance in stead.
Poor little bloy thinks hes better than other people, and then squirts out this kind of drivel.
It would be so easy to just pass a thread that doesn't fit his scheme....but no he has to create defiance in stead.
Poor little bloy thinks hes better than other people, and then squirts out this kind of drivel.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 01:25 PM)
Poor little bloy thinks hes better than other people, and then squirts out this kind of drivel.
Anything you say, neonom. But it is YOUR posts that degrade anyone who your quips are pointed to. You have a talent for demoralizing. AND...a proclivity to carry on and do the bidding for others.
Anything you say, neonom. But it is YOUR posts that degrade anyone who your quips are pointed to. You have a talent for demoralizing. AND...a proclivity to carry on and do the bidding for others.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 17 2008, 07:59 PM)
Anything you say, neonom. But it is YOUR posts that degrade anyone who your quips are pointed to. You have a talent for demoralizing. AND...a proclivity to carry on and do the bidding for others.
Thanks.
You have a talent for sqelching out retarded crud and encouraging cranks like speui. You degrade the whole of physics with this.
Thanks.
You have a talent for sqelching out retarded crud and encouraging cranks like speui. You degrade the whole of physics with this.
.
NEOmoron is someone's 'doggy', alright!
He always asks "How high".......when his 'master programmer' says "Jump doggy!"
Pitiful sight to see that the NEOmoron version is little different from the earliest CLASSICmoron version.
.
.
NEOmoron is someone's 'doggy', alright!
He always asks "How high".......when his 'master programmer' says "Jump doggy!"
Pitiful sight to see that the NEOmoron version is little different from the earliest CLASSICmoron version.
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 08:08 PM)
.
NEOmoron is someone's 'doggy', alright!
He always asks "How high".......when his 'master programmer' says "Jump doggy!"
Pitiful sight to see that the NEOmoron version is little different from the earliest CLASSICmoron version.
.
.
Not as pitiful as someone who considers himself adult but follows people around trying to have the last retarded word.
Of course your the master arent you?
NEOmoron is someone's 'doggy', alright!
He always asks "How high".......when his 'master programmer' says "Jump doggy!"
Pitiful sight to see that the NEOmoron version is little different from the earliest CLASSICmoron version.
.
.
Not as pitiful as someone who considers himself adult but follows people around trying to have the last retarded word.
Of course your the master arent you?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 02:12 PM)
Not as pitiful as someone who considers himself adult but follows people around trying to have the last retarded word.
Of course your the master arent you?
Yah neonom, someone other than you is the master.....you'll get there some day.
Keep it up and you will prevail with your attempts to master inappropriate posts.for the sole purpose of disparagement.
Of course your the master arent you?
Yah neonom, someone other than you is the master.....you'll get there some day.
Keep it up and you will prevail with your attempts to master inappropriate posts.for the sole purpose of disparagement.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 17 2008, 08:45 PM)
Yah neonom, someone other than you is the master
Of course little bloy its you. You, RseCracks imaginary friend, consider yourself the saviour and better than others.
Of course little bloy its you. You, RseCracks imaginary friend, consider yourself the saviour and better than others.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 02:50 PM)
Of course little bloy its you. You, RseCracks imaginary friend, consider yourself the saviour and better than others.
neonom....you are sounding like McCain's political campaign strategy... maybe you could get a job from him...look into it.
neonom....you are sounding like McCain's political campaign strategy... maybe you could get a job from him...look into it.
.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 08:08 PM)
.
NEOmoron is someone's 'doggy', alright!
He always asks "How high".......when his 'master programmer' says "Jump doggy!"
Pitiful sight to see that the NEOmoron version is little different from the earliest CLASSICmoron version.
.
.
Not as pitiful as someone who considers himself adult but follows people around trying to have the last retarded word.
Of course your the master arent you?
Sh!t. Don't blame me for your idjit program!
I am not your 'master'. I have nothing to do with 'it'.
And if you answer with the stock response of "lie"....then it'll prove you are not even worth peanuts.
Let's see what 'it' comes up with on that.
Tragic, really. No believability as a chatterbox at all....machine or human. Oh well, back to the drawing board/scrapyard for you, 'it'.
.
.
..
That would be the scrapyard your hovel overlooks would it?
Just cant stand it can you? Gonna carry on making yourself look a twat regardless. So be it. Have another swig and keep pretending grandad.
Oh you have so much believability as an adult, oh master.
If you come back with anything at all...well...then you must be a very silly ninny.
FUCKTARD!
neonom is obviously more than a little perturbed. It's turning red!
NEOmoron is someone's 'doggy', alright!
He always asks "How high".......when his 'master programmer' says "Jump doggy!"
Pitiful sight to see that the NEOmoron version is little different from the earliest CLASSICmoron version.
.
.
Not as pitiful as someone who considers himself adult but follows people around trying to have the last retarded word.
Of course your the master arent you?
Sh!t. Don't blame me for your idjit program!
I am not your 'master'. I have nothing to do with 'it'.
And if you answer with the stock response of "lie"....then it'll prove you are not even worth peanuts.
Let's see what 'it' comes up with on that.
Tragic, really. No believability as a chatterbox at all....machine or human. Oh well, back to the drawing board/scrapyard for you, 'it'.
.
.
..
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 08:58 PM)
.
Sh!t. Don't blame me for your idjit program!
I am not your 'master'. I have nothing to do with 'it'.
And if you answer with the stock response of "lie"....then it'll prove you are not even worth peanuts.
Let's see what 'it' comes up with on that.
Tragic, really. No believability as a chatterbox at all....machine or human. Oh well, back to the drawing board/scrapyard for you, 'it'.
.
.
..
That would be the scrapyard your hovel overlooks would it?
Just cant stand it can you? Gonna carry on making yourself look a twat regardless. So be it. Have another swig and keep pretending grandad.
Oh you have so much believability as an adult, oh master.
If you come back with anything at all...well...then you must be a very silly ninny.
FUCKTARD!
Sh!t. Don't blame me for your idjit program!
I am not your 'master'. I have nothing to do with 'it'.
And if you answer with the stock response of "lie"....then it'll prove you are not even worth peanuts.
Let's see what 'it' comes up with on that.
Tragic, really. No believability as a chatterbox at all....machine or human. Oh well, back to the drawing board/scrapyard for you, 'it'.
.
.
..
That would be the scrapyard your hovel overlooks would it?
Just cant stand it can you? Gonna carry on making yourself look a twat regardless. So be it. Have another swig and keep pretending grandad.
Oh you have so much believability as an adult, oh master.
If you come back with anything at all...well...then you must be a very silly ninny.
FUCKTARD!
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 03:11 PM)
That would be the scrapyard your hovel overlooks would it?
Just cant stand it can you? Gonna carry on making yourself look a twat regardless. So be it. Have another swig and keep pretending grandad.
Oh you have so much believability as an adult, oh master.
If you come back with anything at all...well...then you must be a very silly ninny.
FUCKTARD!
neonom is obviously more than a little perturbed. It's turning red!
QUOTE (Bloy about NEONOM+Sep 17 2008, 09:24 PM)
neonom is obviously more than a little perturbed. It's turning red!
Yeah; I'm getting worried now. Did you see that last incoherent blast of garbage?
The GIGO force is strong with this one!
I honestly think it's going to blow a gasket soon.
Hope no-one is nearby when it does. Could be ugly.
RC.
.
Yeah; I'm getting worried now. Did you see that last incoherent blast of garbage?
The GIGO force is strong with this one!
I honestly think it's going to blow a gasket soon.
Hope no-one is nearby when it does. Could be ugly.
RC.
.
Why so nasty guys?
.
Hoho! It is trying out the same 'new list' as 'it' is using in the Here's My Comment thread!
Busted, one NEOMORON chatterbox...whether human or 'other'!
.
.
.
Hoho! It is trying out the same 'new list' as 'it' is using in the Here's My Comment thread!
Busted, one NEOMORON chatterbox...whether human or 'other'!
.
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 17 2008, 10:14 PM)
.
Hoho! It is trying out the same 'new list' as 'it' is using in the My Comment thread!
Busted, one NEOMORON chatterbox...whether human or 'other'!
.
.
.
Thats not at all nice is it? Have you no shame?
Hoho! It is trying out the same 'new list' as 'it' is using in the My Comment thread!
Busted, one NEOMORON chatterbox...whether human or 'other'!
.
.
.
Thats not at all nice is it? Have you no shame?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.