|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Articles purporting to further some evolutionary notion or other are as the sand of the seashore, most with some kind of pretensions to be *Scientific* which usually just means slinging around the jargon. Once one knows the ToE is a gigantic delusion that has millions in chains, what's the point in slogging through another piece of word magic in its name? So when the plain flies faster with a lesser fuel consumption then a man designed plain will you believe or will you find a nother excuse
God taught us science, not Aristotle. WHAT GOD WHERE??? I do know that the HOLY CHURCH is responsible for the decline of scientific progress in the middle ages. But never have i EVER read this in the bible: And god spoke to learn things first thou shal asketh a question. For examplth whyeth is the sky blueth? Then you shal formeth a conjecture based on the knowlage you haveth about that question. Ye shall call this part the forming of a hypothesis. Thy hypothesis shal have predictions logical coniquences of the conjecture. Thau shalt test these predictions if thy hypothesis faileth any one of these tests at any time thy shal discard it as the slave that cannot toil no more. When thy testing is done analyise thy data and decide does thou needeth a new hypothesis or does thine explaineth all the evidence you have gathered via testing. The write down what thau has donneth and publish it. Other people will retest your hypothesis if id does nt faileth these tests soon all will haveto agreath that thy hypothesis is the best explenation for the data ye haveth and shall call it no more a hypothesis but a theory.
In any case no you did NOT do any such thing as FIND OUT anything about microevolution, what a bunch of selfserving hooha that is. No, the whole edifice of the ToE was BUILT on the ASSUMPTION that microevolution is openended. The natural variations within species that have always been observed, and that can be controlled in domestic breeding, were Darwin's inspiration for the theory after all. You see variation, you ASSUME it's openended, you declare it, you assert it and that MAKES IT SO in Evospeak. I've shown you how it isn't but gosh that might destroy a hundred years of false science so NOBODY is going to pay any attention to THAT. No, we'll just go on ignoring the naked emperor and describe the perfections of his elegant finery as if they actually exist. On the one hand you say mutations do happen. Ie new gens get aded, existing genes get turned of or deleted completely, chromosomes fuse, retro viral insertions in the genome. But all that small change can never amount to allot of change???? Well i guess 1000 years from now some creationist will finnaly come up with proof that evolution is wrong. It will be a glorius day a joius day for that day we will have to find a new theory that explains the facts to bad we alredy debunked creationism a million times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Of course I believe mutations are a disease process but for the sake of argument I'll assume some occur as you describe. It really wouldn't matter if mutations enter into the mix or not, a few mutations isn't going to increase the genetic diversity of this new population in any real sense, and in any case all it can do is contribute a few more alleles to the mix to create the new breed. Ok since you are entertaing the notion Say ONLY 1 gen mutates in every new pup for the sake of simplicity every 2 parents will have 10 pups 5 girls 5 boys who will in turn have 10 pups. and lets say they are as "complex" as us 30 000 base pairs we have 2 parrents that give birth to 10 pups 10 new gens in the gen pool they pair off and have more pups 5 pairs have 10 pups each 50 new pups 60 new gens. 60 pups pair of 30 pairs each having 10 kids equals 300 new pups 360 new gens. 300 pups pair off in to 150 pairs each having 10 pups 1500 new pups 1800 new gens. 1500 new pups pair in to 750 pairs each having 10 kids 9100 new gens...... Ok sure in the real world 1 pup would shag all the females but it would be the best environmentally adapted pup. Letting only the best gens be transferred to the next generation. but you see my point a litle change in a little time equals to allot of change in alot of time. There is no way around it. The verry second you accept mutation you have to accept evolution. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The verry second you accept mutation you have to accept evolution. But he doesn't accept mutation--he sees that as a "disease process" which is all but universally deleterious. Silly, but that's what he believes. And he isn't about to change his belief no matter what evidence you provide.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
But he doesn't accept mutation--he sees that as a "disease process" which is all but universally deleterious. Um yea the second i invent my T.A.R.D.I.S (time and realtive dimension in space) Im kidnapping every creationist on the planet and im gonna take them on a sped up tour of the evolution of the universe and our planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Funny you don't seem to realize that all you are doing is speculating, theorizing, fantasizing, and treating it as if it were real. Which is what evolutionists do, it's THE Methodology of Evolutionism, and then you call it fact like that silly chart that makes up genetic descent where there is none. What I have described about genetic diversity having to be reduced in order to form a variety or breed, or in other words for (micro)evolution to occur at all, is fact. Breeders know it, conservationists know it. All your vaporings about mutations are just fantasies. You infer them because the ToE needs them, not because they actually do what you think they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
All your vaporings about mutations are just fantasies. Just a freeking few posts ago i showed you a picture of a man that has a mutation on his X chromosome a hole fucking CHUNK of EXTRA GENS. I cant find the article right now but in an experiment sicentists DELETED the gen of a virus that allowed it to enter a cell more easily. Over a few generations the virus mutated making a new different GEN that served the same function. MUTATIONS ARE FUCKING FACT In humans about 4 gens are mutations in EVERY generation YOU have 4 gens that your father does NOT have, and neither DOES your mother. once you accept mutations you cant deny evolution without sounding insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
WHO SAID MUTATIONS WEREN'T A FACT? THEY SIMPLY DO NOT DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO. And as I pointed out, even if they did they COULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT TO GET A BREED OR A VARIATION REQUIRES A REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE, MUTATION OR NO MUTATION. AND THAT REDUCTION MEANS THAT EVOLUTION EVENTUALLY COMES TO AN END LONG BEFORE IT COULD EVER GET TO PRODUCING A NEW SPECIES (MEANING A REAL NEW SPECIES, NOT THE VARIATIONS THAT SIMPLY CAN NO LONGER BREED WITH THE MOTHER POPULATION),.
AND EVEN IF MUTATIONS SOMETIMES DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO, YOU WERE STILL MAKING IT ALL UP OUT OF THIN AIR IN YOUR POST. BUT WHAT IF THEY DID DO WHAT YOU SAY THEY DO, AND INCREASE THE GENETIC DIVERSITY. THEN, AS I'VE POINTED OUT BEFORE MANY TIMES, YOU CANNOT HAVE BREEDS, RACES ETC., BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY FORM FROM A REDUCED SET OF ALLELES, I.E. IN THE SITUATION OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY. SOON AS YOU INCREASE DIVERSITY, GENE FLOW, EETC., EETC., YOU INTERFERE WITH THE BREED. BUT EVOLUTION HAS TO FORM BREEDS AND "SPECIES" THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION DOES. ERGO, END OF EVOLUTION. AGAIN, CONSERVATIONISTS AND BREEDERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY ALL THE TIME. THIS WE KNOW IS REALITY. MUTATIONS EXIST BUT THE ROLE EVOLUTIONISM ASSIGNS TO THEM IS ALL SPECULATIVE. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Species are not mere "breeds' or "varieties". Breeds and varieties are derived FROM species by human breeding efforts and need to be artificially maintained by those efforts.
quote: The evidence says that you are wrong. I know that you dismiss both the evidence and expert opinion (do we need you review your statements on expert opinions here ?) but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence is against you - and all the lies and slander you can muster won't outweigh that in the minds of rational people.
quote: As I have pointed out evolution does NOT act like human breeders trying to maintain a breed. Your assumption to the contrary is merely an assumption and one with no foundation in evolutionary theory. Evolution cares nothing about some abstract idea of the "breed".
quote: Obviously mutations MUST increase genetic diversity at the level of the genome - especially when variation is low - and there is no good reason to think that they cannot produce new phenotypic traits either (in fact we know that they can). (And don't forget that the standard YEC view that whole taxonomic families were formed from a population of only TWO individuals ! Obviously that isn't possible in your view)
quote: And you are wrong. Certainly you have never come up with an argument other than the assumption that evolution somehow "wants" to prevent the addition of diversity.
quote: And the reason they have to face this is because of short-term concerns relating to reduced and fragmented populations, exactly in line with evolutionary theory. There is no reason to believe that genetic diversity could not recover in the long term, if the species survived that long (cheetahs are recovering, although the more recent bottleneck was a setback - and before you reflexively disagree it is only because of the increases in genetic diversity at the level of the genome that we can detect the timing of the bottlenecks - or that the second even occurred)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
You realize that typing in all caps is considered extremely rude, dont you?
I understand why you did it(You have no argument so you think you can drown everyone else out), but that doesn't make it any less rude, and infantile. You have been presented a multitude of evidence showing that no one that studies and researches the subject agrees with you. All you have is substandard creo and fundie talking points that do not even make sense logically. Then when repeatedly being shown you live in a delusional world you start yelling then take your ball and leave. Time for another Faith melt down? Or do you want to show some evidence to back your assertions? Frako presented strong evidence that you refuse to address. How about start with the example he linked to in Message 41. Are they miracles or evolution in action?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
So explain to me again why the non combining regions of every boys Y chromosome are not identical and thus are not exactly like Noahs?
It occurs to me that we've had this discussion before, and that the result was a long retreat to your blog. As was pointed out before you ran away last time, dog breeders actively fight diversity in their breeds by artificially culling out anything that does not (for example) have its spots in exactly the right places. But that kind of culling is not what happens in nature. Only fitness related selection occurs. That's why humans are so diverse. Likely they are far more diverse than the ancestors they evolved from. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
1. Observed instances of new species forming
Observed beneficial mutations and speciation in Anolis lizards Speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse Evolution of five new species of cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago. Speciation in action among Larus seagulls. A new species of Evening Primrose named Oenothera gigas Evolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella A new species of mosquito in London Culex pipiens Finch speciation in the Galapagos 2. Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arisingRNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur." (Zhang et al. 2002) "Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further." (Brown et al. 1998) Some old world monkeys developed a mutation in the protein TRIM5 that created a new protein called TRIM5-CrypA. This novel protein helped protect cells from HIV and other retroviruses. (Newman, 2008) A chromosome fusion event in stickleback fish of the Japan Sea resulted in the formation of a new species.(Gilbert, 2009) Begun et al., 2007 and Levine et al., 2006 observed the formation of de novo genes arise from mutations in noncoding DNA in a population of Drosophila. Cai et al. 2008 found that a new, functional gene in a specific yeast species had evolved from a previously non-coding region. The HIV virus has recently undergone rapid evolution which has resulted in the emergence of new genetic information; specifically, the Vpu gene. A new gene arises by Gene duplication in Zebrafish Formation of a novel X-Chromosome in Stickleback fish 3. Observed instances of beneficial mutationsBeneficial mutations of yeast in a low phosphate environment Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection Chlamydomonas adapts to grow in the dark Bacteria evolve to eat nylon Resistance to atherosclerosis was documented in small population in Italy. The resistance was caused by a mutation in the angiotensin-converting enzyme gene, which affects the plasma levels in an individual.(Margaglione, et al., 1998) E. coli evolves to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose E. coli evolves to metabolize propanediol E. coli evolves to digest citrate Klebsiella bacteria develop a new metabolic pathway to metabolize 5-carbon sugars Fruit fly adaptations to low oxygen environments Blowfly Insecticide Resistance Fungi evolves to harness high radiation levels in Chernobyl, Russia Chlorella algae evolves multicellularity in response to a predator 4. Observed instances of large morphological changes Croatian Lizards change body shape to adapt to a new environmentAnolis Lizards change body shape to adapt to new island environments Galapagos Finches morphologically change in response to seed sizes Autralian snakes adapt to introduction of poisonous toads Change in size of the bony armor of Stickleback fish 5. Observed evolution of novel organs and featuresCroatian Lizards develop Cecal Valves A simple mutation in Ciona intestinalis transforms its single heart into a functional multichambered organ Bacteria evolve a new pathway for the formation of protein disulfide bonds Antarctica fish develop a natural antifreeze protein A new metabolic pathway in Mustard species 6. Observed evolution of a multicellular organismsEvolution of a new multicellular species from unicellular Chlorella 7. Observed endosymbiosis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
You're misusing the word "theorizing". Theorizing involves testing so it shouldn't be associated with speculating or fantisizing. Theorizing is not the same as treating something as if it was real but it does explain what is real. Funny you don't seem to realize that all you are doing is speculating, theorizing, fantasizing, and treating it as if it were real. You can speculate or fantasize about things that can not be tested, such as God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Ah and here we have another pedantic little disquisition on the niceties of precise language. Which would matter if what evolutionists were doing was anything of the sort they claim to be doing, but in fact they are fantasizing and calling it theory, theorizing and calling it fact and so on. Anyone who can look at that chart Coyote put up and hallucinate genetic descent over millions of years from one to another of those cute little drawings, has no right to bother about the specific meanings of words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You're misusing the word "theorizing". Theorizing involves testing so it shouldn't be associated with speculating or fantisizing. Theorizing is not the same as treating something as if it was real but it does explain what is real. Faith doesn't seem to care what the technical definitions of terms like "theorizing" really are. I think this stems from the creationists' silly efforts to denigrate evolution by calling it "just a theory." I posted good definitions for all of these terms upthread in Message 67. Those definitions have clearly been ignored. Ignorance is sad. Willful ignorance is disgraceful!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
You're still misunderstanding what a theory is. Evolution is a fact - and no creationist has ever been able to point out what prevents microevolution from adding up to macroevolution. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how that fact works. It happens to be the only explanation of how that fact works because creationists admit that their God can not be explained.
... theorizing and calling it fact... Faith writes:
As I mentioned, a theory is tested (and passes the test) before it is called a theory. ... fantasizing and calling it theory... WTF is wrong with creationists is that they don't understand the basic concepts and terminology of science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024