Summations Only

shadow71 writes: Thank you for illuminating a good problem with this board. I was tempted to say something flippant, like "Don't bring a knife to gunfight", but you do make a point.How can the uneducated hope to emerge against the educated? There were many topics in my schooling that were beyond me and my eyes would glaze over and I just squeaked by with a C or something. I was killer in math & science, but the rest? No so much.....In my opinion, the biggest threat to this country and the world abroad is the deterioration of good STEM education. However, to ignore literature and liberal arts and so forth is to stab your eyes out.

Yes, CRISPRS are an example of non-random mutations. A perfect example, in fact. I have said as much in other threads/posts. They aren't excluded by scientists or evolutionary theorists. In fact, it is those very people who discovered them and wrote about them.What you are missing is that the CRISPR system is extremely limited. It is only found in a limited number of prokaryotes, and it only involves a very limited number of genes in the prokaryotes that have this system. CRISPR represents an extremely limited mutational mechanism that is not responsible for the overall evolution of any species. The fact that random mutations do not act like the CRISPR system supports our conclusions, not yours.So what is the mechanism of genetic change that makes up the vast, vast majority of evolutionary change? Random mutations with respect to fitness. You have not presented ANYTHING that says otherwise. In fact, I even started a thread discussing a paper from an author that you suggested. You abandoned that thread when it became apparent that your argument had been refuted. The CRISPR system is largely irrelevant to the evolutionary history to all but a handful of organisms, and even in the organisms that carry the CRISPR system the evolutionary effect is limited to a tiny portion of the genome. So why are you making such a big deal of the CRISPR system? That is the real question. Even more, why did you abandon the thread where I spent a lot of my time dissecting the Wright paper?To bring this back towards the topic, the reason we have a creationist shortage is that their sacred cows are slaughtered quite quickly. I put the CRISPR issue to bed quite a while ago, and yet here it is again, back from the dead. Creationists think that if they wait long enough we will forget that their arguments were refuted. Sorry, not going to happen.

If you take all prokaryotes and add up the mutations over the last 10 years in all of those prokaryotes, how many of those mutations occurred as a result of the CRISPR system? If that number turns out to be 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% can you really blame us for rounding up and saying "all mutations are random with respect to fitness"?

The responses I've gotten from the last posters pertaining to macro, micro, etc are a classic example of where the creationists have gone and why.All that these antagonists have posted is yakety yak about Buz's ignorance. Not one of these have explained an edifying thing as to why macro and micro evolution are unrelated to the Crysper System and where-in I have it wrong, pertaining to DNA, etc.These same personal attackers demand evidence and reasons why I alledge that they are mistaken on a given Biblical issue. .Most of these same people think they know so much about the Bible, when, in fact they know little or nothing about how the prophecies, etc corroborate one another regarding evidence and so forth. When, in threads that they get it wrong, I usually correct them with chapters and verses etc. I show them how-in they are mistaken.

Then here is your chance Buz, please provide links to where you have posted the Chapter and Verse. In fact Buz, there is a whole thread devoted to just that topic. Maybe you can join us there and for ONCE actually provide evidence. Come on over to Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? and let's see if you can support your assertions.

That's a pretty cruel invite, Mr. Jar. Buzsaw is banned from participating in that forum.

Then he can provide a link to any place where he has EVER provide chapter and verse support for ANY assertion.

This is the wrong forum and topic for discussion of whatever this CRISPRS is or isn't. It belongs in a "Biological Evolution" topic.If there is a relevant existing topic (as in, it is really on topic there), please give that topic a bump and a comment (a link back to this mess might also be a good thing).If there is no such existing topic, how about a new topic (of course, with a good topic title)?Adminnemooseus

Where do you have it wrong Buz? How about the fact he you have repeatedly misspelled it as Crysper when in reality it is CRISPR, an acronym. It is clear from this that you don't have the slightest idea what people are talking about.
To tie this back to the topic I think this is a perfect example of why most creationists don't hang around, unlike Buz they actually have some level of intellectual honesty.

The thread is about why the "creationist" are not posting in the Evolution threads.My point is that when I post good science such as the CRISPIRSs being non-random for fitness most evolutionists on this board deny that fact and then ridicule and attack me.Why should we post when there is no acknowledgement of a good scientific point?I do want to say that Taz and Wounded King and a few others will acknowledge good scientific points, but they are in the minority.

No, what this is an example of is how you don't understand anything of what is being said to you.None of the messages you're referring to pertain to "macro, micro." They're all in reference, as I said, to

quote:

---

Not sure, but likely relating to how the Crysper System applies the DNA factor

---

and how this utterance is so devoid of understanding of the terms used that it's pretty stark evidence that you not only have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea of what anybody is ever talking about.Nobody cared that you corrected "macroevolution" to "microevolution" because what you posted is nonsensical with either word. No, that's incorrect. A falsehood. A "Buz fact", if you will. My message was very clear about where you had it wrong, and you've not replied to it. No, you don't. In the 9 years since I first raised the objection you've not even made an effort to address the critical flaw I identified in your supposed "Biblical prophecies." What you do is assert and repeat.

Buz...have you ever watched Star Trek?I watched it a lot when I was a kid. And the writers of Star Trek, largely, knew virtually nothing whatsoever about physics or space travel. What they did was use sciency-sounding words to describe the Plot Device of the Week. The result was that the solution to a problem in any given episode would boil down to "reversing the quantum polaron field polarity," or "making a crack in the event horizon by using the deflector array to fire a tachyon burst."It sounds wonderfully sciency to those who don;t really understand the terms being used. They use real terms from real physics, after all, like "event horizon" and "quantum."But it was worse than meaningless. Absolutely anyone with even a passing familiarity with the actual terms would immediately know that the episode writers hadn't the faintest idea what those terms actually meant. If they did, they'd never have written a script so absurd as to involve a "crack in the event horizon" of a black hole.It's called "Treknobabble," because it's a babbling mishmash of scientific terminology to make for a futuristic-sounding technological explanation for a plot event.You, Buz, are using Treknobabble.That's what everyone is harping on - you're using terminology that you don't understand, and it's extremely clear to those who do understand the terms that you do not...even if you think you do.But most Creationists don't do quote the same thing. They often (usually) don;t understand the Theory of Evolution particularly well, but it's more a case of having been misinformed at the outset rather than stringing together evolution-sounding words in order to sound competent.I don't think a dogpile on you for spouting Treknobabble is what scares off most Creationists. After all, it hasn't scared you. It hasn;t even made you spell the term correctly.I don't even think there's a single influence that causes us to bleed Creationists. Dogpiling doesn't help. The mockery many of us use as our first and last resort in debate is certainly a problem. Some may have even changed their minds, and others may have sought easier places to "save souls."But I wonder if the biggest single reason is one of evidence, and (just as importantly) a fundamental disagreement of what evidence is. We demand evidence a lot here, and the most frequent complaint from Creationists (including yourself, aside from complaints of imagined censorship) is that "I did post evidence, you just refused to recognize that it is evidence!" When Biblical evidence is regarded on one side of the debate as just as or more valid than experimental observation, and Biblical evidence is restricted to a subforum that rarely if ever sees an actual evolution-based topic...it seems the result would be a foregone conclusion.The creation of the Bible subforum was Percy's attempt to resolve that problem by partitioning scientific vs. theological evidence...but all of the evolution debate stayed in the science forums, while the "religious" subforums became grounds for theological debate not relating to history or science.I'm not sure what a better solution would be. If we allow Biblical and scientific evidence in the same debates, we'll end with threads spiraling around "that's not evidence" "yes it is" "books don't make things true" "it's not a book it's God's Word" until they reach the summation limit. But without being ever allowed to bring what they consider their most convincing arguments to the table in the first place, I can't imagine how we'd manage to keep Creationist posters interested in continuing here, especially in the face of the treatment they can sometimes expect (while the moderation staff is relatively fair, the mockery and insult carried by many of us, particularly when it's used with new members, is not a reason to stay).What do you think, Buz? Is that a more helpful analysis of the problem? And if so, do you have any ideas for how to solve it?

The solution is very simple. As NoNukes implied and as nearly 100% of evolutionists once voted, the solution is to allow Buzsaw to be Buzsaw in the common existing science forums as it was back in the good old days when the creo-evo debates were smokin.There was no shortage then and good people like Silas, Cavediver, et al had something controversial enough for robust debate. Admin/Percy should go on a long vacation and let the more fair and balanced moderators do the moderating.

It really is quite astonishing, isn't it? One cannot escape the feeling that not only does Buz not understand science talk, he doesn't even really have much of a grasp on plain English.

Some got educated and realised creationism is a scam based on fairytale, and void of facts.The others realised the internet is the place religions come to die and curled up under their bed screaming make the knowledge go away Jesus, make me thick again Jesus help me Jesus. Well you know little or nothing how the prophets of Dephi corroborate the existence of Apollo a Greek god Edited by frako, : No reason given.