which came first?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]I know I said in another topic that was my last post but while searching around I can now clearly see you cannot think for yourself. You must lean on a crutch of other peoples information. I wondered why you called me a straw men and I found it HERE.[/QUOTE]

​

The reason I post links to more information about evolution is because

​

1) I am not a professional in the field, and therefore I do not presume to be an expert.

​

2) It is more convenient and faster than typing out explanations for every stock Creationist misconception that I see.

​

3) I do not expect anyone to take my word for something I assert. I provide the source of the information so people may check where I got my information to see if it is a good, credible source.

​

quote:

---

The site goes on to say it is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics. Or even funnier since you have so little confidence in your own position that you cannot even address the real position of your opponent. Which I could clearly see that this was the position you were taking.

​

You even used it in the wrong place as I never brought up any of the dumb examples of questions that only the uninformed would bring up.

---

​

You misrepresented the ToE, such as that it would predict that animals would have 1/10th of a heart.

​

That is, indeed, a statement that only someone completely uninformed about the ToE would make, and it is, indeed, a strawman argument.

​

quote:

---

I already understand all them little things and that evolution has no proper answer except a bit of philosophy so I wasn't going to bother bringing something up so useless.

---

​

Thisa is a dodge.

​

quote:

---

My questions were very relevant, how did reproduction evolve without reproduction is a damn good question and you had to resort to your lil straw men tactic because it was out of your grasp.

---

​

Give me a break.

​

quote:

---

LMAO, sorry, but I really know you are just brain washed to think a certain way. Why don't you try some of that objectional thinking you seem to have against creationists for your own faith?

---

​

I certainly understand why you would consider my thinking "objectional".

​

If you refuse to discuss the evidence, and are willing to resort to waving away hunderds of years of scientific research with that lame "yer all a buncha brainwashed people, by gum!" crap, then the discussion is pretty pointless.

​

quote:

---

I look at both, if not everything very objectionally, you don't seem to.

---

​

I certainly do not look at everything "objectionally". I do not object to everything.

​

I do try my best to evaluate evidence from an "objective" standpoint, however.

​

quote:

---

Just what is convenient then turn a blind eye if it goes against your blind faith.

---

​

This is the last-ditch argument that so many Creationists use before they run away.

​

After attempting unsucessfully, FOR WEEKS, to use science to say that Evolution couldn't have happened, they then do a whiplash-inducing 180 and say that Biology is a faith-based, religious cult! ROTFLMAO!!!

​

[QUOTE]Don't resort to such low mantality again if you want to defend your cult. LOL[/B]

---

You aren't fooling anyone but yourself, m'dear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
I know I said in another topic that was my last post but while searching around I can now clearly see you cannot think for yourself. You must lean on a crutch of other peoples information. I wondered why you called me a straw men and I found it HERE.

​

The site goes on to say it is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics. Or even funnier since you have so little confidence in your own position that you cannot even address the real position of your opponent. Which I could clearly see that this was the position you were taking. You even used it in the wrong place as I never brought up any of the dumb examples of questions that only the uninformed would bring up. I already understand all them little things and that evolution has no proper answer except a bit of philosophy so I wasn't going to bother bringing something up so useless. My questions were very relevant, how did reproduction evolve without reproduction is a damn good question and you had to resort to your lil straw men tactic because it was out of your grasp.

​

LMAO, sorry, but I really know you are just brain washed to think a certain way. Why don't you try some of that objectional thinking you seem to have against creationists for your own faith? I look at both, if not everything very objectionally, you don't seem to. Just what is convenient then turn a blind eye if it goes against your blind faith.

​

Don't resort to such low mantality again if you want to defend your cult. LOL

---

In rereading this post, I realized that you actually don't quite understand what a strawman actually is.A strawman is the false ARGUMENT, not the person making the argument. I did not call YOU a strawman.Also, I do not think you were being cowardly or unethical.I think that you are so profoundly ignorant of what you are attempting to criticize that you didn't know you were creating strawman arguments in the first place.

its called assexual reproduction, DNA making an exact copy of itself. Bacteria still do this as well as your skin cells and many other human cells cept they call it "mitosis". Now how does genetic variability come about? Bacteria can trade genetic information using a process called "binary fission" in which piece of DNA from a bacteria's genetic subset or "plasmid" are exchanged for another bacteria's genetic plasmid. In humans a more complex system of "mieosis" occurs; now anyone who has taken biology in high school or in univeristy could have told you that. reproduction didnt evolve, reproduction is the basis of life, which began simplisticly, prehapes merely self repilcating DNA into complex organic structures. DNA is just that, a self replicating piece of organic material.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by maxm007:
[B]We evolutionists base our "belief" from observation and from that comes evidence. Your question can't be answered scientifically proven.[/QUOTE][/B]Well there may come a day if we find for instance that sperm has more than penetrative influence on fertilization that some division of the egg and all sperm/pollen together divides a equipollent set. I do not have the multiplication for such a scheme or template but I think in terms of generalizing a Mendel ratio emprically with some such formula as A x (non-universality approaching group theory)Aa x a but in this instance I would not know if when Mendel put the __ between a and A if this is to be read as a number or a letter some of the manipulations I may need to do to find this out include below but in the mean time it is well not to count them before they hatchNotebook \((A\/a)\)\), "Input",Cell,
"Input",Cell, "Input",Cell, "Input",Cell{
\(Morgan' s\ notion\ that\ because\ there\ are\ more\ characters\ than\
chromosomes\ which\ inclined\ him\ to\ proclaim\ both\ that\ the\
several\ characters\ "\"
\((Dunn\ p142 - 143)\)\ seems\ on\ this\ view\ to\ simply\ be\ a\
prewriting\ on\ [the\ principle\ of\ computational\ equivalence]\
\((Wolfram' s\ prciple\ of\ equivalent\ sophistiacation\ without\ the\
ecological\ aspect\ as\ I\ first\ tried\ to\ color\ it\ in\ as)\) in
\ Mendels' {\
\((as\ noted\ by\ Olby\ Origins\ of\ Mendelismp138)\)
"\"}\),
\(\t\tas\ to\ the\ reduction\ or\ irreduction\ of\ \((areduction)\)
computational\ universality\ per\ cell\ divisible\ linakage\ group\
\(\((which\ is\ really\ a\ question\ about\ B\ and\ not\ A)\) . \)\)},
"Input",Cell, "Input",Cell
\(The\ confusion\ about\ the\ boudnary\ between\ micro\ meso\ and\ macro\
evolution\ may\ be\ due\ to\ the\ lack\ of\ math\ related\ to\
manipulating\ real numbers\ perhaps\ not\ philosophically\ developed\
in\ the discipline\ of\ philosophical\ biology\ because\ of\ the\ use\
of mathematical\ induction\ can\ not\ be\ confused\ with\ the\ product
of\ this\ to\ infinite\ induction\ while\ deducible . \ \ There is\
no\ abduction\ here\ as\ has\ been\ proposed\ in\ the\ Earth\
(Sciences .sorry I forgot to save this as a text file before cominOline.If this violates posting rules let me know and feel free to delete"/"

evolution! lol time to play the lottery

Hi, 6000yrs!When you registered you agreed to follow the Forum Guidelines. Board administration tries to give new members time to get the hang of things, so this is just a note to let you know that your last three posts, all in different threads, violate rule 1 (stay on topic), rule 2 (debate in good faith) and rule 3 (show respect for other members).Persistent abuse of posting privileges can result in temporary suspension and eventual banning.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Would you be surprised to learn that almost everything you've said about what you call evolution is pure invention on your part? You claim evolution must mean we used to have 1/10th of a heart. If you are not aware of how the circulatory system evolved, do some research. It is a limited imagination that presumes the only way for a heart to evolve is to start out as 1/10th of a heart. I know, I know, it's a nice little theory to have because it's easy to ridicule.------------------
o--greyline--o

I'd like to hear an explanation for reproduction in general. How did random chemical interactions become more regular, eventually becoming reproduction, sexual and asexual? It doesn't appear that this question has been answered yet, does anyone have any bright ideas?Evan

Reproduction would have had to have been there from the get-go, else there is no possibility of accumulating changes. So the first quasi-life forms must have been some form of self-replicating molecule. Page not found | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

"It should be possible to design systems capable of peptide
[protein] synthesis" (from the link)Isn't this proving my point? LOLEvan

Your point being what? That you extracted one-half of a sentence from the entire article and claim it as your own? Lol... yes, indeed-ie. That scientists... lol... might design systems... lol... there's that word... so this is proof that things must have originally been designed? And who would have done the designing but... ta-ta-ta-da... God?Think of it this way. A rock rolls down a hill. At the bottom, some people pick it up and analyze it. They notice a pattern to the fractures and chips and bangs and such. Based upon this analysis, they can then DESIGN a rock approximating what the Rock would have looked like a few skips from the bottom. More analysis might take that back a few more skips. This is one of the few ways we can investigate the past. Does this imply at all that the Rock was designed prior to it rolling down the hill? Or that it was designed at any particular place in its roll? Nope. Another thing a scientist might do is DESIGN a rock, just to roll it down the hill and see what happens. Then design another rock using the new data. And so on. Does it prove your point? Nope. Just proves you need to think these things through.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

John,
To equate a rock with a living cell is a gross approximation. Also, who is claiming that these 'reproductive' cells are anywhere in the molecular make-up of life? I didn't see the author claiming that.Besides, in your earlier post, you said that reproduction had to be there from the get go. Isn't this avoiding the question? We all know that for molecules to reproduce, they must reproduce. The question is how did they start reproducing?EvanP.S. My last post was a joke, nothing serious. I wasn't trying to argue for anything, not even intelligent design. I thought it was funny that an article supporting a chaotic beginning used the word 'design'.

quote:

---

To equate a rock with a living cell is a gross approximation.

---

I'm not equating a rock to a living cell, just explaining the method. There is a difference. And the method is about the same, despite the differences in complexity.You keyed into the METHOD, specifically the word "design", and chirped that it proved your point. I tried to explain why this is simply wrong.

quote:

---

Also, who is claiming that these 'reproductive' cells are anywhere in the molecular make-up of life? I didn't see the author claiming that.

---

You mean, you missed the first sentence? No one is claiming that these particular molecules are definite precursors to life. The field is far too young and the problem far too complicated. But this is the type of thing you'd expect to find. Build a rock, roll it down the hill, gather data and try again; hopefully, building a better-- more closely approximating what actually happened-- rock next time.

quote:

---

The question is how did they start reproducing?

---

Bud, some molecules just replicate. It is chemistry. Asking how or why they got to replicate is like asking how hydrogen started combining with oxygen to form water. It is the nature of the beast.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,
How does this experiment explain albiogenesis? Could the AATEs have been formed through non-intelligent processes? Can AATEs be successfully created in simulated eviroments of the prebiotic earth? Before we conclude that similar process created life, shouldn't we know alot more?I asked a question, how did non-reproductive matter start reproducing? Why debate the fact of reproductive matter, I agree with you. I'm asking you how you think it came into existence.Sincerely,
EvanP.S. The relative age of a particular scientific field has no effect on the outcome of it's studies. You cannot say that science will someday find a methodology of life, it may not. Unless you're a magician, how can you know?