Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
before that bit (which i haven't read in it's full shorn glory yet) I just had to point and laugh at tragicmishap again (PM me you crazy fool!)
| Quote | | The frog that JunkyardTornado references doesn’t diminish your point that human beings cannot be shut off and restarted at will. We do not have a problem with frogs that can be shut off and turned back on, since we believe frogs are qualitatively different than humans in that humans have a non-material component and frogs are entirely material. |
Since Poe and all that, it is impossible to determine the CSI authenticity of this comment. But I just wanted to point out that this nasty little human exceptionalism a priori (as well as without any possible empirical justification) is at the root of all that is T.A.R.D. anyway.
| Quote | | Mike Gene seems to be trying to say that somehow reproduction can magically create new information while normal cell replication that doesn’t lead to reproduction loses information. |
again, brilliant stroke tragic (if poe; either that, or you are a dumbass). These tards think that "information" is a physical property of matter. As an example, I would draw the analogy from their view to the notion that DNA is a box of legos. Small building blocks with proscribed functions (and purpose, although they might admit that these qualities are derived from material properties such as size and shape or color of the Legos). Reproduction with recombination, in this stymied uber-reduction view, is just the shuffling of blocks. This simplistic model denies what we know about dialectic effects of environment, context and genetic background. Not to mention evo-devo and ecology and phylogenetic inertia. In short, it's stupid.
And it's rampant in ID bukkakes circles.
Speaking of that, now I move to Bruce Denyse.
The orifice Oracle Squirts thusly:
| Quote | | For Reg: Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity. |
It doesn't understand the difference between species richness and measures of diversity. No surprise, it's a shaven tard with an ass for a face. Or it would be if davetard had anything to do with it.
| Quote | Humans also breed a vast number of varieties of species, by taking advantage of existing natural genomes (dog = bulldog, chihuahua, pekinese … )
These breeds do not, of course, become separate species because, left to themselves, they would either die or breed back into the feral wolfhound type of dog that does nt need any human help. |
ahh, chihuahas need human help. it's quite pathetic to see teleology EVERYWHERE.
anyway, if you understand the coalescent and you understand exactly what selective breeding and breeders have targeted within domesticated lines of animals you know good and god damn well why reproductive isolation hasn't been important.
| Quote | | But the many dog breeds are certainly biodiversity, if you go by difference in appearance. |
Oh. Well, then Bruce Granny Morphotrog you are too.
| Quote | | Richard Dawkins even thought that the many dog breeds were some kind of argument for Darwinian evolution - obviously, they are arguments for design for specific purposes. |
Oh yeah, obviously.
What a tard.
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
