RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (29) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 >   
  Topic: Discussing "Explore Evolution", Have at it.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
studio



Posts: 2
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2010,15:23   

I've been viewing the comments and they are very deep!
Not sure if this should be posted here, but it really relates:

There is a weekly Streaming LIVE event: "Evolution Vs. Creation"
This is where you can ASK QUESTIONS live and GET ANSWERS Live, using the chat box on Ustream. It lasts for about an hour.
They WILL ask your questions LIVE.
This would be great to hear some of your comments/questions there as the comments you've written bring great interest.

Watch it Weekly on Wednesdays @ 7:10 PM (EST):
http://bit.ly/8zmgiG

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2010,15:29   

Looks like Jesusspam.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2010,15:41   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 13 2010,16:29)
Looks like Jesusspam.

Sure do

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2010,16:20   

Maybe sombody from SW Seminary school (The Demon Designers) trying to pump up their grade for a Dr. Dr. Dembski taught class?  

I give them a D.  A D for Dembski, and another D for dumb.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1010
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2010,17:13   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 13 2010,16:20)
Maybe sombody from SW Seminary school (The Demon Designers) trying to pump up their grade for a Dr. Dr. Dembski taught class?  

I give them a D.  A D for Dembski, and another D for dumb.

Now if they can just get a couple of "r"s they can teach classes at East Jesus CC.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2109
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2010,18:43   

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Feb. 23 2009,10:27)
Paul Nelson posts at UD:
Don’t use the D word. It’s being eliminated.
Thanks for being ahead of the curve, Paul, and not using the D word in "Explore Evolution".

Holy cow. What a great bunch of god-dodging!  

"Well, the designer might be supernatural..."

Cowards.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
xpowderx



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,00:00   

1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,01:15   

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

Bubba you trying out a new handle?

ETA No I realize now that it's some sort of Jesusian nominalist.

--------------
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

  
xpowderx



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,04:15   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 18 2010,01:15)
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

Bubba you trying out a new handle?

ETA No I realize now that it's some sort of Jesusian nominalist.

Sorry, I am not christian nor am I a humanist!  You cannot say more on what I wrote? Other than trying a insult?
I would expect to see that from Dawkin  followers. You are not one of them are you? If you are, when do the aliens come to get you?

I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

Quote:What is often the TRUTH is usually replaced by that which is convenient!

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,05:02   

[quote=xpowderx,Jan. 18 2010,04:15][quote=Erasmus, FCD,Jan. 18 2010,01:15]              
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

There is nothing to ‘pick apart’ in your OP! If you have a better theory, now is the time to let the world know!

Quote
I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

I suggest you address some facts. Before that, my best advice it for you to learn – really do some effort at learning what evolutionary theory actually says. Claims from creationists or evolution deniers are regularly distortion and misrepresentation of facts. We are so used to that and know that there’s a very close to 100% certainty that the proponent doesn’t know what he is talking about, doesn’t want to learn, is not interested in learning anything; his sole purpose is to demonstrate how stupid and impolite evilutionists are.

While the fact is our patience has grown very thin, we don’t care to go beating around the bush.

But we’ll let you have the benefit of doubt – so be our guest, come back with a serious argument based on understanding what you are in disagreement about or have insufficient knowledge about, and you’ll get polite and pointed response(s).

I know it is hard to understand what I am saying but 50 years of exposure to critics of evolution – from university professors to insane Christaliban’s has taught me to expect nothing.

You might even want to study these threads to get a clue to what we have to suffer and deal with here:

Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits

FL "Debate Thread"

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
xpowderx



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,07:01   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 18 2010,05:02)
[quote=xpowderx,Jan. 18 2010,04:15][quote=Erasmus, FCD,Jan. 18 2010,01:15]                
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

There is nothing to ‘pick apart’ in your OP! If you have a better theory, now is the time to let the world know!

 
Quote
I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

I suggest you address some facts. Before that, my best advice it for you to learn – really do some effort at learning what evolutionary theory actually says. Claims from creationists or evolution deniers are regularly distortion and misrepresentation of facts. We are so used to that and know that there’s a very close to 100% certainty that the proponent doesn’t know what he is talking about, doesn’t want to learn, is not interested in learning anything; his sole purpose is to demonstrate how stupid and impolite evilutionists are.

While the fact is our patience has grown very thin, we don’t care to go beating around the bush.

But we’ll let you have the benefit of doubt – so be our guest, come back with a serious argument based on understanding what you are in disagreement about or have insufficient knowledge about, and you’ll get polite and pointed response(s).

I know it is hard to understand what I am saying but 50 years of exposure to critics of evolution – from university professors to insane Christaliban’s has taught me to expect nothing.

You might even want to study these threads to get a clue to what we have to suffer and deal with here:

Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits

FL "Debate Thread"

I am not arguing anything. Do not have to . I just gave you why Evolutionary mutation is false. What I showed is bio-genetically valid and quite provable. Unlike the things evolutionist's have been throwing out lately. Conjecture!. My view is completely provable and already exists in current genetic research.

  
xpowderx



Posts: 4
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,07:05   

Sorry was a bit pissed off. Do not like seeing a 100% provable theory pissed on. Ill be back a bit later to fully explain the theory. I am sorry for bashing evolution, but lately I have been the spark of frequent attacks by them.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,07:46   

xpowder - Please translate what you write into English before you post. Your O'Leary-like rambling is incomprehensible.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,08:30   

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

I'm guessing that English is not your first language, so I'm going to try and add a little coherence to this to see if I get your point. It's a little bit difficult to parse as written, so please correct me if I misstate what you are trying to say:

 
Quote
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen, mutation is a immediate response:

a. When current existing data is deleted

b. When any other existing data comes into contact with another set of existing data

c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.


So your hypothesis here is that if there is (a) a deletion of DNA, (b)if DNA touches any other DNA, or © if some other DNA supplants the original DNA, then a mutation occurs. Is that what you're saying?

If so, then

(a) is a well known source of mutation and is true almost by definition.
(b) ... I'm not sure that this is necessarily true, but I'm willing to go with it for the moment - have I missed what you're trying to say?
© is a well known source of mutation and is true almost by definition.

 
Quote
Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant.

Oh? If you don't mind, please define "constant" as you are using it here. Constant in what way? Rate? If so, to what degree? While it's true that mutation rates are relatively constant over long periods of time and those rates can be used to estimate the amount of time since the most recent common ancestor of two species, I'd be rather surprised if the rate of mutation were perfectly consistent over short periods of time. I would be shocked, for instance, if I had exactly the same number of mutations in my DNA as my father.

Since you bring up cancer later on, I would also be shocked if a biopsy of cancerous tissue from my body in vitro had the same rate of mutation as a similar one taken from yours.

 
Quote
2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation.


Well, yeah. Biology is sort of messy that way.

 
Quote
This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously.


You need to define "spontaneously" here. As I take your implied meaning, this is simply not the case. Evolutionary Theory posits neither magic nor will as the cause of mutation, just very messy chemistry and physics with too many variables to be perfectly predictable.

 
Quote
In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.


If you're saying that Evolutionary Theory can't perfectly predict what mutations will occur in any given recombination of large strings of DNA, I'm not sure you'll get an argument from anyone on this point. Again, biology is very very messy.

 
Quote
3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence.


So you're saying that mutation happens slower or faster depending on the DNA and whatever happens to it? Are you next going to state that the sky is blue, water is wet, and women have secrets? Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 
Quote
4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence.


Again, assuming that you are not positing that every cell is necessarily "its own individual" in the same sense that an entire multicellular organism is "its own individual", you're stating the obvious again. "This cell is not that cell" is hardly worth noting, and sure, it's due in part to each cell's unique history. So what?

 
Quote
5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.


Assuming you're not messing with the arrow of time, I'll grant you this as yet another declaration of the mundane.

 
Quote
6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.


Different cells have different, unique histories. Again, so what? What the hell is your point here? You seem to be belaboring the point that "This cell is not that cell".

 
Quote
A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.


Dude, I'm about to whip out the ORLY? owl. Again, biology is just some seriously messy chemistry and physics. So what? I'd hardly call what you've forwarded "laws", though. More like "givens".

 
Quote
Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.


Again, not really much of a set of laws, but rather "Given that biology is some really messy chemistry and physics..."

 
Quote
Now a final comment concerning Evolution.


Wait, what? I'm not sure you've really made a first comment concerning evolution that's worth mentioning, let alone a final one. So far what you've said boils down to "Shit happens. It matters. Sometimes."

 
Quote
Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical".


In the context of what you've said heretofore, I'd agree that mutation is not exactly "Random", just so damn messy that it might as well be random. I suppose that if we got down to the nitty gritty of the physics underlying the messy chemistry to the point where we look at the quantum mechanics of the substance of the universe, a physicist could expound better on the randomness of it all. Above that level, we're back to "Really really messy, with so many variables that it might as well be random and can be treated as such". Biology is messy. So what?

The only people invoking magic are creationists. If your assertion is that Evolutionary Theory posits magic, then you don't understand Evolutionary Theory even a little bit.

Quote
Evolution uses both as explanation.


Ok, well then... I guess that speaks for itself.

 
Quote
To be frank.


Hello, Frank. Frankly, Frank, I don't think you're being Frank at all.

 
Quote
Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!


"Therefore (my particular) god."

Gotcha.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,08:47   

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,05:15)
Sorry, I am not christian nor am I a humanist!  You cannot say more on what I wrote? Other than trying a insult?
I would expect to see that from Dawkin  followers. You are not one of them are you? If you are, when do the aliens come to get you?

I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

Quote:What is often the TRUTH is usually replaced by that which is convenient!

Self-martyr much?

Would you mind coming down off your cross to say something noteworthy and coherent?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,08:47   

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,07:05)

Do not like seeing a 100% provable theory pissed on.


Where would we find that? Certainly not in the following quoted set of bafflegab:

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,00:00)
1. When a current set of data has the following things happen. Mutation is a immediate response.

1a. When current existing data is deleted

1b. When any other existing data comes into contact  with another set of  existing data

1c.When a external influence impedes on the current data function.

Now as to mutation. 1.All mutation is constant. 2.The timing of the effect of mutation varies for each individual mutation. This differs with evolutionary mutation as evolution mutation according to theory happens spontaneously. In this case the physiological view is only of a mutation after it has already occurred.3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence. 4.Every single cell that exists in life is its own individual. While many cells may look alike or even act alike they are not. This in part is due to external influence. 5.As a single cell is never at the same place or time in its lifetime.6. It also does not share the same external influence as a different cell of its likeness.

A example of this can be shown with two people who have cancerous(Mutating cells) lung cells. They both may have the same treatment same set of circumstance and even similar rate of infection. But each individual body reacts differently due to the above laws. Thus the time frame and reaction are completely different.

Another example is a human breathing. One person may"catch a cold" while another may miss it completely. This is caused by both physiological influence and external influence. This is caused by one of the above laws 1a,1b,1c.

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!


(1.) You aren't taking into account all that is already known about mutational processes. If you are going to propose an alternative universal theory of mutation, it has to explain all the existing data, and overall be an improvement over current explanations. You fail at the very first hurdle.

(1a.) This, at least, is one recognized way mutation happens: deletions. There are others, though.

(1b.) Recombination can make permanent changes in genetic material, but it is a process that is separate from mutation.

(1c.) Bafflegab. Actually theories are communicated such that other people aren't left guessing what was meant.

Then there is the repetition of markers for points of your presentation, meaning the same marker is used for multiple different points. This is not a sign of good communication practices.

(1.) "All mutation is constant." That looks oxymoronic. Mutation rates are measurable, but there is variation in those rates. Otherwise, mutations are defined as changes in the genetic makeup of an organism, which is rather the opposite of constancy.

(2.) Sorry, you don't know enough about biology or evolutionary science to effectively comment. Evolutionary biologists know that mutations differ in what effect they might have, ranging from neutral mutations that never have an effect to stuff that is immediately lethal to progeny. This is already known to evolutionary biologists; why did you think that you were telling us something that was at odds with what we already know?

(3.) Nope, wrong again. About 20% of single-nucleotide substitution transitions will result in codons that match the same amino acid product as was previously encoded, meaning it will never be "faster" or "slower", as it is completely neutral.

(4, 5, and 6.) Bafflegab. Has nothing to do with mutation, in any case.

Cancer treatment example: Cancer is somatic. The sort of mutation of interest to evolutionary biologists is in changes to the genetics passed down to progeny. Read a book.

Catching a cold: Epidemiology is again different from mutation. Read a book.

"Random": The specific meaning attached to that is "random with respect to potential benefit". No one has demonstrated otherwise so far.

"Magical": Sorry, you appear to be entirely ignorant of evolutionary science. You could prove me wrong easily enough by citation of someone in the primary literature invoking magic as a process in evolutionary science.

As anyone can see, you have offered nothing of interest to science in the above. The bits that had promise were already known, and the bits that were dreck are apparently your novel contributions.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,08:49   

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,08:01)
I am not arguing anything. Do not have to . I just gave you why Evolutionary mutation is false. What I showed is bio-genetically valid and quite provable. Unlike the things evolutionist's have been throwing out lately. Conjecture!. My view is completely provable and already exists in current genetic research.

No, what you did was ramble on about "This cell is not that cell" and "Biology is messy".

You haven't actually said anything worth saying yet, Frank.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,09:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:47)
As anyone can see, you have offered nothing of interest to science in the above. The bits that had promise were already known, and the bits that were dreck are apparently your novel contributions.

Wesley, I see we are using different Bafflegab-English translators1, but that's a nice summation either way.

1 Preston, Bill S., and Theodore Logan. Bill and Ted's Excellent Bafflegab Translator in Eleven Volumes. 2nd ed. San Dimas, CA: Carlin, Reeves, & Winter, 1991. Print.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,09:52   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 18 2010,09:45)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:47)
As anyone can see, you have offered nothing of interest to science in the above. The bits that had promise were already known, and the bits that were dreck are apparently your novel contributions.

Wesley, I see we are using different Bafflegab-English translators1, but that's a nice summation either way.

1 Preston, Bill S., and Theodore Logan. Bill and Ted's Excellent Bafflegab Translator in Eleven Volumes. 2nd ed. San Dimas, CA: Carlin, Reeves, & Winter, 1991. Print.

I think the original book review I paraphrased went like this:

This book is novel and good. However, the parts that were good were not novel, and the parts that were novel were not good.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,10:04   

I guess the primary question to ask of "xpowderx" is whether his impressive(*) ability to speak out on evolutionary science was informed by reading the Discovery Institute's "Explore Evolution" book.

(*) I really like the word "impressive". Many people slide right by the fact that impressing can go positive or negative.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,10:07   

Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,00:00)
1.All mutation is constant.

...snip

3. All mutation has the potential to be faster or slower dependent on both its data and external influence.

I particularly liked that internal inconsistency. What language do you think this was translated from?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
rossum



Posts: 176
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2010,10:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 18 2010,09:52)
I think the original book review I paraphrased went like this:

This book is novel and good. However, the parts that were good were not novel, and the parts that were novel were not good.

It is an apocryphal quote from Dr Johnson: "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2010,11:18   

The Design Inference says: Another of Dr Dr D's Christian Credit Chasers.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2010,14:37   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 19 2010,09:18)
The Design Inference says: Another of Dr Dr D's Christian Credit Chasers.

Very likely. My Mark II Explanatory Filter is clogged with YECrap.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2010,14:41   

i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2010,17:17   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 19 2010,14:41)
i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?

It's an old conundrum. Do you ignore science-y sounding drivel, or expose it? If it is ignored, you risk the antievolutionists perversely claiming the technical high ground, which, while absurd to the knowledgeable, may be believed by fence-sitters.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2010,17:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2010,17:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,14:41)
i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?

It's an old conundrum. Do you ignore science-y sounding drivel, or expose it? If it is ignored, you risk the antievolutionists perversely claiming the technical high ground, which, while absurd to the knowledgeable, may be believed by fence-sitters.

YOU JUST VIOLATED THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2010,21:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 19 2010,15:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 19 2010,14:41)
i still don't know what the fuck it's talking about.  it talks like a nominalist.  who cares?

It's an old conundrum. Do you ignore science-y sounding drivel, or expose it? If it is ignored, you risk the antievolutionists perversely claiming the technical high ground, which, while absurd to the knowledgeable, may be believed by fence-sitters.

Well, I was quite pleased with how you managed the situation. This recent twit was a little 'non-standard' so I doubt we will see the exact same stupid again.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2010,00:05   

have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?

--------------
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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2010,11:05   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 19 2010,22:05)
have we redefined "data"?  what is gained by describing the physical process in such a way that mutations involve data?

Sciency-sounding cargo-cult drivel which impresses the creotards.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
  859 replies since July 13 2007,13:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (29) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]