RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:28   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:42   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:57   

This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:58   

deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:03   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

You are making claims, then you need to support them.  Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time.  The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.  

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy.   Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:
Quote

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.


So, what exploded?  It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.  It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'?  A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY.  This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:28   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,11:58)
deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv

Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:32   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:38   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:40   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

Interesting.  This paper is a completely different type of explosion than that of the Cambrian (and the Big Bang for that matter).

foastero, would you care to explain?

By that, I mean, all you doing is lumping words together without any apparent understanding of what is exploding.  Because there is a fundamental difference between the Cambrian explosion and that of the Pleistocene explosion (actually several), do you know what they are?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:42   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:43   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

I will read that in a bit

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:49   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:54   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.

You keep using words.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Quote
I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?


Earth, Moon, and Stars you are dumb.  Please explain, in detail, how nuclear explosions could have happened WHEN THERE WERE NO NUCLEI?!?!?!?!?

I know what nucleosynthesis is and I know when it occurs, in the context of the Big Bang.  The Big Band cannot have been an explosion as defined by any common understanding of the chemical, nuclear, or subnuclear domains because those systems DID NOT EXIST until AFTER the Big Bang?  What the heck is so hard about this?

Any type of argument from analogy is doomed to failure.  If you want to talk about early cosmology, then talk about it, but use the actual language of the scientists (math might help) and quit using stupid analogies that are suitable for elementary students and the scientifically illiterate.

As to you last 'question'... you truly are an idiot aren't you?  mutations, natural selection, and evolution DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH creating life.  Those processes only work once you have life.

Once again, you create a strawman argument, then demand a level of explanation from scientists about a notion that they don't subscribe to all the while refusing to require the same level of detail from your own notions.  It's called intellectual cowardice.

Once again, the list of things you have yet to explain or even discuss, using your own words, to the level where someone might believe you know what you are talking about.

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:56   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.

Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:57   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

Seems you're not grasping the different meanings of "explosion".
So what are these "pleistocene explosionS"? Could you describe them in your own words, or at least link to the google results you found?

No one missed the fact that you have failed to substantiate any claim so far.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:00   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

On the first page of Google results with "Pleistocene explosion"

There are four results that are from the paper Jeanot provided.  Each one referencing the paper.

There are three results on volcanic explosions of the pleistocene.

And one result describing the pleistocene explosion of human creativity.

The second page has results about the explosion of atheism, a drugstore, 5 more hits on the Rogers paper, and three more hits on volcanic explosions.

Sorry, no genetic diversity there.
Google results

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:02   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:57)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
   
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

Seems you're not grasping the different meanings of "explosion".


No one missed the fact that you have failed to substantiate any claim so far.

However, he does seem to be smart enough to be a Double Naught Spy!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:11   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:54)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.



Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.

To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:28   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:30   

Oh and I meant fossil man is much more robust than modern man

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:38   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:41   

I'll be back

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:48   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.

No. Tardbucket.
 

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

No. Tardbucket.


Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Oh? Then explain why we are here and they are not, Tardbucket. You might want to think about the term "robust" and what it does and does not mean, and how that relates to the environment at any given place and time.

On second thought, you should just put a period after "think" in that last sentence. Tardbucket.

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

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1012
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:49   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1012
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:59   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,14:18   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

You know, the internet is a great tool. You can search for "origin of life" and get plenty of detailed answers. You can also find lots of explanation on natural selection and evolutionary theory.
So why don't you educate yourself and come back to us when you have more specific questions?

OTOH, since you are apparently the only one to know about phenotype selection by the endocrine system, we'd love to hear the theory from an authority.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,14:20   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  

Quote
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again


Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.

Quote
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,14:44   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Tell you what... why don't you tell us what evidence you would find convincing.

You see, I could explain it... again, but why should I bother?  You won't be convinced.  And it's not like stuff like this doesn't exist already.

For example:
Here's the abstracts to 214 papers presented in 2009 all regarding abiogenisis.  

BTW: I'm not a chemist, you can quit lying now.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........164.pdf
Here are some blog posts you can read... oh, this blog (mine) is also going through, chapter by chapter, of "The Emergence of Life" by Luisi.  If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "Your Inner Fish" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  

For example, the reasoning behind the slowing of the Earth's rotation has been known for almost 150 years, yet you don't know what it is.  You don't know how we know this, you haven't read any of the research, the math, the history of discovery, the evidence or even that it is a known process.

Likewise for the basic evidence you claim we won't tell you about.  There's a reason for that.  We don't have to.  The basics of evolutionary theory have been known since before Darwin.  The principles of change over time, mutation, natural selection, the genetic integration with modern evolutionary history, population dynamics, principles of speciation are not new concepts.  The most recent of these has been known for over 70 years.  

At this point, we're working on details, you're still wondering what's going on.

In the exact same way that civil engineers don't show their work when they talk about gravity in structure design, or electrical engineers don't recreate the derivation of the charge of an electron in every paper... the facts that you are questioning are so confirmed that they are taught in middle school to most kids.  (Of course, in the US, because of religion, our science education is below substandard... as evidenced here.)

It is not questioned that natural selection and evolutionary principles work.  Because, they simply do work.  In fields from anthropology to aerospace engineering, factory production schedules to financial interactions, evolutionary principles produce results.

You can cry and bitch and moan all you want, you cannot overcome that simple fact.

If you claim that it was all designed, then you have fallen into a simple trap.  If everything is designed, then the designer is the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology for no other designer is needed.

Now, for your edification.  Here's all the stuff that I have previous written on these topics.  The fact that they exist and were taken from other sources just shows you have failed in your due diligence to research these topics.  




BTW... you have a lot of questions to answer.  Feel free to get started at any time.Microevolution - what is it really

Selection or Design

Speciation

Evidence for Macroevolution

What is Macroevolution

Natural Selection

And when you are done with those you might take a look at What is Intelligent Design

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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