RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,09:09   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   
Quote
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.

I did NOT say that the big bang happened in a second and then was over......you're trying to type through my keyboard......

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,09:16   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,04:05)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,09:11)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,20:49)
 
Quote
Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?

Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,09:28   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:53)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?

That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.

you pustulate, huh

well, pustule, how can you test this pustulation?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,09:29   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

which one of you guys is playing this idiot again?  no one says shit this stupid

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,09:32   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:16)
Nope...don't think that. It would happen to populations....but some on here actually are so brainwashed by pseudo-science and lack of common sense that they do not understand a simple truism:

If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

is this the poof part?  

does your Jesus oops "QM" thingy poof "the bulk of the individuals within a population" into a new species?  

or are you so stupid that you think me and my grandfather are the same individual?

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 04 2012,10:33

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,09:36   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,04:43)

Quote
So, a banana seed is the 'specifier' of a banana? Who or what specified the banana seed?  QM? Intelligent molecules? yhwh-jesus-holy ghost? The FSM?


This is the last post I will answer where you attack a particular religion.......And it's getting redundant anyhow because you simply aren't understanding the responses...remember I told you that specificity is present when DNA recombines?  That DNA OBVIOUSLY came from the parents. And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things.

Quote
How did you come up with 500 bits as the minimum requirement for information to be "complex"? Is it because dembski or some other IDiot says so? Why not 400 bits, or 600 bits, or 3.9 bits, or 100 trillion bits?


Please read the posts.....I have already shown the math that led up to the UPB....

Quote
Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?


What a silly question...lol

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:01   



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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:04   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:36)
remember I told you that specificity is present when DNA recombines?  That DNA OBVIOUSLY came from the parents. And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things.

Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?

You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.

500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?

And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.  Especially considering the definition of evolution is a "change in the allele frequency in a population".

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

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

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:20   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,10:04)

Quote

Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?


LOL..... :) :p :)

WE DO.....Sheeze....I'm really getting tired of trying to debate with someone who has obviously not even given the subject a cursory google....You don't understand CSI in it's most basic snse, I'm afraid....

Quote
You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.


I did NOT... :) I told you that WE were not calculating anything about DNA, not that people don't do so....do you REALLY think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA? You're just lost.

Quote
500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?


I don't know what you're talking about and you don't either.

Quote
And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.


Just read a biology textbook....

And thanks for your posts........You might want to hang out on some introductory forums for awhile (or this may be one, I dunno). Then when you learn the basics and what the concepts are you're trying to debate, look me up.

I'm going to move on to other, more advanced posters now as I have a lot to cover......

  
JohnW



Posts: 2205
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:29   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....

Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:30   

hey Jerry,

You need to call NASA and tell them that your CSI skills can figure this out... oh wait... nevermind...

http://news.sciencemag.org/science....?ref=hp

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:33   

Quote
I postulate that QM created life.

What the heck does that even mean? Life as we know it is driven by chemistry, which is caused by quantum particles and their properties. Is that what you were trying to say?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:09)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 04 2012,03:42)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,12:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
   
Quote
But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

Actually, what 'came' first, second, third, etc., is thoroughly relevant in regard to your claim:

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.

I did NOT say that the big bang happened in a second and then was over......you're trying to type through my keyboard......

What you said directly implied what he said you said.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:35   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....

Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?

I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:45   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:53)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?

That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.

Jerry, you compared speciation to lawn mower design in regards to poofing into existence.  So, since species don't poof into existence but rather come off an assembly line, when did the last thing come off of the assembly line?  What was it?  Do you propose any way to determine the answers to these questions?  If not, whatever it is you're proposing is worthless.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:45   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:35)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....

Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?

I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?

if you "really got into the meat" of speciation (perhaps you meant the meat of something else, I dunno) then why are you spewing such utter bollocks about it?

do you think i am the same individual as my dear sainted mammaw?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:46   

Quote
If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

You have GOT to be kidding.

Evolution involves accumulation of generally small changes, that start with one offspring and then spread through the population.

Speciation begins when two subsets of a species start accumulating different changes, rather than sharing the same ones. It ends when any sharing of genetic changes is rare enough to be insignificant. The time period between those events can sometimes be short, but it can also be long.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:49   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:20)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,10:04)

 
Quote

Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?


LOL..... :) :p :)


Well, hell son, I've asked you this five times earlier in this thread and you never ONCE said to use DNA.  Every discussion from your end of CSI was based on amino acids in racemic solutions randomly forming.  

There was NEVER a discussion of DNA (from you), because I specifically stated

 
Quote
So, by this, I'm assuming that you are totally ignoring DNA in the calculation of CSI.

Why didn't you just say "protein"?  

So, you've just admitted that fundamentals of biology (7th grade stuff here) like DNA and reproduction are totally ignored by CSI.


Which you ignored.  I can only assume that I was correct.

But NOW... NOW, we have all this new stuff about DNA and you're getting all interested in that.

Geez

Quote

WE DO.....Sheeze....I'm really getting tired of trying to debate with someone who has obviously not even given the subject a cursory google....You don't understand CSI in it's most basic snse, I'm afraid....
 
Quote


Then why haven't you EVER mentioned it after me ASKING YOU about it five times?

As far as not understanding CSI, it's because the people who claim to understand it either suck at teaching or don't understand it themselves.



 
Quote
You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.


I did NOT... :) I told you that WE were not calculating anything about DNA, not that people don't do so....do you REALLY think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA? You're just lost.

 


Goalpost shift.  I was asking a specific question about calculating CSI on proteins OR DNA.  You refused to answer the question four times, then finally, you only post about amino acids.  What am I supposed to think?

Let's see, do I think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA?

Let me think about that a minute.  I believe I mentioned this before.  You might have heard of it...

THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

You know, where DNA uses specific sequences of nucleotides as a code for the assembly of proteins.  

But you and other IDists don't seem to understand that fundamental concept of biology, since you seem to think that every single protein in existence assembles randomly from a racemic solution of amino acids.  At least that's what CSI calculates.  

Quote

 
Quote
500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.

Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?


I don't know what you're talking about and you don't either.

 


Then perhaps you need to learn more about the things you're expounding upon.

I'll say it again.  If you have a 500 bit sequence of amino acids and a 500 bit sequence of nucleotides.  Then you convert the nucleotide sequence into a protein using a ribosome, the resulting protein is smaller than the protein in the amino acid sequence I just mentioned.

Because a 100 AA chain is smaller than an 83 AA chain.

So, which one do you focus on and why?

Quote

 
Quote
And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"?  I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.


Just read a biology textbook....
 


Really?  That's your answer?  

In other words, you don't have a clue.  

As has been said before a single organism does not evolve.  Nor does it speciate.

Tell you what, prove to us that you have a single clue.  Name and describe three forms of speciation.  I bet you won't do it.

Quote

And thanks for your posts........You might want to hang out on some introductory forums for awhile (or this may be one, I dunno). Then when you learn the basics and what the concepts are you're trying to debate, look me up.
 


No one is debating you.  We're crushing you.  You have no idea what's going on, so you keep insulting and repeating the same crap over and over again.  It's hilarious.

As far as the implied insult... I think it's cut that you think that way.  I do more work in this field every day than you'll do in a lifetime.

Quote

I'm going to move on to other, more advanced posters now as I have a lot to cover......

"lot to cover" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've kept saying the same thing for pages and pages.  You're a broken record.  You aren't covering any new ground.  

You might try dealing with the fundamental mistakes of your notion.

You might try understanding the argument your pretending to attack (hint: look up "strawman").

There's lots of things you could do, but you won't and we both know it.

Let me leave you with one other thought.  If you're so damned smart and CSI is so damned valuable, then why are you here at AtBC arguing with (and losing to) someone who you think has no idea what's going on?

Why aren't you publishing this stuff?  Why aren't you making millions using ID principles to find new products and new processes?  Why aren't you helping NASA with their new findings on Mars?

Edited by OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,10:53

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

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2205
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,10:54   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:35)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2012,10:29)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,08:20)
Just read a biology textbook....

Which biology textbook did you use to learn about speciation, Jerry?

I don't remember, but it was in a second year bio class entitled Genetics and Evolution that I really got into the meat of it, how about you?

So that's "none", then?  Which text did the class use?  If you can't remember, which school?

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:01   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,10:45)

Quote

Jerry, you compared speciation to lawn mower design in regards to poofing into existence.


Actually, I compared design itelf--origins--to the assembly of a lawn mower from component parts.

Quote
So, since species don't poof into existence but rather come off an assembly line, when did the last thing come off of the assembly line?  What was it?


I don't 'suppose' stuff like that. We would have to look at the evidence to see if conclusions could be drawn. Wouldn't the fossil record lead us to believe that man was, at least, one of the more recent appearances in the record? I guess there could be later specimens...haven't really researched it....

Quote
Do you propose any way to determine the answers to these questions?  If not, whatever it is you're proposing is worthless.


How so? If life were (or were not) designed, how would these questions affect anything?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:08   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:01)
I don't 'suppose' stuff like that. We would have to look at the evidence to see if conclusions could be drawn. Wouldn't the fossil record lead us to believe that man was, at least, one of the more recent appearances in the record? I guess there could be later specimens...haven't really researched it....

You always fuss at me for talking about things you think I haven't researched and here you are admitting you have no idea what the actual fossil evidence looks like, but you feel justified in ignoring at the same.

You and Michael "No, I haven't read all those books or papers, but they don't provide the evidence anyway" Behe, birds of a feather.

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

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:13   

as if the tard couldn't google "recent speciation events"

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:16   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2012,10:46)
Quote
If a population speciates, then so do the bulk of the individuals withing it.

To say this (and some ACTUALLY have on this forum): "only populations evolve, individuals do not" simply shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology.

You have GOT to be kidding.

Evolution involves accumulation of generally small changes, that start with one offspring and then spread through the population.

Speciation begins when two subsets of a species start accumulating different changes, rather than sharing the same ones. It ends when any sharing of genetic changes is rare enough to be insignificant. The time period between those events can sometimes be short, but it can also be long.

I've never claimed anything any DIFFERENTLY.......You guys are so brainwashed that you simply cannot see the logical trees for the illogical forest.......

Are you really saying that there is not ONE individual that speciates when an entire population does?

Yes? Then a population CANNOT speciate if individuals within it do not.....Are you not aware that a population is just a group of individuals by its very definition? :)

Or perhaps you are saying no--You just seem confused.

But whether yes or no, I would still be quite logical to view any ONE of the individuals that speciated for the purpose of certain research.

Heck...you would throw the entire field of Darwinism off course if you stated we cannot draw any conclusions by viewing a particular individual in the fossil record. We CAN'T do that, you can only find fossils of entire populations to study.........

How silly would that be, but it seems what you are positing.....

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:19   

You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

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

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:21   

Answer:  Billybob thinks he is the same individual as his granmaw

Now, dipshit, your dad might also be your uncle but you're a special case.

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:22   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:38   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,11:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,11:19)
You really don't understand do you?

Have you looked up "cline" yet?  It would really help you understand this.

Why haven't you looked this concept up?  Oh yeah, you want me to spoon feed it to you.  Then you can argue about it.  Nope, sorry.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Just trolling with the rest of 'em now? Ya gotta love it... :)

No, I'm asking a legitimate question.  I've provided you some information to help you understand you error three times now.

You're failure to even consider any information except what's already in your on head is a flaw in your thinking ability.

It's not trolling, it's the truth.

If you understood the concept of a cline (sometimes called a ring species), then you would understand why your declarations of one specific individual being speciated is mistaken.

Although, it does happen frequently in plants and it is actually possible to point to the point where speciation occurred.  Curiously, do you know what we find?  No design.  In plants, the most common cause of speciation is chromosome duplication.  But you don't care because it doesn't support you chosen notions.

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

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,11:39   

jimmyjack, let's imagine that you and all of your kinfolk are sitting around the trailer and somebody says "hey let's play that there game that they done on TV that one time, whassit called oh yeah Telephone"

So, you whisper into your cousins ear "Meet me out back of the barn after the sun goes down" and she whispers into the next cousins ear and so on and so forth, all the way down the line in the trailer.

And finally Uncle Dad's turn comes around and he whispers into your ear "Meat is free south of the black yarn matter, in my long gown"

did your mom just speciate or was there no poof-thingy

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,12:05   

Billy Bob,

Can you point out the exact spot where yellow becomes green?


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,12:05   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 04 2012,11:39)
jimmyjack, let's imagine that you and all of your kinfolk are sitting around the trailer and somebody says "hey let's play that there game that they done on TV that one time, whassit called oh yeah Telephone"

So, you whisper into your cousins ear "Meet me out back of the barn after the sun goes down" and she whispers into the next cousins ear and so on and so forth, all the way down the line in the trailer.

And finally Uncle Dad's turn comes around and he whispers into your ear "Meat is free south of the black yarn matter, in my long gown"

did your mom just speciate or was there no poof-thingy

Hilarious.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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