RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:41   

http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C=

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:42   

delete.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:43   

I've seen you post links that pose an idea with no repeatable supporting test data.  You post idea after idea, take concepts out of context and claim..."proven".

You have not proven a thing.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:51   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:43)
I've seen you post links that pose an idea with no repeatable supporting test data.  You post idea after idea, take concepts out of context and claim..."proven".

You have not proven a thing.

it's right there in front you -- you are brainwashed, which is why you can't see it.  Your atheism is clouding your sense of reality.

Now answer my question! : why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:52   

ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:55   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:52)
ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.

Yo Momma.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:57   

Quote
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?


Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:04   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)
Quote
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?


Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.

you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:09   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,10:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)
 
Quote
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?


Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.

you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.

OK, you've won, I'm a believer (of whatever it is that you are trying to convince us of).

So, now what? What changes?

When do you expect to be getting your nobel prize?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:11   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)
 
Quote
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?


Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.

you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.

No I'm not. I'm saying they evolved the ability to produce spines. The fact that the flea can produce spines isn't an evolution.

Do you consider growth of hair in humans to be an evolution within the organism? If not, why not?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:20   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,18:35)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.

Supersport is starting to really remind me of Ghost of Paley.

I can see the resemblance, but where are the sweaty wrestlers?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:22   

This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...

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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:39   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:52)
ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.

He's not even trying anymore.  He's a lazy, boring troll.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:40   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,10:22)
This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...

yeah, agreed.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:44   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,16:22)
This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...

I'm in.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:50   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,10:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.  Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence pointing to such, and then on top of that foundation, they only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.

Ok, well, you listed a lot of behavior but only a couple of motives.  So you think that people who support evolution are motivated by "hatred for the idea that they were created" and "rebellion".  Presumably you mean "rebellion against God"?  That still doesn't make much sense to me.  Why would someone hate the idea that they were created?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,11:07   

SS,

I've read the article...very interesting, good information.  So tell me, how is this the death Nell for RM?

Oh, and stop making assumptions about one's faith...it just proves you don't think before you post and highlights you to be that asshole we all think you are.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,11:18   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,10:22)
I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...

Hey!  I heard that!

But seriously./.. Yeah.  I'm all for starving the Troll.

Not smart, not amusing, not fun.

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

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,11:25   

Ok.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,11:32   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,17:40)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.

genes aren't definable either!

http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over

Pellionisz is a kook and self-promoter and has been disingenuous in his characterizations of the 'junk DNA' issue.

As I have explained to you twice already.

That it is clear that you simply ignore sound refutations of your claims, only to make them again and again, shows you to be at the very least suffering form some type of antisocial disorde, and at worst,a total fucking moron.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:43   

starving me won't work...I'd rather have intellectual free reign than have fight off a bunch of ankle-biting atheists.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,13:47   

back to the thing about the flea spines: (from link)

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

So the question is, from where exactly did this new spine come from?  The physical structure had to come from somewhere -- but it wasn't from a mutation...it wasn't from a physical accident -- it was from a non-physical, purposeful process.

This brings a painful reality for materialists and evolutionists. Of course many deny this reality by saying it doesn’t contradict Darwinism, however, it absolutely does for the following reasons:

1) It shows the non-physical creates the physical. (By non-physical, I don’t know if this means “of the mind,” “mental,” “spiritual,” “mystical,” or whatever else. The point is that the physical is created and manipulated by a non-physical entity residing in each organism.)

2) It shows the non-physical codes the information in the DNA structure. (Everyone wondered where the information that resides in DNA comes from….now we know -- the mind.)

3.) It shows that the non-physical is the unit of inheritance. It’s these non-physical signals that code the genetic states that get passed on from generation to generation. This, of course, is blasphomy 101 for the evolutionist….but have you ever wondered why kids often come out looking and acting like their parents and grandparents? It’s because they are simply the physical seed that’s been encoded by their parent’s non-physical mental, emotional and spiritual signals.

4) It shows there is no need for natural selection for new traits to spread throughout a population; that evolution happens horizontally before it happens vertically.

5) It shows a new or mutated gene is not necessary for the emergence and/or inheritance of new physical traits.

6) It shows the whole manipulates and controls its parts. Materialists say all evolution happens as a result of random alterations of genetic structure; that accidental changes in parts create new and different wholes….in reality it’s the purposeful and intellectual processes of wholes that creates new and different parts. This flips everything about biology on its head -- including the fossil record; it turns a process that would take millions of years into a process that takes a blink of an eye.

7) It backs up The Bible and Genesis by showing humans – and every other animal -- got here not by way of millions of years of physical accidents, but instead, instantly, as a result of special creation by way of a non-physical, intellectual reality.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:14   

We could answer your questions SS, and as a matter of fact, we did for many of them.
But the problem is that your ignorance of biology and science in general is so huge that you'll keep asking "show me the experiments that prove that genes are inherited, that fleas don't have a mind, that pigs can't fly... etc"

Haven't you said "I hate science"?
Why would we waste more time with you?

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,14:32   

er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:16   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 20 2007,14:14)
We could answer your questions SS, and as a matter of fact, we did for many of them.
But the problem is that your ignorance of biology and science in general is so huge that you'll keep asking "show me the experiments that prove that genes are inherited, that fleas don't have a mind, that pigs can't fly... etc"

Haven't you said "I hate science"?
Why would we waste more time with you?

well considering no one has yet answered the challenge in my OP -- which means mutations in no way, shape or form could have physically gotten bacteria out of the primordial swamp, nor has anyone given me a scientifically-verified example of natural selection in the field, it's pretty clear that the mechanims science has propped up as "fact" for the past century are no better than sceince fiction.  The fact is, you have not one piece of evidence supporting the notion that animals change genetically/mechanistically, ie...randomly w.r.t to fitness.  None.  You people have nothing but your deep desire to not be created and nothing more.  This is all propped up by foundation of scientific nonsense, screaming, shouting, insulting, and a heavy dose of scoffing at anyone who questions this unsupportable dogma.   ToE is a scientific joke.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:20   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,14:32)
er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.

1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.


from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:27   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,15:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

For God so loved the flea, that he gave his only begotten spine, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but infest dogs forevermore.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:29   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,13:47)
back to the thing about the flea spines: (from link)

So the question is, from where exactly did this new spine come from?  The physical structure had to come from somewhere -- but it wasn't from a mutation...it wasn't from a physical accident -- it was from a non-physical, purposeful process.



The simplest explanation is that the instructions had already evolved  (that is, they were physically there), and they went dormant  (probably due to a physical process altering the DNA such that those bits were no longer transcribed) , and were reactivated (again, by a physical process that reactivated that transcription), by something like imprinting (again, a physical process).

Nothing non-physical there.

Just because YOU can't think of a physical process isn't proof that there isn't one.  It just proves that you don't know much biology.

The universe is simply full of physical processes that science has figured out.  How many non-physical phenomena have Creationists figured out to date?

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:34   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,14:32)
er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.

1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.


from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

OK, let's stipulate that current MET has no explanation whatsoever for these flea spines.  How does that support any hypothesis of yours?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,15:41   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 20 2007,15:34)
1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.

How many generations?

  
  603 replies since Sep. 17 2007,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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