Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?

Pages: (46) < ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 >

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,02:34    Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22) I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No  there yet by far. Wrong. It has already been done many times.       Quote I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers. You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.                     Quote The example could be breeds of dogs. They show how diverse one get from a few original types. Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg. The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds. This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence. Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ?

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,05:13    I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Bjarne Posts: 29 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,07:53    Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)   Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)   Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54) Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna. No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth. This would explain much about fossil and living diversity. With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap. The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response? All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set! Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences. Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father. Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too. Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change. Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject. The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals. Okay, I'll ask you this question again: According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that? And a second question: IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell? No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change. I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points. As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna. Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes? And, how are proteins produced in cells?

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,09:44    Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)   Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)   Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)     Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54) Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna. No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth. This would explain much about fossil and living diversity. With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap. The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response? All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set! Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences. Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father. Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too. Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change. Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject. The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals. Okay, I'll ask you this question again: According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that? And a second question: IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell? No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change. I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points. As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna. Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes? And, how are proteins produced in cells? I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?   Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.   Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Robert Byers Posts: 160 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,01:32    Quote (Reed @ Mar. 11 2010,02:34) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22) I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No  there yet by far. Wrong. It has already been done many times.       Quote I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers. You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.                     Quote The example could be breeds of dogs. They show how diverse one get from a few original types. Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg. The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds. This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence. Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ? Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past. So breeds of dogs today is just showing what can be instantly done in nature. Even webbed feet can show how the origin of water mammals came. In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs. Mutations is in fact not what happens. They are not errors but simply over flow options in the genetics. The great evidence for this is the great post flood diversity. Living and fossil creatures is the great guide to understanding diversity in biology. As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature. Its rather just showing genetic power. Its not errors but mere slippage.

Robert Byers Posts: 160 Joined: Nov. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,01:38    Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53) Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)   Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)   Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)     Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)     Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54) Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna. No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth. This would explain much about fossil and living diversity. With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap. The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response? All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set! Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences. Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father. Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too. Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change. Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject. The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals. Okay, I'll ask you this question again: According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that? And a second question: IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell? No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change. I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points. As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna. Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes? And, how are proteins produced in cells? I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?   Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.   Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn. I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself. Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives. The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this. I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts. No reason not to see it that way.

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,02:17    Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:32) As i said I think its been a classic error to see mutations as a real thing in nature. One problem with this. Mutations are a "real thing". We have observed them. We understand the mechanisms, and have confirmed this understanding by experiment.                 Quote Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. Right. We just have no idea how this DNA stuff works.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,02:27    Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA? I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds? But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links? -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,02:42    Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27) Seals are from the "dog kind"?   See? It's the caniform thing again: Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41)   Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)     Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43) In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark. why? Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said. It's easy when you're just makin' shit up. He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind". -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,02:45    Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,23:38) No reason not to see it that way. No, it requires a near total inability to reason to see it that way. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

snorkild Posts: 32 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,03:43    If Robert was capable of understanding what he is writing, I believe he wouldn't write things like this: Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38) Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives. -------------- wimp

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,06:46    To resume Bobby's position: "hey, so much for global warming -- look at all this snow! and so much for global globalness, look how flat it is out there!" Stephen Colbert. -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Bjarne Posts: 29 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,08:59    Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,08:38) Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44) Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53)   Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)   Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)     Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)     Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)       Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54) Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna. No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth. This would explain much about fossil and living diversity. With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap. The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response? All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set! Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences. Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father. Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too. Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change. Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject. The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals. Okay, I'll ask you this question again: According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that? And a second question: IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell? No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change. I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points. As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna. Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes? And, how are proteins produced in cells? I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?   Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.   Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn. I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself. Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives. The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this. I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts. No reason not to see it that way. And how are proteins produced in cells?

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,10:19    Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38) I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher [sic] on earth... No reason not to see it that way. Hard to believe, isn't it? I love it so! -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,11:46    Does he really think the pouch is the only anatomical difference between a marsupial and a placental that it superficially resembles? (Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?)

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,11:59    Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46) (Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?) They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,12:10    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,17:59) Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2010,09:46) (Wonder where he thinks monotremes fit in all this?) They're probably in the fucking "dog kind" too. Yeah, probably the bloody egg-laying mo-fo "dog kind"! And watch out for those thylacines, they are probably venimous as well! But hey! All doggy so far! -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,12:31    Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27) Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA? I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds? But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links? Don't let it get to you, Badger.  At this point in the thread, it's time to accept that Robert doesn't know anything, isn't interested in knowing anything and is probably incapable of knowing anything if he tried.  Instead of trying to educate him, I just sit back and enjoy the likes of this: Quote Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past. I don't have a fucking clue what that means, and I suspect Robert doesn't either.  But as stream-of-consciousness brain droppings from the Poet Laureate of Tard, it has a certain je ne sais quoi, doesn't it? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,13:23    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2010,12:31) Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27) Seals are from the "dog kind"?  We don't know much about DNA? I didn't think my mouth could drop further, but it did.  Just keep piling it on.  Maybe we can get Joe G/ID guy over here and have a real TARDpocalypse - but would the board hold such a force?  Would our minds? But how come those chimp videos show them acting a lot like human beings?  Wasn't that one of your lines of evidence for a thylacine-wolf connection?  Why so silent on that?  Didn't the videos come through at the other end of the links? Don't let it get to you, Badger.  At this point in the thread, it's time to accept that Robert doesn't know anything, isn't interested in knowing anything and is probably incapable of knowing anything if he tried.  Instead of trying to educate him, I just sit back and enjoy the likes of this: Quote Whether in breeds or in nature I'm saying the evidence is better that its all just spill over from a greater orbit or equation that genes have great diversity potential that is triggered by great need especially in the past. I don't have a fucking clue what that means, and I suspect Robert doesn't either.  But as stream-of-consciousness brain droppings from the Poet Laureate of Tard, it has a certain je ne sais quoi, doesn't it? Believe me, it's not getting to me, except  for the jaw-dropping absurdities I read.  It's been a hoot, to use an old expression.  I just want to keep the chimp thing alive, even if I know he'll never, ever address it, just like he's avoided everything else that people have posted.   Writing back to him makes me feel like I'm poking a dead body with a stick.  I'd probably get more sense from the corpse. -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,18:05    Code Sample In fact probably seals are from, perhaps, the same kind as dogs. Well, they are placed in the caniformia rather than the feliformia. But they are a sister group to a clade composed on one had of skunks and such and on the other bears. See: But please do enlighten us as to how you reached this conclusion. -------------- 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.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,18:37    OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,18:40    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,19:37) OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him. Trees have bark. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,18:54    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,18:37) OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him. Nope, wrong it is because in Hawaii the name for Monk Seal means "the dog who runs the sea" - at least that is my theory and I am sticking to it. -------------- 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.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,19:00    Quote (khan @ Mar. 12 2010,17:40) Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,19:37) OK, I'm revising my hypothesis that he ran across the term 'caniform' somewhere, and saw a chart or table listing what caniforms are.  I now think his seal idea is due to the fact that they bark, and dogs bark, so therefore, they're two of a kind.  Unfortunately, I can now no longer explain where he got the bears-are-of-the-dog-kind thing.  Although, maybe he thinks they bark too.  I wouldn't put it past him. Trees have bark. Well sure, but their bark is worse than their bite!

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2010,20:30    They could also be of the pig-kind. Here's a Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus); the scientific name translates to "hook-nosed sea pig". Hey, boobie! Were there seals on the Ark, or did they have to fend for themselves in the oceans? -------------- 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

Tony M Nyphot Posts: 491 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2010,12:54    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 12 2010,01:42)     Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2010,00:27) Seals are from the "dog kind"?   See? It's the caniform thing again:       Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,21:41)         Quote (ppb @ Mar. 02 2010,07:02)         Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 02 2010,04:00)           Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 02 2010,02:43) In fact this creationist would even say bears and dogs are of the same kind from off the ark. why? Why not?  It makes about as much sense as anything else he's said. It's easy when you're just makin' shit up. He probably heard that bears are caniforms somewhere and because he's an idiot, that was taken as proof that they're "of the same kind". You grant Mr. Robert more knowledge than he is capable of by assuming he understands "caniform". It's much, much simpler than that. Here, let me spell out his undeniable logic: Baby seals = pups Baby dogs = pups Therefore, when they change into adults: Seals = Dogs QEDuh! -------------- "I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK "You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2010,19:40    Sounds like he's doggedly sealed the conclusion!

Bjarne Posts: 29 Joined: Dec. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,05:13    My cat has fur and a tail and claws and fangs, too. I wonder if it is also of the dog kind, Mr.Byers? Additional proof: I called it a cat whelp, when he was smaller. And its food looks pretty much like the food I gave to my dog.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,11:58    Robert, when you're done with dogs, perhaps we can move on to the "bear kind".  Do polar bears, koalas and beargrass all descend from the same pair of Ark passengers? And waterbears.  I'm particularly interested in your views on waterbears. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2010,13:21    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 15 2010,11:58) Robert, when you're done with dogs, perhaps we can move on to the "bear kind".  Do polar bears, koalas and beargrass all descend from the same pair of Ark passengers? And waterbears.  I'm particularly interested in your views on waterbears. Seals are water-bears, dontcha' know.  You betcha! -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Pages: (46) < ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard