Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:Its this type of comment that continues to prove that you have absolutely no fucking clue and are not reading anything that has been pointed out to you. It is utterly amazing to me that you have lived beyond a couple years out of the womb given the extreme idiocy you continue to demonstrate. I fully expect to see you in the darwin awards.

I don't understand. The statement remains, "Many slow changes over time, which is ALL that can be seen in the fossil record or today, must add up to big changes over time."

We can breed/GMO/modify plants and animals and make others. There is a TREMENDOUS, STUPENDOUS amount of genetic encoding that governs cell growth in any complex animal from conception through gestation to adulthood toward making it "be all it can be". The plants quote PROVES my point. Scientists are currently able to modify organisms slightly, intentionally, via engineering. The infinite amount of changes involved in designing/engineering complex structures and adaptations, etc. demonstrates the original, intelligent creation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(23-05-2013 08:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I think we can see macroevolution in our time! In plants. We humans have genetically changed the production of food, and the corresponding plants involved, dramatically! We have also extended human life. We have done other things which threaten our planet. Some of you will say that this is not "evolution". Why? Because humans and science were involved? Humans are part of earths ecosystem. Evolution is adaptation. It is not a move toward something. It doesn't have a plan. That would lead us to religion. Humans are changing (evolving) the planet.

Great point. Mustard greens are indeed significantly different than broccoli, cauliflower, etc. But they are still plants, reproducing after their own kind. What kind of dramatic genetic engineering would be required for plants to become animals?

"Each according to its kind" describes the process of evolution perfectly. No plant ever brought forth a non-plant. No eukaryote has brought forth a non-eukaryote. No animal has ever brought forth a non-animal. No mammal a non-mammal, no primate a non-primate, no human a non-human. Each brings forth according to its kind. Each group fits within a larger group. People and lemurs are primates. Primates and carnivores are mammals. Mammals and reptiles are animals. Animals and plants are eukaryotes.

Evolution says that things stay what they are, even as they diverge. Species diverge as cousins in a family tree diverge, becoming more and more different the more distantly they are are related, but still retaining their essential family traits. That's what is meant by the term "evolution". Don't expect a plant to become an animal. If it did, that would disprove evolution - not support it.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(23-05-2013 02:09 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Its this type of comment that continues to prove that you have absolutely no fucking clue and are not reading anything that has been pointed out to you. It is utterly amazing to me that you have lived beyond a couple years out of the womb given the extreme idiocy you continue to demonstrate. I fully expect to see you in the darwin awards.

I don't understand. The statement remains, "Many slow changes over time, which is ALL that can be seen in the fossil record or today, must add up to big changes over time."

We can breed/GMO/modify plants and animals and make others. There is a TREMENDOUS, STUPENDOUS amount of genetic encoding that governs cell growth in any complex animal from conception through gestation to adulthood toward making it "be all it can be". The plants quote PROVES my point. Scientists are currently able to modify organisms slightly, intentionally, via engineering. The infinite amount of changes involved in designing/engineering complex structures and adaptations, etc. demonstrates the original, intelligent creation.

You apparently don't understand the time spans involved. Large changes in phenotype do not happen overnight; it takes many generations, many thousands of years before the small changes accumulate sufficiently.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 03:02 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2013 03:07 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(23-05-2013 02:09 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Its this type of comment that continues to prove that you have absolutely no fucking clue and are not reading anything that has been pointed out to you. It is utterly amazing to me that you have lived beyond a couple years out of the womb given the extreme idiocy you continue to demonstrate. I fully expect to see you in the darwin awards.

I don't understand. The statement remains, "Many slow changes over time, which is ALL that can be seen in the fossil record or today, must add up to big changes over time."

We can breed/GMO/modify plants and animals and make others. There is a TREMENDOUS, STUPENDOUS amount of genetic encoding that governs cell growth in any complex animal from conception through gestation to adulthood toward making it "be all it can be". The plants quote PROVES my point. Scientists are currently able to modify organisms slightly, intentionally, via engineering. The infinite amount of changes involved in designing/engineering complex structures and adaptations, etc. demonstrates the original, intelligent creation.

Well lets make an analogy. The first cells on earth were very simple and different from the large complex multicellular life we have today.

Looking at the structure of a modern cell is very difficult to deconstruct because ,like in the image below, while the modern cpus contain very different transistors in the millions. It still has transistors, and operates on them. With out all the in between steps it's incredibly hard to imagine that we would have this computing power today from such a strange invention.

With genetic science we are trying to figure out all the missing steps from a modern example of cells to the very first. Along the way we've stumbled onto ways to manipulate these genes, to produce very interesting and beneficial things to humanity.

Evolution from the first cells to today shows that every living thing is increased in complexity. The fact that humankind has been able to work out how some of these things operate is a testament to science, not god.

I hope this analogy makes sense to you.

First transistor.
[Image: pDATkzM.jpg]
Modern CPU
[Image: TKlbPTB.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
24-05-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:I hope this analogy makes sense to you.

It sure does, transistor to modern CPU = intelligent design. And even with ID, stumbles were made along the way. Comparing a modern computer to what cells are and do or to the brain is like comparing a toothpick with the Empire State Building, by the way.

Quote:You apparently don't understand the time spans involved. Large changes in phenotype do not happen overnight; it takes many generations, many thousands of years before the small changes accumulate sufficiently.

During which time each generation lacking survivability attributes would perish. It takes the right combination of 30 amino acids to clot human blood. What do you think happened to the ones that had only 25 of these amino acids in place?

Quote:"Each according to its kind" describes the process of evolution perfectly. No plant ever brought forth a non-plant. No eukaryote has brought forth a non-eukaryote. No animal has ever brought forth a non-animal. No mammal a non-mammal, no primate a non-primate, no human a non-human. Each brings forth according to its kind. Each group fits within a larger group. People and lemurs are primates. Primates and carnivores are mammals. Mammals and reptiles are animals. Animals and plants are eukaryotes.

Evolution says that things stay what they are, even as they diverge. Species diverge as cousins in a family tree diverge, becoming more and more different the more distantly they are are related, but still retaining their essential family traits. That's what is meant by the term "evolution". Don't expect a plant to become an animal. If it did, that would disprove evolution - not support it.

I understand the current change in the clades people grew up with a century ago. Of course, that gives you the equivalent of (almost) three abiogenesis happenings. See the problem?

Do you read what you write? "no primate a non-primate, no human a non-human." Then where did the humans come from or the primates? And whatever common ancestor(s) you write about here, backfill the last quote of yours. See the problem?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(24-05-2013 01:33 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I hope this analogy makes sense to you.

It sure does, transistor to modern CPU = intelligent design. And even with ID, stumbles were made along the way. Comparing a modern computer to what cells are and do or to the brain is like comparing a toothpick with the Empire State Building, by the way.

Quote:You apparently don't understand the time spans involved. Large changes in phenotype do not happen overnight; it takes many generations, many thousands of years before the small changes accumulate sufficiently.

During which time each generation lacking survivability attributes would perish. It takes the right combination of 30 amino acids to clot human blood. What do you think happened to the ones that had only 25 of these amino acids in place?

Quote:"Each according to its kind" describes the process of evolution perfectly. No plant ever brought forth a non-plant. No eukaryote has brought forth a non-eukaryote. No animal has ever brought forth a non-animal. No mammal a non-mammal, no primate a non-primate, no human a non-human. Each brings forth according to its kind. Each group fits within a larger group. People and lemurs are primates. Primates and carnivores are mammals. Mammals and reptiles are animals. Animals and plants are eukaryotes.

Evolution says that things stay what they are, even as they diverge. Species diverge as cousins in a family tree diverge, becoming more and more different the more distantly they are are related, but still retaining their essential family traits. That's what is meant by the term "evolution". Don't expect a plant to become an animal. If it did, that would disprove evolution - not support it.

I understand the current change in the clades people grew up with a century ago. Of course, that gives you the equivalent of (almost) three abiogenesis happenings. See the problem?

Do you read what you write? "no primate a non-primate, no human a non-human." Then where did the humans come from or the primates? And whatever common ancestor(s) you write about here, backfill the last quote of yours. See the problem?

The evolution of blood clotting is not a mystery. Read a fucking science book, you ignorant moron.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2013, 02:11 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2013 02:21 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
The point of the transistor to cpu analogy was to provide you with something familiar to compare to evolution.

A modern cpu presented to a scientist of the 18th century would look irreducibly complex. Even though its completely reducible.

That was the point I failed to get across.

I didn't mean to compare computers to brains in any way.

I only wanted to get across that after billions of years, complexity has increased so much, that it's often hard to see how all these mechanisms in nature are indeed reducible.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Don't bother, he just wants to "study" evolution to find gaps in knowledge in order to squeeze his god into them.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
24-05-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
PJ,

The "and before they evolved that trait they all died" argument is an extremely poor one. The way evolution works is not by organisms living in environments that kill them all, but by living in environments where some individuals get a few percent greater chance to survive than others. After a few hundred generations the genes of those better adapted individuals come to dominate the population. That's how changes occur at the species level, by individuals spreading their alleles unevenly through the future generations with those better adapted spreading their alleles just a little bit wider than those less well adapted.

As for blood clotting... you might have noticed that we aren't the only species who has blood that clots. The workings of cells and blood are very old and were sorted out long before complex organisms that depend on those traits were around to make use of them.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(23-05-2013 08:54 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I think we can see macroevolution in our time! In plants. We humans have genetically changed the production of food, and the corresponding plants involved, dramatically! We have also extended human life. We have done other things which threaten our planet. Some of you will say that this is not "evolution". Why? Because humans and science were involved? Humans are part of earths ecosystem. Evolution is adaptation. It is not a move toward something. It doesn't have a plan. That would lead us to religion. Humans are changing (evolving) the planet.

Great point. Mustard greens are indeed significantly different than broccoli, cauliflower, etc. But they are still plants, reproducing after their own kind. What kind of dramatic genetic engineering would be required for plants to become animals?

I'm not talking about mustard greens and corn. I'm talking about corn and corn! Corn is not the same today as it was ten years ago. It has been genetically modified, by humans.

This is an opportunity for you, though! I reccommend that you go to the "Coast to Coast" website and search "Genetically modified food" You'll be armed and ready for a whole new topic for fools! Seriously! the Illuminati are trying to kill us with food! Go! Indulge! You'll love it! If god allows, you may ejaculate all over you computer screen!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: