Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2015, 10:45 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
That "boundary" is why I asked about the formula, taught in the first ten minutes of any class on genetic inheritance.

It clearly demonstrates why there cannot be a boundary. It's simply not in the very simple math.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
16-07-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:46 AM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 10:16 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Bro, do you science? You must have missed the class session where we have three common ancestors these days... the LUCA is going the way of the dinosaur, pun intended. Gasp

I am well aware of the three branches Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryota. And yes, I am aware of the gene swapping that some people think will throw LUCA by the wayside. However, it is far from obvious that all genes are equally swappable. Some, like genes for antibiotic resistance, are the gene equivalent of gypsies:

-when there is antibiotic present, they provide a bacterium with resistance
-once the antibiotic disappears, they too are often lost

Researchers are reconstructing LUCA. Carl Woese has even suggested that LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a ‘sea’ of gene transfer.

It’s not clear how his claims could be tested, but they are certainly food for thought

True 'dat. Science is evolving.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:49 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  None of what you just said has anything to do with what I just wrote, Q.

Literally none of it.

"Inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes" is as unrelated to my discussion of heritable intron markers as table tennis is to the Superbowl. Yes, technically they're both sports, but they're not the same discussion. It also has no relationship to the gene pool balance equation.

You can't POSSIBLY be that willfully dishonest, can you? Can you?

And the "in our lifetimes" isn't remotely what we're talking about when discussing evolution; that's why the "cats give birth to dogs" argument deserves only mockery. NO ONE, the Bible or otherwise, in their right mind says "cats become dogs". It's a nonsense argument, which is why I said, "Breelawarkbwarfnarf!"

We are cousin-species with the cats, as are the dogs, depending on how many grandparent generations you go back before we have our common ancestor. What you are saying is "I will never give birth to my cousin's children, therefore I am not related to my cousin." (No redneck jokes here, people!) But you *are* related to your cousin, via your grandparent, and your immediate ancestors, your parents and your uncle/aunt, are closely related, recently-diverged. Get the metaphor now? I can look at markers in your DNA and tell that you all, everyone in this discussion, share the same inactive DNA sequences that were inherited from that grandparent... that's how paternity tests work in courtrooms, and it has nothing to do with eye color or anything else so table-tennis related!!

Now either talk about "the Superbowl" in my above metaphor, or admit you cannot, else you will be treated as though you are being willfully dishonest in this discussion, and dismissed.

I don't think you are being dishonest, but you are being illogical. Are you saying in COURT we can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt a common ancestor of cats and dogs?

Before you rush to say "aha, you idiot, of course we can" maybe sit and have a long think first. Think of how much you are willing to risk upon the shifting sands of prevalent evolutionary hypotheses! Please!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 06:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible is saying......

The Bible isn't a science textbook so why don't you fuck off with that no value argument. The Bible says a lot of stuff that's wrong, not just as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of FACT. "Kinds" in not a scientifically recognized term in evolutionary biology, so you can wedge that up inside yourself as well.

Look Q, you third person talking weirdo, the Bible is wrong on most things, the majority even. Get the fuck over it already. All your deliberate misrepresentations of evolutionary theory don't change that. Evolution could turn out to be very wrong (it's not but lets say for the sake of "argument") and yet you know what? The Bible would still be fucking wrong because it's demonstrably wrong. It's provably wrong. So get a new fucking game.

Lastly what the actual hell does you vomiting forth this same stupid fucking display of your own ignorance have to do with your OP? A quote which by the way has already been shown to be dishonestly and falsely represented here by you to give an opinion that the author was actually bloody NOT expressing.

What does evolution have to do with your dishonest quote in the OP?

I saw the quote excerpted and was genuinely unaware of the context, for which I apologize. However, it is both a pithy and true quote as stated. Do you disagree?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:45 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 11:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Have you understood the context? Dogs and cats are considered separate kinds. The Bible says animals and plants will bear according to their own kind.

Perhaps your friends would have been better off saying, "Dogs and cats sit along separate evolutionary paths and one cannot produce the other nor become the other over time."

What sort of fool reads the Bible to get their science in 2015 ?
YOU are a hypocrite Q. YOU would make use of every bit of science 's advances today if you were seriously ill. You would not just pray, and you fucking know it. Nothing science knows or uses today came from your Holy Babble.

I think you have an evil twin named PleaseJesus. Consider

You are as per your usual modus operandi misstating who I am and how I think (rather than just asking me, of course).

I don't read the Bible to get my science, but I find that science agrees with in many places the truths of the Bible. Period. Grow up and learn to use facts in a debate and not half-truths and outright lies.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:48 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 09:36 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong. You do not understand genetics and mathematics. There was a species that is a common ancestor of cats and dogs. Get over it, your Bible is not a book of reality.

I'm still waiting for the mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point where the "kind" has changed.

The mechanism is death! Small changes without substantial changes often would lead to un-survivable outcomes!

Consider an ocean species coming to the land. They need not only lungs but new systems for motion, mating, eating, waste, reproduction, circulation, etc. Little changes cannot do this...

...One does not simply walk onto the land with magic legs, Lieutenant Dan. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(16-07-2015 07:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 10:49 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  None of what you just said has anything to do with what I just wrote, Q.

Literally none of it.

"Inheritable probabilities for the children of parents with brown and blue eyes" is as unrelated to my discussion of heritable intron markers as table tennis is to the Superbowl. Yes, technically they're both sports, but they're not the same discussion. It also has no relationship to the gene pool balance equation.

You can't POSSIBLY be that willfully dishonest, can you? Can you?

And the "in our lifetimes" isn't remotely what we're talking about when discussing evolution; that's why the "cats give birth to dogs" argument deserves only mockery. NO ONE, the Bible or otherwise, in their right mind says "cats become dogs". It's a nonsense argument, which is why I said, "Breelawarkbwarfnarf!"

We are cousin-species with the cats, as are the dogs, depending on how many grandparent generations you go back before we have our common ancestor. What you are saying is "I will never give birth to my cousin's children, therefore I am not related to my cousin." (No redneck jokes here, people!) But you *are* related to your cousin, via your grandparent, and your immediate ancestors, your parents and your uncle/aunt, are closely related, recently-diverged. Get the metaphor now? I can look at markers in your DNA and tell that you all, everyone in this discussion, share the same inactive DNA sequences that were inherited from that grandparent... that's how paternity tests work in courtrooms, and it has nothing to do with eye color or anything else so table-tennis related!!

Now either talk about "the Superbowl" in my above metaphor, or admit you cannot, else you will be treated as though you are being willfully dishonest in this discussion, and dismissed.

I don't think you are being dishonest, but you are being illogical. Are you saying in COURT we can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt a common ancestor of cats and dogs?

Before you rush to say "aha, you idiot, of course we can" maybe sit and have a long think first. Think of how much you are willing to risk upon the shifting sands of prevalent evolutionary hypotheses! Please!

It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The DNA evidence sealed the deal.

Evolutionary Theory - not hypothesis. Read a book.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-07-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(16-07-2015 07:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:36 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm still waiting for the mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating to the point where the "kind" has changed.

The mechanism is death! Small changes without substantial changes often would lead to un-survivable outcomes!

That makes no sense. Small changes may be beneficial or not. The deleterious ones don't survive - that's the way natural selection works.

Quote:Consider an ocean species coming to the land. They need not only lungs but new systems for motion, mating, eating, waste, reproduction, circulation, etc. Little changes cannot do this...

...One does not simply walk onto the land with magic legs, Lieutenant Dan. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly.

Have you ever heard of amphibians? Your lack of understanding is a poor argument. Read a book.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-07-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(15-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Bible is saying, however, that over a very, very long period of time, cats will not become dogs or vice versa
That's funny, because evolution never claims that cats will become dogs or dogs will become cats either.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2015 08:14 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Dogs and cats branched off at Carnivora:

[Image: Phylogeny.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: