did you see it yourself? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesh
Printable View
did you see it yourself? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesh
I'm not THAT old. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioner
Damn, 17 pages already! Is that a record?
I think that this whole debate over the "Did I make myself or did someone make me?" question boils down to whose "experts" one is willing to believe.
One thing is for sure. People usually change their minds over years rather than days, if at all.
Well, if it's not a record, we should probably keep going until it is, now that we've come this far :lol:
We should ask Dogboy or Scotcher if we are close to the record yet. They have been here for long enough to know.
Truthfully, I had more fun when I was picking on the Pope.
I just thought I'd post in this thread, seeing in how its 17 pages and I haven't posted here yet.
Everyone will want to get their place in this thread now :lol:
Here's my contribution. I meant to post a lot sooner on the original topic, but became caught up in some things. I'm curious to find out what the record is, too. :wink:
So, you guys are really agreeing with me that the nuclear attack on Japan was a Terrorist attack by the United States? :o Please, I want to be wrong on this!!!
That is because you were winning THAT argument :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
You wanna go again , boy, do ya, huh? :)
You have a very good point Pioner. But, IMHO, building up a resistance to something is not evolution, but rather degeneration. Quite the opposite of evolution. I'm not sure about the exact way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, but I can give another example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioner
A chemical compound called Warfarin was used to kill rats in England in the 1950's. But eventually, the rats devoloped a resistance to Warfarin.
Warfarin kills by inhibiting enzymes involved in the synthesis of Vitamin K. This, as you should know with your degree in biology, is essential to life.
The non-resistant rats exposed to warfarin, died. Duh!
But the resistant rats were found to have a mutated form of the enzyme that synthesizes Vitamin K. The active sites on the enzyme were not properly shaped to allow the binding of warfarin. Therefore, warfarin was not able to inhibit enzyme activity. On the outside, this may look like an "added" feature.
So, this is for SURE evolution. Or is it?
The mutated enzyme was found to be EXTREMELY inefficient in synthesizing Vitamin K. It required over 10 times the energy in the mutated enzyme to synthesize a single molecule of the vitamin.
So clearly you can see that the built up resistance was not evolution, but rather a degeneration of the working enzyme (quite the opposite). The enzyme became less functional, not more functional. This doesnt fit the description of evolution at all!
Another example.
In 1992, and experiment was done involving a species of aquatic worms and cadmium. Cadmium is a naturally occuring, toxic element.
The scientist was out to prove that animals can "evolve" and develop resistance to anything. He placed non-cadmium resistance worms in a cadmium free environment. Obviously, the worms survived. He then placed more non-cadmium resistant worms in an environment containing cadmium. After only 3 generations, all the worms in the tank were cadmium resistant. The scientist published a report declaring this as proof for evolution.
Upon, closer insepction, there was no evidence of mutation, or new structures that helped with the resistance to cadmium. But how can this be?
Easy. Some of the worms had to have already been resistant to cadmium, or all the worms would have died. If this was evolution, the worms would have had to instantly develop a resistance to cadmium, or they ALL would have immediately died! Even evolutionist say that evolution just does not happen that fast.
So the result we saw with all the worms becoming resistant was not evolution, because nothing was changed or added to the gene pool, but rather a disturbance in the frequency of appearance of the genes involved in the resistance to cadmium.
Wow, that drained my energy. Im gonna go drink a red bull. :)
Just thought I should post something here since everybody else has.
Terrorists are stupid.Quote:
London terror attack, yo. :O
I didnt see this question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioner
Hmm..artificial selection. That's the thing that Darwin used as a model as natural selection right?
How could he so surely say that what we see in artificial selection, is what happens in natural selection. In order to confirm this, he would have had to study in great detail natural selection, and how well artificial selection mocks it. But if this could be done, there would be no point in artificial selection mocking natural selection, because in studying natural selection, he would have accomplished his original goal!
And as for your fossils, which proof were you talking about?
Stating the obvious :o
What was the topic; the topic or the length of the topic, or a solution to the topic; or general dismay at the existence of the topic's topic. Is this :off:
Don't answer that.
Yo Baby :wink:
Actually it is not off topic. The reason you ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosa Anna
Because if you follow all arguements in life to there source you will arrive at the question that all thinking men and women sooner or later ask.
How did I get here? or Was I made or just an accident. There are only two ways to answer this question and that is what we are disscussing here.
The way each of us answers this question determines how we will answer all the rest of lifes questions.
Yah, well God said.... that I shouldn't worry so much about it.
Hey, Saibot. Have you noticed Rose Anna's "location"?
I have! And the crazy part is...ITS TRUE! :D
:o http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... 2&start=15
loves me new flat :o
Thank You Sai
Here....have some poptarts off this velvet gold threaded pillow.
GAWD DDT,
Where have you been :lol:
Can't read all, not even all of them?
:wink:
Disclaimer: Author reserves the right to infer God talks to her while denying it solidly.
Oh it is to me coming back now.
Almost to another page :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
And the best part is....
(Saibot, I'm going to Roll off my chair if you are endowed with something other than a penical apparatus...)
I get the house. Saibot gets to "Not be Married!"
Does this mean I get to bed freely too??
Questions one should ask....when dragging on.....such the long....
Women I think have been trying for ages to discover the secret....who'd a thunk...poptart assasination. Finally. My own home. I'm gonna order out a ...well damn Saibot, this a nice place-self fixing everything. Self cleaning pool. What about my delivery men!!!!!!!!!! :idea: :twisted:
Sneaky Saibot. Sneaky.
So it seems to me that the anti-pioner forces have this conception:
- Evolution within a species is fine (Giraffe evolved long neck to reach higher (short neck -> long neck)
- Evolution from one species to another is not fine. Fish -> Lizard -> Man -> Error
- Man is a separate species. He is not ape.
- Ape can not evolve into Man.
Am I getting this right?
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Bite your tounge Kalinka Vinnie!
:evil:
Selfishly, I retract comment or otherwise keep opinion...very very...
Ssssshhhhhhhhh.
speaking such a thing almost certainly in a round about way depending on the context and the cultural reasoning validates stupid stinking terrorist attacks...
This is getting faaaaaaaaaaaaar to close to a discussion on Voyager's Prime Directive theory. What the hell, this is Trigger Happy's thread.
Have at@!
I dont consider myself anti-pioner, but you got it for me mostly :D
I can deal with mutations (or evolutions as you say) within a species, because frankly there is evidence for that. You can find fossils of gradual changes over time, WITHIN the species. But when the species "jump" the line? Missing links.
Man IS a separate species. Take homo neanderthalensis, and homo sapien. Those of you who know your binomial nomeclature will know that its (genus,species). You can see the genus names are the same, but the species name are different.
*About the giraffe thing. That was more of a "what the hell is the probablilty of this happening." thing.
But here is another example.
The Bombardier Beetle. This is a beetle (duh) that defends itself by mixing two chemicals together (a chemical from the hydroquinone group and hydrogen peroxide, in the presence of asbestos and two or 3 enzymes to speed up the reaction, for those of you who care) to cause an explosion to ward off enemies.
Now, the creature has two sacs containing the two different chemcials, separated by a sac in the middle, containing an asbestos lining, and the enzymes needed to make the explosion.
Now, the beetle fires secretions from all 3 chambers towards the enemy, scaring off the enemy. But if the secretions were a continuous stream, the bug would be killed by its own defense mechanism. So it has a gland, that fires short bursts of chemicals rapidly. Sort of like an автомат калашникова model 47.
Now what are the odds, that these two complex systems (storage system, and firing) system would evolve at just the right pace, and at just the right time, so that eveything would come together perfectly in the end? Not very good.
So either it was an EXTREME change (like 1 to billions), or the beetle came with the parts already there.
Now im not saying i believe creation, in fact, i believe neither theory. I believe is saibots theory, stating that I made everything. mwaahaaa. :evil:
The number of scientists who reject evolution is growing fast.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... winism.htm
Someone here at MR said that they like numbers didn’t they? Here’s one for you
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
The number of chromosomes do not seem to follow the evolutionary pattern.
Plant/Animal No. of Chromosomes
Fern 480
White Ash 138
Carp 100
Goldfish 94
Sweet Potato 90
Turkey 82
Chicken 78
Dog 78
Duck 78
Horse 64
Cow 60
AMOEBA 50
What? An Amoeba has more chromosomes than man does?
Chimp 48
Tobacco 48
HUMAN 46
Bat 44
Wheat 42
Soybean 40
Cat 38
Starfish 36
Apple 34
Alligator 32
Onion 32
Opossum 22
Redwood Tree 22
Kidney Bean 22
Carrot 20
Interesting! I never looked at it that way...
What number of chromosomes has to do with evolution? And Amoeba cell is much larger then human's cell, what is this surprise about?
Here's something...
If it all started out with two people, disregarding Lilith, 'cause discussing her would make us BAD BAD Christians, then we are all incest.
Adam and Eve bump uglies, and then they have children.
Their children BUMP UGLIES!? :O
AND THEIR CHILDREN!
So then we have like...
Well...Adam would be someone's great uncle and grandfather at the same time. O_O And there would be freaky looking deformities and such.
Same with that bottle-neck shit. Explaining similar features in a race. INCEST!? :o I dunno. Point is...like...I don't think I have one.
If creationism were true, more than two flippin people were made.
Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
Yes, 11 people more knowlegable than you on the subject signed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioner
Well here I think we need to decide which human cells are we talking about? Some human cells (egg cells) are bigger than amoebas. A human egg cell is about 250 microns, while an average amoeba is 100 microns. But yet, a human egg cell has half the number of chromosomes as a normal human cell, becuase it is a sex cell. So cell size really has nothing to do with the number of chromosomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioner
As for your other point, chromosome number is just another argument against evolution. If you take the number of chromosomes for certain organisms, and align them in the order of that organisms "appearance" on earth as a result of "evolution", you find that the numbers have no specific pattern.
Here's a simple one:
Humans 46
Monkeys 48
Dogs 78
Sheep 54
Rats 42
Flies 12
Lizards 46
Lobsters 100
Removing a certain number of chromosomes or adding them for that matter, will not create a whole new species. Removing chromosomes would completely destroy the individual. To remove a chromosome would literally be to remove millions of parts of the organism.
So I guess my point is, following the logic of evolution, simpler organisms should have smaller chromosomal counts. As the complexity of the organism increases, so the does the amount of information in the DNA, which calls for more DNA, which calls for more chromosomes.
A simple algae called the Cosmarium can have around 140 chromosomes.
A very simple protozoa called Radiolaria has around 800 chromosomes!
But yet a human has only 46.
Something isn't right here. This does not follow evolution at all....
saibot, that story about the beetle is so old, that it is not even funny to mention it here. There is nothing special in that beetle. First of all, the description you gave is slightly wrong, and all creationist articles repeat the same mistake about anatomy and mechanism of that beetle a lot. I believe they just re-write it from each other, like they re-write the Bible. Anyhow, below I give a link to an article which, I hope, put away the question about that beetleQuote:
Originally Posted by saibot
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
I personally know more then 11 biologist who support evolution theory. So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT
Have you ever heard about theory of big numbers?
saibot, do you have any idea what a chromosoma is?
Ok. That website describes hardly anything about the anatomy of the beetle, but more of the chemicals involved. But the point is not the chemicals. The point is that it involves several highly complex systems, that just happened to evolve at the same time. I didnt see much mention of that.
What say you about giraffes though? Same thing basically. Do you have a website about that for me?
Of course I know what chromosomes are. Tightly wound strands of DNA. That's a simple definition, but that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioner
Actually try to read the article again. The anatomy is being explained there.Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
And, the most important:
Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed (Dawkins 1986, 86-87)
Ok I read it again and found it. I should have read more closely. But I'm still not impressed.
And I'm not sure I wanna trust a source in which the author has no self-confidence. He goes through and explains a whole page about how it could have evolved, and then he goes to say:
But why did you want to know if I knew what a chromosome was?Quote:
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that.