Thread: London terror attack, yo. :O

GAWD DDT,

Where have you been

Can't read all, not even all of them?








Disclaimer: Author reserves the right to infer God talks to her while denying it solidly.

Oh it is to me coming back now.

Originally Posted by DDT

Oh it is to me coming back now.

Almost to another page

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!!!!!!!!!!


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?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

So, you guys are really agreeing with me that the nuclear attack on Japan was a Terrorist attack by the United States? Please, I want to be wrong on this!!!

Bite your tounge Kalinka Vinnie!



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

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.

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!? I dunno. Point is...like...I don't think I have one.
If creationism were true, more than two flippin people were made.

Originally Posted by DDT

The number of scientists who reject evolution is growing fast.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... winism.htm

Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!

Originally Posted by Pioner

Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!

Yes, 11 people more knowlegable than you on the subject signed it!

Originally Posted by Pioner

What number of chromosomes has to do with evolution? And Amoeba cell is much larger then human's cell, what is this surprise about?

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.

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....

Originally Posted by saibot

The Bombardier Beetle.

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 beetle

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by Pioner

Wow, 11 persons signed that in 1980! Darwinism is in a really knee deep in troble!

Yes, 11 people more knowlegable than you on the subject signed it!

I personally know more then 11 biologist who support evolution theory. So what?

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?

Originally Posted by Pioner

saibot, do you have any idea what a chromosoma is?

Of course I know what chromosomes are. Tightly wound strands of DNA. That's a simple definition, but that's it.

Originally Posted by saibot

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?

Actually try to read the article again. The anatomy is being explained there.

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:

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that.

But why did you want to know if I knew what a chromosome was?