Evolution is a Joke IX

I see what your next move is. Well, feel free to reject all the sites I just sent you. You're still wrong, and embarrassingly so. You've asked for me to prove that the definition is widely accepted using "university" sites, and I've done that and more. Enjoy.

 

Okay... Now why don't you "READ" what you just posted... Seems like your website is a little confused... Did you read it? Seems everyone wants to "make up" their own definition! Now, how can that be, if evolution is a theory? How can people just "make crap up" and say - that's how it works?

Do you have your own definition also? This is what I asked.... Give me your explaination of how change in allele frequency equates to evolution...

I will be waiting patiently for your answer...

 

No, you're moving the goalposts. You asked for references precisely like the ones I just gave you. We're done.

Now I finally get to see what the 'ignore' button does.

 

It's quite simple without the use of a single term beyond basic communication.....
Up to 250 eggs were laid by each in a female population of 200..... Following still?
That is a potential of 50,000 offspring however the can be reduced to about 500 that actually reach sexual maturity, and that number dwindles as more never survive predatory threat in order to mate, and others are simply unsuccessful at mating.
Obviously it is the predatory threat that keeps these numbers in line.... The fact that such a quantity of eggs are laid is a testament to the success rate which is slim.... Side note, it becomes obvious that an allele variance of producing a larger amount of eggs saw greater continuance which promoted what that number would be as an environmental balance in response..... Beyond that, there is an environmental favor that influences the success rate of this salamander, it happened to be a poisonous salamander that resided along side of it..... If a predator mistook it for the poisonous one, well, guess what? It survived!
So, because of the great numbers of offspring relative to survival also known as it's propagation rate, it allowed for a rapid adaptation where random variances were selected (as in natural selection) because of even slight similarities in coloration to the poisonous salamander. It wasn't luck, and it definitely wasn't random in it's emergence as a characteristic!

 

I'm not one to indulge in conspiracy, but is ignorance and stupidity like this really possible?

I actually wonder if it is a Christian initiative to convolute at any cost, anything that might threaten creationism!

He can't really be this stupid, I refuse to accept it!

 

Again... which one from the website since there are so many and none say "Evolution is change of allele frequency"... then after you answer that - EXPLAIN your definition by telling us HOW change in allele frequency equates to evolution...

I will be patiently waiting...

GOOD GRAVY!!!!

THE SITE YOU JUST POSTED IS OFF THE CHAIN AND WILL BE ONE OF MY FAVORITES ON THIS PLANET AND THE NEXT!!!! I AM EXCITED TO START READING IT AGAIN!!! It is a unbiased look at "how" all this crap about and dealing with "evolution" came about!!! Why there is so many mixed theories, people getting crap wrong and so forth!!! ABSOLUTELY AMAZING SITE!!!!! And knowing that - and knowing that I am not for evolution spells DEEP KIMCHI FOR YOU AND THE FOLLOWERS...

You know you don't f@!$ed up right...?

laugh... he he heee....

You know you don't f@!$ed up right...?

 

It’s a whole group of things that keep an animal in check, not just predators… and why is evolution only involve animals with you when they are the smallest group, by far on this planet?

Now, to your post… Thank you for the lizard story, now please post using biology terms how does a salamandar change flippin colors and it not be random!!!!?!?!

I will give you an example since you just don’t seem to get it: There is a bird on the Galapagos Islands that has lost its wings. This happened due to the (biology term) that is now (biology term)… When we see this, we know that (biology term) occurs when (biology term) is (biology term)…

No more stories… I tried of reading your gibberish – seriously…

 

No, but I bet some of the people who follow this thread religiously think you are... Do you even know the definition of evolution?

 

AAAHHHHH!!!!! Don't read the site!!!! It's propaganda!!!!!

I take it all BACK!!! It seems that it's Darwinism... But, it does have some very good points if you can keep the "religous" part out of the way!! It has something I haven't seen since the "other" site I always post to people who I think already have knowledge within biology - Molwick... But, of course I'm not going to say since the Google Ninja's are about!!!

But, there are some "opinions" from the writer that do need to be discussed (if anyone understands them - Burz... Ak... looking in your direction...) that are quite interesting... I don't like how he stated that there are example of "whole groups" of species coming about, then never states where or how... But, regardless - a good read!!!

 

Getting kinda bored with this discussion... Uhhh....

Well, I will say this from the get go as this started - When dealing with DNA it is basically "impossible" for sequences to equate into anything "new". There has to been several experiments that deal with what we used to think of as "junk DNA". There was an "outstanding" poster by the name of kmisho that posted it. I aleady knew about it as I have posted on it before, but for him to be "honest" and post it and discuss it was fabulous!

Basically, we have all kinds of stuff inside up dealing with DNA. As I have stated so many times. We will never have wings if we do not already possess the DNA to have wings. What happens is, in biology we have discovered changing DNA is simply impossible (hence why I don't believe in evolution). If we could manipulate DNA we would have and given a pig wings so Hell would freeze over... DNA doesn't take kindly to change!! Thus, changing whole chromosomes is virtually impossible! But, if we have "junk DNA" that states we can change within our own parameters, well that is a different story! This gives rise to why certain species has been around since time has began, and some have evolved over the Earth's history. But, what that also says, is that whatever that has been here since the beginning - is still here today and NOTHING has evolved....

 

You never cease to amaze me with the bare ignorance you post; it's amazing how you can one up yourself and post something that is progressively more moronic than the next....... And there you have it folks, DBM is adapting to his environment of shared knowledge by evolving into an absolute imbecile in order to maintain the balance..... I think we actually have to kill him and eat him now!

 

May I recommend the "ignore" button? Worked like a charm for me. I don't even want to know how he turned himself inside out denying his most recent blunder.

 

To an idiot yes... I can see that... I couldn't imagine if I were to talk about noncoded DNA sequences to someone who is an idiot on the subject would just close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and sing a Britney Spears song...

An imbecile? Like these people you mean:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-junk-dna.htm

Junk DNA is DNA which does not appear to have any discernible function. However, the term “junk” is a bit misleading, as research on junk DNA has suggested that it may actually play an important role in the evolutionary history and lives of many organisms. Rather than junk, this DNA may in fact be stored for a critical reason, and researchers have started exploring junk DNA with the goal of learning more about it.

Some people refer to junk DNA as “noncoding DNA,” referencing the fact that it does not code proteins which express in the host organism's phenotype. Whatever you call it, the percentage of junk DNA in the genome is often quite high. In humans, for example, 95% of the genome is composed of noncoding DNA. Junk DNA appears to explain a large part of the differences in genome size between different organisms, as some plants and animals have a great deal of junk DNA, while others have less.

Or these people:

http://www.lcg.unam.mx/frontiers/files/frontiers/Bird et al.pdf

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Robison98.pdf (Harvard University)

Now, what were you suggesting about me being moronic? Yea - thought so... Your idiotic posts are being read! Your "taxonomy", "stressor", and "propagation" have all bee laughed at! Do you even "SEE" how many people read this? Look! It's been two years of me "embarrassing" posters like you! Do you even understand that? My whole "THING" is the following:

PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION HAVE NO CLUE WHAT EVOLUTION IS - SOMETIMES NOT EVEN THE DEFINITION. THEY FOLLOW EVOLUTION. THE BELIEVE IN THE UNKNOWN. THEY DO NOT KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT BIOLOGY, BUT THEY BELIEVE! THAT, IN ITSELF IS A "RELIGION"!!! THEY WILL ARGUE OVER IT LIKE A RELIGION! SAY THEIR FAITH BASED BELEIFS ARE REAL! THEY WILL PREACH FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOPS OF HOW PEOPLE NEED TO FOLLOW THEIR BELIEFS! JUST LIKE CHRISTIANS, BUT AT LEAST CHRISTIANS KNOW THEIR BIBLE, AS DARWINIST KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BIOLOGY!!!

This has been my motto since the beginning and look at you? What is the definition of evolution? Why did you use "taxomony", "stressor", and "propagation" when discussing evolution? Why are there no links of the gibberish you were saying? Since evolution falls under the broad roof of science, where is your evidence"?

You have nothing - and they laugh because you have just proven my point like so many others...

Thank you for playing!

 

PFFT!!!!

Readers… How many times have we seen this? We have been here for over two years, and now that this posters sees that they have came out all “bold” and “brash” showing his peacock feathers about the meaning of evolution is “change in allele frequency” and then question on his religion – hides… It’s science right? It’s biology right? You believe it – you studied it… now answer some questions on it! If you are going come out like “fishmatters” did with a (if I remember) five (5) paragraph post (http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/243130-evolution-joke-ix-11.html#post1061139698) saying “I’m driving them nuts” because they have an understanding of evolution! And say as follows:

Evolution, simply stated, is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's it. And anybody with a petri dish and a gene sequencer can observe it, and nowadays undergrads actually have access to equipment which even a decade ago was still thought to be 50 years out. You know that an allele is one of a larger number of forms of a gene, and while sometimes the different forms don't appear to have any effect generally they result in phenotypic variances like eye color, stature, and countless other factors that will be distributed among a population.

Then hide when questioned? Post up a link that says about 15 DIFFERENT definitions dealing with evolution and ask which one is the one he thinks evolution is – hide? I didn’t post that link – he/she did… and hides… It’s like the same posters with different names! Come out like a barking dog behind a gate then the Chihuahua shrivels up when the gate is opened.

OH – and just to let people know the part about the “allele is one of a larger number of forms of a gene” let me know this poster had no clue what they were talking about… I’ll explain below… Now, let us continue!

Again... which one from the website since there are so many and none say "Evolution is change of allele frequency"... then after you answer that - EXPLAIN your definition by telling us HOW change in allele frequency equates to evolution...

I will be patiently waiting...

About your initial post though…. Why did you state the following: You know that an allele is one of a larger number of forms of a gene, and while sometimes the different forms don't appear to have any effect generally they result in phenotypic variances like eye color, stature, and countless other factors that will be distributed among a population.
Especially that beginning part… that an “allele is one of a larger number of forms of a gene”? What does that mean? That an allele is “larger” than a gene?

I know… I know… I know… more questions that you can’t answer after your glorious entrance!! I mean, who wants to post and then made to be a fool? I know I wouldn’t, but I don’t post about crap I know nothing about either… After all this time of posting, the readers and myself have seen patterns of behavior to say the least. One is someone who comes in ranting and raving about their religion only to have it thrown in their face that they have no clue, and they hide or run like a scared bunny… others (like revol) try to call names… alls been seen before… The readers see…

Just proves my point over and over why this is in the Religious section as every person in the past 2-3 years (except two) have had no clue about their religion of Darwinism…

Thanks for playing!

 

Seems about right.

I have no idea where that prediction came from, but I truly don't care.

First off, I'm not sure where you got the idea that Berkeley is the leading school in the United States.Oh right, I know where you got the idea, from your own head. Secondly, the definition is literally right there.

"changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next"

Furthermore, Berkeley defines evolution AGAIN on another page:

"We've defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time. "

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_15

So... even your source says that is what evolution is.

Neither of those are random events. Do you know what the word random even means?

You know what the real fail is? Since when have you started calling yourself a biologist? You aren't a bloody biologist and you know that. What biology degree do you have and from what school?

How is this a fail if I am the one that said this first? I readily admitted that most processes of evolution are guided by some form of randomness. Can't tell if you're mentally handicapped or if you seriously can't read.

Let's see what Berkeley has to say about it, since you constantly rely on it as some omniscient being.

"At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

Your deity website has spoken.

 

No, I think you're the one confused here, buddy ol' pal. The only "controversy" surrounding the allele definition is that some people think it is too narrow. That's it. So even if people want to generalize the word more, it still means that the "narrow" definition of evolution is based on allele frequency. I mean for (*)(*)(*)(*)'s sake, apparently you didn't read the page because the author states that the changes in definition are superficial.

 

Then stop posting..

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings...-schools/top-science-schools/ecology-rankings

FAIL – three (3)… Keep them coming!! 

Descent with modification from a common ancestor… That is evolution – you are correct… gene frequency and allele frequency are TWO different things… I know you don’t know that, but they are… Car and Bicycles are different also! Did you know that Nike’s and Adidas are different? They are…

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_15

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Random and I told you that already… Gave you the school – links and all that…

That is a FAIL because you hijacked and repeated what I said, and made me right! I thank you, but the point was for you to come to the aid of your fellow “allele frequency over time” is evolution – NOT – genetic drift…

Let's see what Berkeley has to say about it, since you constantly rely on it as some omniscient being.

It sure has, and that is for the Creationist… I have, since I was not aware before, that “that” is a Creationist vs. Darwinist argument… But, I can understand those who are sheep and are Google Ninja’s… What I want to know is “how” is natural selection not random?

Per a biology definition “random” means without direction. How is natural selection “directed” in a certain direction by random events? The last person who discussed “natural selection” while you were gone being banned went to U of Berkeley and didn’t believe in Natural Selection AT ALL!!!

 

I know this… Thanks for pointing out the obvious… That wasn’t my concern with the poster… But, you can always find something to point out and then FAIL now can’t you…

That’s 4!!!

If you are going to hijack someone else’s post, I suggest you at least get the subject matter correct!!

Oh, I read it… I posted it propaganda also…

 

You will… You are a child with no self-control… You’ll get banned soon enough.

FAIL (5) told you they were leading and you tried to argue, just showed you – and you are still trying to argue! You have provided nothing to say any different, so that is FAIL five (5)

Two more and I bet I get them before the end of this post!!! Watch!!!

That didn’t take long… FAIL SIX (6) Genes are not interchangeable with Alleles… A gene is like saying there is a gene for hair (soft, dry, course etc) the allele, is a piece of that sequence that says the color of hair. Also, there are several distinct differences about pairs and whatever, but I doubt you’d understand…

But, regardless – you’re incorrect as usual… Even though you’ve been gone for six (6) months, you still are the Captain of FAIL still… Some things never change… Now let’s try to get up to seven within this post shall we?

I am a twit… against the rules… Like I said, “you’ll be banned soon…” and you will… But, until that time comes

WE HAVE JUST HIT SEVEN!!! I just explained to you the difference between the two is… genes are different than alleles… That is why I ask people to explain HOW ALLELES can create anything “more” that what allele’s presently are? Because everything that is evolution is “past” the allele stage in/of microbiology…

FAIL SEVEN How does feel Grasping to just continue to FAIL just like you did before you got banned?

Because that is the definition. I am not Grasping and make up my “own” terminology…

Umm – no… You hijacked a conversation and jumped in and agreed with the other poster… Please read the last post again… It does state that, and childish is acting like a child and personally attacking them…

Over the internet at that!!!

AH!!! CLASSIC GRASPING!!!! Sputtering and two personal attacks that are against the rules… Wow – I see how you have grown in these past six months… I can read and yes the site says that…. And? I stated my feeling about it. I saw it… I read it and commented on it… What is your difficulty with that?

 

If you read the hijacking it’s both… First the person I was posting to “that wasn’t you” stated something about allele’s… What was that posters definition, how was it related to theirs, why did he/she leave that link… something you can’t answer and when you just did – the post came of like, well of course, like you have no clue what you are talking about, because you didn’t! How could you?

Then there is the part dealing with common descent/ancestry… well, anyway, regardless you have no clue on this subject since you “can’t” answer for someone unless they told you which one of those examples is the one that they were referring to.

Next time try to go back and read the “whole” conversation instead of a single post and then posting something irrelevant to the conversation…

OH – and keep posting… We are making bets on how long until you get banned again!!

 

Yes, I'm the child, not the middle-aged man that continually uses the word FAIL instead of having a decent conversation with a person. I see no need to treat you in any other way if you continually act like this.

Berkeley has the leading graduate programs for evolutionary biology. That is remarkably different from saying "Berkeley is the leading school in the United States". Yeah, I know, it's hard to understand these difficult concepts.

Watch you repeatedly (*)(*)(*)(*) all over yourself and then declare yourself the winner of the debate? Sure, I've been watching you do that for awhile now.

http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-A/allele_frequency.html

"Often called gene frequency. A measure of how common an allele is in a population; the proportion of all alleles at one gene locus that are of one specific type in a population. "

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Gene_frequency.asp

"Algebraically, we can define p as the frequency of A and q as the frequency of a. p and q are always called 'gene' frequencies, but in a strict sense they are allele frequencies: they are the frequencies of the different alleles at one genetic locus. "

That's from the Mark Ridley's Evolution 3rd Edition, a widely used undergraduate textbook.

" --We speak of the gene frequency (or allele frequency) of a specific allele "

http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec3_05.html

"Gene frequency

Definition

noun, plural: gene frequencies

The proportion of gene to its allele in an interbreeding population.


Supplement

Synonym: allele frequency. "

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Gene_frequency

You act like we haven't had this same conversation before. The above links vary from an evolutionary textbook, a "leading" school in the United States, and the biology-online dictionary. Hmm, who do I believe, you or smart people... hmm.

Yep.

Why do you continually say this? I still don't care.

One...two...three...four...five...six...seven! Seven brain cells, AH AH AH!

I know, I admitted that, but in the context of "frequencies", they are interchangeable.

Mutations can create new alleles, that's basic biology.

FAIL SEVEN How does feel Grasping to just continue to FAIL just like you did before you got banned?[/quote]

I'm very confused about why you think I care, still. I don't.

Any child should be able to define random when asked without looking it up online, so I figured you may be able to do it.

That is not what you said, buddy.

"That is a FAIL because you hijacked and repeated what I said"

No, childish is creating multiple threads on a forum so you can act superior and talk to somebody, because obviously in your "biologist" position, you have no friends. Childish is repeatedly saying "FAIL" instead of just normally typing to a person. You deserve to be insulted.

If you can really read it, then why continually ask how natural selection is not random? Read the Berkeley website instead of wasting people's time.

 

I care nothing about what you guys were talking about. I care about you claiming that people are making up definitions when they're not, and I care about you chastising posters for not reading their links when you obviously haven't either.

Then there is the part dealing with common descent/ancestry… well, anyway, regardless you have no clue on this subject since you “can’t” answer for someone unless they told you which one of those examples is the one that they were referring to.

DBM, you and your hands aren't a "we".

 

FINALLY!!!! You can post something that doesn’t remind me of some brat kid with running down their nose trying to be the tough kid at the playground that everyone ignores…

No, since you jumped in on someone else’s conversation, and we see the definition there of “allele frequency”… How do you explain how often blonde hair in a population equates to common descent/ancestry? Example: In year 1 there were 50 people on the planet with blue eyes, in year 1000 there were 5,000, and now there are 5 million… We can sit and watch blue eyes from the beginning of when homosapien sapien first appeared, but what does that have to do with evolution?

Ummm…. INCORRECT. Mutations do not create “new” alleles… There will only be what we already see… there not be anyone born with purple eyes or green skin with blue hair… Sorry…

Correct… Maybe if you stopped and “thought” about things before you typed them and at least got SOMETHING right I wouldn’t do that. But, no… you try to be all “internet tough” and so… I put you in your place… because you have NEVER and I will repeat this – NEVER been right… ever!! And as you know, as I told and tell everyone, I do not start anything, when people act rude to me – I return the favor… and I do say, I have gotten quite good at it (thank to you!)…

Any child should be able to define random when asked without looking it up online, so I figured you may be able to do it.

And you will be banned… again…

Because it is… There is no way that selection isn’t random. Is disease random? yes… Is sexual selection random? Yes… What is it that you “think” is NOT random within an ecosystem…

And the whole “beetles changing colors” doesn’t happen…. No beetles have offspring of different colors… So, explain to us reading what “isn’t” random about natural selection and use “non-fairytale” examples…

 

I was having a decent conversation with that poster… well, until they posted a thread and didn’t even read it. I asked them to refer to their link, that they used as “evidence” and they refused to answer question on the link that they posted…

Question – didn’t you JUST do that? I have no problems with answering for the links I provide…

See how you post?

 

PRE – GRASPING (please readers understand if you haven’t read this poster before, been pages and no results dealing with the discussion, just a bunch of personal attacks and nothing to put forward – I apologize and will continue - and that was like 10 pages ago - I will try more diligently to stay on topic...)

continued… Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. This process is basically variations in life due to mutation that get filtered by independent ecosystems.

Each ecosystem has some if not all of the following processes of evolution: Genetic Drift and Selection. You can see that I didn’t put “Natural Selection”… Because, like the another person who has went to University of Berkeley stated they didn’t believe in Natural Selection, I see it a little different. Selection is more than just a bird picking out a certain color of beetle. Selection deals with much, much more. I don’t feel comfortable knowing that “sex” plays a huge part in life (animal life more than others) and suggesting it doesn't play a ridiculous part in selection and genetic drift - more than most understand. Does sex ensure that life will have the strongest, fastest, life that will better adapted than others? No… It’s completely random. In most cases the male overpowers the females and mate… Just because he is more powerful means nothing to the survival of that species of life. Do not be duped. Most sexual prowess has nothing to do with “survival” as how strong, or anything like that in the animal world… The best hunters are not the leaders of packs, the smartest one in the herd might be the one who gets to mate… It’s completely random… and that is selection. What is natural selection? Does it even really matter? Because after it’s all said and done, the male with the brightest spots gets the girl… Not the strongest, not the smartest, the slow retarded one with the bright colors…

A good way to look at how organisms work is looking at how colony life works…. A colony will separate and grow. An example that most do not like is (as in colony lifeform) are ants, but I use this as an example of selection. Do only the drones breed with the queen? The fastest? The ones who find food the most? The soldiers? Who? They mate with the first dude they see… as in most cases with most life on this planet… There is no natural selection as an animal "chooses" the smartest and fastest dude on the block to mate… or vice versa…. Nicest coat… best odor… and usually, first one of the opposite sex to come along (that’s about 90% of the time)… So how is “natural” selection “not” random when it is based on sexual selection which does not benefit the survival of species?

Some biologist don’t believe in Natural Selection at all… say it’s a made up term for the debate. Nothing in any ecosystem is predictable… and if you cannot predict who is going to mate and what traits will be passed then natural selection is random… it’s that simple….