Evolution is a Joke PT VII (back by popular demand)

Department of Interior in the Division of Resourse Protection... I work next to Geologist (and Archeologist [sp?]) Dirt Diggers - dealing with the environment issues on Gov't land...

You?

Yes I have… I will say this again… ToE has not passed the scientific method. There is no evidence of common descent with modification on this planet that can be put forth as evidence for the hypothesis. For evolution to become a theory there needs to be a basis, or shall we say – foundation of at least “something” that can be reviewed of how common descent has occurred through experimentation and/or math.

Neither has been done…

Therefore, it is nothing more than saying Aliens stick their pubic hairs in our leftovers while we sleep…

I don’t know… Is there any way for life to exist OUTSIDE of DNA, RNA and amino acids? So, if this is the only way for life to exist (since we haven’t found life outside of this realm) if we find life on Seti Alpha Six – did they ALSO share a common ancestor with us and all the life on this planet, but they built a Stargate and zapped them across the Universe?

 

Don't you understand that when you make the ridiculous statements about trees and fur, you clearly announce yourself as completely ignorant of the evolutionary theories supported by evidence and the vast majority of specialists in the field?

 

Didn't ignore it... you have been wrong repeatedly...

I know what meiosis is.... It wasn't a mutation, and there is no evidence of that - it is a "guess at most with flavobacteria... de novo was an inactive sequence that became active (they say from an ancestor of ours)...

And all of this goes back to my point of we are NOT going to "evolve" into anything that isn't already within our genome.

Do you know why I say that? Because that is all that we have evidence of... I don't believe in fairytales like others. Just because Johnny says it happened without showing me where the dead body is, doesn't mean a gorilla broke into my house and killed my roommate just to drink my last beer!

You believe in Fairytales...

 

That's funny because there isn't ANY evidence for evolution... NONE!!!

Where?

 

All theories are theories through the scientific method. Thus, before you can claim this to be a theory - you must pass the scientific method.

How do you present the experiment/math that would conclude that we all came from a single *universal ancestor...?

*Universal is nice, this suggests that in all the universe all things will be related...



Even on Seti Alpha Six!

 

Do you know when you post ignorant post like this you show you have NO IDEA what you are talking about?!?!

Let me educate you a little so you won't post such idiotic posts in this thread again.

What is the "evolutionary" difference betwene bark and fur? There isn't one! Do you understand that? Trees could have skin, we could have bark, insects could have gills, plants could have exoskeletons...

They are fixed "now", but, per evolution, there is no reason for this to change within life over generations since it is only a DNA sequence change that seperates them... and that is what evolution is based on student...

Now you are educated... Please refrain from posting nonsense again...

Good day!

 

I rest my case. You are your own best evidence against you.

 

You didn't address it at all. You just made a completely new post. Also, despite repeated requests, you have yet to actually quote anything I've said that was wrong. Every time you've tried, I've linked a source (sometimes including your own) that coincided with what I said.

You said it was something that occurred during fertilization, which it most certianly isn't.

Your own source said it was the result of a substitution, which is a mutation.

The article I posted that discussed de novo genes was specifically about new sequences that weren't present in ancestors.

If you really understood mutations (which we've firmly established you don't), you'd understand how new DNA sequences and genes arise. Then you would understand that these aren't fairytales.

 

Nice try Rosco... You are out of your league and know it… Question then…

What is the DNA difference between
Hair (ours)
Bear hair
Exoskeletons
Fish Scales
Lizard skin
Bark
Plant skin (epidermis)

Go right ahead there Biology man/woman!

And I will clarify to those reading also, if a tree can have bark – it can have bear fur, or lizard skin… or even eyeballs for Pete’s sake! If someone says that this is ridiculous (like I am) then I think they are sane. If someone says that this can and has happened – well… That’s just evolution!!!

Because at one time life didn’t have those things… and what life did is reach in a hat and grabbed what it wanted, like a Secret Santa! Then PRESTO CHANGO – trees had bark, plants had skin, fish had scales, insects had exoskeletons, bears had fur, we have hair.

And NOWHERE in the history of the planet has this deviated with life… It just HAPPENED!!! Anyone want to roll through the evolution of the tree? How it got bark to begin with?

 

What you aren't dealing with is the process of evolution selects for traits that are advantageous to the mutation, helping it to survive better versus its predecessors. No Secret Santa. A process that allows for naturally occuring accidents to selectively survive, because they benefit the host. No PRESTO CHANGO. No sudden reinvention of a species. Millions and Millions of years of beneficial accidents.
What you suggest is ridiculous, because it is a fundamental ignorance of how the process is theorized to occur.
And I'm glad you agree.

 

Burzmali

http://www.politicalforum.com/4774342-post318.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4774342-post318.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4777771-post324.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4778071-post326.html

Of course then we go into the whole how dormant mutations lay in wait for their ecosystems to change and PRESTO CHANGO trees have fur…

So, I’ll skip all that until we get to….but I will say this – I won’t skip the end of this and let you know that I have been right this whole time and you have provided NOTHING other than your own opinion (that I have proven wrong repeatedly) without links to support your argument.

And that is where we are now… But, the whole “stacking of mutations” – I have NO CLUE where you got that…

NONE!!!!

 

And you can't even spell resources correctly???

At least I have an excuse for making such typo since english isn't my main language. Beside trying to pass yourself for something you ain't, was is your excuse?

 

I believe you when you say you have no idea.
You don't.

 

Natural selection… of course… Yes… Do you know about the discussion of Natural Selection?

I can recap or you can go back and read at about page 10 or so….

It does NOT take millions and millions of years for beneficial accidents to occur. There is no evidence of this and you are assuming it does. Also, to suggest that ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET all falls under one classification of the time, trends and initiators for evolution to create complexity is ridiculous… You know that… I know that… Please do not suggest that!

 

BTW... Where is that department...

Here are the list of the Department of interior bureau and division from their own website http://www.doi.gov/bureaus/index.cfm:

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
National Park Service
Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey

So are you fabulating again DBM. Once you were a mathematician, now your a biologist from a department that doesn't really exist...

 

No... That would be you because I already know that the time it took you to post your response you did not even open ONE of the links above.

Sorry... Just sayin'...

If you want for me to take you serious - you are going to have to be serious. I have had several GREAT discussions with people on evolution - either you can be like the Peanut Gallery or like others who are older than the age of 12...

Your choice...

 

Peanut Gallery members are back on ignore...

 

I actually did read them.
They all share the mistaken idea that mutations are purposeful, that the goal is predetermined before the mutation. Mutation is an accident, a mistake. Most are unnoticed, some hurtful (cancer, e.g.) and others provide a benefit to the host. The changes can be minute, but over billions of years, great changes occur.
Trees don't get together and collectively decide they will trade bark for fur. They have very limited organizational capability.
Sure, I'd like to be taken "serious" (sic).
But it would be more satisfying coming from serious people.

Your use of ignore is the last bastion of people who are incapable of argument.

 

Yay!.. And yet you failed again and have once more been exposed as someone trying to pass himself as something he ain't.

You're no biologist, that's for sure.

 

That is the hypothesis, but I was wondering about Natural Selection since that was the topic… Did you read about Natural Selection – goes back to Goldwater and I having a discussion with, I believe Ahklut…

Agreed – we can be serious if you want…. I can do that…

What do you mean when you say trees have “limited organizational capability”?

This is the 7th version of “Evolution is a Joke” and there are a group who just post nonsense (whom I have deemed the Peanut Gallery) that try to disrupt discussions and debates. The leader, Grasping for Peace has been banned, but his minions are still about… putting them on ignore (since some are immune to the site rules and can call other posters idiots and retards) is the only way to stop the childish banter…

A question outside of this discussion… what’s flamebait?

 

Flamebait is posting simply to start a fight. It is attempting to get a rise out of your adversaries intentionally.
It can be in the eye of the beholder.

The concept of natural selection is simply that if a mutation has a positive effect on the host, it will be a benefit to the host's survival and will thus be naturally selected to be reproduced again. Nothing selects it. It simply happens naturally. Trees don't organize to choose fur, for example.

 

Where is your counter example?

BTW if you found one you would be the first so you should pass it along to some evolutionary biologists (you know, the ones who won't find it on here because they don't waste their time debating the topic on forums with ignorant fools) for a peer review. You'd want it to be soundly scientific wouldn't you?

 

So I asked for examples where I was wrong about something, and you link to your own posts? That is truly strange.

Why do you keep bringing up this ridiculous bark to fur thing? I never said it. You are the only person who has ever talked about bark to fur.

I've provided links every time you've asked for them. You simply refuse to look at them, or you don't understand them. I've even included links about duplication-divergence (which you are calling "stacking of mutations" for some reason).

 

Thank you... Been posting here for a while and have no clue... I'm new at this. I've only posted before in Sports Forums and since everyone is "like" minded - you don't get all that "troll" - "flamebait" garbage...

See... here is the problem... some things can have horrible mutations and survive to breed or replicate and those bad genes get passed on. Then when something bad happens within their ecosystem there should be a variety of niches within a species. Let's say rats under NY City.

Out of all these mutations all lose hair, other turn albino (white skin), some gain flippers, others gain antennea... Next ice age happens and then only the ones that maintained the original "rat" survives.

See, why isn't there niches of different "types" of species, but only one...? If natural selection is going to select someone - as it stands right now either it's all or nothing dealing with traits since all species are EXACTLY the same.

Only a chance of randomness - as we know today - would let a species survive. As if the ones with flippers ended up being next to a underground lava deposit that kept the temperatures mild... It's not because they were selected, just chance they were at the right place at the right time...

Or other, with antennea were in a nuclear plant and the radioactivity didn't freeze and they survived... by chance... Not because they are better than the ones with fur, just that they were in the right place, because basically - all the rats without fur should die off...

Just like if there is another ice age - the monkeys in the heated pools in japan would be the only ones surviving... not by being selected, but by random location... Or ALL monkey would survive. There is "no DNA sequence" that produced their survival... and this also goes with the rat scenario...

I don't think trees organize to do anything actually... Well, I am not understanding that really... can you explain the "organize to choose" part...

 

What are you talking about... if you are suggesting I need to "replace" evolution with something different you are incorrect.

If evolution is not a theory - then it isn't a theory... Period. In the scientific method there is no where that one must "REPLACE" they hypothesis in question.

Why would you say that... Can you explain?

The people who I have posted with that are not within the Peanut Gallery I WOULD NEVER CONSIDER FOOLS!!!

This debate has been going for about three years and there has been several great discussions!!! To call them fools - to express their opinions about evolution is what this forum is for....

If you don't like it - you can always turn the channel...

Good Day sir and/or ma'am