Evolution- messy but fascinating

[LittleNipper]

Kosh-if I may ask, what do you practice?

What I practice is not relevant, what I do is mock the far left and their beliefs. You know like they do others?

But yes anyone can practice what they believe, it is up to them..

So is it your opinion that the belief of evolution is primarily the domain of the far?

No I am mocking the far left and the OP who started this thread.

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution

I know the far left drone troll was not serious in wanting to discuss this issue.

So they believe because they are told to believe and have shown they do not understand it or practice it.

I am a conservative, I also realize that anybody who denies that there is evidence of evolution is either a religious nut or a scientifically illiterate.

What type of evolution? There is no evidence that man was anything other than a human being. He might be taller today or fatter today or covered with comics; however, there is nothing to indicate that humans were once porpoise or that porpoise were once humans. Cats were bigger but were they ever like dogs? Were cattle ever anything but cattle? The only thing we can prove is that if some organisms are subjected to say a medication and some live, the ones that live will have offspring that are somewhat resistant to that medication, but they haven't changed into another form of organism. And the reality is that if bacteria is so resistant, what would enable it to become something else. Why not simply remain bacteria or say an amoeba.It has everything it needs and everything it could want. There is no way a desire to change into something else could cause something to change into something else --- even given a trillion years!

 

[Old Rocks]

Fellow, what the hell are you smoking? Whatever it is, give it up, it is simply too strong for your mind. Your logic in what you just posted is nonexistant.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of Life

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution- I wanted to share this article that I found fascinating as it explores some of the complicated science and messiness of what we now know about evolution- and how we got here.

In particular what I found fascinating was horizontal gene transfer- how genes can transfer between species

I think that we are slowly becoming the Simpson mentally. LOL or at lease in Calif

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OP's bullsh*t link to NYT and macroevolution.

Every word of which was accurate.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Kosh-if I may ask, what do you practice?

What I practice is not relevant, what I do is mock the far left and their beliefs. You know like they do others?

But yes anyone can practice what they believe, it is up to them..

So is it your opinion that the belief of evolution is primarily the domain of the far?

No I am mocking the far left and the OP who started this thread.

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution

I know the far left drone troll was not serious in wanting to discuss this issue.

So they believe because they are told to believe and have shown they do not understand it or practice it.

I am a conservative, I also realize that anybody who denies that there is evidence of evolution is either a religious nut or a scientifically illiterate.

What type of evolution? There is no evidence that man was anything other than a human being. He might be taller today or fatter today or covered with comics; however, there is nothing to indicate that humans were once porpoise or that porpoise were once humans. Cats were bigger but were they ever like dogs? Were cattle ever anything but cattle? The only thing we can prove is that if some organisms are subjected to say a medication and some live, the ones that live will have offspring that are somewhat resistant to that medication, but they haven't changed into another form of organism. And the reality is that if bacteria is so resistant, what would enable it to become something else. Why not simply remain bacteria or say an amoeba.It has everything it needs and everything it could want. There is no way a desire to change into something else could cause something to change into something else --- even given a trillion years!

Um..yea...so you should probably wade back into the shallow end now.

 

[Syriusly]

The Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of Life

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution- I wanted to share this article that I found fascinating as it explores some of the complicated science and messiness of what we now know about evolution- and how we got here.

In particular what I found fascinating was horizontal gene transfer- how genes can transfer between species

It's more circular reasoning science. HGT is being used to explain evolution. Evolution explains HGT.

The real science is there is currently no evidence that HGT can occur in the wild between multicellular organisms. These genes are doing what they're supposed to do in the single-cell organism.

You should actually read the article

Conjugation was known to be widespread and common among bacteria. H.G.T. by transformation and transduction could potentially occur among other creatures too, even eukaryotes — even animals and plants — though that prospect was far more uncertain and startling, into the 1990s and beyond. Then improved genome sequencing and closer scrutiny brought more surprises. A bacterium had sent bits of its DNA into the nuclear genomes of infected plants. How was that possible? A species of sea urchin seemed to have shared one of its genes with a very different species of sea urchin, from which its lineage diverged millions of years earlier. That was a stretch. Still another bacterium, the familiar E. coli, transferred DNA into brewer’s yeast, which is a fungus. Brewer’s yeast is microbial, a relatively simple little creature, but nonetheless eukaryotic. This mixing of fungal host and bacterial genes happened via a smooching process that looked much like bacterial transformation, the researchers reported, and “could be evolutionarily significant in promoting trans-kingdom genetic exchange.” Trans-kingdom is a long way for a gene to go.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly, you criticize me for using the Bible as hypothesis when you use the NYT. One of the most liberal-biased rags of our generation. Even Popular Science is better for science, but probably above your level ha ha.

Did I quote the New York Times on science? I didn't even realize I was doing so but I would have no problem quoting anything from the NYT's science section.

If you think that the New York Times is one of the most biased organizations of our generation then I think you are just showing what a partisan idiot you are. While I think the NYT is partisan- there are tons that are far worse- even more so- there are few- if any- newspapers in America- with a better journalistic reputation than the NYT.

The funny thing is that you didn't even attempt to read the article. But then again real science is hard.

But then again you believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark that floated above the Himilayas 6,000 years ago....so we have to understand your limitations.

Already you lost the argument using ad hominem attack in the OP and again in your reply. .

LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.

Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a good article on HGT leaving out the OP's bullsh*t link to NYT and macroevolution. Use some real science and you've got a decent argument.

Horizontal gene transfer | genetics

That is the Encyclopedia Britannica article- which is a very short, very succinct and hardly definitive exposition- but hey- at least you did quote something that is science.

In school we learned that if we did nothing more than quote the Encylcopedia Britannica we haven't done our research.

You slander the article in the O.P. simply because of your partisan prejudices against real media- but tellingly you don't even attempt to argue against the science in the article.

You want more articles on H.G.T.?

The truth is out there.

Remembering Carl Woese | Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology
Carl Woese's vision of cellular evolution and the domains of life
On the Evolution of Cells on JSTOR

 

[Syriusly]

OP's bullsh*t link to NYT and macroevolution.

Every word of which was accurate.

That is always so annoying for Creationists.

 

[Syriusly]

Kosh-if I may ask, what do you practice?

What I practice is not relevant, what I do is mock the far left and their beliefs. You know like they do others?

But yes anyone can practice what they believe, it is up to them..

So is it your opinion that the belief of evolution is primarily the domain of the far?

No I am mocking the far left and the OP who started this thread.

After reading thread after thread by Creationist quacks about Evolution

I know the far left drone troll was not serious in wanting to discuss this issue.

So they believe because they are told to believe and have shown they do not understand it or practice it.

I am a conservative, I also realize that anybody who denies that there is evidence of evolution is either a religious nut or a scientifically illiterate.

What type of evolution? There is no evidence that man was anything other than a human being. He might be taller today or fatter today or covered with comics; however, there is nothing to indicate that humans were once porpoise or that porpoise were once humans. Cats were bigger but were they ever like dogs? Were cattle ever anything but cattle? The only thing we can prove is that if some organisms are subjected to say a medication and some live, the ones that live will have offspring that are somewhat resistant to that medication, but they haven't changed into another form of organism. And the reality is that if bacteria is so resistant, what would enable it to become something else. Why not simply remain bacteria or say an amoeba.It has everything it needs and everything it could want. There is no way a desire to change into something else could cause something to change into something else --- even given a trillion years!

I think Buck nailed it- in Nipper's case its a twofer.

 

[james bond]

Syriusly, you criticize me for using the Bible as hypothesis when you use the NYT. One of the most liberal-biased rags of our generation. Even Popular Science is better for science, but probably above your level ha ha.

Did I quote the New York Times on science? I didn't even realize I was doing so but I would have no problem quoting anything from the NYT's science section.

If you think that the New York Times is one of the most biased organizations of our generation then I think you are just showing what a partisan idiot you are. While I think the NYT is partisan- there are tons that are far worse- even more so- there are few- if any- newspapers in America- with a better journalistic reputation than the NYT.

The funny thing is that you didn't even attempt to read the article. But then again real science is hard.

But then again you believe there were dinosaurs on the Ark that floated above the Himilayas 6,000 years ago....so we have to understand your limitations.

Already you lost the argument using ad hominem attack in the OP and again in your reply. .

LOL- I cited an actual article on science- rather than another argument where you pretend your fairy tales are science.

Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit.

>>Look- if you want to discuss science- this is the thread for it. If you just want to get pissy because it is science not 'begats' from your big book of fairy tales- this is the wrong thread forit<<

What's to discuss? HGT's been around for a while. What did you find fascinating? It does destroy Darwin doesn't it? Another nail in the coffin for tree of life? We can discuss that. I find that fascinating.

 

[Yarddog]

but never practice it

Is there anyone here who can explain what the hell this means?

I believe hes saying the belief in evolution is being a religion itself. Though I dont know why religious people feel evolution is a threat to the existence of god. I for one don't feel that it is.

 

[LittleNipper]

but never practice it

Is there anyone here who can explain what the hell this means?

I believe hes saying the belief in evolution is being a religion itself. Though I dont know why religious people feel evolution is a threat to the existence of god. I for one don't feel that it is.

Evolution is ultimately being used as a proof that GOD is unnecessary and replaces GOD in the field of public education.

 

[Old Rocks]

Only to the simple minded that take that myths in the Bible literally.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Though I dont know why religious people feel evolution is a threat to the existence of god. I for one don't feel that it is.

Agreed 100%. That's one of the luxuries of believing in magical gods....you can point at ANYTHING and say, "the gods did that!".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is ultimately being used as a proof that GOD is unnecessary and replaces GOD in the field of public education.

Too bad, cry us a river. The teaching that pathogens cause disease also upended the idea that diseases are caused by demons. But I don't see you complaining about that.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is ultimately being used as a proof that GOD is unnecessary and replaces GOD in the field of public education.

Too bad, cry us a river. The teaching that pathogens cause disease also upended the idea that diseases are caused by demons. But I don't see you complaining about that.

Ha ha. Pathogens causes disease is in the Bible. As I said, science backs up the Bible.

 

[Yarddog]

Though I dont know why religious people feel evolution is a threat to the existence of god. I for one don't feel that it is.

Agreed 100%. That's one of the luxuries of believing in magical gods....you can point at ANYTHING and say, "the gods did that!".

Well you know, I find it amazing that life forms, cells, simple organisms etc have the inherent knowledge/ will for survival to evolve. One could easily say it was the hand of god that gives this life force to living things.
I have always thought that it wasn't necessary for scientific information on creation to be available to men living 6,000 years ago or even 200 years ago so why would it have been necessary to be written in the bible? It wouldn't have been relevant to anyone living back then. The term "DAY" as pertaining to creation in Genesis I think is pretty loose. I believe it refers more to an era of time. 'And God created the universe in 6 days' was just fine until NOW when people have more information at their finger tips.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Pathogens causes disease is in the Bible. A

Shameless.lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I find it amazing that life forms, cells, simple organisms etc have the inherent knowledge/ will for survival to evolve

Why? The ones that don't adapt die out. So, naturally, only those that do survive for us to observe.

Of course dna is stable and persistent...the unstable meolecules that did not persist would not be in abundance for us to obsevre.

This is the work of SELECTION, not magic.