How To Define "Evolution"?

[PoliticalChic]

1. Many who are not fully cognizant of the subject mistake the term 'evolution' for anything from anything from the cyclical change within a gene pool, i.e., the moth population in England darkened, and then lightened due to pollution of the Industrial Revolution,...
... to the creation of entirely new genetic information, and structure, due to natural selection influencing random mutations.


a. "Natural selection influencing random mutations" sure sounds like what you learned in high school.....but, it is a compete misunderstanding of the concept....if one tries to call, say, the sudden growth of an eye where there was none before, "evolution."

Yup....just the way many use the term 'evolution'... wrong.

The point is, small-scale, or "micro-evolutionary" change, cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale, or "maco-revolutionary" innovation.
So, changes in color or shape, simply use or express existing genetic information.
That would be Darwinian evolution.
Or the shape of a beak in Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches).


b. Macro, e.g., new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information.







2. Yet the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.






3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.



5. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
A small change....lots of organisms incorporating the change...which, if adaptive,....is passed on to progeny.
If the change is not adaptive, increasing viability, well...guess what: the changed organisms die out.




6. Now, before you come to conclude that the above idea by Darwin was sheer genius.....be aware of the fact that he was inspired by what farmers and breeders had done for time immemorial, known as 'artificial selection,' or 'selective breeding,' in which breeders would alter the features of domestic animals by only allowing animals with certain traits to breed.



So...Darwin was basing his theory on the intelligent selection by human breeders.

Darwin's theory imbued nature with a mechanism that involved intelligence....but he, and his acolytes, simply denied that there was any intelligence behind what nature did.

If Darwin had concluded, as was by scientists before him, that nature had relied on some source of intelligence to perform 'evoluiton,' it would be called.....

....wait for it....





....Intelligent Design.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, none of that is correct. Who taught you how to write, by the way? I only ask because, damn!

First of all, you don't get to re-define terms. Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution. And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous). Moreover, Stephen Meyer? Really? O-M-G. EPIC FAIL.

Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits. In the first case, man is the agent producing change. In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change. A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection. In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion. But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result. But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent. How weird is that!

 

[orogenicman]

I almost forgot this one:

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a review published by The Skeptics Society titled Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies,[40] paleontologist Donald Prothero points out the number of errors, cherry-picking, misinterpretation and misinformation in Meyer's book. The center of Meyer's argument for intelligent design, Cambrian Explosion, has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery. 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million year time frame where the fossil record show the gradual and stepwise emergence of more and more complicated animal life, just as predicted in Darwin's evolution. Prothero explains that the early Cambrian period is divided into three stages: Nemakit-Daldynian, Tommotian and Atdabanian. Meyer ignores the first two stages and the fossil discoveries from these two periods, instead he focuses on the later Atbadbanian stage to present the impression that all Cambrian live forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. To further counter Meyer's argument that the Atdabanian period is too short for evolution process to take place, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' are typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.

In his article Doubting "Darwin's Doubt" published in The New Yorker,[41] Gareth Cook discusses that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement, another go-around in masquerading religious belief as science. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his 'doubt' in Meyer's words). The contemporary scientific consensus is that there is no 'explosion'. Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[42] Cook references scientific literature [43] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'. Like Prothero, Cook also points out the absurdity of Meyer's stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.

 

[orogenicman]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:

The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly) together otherwise the cell dies.

If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.

Explain please.

 

[orogenicman]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:

The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly) together otherwise the cell dies.

If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.

Explain please.

This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity. The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

Here is your answer.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

 

[Mad Scientist]

While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand, HOW a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.

Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" (22 pages worth) isn't gonna' work.

Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.

Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?


The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.



a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



b. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.


c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing."
David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another."
Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.



Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.

Go in peace, brother.

 

[orogenicman]

While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand, HOW a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.

Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" isn't gonna' work.

Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

 

[orogenicman]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.

Typical creationist obfuscation. Congratulations.

Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?

I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.

The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.

When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know. As that WOULD refute evolution. Good luck with that. Darwin lived 150 years ago. We've got more and better fossils today.

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

b. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.


c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing."
David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another."
Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.

Go in peace, brother.

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:

The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly) together otherwise the cell dies.

If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.

Explain please.

This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity. The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

Here is your answer.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Of course, that explanation is nonsense.


"If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts."
From your link, brother.



1. A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.
The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).
Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech


2. Richard Dawkins admits: ‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986


3. Darwin: small changes, passed on via reproduction, to progeny.
But reproduction requires DNA to make identical copies....
Based on the enormous size of the molecule such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all. . This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

But, of course, a religious fanatic such as yourself requires neither proof nor logic.



If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....

Can I get an 'amen'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand, HOW a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.

Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" isn't gonna' work.

Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Please don't apologize for being less than average.

The board accepts all levels of posters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.

This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.

Typical creationist obfuscation. Congratulations.



I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.

The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.

When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know. As that WOULD refute evolution. Good luck with that. Darwin lived 150 years ago. We've got more and better fossils today.

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

b. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.


c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing."
David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another."
Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.

Go in peace, brother.

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?


Well...OK...

Here is your tutorial:
pla·gia·rize
/ˈplājəˌrīz/
Verb
Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own


So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'


More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.


You're welcome.

 

[orogenicman]

I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:

The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly) together otherwise the cell dies.

If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.

Explain please.

This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity. The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

Here is your answer.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Of course, that explanation is nonsense.

This is your "educated" response? Hmm. Not so educated, from the looks of it.

"If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts."

So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff. I agree.

From your link, brother.

Erm, I'm not your brother. None of my brothers are creationists.

1. A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.
The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).
Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech


2. Richard Dawkins admits: ‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986


3. Darwin: small changes, passed on via reproduction, to progeny.
But reproduction requires DNA to make identical copies....
Based on the enormous size of the molecule such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all. . This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong). Not all DNA is alike. Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA. And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.

But, of course, a religious fanatic such as yourself requires neither proof nor logic.

Gee, more obfuscation. How typical.

If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....

Can I get an 'amen'?

So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll. Nothing better to do?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an “Above Average” person such as yourself?:
In response to PoliticalChic:

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Jeez, I even asked politely which is a rarity for me.

Perhaps from now on when answering a question I should just give a link to the online Encyclopedia Britannica eh? "The answer is in there, it's not my fault you are intellectually lazy".

Translation: "I can't really explain it myself either".

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity. The argument from IC to ID is simply:

1. IC things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

Here is your answer.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Of course, that explanation is nonsense.

This is your "educated" response? Hmm. Not so educated, from the looks of it.




So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff. I agree.



Erm, I'm not your brother. None of my brothers are creationists.



This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong). Not all DNA is alike. Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA. And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.

But, of course, a religious fanatic such as yourself requires neither proof nor logic.

Gee, more obfuscation. How typical.

If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....

Can I get an 'amen'?

So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll. Nothing better to do?

1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.


2. I hate to embarrass you (just kiddin'...I love it) but why are you running away from the problem of the missing pre-Cambrian fossils?

Isn't proof a regularly anticipated aspect of science?

Oh....wait.....the theory isn't science.


3. And, actually, my view is that the theory of evolution is far more politics than science.
That's why you guys get as incensed when your religion...er, theory is disputed as Stalin did when Trotsky didn't agree.


So sorry, brother....I'm just not the totalitarian you are.


And, as you have no proof of the theory, I can save you a great deal of time in your posts….whatever anyone posts, just type “Oh, yeah…That’s what you think!”



4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an “Above Average” person such as yourself?:
In response to PoliticalChic:

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an “Above Average” person such as yourself?:
In response to PoliticalChic:

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

Where are the the Logical Fallacies and Plagiarisms of which you speak?

Point them out one at a time. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies and/or Plagiarism.

 

[orogenicman]

Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an “Above Average” person such as yourself?:
In response to PoliticalChic:

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

Where is the Logical Fallacy of which you speak?

Point them out one at a time. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies.

She was quote mining - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades. It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make. It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least. Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything. It only makes the user appear desperate.