CDZ Biology Deniers

[boedicca]

What can be done? Get the Federal and state governments out of local schools. Return funding and control to parents. School boards should be accountable to the families they serve, not to faceless, souless Prog Bureaucrats who loathe humanity in DC.

 

[Chuz Life]

When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.

No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.p

So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?

Well logic would dictate that if a doctor declares death when a heart stops beating, then life should be declared when a heart starts beating (and the begins very early on in the womb).

With all due respect, that is not a very scientifically sound approach at all.

You (figuratively you) should study the life cycles of more than one species of animals sometime. Including humans.

None of them indicate the origin of any species as beginning at any point other than conception, fertilization or something of that nature.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[flacaltenn]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is the mathematical probabilities against claiming evolution being 'fact' are so massive it is indeed just more magical thinking to claim it's 'science', and even Dawkins ended up admitting that it became 'intelligent design' at some point in the process, but somehow originated in chaos and random selection, which is of course absurd and contradictory as logic. And besides, the 'evolution' guess is itself merely a rip off of Judeo-Christian theology as an analogy, dependent on some 'warm pond' speculation as a 'garden of Eden' and the currently faddish 'Big Bang' theory just another analogy for a primary Force, as Thomas Aquinas defines 'God', so the evolution cultists are out of luck all around as claiming to be 'rationalists'. Some of the 'Intelligent Design' arguments are just as valid as those the evolutionist cultists are making. If one is going to ban one, then ban both from being peddling to kids; they don't need to be concerned about any of that anyway until later on anyway. As for myself and most sane people we sleep just fine not knowing which is true, none of it is can be repeated experimentally anyway, so it's a moot issue.

If we're gonna include that topic here. It ain't all that mystical why Darwinian evolution NEEDS to be augmented with the 200 years of scientific investigation since the guy's work. What we know that Darwin didn't is massive. And the knowledge of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution go far beyond "survival of the fittest".

NOW we understand that "evolution" doesn't have to be a slow plodding process. In fact, the reasons that "missing links" may be missing might be more of quick evolutionary excursions than previously imagined. Jumps that can be affected by ACTIVATING DNA functions that were already there. And could be triggered by cosmic ray storms, environmental stress or chemical activators. SOME OF THESE causes COULD be considered "acts of God". Which is an interesting way of getting both sides to ponder more and fight less.

 

[Picaro]

What can be done? Get the Federal and state governments out of local schools. Return funding and control to parents. School boards should be accountable to the families they serve, not to faceless, souless Prog Bureaucrats who loathe humanity in DC.

True. Nobody has to take Federal money for their school districts and fall under the strings attached to it. And for that matter there are many home school programs out there providing entire coursework materials for just a few hundred bucks a year per student that could easily be used in public school classrooms, considerably cheaper than what these schools are paying for crappy grossly over-priced textbooks alone.

 

[Picaro]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is the mathematical probabilities against claiming evolution being 'fact' are so massive it is indeed just more magical thinking to claim it's 'science', and even Dawkins ended up admitting that it became 'intelligent design' at some point in the process, but somehow originated in chaos and random selection, which is of course absurd and contradictory as logic. And besides, the 'evolution' guess is itself merely a rip off of Judeo-Christian theology as an analogy, dependent on some 'warm pond' speculation as a 'garden of Eden' and the currently faddish 'Big Bang' theory just another analogy for a primary Force, as Thomas Aquinas defines 'God', so the evolution cultists are out of luck all around as claiming to be 'rationalists'. Some of the 'Intelligent Design' arguments are just as valid as those the evolutionist cultists are making. If one is going to ban one, then ban both from being peddling to kids; they don't need to be concerned about any of that anyway until later on anyway. As for myself and most sane people we sleep just fine not knowing which is true, none of it is can be repeated experimentally anyway, so it's a moot issue.

If we're gonna include that topic here. It ain't all that mystical why Darwinian evolution NEEDS to be augmented with the 200 years of scientific investigation since the guy's work. What we know that Darwin didn't is massive. And the knowledge of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution go far beyond "survival of the fittest".

NOW we understand that "evolution" doesn't have to be a slow plodding process. In fact, the reasons that "missing links" may be missing might be more of quick evolutionary excursions than previously imagined. Jumps that can be affected by ACTIVATING DNA functions that were already there. And could be triggered by cosmic ray storms, environmental stress or chemical activators. SOME OF THESE causes COULD be considered "acts of God". Which is an interesting way of getting both sides to ponder more and fight less.

Yes, I'm aware of all the fudging the Darwinists and evolutionists have had to do over the last 150 years. The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' handwave is a particularly hilarious one; somebody called it 'evolution by Jerks', I forget who at the moment.

 

[flacaltenn]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is the mathematical probabilities against claiming evolution being 'fact' are so massive it is indeed just more magical thinking to claim it's 'science', and even Dawkins ended up admitting that it became 'intelligent design' at some point in the process, but somehow originated in chaos and random selection, which is of course absurd and contradictory as logic. And besides, the 'evolution' guess is itself merely a rip off of Judeo-Christian theology as an analogy, dependent on some 'warm pond' speculation as a 'garden of Eden' and the currently faddish 'Big Bang' theory just another analogy for a primary Force, as Thomas Aquinas defines 'God', so the evolution cultists are out of luck all around as claiming to be 'rationalists'. Some of the 'Intelligent Design' arguments are just as valid as those the evolutionist cultists are making. If one is going to ban one, then ban both from being peddling to kids; they don't need to be concerned about any of that anyway until later on anyway. As for myself and most sane people we sleep just fine not knowing which is true, none of it is can be repeated experimentally anyway, so it's a moot issue.

If we're gonna include that topic here. It ain't all that mystical why Darwinian evolution NEEDS to be augmented with the 200 years of scientific investigation since the guy's work. What we know that Darwin didn't is massive. And the knowledge of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution go far beyond "survival of the fittest".

NOW we understand that "evolution" doesn't have to be a slow plodding process. In fact, the reasons that "missing links" may be missing might be more of quick evolutionary excursions than previously imagined. Jumps that can be affected by ACTIVATING DNA functions that were already there. And could be triggered by cosmic ray storms, environmental stress or chemical activators. SOME OF THESE causes COULD be considered "acts of God". Which is an interesting way of getting both sides to ponder more and fight less.

Yes, I'm aware of all the fudging the Darwinists and evolutionists have had to do over the last 150 years. The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' handwave is a particularly hilarious one; somebody called it 'evolution by Jerks', I forget who at the moment.

Except this isn't "fudging by Evolutionists".. It's a result of studying the latent inactive DNA codes that can be quickly brought to life by "leaping" mutations. You have a tail gene. Don't NEED to build a new one. You just need the activation to occur.

So it's entirely possible that we've been expecting TOO MANY missing links.. And/or the process of evolution SPED UP immensely in certain periods and left a scant record of fossils and evidence. ALL stuff that Darwin had no clue about.

 

[Picaro]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is the mathematical probabilities against claiming evolution being 'fact' are so massive it is indeed just more magical thinking to claim it's 'science', and even Dawkins ended up admitting that it became 'intelligent design' at some point in the process, but somehow originated in chaos and random selection, which is of course absurd and contradictory as logic. And besides, the 'evolution' guess is itself merely a rip off of Judeo-Christian theology as an analogy, dependent on some 'warm pond' speculation as a 'garden of Eden' and the currently faddish 'Big Bang' theory just another analogy for a primary Force, as Thomas Aquinas defines 'God', so the evolution cultists are out of luck all around as claiming to be 'rationalists'. Some of the 'Intelligent Design' arguments are just as valid as those the evolutionist cultists are making. If one is going to ban one, then ban both from being peddling to kids; they don't need to be concerned about any of that anyway until later on anyway. As for myself and most sane people we sleep just fine not knowing which is true, none of it is can be repeated experimentally anyway, so it's a moot issue.

If we're gonna include that topic here. It ain't all that mystical why Darwinian evolution NEEDS to be augmented with the 200 years of scientific investigation since the guy's work. What we know that Darwin didn't is massive. And the knowledge of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution go far beyond "survival of the fittest".

NOW we understand that "evolution" doesn't have to be a slow plodding process. In fact, the reasons that "missing links" may be missing might be more of quick evolutionary excursions than previously imagined. Jumps that can be affected by ACTIVATING DNA functions that were already there. And could be triggered by cosmic ray storms, environmental stress or chemical activators. SOME OF THESE causes COULD be considered "acts of God". Which is an interesting way of getting both sides to ponder more and fight less.

Yes, I'm aware of all the fudging the Darwinists and evolutionists have had to do over the last 150 years. The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' handwave is a particularly hilarious one; somebody called it 'evolution by Jerks', I forget who at the moment.

Except this isn't "fudging by Evolutionists".. It's a result of studying the latent inactive DNA codes that can be quickly brought to life by "leaping" mutations. You have a tail gene. Don't NEED to build a new one. You just need the activation to occur.

So it's entirely possible that we've been expecting TOO MANY missing links.. And/or the process of evolution SPED UP immensely in certain periods and left a scant record of fossils and evidence. ALL stuff that Darwin had no clue about.

Except that it is indeed fudging, and fabrication to boot. The DNA codes you cite came way later, as did 'tail genes' and the like, whatever that means, and it's even more mathematically improbable by many exponents. Random mutations are almost invariably harmful, not 'good', for one, and DNA itself is going to have a few similarities across species just from the environment it operates in and not necessarily because it all came from the same origin for another. This applies even over hundreds of millions of years. I'm aware of the 'Punctuated Equilibrium' hand wave, as I said earlier. It's mostly sophistry.

There are many other flaws with it as well, but it's clear already that it isn't a 'scientific fact', just a supposition, and no more 'rational' than intelligent design. Darwin had his own doubts about what some were attributing his theory. Some of it's major fans in the 19th century were also peddling the myth that Jews and Christians believed in the 'Flat Earth' myth, so we know they had political agendas as well that they wanted to peddle and use Darwin's theory for a smokescreen for, too, and we know they were either ignorant or deliberately lying, so their cred isn't that high re 'science' and 'rationalism'; mostly they engaged in 'rationalizations', as they do now, and that isn't 'science' nor 'rationalism', it's pseudo-intellectual fashion and vanity.

 

[Coyote]

When it comes to biology, The real denial by the left is not so much about gender as it is about when a new child's life begins.

No one is being systematically killed by the confusion and debates about gender. Least not by the tens of millions like we have with abortion.p

So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?

Well logic would dictate that if a doctor declares death when a heart stops beating, then life should be declared when a heart starts beating (and the begins very early on in the womb).

Or brain activity - death is declared when brain activity ceases.

 

[flacaltenn]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The fact is the mathematical probabilities against claiming evolution being 'fact' are so massive it is indeed just more magical thinking to claim it's 'science', and even Dawkins ended up admitting that it became 'intelligent design' at some point in the process, but somehow originated in chaos and random selection, which is of course absurd and contradictory as logic. And besides, the 'evolution' guess is itself merely a rip off of Judeo-Christian theology as an analogy, dependent on some 'warm pond' speculation as a 'garden of Eden' and the currently faddish 'Big Bang' theory just another analogy for a primary Force, as Thomas Aquinas defines 'God', so the evolution cultists are out of luck all around as claiming to be 'rationalists'. Some of the 'Intelligent Design' arguments are just as valid as those the evolutionist cultists are making. If one is going to ban one, then ban both from being peddling to kids; they don't need to be concerned about any of that anyway until later on anyway. As for myself and most sane people we sleep just fine not knowing which is true, none of it is can be repeated experimentally anyway, so it's a moot issue.

If we're gonna include that topic here. It ain't all that mystical why Darwinian evolution NEEDS to be augmented with the 200 years of scientific investigation since the guy's work. What we know that Darwin didn't is massive. And the knowledge of the ACTUAL mechanisms of evolution go far beyond "survival of the fittest".

NOW we understand that "evolution" doesn't have to be a slow plodding process. In fact, the reasons that "missing links" may be missing might be more of quick evolutionary excursions than previously imagined. Jumps that can be affected by ACTIVATING DNA functions that were already there. And could be triggered by cosmic ray storms, environmental stress or chemical activators. SOME OF THESE causes COULD be considered "acts of God". Which is an interesting way of getting both sides to ponder more and fight less.

Yes, I'm aware of all the fudging the Darwinists and evolutionists have had to do over the last 150 years. The 'Punctuated Equilibrium' handwave is a particularly hilarious one; somebody called it 'evolution by Jerks', I forget who at the moment.

Except this isn't "fudging by Evolutionists".. It's a result of studying the latent inactive DNA codes that can be quickly brought to life by "leaping" mutations. You have a tail gene. Don't NEED to build a new one. You just need the activation to occur.

So it's entirely possible that we've been expecting TOO MANY missing links.. And/or the process of evolution SPED UP immensely in certain periods and left a scant record of fossils and evidence. ALL stuff that Darwin had no clue about.

Except that it is indeed fudging, and fabrication to boot. The DNA codes you cite came way later, as did 'tail genes' and the like, whatever that means, and it's even more mathematically improbable by many exponents. Random mutations are almost invariably harmful, not 'good', for one, and DNA itself is going to have a few similarities across species just from the environment it operates in and not necessarily because it all came from the same origin for another. This applies even over hundreds of millions of years.

There are many other flaws with it as well, but it's clear already that it isn't a 'scientific fact', just a supposition, and no more 'rational' than intelligent design. Darwin had his own doubts about what some were attributing his theory. Some of it's major fans in the 19th century were also peddling the myth that Jews and Christians believed in the 'Flat Earth' myth, so we know they had political agendas as well that they wanted to peddle and use Darwin's theory for a smokescreen for, too, and we know they were either ignorant or deliberately lying, so their cred isn't that high re 'science' and 'rationalism'; mostly they engaged in 'rationalizations', as they do now, and that isn't 'science' nor 'rationalism', it's pseudo-intellectual fashion and vanity.

Gonna have to fetch you some links, because you're IMAGINING things about "jumping genes" and "random mutations". No classical mutation is neccessary. Only "activation" of the "dark" DNA that sits around from eons of previous evolution without any apparent usefulness. I'll fetch some links after Christmas.

Thread REALLY is about scientific biological EVIDENCE of gender disphoria anyways. The other items like evolution were just pretext to the discussion. Should get back on topic.

 

[Picaro]

Gonna have to fetch you some links, because you're IMAGINING things about "jumping genes" and "random mutations".

I cite books mostly, not web pages, in these cases. You'll just have to wait until I get time to type them out,.

No classical mutation is neccessary. Only "activation" of the "dark" DNA that sits around from eons of previous evolution without any apparent usefulness. I'll fetch some links after Christmas

Yes, stuff about magical lurking Fairy DNA stories would be fun.

Thread REALLY is about scientific biological EVIDENCE of gender disphoria anyways. The other items like evolution were just pretext to the discussion. Should get back on topic.

I do have a link for the best on that narrative. I'll have to see if they still work. Dr. Ben Whitehead has some good analysis on that, and why the current bunk should be ignored re 'gender identity' propaganda.

 

[there4eyeM]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

You make a good point in a sense but YOU are living the life of an individual human being / specimen.

As such, YOUR life had an origin / beginning of its own.

Correct?

So when was YOUR life as the individual organism that YOU are first originated?



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

This moves us to the much more interesting subject of consciousness. For we can debate and affirm or deny whether anything else even exists, but we cannot deny consciousness. In a very real way, the universe begins with your life and ends with your death. Yet, even 'life' and 'death' are ill-defined, approximate terms. Explore your own consciousness. What is important within it, and what are the origins of this importance? Where was it before you became aware of it? What really matters about anything that may have preceded it? What really matters about what may come when you no longer perceive? In a very real sense, once our consciousness ceases, everything does. There is no regret there, no sorrow, no pain. There is no thing to which one can attach when one is no more.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

It's a theory for one and it's no way complete and never makes sense how a strain of the monkeys would de- evolve from strong to weak. .. Anways I thought the OP was going to be about abortion and the lefts denial a fetus is a baby and might turn out to be a banana or something.


But no he has to pick on sissy liberal Guys, which is biology true, they didn't develop enough testosterone as a fetus..

 

[Chuz Life]

As all human life extends back directly through mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line, the denial is in establishing an artificial 'beginning of life' point at birth. The essential part of a human has been alive for hundreds of thousands of years.

You make a good point in a sense but YOU are living the life of an individual human being / specimen.

As such, YOUR life had an origin / beginning of its own.

Correct?

So when was YOUR life as the individual organism that YOU are first originated?



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

This moves us to the much more interesting subject of consciousness. For we can debate and affirm or deny whether anything else even exists, but we cannot deny consciousness. In a very real way, the universe begins with your life and ends with your death. Yet, even 'life' and 'death' are ill-defined, approximate terms. Explore your own consciousness. What is important within it, and what are the origins of this importance? Where was it before you became aware of it? What really matters about anything that may have preceded it? What really matters about what may come when you no longer perceive? In a very real sense, once our consciousness ceases, everything does. There is no regret there, no sorrow, no pain. There is no thing to which one can attach when one is no more.

Does an amoeba have consciousness? Biology / science tells us that an amoeba is a complete living member of its species, even though all it will ever be is a single cell in size.

Furthermore, there is nothing in science to support the notion that consciousness is a requirement for when a life begins.

There are countless creatures who live their entire life cycles with no level or capacity for consciousness at all.

 

[there4eyeM]

...that we know of?

 

[there4eyeM]

It may not be possible for science to prove that consciousness exists. There are no formulae for it. No one, however, can even think consciousness doesn't exist.

 

[anotherlife]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

 

[there4eyeM]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

We can arguably confuse ourself with the universe. After all, we are part of it. Not taking that to egocentric extreme is the challenge.

 

[Chuz Life]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

Care to explain why you feel the need to bring religion into a discussion about science?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[anotherlife]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

We can arguably confuse ourself with the universe. After all, we are part of it. Not taking that to egocentric extreme is the challenge.

Interestingly, the most racially ego centric religions are Christianity and Judaism. Maybe this is to protect the non human forms. The Quran relaxes this a little though, and speaks about self sharias of animals.

 

[anotherlife]

Buddhists as well as the Christian bible, and even the Quran give the account that everything is alive, only at different densities. The bible goes even further, and declares that everything is conscientiously aware of this. Interestingly, little children automatically deal with their things as if they were live and conscientious beings.

Care to explain why you feel the need to bring religion into a discussion about science?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Science and religion are convergent, in fact, science was always a part of religion, except the pretentious 200 years lately.