Darwin: Molecules and Mythology

[PoliticalChic]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.

What I cannot understand is how government schools allow imbeciles like you free to wander the streets...there is no doubt you need a trail of breadcrumbs each day so you can find your way home.



You moron.

You know nothing of science, much less of genetics....yet feel you have the right to propound your hatred.



1. "Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit,..."

Gregor Mendel did no such thing.
He simply laid the basis for understanding dominance and recessive basis for genes, and posed the question of blending inheritance.

Nor did he ever use the term 'gene.'



2. No doubt you will hate this when you hear it, but Mendel was deeply religious. He looked at the results of his experiments, and in those results, saw his God explaining inheritance to him.

He explained the 3 to 1 ratio of dominant to recessive phenotypes as an example in nature of the Trinity, the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

Three in one.




Now...get back under the rock you squirmed from.

 

[orogenicman]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.

What I cannot understand is how government schools allow imbeciles like you free to wander the streets...there is no doubt you need a trail of breadcrumbs each day so you can find your way home.

In contrast, it is perfectly understandable how someone homeschooled like you were could be so completely inept at matters of science (and just about everything else).

 

[PoliticalChic]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.

What I cannot understand is how government schools allow imbeciles like you free to wander the streets...there is no doubt you need a trail of breadcrumbs each day so you can find your way home.

In contrast, it is perfectly understandable how someone homeschooled like you were could be so completely inept at matters of science (and just about everything else).

The despicable liar makes an appearance!


The odor precede you.

 

[hortysir]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.

Did he, personally, manipulate the genes of those species?

 

[orogenicman]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.

Did he, personally, manipulate the genes of those species?

If by that you mean did he control the breeding of the peas in his experiments? Yes.

 

[hortysir]

the franciscan monk, Mendel proved, with his pea experiments, how genes can be manipulated and species altered quite a bit, in a very few generations. Creationists just HATE being proven wrong, but that prove has been widely available for over 100 years now.

Did he, personally, manipulate the genes of those species?

If by that you mean did he control the breeding of the peas in his experiments? Yes.

That would make him a "creator" and nothing to do with evolution

 

[orogenicman]

Did he, personally, manipulate the genes of those species?

If by that you mean did he control the breeding of the peas in his experiments? Yes.

That would make him a "creator" and nothing to do with evolution

You confuse my meaning. He was the first to quantify artificial selection, and in so doing, became the father of genetics. And genetics, as has been repeatedly shown in the intervening decades between then and now, is the clockwork of natural selection, which is itself, the mechanism of biologic evolution.

 

[edthecynic]

See, this is why you should have remained in school beyond the third grade.



"Quite complex. Not only is DNA made up of multiple functional unites for each base, but the bases combine together to make an extended polymer that's giant and complex. The DNA itself also folds up and takes on structure even beyond it's atomic structure."
Chat Q&A: How complex is DNA at an atomic level?



The four letters of a DNA molecule....millions of units in length....must be in a unique and specific arrangement.


Go get a note pad and pencil, ...the good news:
I 'll be explaining in greater depth later.


The bad news.....it will still be over your head.

Determined by the valence electrons and not random chance. If you remember, Watson and Crick used simple cardboard cut-outs to assemble their models!!!

Discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson, video with 3D animation and narration :: DNA Learning Center

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

My how the worm turns, in another thread Crick is a Nobel Prize winning valid source!!!!

Like the claim that the universe created itself ?!

Except that notions like the Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation aren't just thrown out there, but are backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work. It isn't like some scientist said "It just happened" and then sat back on his laurels without having to show his work.

"...backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work."

Of course that isn't true.




Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Crick, F., "Life Itself," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p.88.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Determined by the valence electrons and not random chance. If you remember, Watson and Crick used simple cardboard cut-outs to assemble their models!!!

Discovering the double helix structure of DNA, James Watson, video with 3D animation and narration :: DNA Learning Center

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

My how the worm turns, in another thread Crick is a Nobel Prize winning valid source!!!!

Except that notions like the Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation aren't just thrown out there, but are backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work. It isn't like some scientist said "It just happened" and then sat back on his laurels without having to show his work.

"...backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work."

Of course that isn't true.




Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Crick, F., "Life Itself," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p.88.

This post is true that morons like you believe that winning said prize makes his opinions in all things inviolate.


You are truly a fool.

 

[edthecynic]

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

My how the worm turns, in another thread Crick is a Nobel Prize winning valid source!!!!

"...backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work."

Of course that isn't true.




Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Crick, F., "Life Itself," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p.88.

This post is true that morons like you believe that winning said prize makes his opinions in all things inviolate.


You are truly a fool.

You must be very proud that a "fool" has made a fool of you!!!!

 

[Hollie]

Relax.....

...your tutorial will be along shortly.



In the meantime, consider this: how about the idea that aliens from outer space dropped by the lifeless earth.....and left 'wastes,'.....


And those wastes became what is now life on earth.


Know who propounded that theory?


Francis Crick.



Yup.....'scientists' concluded thate ‘aliens’ were responsible for the origin of life on earth:

“An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is “exogenesis”, the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on a nearby planet such as Mars. Such ideas have had many eminent supporters over the years, including Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle among others.” Exogenesis - The Beginnings of Life - The Physics of the Universe



So, I suppose it is no stretch for them to imagine that Darwin was correct....even with the dearth of evidence to support his theory.

My how the worm turns, in another thread Crick is a Nobel Prize winning valid source!!!!

"...backed by decades of evidence and observations and testing and work."

Of course that isn't true.




Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA, wrote:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Crick, F., "Life Itself," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p.88.

This post is true that morons like you believe that winning said prize makes his opinions in all things inviolate.


You are truly a fool.

Of course, it hasn't gone unnoticed that elsewhere, it was you who fraudulently "quote-mined" Crick in an effort to further your anti-science agenda.

You're so befuddled, you forget from one post to the next that your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" contradict your happy-fun idiocy.

 

[thanatos144]

My how the worm turns, in another thread Crick is a Nobel Prize winning valid source!!!!

This post is true that morons like you believe that winning said prize makes his opinions in all things inviolate.


You are truly a fool.

Of course, it hasn't gone unnoticed that elsewhere, it was you who fraudulently "quote-mined" Crick in an effort to further your anti-science agenda.

You're so befuddled, you forget from one post to the next that your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" contradict your happy-fun idiocy.

Do you even know what science is? I don t think so because you seem to completely ignore evidence in order to perpetrate a myth....

 

[Hollie]

This post is true that morons like you believe that winning said prize makes his opinions in all things inviolate.


You are truly a fool.

Of course, it hasn't gone unnoticed that elsewhere, it was you who fraudulently "quote-mined" Crick in an effort to further your anti-science agenda.

You're so befuddled, you forget from one post to the next that your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" contradict your happy-fun idiocy.

Do you even know what science is? I don t think so because you seem to completely ignore evidence in order to perpetrate a myth....

Do you know what evidence is? Why not show what evidence you have to support your comment?

 

[thanatos144]

Of course, it hasn't gone unnoticed that elsewhere, it was you who fraudulently "quote-mined" Crick in an effort to further your anti-science agenda.

You're so befuddled, you forget from one post to the next that your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" contradict your happy-fun idiocy.

Do you even know what science is? I don t think so because you seem to completely ignore evidence in order to perpetrate a myth....

Do you know what evidence is? Why not show what evidence you have to support your comment?

It has been shown.... All over this thread you just choose to ignore it because it shows your myth to be just that......

 

[Hollie]

Do you even know what science is? I don t think so because you seem to completely ignore evidence in order to perpetrate a myth....

Do you know what evidence is? Why not show what evidence you have to support your comment?

It has been shown.... All over this thread you just choose to ignore it because it shows your myth to be just that......

It has been shown where?

 

[Abishai100]

The Silicon Transparency


A lot of the intrigue surrounding combinatorics or particle-based science/biology is based on an acute perception of substance composition and structure/function elegance.

Silicon is almost as interesting as carbon and represents a modern use of design-intricate substances that indicate science investment trends.

When we look at the various culture totems that symbolize civilization curiosity about form and shape (i.e., architecture awards, consumerism treasures, trend tokens, toy design, etc.), we find interesting parallels between appearance and intellectual rigor.

The transparent Swatch wrist-watch, the compact audio cassette, and the water-pistol are all great consumer relics that indicate a design trend that celebrates gear-mechanics curiosity, a fact perhaps reflected in the modernity-portrait Hollywood (USA) movie "Inspector Gadget" (1999).

The DNA is a perfect double-helix of natural organic compounds and self-organizing molecules that seem to reveal a strange 'invisible intelligence' in the structural reliability of survivalism-catalyzed biological substances.

This is why the American comic book avatar Brainiac (DC Comics), a diabolical nemesis of the heroic Superman who preys on sensibilities about bureaucracy labyrinths, is so popular.

Darwin intimated that structural lines of development indicate very intricate macro-processes (an oxymoron perhaps). This explains why we archaeologically celebrate consumer items such as the transparent Swatch watch (which enabled you to see the inner-working gears long before Steve Jobs presented the see-through iMac personal computers in 1998). We want to 'see' what we are curious about. Brainiac (DC Comics) intrigues us, since, as his 'curious mind' themed name implies, intellectual analysis is very deep by definition to the human species.

The popularity of National Geographic TV is an echo of this modern human fascination with connecting science form analysis with design promotion. Darwin is his own best friend (and in a good way). In other words, "diamonds and silicon are forever."







Brainiac (DC Comics)