Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[LOki]

Did you say proof?

Sure.

1. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”
So….you're was wrong? Pretty much.

"In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

Again?
'No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms.'

And you said..."And I repeat, speciation is observable,,,"
You're sounding like..what...an empty barrel?

See, this guy is a real 'Doc.'

Wanna see?



2. Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health[1], Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary andcomputational biology.
Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. Eugene Koonin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And your expertise is.....?

My expertise is being able to post links that show those with expertise in biology telling us about observable speciation and proving speciation happens.

I didn't get an answer, would you like MORE proof than the proof already provided for speciation?

You can point to changes within a family but not change to a new family from another family.

Well, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NEVER ASSERTED that you should be able to!

Why do you keep repeating this as if it does?

 

[LOki]

"...because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions. Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps –"


He is validating exactly what my post stated.

Sorry you couldn't understand that, Lowest.

Oh little turnip, you should actually read the paper; he is not validating your post at all. Sorry about your retarded luck.

I demonstrated to you that speciation has been, and is, observed in nature. Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion.

Consider yourself dismissed, Potatohead.

Wow you have no respect your post clearly shows it and lack intellectual honesty.

I have no respect for her intellectual dishonesty, and that is because I have integrity of intellectual honesty.

And you're still a douche.

 

[LOki]

If everything is evolving why do we have fossils dated way back in time and we have the same organisms alive today and they show no change at all . Every group of organisms have mutations but we don't see change in these organisms,why ?

You're such an idiot.

Once again you fail to understand what was asked.

No. You're just asking nonsense. It's a gibberish question. Entirely incoherent.

 

[koshergrl]

You don't have integrity of shit. You're a pathetic dabbler who thinks he's much, much smarter than he actually is, and who thinks the fact that his retarded ramblings are almost impossible to follow is because he's soooo advanced that others can't keep up.

When really all it is is that you're not smart enough to be an effective communicator, even if you DID have the basic understanding of what it is you're trying to communicate.

 

[koshergrl]

Incidentally, my English profs in college sent me the students like you, Loki, because they felt bad flunking them out of hand, but they didn't have the desire or patience to try to "fix" them so they could write a reasonable paper.

 

[LOki]

You don't have integrity of shit.

That then is just all the more sad your self-indicting posting is.

Why don't you just stop misrepresenting others? It would be a fine place for you to start if you would aspire to greater integrity than I have.

You're a pathetic dabbler who thinks he's much, much smarter than he actually is, and who thinks the fact that his retarded ramblings are almost impossible to follow is because he's soooo advanced that others can't keep up.

When really all it is is that you're not smart enough to be an effective communicator, even if you DID have the basic understanding of what it is you're trying to communicate.

Incidentally, my English profs in college sent me the students like you, Loki, because they felt bad flunking them out of hand, but they didn't have the desire or patience to try to "fix" them so they could write a reasonable paper.

For someone accusing me of intellectual vanity, you spend alot of time trying to convince others that you're much smarter than you appear.

 

[Gadawg73]

I believe we now have over 10,000 colleges, universities and community colleges worldwide that teach evoultion in Biology as fact.
And a hand full of religous universities that do not.
Of course we will now hear that all of the 10,000 Biology teachers are left wing, liberal leaning, Marx worshipping, commie, pinko reds that also steal their grandmothers social security checks.
One only has to study the Dover v. Kitzmiller case in Pa. where a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge labeled the anti evolution "scholars" as frauds, liars and kooks. Perjury charges were almost brought in that case as the court testimony was ass backwards from the depositions taken.
And the fights we have had down south this way with the religous freaks that are offended that anyone dare deny their beliefs that God himself hocus pocused Adam and Eve one day with his Mr. Junior science kit sitting on his golden throne and sent them through the clouds to Eden. We beat them back with their stickers being placed on Biology books here in every science class that taught evolution. Add in the wars of the creationists wanting their "theory" taught in science class as "an alternative to evolution" instead of being taught in philosophy or religion class and you know why we are so frustrated and POed at the anti science religous kooks.
Yes, they are crazy and will do ANYTHING, including fabricating evidence to please God as illustrated in the Dover case.
So since I have never seen them enter into any school wherethe teaching of evolution is standard without using their scorched earth policy of win at all costs and who cares about facts as Onward Christian Soldiers is blaring in the background, I play on the same field as they do with their rules.
And win every time.

They also all teach the absurdity of a designer with no evidence to support their claim that there is no creator. That is not science when you rule out design because they don't have evidence of the Almighty. Even though they have no viable explanation as to life started on it's own.

Yes, they do rule out myths and unproven beliefs.
All science does.
No one can disprove my belief in God.
Can you? Why Not? Try and disprove my belief in God.
Beliefs are NOT science.
My faith and belief in God and Jesus Christ do not need proof.
That is what real religous conviction is all about.
You may require scientific validation to feel strongly about and back up your religous beliefs.
I don't.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My expertise is being able to post links that show those with expertise in biology telling us about observable speciation and proving speciation happens.

I didn't get an answer, would you like MORE proof than the proof already provided for speciation?

You can point to changes within a family but not change to a new family from another family.

Well, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NEVER ASSERTED that you should be able to!

Why do you keep repeating this as if it does?

That is macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh little turnip, you should actually read the paper; he is not validating your post at all. Sorry about your retarded luck.

I demonstrated to you that speciation has been, and is, observed in nature. Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion.

Consider yourself dismissed, Potatohead.

Wow you have no respect your post clearly shows it and lack intellectual honesty.

I have no respect for her intellectual dishonesty, and that is because I have integrity of intellectual honesty.

And you're still a douche.

You use pictures of retarded people to make a point,need I say more.

 

[LOki]

Wow you have no respect your post clearly shows it and lack intellectual honesty.

I have no respect for her intellectual dishonesty, and that is because I have integrity of intellectual honesty.

And you're still a douche.

You use pictures of retarded people to make a point,need I say more.

Since your real complaint is that the point is valid, you need say no more.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're such an idiot.

Once again you fail to understand what was asked.

No. You're just asking nonsense. It's a gibberish question. Entirely incoherent.

Not to a rational person that asks and answers all questions. You are blinded by your bias.

 

[LOki]

You can point to changes within a family but not change to a new family from another family.

Well, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NEVER ASSERTED that you should be able to!

Why do you keep repeating this as if it does?

That is macro-evolution.

No. That is your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I believe we now have over 10,000 colleges, universities and community colleges worldwide that teach evoultion in Biology as fact.
And a hand full of religous universities that do not.
Of course we will now hear that all of the 10,000 Biology teachers are left wing, liberal leaning, Marx worshipping, commie, pinko reds that also steal their grandmothers social security checks.
One only has to study the Dover v. Kitzmiller case in Pa. where a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge labeled the anti evolution "scholars" as frauds, liars and kooks. Perjury charges were almost brought in that case as the court testimony was ass backwards from the depositions taken.
And the fights we have had down south this way with the religous freaks that are offended that anyone dare deny their beliefs that God himself hocus pocused Adam and Eve one day with his Mr. Junior science kit sitting on his golden throne and sent them through the clouds to Eden. We beat them back with their stickers being placed on Biology books here in every science class that taught evolution. Add in the wars of the creationists wanting their "theory" taught in science class as "an alternative to evolution" instead of being taught in philosophy or religion class and you know why we are so frustrated and POed at the anti science religous kooks.
Yes, they are crazy and will do ANYTHING, including fabricating evidence to please God as illustrated in the Dover case.
So since I have never seen them enter into any school wherethe teaching of evolution is standard without using their scorched earth policy of win at all costs and who cares about facts as Onward Christian Soldiers is blaring in the background, I play on the same field as they do with their rules.
And win every time.

They also all teach the absurdity of a designer with no evidence to support their claim that there is no creator. That is not science when you rule out design because they don't have evidence of the Almighty. Even though they have no viable explanation as to life started on it's own.

Yes, they do rule out myths and unproven beliefs.
All science does.
No one can disprove my belief in God.
Can you? Why Not? Try and disprove my belief in God.
Beliefs are NOT science.
My faith and belief in God and Jesus Christ do not need proof.
That is what real religous conviction is all about.
You may require scientific validation to feel strongly about and back up your religous beliefs.
I don't.

I am glad to hear you believe in God and I am not trying to do that. I have no doubt there is a God and he created everything we see.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have no respect for her intellectual dishonesty, and that is because I have integrity of intellectual honesty.

And you're still a douche.

You use pictures of retarded people to make a point,need I say more.

Since your real complaint is that the point is valid, you need say no more.

I never said I agreed with your point,do you always try to carry on both sides of the discussion by putting words in someones mouth ?

 

[LOki]

Once again you fail to understand what was asked.

No. You're just asking nonsense. It's a gibberish question. Entirely incoherent.

Not to a rational person that asks and answers all questions. You are blinded by your bias.

Allright asshat, here you go:

If everything is evolving why do we have fossils dated way back in time ...

There is nothing inconsistent with the date of fossils and the assertion that "everything is evolving."

... and we have the same organisms alive today and they show no change at all .

There is nothing about this that is in any way inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

Every group of organisms have mutations ...

Not in contention.

... but we don't see change in these organisms, ...

Obviously wrong.

... why ?

Non-sequitur.​

Satisfied?

 

[LOki]

You use pictures of retarded people to make a point,need I say more.

Since your real complaint is that the point is valid, you need say no more.

I never said I agreed with your point, ....

I didn't say you did. I said the opposite, in fact.

... do you always try to carry on both sides of the discussion by putting words in someones mouth ?

No, but you clearly do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY NEVER ASSERTED that you should be able to!

Why do you keep repeating this as if it does?

That is macro-evolution.

No. That is your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of macro-evolution.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
   [mak-roh-ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., -ee-vuh-] Show IPA

noun Biology .
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.




Defining microevolution

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

The terms were coined by evolutionist .

Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

Once again your complete ignorance is revealed. Your side tries to reduce macro-evolution down to micro-evolution because that is the only evidence observed.

 

[LOki]

That is macro-evolution.

No. That is your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of macro-evolution.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
   [mak-roh-ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., -ee-vuh-] Show IPA

noun Biology .
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.




Defining microevolution

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

The terms were coined by evolutionist .

Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

Once again your complete ignorance is revealed. Your side tries to reduce macro-evolution down to micro-evolution because that is the only evidence observed.

School's out, retard.

 

[koshergrl]

Once again you fail to understand what was asked.

No. You're just asking nonsense. It's a gibberish question. Entirely incoherent.

Not to a rational person that asks and answers all questions. You are blinded by your bias.

And resentful of any perceived gibberish that does not originate from himself..

 

[westwall]

Based on your reaction to the Brit accent in the silly vid, I bet you've purchased a whole bunch of 'As Seen on TV' cookware, huh?


Instead, check out the following from the bulletin of the Chicago Museum of Natural History:

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Again?
" By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

Westy, stop behaving like a martinet of the ideology, the creation myth of our time, and consider what the lack of evidence implies.

The lack of evidence implys that fossils are remarkable things PC. It is so incredibly difficult for fossils to form that most people have no idea how rare they truly are. When dinosaurs were first classified it was assumed they were cold blooded, then a wonderful book came out where the scientist used powerful microscopes to view in detail the fossils we allready had. His conclusion, outlined in his book "The Dinosaur Heresies", was that in fact they were warm blooded and far more mobile then had originally been thought.

Science is allways evolving PC, that's the nature of science. We build bigger and better instruments that are able to see further into the makeup of whatever it is you want to look at.

When I was born the accepted theory of mountain building was that the Earth was shrinking and as it shrank the skin (the crust) would stretch over harder rock and thus were mountains born. After 30 years of vigorous research we now know that that is ridiculous and the theory of plate tectonics has supplanted that. Now even plate tectonics is being revised with the theory of tectono stratigraphic terranes rising to explain problems with the classical (I feel weird using that term!) plate tectonic theory.

Evolutionary theory undergoes the same changes. I am certainly not trying to coerce you into my viewpoint. You are free to believe what you do, it is wonderful that you hold your faith so clearly. Just have the courtesy to do likewise with me.

Fossils are not that hard to form in a global flood where rapid burial happens. Fact is I am sure you are aware of things fossilizing in a short period of time like the miners hat,and boots were found fossilized,as well as many other objects that were found fossilized.

What is amazing is why all the transitional fossils connecting two different families are all supposedly extinct and are missing.

A miners hat that has been oxidised is not a fossil. However, as the definition of fossil is evidence of past life, there are times when that miners hat could be considered a fossil, a TRACE fossil. In other words it is evidence of life because it was created by some living thing.

But this is how a dinosaur fossil is created.

An animal dies in some fashion. Most of them die on the ground and are simply eaten by the other critters in the area and all evidence of the dead creature is gone. However, very occasionally they get buried almost immediately. This usually happens in the case of a major catastrophe of some sort such as a lahar (volcanic induced mud flow) burrying a group of critters when they were watering at some hole or stream.

This is why fossils are usuallly found in very small locales and are known as fossil assemblages. ALL of the critters in a small area are killed and their remains buried nearly immediately, thus oxygen is kept out of the system. The second oxygen gets into the system oxidation begins and the remains begin to decompose. In those exceptionally rare instance where that doesn't occur the bones have to wait for millions of years to be taken down deep into the Earth where heat and preassure can work its magic and the bones lithified (that means turned into rock).

Most times the fossils are formed when mineralised water percolates into a cast in the country rock that was left by the bones as they slowly disappear. This process alone takes millions of years in most cases. Very rarely the minerals directly replace bone material (which itself is a mineral called APATITE) and in those cases you get incredibly detailed fossils that show the internal structure of the bone to include blood vessels etc.

Then after many more millions of years an orogenic event occurs (mountain building) usually from continental plates colliding with oceanic plates and the materail that was once thousands of feet underground is carried up to the light of the sun again. However that material which is close to the surface is destroyed as it is carried up so only that material which is deep in teh country rock survives the trip.

More millions of years pass as the country rock housing the fossils is eroded away till finally, the fossil see's the light of the sun again. Now it is a race between man finding the fossil and the natural process of erosion. Does some fossil hunter find it before it is washed away? Most of the time the answer is no.