evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour. The bacterium gained the ability to resist antibiotics. They gained a new trait. Through a mutation. Chances are that there was no net change in amount of information. Rather there was a new advantage. That is how evolution works. Or were you thinking that there is a sudden change in the number of base pairs?

You have yet to demonstrate you are even vaguely qualified to discuss the topic on a level to discount it.

Tell you what, post some code in R that you've used to demonstrate how evolution is wrong? OR perhaps some lab notebook pages along with the results, that show evolution is wrong Go on. A nice heatmap will do.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

report away... You're the one that started tossing insults from the get go

im just stating the clear facts...

can't help it IF you don't like them...

again... Funny though

Hey ak, while you are stating facts, try this

Did the bacteria from the Petri dish experiment gain more genetic information in accordance with what is necessary for evolution to occur
Or did it lose information

If I have the brain of a 12 year old, I expect an intelligent answer from a far smarter person, not a personal attack

Personal attacks make me think you don't have answers, are frightened, have lost your argument

Remember, new genetic information in bacteria

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, you don't know how genetics experiments work do you? I answered you. The bacterium gained a mutation. Chances are that they had the same net amount of information, but due to the mutation a new trait.

IF you (say) look at the mutations for various hemoglobin chances. They are due to SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms, in that a single nucleotide was changed), and you get massive differences, due to the amino acid being coded for, causing a physical difference, which in turn changes how the hemoglobin acts.

You do not know how evolution works. When presented with evidence you say "that is not evolution". I dread to think how you'd be in my Chemistry scale up lab. You'd probably tell me to mix sulfuric acid with Carbontet

a reply to: Raggedyman

read the post above yours, and below...

I have no need to explain it again to you... And Noinden would most definitely know better then I

See... Unlike you... I will gladly let someone that knows more on the subject explain

I admit i don't know much about evolution...

but i also know you don't know S**t about it... lol

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour. The bacterium gained the ability to resist antibiotics. They gained a new trait. Through a mutation. Chances are that there was no net change in amount of information. Rather there was a new advantage. That is how evolution works. Or were you thinking that there is a sudden change in the number of base pairs?

You have yet to demonstrate you are even vaguely qualified to discuss the topic on a level to discount it.

Tell you what, post some code in R that you've used to demonstrate how evolution is wrong? OR perhaps some lab notebook pages along with the results, that show evolution is wrong

Go on. A nice heatmap will do.

So the loss of genetic information proves evolution

I don't think I need to prove nothing to you

The antibiotics attacked the engine of the bacteria, the bacteria survived but without an engine
Should the bacteria evolve a new engine, you can come back and show me, that's would be evolution

The bacteria didn't gain a new trait, the bacteria adapted at a cost

The fact you can't understand that proves so much

a reply to: Noinden

I would hate to be your student because you would tell me Parkinson's is a mutation and I am evolving because I have Parkinson's and because I walk slower I am more careful
Or if I lost my arms in a car accident, the sudden loss of weight would make me a better jockey.
That is the crux of your argument

No thanks noindie, I need to see a net gain of information, not a net loss.
Please feel free to believe in evolution, I am not saying it's not valid

Just understand why I think evolution is a joke.
People saying to lose genetic information proves evolution when to me it disproves it
If you or anyone else can't understand that, it's your problem not mine

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: bulwarkz
Bollocks, children only believe in 'god' when they are taught to.

Well then, are you denying goodness?
Is love a biproduct of chemical goo poo or is it supernatural where a child learns real true love in part through 2 loving parents that love Yah because He first loved them.

That is brainwashing to some I guess.
When a person says brainwashing I think things like,
TV, mass media, commercials, sponsors,
MKultra, trauma based mind control, splintered personalities, monarch, British Royalty, handlers, finders, sex cults, sex slaves, pe dooos, etc, etc,etc...

But you say brainwashing comes from 2 heterosexual loving parents who love Yah because He first loved them.
Did I get that right?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

i am just going to report your attacks to the moderators, it's not how it works ak

This isn't how adults act, you drag me down to your level and it's sad

Says the guy who mocks me in his opening post and declared that the true intent of the thread was to openly mock and deride anyone that understands science and doesn't back your crass and willful ignorance spilling over with fetid condescension before mods shut you down and edited your OP. Don't be a cry baby and a hypocrite as you feign innocence and seek out recompense for your pain and suffering at the hands of the heathen atheist worshippers of scientific dogma.

You don't fool anybody with your comedy routine. Every thread you author is the exact same foolishness save for the titles. Every question you pretend to ask because you claim nobody answers them, has been answered ad infinitum. You simply refuse to acknowledge such and in multiple instances, you flat out refuse to bother reading answers that are incredibly detailed and require far more time and attention than a fool deserves. You act like a spoiled and brash little girl and couldn't have a civilized discussion with a gun to your head. You can't even maintain the topic of your own threads half the time as you run amok with a frenzy of Gish Gallops.

Nobody drags you down cupcake, you're already lying in the muck trying to claw your way out as evidenced by your copious and libacious levels of willful ignorance. Bravo old chap.

a reply to: peter vlar

Pffhahaha!

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

i am just going to report your attacks to the moderators, it's not how it works ak

This isn't how adults act, you drag me down to your level and it's sad

Says the guy who mocks me in his opening post and declared that the true intent of the thread was to openly mock and deride anyone that understands science and doesn't back your crass and willful ignorance spilling over with fetid condescension before mods shut you down and edited your OP. Don't be a cry baby and a hypocrite as you feign innocence and seek out recompense for your pain and suffering at the hands of the heathen atheist worshippers of scientific dogma.

You don't fool anybody with your comedy routine. Every thread you author is the exact same foolishness save for the titles. Every question you pretend to ask because you claim nobody answers them, has been answered ad infinitum. You simply refuse to acknowledge such and in multiple instances, you flat out refuse to bother reading answers that are incredibly detailed and require far more time and attention than a fool deserves. You act like a spoiled and brash little girl and couldn't have a civilized discussion with a gun to your head. You can't even maintain the topic of your own threads half the time as you run amok with a frenzy of Gish Gallops.

Nobody drags you down cupcake, you're already lying in the muck trying to claw your way out as evidenced by your copious and libacious levels of willful ignorance. Bravo old chap.

Gee PV all you had to do was answer the question I asked
The statement you made eluded to you having answers and I figured they would be better served in their own thread

My apologies if you were offended by the lite jibes

Can you tell me what genetic information was added to the bacteria, that would go a loooong way to securing a valid ending

a reply to: bulwarkz

or he took a wife from the preadamic races

I am shocked.

You are actually suggesting that the 'First Family' may have participated in bestiality? And that such unions would have resulted fertile offspring? And those offspring would be human? Therefore Adam and Eve and their sons were pre-human, i.e. not human?

I just don't know what to say to that suggestion.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I would hate to be your student because you would tell me Parkinson's is a mutation and I am evolving because I have Parkinson's and because I walk slower I am more careful
Or if I lost my arms in a car accident, the sudden loss of weight would make me a better jockey.
That is the crux of your argument

You are really pushing a long chain uphill. This is not even a halfway decent attempt at a strawman.

Two fundamental points that you absolutely insist on refusing to acknowledge no matter how many times you are told:

1) INDIVIDUALS DO NOT evolve. POPULATIONS evolve.

2) Mutations occur BETWEEN generations.

Your comments I quoted above (and most of your comments posted elsewhere, not just in this thread) are nonsensical, silly, trite in the simplicity of error, unthinking, and, in the main, at the extreme end of the scale of trollism.

Please give it up, for your own sanity's sake.

a reply to: bulwarkz

Just because the word 'involution' contains the three syllables 'vol' 'u' 'tion' doesn't mean it has anything to do with evolution.

And in fact it does not.

Involution in mathematics is a function f that is its own inverse. i.e. : f(f(x) = x

Involution in medicine refers to the shrinking or return of an organ to a former size. i.e. : the thymus continues to grow between birth and puberty and then begins to atrophy, a process directed by the high levels of circulating sex hormones

Neither of these ideas has anything to do with evolution (other than the fact that the thymus process is a result of evolution, of course).

If you really meant 'involution' in your original comment:

Which is weird because you imply you do not believe in devoltion, which is weird, because you imply that you believe in evolution.

then it simply makes no sense. How could someone not 'believe' in the observed fact that organs do swell and then shrink? And why would that disbelief preclude someone from 'believing' in evolution?

It is simple: evolution does not go backwards. No matter what word you make up to describe going backwards, evolution does not do that.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Raggedyman

I would hate to be your student because you would tell me Parkinson's is a mutation and I am evolving because I have Parkinson's and because I walk slower I am more careful
Or if I lost my arms in a car accident, the sudden loss of weight would make me a better jockey.
That is the crux of your argument

You are really pushing a long chain uphill. This is not even a halfway decent attempt at a strawman.

Two fundamental points that you absolutely insist on refusing to acknowledge no matter how many times you are told:

1) INDIVIDUALS DO NOT evolve. POPULATIONS evolve.

2) Mutations occur BETWEEN generations.

Your comments I quoted above (and most of your comments posted elsewhere, not just in this thread) are nonsensical, silly, trite in the simplicity of error, unthinking, and, in the main, at the extreme end of the scale of trollism.

Please give it up, for your own sanity's sake.

So you are telling me that bacteria that is attacked by antibiotics, has genetic information removed, looses function, you believe is actually evolving and I am nonsensical, a troll and unthinking

You and your type need to study evolution
I don't deny mutations occur between generations, never have
My issue is mutations are evolution or adaption, please keep up

Individuals don't evolve? Prove it, if individuals don't evolve then how do populations of individuals evolve, do you think before replying
Are you saying you don't believe any of those individual bacteria didn't change
If individuals don't evolve then they are stagnant, nothing evolves
Go study before pretending you know anything, talk about trite nonsense

I am asking, you are not helping your cause of faith
I asked for science
Maybe leave it to someone else who knows what they are talking about

a reply to: rnaa

Like any story may start at a time and place but might not include many other details because of the points wanting to be made . Like if you wanted to explain to your kid where he came from could you or would you go back to the very beginnings of the beginnings or would you skip to the mom and pop version .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: rnaa

Like any story may start at a time and place but might not include many other details because of the points wanting to be made .

Like if you wanted to explain to your kid where he came from could you or would you go back to the very beginnings of the beginnings or would you skip to the mom and pop version .

I got a feeling the explanation would involve, space dirt, space water and some kind of lightning or something
Abiogenesis is a faith statement by scientists

It's not just the religious who corner the market on miracles

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You may want to call that evolution, I call it adaptation or micro evolution

Is that not the same thing? Through natural selection, organisms adapt to survive i.e. change.

a reply to: Raggedyman


You keep whining about Abiogenesis as if biochemists have declared that its definitively how life originated on earth. you know damned well it’s a hypothesis and isn’t likely to be replicated with our current level of knowledge. That doesn’t however mean that it isn’t a viable possibility because Miller and Urey were able to create more amino acids in their experiments than occur naturally on earth. Other recent experiments (yes they’ve been independently reproduced and verified)proving they self assembly of organic molecules can indeed occur and form complex hydrocarbons.

Was it Abiogenesis? Panspermia? Some god that Abraham didn’t worship? Nobody knows. How life began though has absolutely no bearing on the biological processes that take shape once those first single felled organisms appeared. In other words, we don’t need to know how it all started to be able to observe, document and test the MES. You don’t need to keep recycling the same thread over and over with a new title. You’re a broken record that doesn’t ever cease skipping.

Since you have all the answers though, why don’t you tell us how matter first came into existence. Because whether or not abiogenesis was the starting point for life on earth, it had to have started with matter. Specifically organic matter, but it even inorganic molecules had to come from somewhere right? Was all of the matter in the universe pooped into place by the gods of Abraham?

a reply to: peter vlar

Well I am sorry Pete, I don't just dismiss it like you do
It's relevant to me, if not to you, fine
I can't just dismiss What I don't understand, I need answers

Panspermia is not an answer, panspermia just means abiogenesis started somewhere off planet

Pete I asked a question, mostly directed to you, you said the evidence was overwhelming
The floors yours

No, adaptation doesn't equate to new genetic information being added, just existing information being utilised somewhere else
That's the crux of the issue

If it was as simple, i would be receiving the spanking woodie talked about
So far, just trolls answering anything but the question