The mega plate, bah, humbugs

a reply to: Phantom423

Come on Phants, you love this
This gets you up in the morning, your addicted

originally posted by: Raggedyman
As for evolution, no what we see is adaptation,

Just to point out that adaption is evolution.

In constructing his theory, now proven as fact, Charles Darwin said ... "...theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation."

I sure that won't help you, but thought I would post it anyway.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: one4all

Many people would argue against evolution, never mind suggest that it's a one way street
De-evolution, and I appreciate its not a "thing" isn't really hidden from anyone just confused in the garble

Some see de-evolution as evolving, dropping genetic information that is compromised, it's not unknown

Not dropping compromised genetic bulk/information...dropping perfectly good genetic bulk/information and having the ability to replace it in completeness at will.

Anyone who uses the word evolution defines it as a forward growing motion or action.....when we refer to something having evolved we consider it to have gone forward in some level of its development....not backwards....which would quite obviously be devolution which by proxy does in fact exist as demonstrated by pleomorphism.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: lawman27

So it's a turkey or a turkey
Do you think before you respond

Clearly I do-that's why I can post in meaningful sentences, understand when to use a question mark, and post replies without resorting to childish insults.

I don't know what your response means, although I suspect you are taking issue with my Turkey analogy. As you said yourself, analogies are never perfect. Ironic that you pick on the accuracy of my analogy rather than my actual point. Still, like everyone else here, I'll await your evidence of devolution with bated breath.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: one4all

Many people would argue against evolution, never mind suggest that it's a one way street
De-evolution, and I appreciate its not a "thing" isn't really hidden from anyone just confused in the garble

Some see de-evolution as evolving, dropping genetic information that is compromised, it's not unknown

Not dropping compromised genetic bulk/information...dropping perfectly good genetic bulk/information and having the ability to replace it in completeness at will.

Yet nothing is presented to support this claim.

Anyone who uses the word evolution defines it as a forward growing motion or action.....when we refer to something having evolved we consider it to have gone forward in some level of its development....not backwards

This is a patently false statement with zero basis in truth, reality or science. Evolution, as discussed in the biological sense, has no direction. The most basic definition of evolution is a measurement of the observed change in allele frequency over time. As an anthropologist, I can tell you quite definitively that when we talk about evolution, we aren't referring to a forward moving action, its not something progressing forward in some further development and it's not about creating or evolving the most superior organism. All it is is change over time. If you don't understand the concept you have no business trying to rewrite it or prove it incorrect because you're beginning from a point of ignorance and the foundation of your argument doesn't actually exist.

....which would quite obviously be devolution which by proxy does in fact exist as demonstrated by pleomorphism.

Then show your work! What is the evidence of this? Citations supporting it? Citations showing where you derived your definition of pleomorphism from would also be helpful because you're using it in a context I've never seen previously. You're claiming that genes themselves are pleomorphic and neither the microbiological nor the chemistry definitions fit the bill here. I'm happy to admit that I'm incorrect and that I didn't know something provided you can support your claims. Can you? More importantly, will you?

originally posted by: one4all
Anyone who uses the word evolution defines it as a forward growing motion or action.....when we refer to something having evolved we consider it to have gone forward in some level of its development....not backwards....which would quite obviously be devolution which by proxy does in fact exist as demonstrated by pleomorphism.

Evolution is successful change, where mutations are carried through. I guess de-evolution is unsuccessful change that has an adverse impact on an organism and are is carried through because the organism would not survive.

a reply to: lawman27

No your analogy is fine
I just don't see how a turkey changing into a turkey is proof of evolution

a reply to: one4all

So it doesn't really drop it if it's still encoded?

As for devolution
I recon quite a few people here would consider a loss of genetic information evolution, providing the subject survived

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: one4all

Many people would argue against evolution, never mind suggest that it's a one way street
De-evolution, and I appreciate its not a "thing" isn't really hidden from anyone just confused in the garble

Some see de-evolution as evolving, dropping genetic information that is compromised, it's not unknown

Not dropping compromised genetic bulk/information...dropping perfectly good genetic bulk/information and having the ability to replace it in completeness at will.

Yet nothing is presented to support this claim.

Anyone who uses the word evolution defines it as a forward growing motion or action.....when we refer to something having evolved we consider it to have gone forward in some level of its development....not backwards

This is a patently false statement with zero basis in truth, reality or science. Evolution, as discussed in the biological sense, has no direction. The most basic definition of evolution is a measurement of the observed change in allele frequency over time. As an anthropologist, I can tell you quite definitively that when we talk about evolution, we aren't referring to a forward moving action, its not something progressing forward in some further development and it's not about creating or evolving the most superior organism. All it is is change over time. If you don't understand the concept you have no business trying to rewrite it or prove it incorrect because you're beginning from a point of ignorance and the foundation of your argument doesn't actually exist.

....which would quite obviously be devolution which by proxy does in fact exist as demonstrated by pleomorphism.

Then show your work! What is the evidence of this? Citations supporting it? Citations showing where you derived your definition of pleomorphism from would also be helpful because you're using it in a context I've never seen previously. You're claiming that genes themselves are pleomorphic and neither the microbiological nor the chemistry definitions fit the bill here. I'm happy to admit that I'm incorrect and that I didn't know something provided you can support your claims. Can you? More importantly, will you?

Evolution is progressive because it is future reliant....you must have movement to have change and evolution is change....without change and movement you have no evolutionary action...so what is left...defining direction of the established motion we have evidenced via the changes by PROXY the changes evidence movement.....so is it in a forward or a reverse direction....if it is generally found in a forward direction but it can be found happening in a reverse direction but the reverse action is itself reversable....then what do we call it...well we call it devolution and we do not care what anyone before us called it....they can go write a paper for us if they want now that it is published online already.

Evolution involves the impetus and ability required to build a more complicated baseline.....while devolution requires the impetus and ability to disenfranchise into a less complicated baseline.

When you make genetic alterations to something and ADD evolved genetics to the mix you WOUND the original template.....you change the software and there is a problem interfacing with the hardware ....over time the human hardware will recieve so many red flag messages from so many dfferent areas of its software program that it will eventually seek to reset from a position of strength and it will trigger devolution.....our inate telepathic abilities are a good example....they were geneticlly adjusted...and our physiology is fighting back....mother nature always finds a way....and if DEVOLUTION is the path of least resistance she will take it....and she is in the process of doing just this.....Autism spectrum kids are the evidence...they are Intuitive from birth and despise overly verbal communication...they are as bright as anyone but refuse to work verbally....it is the path of most resistance...they are built for MORE not less and verbage is LEES TO THEM....conceptual communication is what they need....symbology instead of verbosity.


Change over time is not accurate...it is change over time as dictated by a combonation of internal /external stimulants....nothing changes for nothing in Nature...you are either being built or you are being taken apart and there is no stacis.....all movement has a catalyst....a driver.

Peter I know where you are going with this...the issue is this....is evolution a part of a pre-determined process that is part of our hardware or is it a result of adjusted software being integrated.....is our understanding flawed at the core...is there a UNIVERSAL harware written into all living things...and is this IMMOVABLE...but does this hardware adapt to any type of software it encounters is it compatable with many different types of software and is this software what defines the form of the living thing.....not the ability to live but the ability to express or change form.

If we talk triggers we begin to solve the equation.....if we define triggers we take it a step further....if we discuss the nuts and bolts of how the triggers work well this is not always a good thing to give to everyone.

What makes us age....you see we are talking about immortality really....broken down into its most basic simple form....we are talking about learning how to use software driven peripheral causality to interface with our hardware to eventually direct our own mortality.

It is never about being correct or incorrect...it is about learning new things....assume we are incorrect then we will strive to keep learning....if we were correct we would be six hundred years old and disease free having this discussion....we are still learning by observing mother nature....time is never our friend in this endeavour.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I find it hard to believe you think. Quite honestly, scientists don't cloud the meaning of evolution. People who are uncomfortable with the implications, try to redefine it.

I did not say loosing infomation is evolution I said that the information changed. Try to keep up

a reply to: one4all

You can take issue all you like neighbour. Many of us went into science to investigate the universe.

a reply to: one4all


Again, lists of words that don’t say anything let alone the one thing I’ve requested several times... evidence for loss of genetic information and which genes were altered? Skip the word salad and get to the science that supports your position. And redefining accepted terms isn’t evidence of anything except not being able to work within the framework of the scientific method.

Vaccines work by killing those who cannot survive the small dose, ultimately strengthening the collective. It doesn't strengthen the weak it targets them to clean up the gene pool.

No other mechanism at work.