A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

reply to post by itsthetooth

That isn't what I said and you know it. I love how you edited it to suit your fantasy. At least I don't have to live in a fantasy.

All right. Here's the exchange in full:

ITSTHETOOTH: Ya and I'm the first to fall for (tall tales about cabbits) right...

ASTYANAX: Probably not the first, but almost certainly the oldest—I suppose you are older than eight or nine years?

ITSTHETOOTH: I wouldn't know, I don't hang out with that age group, but it sounds like you might.

ASTYANAX: All right, then. I shan't trouble you further.

Happy now? Does the full text make you look any less silly?

reply to post by Astyanax

That isn't what I said and you know it. I love how you edited it to suit your fantasy. At least I don't have to live in a fantasy.

All right. Here's the exchange in full:


ITSTHETOOTH: Ya and I'm the first to fall for (tall tales about cabbits) right...


ASTYANAX: Probably not the first, but almost certainly the oldest—I suppose you are older than eight or nine years?


ITSTHETOOTH: I wouldn't know, I don't hang out with that age group, but it sounds like you might.


ASTYANAX: All right, then. I shan't trouble you further.

Happy now? Does the full text make you look any less silly?

Like I said, I wouldn't know, as I don't hang out with nine year olds.

If your goal on here is to try to make others look silly, thats probably more in the age nine bracket.

reply to post by stereologist

Actually you did.

In fact you stated that you thought a caterpillar changing into a butterfly was an example of a species turning into another species. When given the chance to back off of that statement you followed up with a statement reaffirming that position.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you posted some cheesy statement that you posted a lie.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You made some wishy washy statement about not believing in what you posted. That is the same as stating that you posted a lie.

You knowingly posted what amounts to a hoax and that is against the rules at ATS. You posted something you knew to be untrue. You stuck by what you posted after I let you know that what you posted was wrong. I gave you the out and you refused to budge. Now you say you posted something you knew was not true. That's posting a hoax.

Excuse me, but sarcasm is not a hoax.

Temporarily closed......

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Closing briefly so members can read the following......

ATTENTION

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

You are responsible for your own posts.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Failure to post civilly and on topic will result in post removals and may result in temporary Posting Bans.

edit on Mon Mar 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

Last attempt at a reopen....

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If we were designed by a creator I'd still like to know who designed the creator. If it's not possible for amazingly complex things to naturally evolve over time then we must conclude that something else created the creator. Saying that complex things must always be designed and can't arise naturally is a paradox... because then you are forced to say the creator couldn't have possibly arisen naturally. At the end of the day, the ONLY possible conclusion that one may reach is that given enough time even the most absurdly unlikely events will occur. It doesn't matter how unlikely those events are, they will eventually occur. And when extremely rare things like sentient life pops up they think "man there's no way we got here naturally".

edit on 23/2/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

And greater than pondering God, or evolution, is pondering; from where does such arise to be at all? Don't go krazy now I like to believe we're here to have fun, and help others have fun. So when I'm down make me smile; when you frown, I'll stay awhile
...and listen.

couldn't resist

I like the way you think C.O.
On things being complicated...
we didn't just stumble across a motor vehicle...
Many many years ago, a man stood on a stick one day that was levered on a rock, the other end of the stone was in some mud, and lo, it catapulted and dirtied his face! Maybe this happened many times, to many people, but one day it happened to a man that was trying to move a heavy bolder (for whatever reason). He gathered his fellows, armed with sticks of different sizes, some broke some did not, but they learned how to move that bolder. and thus, many aeons later, through rope-pulleys, furnaces, kettles, plastic molding, and good ol' engineering and elbow grease, we now meander tarred roads to attend our nine to five!

If you think of us as proteins, and DNA bonds (honestly I'm not clued up enough to give a good analogy here, but I think you'll catch my drift) what difference is there between cellular evolution and machine evolution? To me it's very similar.... for example, thousands of people could have attempted to create a battery, but if thousands of people blew themselves up in the process it would take a lot longer to enjoy the invention of the battery.... Thousands of bugs could have attempted a journey to some sweet pollen, and thousands could have died from blistering cold, but eventually some would make the grade and pass their teachings on to their kids...

I'll be quiet now
I fear I'm stepping all over that paradox.
Going to get a beer.

reply to post by Jimjolnir


Thats pretty funny considering how I have suggested many times to evolutionists that there is no way that flagellum could have evolved. I would like to see gears and sprockets and gears evolve.

reply to post by stereologist

And you lie again, even the wiki on speciation clearly states that they start out with a group of species that are seperated and causes speciation. But I guess you missed that.

The wiki article specifically states that species evolve, not individuals. You even point out that is the case.

But what your claiming does not allow for speciation. How can all units of a species evolve and leave behind the original species. Your understanding offers no explanation for diversity.

Exactly, then why would you act like I was

Never stated that. You claimed that cabbits were real and defended that ludicrous position as pointed out by links to your posts.

I was simply acting from something I read. Again I never coined the term cabbit so I know I'm not the creator of the idea.

Dont be such a gidget, if that were true we woudln't have sub species. I obviously know more about evolution than you do.

Species evolve, not individuals. Your subspecies statement is illogical.

Then how could we share a common ancestor with apes?

Your understanding doesn't allow evolution to evolve and leave remaining species to exist. In other words, if humans were the last thing to have evolved, we would be the ONLY species in existence by your understanding.

Illogical gibberish.

Allopatric speciation does apply to the human species, not human individuals.

Your assuming that all species of humans keep in constant arrangement with other humans, which is the only way to prevent speciation. The whole thing is just such a crock, there are actually people that have cut themselves off from civilization and they are still able to breed with the populas.

Your understanding does NOTHING for the explanation of diversity.

Another instance of the logical fallacy called arguing from personal ignorance. Species evolve, not individuals.

Actually your wrong, the ad specifically referrs to a group within the original species. So what ever you want to consider a group, obviously more than one but less than the whole.

Individuals can speciate, what do you think causes the speciation to begin with...

False. Species evolve, not individuals.

So then the big question comes to mind, why don't we have different species of humans that aren't able to breed with the populas.

o as you can see, you are WRONG. The individuals of a populas become seperated from the original group and change.
I'm not understanding why this is such a hard thing for you to understand. This of course would leave behind the original species and create a new species.

Read and comprehend. The individuals do not change. The specie changes.

Evolution deals with gene pools. Gene pools change over time. The individuals do not evolve. The species evolve. Can't make it any simpler.

sure, the species changes, but from what, the whole? A change is a change, it doesn't matter if its done in groups or individually I'm still correct.

And you lie, you never once addressed them.

Colin42 has addressed the issue many times, directly, and clearly.

Colin does not address questions that I pose, only those that he poses.

aside from you saying that I'm wrong, let me know when you have some proof.

That has been done numerous times.

No one has proven me wrong on this matter.

Your the only guy on here that is firm that I'm wrong when all I'm doing is quoting a wiki page.

That too is a falsehood. Everyone on this thread points out you are wrong. The issue is not quoting a reference, but clearly misrepresenting that article.

Then I will copy and paste it again.

AllopatricMain article: allopatric speciation
During allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

population As you can see a population splits, they don't use the term species, so once again you are incorrect. However a population could be any number of individuals.

n other words, I stand uncorrected.

The issue is showing a clear lack of understanding or more likely a purposeful effort to misrepres

reply to post by stereologist

n other words, I stand uncorrected.

The issue is showing a clear lack of understanding or more likely a purposeful effort to misrepresent the following concepts and others: evolution as used in science, specie, and allopatric speciation.

These are simple terms to understand.

Dont shoot the messenger. I'm just copying and pasting, its up to you to comprehend and accept it, which seems to be where the problem is.

Actually you did.

In fact you stated that you thought a caterpillar changing into a butterfly was an example of a species turning into another species. When given the chance to back off of that statement you followed up with a statement reaffirming that position.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you posted some cheesy statement that you posted a lie.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You made some wishy washy statement about not believing in what you posted. That is the same as stating that you posted a lie.

You knowingly posted what amounts to a hoax and that is against the rules at ATS. You posted something you knew to be untrue. You stuck by what you posted after I let you know that what you posted was wrong. I gave you the out and you refused to budge. Now you say you posted something you knew was not true. That's posting a hoax.

My sarcasm is not a hoax.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Dont shoot the messenger. I'm just copying and pasting, its up to you to comprehend and accept it, which seems to be where the problem is.

Clearly, the copy and pasting is not the problem. The problem is where you purposely and wantonly misrepresent the article.

Species evolve, not individuals.

My sarcasm is not a hoax.

No sarcasm was involved, just an admittance on your part of being purposely untruthful to perpetrate a hoax on ATS.

I have other agendas myself.

Posting anything about gene regulation is definitely not a part of your agenda.

Do you have anything at all to state about the topic of the thread?

reply to post by stereologist

Dont shoot the messenger. I'm just copying and pasting, its up to you to comprehend and accept it, which seems to be where the problem is.

Clearly, the copy and pasting is not the problem. The problem is where you purposely and wantonly misrepresent the article.

Species evolve, not individuals.

Well here is where your logic is failing you. How can I misrepresent when I'm copying and pasting? You just did it again, I pasted the section on allopatric speciation clearly showing that populations speciate not species. Your wrong, I proved you wrong, and you just ignore it even though its a paste from wiki.

My sarcasm is not a hoax.


No sarcasm was involved, just an admittance on your part of being purposely untruthful to perpetrate a hoax on ATS.

My fault for not including the question mark.

reply to post by stereologist

Posting anything about gene regulation is definitely not a part of your agenda.

Do you have anything at all to state about the topic of the thread?

I have plenty about it, but all the questions fired at me are not related to it.

reply to post by stereologist


Gene regulation is just another false claim to support all of the amazing things that evolution accomplishes.
It's not enough that evolution has the ability to create new life, without being a creator, but it also has to have the ability to regulate genes without being a scientist. It also wasn't enough that evolution has the ability of altering our genes without the workings of a scientist. Keep in mind its a feat that even our scientists find difficult to do at this time, yet evoltuon has the ability, the know how, and what seems to be the direction in knowing exactly what it is doing.

It's clear to me that anything that is responsible for creating over a billion species is obviously a creator of some type. It would appear that evolution has the ability of doing all these things without the need of a person in the workings.

One of the biggest crocks is that altering genes can't be done with just a simple change. There are error detection points in the structure of DNA that will only allow changes to be possible if the correct password is issued, thats a mataphor. So when you actually believe that evoluton has the ability to alter genes it makes me laugh, because it must be one hell of a scientist without a mind or body.

It's clear that evolution was just a crutch that was made to give people something to believe in when religion isn't an option, and it has done just that. Item by item, Evolution claims to be a gathering point for any and all changes to DNA with no proof, the ability to make new life, with no proof, the ability to regulate gene expression again with no proof. There is no proof that all changes are all part of this evolution, its all in the authors mind.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well here is where your logic is failing you. How can I misrepresent when I'm copying and pasting?

Because you don’t understand what you are posting. It is like copying and pasting a black square and then saying it is white. You purposely misrepresent what you have supplied

You just did it again, I pasted the section on allopatric speciation clearly showing that populations speciate not species. Your wrong, I proved you wrong, and you just ignore it even though its a paste from wiki.

Here is a fine example. It shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

AllopatricMain article: allopatric speciation
During allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

Nowhere does it say an individual speciates. It clearly says population.

Before you make another claim based from ignorance and claim a species does not speciate that is not what Allopatric speciation describes. What you display is a constant refusal to understand what evolution describes even at the most basic level.

After over a year and 1000 pages this can only be purposeful to prevent any discussion on this subject and AGAIN you are posting off topic as you always do and show no intention of doing anything else.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well here is where your logic is failing you. How can I misrepresent when I'm copying and pasting? You just did it again, I pasted the section on allopatric speciation clearly showing that populations speciate not species. Your wrong, I proved you wrong, and you just ignore it even though its a paste from wiki.

You pasted from an article describing how species evolve and not how individuals evolve. As I stated before the copy paste is not the issue. The issue is how you purposely misrepresent the material you reference.

The only person you continue to prove wrong is yourself.

My fault for not including the question mark.

No question mark would have changed what you wrote into sarcasm. You admitted that you posted falsehoods.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Gene regulation is just another false claim to support all of the amazing things that evolution accomplishes.

Gene regulation is a fact and has been discussed in the scientific literature for over a half century.

It's not enough that evolution has the ability to create new life, without being a creator, but it also has to have the ability to regulate genes without being a scientist. It also wasn't enough that evolution has the ability of altering our genes without the workings of a scientist. Keep in mind its a feat that even our scientists find difficult to do at this time, yet evoltuon has the ability, the know how, and what seems to be the direction in knowing exactly what it is doing.

Just more of your ludicrous falsehoods. Evolution is not a thing or force, it is the observed change. Evolution does not change genes or regulate genes. Evolution is the observed change. Farmers have been changing genes for millennia in livestock and crops. Evolution is not goal oriented. So many ridiculous mistakes in so few sentences.

It's clear to me that anything that is responsible for creating over a billion species is obviously a creator of some type. It would appear that evolution has the ability of doing all these things without the need of a person in the workings.

Simply more of the same nonsense based on a lack of understanding of even the simplest words used in biology.

One of the biggest crocks is that altering genes can't be done with just a simple change. There are error detection points in the structure of DNA that will only allow changes to be possible if the correct password is issued, thats a mataphor. So when you actually believe that evoluton has the ability to alter genes it makes me laugh, because it must be one hell of a scientist without a mind or body.

More gibberish.

It's clear that evolution was just a crutch that was made to give people something to believe in when religion isn't an option, and it has done just that. Item by item, Evolution claims to be a gathering point for any and all changes to DNA with no proof, the ability to make new life, with no proof, the ability to regulate gene expression again with no proof. There is no proof that all changes are all part of this evolution, its all in the authors mind.

Evolution is a fact. The theories explain the fact of evolution quite well.

These are the sorts of gibberish comments I hear from creationists as they hide behind the failure of their tiresome and boring religions. Evolution is an extremely well established fact. The failure of religious texts such as the bible are also well established. Someday you too can learn the meaning of basic terms such as evolution as used in science.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by colin42

Nowhere does it say an individual speciates. It clearly says population.

True, but that wasn't the claim, the claim was that a species evolves, and I don't see that one either.

Nowhere does it say an individual speciates. It clearly says population.

Before you make another claim based from ignorance and claim a species does not speciate that is not what Allopatric speciation describes. What you display is a constant refusal to understand what evolution describes even at the most basic level.

After over a year and 1000 pages this can only be purposeful to prevent any discussion on this subject and AGAIN you are posting off topic as you always do and show no intention of doing anything else.

And once again there is no proof that evolution is responsible for this, only in the authors mind.