Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Political board is in shambles.

I think we need a new SeattleGriz thread.

Ill work somthin' up tonight.

Finally got some booze in me.

Where is Clenz by the way?

Iowa

This thread is going places.

Well I can hardly wait to see how this plays out...

https://biggeekdad.com/2017/10/politica ... ct-school/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, these new models of the large scale structure of the universe do look a lot like a neural system....

SG doing everything he can to lure Joltin' back to the board...and Douche1Bag...

Double whammy!

Recent study shows two things:

1) Mutational decay was too overwhelming.
2) They used Richard Lenski's E Coli experiment as the basis. This is the same E Coli group that has been exposed to over 50,000 generations and is STILL E Coli. Has not "speciated" into anything else.

Essentially saying they need to rethink their thinking on hypermutable systems like bacteria evolution, viruses and cancer cells. Whoops!

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/ ... 4.abstract

dbackjon wrote:Iowa

I meant for this thread. I usually beat on him so I'm nicer to everyone else.

SeattleGriz wrote:Double whammy!

Recent study shows two things:

1) Mutational decay was too overwhelming.
2) They used Richard Lenski's E Coli experiment as the basis. This is the same E Coli group that has been exposed to over 50,000 generations and is STILL E Coli. Has not "speciated" into anything else.

Essentially saying they need to rethink their thinking on hypermutable systems like bacteria evolution, viruses and cancer cells. Whoops!
t

So God then..?
Right, Okay got it

Well how about that - look at the time - problem solved

Next

Chizzang wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Double whammy!

Recent study shows two things:

1) Mutational decay was too overwhelming.
2) They used Richard Lenski's E Coli experiment as the basis. This is the same E Coli group that has been exposed to over 50,000 generations and is STILL E Coli. Has not "speciated" into anything else.

Essentially saying they need to rethink their thinking on hypermutable systems like bacteria evolution, viruses and cancer cells. Whoops!
t

So God then..?
Right, Okay got it

Well how about that - look at the time - problem solved

Next

Truth is, if it isn't evolution then it is God. There are no other options.

Chizzang wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Double whammy!

Recent study shows two things:

1) Mutational decay was too overwhelming.
2) They used Richard Lenski's E Coli experiment as the basis. This is the same E Coli group that has been exposed to over 50,000 generations and is STILL E Coli. Has not "speciated" into anything else.

Essentially saying they need to rethink their thinking on hypermutable systems like bacteria evolution, viruses and cancer cells. Whoops!
t

So God then..?
Right, Okay got it

Well how about that - look at the time - problem solved

Next

Excuse me, Mister.... that was MY line


BTW we need another intelligent design thread about as much as we need another “how do we know we landed on the moon” thread

Vidav wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
So God then..?
Right, Okay got it

Well how about that - look at the time - problem solved

Next

Truth is, if it isn't evolution then it is God. There are no other options.

Could be aliens. Of course they would also then be the "God".

Or...there could be some unifying force that interacts with our DNA. Could be something we haven't discovered yet.

The point is that current thought is more dogma than science. Shitty prediction after shitty prediction. A theory's quality is determined by it's accuracy in predictions. You need to apply Occam's razor when explaining why your theory gave you a shit prediction, not add layers of bullshit.

It's really very simple.

Chizzang wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Double whammy!

Recent study shows two things:

1) Mutational decay was too overwhelming.
2) They used Richard Lenski's E Coli experiment as the basis. This is the same E Coli group that has been exposed to over 50,000 generations and is STILL E Coli. Has not "speciated" into anything else.

Essentially saying they need to rethink their thinking on hypermutable systems like bacteria evolution, viruses and cancer cells. Whoops!
t

So God then..?
Right, Okay got it

Well how about that - look at the time - problem solved

Next

Like the movie Superbad, this response is Superweak.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Truth is, if it isn't evolution then it is God. There are no other options.

Could be aliens. Of course they would also then be the "God".

Or...there could be some unifying force that interacts with our DNA. Could be something we haven't discovered yet.

The point is that current thought is more dogma than science. Shitty prediction after shitty prediction. A theory's quality is determined by it's accuracy in predictions. You need to apply Occam's razor when explaining why your theory gave you a shit prediction, not add layers of bullshit.

It's really very simple.

It is science. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it dogma.

Vidav wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
Could be aliens. Of course they would also then be the "God".

Or...there could be some unifying force that interacts with our DNA. Could be something we haven't discovered yet.

The point is that current thought is more dogma than science. Shitty prediction after shitty prediction. A theory's quality is determined by it's accuracy in predictions. You need to apply Occam's razor when explaining why your theory gave you a shit prediction, not add layers of bullshit.

It's really very simple.

It is science. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it dogma.

Oh contraire Mon frere.

I am a total science dork. It's pretty simple and this has been my stance all along. As our science progresses, we are realizing that mutation and natural selection aren't enough to answer our newly found questions.

There is something missing from Evolution and that is why all the predictions are crappy. It's like missing part of a math equation and getting the answer wrong all the time.

I am not saying Evolution needs to be scrapped, but the dogma surrounding the theory needs to be cleared out. It's preventing the sort of thinking required to figure out what is missing.

I thought this was an Intelligent Design thread? Why don't you tell us why intelligent design is the best **scientific** explanation?

Skjellyfetti wrote:I thought this was an Intelligent Design thread? Why don't you tell us why intelligent design is the best **scientific** explanation?

The reason intelligent design in a good choice is from empirical observation. We have too many instances where the "evolution of the gaps" is applied. If something looks like it was made through intelligence, why not investigate?

Intelligence shows up in bioinformatics. Studying the flow and creation of information in DNA. If we can understand what happens to the flow and/or increase in information for the creation of new species or novelties, that hopefully should lead to understanding how and why it happened.

I am perfectly fine if this happens to be a natural process we simply don't understand yet.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I thought this was an Intelligent Design thread? Why don't you tell us why intelligent design is the best **scientific** explanation?

The reason intelligent design in a good choice is from empirical observation. We have too many instances where the "evolution of the gaps" is applied. If something looks like it was made through intelligence, why not investigate?

Intelligence shows up in bioinformatics. Studying the flow and creation of information in DNA. If we can understand what happens to the flow and/or increase in information for the creation of new species or novelties, that hopefully should lead to understanding how and why it happened.

I am perfectly fine if this happens to be a natural process we simply don't understand yet.

You are a master in the craft of word salad

CID1990 wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
The reason intelligent design in a good choice is from empirical observation. We have too many instances where the "evolution of the gaps" is applied. If something looks like it was made through intelligence, why not investigate?

Intelligence shows up in bioinformatics. Studying the flow and creation of information in DNA. If we can understand what happens to the flow and/or increase in information for the creation of new species or novelties, that hopefully should lead to understanding how and why it happened.

I am perfectly fine if this happens to be a natural process we simply don't understand yet.

You are a master in the craft of word salad

Meh. I try to keep it at a level everyone can speak to, not that my mastery is much higher than anyone else's, but I know it's fruitless to discuss anything other than generalities.

Chizzang wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Double whammy!

Recent study shows two things:

1) Mutational decay was too overwhelming.
2) They used Richard Lenski's E Coli experiment as the basis. This is the same E Coli group that has been exposed to over 50,000 generations and is STILL E Coli. Has not "speciated" into anything else.

Essentially saying they need to rethink their thinking on hypermutable systems like bacteria evolution, viruses and cancer cells. Whoops!
t

So God then..?
Right, Okay got it

Well how about that - look at the time - problem solved

Next

Does there come a point when you've basically exhausted any physical explanation for some particular thing?

If I'm playing chess and my opponent has a pair of bishops on the same color I'm going to assume that person made an illegal move somewhere or that the pieces weren't set up correctly. I can't name exactly how it was done, but I know it was done.

I do wonder why it is no one has been able to create a living and replicating cell from inorganic matter. Is there some chemical property of the most common inorganic substances that we by now don't know?