Evolution problems

[Chizzang]

No, this one was pretty easy. See response above.

Really

you type and type and type and type

and have yet to say anything that is not nonsensical, much less anything that refutes the theory of evolution

it is like Chitz said... what you believe is completely faith based and your arguments are just the latest twist on "cause the bible tells me so"

Excuse me Mr. Biological Smarty Pants
When I reference you on this site (which is often) I carefully spell out your name CID1990
Mostly because I can't come up with any clever way to modulate your digits
So until I come up with something catchy


ah-hem cough *cough

[SeattleGriz]

No, this one was pretty easy. See response above.

Really

you type and type and type and type

and have yet to say anything that is not nonsensical, much less anything that refutes the theory of evolution

it is like Chitz said... what you believe is completely faith based and your arguments are just the latest twist on "cause the bible tells me so"

Like shooting fish in a barrel. I took my information from Dr Larry Moran's blog. Dr Moran, is the Professor who Chitz used to impugn Dr Hunter in my opening statements, and strongly advocates against ID.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/11/is ... l-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't this this is quite fair since the yeast strain is just reverting to a primitive condition. This might only have required one or a few mutations. It's not a very good model for de novo evolution of multicellarity.

The work from Gerry Fink's lab (e.g. Liu et al. 1996) is a good example of why we should be cautious using yeast as a model for anything. The yeast strains used in the lab have been selected for specific characteristics since bread-making and beer-making were first invented over 4000 years ago. We need to be cautious about drawing general conclusions based on work with lab yeast strains.

The lab exercise based on the Ratcliff et al. (2012) paper [Experimental Evolution of Multicellularity] may be interesting but it's also misleading. The description of that experiment implies that students are reproducing the ancient evolution of multicellularity from single-cell organisms. Instead, what students are actually looking at is the reversion of a derived, exclusively single-cell strain, to the more primitive multicellular state. That's not the same thing.

Don't you look like a total ass now? So hellbent on your mission to try and deride me and my faith, which has minimal to do with this thread, that you can't even think straight. Maybe you should call Dr Moran and tell him what you just told me. You type and type and type

[biobengal]

Really

you type and type and type and type

and have yet to say anything that is not nonsensical, much less anything that refutes the theory of evolution

it is like Chitz said... what you believe is completely faith based and your arguments are just the latest twist on "cause the bible tells me so"

Like shooting fish in a barrel. I took my information from Dr Larry Moran's blog. Dr Moran, is the Professor who Chitz used to impugn Dr Hunter in my opening statements and strongly advocates against ID.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/11/is ... l-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't this this is quite fair since the yeast strain is just reverting to a primitive condition. This might only have required one or a few mutations. It's not a very good model for de novo evolution of multicellarity.

The work from Gerry Fink's lab (e.g. Liu et al. 1996) is a good example of why we should be cautious using yeast as a model for anything. The yeast strains used in the lab have been selected for specific characteristics since bread-making and beer-making were first invented over 4000 years ago. We need to be cautious about drawing general conclusions based on work with lab yeast strains.

The lab exercise based on the Ratcliff et al. (2012) paper [Experimental Evolution of Multicellularity] may be interesting but it's also misleading. The description of that experiment implies that students are reproducing the ancient evolution of multicellularity from single-cell organisms. Instead, what students are actually looking at is the reversion of a derived, exclusively single-cell strain, to the more primitive multicellular state. That's not the same thing.

Don't you look like a total ass now? So hellbent on your mission to try and deride me and my faith, which has minimal to do with this thread, that you can't even think straight. Maybe you should call Dr Moran and tell him what you just told me. You type and type and type

No discovery will ever be good enough.... StOnge wants scientists to create novel life in the lab, Seagzz wants scientists to take these newly created organisms and make them multicellular.

Fug it... many in the evolutionary community consider the "debate" counter productive, sort of like debating a 911 truther; so slippery, no "real" problem and no "real" alternative.

[JoltinJoe]

Why does accepting evolution as fact negate the existence of God?

Isn't there still be some unknown "first cause" in evolution? Evolution explains satisfactorily how life forms evolved. Does it similarly explain how or when life forms began? For that matter, does it offer an explanation as to how or when time started, or how or when space was created?

We have a linear understanding of time and matter that really cannot grasp how space and time can have no beginning or end. This seems to suggest that there are additional means of perceiving truth which we do not possess -- for there MUST be an objective and reasonable explanation for the timelessness and boundlessness of the universe (or the multi-verses, if you prefer).

[CID1990]

Really

you type and type and type and type

and have yet to say anything that is not nonsensical, much less anything that refutes the theory of evolution

it is like Chitz said... what you believe is completely faith based and your arguments are just the latest twist on "cause the bible tells me so"

Excuse me Mr. Biological Smarty Pants
When I reference you on this site (which is often) I carefully spell out your name CID1990
Mostly because I can't come up with any clever way to modulate your digits
So until I come up with something catchy


ah-hem cough *cough

yeah?

well when I quote you I dont make up sh1t you didnt say

Clitz

[SeattleGriz]

No discovery will ever be good enough.... StOnge wants scientists to create novel life in the lab, Seagzz wants scientists to take these newly created organisms and make them multicellular.

Fug it... many in the evolutionary community consider the "debate" counter productive, sort of like debating a 911 truther; so slippery, no "real" problem and no "real" alternative.

As I believe we will eventually get there, what is holding us up now from performing those experiments?

[SeattleGriz]

Hey Cleets..Cid1990 ( )

How about you boys come play and tell us all how this happened?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154143.htm++" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The structure of this biological machine is conceptually similar to an engineer's blueprint, and it explains how each of the parts in this complex assemble into a functional complex that efficiently identifies viral DNA when it enters the cell," Wiedenheft said. "This surveillance machine consists of 12 different parts and each part of the machine has a distinct job. If we're missing one part of the machine, it doesn't work."

[D1B]

Why does accepting evolution as fact negate the existence of God?

Isn't there still be some unknown "first cause" in evolution? Evolution explains satisfactorily how life forms evolved. Does it similarly explain how or when life forms began? For that matter, does it offer an explanation as to how or when time started, or how or when space was created?

We have a linear understanding of time and matter that really cannot grasp how space and time can have no beginning or end. This seems to suggest that there are additional means of perceiving truth which we do not possess -- for there MUST be an objective and reasonable explanation for the timelessness and boundlessness of the universe (or the multi-verses, if you prefer).

It negates the existence of the Christian god.

[CID1990]

Hey Cleets..Cid1990 ( )

How about you boys come play and tell us all how this happened?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154143.htm++" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The structure of this biological machine is conceptually similar to an engineer's blueprint, and it explains how each of the parts in this complex assemble into a functional complex that efficiently identifies viral DNA when it enters the cell," Wiedenheft said. "This surveillance machine consists of 12 different parts and each part of the machine has a distinct job. If we're missing one part of the machine, it doesn't work."

you mean with an explanation other than "the bearded guy in the sky did it"?

how about let's examine which logical fallacy you constantly use

[SeattleGriz]

Hey Cleets..Cid1990 ( )

How about you boys come play and tell us all how this happened?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 154143.htm++" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you mean with an explanation other than "the bearded guy in the sky did it"?

how about let's examine which logical fallacy you constantly use

Get burned worse than anyone, and you still haven't learned. Keep it up champ. Your streak of not answering direct questions is quickly closing in on that of Cleets.

Just admit it. You don't know what you are talking about.

[JoltinJoe]

Why does accepting evolution as fact negate the existence of God?

Isn't there still be some unknown "first cause" in evolution? Evolution explains satisfactorily how life forms evolved. Does it similarly explain how or when life forms began? For that matter, does it offer an explanation as to how or when time started, or how or when space was created?

We have a linear understanding of time and matter that really cannot grasp how space and time can have no beginning or end. This seems to suggest that there are additional means of perceiving truth which we do not possess -- for there MUST be an objective and reasonable explanation for the timelessness and boundlessness of the universe (or the multi-verses, if you prefer).

It negates the existence of the Christian god.

Why?

[CID1990]

you mean with an explanation other than "the bearded guy in the sky did it"?

how about let's examine which logical fallacy you constantly use

Get burned worse than anyone, and you still haven't learned. Keep it up champ. Your streak of not answering direct questions is quickly closing in on that of Cleets.

Just admit it. You don't know what you are talking about.

when you show us evidence of the magical bearded dude in the sky then we'll debate

[JoltinJoe]

Get burned worse than anyone, and you still haven't learned. Keep it up champ. Your streak of not answering direct questions is quickly closing in on that of Cleets.

Just admit it. You don't know what you are talking about.

when you show us evidence of the magical bearded dude in the sky then we'll debate

There is no magical bearded dude in the sky. God, if he exists, is a Being which exists in dimensions and realities imperceptible to our five senses, and to which our intuition is only informed.

[CID1990]

when you show us evidence of the magical bearded dude in the sky then we'll debate

There is no magical bearded dude in the sky. God, if he exists, is a Being which exists in dimensions and realities imperceptible to our five senses, and to which our intuition is only informed.

ah the believer's escape hatch

in other words


he exists in the minds of the faithful only

[JoltinJoe]

There is no magical bearded dude in the sky. God, if he exists, is a Being which exists in dimensions and realities imperceptible to our five senses, and to which our intuition is only informed.

ah the believer's escape hatch

in other words


he exists in the minds of the faithful only

You could say that, but there is no doubt a very powerful intuitive feeling that there is a God ingrained in man, which has led to centuries of trying to ascertain the nature of God.

Why is intuition such a welcomed and herald part of the scientific method, but intuition as a basis for philosophical and theological reasoning is deemed "delusional?"

[Chizzang]

ah the believer's escape hatch

in other words


he exists in the minds of the faithful only

You could say that, but there is no doubt a very powerful intuitive feeling that there is a God ingrained in man, which has led to centuries of trying to ascertain the nature of God.

Why is intuition such a welcomed and herald part of the scientific method, but intuition as a basis for philosophical and theological reasoning is deemed "delusional?"

Now Joe,
That's a trick ^ or trap statement (but I like it a lot)
I absolutely respond to my natural inclination - my built in need for God - it is one of my favorite feelings And that experience is sometimes overwhelming (frankly its wonderful)

The reason scientific intuition is considered (sometimes) a valid starting point is because its based on previously observed behavior or previous results

In the GOD case here we're talking about a situation where God is the Biblical God - the same one who used to perform astounding miracles - for all to see - on a weekly basis... and then stopped for some reason and became the master of subtleties

It's time for a NEW GOD Joe...
One that can be defined by what we know today
Tossing out all the old garbage that is clinging to violence and fear / God cannot be both the God that performed daily miracles parting seas and physically interfering with mans daily existence

and

Then be the hidden master of subtleties and scientific laboratory planet Earth



Pick one if you want any credibility
but trying to straddle both is extremely awkward

[SeattleGriz]

You could say that, but there is no doubt a very powerful intuitive feeling that there is a God ingrained in man, which has led to centuries of trying to ascertain the nature of God.

Why is intuition such a welcomed and herald part of the scientific method, but intuition as a basis for philosophical and theological reasoning is deemed "delusional?"

Now Joe,
That's a trick ^ or trap statement (but I like it a lot)
I absolutely respond to my natural inclination - my built in need for God - it is one of my favorite feelings And that experience is sometimes overwhelming (frankly its wonderful)

The reason scientific intuition is considered (sometimes) a valid starting point is because its based on previously observed behavior or previous results

In the GOD case here we're talking about a situation where God is the Biblical God - the same one who used to perform astounding miracles - for all to see - on a weekly basis... and then stopped for some reason and became the master of subtleties

It's time for a NEW GOD Joe...
One that can be defined by what we know today
Tossing out all the old garbage that is clinging to violence and fear / God cannot be both the God that performed daily miracles parting seas and physically interfering with mans daily existence

and

Then be the hidden master of subtleties and scientific laboratory planet Earth



Pick one if you want any credibility
but trying to straddle both is extremely awkward

You are confusing history with theology.

[Vidav]

when you show us evidence of the magical bearded dude in the sky then we'll debate

There is no magical bearded dude in the sky. God, if he exists, is a Being which exists in dimensions and realities imperceptible to our five senses, and to which our intuition is only informed.

We have well over five senses.

[CID1990]

There is no magical bearded dude in the sky. God, if he exists, is a Being which exists in dimensions and realities imperceptible to our five senses, and to which our intuition is only informed.

We have well over five senses.

nice try at a troll but you should try something like,

"where in the Bible does it say that?"

[SeattleGriz]

There is no magical bearded dude in the sky. God, if he exists, is a Being which exists in dimensions and realities imperceptible to our five senses, and to which our intuition is only informed.

We have well over five senses.

You are right, but what Joe is getting at is that if God actually created the universe, He operates outside of our senses.

To give you something to think about, how much information do you think humans can intake? I don't know the answer, but do believe there is much we don't perceive.

[SeattleGriz]

We have well over five senses.

nice try at a troll but you should try something like,

"where in the Bible does it say that?"

Trolling tips from Shit-9-0.

Shocker.

[Skjellyfetti]

You are right, but what Joe is getting at is that if God actually created the universe, He operates outside of our senses.

To give you something to think about, how much information do you think humans can intake? I don't know the answer, but do believe there is much we don't perceive.

That's great and all if you believe that. But, if you believe that - then God is also outside the realm of science.

So, keep "intelligent design" to yourself. I don't give a fuck if people believe in ID - but, arguing it should be taught in science classes and whatnot is ridiculous.

[CID1990]

You are right, but what Joe is getting at is that if God actually created the universe, He operates outside of our senses.

To give you something to think about, how much information do you think humans can intake? I don't know the answer, but do believe there is much we don't perceive.

That's great and all if you believe that. But, if you believe that - then God is also outside the realm of science.

So, keep "intelligent design" to yourself. I don't give a **** if people believe in ID - but, arguing it should be taught in science classes and whatnot is ridiculous.

there you go using logic

[D1B]

It negates the existence of the Christian god.

Why?

Read the bible.

[SeattleGriz]

You are right, but what Joe is getting at is that if God actually created the universe, He operates outside of our senses.

To give you something to think about, how much information do you think humans can intake? I don't know the answer, but do believe there is much we don't perceive.

That's great and all if you believe that. But, if you believe that - then God is also outside the realm of science.

So, keep "intelligent design" to yourself. I don't give a fuck if people believe in ID - but, arguing it should be taught in science classes and whatnot is ridiculous.

Nice faux outrage.

What I said above, and will repeat, is how much of life do you believe we take in on any given day?

What if you could see infrared, and have the ability of sonar?

See where I am going with this? We only see a small percentage of what is actually out there - all of it is natural, but we just cannot observe it.

That is where I have been going with this thread. We only know a very small percentage of the natural laws and yet, we call them supernatural until we elucidate them.