RNA synthesised in a lab (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pickles]

Oh crap this is golddigger?

Sweeeet. I missed you man.

This is the best news this week.Thank you jesus RWS for bringing golddigger back.

My notebook shows Golddigger=Master of Orion=Konotay

wrong

bwahahahaha

 

[Konotay]

Oh crap this is golddigger?

Sweeeet. I missed you man.

This is the best news this week.Thank you jesus RWS for bringing golddigger back.

My notebook shows Golddigger=Master of Orion=Konotay

wrong

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content.bwahahahaha

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

 

[Konotay]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

What was the PM about? You sure I'm making this personal?My only problem with you is the noise you generate on this site. People, including myself, have engaged you seriously on this and other topics ad nauseum, but you don't seem to be interested in an honest discussion. Your only defense is to claim yourself a martyr. Sorry, we already have a CrossEyed.

 

[Konotay]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

What was the PM about? You sure I'm making this personal?My only problem with you is the noise you generate on this site. People, including myself, have engaged you seriously on this and other topics ad nauseum, but you don't seem to be interested in an honest discussion. Your only defense is to claim yourself a martyr. Sorry, we already have a CrossEyed.

Whatever. Nobody wants a fight and making things personal is pointless. I will make a deal with you: You leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

 

[Konotay]

A very timely request:

reponse to video

 

[golfguy]

konotay,

you link to the same video.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

konotay,you link to the same video.

He meant that the text under the video in konotay's link is a respone to the video.

 

[shining path]

The first sentence of the response made me giggle:

So, has Myers indeed stumbled upon a true significant challenge for ID?

ID considers itself to have challenges? I thought the whole point was that it didn't have intellectual challenges.

 

[Joe Bryant]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

Both of you please drop this or take it somewhere else. Thanks.J

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From Greg Mayer:

A paper in this week’s Nature (abstract only; here’s a NY Times piece on it) reports fascinating and important work on prebiotic synthesis of the building blocks of RNA by Matthew Powner and colleagues at the University of Manchester.

Building on an idea that can be traced back to Darwin’s notion of a “warm little pond“, chemists have sought for the origins of life in the chemistry of simple molecules– water, ammonia, methane, etc.– in an early Earth environment. Much progress has been made. It was found that lipids spontaneously aggregate into cell-like bilayers, that organic compounds are found in meteorites left over from the early history of the solar system, and, in a type of now classic experiment first conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, that quite a variety of organic compounds, including a number of biologically important ones, could be generated from these simple molecules under hypothesized early Earth conditions. Despite this progress, much remained to be understood. In particular, most life worked with DNA as the information-containing molecule, proteins as the work-horse molecules catalyzing chemical reactions, and RNA as a medium for transferring the information from the DNA to the proteins. But DNA needed proteins for its information to be expressed, and proteins needed the information from DNA to be produced– which came first?

In the 1980s, Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman indpendently discovered what seems to be the answer (or at least part of it): RNA cannot only carry information, it can also catalyze chemical reactions: it can perform the job of both DNA and proteins! Prior to the modern DNA-RNA-protein scheme, there was a living world of RNA alone, the so-called (by Wally Gilbert) “RNA World”. This was a major observational and conceptual step in our understanding. The prebiotic origin of RNA thus became a major problem. That’s where Powner et al. come in.

RNA, like DNA, is composed of many repeating units which come in four varieties (the sequence of the four types is how the information is stored), and in RNA these units are called ribonucleotides. Each of the repeating units is composed of a sugar, a nitrogenous base, and a phosphate group. For many years, attempts to find a synthetic pathway to ribonucleotides from simpler precursors were, at best, incomplete. These attempts tried to assemble the three components, but could not join the sugar with the base. What Powner et al. have done is cut this Gordian knot, and arrived at a synthesis from simpler precursors that proceeds via intermediate molecules which are neither sugars nor bases (2-amino-oxazole, then arabinose amino-oxazoline, to be precise). Under plausible conditions of pH, temperature, etc., a high yield of ribonucleotides can be had.

There are still many steps in the origin of life that need to be understood– polymerizing the ribonucleotides into a proper RNA molecule, for starters– but this is undeniably a key finding. Some hypothesize that even simpler information/catalytic molecules– the “Pre-RNA World”– preceded RNA; only future work will tell. John Sutherland, one of Powner’s coauthors, and in whose lab the work was done, worked on the problem for twelve years before he found the solution. What if he had given up after ten? Could we have concluded that no synthesis was possible? No. This work demonstrates the futility of all the various sorts of arguments– the argument from design, the God of the gaps, the argument from personal incredulity– that rely on ignorance as their chief premise.

 

[Konotay]

In this post I am not trying to prove ID or disprove evolution. I just found it interesting on how chaotic evolution is. I really don't want a debate and have no desire to win a debate. All I want is a discussion. I would enjoy you thoughts. Different opinions and perspectives are interesting

Michael Behe discusses malaria in his attempt to show what evolution can and can not do in his book “Edge of Evolution”. He discusses several other mutations to hemoglobin that have slowed the malaria parasite but I enjoyed his discussion of what he calls HbC (Hemoglobin C) This is on pages 30-34 of his book. The text below is in my words not Behe’s.HbC – This mutation is very similar to the sickle mutation. It occurs on the 6th position of the Beta chain at the same location as sickle cell. The new amino acid (AA) is positively charged replacing a negative charged AA.. This mutation occurs in regions of West Africa.. When the parasite enters the blood cell, the mutating cell, which is more fragile, unfolds more readily which exposes the parasite to reactive oxygen molecules that may damage it.. It also triggers the blood cell to be destroyed by the spleen.HbC provides protection from malaria, has far fewer problems, yet it hasn’t spread throughout Africa. Why not? Because it is heterozygotes – it requires the HbC mutation from both parents to be effective. If a future parent moved outside the village and married someone without HbC their offspring were far more vulnerable to the malaria parasite than those with sickle cell mutation. So for HbC to prosper, the parents had to stay close to home and marry their kissing cousins. As a result it spreads much slower than does the sickle cell mutation. Points that Behe calls take home lessons:1. Both HbC and Sickle Cell are harmful mutations because they diminish the functioning of the human body like anemia.2. These mutations are not in the process of building more complex, interactive biochemical systems. a. Because both sickle cell and HbC both are vying for the sixth position of the Beta chain they are mutually exclusive. b. Neither mutation occurs in the immune system, the system that is generally responsible for defending the body from microscopic predators. So the mutations are neither making a new system, not adding to an established one.3. The evolution process is convoluted almost to the point of incoherence. Even with just two mutations the interplay of these two mutantion is chaotic and tangled. a. Sickle is better in the beginning but HbC is betting in the end:b. Sickle spreads quickly, establishing itself as king of the hill before HbC can get started;c. Sickle trait carriers are better off marrying someone outside the clan, but HbC do better marrying relatives.d. The chaotic interplay of genes is not constructive at all. It all become as tangled knot. It this where Darwinian evolution leads? IMO evolution has no direction or purpose and it normal mode would therefore be chaotic.

 

[Mario Kart]

snip

I don't think the debate resides in the matter of evolution or its theory and the holes it has. The debate that people lose track of, ie Behe and others, is the fact that those holes are being continuously studied, tested, retested, and verified. So, the Swiss cheese that once was "The Theory of Evolution" has been filled in with mold, but it has been filled in, mostly, with something that is somewhat concrete (in scientific terms).The problem that Behe and ID has is that the Swiss cheese that ID is, none of it has been filled in with mold nor are the holes getting any smaller... quite the contrary. So, Behe and other ID'ers can continue to poke holes day and night at macro or micro or both parts of Evolution all they want but that is not slowing the progress of the theory becoming a law. What Behe and others should be focusing on is filling in their own holes before attempting to poke holes in their opposing thoughts. RNA synthesized in a lab is a huge leap that helps fill holes in the Swiss cheese. Behe and others need to start filling in their holes otherwise, and many already look at them as the following, they will begin to be looked at as jokes and will not be listened to. The problem does not rest in the other theory but rather their theory. Discuss.

 

[shining path]

c. Sickle trait carriers are better off marrying someone outside the clan, but HbC do better marrying relatives.

And an additional cost - you run the risk of loss of fitness at other gene sites due to inbreeding. The benefits of HbC only accumlate in the face of potent genetic costs.

It all become as tangled knot. It this where Darwinian evolution leads? IMO evolution has no direction or purpose and it normal mode would therefore be chaotic.

It does become a tangled knot. You've got millions of individual organisms with tens of millions of different genes, each of which has to make a contibution to an organisms' survival, surrounded in the biophere with other species of millions of genes doing the same thing. Throw in millions of years, and it seems likely that novel and surprising evolutionary events will arise.

 

[FatMax]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

Both of you please drop this or take it somewhere else. Thanks.J

Pickles should really stop reporting other posters.

 

[Konotay]

snip

I don't think the debate resides in the matter of evolution or its theory and the holes it has. The debate that people lose track of, ie Behe and others, is the fact that those holes are being continuously studied, tested, retested, and verified. So, the Swiss cheese that once was "The Theory of Evolution" has been filled in with mold, but it has been filled in, mostly, with something that is somewhat concrete (in scientific terms).The problem that Behe and ID has is that the Swiss cheese that ID is, none of it has been filled in with mold nor are the holes getting any smaller... quite the contrary. So, Behe and other ID'ers can continue to poke holes day and night at macro or micro or both parts of Evolution all they want but that is not slowing the progress of the theory becoming a law. What Behe and others should be focusing on is filling in their own holes before attempting to poke holes in their opposing thoughts. RNA synthesized in a lab is a huge leap that helps fill holes in the Swiss cheese. Behe and others need to start filling in their holes otherwise, and many already look at them as the following, they will begin to be looked at as jokes and will not be listened to. The problem does not rest in the other theory but rather their theory. Discuss.

Hi Mario,Evolution as defined by mutation, natural selection has not advanced much in the last 30 years. However, evolution has made strides along the line common decent. Specifically, gene sequencing is very interesting and does show common decent. As I stated earlier, common decent by it self is ambivalent toward it cause and does not prove or disprove either I.D. or evolution. The question that evolution does not answer in my opinion is how things metamorphize into something different and improved. The I.D. people call this an increase in information. I do not believe that mutation combined with natural selection has been proven in making something better or building new systems.Got to go, daughter waiting.

 

[Konotay]

snip

I don't think the debate resides in the matter of evolution or its theory and the holes it has. The debate that people lose track of, ie Behe and others, is the fact that those holes are being continuously studied, tested, retested, and verified. So, the Swiss cheese that once was "The Theory of Evolution" has been filled in with mold, but it has been filled in, mostly, with something that is somewhat concrete (in scientific terms).The problem that Behe and ID has is that the Swiss cheese that ID is, none of it has been filled in with mold nor are the holes getting any smaller... quite the contrary. So, Behe and other ID'ers can continue to poke holes day and night at macro or micro or both parts of Evolution all they want but that is not slowing the progress of the theory becoming a law. What Behe and others should be focusing on is filling in their own holes before attempting to poke holes in their opposing thoughts.

RNA synthesized in a lab is a huge leap that helps fill holes in the Swiss cheese. Behe and others need to start filling in their holes otherwise, and many already look at them as the following, they will begin to be looked at as jokes and will not be listened to. The problem does not rest in the other theory but rather their theory. Discuss.

Hi Mario,Evolution as defined by mutation, natural selection has not advanced much in the last 30 years. However, evolution has made strides along the line common decent. Specifically, gene sequencing is very interesting and does show common decent. As I stated earlier, common decent by it self is ambivalent toward it cause and does not prove or disprove either I.D. or evolution. The question that evolution does not answer in my opinion is how things metamorphize into something different and improved. The I.D. people call this an increase in information. I do not believe that mutation combined with natural selection has been proven in making something better or building new systems.

Got to go, daughter waiting.

Just to Gene sequencing has helped evolutions cause on one hand and set it back on the other.

Conflicts in the Molecular Evidence

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A very timely request:

Do you mean the Corvette analogy? If so doesn't the Corvette and other long running products that seemed to have evolved over a great number of years have one little problem with this analogy? That is when they speak of generations of Corvettes they speak of the designers going back to the drawing board and redesigning the car from the ground up for each of these generations. What evidence is there that any animal or plant that was ever redesigned from the "ground up"?If you meant something else, I missed it.

 

[Konotay]

A very timely request:

I posted this as the I.D. response not my response because it is interesting. The comment section is very interesting IMO. For example,Further, I understand that there are two orphan genes in the flagellum. Both of these should fully meet his challenge.

 

[Konotay]

Very cool videos:

The simple cell (white blood cell)

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

It didn't happen. god told me so. Problem solved!

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Miller-Urey gets dissed a lot because it wasn't perfect, but it was groundbreaking at the time because nobody had done anything like it before. Nowadays it's of more historical interest, and in demonstrating the idea of "natural" synthesis of complex organic molecules from simple precursors.In related news, the Wright Brothers invented, by today's standards, a positively crappy airplane.

not really an apples to apples analogy there from miller to the wright brothers by any stretch. and i already like how, it wasn't right (perfect) but it was groundbreaking at the time, because they didn't know any better, and 50 years from now, people will probably see how flawed this is as well. and there is a huge leap from adaptation to evolution as well.

How you can still attempt to invalidate evolution is comical.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

you don't read much non-fiction huh (and yes the bible is fiction FWIW)

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Conservopedia?

no, i don't even know what that is. RTS

:shuked: RTS= Real Time Strategy? Russian Trading System? Resistance Training Specialists?

i just find it amusing when all of these are the new groundbreaking, we finally found it answers.

That's what science does. There will be even newer, and more ground breaking experiments and observations in the future. They will be building on the successes (and yes, partial successes and even failures) of what we did before.

Regurgitating the Scriptures

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

Let's just say for the moment that variation comes through mutations. Some variation is positive, some is negative and much is neutral. Natural selection favors mutations that increase the ability for reproduction and survival. Simply, if a genetic mutation occurs to produce an offspring that has .001 mm longer legs, and that offspring is .001 faster that the next creature, it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes (even the mutated ones) to its own offspring.Adaptations are an outcome of natural selection where an organism becomes more suited to its habitat. When a habitat separates or becomes divided, or a part of a population enters a new habitat, all parts of that population continue to mutate, and select (adapt) for their differing habitat. Over (potentially) thousands or millions of generations, the differing parts of the population won't be able to breed anymore. This is speciation.It's all evolution. The little bits that make an an animal more likely to survive than it's cousin, and the big parts over millions and millions of years that create different species. You're not climbing up the cliff side of the mountain. You're taking very small steps over a very, very long period of time up the very, very gentle slope on the other side.

google darwin finches and tortoises

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

sorry didn't mean RTS, meant RWS (your name)

the problem is admitting to the mistakes and failures. you can't have success without failure, it couldn't exist.

they can't exist without each other. they need to co-exist. my problem RWS is that too often the science community itself is afraid of admitting to this, and i think it would be better if they just. well #### we did mess this up, but because of that we are closer now.

I'd need some examples of what you are trying to get to. It's certainly not the rule as science grows when we disprove hypotheses by using the scientific method. Scientists that can show that a current hypothesis is wrong, by providing one that better fits the evidence are often the ones that are lauded and remembered.Since this is about evolution, Darwin was more right than Lamarck. Gould built on what Darwin hypothesized. Mendel, with gene theory, confirmed much of what Darwin had hypothesized.

giraffes are a easy conceptual one too. (evolved from horses)First of all, evolution is not a theory, it is a name given to an observable event, specifically that things change over time. Natural selection is a theory, a theory that states how living organisms (well it can be expanded to other things) change over time. There is a theory that living organism evolve over time, Darwin's finches are sited as an example of this, and natural selection is sited as the mechanism for this. It's circumstantial as the finches haven't actually been seen to evolve, simply inferred from their variety and specializations. A better example are a species of moth in England. At one time they were mostly white, and rested on tree trunks with a light bark, probably making them hard for birds who ate them to see them. With the industrialization of England and the production of much soot from burning coal, the trunks of those trees darkened. The moths became mostly dark. They evolved in other words. Now, if an organism can change, evolve in other words, over a short time, by extension, they can do so over a long time. Did life evolve over 4 billion+ years on this planet from primordial goo? I don't know but at least science has shown the distinct possibility that it could have. Were we created by a supreme being and placed here? We have only the scribblings of other humans to suggest so. My religious teachings tell me I will know when I die. That's good enough for me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A very timely request:

The problem is ID is nothing but the old “God wouldn’t have done it this way” argument. In other word ID supporters cannot imagine how an intelligent creator could have define these values, among others and for everything else nature just took its course. Instead God has to design every detail individually. And how does unused genes suggest design? The other thing that ID'ers get wrong is they believe that complexity comes from design. Complexity happens when original elegant simple designs evolve.

 

[Konotay]

A very timely request:

The simple cell (white blood cell)



And how does unused genes suggest design?

The orphan genes in flagellum are being used by they supposedly can not be sequenced back from something earlier. That would answer the question in video challenge RWS posted.

 

[timschochet]

I have no idea why you guys are wasting your time with golddigger. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage in a debate.

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

 

[timschochet]

Konotay, I'd like to know what the goals are of your arguments. Would you like to see Intelligent Design taught in public schools? Would you like to see evolution NOT taught in public schools? If you were in charge, what would you like to see happen?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I have no idea why you guys are wasting your time with golddigger. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage in a debate.

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

The problem is that this has been done for years now on this site.

 

[Konotay]

I have no idea why you guys are wasting your time with golddigger. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage in a debate.

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

Hi Tim.Would you unpack this. If you find flaws I am interested and I will try not to be argumentative.

 

[Konotay]

I have no idea why you guys are wasting your time with golddigger. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage in a debate.

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

The problem is that this has been done for years now on this site.

Pickles just stop it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have no idea why you guys are wasting your time with golddigger. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage in a debate.

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

The problem is that this has been done for years now on this site.

Some of those really old threads are fun to read. (I think one from 2004 was bumped recently.) But I don't really have any desire to participate in one again right now.If other people do, though, I agree with timscochet that the real value of the discussion is in educating/entertaining the onlookers.

 

[shining path]

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

The problem is that this has been done for years now on this site.

But I don't really have any desire to participate in one again right now.

I keep saying this to myself.(I suppose if you really need to find a rationale, tim's post above does the trick.)

 

[timschochet]

I have no idea why you guys are wasting your time with golddigger. He doesn't understand the subject well enough to engage in a debate.

Typical response from pickles.

Typical because it's accurate. You keep trotting out the same arguments that don't make sense and expose your lack of knowledge. There really is not point to any of this if you're not willing to discuss the topic in any rational way.

The point is not to educate him, but to educate me. And other readers of this thread. By reading all of your responses to Konotay/Golddigger, I am learning about the flaws in the creationist arguments. Besides, it's very entertaining.

Hi Tim.Would you unpack this. If you find flaws I am interested and I will try not to be argumentative.

I would have a difficult time doing a better job of pointing out the flaws in your argument than Shining Path and RWS. They keep bringing up facts that you don't seem to be able to answer in any constructive way, other than denying it. The most obvious example is that you continue to compare evolution to intelligent design, claiming that neither one is testable. Yet Shining Path and RWS keep demonstrating how evolution is testable and is tested every day, and you don't seem to have any answer for this.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

These are wonderful videos. Thanks for posting them.

 

[FatMax]

I just watched both of them. I have no idea what his point is. They're neat videos, but they don't imply design. Actually, they don't have a whole lot to do with this discussion at all.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

True, but they are awesome visuals. I will probably use them in class at some point.The web has some amazing resources now.

 

[FatMax]

To be honest, I'm more impressed with the guy that put together the 3d animation that I am the cellular processes.

 

[Gigantomachia]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

Both of you please drop this or take it somewhere else. Thanks.J

Hahahahaha,Ya all got yelled at by dad.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Pickles' is getting out the big guns.

 

[Konotay]

I would have a difficult time doing a better job of pointing out the flaws in your argument than Shining Path and RWS. They keep bringing up facts that you don't seem to be able to answer in any constructive way, other than denying it. The most obvious example is that you continue to compare evolution to intelligent design, claiming that neither one is testable. Yet Shining Path and RWS keep demonstrating how evolution is testable and is tested every day, and you don't seem to have any answer for this.

I think Shining Path example of being testable revolved around gene sequencing. Which was covered and discussed without much arguement. I honest don't think you didn't read the post. I feel like it was a random potshot. I believe you a great poster and this is out of character for you.

 

[Konotay]

This has to be a Pickles alias. You started at the same time and date and you have the same style of posting.The point was this is a very interesting subject if you can discuss it calmly and without personal attacks. I am not trying to win a debate but explore something very interesting.

The videos show that the simple cell is not simple. That life is very complex at the very most elemental level.

 

[Konotay]

that is 5 sniping posts on this thread by you on this thread. Yet not one with any content. If you are trying to be a jerk you have succeeded.

Listen you whiner, I'm not the one that sends crytic private messages bawling about someone being a jerk. Whatever you were referring to wasn't me. I'd at least appreciate you dealing in reality.And it's no wonder you're on your third username. Must be tiring running from your legacy.

It is very obvious you want to make this personal. It is also very obvious that you are going to follow me around and carp on every thread I post.

Both of you please drop this or take it somewhere else. Thanks.J

Hahahahaha,Ya all got yelled at by dad.

Wow another Pickles alias. You started at the same date again.Group: MembersJoined: 14-April 03

 

[Konotay]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

Let's just say for the moment that variation comes through mutations. Some variation is positive, some is negative and much is neutral. Natural selection favors mutations that increase the ability for reproduction and survival. Simply, if a genetic mutation occurs to produce an offspring that has .001 mm longer legs, and that offspring is .001 faster that the next creature, it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes (even the mutated ones) to its own offspring.Adaptations are an outcome of natural selection where an organism becomes more suited to its habitat. When a habitat separates or becomes divided, or a part of a population enters a new habitat, all parts of that population continue to mutate, and select (adapt) for their differing habitat. Over (potentially) thousands or millions of generations, the differing parts of the population won't be able to breed anymore. This is speciation.It's all evolution. The little bits that make an an animal more likely to survive than it's cousin, and the big parts over millions and millions of years that create different species. You're not climbing up the cliff side of the mountain. You're taking very small steps over a very, very long period of time up the very, very gentle slope on the other side.

google darwin finches and tortoises

Anouther Pickles alias.Joined: 14-April 03I know you have at least one more- the chess master icon - forgot the name.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Explain please.

adaptation- an organism changing to adapt itself better to it's environment to thrive and survive and live, reproduce more effectively, etc. evolution- one organism completely changing into another organism. i.e. fish turning into snakes. (bad example i know, but it's been a long day)

Let's just say for the moment that variation comes through mutations. Some variation is positive, some is negative and much is neutral. Natural selection favors mutations that increase the ability for reproduction and survival. Simply, if a genetic mutation occurs to produce an offspring that has .001 mm longer legs, and that offspring is .001 faster that the next creature, it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes (even the mutated ones) to its own offspring.Adaptations are an outcome of natural selection where an organism becomes more suited to its habitat. When a habitat separates or becomes divided, or a part of a population enters a new habitat, all parts of that population continue to mutate, and select (adapt) for their differing habitat. Over (potentially) thousands or millions of generations, the differing parts of the population won't be able to breed anymore. This is speciation.It's all evolution. The little bits that make an an animal more likely to survive than it's cousin, and the big parts over millions and millions of years that create different species. You're not climbing up the cliff side of the mountain. You're taking very small steps over a very, very long period of time up the very, very gentle slope on the other side.

google darwin finches and tortoises

Anouther Pickles alias.Joined: 14-April 03I know you have at least one more- the chess master icon - forgot the name.

Wow. You've got this all figured out, don't you.

 

[Drifter]

Ooooh oooh. I must be a Pickles alias as well!

 

[timschochet]

I would have a difficult time doing a better job of pointing out the flaws in your argument than Shining Path and RWS. They keep bringing up facts that you don't seem to be able to answer in any constructive way, other than denying it. The most obvious example is that you continue to compare evolution to intelligent design, claiming that neither one is testable. Yet Shining Path and RWS keep demonstrating how evolution is testable and is tested every day, and you don't seem to have any answer for this.

I think Shining Path example of being testable revolved around gene sequencing. Which was covered and discussed without much arguement. I honest don't think you didn't read the post. I feel like it was a random potshot. I believe you a great poster and this is out of character for you.

Hardly a potshot at all; I disagree with you. You have been presented with many ways that evolution is testable. Yet you continue to deny it. I consider that to be a flawed argument. This does not mean that I have any opinion about YOU- I don't know you, and I have no reason to believe that you are a good or bad person. I assume that you are a good person, because I assume it of everyone I don't know. I do know that you are an intelligent poster- if you weren't, I wouldn't bother responding. But I find your arguments on this issue to be weak.