Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
15 Sep 16
08:12
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-dies-after-contracting-brain-eating-amoeba-in-maryland/
i was thinking about the ameoba, wasn't that the first creature on the planet? first organism? they split into two then four etc. asexual reproduction. So at some stage they'd have to switch over to sex with other amoebas. to evolve. aren't we related? so an amoeba would have to form sex parts. amoeba vag and amoeba peni5 - so it would have to be multiple evolutionary events at the same time. No use having a peni5 if there ain't a corresponding vag? then every time a species jumps into another form... a fish to a frog - the frog's got to find a mate? otherwise it's a dead end. So they all have to evolve at the same time? because you need 28 - 160 members in a viable gene pool? otherwise the species degrades.
i was thinking about the ameoba, wasn't that the first creature on the planet? first organism? they split into two then four etc. asexual reproduction. So at some stage they'd have to switch over to sex with other amoebas. to evolve. aren't we related? so an amoeba would have to form sex parts. amoeba vag and amoeba peni5 - so it would have to be multiple evolutionary events at the same time. No use having a peni5 if there ain't a corresponding vag? then every time a species jumps into another form... a fish to a frog - the frog's got to find a mate? otherwise it's a dead end. So they all have to evolve at the same time? because you need 28 - 160 members in a viable gene pool? otherwise the species degrades.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 46
|
By:
I'm guessing you do not have a GCSE (or O Level) in Biology.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Have been away for a few days and return to see Zorro is still posting choite about evolution.
 He obviously hasn't bothered with the reading project I gave him. It's hardly surprising that no-one is taking him seriously. |
|
By:
As evolution is crumbling to pieces in all arenas. I'd be kind of dumb
to collect a reading list that's redundant. Like a windows 3.1 user manual. whenever i investigate it, it gets more and more stupid. Last year I thought perhaps God might have used evolution as a tool to advance man thru the ages. but there is no evidence for 99 percent of it. It's a religion. there is no science in it. It's jumped into the science box and now the other sciences are telling it to get out. intelligent design is taking over, the scientists still don't want to say'god', because if they do... they'll be lampooned. Aliens have more cred than 'god'. Even Dawkin's talks about alien DNA - while talking about spaghetti monsters and chocolate pots? the Cambrian explosion. the Fibonacci sequence in all plants, in magnetic fields, observed in the quantum world. missing animals in fossil records - intermediates. the mutation questions that no biologist can address? the information gap in DNA - chimpanzee gets to 95 percent? mice at 92 percent, where is the 99 percenter? DNA has no junk sequences. meta information that tells it where to fold and bind? universal laws that support life. you've got a theory from 1850. it's dead in the water and your hanging onto a rotting bloated corpse, but you are keep saying it smells so sweet. anything to avoid god. |
|
By:
the mutation questions that no biologist can address?
Disease? Climate change? Mutation questions have been addressed. |
|
By:
we know about mutations that are subtractive - called diseases.
Like cancer. It'll kill one third of all people. So where are the positive mutations that spur on evolution. Richard Hawkins answers it below... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQHgcx2_5o |
|
By:
A retrovirus could kill many and mutate a few zorro.
The mutated are then classified as either positive mutations or negative mutations. |
|
By:
So where are the positive mutations that spur on evolution.
CCR5 Δ32 , for humans at least , is the best studied. Some random person was born with it 1000 years ago and from this individual there are tens , maybe hundreds of millions with it today. At first it maybe seemed a neutral thing not harming or benefiting the person and so they were able to have children and pass it to them but even after generations only an infinitesimal % of people would have this mutation . Then the onslaught of The Black Death and Smallpox for centuries wiped out a huge percent of the population of Europe . But those with CCR5 Δ32 survived ,and so their % of the total population rose exponentially. It's high incidence in Europe is also though to be the reason AIDS is much less widespread here. |
|
By:
Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is another obvious modern example
|
|
By:
we've gotten more deadly over the last two hundred years... more evolved?
adaption isn't evolution. you can take a little poison each day and in a year you are resistant to a big dose. do you evolve? some people can take five 'e's and party hard. others one will kill. individuals are different, different blood types. different constitution. |
|
By:
Zorro asks these questions because he can't fathom the answers but always reverts to the Pascals Wager that a god exists while deep down he knows there is no evidence.
|
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv2U2Xp2Nu8
listen wazzoks - i've spent months looking into darwin's theories online. I spend two hours minimum a night watching debates and looking up articles on Darwinism - you 'believers' in Darwinism... have you investigated it? or is it on blind faith that you base your world view. After months of condensed study - all i see is smoke and mirrors. here's an analogy I thought of this morning concerning 'micro evolution'. you mix black paint with white paint, you get grey paint. still paint. did it evolve? you take a black dog and a white dog and you get a mixed colour dog... that's evolution. variations within a species 'dog' are variations. i'm five foot ten and white. usain bolt is six foot six and black. we're the same species. variations. so where are all the transitional species. where are the x-men ? why has no one observed evolution happening. past or present in the last 150 years since evolution theory in 1859? Has it stopped? millions of species and no evolution? |
|
By:
congratulations.
you have a degree from the university of youtube. an internationally recognised qualification demonstrating unparalleled levels of ignorance and misinformation. |
|
By:
it's f*cking amazing that Ivy League universities are flooding youtube with their lecture courses and yet you spend a minimum of 2 hours a night watching total horseshit.
|
|
By:
Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code Problem 3: Step-by-Step Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Needed for Irreducible Complexity Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits in Populations Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution Problem 6: Molecular Biology Has Failed to Yield a Grand "Tree of Life" Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry Problem 8: Differences Between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of Many Species Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism's Long History of Inaccurate Predictions about Junk Organs and Junk DNA Problem 11: Universal Constants and Fibonacci sequence support idea of intelligent design. |
|
By:
Dstyle - where's your study list?
|
|
By:
here's a thought.
i have a degree which has covered plenty of genetics and molecular biology. yet i watch some of the nonsense you post and can pick it to pieces. yet you don't seem to be prepared to give yourself even the most rudimentary grounding in basic biology, chemistry or even the theory of evolution, instead seeking out only videos which confirm your existing views, with nonsense dressed up as science spouted by people with no qualifications or proper understanding of the subject matter. as i've explained before, 99% of the videos you watch are slaying strawmen invented either deliberately or through negligence. you spend your time watching videos spouting nonsense, so you can tell everyone on here that you're right. who are trying to convince? it sounds like it's you? why are you so afraid of actually trying to understand the real theories and ideas? |
|
By:
dstyle - i can read and understand what i'm reading.
i also have a degree - yes. you are right I did not take biology. but there are many biologists out there that disagree with Darwinism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup091141.html take a look. refute the article. dig out the 1859 theories from your force fed university syllabus. Did you ever read outside the syllabus? |
|
By:
you didn't answer my question.
why are you so afraid of actually trying to understand the real theories and ideas? |
|
By:
dstyle - i can read and understand what i'm reading.
and while this may be true, you have absolutely no idea whether it's correct or not, whether you are being fed incomplete information, whether you are being misled. that's my point. |
|
By:
i'm not afraid - i'm spending hours trying to understand it -
i'm watching videos as I figure it's the quickest way of doing this. Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and ... In 1994, Wells earned another PhD in molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley. I'm watching A Critique of Darwinist Icons (Icons of Evolution) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te3aShKST1A - this afternoon. Can you explain why you've decided it's a closed book. That science doesn't accept revisions anymore? Einstein has been proved wrong on many of his theories. Are you afraid to look at the recent evidence from the Gnome project and the other DNA projects that show that there is no junk DNA. reasons why the golden mean - the Fibonacci sequence is saturating existence down to the sub atomic realm. Into the quantum universe. missing fossils - missing intermediate species. sudden species explosions without previous progenitors. |
|
By:
Questions need answers - So start answering some.
|
|
By:
no you're not.
you're listening to people who don't know what they are talking about and have ulterior motives. |
|
By:
Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code i did these two the other day. but what's the point? you need decent biochemistry and organic chemistry to understand it. |
|
By:
and i've not decided it's a closed book.
i never said that. all scientific theories must be falsifiable. it's one of their hallmarks. you'd win a nobel prize if you had adequate evidence to disprove Darwin's theory. do you think evolutionary biology needs a bunch of religious zealots with no understanding to help them move their subject forward? |
|
By:
sometimes the cops shouldn't investigate themselves.
"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."1 So said Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education's 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution. For those who follow the debate over origins, Dr. Scott's words are as unsurprising as they are familiar. It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are "fact." Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide -- you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.2 Such bullying is enough to convince many that it's much easier on your academic standing, your career, and your reputation to just buy into Darwinism. The few holdouts who remain are intimidated into silence. But is it true that there are "no weaknesses" in evolutionary theory? Are those who express doubts about Darwinism displaying courage, or are they fools that want to take us back to the dark ages and era of the flat Earth?3 Thankfully, it's very easy to test these questions: all one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci091101.html |
|
By:
what is truth?
i'm not turning my back - i'm investigating for myself. not for anyone else. I posted items on religion and was force fed 'Darwinism' as the answer. Many on this forum have been taught evolution is the 'answer' not God. So I'm trying to understand why people would choose to be related to simians? I prefer to be a creation of God. your outcome is a devaluation of humanity to that of an animal. My valuation of humanity is that he has intrinsic worth. a spirit in a shell. |
|
By:
you're not investigating.
you exclusively subscribe to ideas which support your religious viewpoints. it's like investigating a murder when you've already decided who did it. |
|
By:
No - i took what society told me was the way things were for
50 years and investigated it and found discrepancies. I wanted to believe Darwin. I believed God worked it into creation. a lot of darwinists are christians. But now after looking at it, it just doesn't fly for me. |
|
By:
you do understand that "evolution news" is a front for ID advocates
here's a project. how many papers picking these serious holes in evolutionary theory have been SUBMITTED, not published, SUBMITTED to peer reviewed journals.... |
|
By:
I listed ten discrepancies, but there must be fifty I've found over the last
month. I'd have to spend hours collating them into a pile. |
|
By:
Why is it anyone with questions has to be a member of the club?
Are questions painful ? |
|
By:
because "the club" is how science moves forward.
and "the club's" very business is trying to disprove stuff. seriously, just submit one of their screeds, or even one point in one of their screeds, to a journal. but they don't bother. why do you think that is? |
|
By:
Nature and Science has published articles about intelligent design
Nature 431, 114 (9 September 2004) Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design Jim Giles |
|
By:
also Nature and Science has published articles on
the golden mean 1.618 - Fibonacci sequence. evident in magnetic poles. seen in structures of quantum particles. first recorded signature. |
|
By:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7143/full/447364a.html
Darwin sceptic says views cost tenure - Nature |
|
By:
You seem to be looking for answers but are cherry picking what you want to hear, that's not how science works but it is how religion thrives.
|
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo
|
|
By:
Let me give you an analogy.
Imagine there's a building with a single door. Inside the building there are some moderately complex machines doing all sorts of things. You are only allowed inside the building , through the door, if you understand how the machines work. Outside of the building there are all sorts of people telling everyone what it's like inside. Some of the people have been inside, but others haven't. It's hard for anyone who hasn't been inside to know which people have and which people haven't, because they haven't been inside themselves. It's also hard for people who haven't been inside to know whether what the people on the outside are saying is true or not, because they don't really understand how the machines work. There are thousands of books written by people who have been insde the building describing how the machines work. Indeed some of these books are written by the people who invented the machines. You are standing on the outside, and you don't know how the machines work, and you're listening to people who are telling lies and who don't understand how the machines work. Just because there are lots of them, and they might sound convincing, and they support things you agree with, doesn't mean that they are right. You could easily go and read the books you need to to get access to the building and then go and find things out for yourself. Why do you choose to rely on the word of the liars and charletons standing outside instead? Why do you spend so much time listening to them, when you could be spending that time working towards getting access to the building instead? |