- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Missouri Bill Would Warn Parents of Evolution Boogeyman
Posted on 2/22/14 at 10:19 am to Cruiserhog
Posted on 2/22/14 at 10:19 am to Cruiserhog
Like most Darwinist, when your suppositions and misconceptions are challenged, you resort to childish personal attacks and insults
Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one."
Gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original." It is "insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." --Bozorgmehr, Joseph Esfandiar Hann
I did chuckle at your "humans have gills" assertion, however. You may need to retire that 60's era biology textbook you seem to quoting from.
Evolution does not produce novelties from scratch. It works on what already exists, either transforming a system to give it new functions or combining several systems to produce a more elaborate one."
Gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original." It is "insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." --Bozorgmehr, Joseph Esfandiar Hann
I did chuckle at your "humans have gills" assertion, however. You may need to retire that 60's era biology textbook you seem to quoting from.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 10:56 am
1
Posted on 2/22/14 at 10:57 am to mattloc
Im done being kind. Willfully ignorant beliefs should be called what they are....stupid.
pharyngeal pouches, I was typing fast, and whatever you want to deny its there in all veterbrate embryos...
because of say it all together....Evolution thru descent with modification
and we also develop a yolk sac, for no reason whatsover other than its in our DNA from our ancestors
nylonase
cecal valves in wall lizards
both simple, well known examples of new mutations that selectively filled the need where it previously did not exist
pharyngeal pouches, I was typing fast, and whatever you want to deny its there in all veterbrate embryos...
because of say it all together....Evolution thru descent with modification
and we also develop a yolk sac, for no reason whatsover other than its in our DNA from our ancestors
nylonase
cecal valves in wall lizards
both simple, well known examples of new mutations that selectively filled the need where it previously did not exist
Posted on 2/22/14 at 11:08 am to Cruiserhog
In the late 1800s scientists made long lists of vestigial organs in humans, including the tonsils, pineal gland, thymus, and appendix. In the years since, advances in our understanding of anatomy and biology have knocked them off the lists one by one.... the same will happen with the examples you cite.....and yet you cling to the pathetic notion that "there is something to it", and ignorantly criticize those who disagree with your nonsensical views
Posted on 2/22/14 at 11:18 am to mattloc
I'll try a different approach:
Please present your alternative hypothesis, complete with all of the testing, backup, research, and data that shows it to be a viable alternative.
Please present your alternative hypothesis, complete with all of the testing, backup, research, and data that shows it to be a viable alternative.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 11:56 am to mattloc
quote:
The foundation of evolution theory, gradual modification over time, slowly transforming genes that already exist, cannot account for so called "orphan genes"......,genes without parents in every taxonomic group studied so far. Looking at it objectively, the theory of evolution has been falsified. You salamanders are still salamanders and there is no evidence that they will ever be anything but salamanders. As Darwin himself pointed out "natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
This is compete nonsense
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:03 pm to mattloc
quote:
In the late 1800s scientists made long lists of vestigial organs in humans, including the tonsils, pineal gland, thymus, and appendix. In the years since, advances in our understanding of anatomy and biology have knocked them off the lists one by one.... the same will happen with the examples you cite.....and yet you cling to the pathetic notion that "there is something to it", and ignorantly criticize those who disagree with your nonsensical views
This is misleading. The appendix and palatine tonsils are more detrimental than they are beneficial and we'd be better off without them. They definitely defy the idea of a designer.
However, you ignored the true vestigial structures like the tailbone, wisdom teeth, nonfunctional auricular muscles, etc.
Also, things like goose bumps, infant reflexes and hiccups are all vestigial autonomic behaviors.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:16 pm to Roger Klarvin
Nonsense..... because Darwin said it, or because it doesnt mesh with your preconcieved notions? Many Scientist now conclude that many genes must have assembled spontaneously - "de novo". In fact, "all genome and expressed sequence tag (EST) projects to date in every taxonomic group studied so far have uncovered a substantial fraction of genes that are without known homologs [equivalents]. These 'orphans' or 'taxonomically restricted genes' (TRGs) are defined as being exclusively restricted to a particular taxonomic group. "Orphan genes are defined as genes which lack detectable similarity to genes in other species". "They typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome."41
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:18 pm to mattloc
Your lack of understanding is producing nonsense.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
The research of Weston Price demonstrated that cultures which consume wholesome diets that include an abundance of raw foods and no processed foods exhibit a significant reduction in dental problems. They had no cavities, and few if any problems with crooked teeth or tooth crowding within the mouth. This tends to illustrate that overcrowding in the mouth, and subsequent problems with wisdom teeth, is connected with the diet of modern man, not uselessness of the tooth itself as you suggest
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
Your desperate clinging to archaic supposition is producing an inability to articulate
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:30 pm to mattloc
quote:
The research of Weston Price demonstrated that cultures which consume wholesome diets that include an abundance of raw foods and no processed foods exhibit a significant reduction in dental problems. They had no cavities, and few if any problems with crooked teeth or tooth crowding within the mouth. This tends to illustrate that overcrowding in the mouth, and subsequent problems with wisdom teeth, is connected with the diet of modern man, not uselessness of the tooth itself as you suggest
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:36 pm to mattloc
quote:
Your desperate clinging to archaic supposition is producing an inability to articulate
I'll admit, your posts have rendered me speechless from time to time but not for the reasons you'd like to believe
Riddle me this: Why do infant humans have a palmar grasp reflex?
I'll go ahead and help you out: It's a vestigial autonomic reflex from when we were roaming the plains of Africa as lesser evolved hominids. Infants traveled by clinging tightly to the hair on their mother's back, the exact same thing modern ape and chimp infants do. The reflex is completely useless in modern humans, as we have neither the quantity of hair on our bodies for them to cling to nor the need for them to do so. It is entirely vestigial and now serves only for "awe cute"moments when a baby grabs your finger, something it is doing completely unconciously.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:49 pm to mattloc
quote:
In the late 1800s scientists made long lists of vestigial organs in humans, including the tonsils, pineal gland, thymus, and appendix. In the years since, advances in our understanding of anatomy and biology have knocked them off the lists one by one.... the same will happen with the examples you cite.....and yet you cling to the pathetic notion that "there is something to it", and ignorantly criticize those who disagree with your nonsensical views
lol, 'knock them off the list' hug
nylonase, was a mutation bacteria ACQUIRED after years of sitting in waste water at a textile plant. The mutation allowed them to process nylon for food, something invented by man only what 60 years ago, so the genetic information for the enzyme could not have possibly been in the library of the bacteria.
That is textbook refutation to your 'no new information' bullshite
now run along and quote mine off some creationist website like you always do to respond.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 12:55 pm to Cruiserhog
I never understood the "no new information" bit creationists use. Gene duplications/translocations and subsequent gain of function mutations are incredibly well studied and understood, to the point that they are considered basic biology curriculum.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 1:24 pm to Roger Klarvin
You'll notice he didn't respond to my last post. Because his alternative hypothesis is "POOF MAGIC BITCHES".
Posted on 2/22/14 at 1:53 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Well, congrats!
They definitely defy the idea of a designer.
There it is in proof . . . . the corollary to Newton's 3rd Law:
For every stupidity, there is a statement of equal and opposite stupidity.
This post was edited on 2/22/14 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:00 pm to NC_Tigah
Any designer who would include the appendix as part of human anatomy is a poor designer. It's an organ which directly kills thousands of people all over the world every year and serves so minimal an immune function that extensive studies have shown absolutely no difference in the infectious rate of ANY pathogen among those who have and have no had it removed.
Additionally, people over the age of 50 who still have their appendix have a slightly increased risk of colon cancer due to the appendix becoming even less efficient and leaking toxins into the bowl.
Additionally, people over the age of 50 who still have their appendix have a slightly increased risk of colon cancer due to the appendix becoming even less efficient and leaking toxins into the bowl.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I'll go ahead and help you out: It's a vestigial autonomic reflex from when we were roaming the plains of Africa as lesser evolved hominids.
Another example of presumed cause through inductive logic.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Even assuming accuracy in your new speculation, it contradicts the "definite" previous one.
Any designer who would include the appendix as part of human anatomy is a poor designer.
Posted on 2/22/14 at 2:08 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Another example of presumed cause through inductive logic.
You're right, it's probably just a coincidence.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News