RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 12:01:46 AM)

Anthrosub's explanation of the chain leading to life as we know it contains the following.....
During the Paleozoic epoch ALL life forms were primitive and lived in the oceans. Implicitly Anthrosub then says that such life forms were well adapted to such a life and a basic equilibrium existed across the "universe" of life at that time.
Anthrosub then says that  life emerged from the ocean to live on land. I assume the land lubbers were different species to those left behind in the sea.

Therefore Anthrosub, what facet of Natural Selection caused pressure such that species moved from an environment to which they were perfectly suited to one where at the start, well.... they must have been like a fish out of water!!!!!

The rest of Anthrosub's post just lists what we all know demolishes the credentials of natural selection.
*********LIFE DEVELOPS IN DISCONTINUOUS JUMPS.*********



Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 12:12:23 AM)

Benji? Over here, pup. We have a funny, old bone for you to gnaw on. It is palaeolitical.



Dauric -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 12:58:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus
I think God owed us at least that much.

Behold my avatar, cp. Do you truly think the Creator should apologize for that?


Here I was about to say that the people still arguing over Evolution / ID were ignoring us when I saw this.

An in response: Yes there are wonderful patches of beauty in the world. In those cases it is often nice to be able to see one or two trees rather than the whole forest as it's being burned down to prevent devaluation of the leaf.

$0.02,

Dauric.



seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 1:58:21 AM)

Thought I would just try to fill out a little detail on the molecular complexity issue, especially for Daddy Rule and Anthrosub, henceforth known as the 3 muskateers. I especially advise that Daddy takes a seat in case a severe anxiety attack ensues.

Haemoglobin: vital to human life, transports Oxygen around the body.
At its heart consists an atom of iron binding together 4 nitrogen atoms.
This is known as a heme which then binds together with 4 helices of indeterminate( by me ) length but highly complex structure. Also present are histidene molecules comprising Nitrogen Hydrogen Carbon and Oxygen.
I am not sure whether the histidene is in fact the helical support structure due to confusion caused by flipping around docs. to obtain the above. Since I now find out tha Histidene is an amino acid it seem certain it is present in the helices.

Bear in mind that Haemoglobin is ONE  of many (hundreds ?) proteins present in humans all performing precise TARGETTED functions and all would  need to have evolved together in order for humans to survive in their present form.
Haemoglobin is described as a SIMPLE molecule!!
Mutations tend to have deleterious effects.on the function of the molecule
see Sickle cell anaemia.

Disinterested viewers will note that I do not use jargon to impress a layman as do Daddy and Rule. Where I use a technical term I define it in the post.

Thee muskateers are you ready to accept the flaws in your belief system?



philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 2:46:58 AM)

"Therefore Anthrosub, what facet of Natural Selection caused pressure such that species moved from an environment to which they were perfectly suited to one where at the start, well.... they must have been like a fish out of water!!!!!"


...oh my aching sides.........let me see, seeks.....can you spell 'population pressure'?

** gets out the plastic beagle and taunts seeks with it**



Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 3:42:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I especially advise that Daddy takes a seat in case a severe anxiety attack ensues.
I do not know about him, but I am getting quite bored.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Haemoglobin: vital to human life

I know quite a bit about haemoglobin and biochemistry, seeks. I also know some things about haemoglobin that nobody else does. Get yourself into university, study biology for thirty years and afterwards perhaps we can talk.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Mutations tend to have deleterious effects.on the function of the molecule
see Sickle cell anaemia.

It depends on the biotope whether a mutation is deleterious, seeks. Natural selection evolved sickle cell anaemia in a biotope where sickle cell anaemia is not deleterious, but advantageous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Disinterested viewers will note that I do not use jargon to impress a layman as do Daddy and Rule.

Thanks, I think...

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Thee muskateers are you ready to accept the flaws in your belief system?

You lack the knowledge and ingenuity to find those flaws, seeks. I am now at the point where your pathetic attempts make me yawn with boredom.



anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 4:53:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Anthrosub's explanation of the chain leading to life as we know it contains the following.....
During the Paleozoic epoch ALL life forms were primitive and lived in the oceans. Implicitly Anthrosub then says that such life forms were well adapted to such a life and a basic equilibrium existed across the "universe" of life at that time.
Anthrosub then says that  life emerged from the ocean to live on land. I assume the land lubbers were different species to those left behind in the sea.

Therefore Anthrosub, what facet of Natural Selection caused pressure such that species moved from an environment to which they were perfectly suited to one where at the start, well.... they must have been like a fish out of water!!!!!

The rest of Anthrosub's post just lists what we all know demolishes the credentials of natural selection.
*********LIFE DEVELOPS IN DISCONTINUOUS JUMPS.*********

 
I have the answer for you...it's so simple I'm extremely surprised you haven't given it yourself.
 
I asked you a question at the end of my previous post.  You didn't answer it.  Now I'll ask you to answer this one to show me and everyone else here you have the ability to use deductive reasoning.
 
Here's the question...
 
What would explain why some life forms living and evolving during the Ordovician Period made the transition to land?
 
Here's a hint...go to the beach.
 
Think before you answer; don't just write down the first thing that pops out of your head.
 
anthrosub



seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:13:09 AM)

Anthrosub asks me
What would explain why some life forms living and evolving during the Ordovician Period made the transition to land?

Anthrosub I have NO idea. Please tell me, but before you do, I trust you will not use the  following reasoning.....

Natural Selection is true. Fossil record shows Sea creatures. Fossil record shows Land creatures appearing in a relatively short time interval after. Therefore Natural Selection explains why sea creatures moved to the land.

Something else has just occured to me. Till they left the water environmental pressure would not have promoted those features that allowed survival on the land . Eh? and just as important Anthrosub even if such features developed in the sea,not likely unless Natural Selection is wrong,the creatures were in equilibrium in the sea and had no inner incentive to "move on" Eh?



philosophy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:25:26 AM)

"the creatures were in equilibrium in the sea and had no inner incentive to "move on" Eh? "


.....can you spell 'population pressure' yet?

**gets out the plastic beagle again**



Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:33:15 AM)

Insects did because they don't care whether they are in or out of the water. Amphibians did because they eat insects. If there is an open ecological niche, natural selection will cause it to be occupied.
 
My favourite hypothesis, though, is that animals moved onto land because they liked ice cream. As anyone knows, ice cream has to be sold, bought and eaten on land, because in the water it would give a mess. The important question, therefore, is this one: where did they get the money to buy the ice cream? If you can answer that question, seeks, you will have solved one of the greatest mysteries of evolution.



LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:39:49 AM)

Yes - but who made the ice cream?

Must have been those lil white mice again........

E



Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:56:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Yes - but who made the ice cream?

Must have been those lil white mice again........

E

Possibly. That, however, is the subject of advanced evolutionary theory and we shouldn't bother seeks with it. He is still struggling with the first, simpler problem: where did they get the money. Evolution is just like any other investigation: follow the money trail.
 



captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 6:57:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dauric

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus
I think God owed us at least that much.

Behold my avatar, cp. Do you truly think the Creator should apologize for that?


Here I was about to say that the people still arguing over Evolution / ID were ignoring us when I saw this.

An in response: Yes there are wonderful patches of beauty in the world. In those cases it is often nice to be able to see one or two trees rather than the whole forest as it's being burned down to prevent devaluation of the leaf.

$0.02,

Dauric.


Oops, I didn't see that.  Yes, it is inconveniently small. [:D]



Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 7:04:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus
Oops, I didn't see that.  Yes, it is inconveniently small. [:D]

I apologize for the inconvenience. [;)]



CrappyDom -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 7:46:51 AM)

Wow, I am converted.  I makes SO much more sense to think some old dude sitting on a cloud created the universe in seven days, what could I have been thinking to believe otherwise.

But then, who made him?



Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 7:53:00 AM)

I did, in my original incarnation. [;)]

Creating ice cream was a lot more fun, though. Couldn't lure those amphibians out of the water any other way. [;)]



captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 8:03:17 AM)

This thread gets so much better when the absurdity is embraced as opposed to argued against.



BrutalAntipathy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 8:22:05 AM)

There are still unanswered questions concerning gravity. Does this mean that we should discount the theory of gravity? After all, Einstein threw a cog into Neutonian gravity, so the theory MUST be wrong, right? Wrong.
 
Like many theories ( gravity, germ, nuclear, etc ) evolution theory has explanatory power. Where is the explanation in " God did it! "? We could argue that " God did it! " is an answer, but it lacks in providing an explanation for anything, making it a worthless answer.
 
Take the following for example.
 
Question: How does a combustion engine work?
Answer: A magical unicorn makes it work.
Explanation: A fuel such as gasoline fills a chamber and is ignited by a spark plug which generates the energy for work. The superheated gas pushes a piston which moves a crankshaft attached to an axle. The axle is connected to wheels which turn, causing the vehicle to move.
 
Now, that explanation is not complete, but it is vastly better than the ( non ) answer " A magical unicorn makes it work ". In the same light, evolution may not provide every single answer to every single question ( yet ), but it is in orders of magnitude better at offering explanations as to how life came about than " God did it! " is. Otherwise the ID'ers would be offering their own explanations to counter evolution rather than trying to tear the theory down.
 
Occam's razor says that when given 2 theories that equally explain a phenomena, the shortest of the two theories is usually correct. Unfortunately ID offers absolutely nothing by way of explanation, making it ineligable for ineligible as a contender even should the ID'ers suceed in disproving evolution. We would be left with nothing, because " God did it! " explains absolutely nothing.



captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 11:27:17 AM)

I just found this:

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/15evo_lg.jpg

And I'm proooooud to be an American! *sings* 

*commits seppuku*



mnottertail -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/16/2006 12:03:32 PM)

Haven't you ever heard of sand-dollars?  Biologist, indeed... You are the one running around spouting the fill in the niche with whatever invertebrate can ooze into it..... 

While we are on the subject, let's just uncover some more of your profound chasms in  knowledge and logical thinking.........

If they came from the sea for ice cream, and if indeed it truely would wash away in the liquid as your lemma seems to suggest..........why then can you deep fry it?


(here is a hint for you:  cause ice cream ain't got no bones...)


LMCAO,
Ron who should get a degree in psuedo-science, it looks easy.

'Schlau, aber nict wahr' Albert Einstein... for benefit of Dennis Hopper guy. 


Gawd! I love this town!
(I hope you found it funny too)



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875