Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
And it was all the armchair scientists that took this thread to the weird place it is now.
If I could take this thread back, delete it from history I would. Clearly I underestimated the OT forum and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
Howard A Treesong wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Why bring it up then?
cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
the harvard part was more of a joke
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
Aerethan wrote:Clearly I underestimated Dakka and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
Clearly. ;p
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/17 03:13:09
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
Aerethan wrote:I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
And it was all the armchair scientists that took this thread to the weird place it is now.
If I could take this thread back, delete it from history I would. Clearly I underestimated the OT forum and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
yup. doesnt matter what the thread is about,it its in OT, someone will find a way to change the subject.
unless its something completely funny and silly like "how dakka users invade countries".
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Why bring it up then?
cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
the harvard part was more of a joke
What do you think of my brief response to a few points in your article? It's late here so I'm not picking it all apart, it's just a few sections just made me laugh they were so hopeless. I mean if that's the sort of stuff you rely on to get your info, well it's totally wrong, a basic textbook would tell you that.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
A good, googable example of this would be a recent study that showed 1 of our pairs of chromosomes is actually a fusion of two (the 2nd and 13th I think) chimpanzee chromosome, they even found alleles in the middle of our particular chromosome in question.
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
Howard A Treesong wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
I don't think anyone here has lied about their education to 'win' the argument.
actually no one has really mentioned what there education is. not me,or anyone. so no one lied,or said the truth.
Why bring it up then?
cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
the harvard part was more of a joke
What do you think of my brief response to a few points in your article? It's late here so I'm not picking it all apart, it's just a few sections just made me laugh they were so hopeless. I mean if that's the sort of stuff you rely on to get your info, well it's totally wrong, a basic textbook would tell you that.
yeah,no offense meant in any way,but i dont look for edits,and if you hadnt told me,id never have seen it. its easier to just post them separate.
now,about your thoughts:
like i said,he has an amusing writing style.
while bits are odd even to me,there's still points i like. like if evolution is random and natural selection, we wouldn't have birds or elephants. as for those 2 you chose to talk about, i dunno much bout the subjects myself. ill get back to you in depth.(that,and as its not right below me,i cant remember all the details )
as for the textbook; no. 1st of all,depending on how old it is, i wouldn't be able to trust everything in my book. that,and they all only point out facts that would prove popular science right,never the wrong.
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:like i said,he has an amusing writing style.
Well I did laugh I'll give you that.
as for those 2 you chose to talk about, i dunno much bout the subjects myself. ill get back to you in depth
Well there's really not much you can say, it's just factually wrong. Without even getting into anything to do with evolution theory itself, the claims about how chromosomes and DNA work are mistaken.
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
Howard A Treesong wrote:I've just skimmed that article and it's just so hopelessly wrong it made me laugh.
i see plenty of good parts,along with stuff i dont know enough about.
Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
ok,so its false....but true....? its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is. things you dont want usually dont help you.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
your 1st part doesn't say within a the same species,only if you compare 2 close relative species,bu already you make a problem. 1st off,you have to believe the 2 species are related,which there not. 2nd,if they were,then the smaller one wouldn't be around by evolutions rule,so its faking itself.
and editing things in a lab doesn't count for much,as chemicals can do all sorts of jack that wouldn't happen naturally.
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
i could go on and on about this,but even if i found the most unquestionable article in the world that supporter me,i know someone would call it false. and while i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me (unless you count school,but i mean,its school,so yeah...),but neither do most of you guys id guess. so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom.
Sure, none of us have PhDs in evolutionary biology, so you're absolutely right that you shouldn't listen to us. The point is that you should listen to the guys who do have PhDs in evolutionary biology, and who are actively studying the field every day of their lives. Those goes know lots, and they all agree that evolution is a real thing.
I mean, honestly, think about the example I gave of receiving medical advice. When the dermatologist tells you that the mole on your arm looks serious and you should get it cut off, you will listen to him, and not the guy down the street that thinks it looks like nothing. Because we all understand that there are people in the world who know more about medicine than we do, and we should listen to them.
Yet, suddenly, when it's a subject with no immediate, direct penalty for being wrong, we start pretending every opinion is equal, that no-one knows any more about this subject than anyone else.
im sure you guys will find plenty of ways to smash that article to pieces,but hey,i found his writing style amusing,so i got something out of it either way.
First up, the guy who wrote that has an incredibly hazy idea of what science is. A single piece of argument doesn't 'prove' a thing wrong. That is not how science works.
I really, really can't be bothered looking up answers to every single point he's raised, but I can tell you he is flat out wrong on the first point. He supposes that wings could only come from wing stubs, and as wing stubs are not useful then this form of evolution is not possible. He flat out fails to consider that proto-wings could have been valuable in other ways, such skin folds across the arms to allow for gliding from tree to tree (witnessed today in multiple mammals), or to assist leaping (to escape a predator, or aid in hunting prey), or as skin folds originally used to capture prey, or as part of mating rituals (which is supported by the number of birds today who use their wings for such, and the tendency of birds more than any other species to demonstrate incredibly elaborate mating rituals).
He didn't bother to consider any of this as a possibility, because his primary interest in this is not science. He's trying to think of things to justify the viewpoint he already holds, so when he thought 'birds - how did they get those wings' it was enough for him to think 'I don't know therefore it's impossible therefore evolution is wrong woohoo I'm a genius'.
Please don't be like that.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
lord commissar klimino wrote: its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is
A species has no control over evolutionary changes. DNA does not want, or not want, anything. There is a difference between evolution and the belief that there is an endpoint that something is heading to. I suppose it would be easier just to say you are assigning agency where none exists.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Aerethan wrote:I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
Fair enough. Sorry I misremembered your position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:cause someone mentioned that i shouldn't talk when i dont have 10 years of evolution study behind me,yet im very positive im not the only one.
No. That's not what I said. I said you don't get to have an opinion that an entire field of research is wrong, unless you have extensively studied that field.
I don't just get to say 'cars would be better with five wheels. All those car manufacturers and engineers are just stupid heads who have been wasting their time'.
I don't just get to say 'cancer can be treated with proper bedrest and chicken soup. All those doctors are just stupid heads who have been wasting their time'.
You have to acknowledge that there are people who know more about this issue than you do. They don't have to be people in this thread. And when all those people who actually know about a thing belive in it, then you just saying 'I don't believe that because from the four web articles I've read it sounds pretty unlikely' is completely, utterly ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord commissar klimino wrote:while bits are odd even to me,there's still points i like.
Why would you try and take anything from an article in which the individual is factually wrong on basic elements of science? Why would you think he has anything useful to say on the subject at all?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 04:05:25
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
ok,so its false....but true....? its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is. things you dont want usually dont help you.
To clarify, there are repair mechanisms, but they don't completely reverse all changes as the article claims.
Mutation is often harmful, so it's not good to operate at a high rate, especially in complex organisms where reproduction is low. But mutation leads to new genetic variation, so a small degree is acceptable. But if your offspring is riddled with mutations then it's likely that the organism would survive. Just a few here and there, that's more manageable. A mutation doesn't need to be fatal, but large numbers of mutations is unlikely to be of benefit. A low rate of mutation is better suited to slower rates of reproduction.
Bacteria don't have repair mechanisms and they do have a higher rate of mutation. But it doesn't matter because they reproduce at a huge rate. It doesn't matter if loads of them die because of damaging mutations, there are loads more without mutations, and a large number with useful mutations. This is why bacteria evolve quickly and acquire antibiotic resistance. High mutation rate coupled with high reproduction rate. They can afford high losses to the population.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed.
That simply isn't true. Chromosomes can be gained or lost, or fragment, or stick together. It's possible to look at a species with a close relative with fewer chromosomes, and see that two chromosomes in one species closely match the two halves of a single chromosome in another.
Furthermore you can add to or even double chromosomes in the whole organism. I should know I've done it myself and I've got photos down the microscope to prove it.
your 1st part doesn't say within a the same species,only if you compare 2 close relative species,bu already you make a problem. 1st off,you have to believe the 2 species are related,which there not. 2nd,if they were,then the smaller one wouldn't be around by evolutions rule,so its faking itself.
and editing things in a lab doesn't count for much,as chemicals can do all sorts of jack that wouldn't happen naturally.
Firstly you compare two species you know are related because they share many distinct characteristics. They will share an high proportion of genetic material and often arranged in roughly the same order in their chromosomes. It may also be possible to cross breed them. You would agree that all species of cat are related right?
I don't know why you then say that if any two species are related then evolution means the smaller one should not exist. There are different species of cat but you don't then say that 'evolution's rule' means the smaller one shouldn't exist. The fact that two species have evolved shows that they fill different ecological niches. They are differently adapted having evolved from a single shared ancestor. While being related and showing many genetic similarities, they have differences too, they are not in total and direct competition requiring that one has to die out for the other to survive.
'Editing things in a lab', yes you can induce changes using chemicals, but mutation and chromosome abnormalities can be increased by naturally occurring chemicals in the environment or by radiation (UV light). Also chromosome fragmentation and chromosomes numbers can alter within the same species between generations. It's not very common, but it occurs frequently enough to pick it up in casual research on organisms where occasionally the offspring have a different number of chromosomes. These can be found commonly in the wild in plants and insects.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 04:11:04
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
sebster wrote:I really, really can't be bothered looking up answers to every single point he's raised, but I can tell you he is flat out wrong on the first point.
hey,now,im suppose to be the lazy one here!
Spoiler:
evolution true or not,this is still funny.
He supposes that wings could only come from wing stubs, and as wing stubs are not useful then this form of evolution is not possible. He flat out fails to consider that proto-wings could have been valuable in other ways, such skin folds across the arms to allow for gliding from tree to tree (witnessed today in multiple mammals), or to assist leaping (to escape a predator, or aid in hunting prey), or as skin folds originally used to capture prey,
yes he does,but the thing is those had to start from something. like normal arms. if all of a sudden you have these odd flaps on your arms,then your going to be at an disadvantage compared to your fellow non flappy brothers and sisters. thats another thing; they wouldn't know how to use it effectively. they would have to learn,but in trying to learn they would of died.
and so your saying that the pattern is random? i grow flaps,and somehow breed alot until one of us know how to use them. now one of us has feathers,and he has no idea what they are. the females hate him,cause he doesn't seem like one of us,and looks ugly. he bred....alot. now there bones are hollow. he can move faster,but we can kill him so much easier now. he stumbles to the ground dead as his lightness and flaps caused him to get flung into the air and he didnt know what tp do and hit the ground and died. he still bred,and now theres a bunch who know how to get flung correctly......
or as part of mating rituals (which is supported by the number of birds today who use their wings for such, and the tendency of birds more than any other species to demonstrate incredibly elaborate mating rituals).
yes,but how did that start out? the female that saw the 1st feathered guy dancing would find that odd and probably wounder why he was doing it instead of bucking chest like the manly ones.
He didn't bother to consider any of this as a possibility, because his primary interest in this is not science. He's trying to think of things to justify the viewpoint he already holds, so when he thought 'birds - how did they get those wings' it was enough for him to think 'I don't know therefore it's impossible therefore evolution is wrong woohoo I'm a genius'.
he stated the basics,and i just expanded on them. you dont need to go uber specific,just give the base line. usually.
Please don't be like that.
im not. im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
please dont be like that.
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
That has got to be one of the worst possible responses. I doesn't make you seem deep and considered, it makes you seem petty, small minded, and foolish. It is the kind of thing a person incapable of deep thinking would say because they can't face their own shortcomings.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
oh,you know. in a basement...cooking ponies into cupcakes....
Ahtman wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
That has got to be one of the worst possible responses. I doesn't make you seem deep and considered, it makes you seem petty, small minded, and foolish. It is the kind of thing a person incapable of deep thinking would say because they can't face their own shortcomings.
touch'e no seriously,look, you did it too.
Posts deleted for being offensive in a wide variety of ways.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 14:03:13
Deathshead420 wrote:As your leader, I encourage you, from time to time and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so! But allow me to convince you. And I promise you, right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo … except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is – I collect your f g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f r here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f g time! [Pause] I didn't think so.
lord commissar klimino wrote:hey,now,im suppose to be the lazy one here!
It isn't out of laziness. I've been through debates like this countless times, and in my experience either people get that the websites they're relying on are poorly informed and disingenuous from the first fact that is quickly shown to be such, or they don't get after every single claim is dismissed.
He supposes that wings could only come from wing stubs, and as wing stubs are not useful then this form of evolution is not possible. He flat out fails to consider that proto-wings could have been valuable in other ways, such skin folds across the arms to allow for gliding from tree to tree (witnessed today in multiple mammals), or to assist leaping (to escape a predator, or aid in hunting prey), or as skin folds originally used to capture prey,
yes he does,but the thing is those had to start from something. like normal arms. if all of a sudden you have these odd flaps on your arms,then your going to be at an disadvantage compared to your fellow non flappy brothers and sisters. thats another thing; they wouldn't know how to use it effectively. they would have to learn,but in trying to learn they would of died.
Please read my post. I stated there was a range of advantages that the flappy skin folds might have given, so that they would have been successful and given the mid-range step towards fully fledged flight. Once again, skin folds could have been used to allow creatures to glide from tree to tree, to assist in leaping, to capture prey, or as part of elaborate mating rituals.
and so your saying that the pattern is random? i grow flaps,and somehow breed alot until one of us knows how to use them.
No. All manner of creatures have mutations in which skin folds will extend between the limbs. Fairly commonly humans will get such folds between their toes. Less commonly you'll see folds between the arms.
Sooner or later that kind of mutation shows up in a creature that is, for instance, leaping between trees on a regular basis. That creature can now leap a little further, or maybe control their leaps a little better. Generations on and those skin folds get more sophisticated, and musculature in the arms has begun to evolve to be well suited to controlling gliding. Then the creature can evolve the ability to gain some upward thrust, and so on.
now one of us has feathers,and he has no idea what they are. the females hate him,cause he doesn't seem like one of us,and looks ugly.
Selective breeding is not a feature in every species.
yes,but how did that start out? the female that saw the 1st feathered guy dancing would find that odd and probably wounder why he was doing it instead of bucking chest like the manly ones.
It evolved from more simple mating rituals, which evolved from more simple rituals than that. Each step along the way the physical features and sophistication of the performance were signifiers for the health and well-being of the creature, which in turn was a signifier for the likely health and well being of any offspring.
he stated the basics,and i just expanded on them. you dont need to go uber specific,just give the base line. usually.
No, he didn't. The basics would be 'I don't understand how wings might have evolved.' That would be a basic, simple thought. If you asked me 'how did wings evolve' I would respond 'I don't understand how wings might have evolved.' That would be a basic response, that recognises my very limited knowledge of the subject.
He didn't do that. He said 'I don't know how wings have evolved, therefore evolution is proven wrong.'
im not. im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
please dont be like that.
Seriously, please don't make this about little snipes going back and forth. That's not going to do anyone any good.
I'm trying to explain to you that the attitude taken by the guy you linked to is an attitude that makes him dumber. He rejects the idea that other people know more than him, and this means instead of learning about something as complex and fascinating as evolution, he limits himself to the nonsense that charlatans like Ken Ham are selling.
There's no reason for you to be the same.
I noticed you didn't respond to my analogy with the doctor, by the way. Do you reject the informed opinion of doctors when they give you medical advice? If not, why do you think it's any different to reject the informed opinion of evolutionary biologists?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/17 05:35:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
'Facts' like this simply are not true. There are correction mechanisms for DNA repair but they only reduce the total number of mutations, they don't eliminate them.
ok,so its false....but true....? its still shows how the species does not want to change,as it is fine how it is. things you dont want usually dont help you.
To clarify, there are repair mechanisms, but they don't completely reverse all changes as the article claims.
Mutation is often harmful, so it's not good to operate at a high rate, especially in complex organisms where reproduction is low. But mutation leads to new genetic variation, so a small degree is acceptable. But if your offspring is riddled with mutations then it's likely that the organism would survive. Just a few here and there, that's more manageable. A mutation doesn't need to be fatal, but large numbers of mutations is unlikely to be of benefit. A low rate of mutation is better suited to slower rates of reproduction.
Actually most mutations are neither harmful nor beneficial.
I know, but for the sake of simplicity I was only talking about beneficial and harmful mutations as they are the ones most relevant to evolution. There is a spectum of 'benefits' from any mutation - many mutations end up in non-coding regions of the genome and can have no effect, others only cause a change so small it makes no difference. There are some fatal mutations though, even down to just a single DNA base.
If all DNA repair mechanisms were perfect then you wouldn't get cancer, because all cells in the body would be identical. Cancerous cells begin where the coding regions controlling certain cell activities like division become damaged and go out of control.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/17 11:25:29
Aerethan wrote:I never said I believed in a Counter-Earth. I merely find the concept interesting.
And it was all the armchair scientists that took this thread to the weird place it is now.
If I could take this thread back, delete it from history I would. Clearly I underestimated the OT forum and it's ability to completely derail a conversation.
Well, in an attempt to bring the thread back, we do have probes which we still receive information from which are outside our solar system: Voyager 1 and 2!
im not. im thinking way more in depth,while your being shallow in thinking and not even trying to dig deeper.
please dont be like that.
Ive managed to keep my mouth shut long enough, but I really have to say that I dislike the hypocrisy of being called "shallow" because I don't like believing in any random nonsense.
Tens of thousands of things have been superseded over the years, we don't teach medical students about spirits causing illness since we learned about germs, is my doctor "shallow" because he isnt open to the idea of ghosts giving me a headache?
Someone needs to really tell you this... Opinions can be wrong.
Not "this is my idea and Im allowed to think it and you can just think your's" but absolutely wrong. Big fat feth off manky wrong.
Paris isnt in Germany, 2 + 2 isnt 5, and the mother fething planet earth IS NOT 6 thousand years old.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
so i really don care now what you guys say about it,ive been given little proof and mostly just babble used to try and counter my babble 
so while i might not have a harvard degree like half of you aperantly do, but i do have google and boredom. 
g head. [Holds up Tanaka's head] Just like this f 
- 3000+
- 2000+
to
are cute
smell 