Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: Barcs

Lol. Ok. Keep believing bro

FYI- Every cell in our body has DNA, this allows for many places for a mutation to occur; however, mutations have nothing to do with evolution. FYI- Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring. Smh

a reply to: TheSorrow

If you're going to copy-paste your "side-notes" from another source, please cite it. Otherwise you're just plagiarizing and quote-mining. Or did you just Google what you were looking for without reading the rest of the page where it talks about germ line mutations?

a reply to: iterationzero

I am not sure which post you're referring to. As far as sources go, it's been years since I've researched the issue. I can look it up and confirm it if you're interested. Just let me know which one you're referring to.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Barcs

Lol. Ok. Keep believing bro

FYI- Every cell in our body has DNA, this allows for many places for a mutation to occur; however, mutations have nothing to do with evolution. FYI- Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring. Smh

What's up with the conjecture and silly acronyms? This isn't an aim conversation. This is for big boys. Claiming that mutations have nothing to do with evolution is laughably wrong. Even the most extreme creationists accept that. Evolution is based on GENETIC mutations, did you even read the last post?

Yeah, keep the faith alive bro, smh, lol omg!

a reply to: Barcs

What I mean by a quantum perspective is looking at things through the lens of quantum physics....quantum mechanics. Behavior at the quantum level is dictated by how it is measured. Multiple experiments have been completed to prove that this is true. What this means could be relatively simple...or very profound. It implies that just because we observe one thing, that does not mean it is always the case...it may just appear that way based on perspective...

Hence..."Things are not always as they appear"

A2D

a reply to: Barcs

Oh dear. You think somatic mutations can be passed on to the next generation? Yikes! This is another example of why the cult of evolution is so terrible. Contrary to what evolutionary scientist will tell you, somatic mutations cannot be passed along from one generation to the next.

The idea of X-Men mutating, passing it off to the next generation and evolving... It's not science, it's from a comic book. And trust me you wouldn't want somatic mutations to be passed along anyways. I hope you take my word for it. Smh

a reply to: TheSorrow

I am not sure which post you're referring to.

That would be the post I replied to. The one where you said the following:

FYI- Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

By the way, slick edit where you changed your language from "Side note" to "FYI" right after I posted my reply. Trust me when I say I'm not the only one who caught it.

As far as sources go, it's been years since I've researched the issue. I can look it up and confirm it if you're interested.

Right. So here's what you said in this post:

Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

Since I, like many others here, have expressed skepticism about your "academic credentials", I thought I'd Google the statement that you made, since it sounded uncharacteristically scientific when compared to your other posts here so far and also sounded very familiar. The first link produced by that Google search is from the Understanding Evolution page from UC Berkeley, which features the following statement:

Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won't be passed onto offspring.

Amazing how the two statements are identical in phrasing and punctuation. But you forgot to read the rest of the page you were plagiarizing, which goes on to say:

The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.

And then continues to give a brief overview of germ line mutations and their effects.

This isn't the first time you've been called out for plagiarizing sources that everyone in the O&C forum are familiar with. Maybe you should go peddle your intellectual dishonesty in a different part of the forums. Doesn't really fly around here.

a reply to: Klassified

True. People are all over the map on evolution. Some believe we evolved from magic rocks or meteorites, or ancient aliens, and all kinds of wild ideas. Xenu and the the evolution of man is my personal favorite.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Klassified



True. People are all over the map on evolution. Some believe we evolved from magic rocks or meteorites, or ancient aliens, and all kinds of wild ideas. Xenu and the the evolution of man is my personal favorite.

i dont believe panspermia mentions anything about magic except in fringe interpretations. not to mention that a sky wizard sounds pretty magical in its own turn. lets make fun of that too.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Barcs

Oh dear. You think somatic mutations can be passed on to the next generation? Yikes! This is another example of why the cult of evolution is so terrible. Contrary to what evolutionary scientist will tell you, somatic mutations cannot be passed along from one generation to the next.

The idea of X-Men mutating, passing it off to the next generation and evolving... It's not science, it's from a comic book. And trust me you wouldn't want somatic mutations to be passed along anyways. I hope you take my word for it. Smh

Oh dear. Your understanding of evolution and science is abysmal. Smh.

You have done a very good job defining what evolution is NOT.

The only thing I'm worried about being passed to the next generation is your complete ignorance of the topic you attack. Smh WTF!

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

That isn't exactly true. An observation on the quantum level is not nearly the same thing as watching something with the naked eye. Measurements need to be taken via electron microscopes. The electrons affect the measurements, so when it is "observed" on that level it appears to change. This doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that what we see in front of us is only there because we are watching it or that it changes when we look the other way. This is actually a common misconception with QM that seems to be creating a cult like following. It doesn't mean that what we see isn't really what we see. It means that particles react to measurements of an electron microscope.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not making such a profound statement....I'm only stating that we're learning new things everyday and things aren't always as they seem...and quantum mechanics has proven that...take it as a very blanket statement...because that's all that it is...



Besides....How exactly would we know if visual observation dictates behavior or not? Quantum mechanics has proven that it's POSSIBLE...and that's all that I'm saying..not that it does...just that it could...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

I'm not making such a profound statement....I'm only stating that we're learning new things everyday and things aren't always as they seem...and quantum mechanics has proven that...take it as a very blanket statement...because that's all that it is...



Besides....How exactly would we know if visual observation dictates behavior or not? Quantum mechanics has proven that it's POSSIBLE...and that's all that I'm saying..not that it does...just that it could...

A2D

quantum mechanics is largely uncharted. and the nature of uncharted territory is that it precludes your ability to say "this is what we will find if we look here". recent quantum related discoveries have been more "well thats interesting" than "EUREKA!"

a reply to: Barcs

Sky wizard? I am not familiar with that one. Is that how evolutionist explain the spark of life. Evolutionist... Smh

a reply to: TheSorrow

No, it's how self described conservative Christians who lie about their credentials and plagiarize other people's work believe it all came into existence.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Barcs

Sky wizard? I am not familiar with that one. Is that how evolutionist explain the spark of life. Evolutionist... Smh

Still making stuff up, are we? I haven't used the term "sky wizard" once in this entire thread. Funny how quick you are to lie about something I said to avoid discussing the actual topic. "Sky Wizard" is exactly what it sounds like when creationists like yourself make up lies and straw mans about evolution and use it to attack. If you don't want people using terms like "sky wizard", stop wrongly attacking science with lies. That is the pinnacle of dishonesty. Isn't lying against the ten commandments? Shame on you.

a reply to: Barcs

He may have mixed us up. I made the sky wizard comment.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yea, my bad. Thanks

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Klassified

True. People are all over the map on evolution. Some believe we evolved from magic rocks or meteorites, or ancient aliens, and all kinds of wild ideas. Xenu and the the evolution of man is my personal favorite.

Nice try at deflection. Won't work. 'Magic rocks'??? Eh? As for the aliens stuff, then only a tiny minority believe that we came from ancient aliens. Now ancient alien bacteria is another thing, that's the panspermia theory and there is some evidence behind it. By the way, you may as well get used to the fact that we all came from bacteria. You might want to read this. Anyway, here's my point: there's a great deal of evidence for evolution and the scientific community continues to find more evidence every year.
The alternate theory is unscientific, flies in the face of evidence and depends on a magic, misogynistic, cruel beardie-wierdie in the sky.
I'm sticking with science, me. As I have on umpteen other threads where wiser and more informed people than I have listed a huge amount of evidence. Try using the search function, it's there for a reason.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Klassified

True. People are all over the map on evolution. Some believe we evolved from magic rocks or meteorites, or ancient aliens, and all kinds of wild ideas. Xenu and the the evolution of man is my personal favorite.

Nice try at deflection. Won't work. 'Magic rocks'??? Eh? As for the aliens stuff, then only a tiny minority believe that we came from ancient aliens. Now ancient alien bacteria is another thing, that's the panspermia theory and there is some evidence behind it. By the way, you may as well get used to the fact that we all came from bacteria. You might want to read this. Anyway, here's my point: there's a great deal of evidence for evolution and the scientific community continues to find more evidence every year.
The alternate theory is unscientific, flies in the face of evidence and depends on a magic, misogynistic, cruel beardie-wierdie in the sky.
I'm sticking with science, me. As I have on umpteen other threads where wiser and more informed people than I have listed a huge amount of evidence. Try using the search function, it's there for a reason.

Funny thing about the panspermia vs abiogenisis debate is that abiogenisis occurs regardless. Natural chemical reactions gave rise to organic compounds. The question is more a technicality as to which environment did the initial material form and if the early earth was conducive towards that formation. Creationists always try to link the concept of spontaneous generation with abiogenisis, which is simply not true. We know there are chemical principles involved in the development of the complex organic compounds we find, now it's just a matter of understanding the conditions that allow for their development. That was the whole point of experiments such as Miller-Urey. Can we, through chemistry, create organic compounds in conditions one could expect to find on a developing planetary system. The answer is unequivocally yes.