It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate still rages over Darwin

page: 20
1
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichJJC
reply to post by atoms.2008
 



I'm afraid Darwin was wrong...

There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.


evolution at work


That entire article is just more "make up some plausible BS as you go" sophistry.


For the cormorant family, which is comprised of large, relatively slow-walking individuals, flight is the only means of escape and locomotion in continental areas. However, because the only routes of colonization of the islands are closed to most terrestrial and all large predatory mammals, selection pressures for flight are no longer so severe


Yeah we call this atrophy. BIG DEAL!



a long-occurring, and population-devastating event – has often been overlooked in explanations for C. Harrisi's



Weasels and peacocks

Who says so? how long was it? How "devastating" !??!??!?!?


Birds with the ability to reproduce more quickly could take advantage of minute fluctuations in population size, thereby explaining the rapid rebound of the cormorant populations after El Nino events.

None of the adaptations present in the Flightless Cormorant population seem to require genetic drift to achieve; all could be reached through natural selection. It seems that all of the adaptations of the Flightless Cormorant could be explained in the context of a stable environment or could be discounted as byproducts of a neotenous evolution.


It "Could" be that they were MADE this way from the start but I am sure there are some fossils with half transmutated transmorphed organs and all the other 50,000 new adaptations to consider having all happened at the same time for me to even consider this sillyness




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
[edit on 27-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


How about let's assume you're completely wrong.
Oh...2nd line.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by griffinrl]



Even a clock is correct twice a day. Your bias is showing and that is pretty much all I was trying prove. The evidence is the same and the way we interpret it is laced with our own guided opinion including all those creative reasons for evolution happening. That bs is a hoot!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


If you're comparing yourself to a clock then I suppose I'll have to agree with you on that. What time is it now?

At least we can agree that you are an authority on at least one subject



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


If you're comparing yourself to a clock then I suppose I'll have to agree with you on that. What time is it now?

At least we can agree that you are an authority on at least one subject


Same post as if Noob posted it




]/n a colck is ceorrct twice a day. You bais is shwiong and that is prtety much all I was tyirng prvoe. The ecndeive is the smae and the way we ieptenrrt it is leacd wtih our own guedid oiinopn innciludg all tshoe caievrte rosanes for eiutovlon hpnaipneg. That bs is a hoto!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Aerm....Darwin is NOT about 'evolution'....he was all about 'Natural Selection'....

BIG difference.

Based on the point of this thread.......poor man, if he were alive today!

Backing UPON his 'Darwins' work....led to the continuing effort to understand how we got here.

Aerm, you likely have YOUR opinions....likely based on some sort of religious belief....well, please, keep YOUR religion OUT of this discussion....please!!!

Start your own thread, if you wish.....and best of luck to ya!!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Hey kudo's for me then. I beat noob to it


Trying to prove MY bias? I don't think my opinion on the subject has been in question at all. And why is it ok for your religious bias but not mine? Dude you need to stay off the caffiene and ease up on the cutting and pasting. The fact that you never seem to have an opinion of your own speaks sheeples about you...

hehehe...sheeples. I made a funny.

ok now....left click drag select....right click copy and paste. I think I got it now..........

[edit on 27-2-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

This is part of another fallacious step in Mel’s argument. In a heads or tails coin toss, the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, no less and no more.

While a string of five heads is only 1 in 32, it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. In other words, their is no memory in probability so the probability of five consecutive tails is the same as four successive tails followed by one heads. Heads is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability is based on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result.


lol, con. Your stats is as bad as your biology (and your climate science, heh).

I guess you didn't understand my point at all. If you have a die with 10^4 sides, then the probability of rolling a 1426 is 1 in 10^4.

However, if you roll 10^4 10^4 sided dice, then the probability of rolling a 1426 is what? And if we roll again, then the probability is what? etc etc.

But I might still get one, 100, 1000, or none, etc.

Again, we're not even talking about a targeted process. So applying an a priori probability post-hoc is just a pile of poop. I could deal out 12 shuffled packs of cards and then calculate the probability of that exact order and it would be a really really big number. I could do it 20 times and calculate the probability of all 20 orders, and that would be some gobsmacking number. But it means little to the chances of it having just happened. Indeed, p = 1, because it just did.

If I specify that order (or even 20 orders) and redeal, then the a priori probability has some real meaning.


Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. Mel decides to add something to the fallacy to make it fit the theory so he says add a population of these gambling dino's all playing slots at the same time. This is known as the Big Number theory but what Mels fails to include is that this has two more in theory which are weak and weakest big number theory.


Yeah, yeah. Gamblers fallacy. Have you eaten a psychology book tonight?

None of that has anything to do with my post, you're just spouting random stuff you think applies in some wacky way (shock! Horror!). At no point did I invoke anything like the gambler's fallacy.

What the hell does that bolded bit even mean?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker



Aerm....Darwin is NOT about 'evolution'....he was all about 'Natural Selection'....


Why don't you tell me the difference WEEEEED so I can shove the posts you have made using Darwin in the same context of evolution in your mouth because I found a boat load of em! Three times you have said what this thread isn't about and ya know you have no idea what the title of this thread suggests it is about do you? You even said it wasn't about darwin




Based on the point of this thread.......poor man, if he were alive today!


Yeah I know, I'd loved to see him write the retractions due us.



Backing UPON his 'Darwins' work....led to the continuing effort to understand how we got here.


GaFaW!!! Yeah Riiight weeeedy you have been talkin smack about every one posting that even suggest challenging your God Darwin. I thought evolution or err is it natural selection this time? You guys equivocate so much and so fast I can't keep up with the goal posts but I thought you guys didnt speak to how we got here??

Only what happened AFTER we got here.



Aerm, you likely have YOUR opinions....likely based on some sort of religious belief....well, please, keep YOUR religion OUT of this discussion....please!!!


No

Tell ya what when you can make up your damn mind what subject we are discussing then you can accuse me of all that religion stuff. In the meantime, Ill use the word God and if it upsets you,, I prefer that it did.

Your Atheism is showing and it shouldn't be filtering out reality so


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   


Ill use the word God and if it upsets you,, I prefer that it did.


Jesus wept.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

After analyzing the aligned sequences you determine that there are 63
Synonymous polymorphisms detectable using these sequences.

Let us assume that the synonymous mutations and 10% of the replacement mutations are Selectively neutral.

What’s left of the replacement mutations would be selectively deleterious to
The extent they would kill the organism and can never be detected as polymorphisms.
lot of asuming there ...
lets assume a magic duck did it.. or a flying catweasel ... lets assume all life sprung from the suprise in a kindersuprise egg

or lets use realistic figures and stop making stuff up .... again

why would we assume the synonymous mutations are benign? they are benign else they would be non synonymous mutations

and 90% rates for deleterious mutation? and btw anyone reading this deleterious mutations cover both posative and negative mutations in equal amounts in the way the term is bieng used ...or misused here


so what you have basically said is let pretend all the benign mutations are benign and then pretend all other mutations are bad and will kill a creature ... and used crazily high figures that you made up ... for how many are not benign

with so much genetic redundancy and single amino acids being encoded for between 2-6 times

if 69 Synonymous mutations had occured your looking at 1 maybe 2 nonSynonymous mutation and onservative mutation carry a much higehr rate then none conservative

and the chances of them bieng either negative or posative is low becasue chances are they are going to jump right into redundant amino acid codons

so your 90% killer mutations turn out to be, 95% no real effect and 2.5% of bieng activley posative or negative,



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


You got flying catweasels in your neck o' the woods? I just got a brand new shotgun I've been dying to shoot. Point me at 'em!

(I know I'm gonna get busted for my humor and straying off topic...but honestly this thread is boring now....)

left click..hold down the button....select....right click...copy and paste


Oh yeah noob...you're supposed to make my mind up for me. Shouldn't be too hard as I don't have much to work with



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

This is part of another fallacious step in Mel’s argument. In a heads or tails coin toss, the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, no less and no more.

While a string of five heads is only 1 in 32, it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. In other words, their is no memory in probability so the probability of five consecutive tails is the same as four successive tails followed by one heads. Heads is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability is based on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result.


lol, con. Your stats is as bad as your biology (and your climate science, heh).

I guess you didn't understand my point at all. If you have a die with 10^4 sides, then the probability of rolling a 1426 is 1 in 10^4.

However, if you roll 10^4 10^4 sided dice, then the probability of rolling a 1426 is what? And if we roll again, then the probability is what? etc etc.

But I might still get one, 100, 1000, or none, etc.

Again, we're not even talking about a targeted process. So applying an a priori probability post-hoc is just a pile of poop. I could deal out 12 shuffled packs of cards and then calculate the probability of that exact order and it would be a really really big number. I could do it 20 times and calculate the probability of all 20 orders, and that would be some gobsmacking number.

If I specify that order (or even 20 orders) and redeal, then the a priori probability has some real meaning.


Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. Mel decides to add something to the fallacy to make it fit the theory so he says add a population of these gambling dino's all playing slots at the same time. This is known as the Big Number theory but what Mels fails to include is that this has two more in theory which are weak and weakest big number theory.Yeah, yeah. Gamblers fallacy. Have you eaten a psychology book tonight?


Ha ha Hi, Mel, No I haven't but I am still involved with my friends at ASU in the Statistics area and yeah that is what I saw the gamblers fallacy


The Bolded is the just so story and now that I know it isn't directed, why then do you conclude that this same whack kind of luck can keep happening ALL of it giving way to enable the darwinists explanations for the TOE. This can be nothing less than miraculous mel when you consider all the "Other" global adjustments from blood to the Ph mantle have to change at the same time to facilitate the necessary dependency each organ will have on a new one or half of the old one. I am so glad transmutation seems to have stopped because last I checked almost everything every living thimg seems to be intact and if mutations happen as fast as you suggest then so would many fossils to corroborate them but we don't see much of that. We see a tryansaurus rex with blood cells still in the bone but how could that be??

DNA intact but how could that be!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl

Oh yeah noob...you're supposed to make my mind up for me. Shouldn't be too hard as I don't have much to work with


i am?? geeewizz can i try out my hypnotherapy on ya?

breath deeply and relax listen to the sound of my voice ... i mean read my typing

you feel your self getting sleepy your eyes begining to shut ... thats it heavier with each deep breath you take.... your eye tightly closed .... dam you cant read anymore ... ok when you wake up just read this and agree and ill send the $10 through paypal

Amer is basically making it up .. again ... and his best argument as ever is to point and say "look noobs keyboard nackered and he cant be arsed to spell check he must be dumb and i use a magic word thinker that does most of my spelling and gramaer for me even though it still contains a number of errors as it corrects to the wrong word and i dont check it after wards .... "



[edit on 27/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


noob you need to get with the times...when you copy and paste you don't have to check your spelling


But notice his posts are waaaaaaaaaaay long and tiring. STRAW MAN to the extreme.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun




lot of asuming there ...


yeah there was and I liked how you figured that out, ya know me typing "Lets assume" enough that maybe you would see just how YOUR POSTS EXPLAINING ALL THAT BUNK LOOK.



lets assume a magic duck did it.. or a flying catweasel ... lets assume all life sprung from the suprise in a kindersuprise egg



Hey guy the Bible stays the same. Same Jesus Same Crucifixion etc. So if anyone could make up a good bedtime story explaining evolution, it is obviously YOU noob. I mean that is all I see you doing is making up ways it "could have happened" I mean I assume it could if I were a DARWIT




and 90% rates for deleterious mutation? and btw anyone reading this deleterious mutations cover both posative and negative mutations in equal amounts in the way the term is bieng used ...or misused here


Well tell me Mr DNA. do the chances for beneficial mutations being fixed increase or decrease after the first one?

so what you have basically said is let pretend all the benign mutations are benign and then pretend all other mutations are bad and will kill a creature ... and used crazily high figures that you made up ... for how many are not benign

with so much genetic redundancy and single amino acids being encoded for between 2-6 times




if 69 Synonymous mutations had occured your looking at 1 maybe 2 nonSynonymous mutation and onservative mutation carry a much higehr rate then none conservative


you are leaving out something are you not? Here let me help you, what decreases when the rate increases? I trust you'll not wordsmith the crap out of the meaning but I am prepared for it nevertheless.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by noobfun
 


noob you need to get with the times...when you copy and paste you don't have to check your spelling


But notice his posts are waaaaaaaaaaay long and tiring. STRAW MAN to the extreme.


Noob must really appreciate all the love and support you give swinging from his fallopian like you do..

Don't check spelling, my god its bad enough you only critique mine while you sing highschool cheers for your tag teammate



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl



Ill use the word God and if it upsets you,, I prefer that it did.


Jesus wept.


Don't forget the second line. I wouldn't want you to get a post removed.

Noob needs all the help he can get



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


If I agree with someone you can damn well believe I'll do it whether you like it or not. Just because your supporters are lacking isn't my problem.

And if it upsets you, I prefer that it did



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Ha ha Hi, Mel, No I haven't but I am still involved with my friends at ASU in the Statistics area and yeah that is what I saw the gamblers fallacy


Explain how.

I said nothing about runs of outcomes. For example, the fallacy essentially involves something like a dufus who's losing thinking that means he must start winning by some magical mechanism (or runs of heads, mean more tails to come), when in fact each trial is completely independent of the prior outcome.


The Bolded is the just so story and now that I know it isn't directed, why then do you conclude that this same whack kind of luck can keep happening ALL of it giving way to enable the darwinists explanations for the TOE. This can be nothing less than miraculous mel when you consider all the "Other" global adjustments from blood to the Ph mantle have to change at the same time to facilitate the necessary dependency each organ will have on a new one or half of the old one. I am so glad transmutation seems to have stopped because last I checked almost everything every living thimg seems to be intact and if mutations happen as fast as you suggest then so would many fossils to corroborate them but we don't see much of that.


Not just about 'luck' though. Con, you have dozens of mutations. So do I.


We see a tryansaurus rex with blood cells still in the bone but how could that be??


They were drowned by da flud?

If there were blood cells, and it's much less than certain that is the case, they would have been well preserved? Schweitzer's studies show that the material is dozens millions of years old if you are trying to suggest some YEC fantasy.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join