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.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman
Neighbour, science can't validate your beliefs. That is the point about beliefs, they are something that you hold, with out proof. If you can validate them with science, they move from the spiritual to the factual, and science can become involved. Till then, tough luck.
Your creationist views however are free to submit themselves to science, to be examined.
Again you don't understand science. Your home schooling is showing
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: one4all
That is very funny.
But. There is a limit you know.
I believe the number is 24.
This will get boring.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: one4all
That is very funny.
But. There is a limit you know.
I believe the number is 24.
This will get boring.
It's already boring
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman
Neighbour, science can't validate your beliefs. That is the point about beliefs, they are something that you hold, with out proof. If you can validate them with science, they move from the spiritual to the factual, and science can become involved. Till then, tough luck.
Your creationist views however are free to submit themselves to science, to be examined.
Again you don't understand science. Your home schooling is showing
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: one4all
Oh good... someone else who makes bold claims and doesn’t support them! It’s getting to be a real party now!
Since were all waiting on pins and needles for Raggedy to link the citations he feels support this position, why don’t you step up to the plate big boy and lay it all out for us. I for one am very interested to hear what exactly you believe constitutes devolution. I’m always in awe of the great minds of ATS who are able to teach us far more than mere science would ever bother to try to comprehend let alone teach us. Then for the coup de grace, maybe you can tie it all in with the above model of antibiotic resistance and how the model actually supports your position as opposed to tgetnof the studies lead authors
And let me just say thank you in advance for your generous contribution if you’re able to come through with this request. It’s an honor to learn new and important information here on ATS
In the experiment the drivers pigeonholed Nature into devolving herself to survive...using a pleomorphic battleplan...which was sucessfull....it defeated its enemy by becmoing less complicated....more and more basic...and this is what Raggedy means by
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: one4all
i love a good word salad..
In the experiment the drivers pigeonholed Nature into devolving herself to survive...using a pleomorphic battleplan...which was sucessfull....it defeated its enemy by becmoing less complicated....more and more basic...and this is what Raggedy means by
And you can show this de-evolution some how... through a study... link?
Video?
Not including the one in question of course, because there isn't any "de-evolution" happening in said video
I mean I could break the video down for you and tell you exactly what is happening during each pleomorphic stage of the experiment and then we could take it even further by getting all technical with our jargon and getting down to ribo-nucleic level perspectives...but why bother complicating it for Peter or for yourself...
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: one4all
I mean I could break the video down for you and tell you exactly what is happening during each pleomorphic stage of the experiment and then we could take it even further by getting all technical with our jargon and getting down to ribo-nucleic level perspectives...but why bother complicating it for Peter or for yourself...
that is apparently what this thread is for....
Please feel free to explain... and go into the slightest detail if you will...
originally posted by: one4all
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: one4all
Oh good... someone else who makes bold claims and doesn’t support them! It’s getting to be a real party now!
Since were all waiting on pins and needles for Raggedy to link the citations he feels support this position, why don’t you step up to the plate big boy and lay it all out for us. I for one am very interested to hear what exactly you believe constitutes devolution. I’m always in awe of the great minds of ATS who are able to teach us far more than mere science would ever bother to try to comprehend let alone teach us. Then for the coup de grace, maybe you can tie it all in with the above model of antibiotic resistance and how the model actually supports your position as opposed to tgetnof the studies lead authors
And let me just say thank you in advance for your generous contribution if you’re able to come through with this request. It’s an honor to learn new and important information here on ATS
Hello Peter....have you made any efforts to have our Global Continental Displacement Wave proofs published and credited to both of us.....I hope so.
As to the question at hand....well we will begin with the most basic explanation then work our way up ok....Nature always finds a way.....and the process is through simplification....Natures strongest link is its most primal basic link...when Nature is challenged and is overcome...she NEVER GOES ALL-IN ...Nature does not have a M.A.D or mutually assured destruction mode....she always retreats to win the war another day which she ALWAYS DOES....hence our fragile existance .
This retreat is in a laymans framework paralell to the pleomorphic bacteria that causes cancer....it is a pleomorphic type of retreat....beginning sometimes on a macro devolving to a micro-scale.
Nature DEVOLVES HERSELF TO PROTECT HERSELF...to get STRONGER WHILE UNDER TERMINAL DISTRESS NATURE DEVOLVES HERSELF UNTIL SHE WINS.
Now Peter before you comment...research a little.....ok.....and consider the external/internal factors which direct the pleomprphic behaviours....and do not parse directions of change seperately please....we simply require aknowledgement of movement in any direction....which there clearly is...then we will break it down to EVOLUTION which we will call forward direction and also the opposite which is DEVOLUTION and can be in our case defined as a reverse direction.....keeping in mind that the nature of pleomorphism by proxy allows for fluid movement in either direction depending on the drivers which are dominant at the moment.
In the experiment the drivers pigeonholed Nature into devolving herself to survive...using a pleomorphic battleplan...which was sucessfull....it defeated its enemy by becmoing less complicated....more and more basic...and this is what Raggedy means by saying the bacteria LOST GENETIC INFORMATION...for it actually did..it SELF-IMMOLATED....but it did not lose the original macro-template which we now know is stored at its most basic simple pleomorphic form...right Peter....lol....so YES Raggedy is CORRECT IN SAYING that genetic BULK was lost but Raggedy just didnt consider pleomorphism which allows for restructuring and losing bulk without losing critical genetic template stability....I am not sure I want to take us all further down this road because there are so many crazy nutbars out there trying to perfect A.i and this is a popcorn trail for them I dont wish to buld upon.