America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by jpotts. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Palin’s Evolution into O’Donnell Proves Darwin Was Wrong
jpotts Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Brewha wrote:
quote=fishinguitarman
"Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable"


Observable: in the extensive fossil record, the uniform predictability of DNA between species, the similarities between all living things. Then there is that whole Galapagos Island thing (you didn’t read about this did you?)


Yes, you are so right.

Motorcycles have wheels. Automobiles have wheels. Therefore, automobiles evolved from motorcycles through "natural selection."

Just because something shares a common structure means next to nothing. The fact is that to *prove* Evolution, you have to actually see it happening.

As for the fossil record, it means next to nothing again. Any idiot can make a guess as to which bones fit in one tree without a shred of genuine evidence to prove it. It is science based on assumption in which the assumption cannot be definitively proved. Period.

Brewha wrote:

Measurable: in the age of the earth’s records and the steady progression of species that show even before the Cambrian explosion. Carbon dating seldom lies.


Just because something is old doesn't mean that it is somehow directly linked to a specific species.

Nice try.

Brewha wrote:

Repeatable: It is going on all around us. Man’s artificial selection of plants and animals is biting evidence of the big process. Just because you can’t see the hour hand of a clock move, doesn’t mean it is still.


BZZT! Wrong. Evolution means natural selection, which in present-day terms means an absence of intelligent manipulation. Man is considered an intelligent manipulator of selection.

Once you inject intelligence as a modifying force into the debate, you immediatelty kill repeatability. Because if you repeat evolution in a lab setting, the only thing you do is prove that intelligent manipulation is possible, not "natural." Thus, to prove Evolution through natural selection, it must be wholly observed.

Otherwise, you're justifying Intelligent Design, and that'll cause the RICKAMAVEN types to go all Stalin on you.
jpotts Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
Brewha 326


NO, YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE DONUTHOLE

PUTZBOY, PUTZPERSON, AND PUTZAYTHING IS NONE OTHER THEN

(DRUM ROLL)

JPOTTS WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A CHARACTER IN THE SIMPSONS AND WHO FELT THE NEED THE NEED TO INFORM US THAT HE AND HIS SPOUSE WERE PLANNING TO HAVE A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER. SOMETHING APPARENTLY SO RARE, HE FELT THE NEED TO ANNOUNCE IT.

HE CLAIMS TO BE A PROGRAMMER AND IS A CONSULTANT TO FORD MOTORS, FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU ONLY CONSULT WITH ONE COMPANY, YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE, BUT SINCE FORD IS CONTINUING SUCCESSFULLY. HE IS OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT EMPLOYEE.


Rick, you really are kinda dense.

I don't consult with Ford exclusively. I think I've said this a couple of times now. If you are going to obsess over me, the least you can do is get your facts straight.

As for announcing that I am going to have an "encounter" with my wife - and I know that this may be a foreign concept to you - that's what happily married couples do from time to time. If it titillates you so much, as it obviously has, I can do it more often.

Call me crazy, but I thought most grown adults assumed that whole "birds and bees" thing was a given with happily married couples. I guess I assumed too much.
jpotts Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tweoijfoi wrote:
Wow, this is impressive. jpotts, jackconrad and DrMaddVibe, do you think the sun orbits the earth still?

I'm a flat earth believer. I dare you to prove the earth it's not flat. God says it is built upon pillars, and I believe that you trying to convince me otherwise is a test of faith.


Yeah, typical ignorant liberal response. If you don't believe in Evolution via "random" mutation, you're living in the Dark Ages.

Of course, in its time, a Flat Earth and Terra-centric Universe were concepts accepted by the prevailing scientific community at the time, and based off the writings of a very credible scientist.

Of course, in believing ransom events turn paramecium into Valley Girls is up there with more enlightened forms of shamanism and wiccian practices. Things change because of "magic."

You really should try reading a book sometime.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/8069472/Homer-Simpson-is-a-true-Catholic.html
tweoijfoi Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
jpotts wrote:
Yeah, typical ignorant liberal response. If you don't believe in Evolution via "random" mutation, you're living in the Dark Ages.

Of course, in its time, a Flat Earth and Terra-centric Universe were concepts accepted by the prevailing scientific community at the time, and based off the writings of a very credible scientist.

Of course, in believing ransom events turn paramecium into Valley Girls is up there with more enlightened forms of shamanism and wiccian practices. Things change because of "magic."

You really should try reading a book sometime.


Indeed it was if you want to call it what we had 1,000 years ago a "scientific community." Indeed the that that time current ideas about nature and science were put into the bible. Science then moved on once new and better theories surfaced. It took hundreds of years for the religious leaders to accept these changes as legitimate and not heresy--many scientists were branded as such and excommunicated or outright killed.

Believers still have trouble at least accepting modern scientific truths. Depending on your level of belief, the less things you are likely to believe based upon evidence. The strictest of fundamentalist believers disbelieve ALL of science.

Let's start with what you do believe...

1. Do you believe in DNA?
2. Do you believe in gene inheritance?
3. Do you believe that mutations in living things do occur?
4. Do you believe that certain mutations provide benefits?
5. Do you believe that these benefits would change how likely that living thing is to survive?
6. Do you believe that this increased likelihood of survival makes some creatures more likely to reproduce?
7. Do you believe some of the offspring would inherit these benefits?

Start at the top and let me know the first one you disagree with. If you don't disagree with any, we can move on from there.
gringococolo Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
1 & 2 are dumb questions.

3. The gay-homo gene (oh wait there isn't one), is a mutation. But if it were then ......

4. The benefit of the gay-homo gene is that two gay-homos can't procreate a new gay-homo like you.

5. Gay-homos will die off eventually.

6. Answered.

7. N/A Gay-homos can't reproduce naturally.


tweoijfoi Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
gringococolo wrote:
1 & 2 are dumb questions.

3. The gay-homo gene (oh wait there isn't one), is a mutation. But if it were then ......

4. The benefit of the gay-homo gene is that two gay-homos can't procreate a new gay-homo like you.

5. Gay-homos will die off eventually.

6. Answered.

7. N/A Gay-homos can't reproduce naturally.


I present to you: the man with the brain of a 10-year-old, ladies and gentleman!
gringococolo Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
I am just following science. You must be one of those faith people. Pure science right there bub. Evolution in action.

ZRX1200 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
Rick, not listening to JPotts on this but your past words. You have said vile things about Palin. Period. You like I don't have to like what she believes or represents. But when call her and republicans whores you aren't welcoming an conversation. You are angry and are venting frustration. That's fine, but don't whine like a little beeeach when people treat you the way you act. And can you show me one thing Obummer did to reach out to Republicans? The only meeting he invited R's to at the White house was to tell them the way it was going to be....Political whores can be found on both sides, be specific and name names. We need people like Angle, and Odonnell.
Also agree with DMV and Borndead.
jackconrad Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Rick is the new face of Conservatism
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ZRX1200

did you see o"donnell debate the first amendment today. she did not know it was the separation of church and state.

how can you even consider her literate.
tweoijfoi Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
ZRX1200

did you see o"donnell debate the first amendment today. she did not know it was the separation of church and state.

how can you even consider her literate.


Yeah. And then I listened to Mark Levin on XM Patriot try to say she was the correct one while everyone else in that room were idiots who knew nothing. His argument was that because the separation of church and state is the official interpretation of that amendment and was a supreme court ruling that it means nothing because the supreme court has been wrong in the past. Really? Then why does he listen to ANY decision by the supreme court?

That guy is so far up her ass I'm surprised he can still breath.
fishinguitarman Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
tweoijfoi wrote:
Yeah. And then I listened to Mark Levin on XM Patriot try to say she was the correct one while everyone else in that room were idiots who knew nothing. His argument was that because the separation of church and state is the official interpretation of that amendment and was a supreme court ruling that it means nothing because the supreme court has been wrong in the past. Really? Then why does he listen to ANY decision by the supreme court?

That guy is so far up her ass I'm surprised he can still breath.






OH Really?

Coons, an attorney, responded that O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."

She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."

The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."

ZRX1200 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
Pathetic Rick. Read it and quote the section.
tweoijfoi Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
fishinguitarman wrote:

Her campaign issued a statement later saying O'Donnell "was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution."


Of course they did. Damage control.

fishinguitarman wrote:

The phrase "separation of church and state" is usually traced to President Thomas Jefferson. In a letter in 1802, he referred to the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church & State."


Mark Levin's take was that it was a supreme court ruling by an ex-KKK member on the supreme court and that's all there was to that.

fishinguitarman wrote:

Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh made the same point in his radio program soon after the debate, saying, "There's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state."


Either way, what is her point? The fact of the matter is that she wants religion in government and I see that as a very bad thing. People will make jokes "oh well it can't be worse than what we have now" but yeah.
jpotts Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tweoijfoi wrote:
Indeed it was if you want to call it what we had 1,000 years ago a "scientific community." Indeed the that that time current ideas about nature and science were put into the bible. Science then moved on once new and better theories surfaced. It took hundreds of years for the religious leaders to accept these changes as legitimate and not heresy--many scientists were branded as such and excommunicated or outright killed.


Actually, most of the scientific thought of the day came from the ancient Greeks, not from the Bible. it was taken from the writings and teachings of Archimedes and Aristotle. Duh.

In fact, many of the ground-breaking discoveries of the day were done by monks and clergy. Nicolaus Copernicus comes to mind, as well as Albertus Magnus. Not to mention that Issac Newton, the guy who developed calculus, was also obsessed with the Bible.

As far as genetics goes, Gergor Mendel was a Augustinian monk.

I reiterate: try reading a book or two before you try conversing with the adults.








jpotts Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tweoijfoi wrote:

1. Do you believe in DNA?
2. Do you believe in gene inheritance?
3. Do you believe that mutations in living things do occur?
4. Do you believe that certain mutations provide benefits?
5. Do you believe that these benefits would change how likely that living thing is to survive?
6. Do you believe that this increased likelihood of survival makes some creatures more likely to reproduce?
7. Do you believe some of the offspring would inherit these benefits?


This is probably some of the stupidest questions I've seen.

First, the whole point and purpose of the double-helix construction of DNA is to prevent mutation the first place. This is the reason why millions of cells divide daily in our bodies without the vast majority of them going tumorous. It is also the reason why many viral strains, whose makeup consists of single-ended RNA strands, tend to mutate frequently. It is the reason why after years of vaccination science, they cannot eliminate things like influenza and the common cold.

Second, the vast majority of mutations that occur are generally fatal.

Third, just because a mutation occurs in a host doesn't mean that it is passed on to subsequent generations.

Finally, many cross-bred, and "mutated" species tend to be sterile. Furthermore, those creatures who survive their mutations tend to not be selected as compatible mates, and often do not pass on their genetic material to the next generation.

This "challenge" is being laid down by someone who obviously knows very little about basic biology.
jpotts Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
ZRX1200

did you see o"donnell debate the first amendment today. she did not know it was the separation of church and state.

how can you even consider her literate.


Besides the fact that the term "seperation of church and state" does not exist in the verbage of the First Amendment?

I guess that makes you illiterate as well?

(God Rick, you are such an idiot.)
tweoijfoi Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
jpotts wrote:
This is probably some of the stupidest questions I've seen.


Trying to find exactly where you stand on an issue? Are you are incapable of answering a question without becoming argumentative? I am trying to have a conversation with you right now, not an argument.

jpotts wrote:

First, the whole point and purpose of the double-helix construction of DNA is to prevent mutation the first place. This is the reason why millions of cells divide daily in our bodies without the vast majority of them going tumorous. It is also the reason why many viral strains, whose makeup consists of single-ended RNA strands, tend to mutate frequently. It is the reason why after years of vaccination science, they cannot eliminate things like influenza and the common cold.


Yes thank you, I know DNA is constructed to prevent over-mutation. I know that DNA replication occurs in the nucleus of the cell where various enzymes unzip the DNA which is then transcribed and replicated. That is high school biology and no I did not have to look it up.

jpotts wrote:

Second, the vast majority of mutations that occur are generally fatal.
Third, just because a mutation occurs in a host doesn't mean that it is passed on to subsequent generations.


By you misinterpreted my meaning of mutation. I meant mutation not within cells of already matured things, but mutations when an embryo is created. Those mutations can be fatal, yes. But frequently they are not and result in a small abnormality (as compared to the parents of the being) once grown. For example, a child can grown to be significantly taller or shorter than either of their parents or grandparents. This is an extreme example. Most changes are subtle and unremarkable.

jpotts wrote:

Finally, many cross-bred, and "mutated" species tend to be sterile. Furthermore, those creatures who survive their mutations tend to not be selected as compatible mates, and often do not pass on their genetic material to the next generation.


???

You are thinking of extra limbs. I am thinking of 1 inch taller or slightly more prominent cheek bones or a slightly different shade of skin or sharper (or weaker) eyesight. If genetic in nature, slight variations do occur and can be passed to their children.

Do you understand or do I need to spell it out for you more?

jpotts wrote:
This "challenge" is being laid down by someone who obviously knows very little about basic biology.


Yeah.

So I'll take that as:

1. Do you believe in DNA? yes
2. Do you believe in gene inheritance? yes

Now that you understand what I meant by #3, lets move on. Do you agree with my meaning of #3?
HockeyDad Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
I came here for a good argument.
wheelrite Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
^ ok ..

you smell like cheese,,,

debate...
HockeyDad Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Do not.
gringococolo Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
jpotts wrote:
This is probably some of the stupidest questions I've seen.

First, the whole point and purpose of the double-helix construction of DNA is to prevent mutation the first place. This is the reason why millions of cells divide daily in our bodies without the vast majority of them going tumorous. It is also the reason why many viral strains, whose makeup consists of single-ended RNA strands, tend to mutate frequently. It is the reason why after years of vaccination science, they cannot eliminate things like influenza and the common cold.

Second, the vast majority of mutations that occur are generally fatal.

Third, just because a mutation occurs in a host doesn't mean that it is passed on to subsequent generations.

Finally, many cross-bred, and "mutated" species tend to be sterile. Furthermore, those creatures who survive their mutations tend to not be selected as compatible mates, and often do not pass on their genetic material to the next generation.

This "challenge" is being laid down by someone who obviously knows very little about basic biology.




That is pretty much what I said, yet I get accused of having the brain of a 10 year old.
HockeyDad Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
^You used "bullet" format instead of paragraphs. It is a tough crowd.
tweoijfoi Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
gringococolo wrote:
That is pretty much what I said, yet I get accused of having the brain of a 10 year old.


I thought you were calling me gay homo. Even if you weren't it was a complete tangent. We're talking about evolution here, not the reason behind the existence of gay people.
fishinguitarman Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
gringococolo wrote:
That is pretty much what I said, yet I get accused of having the brain of a 10 year old.






You would think you at least deserved teenage status....Think
tweoijfoi Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
fishinguitarman wrote:
You would think you at least deserved teenage status....Think


High-five! It's my birthday.
gringococolo Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
tweoijfoi wrote:
I thought you were calling me gay homo. Even if you weren't it was a complete tangent. We're talking about evolution here, not the reason behind the existence of gay people.



I did call you a gay-homo, but here at CBid it's like a term of endearment, more like a salutation.
tweoijfoi Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
gringococolo wrote:
I did call you a gay-homo, but here at CBid it's like a term of endearment, more like a salutation.


You've made me the gayest man alive.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tweoijfoi #69

'I am trying to have a conversation with you right now, not an
argument.'

good luck!




if i may, i will try to answer as a putzperson

This is probably some of the stupidest questions I've seen.,
i mean these are.


3. Do you believe that mutations in living things do occur? four
score and seven yeas ago. that's good enough for me.

4. Do you believe that certain mutations provide benefits?

only one testicle is necessary to produce sperm, unless you
want twins

5. Do you believe that these benefits would change how likely
that living thing is to survive?
if god wills it.


6. Do you believe that this increased likelihood of survival
makes some creatures more likely to reproduce?

Direct Current vs. Alternating Current

This transformer helps transfer power traveling to and from
California.

­Batteries, fuel cells and solar cells all produce something called
direct current (DC). The positive and negative terminals of a
battery are always, respectively, positive ­and negative. Current
always flows in the same direction between those two terminals.

7. Do you believe some of the offspring would inherit these
benefits?

it looks like rickamaven inherited all the genes from his
grandparents who were very short, but did amazing gymnastics.

and now rickamaven is only the second gay dumbest on these
bhoards.
HockeyDad Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Well there you go.
gringococolo Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
Did the medicare cuts start already?
ZRX1200 Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
^and every once in awhile Rick's train of though/stream of consciousness yields a gem.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tweoijfoi #57

"puttin on the ritz."
gringococolo Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
Rick at your age you must feel like you are evolving into a Shar Pei.
jpotts Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
tweoijfoi wrote:
Trying to find exactly where you stand on an issue? Are you are incapable of answering a question without becoming argumentative? I am trying to have a conversation with you right now, not an argument.


Where do I stand on the issue? My stand is that you're talking like an idiot.

tweoijfoi wrote:

Yes thank you, I know DNA is constructed to prevent over-mutation. I know that DNA replication occurs in the nucleus of the cell where various enzymes unzip the DNA which is then transcribed and replicated. That is high school biology and no I did not have to look it up.


Ummm...no.

Mutations in DNA changes character traits. Embryonic specilization of cells is defined as "cellular differentiation," not mutation. Mutation occurs when replication is not exact, which is why it is called "replication" in the first place (which means to copy, not modify). Consequently, the term "transcription" means to "transcribe" which is to make an exact copy - not one that is modified.

Words mean things. However, nice try: you still lose.

tweoijfoi wrote:

By you misinterpreted my meaning of mutation. I meant mutation not within cells of already matured things, but mutations when an embryo is created. Those mutations can be fatal, yes. But frequently they are not and result in a small abnormality (as compared to the parents of the being) once grown. For example, a child can grown to be significantly taller or shorter than either of their parents or grandparents. This is an extreme example. Most changes are subtle and unremarkable.


No, I didn't "misrepresent" your meaning of "mutation." I'm simply pointing out that you have no frickin' clue as to what you're talking about.

Furthermore, your illustration is totally bogus, and ignores fundemental concepts like dominence / recessiveness in genes, and all that scientific "lingo." Accroding to you, if both parent have blue eyes, they can produce a child with green skin and bright violet irises because of "mutation." it is utterly bogus.

Again, try reading a book sometime. You may learn something...
jpotts Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
RICKAMAVEN wrote:

and now rickamaven is only the second gay dumbest on these
bhoards.


Ummm...Rick? I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12