tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post881212348551368742..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Are Gill Slits Really Powerful Evidence for Evolution?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31456074760448855092010-08-03T09:12:33.642-07:002010-08-03T09:12:33.642-07:00PROFESSOR HUNTER ESQ; SIR THE MYSTERY IS FINISHED ...PROFESSOR HUNTER ESQ; SIR THE MYSTERY IS FINISHED AND THE GATHERING HAS BEGUN, the infection of all Life forms on earth has been located, and is the cause of all sickness and aging in mankind! The same myco controlled phages and bacteria already researched and data taken, are the infection of Life! The eight unclean principalities of the air pointed out by Messiah the Great Physician, who declared He came too bring back Life abundant, and too destroy death has done just as He declared! THE BACTERIAL SPIRITS HE POINTED OUT CENTURIES AGO, ARE NOW FOUND AND ISOLATED BY HIS SCIENCE! Rev:10:7, and Rev:1:18, and Rev:21:4! The code.keys have been given and has lead us directly too satan/the principality of the air/bacterial dictator of the unclean spirits of earths air, water and soil/food! The quorum sensing dictator of death soon dies! We have the cure at hand! For The gathering of those of understanding, which many of which literally soon inherit this promisedland/laboratory called Earth! Go to the Lords Medical and gathering website where Adam ande Eve are now honoured for their completed mission/research at www.adamandeveseedgatheringministry.com therein the mystery is exposed, and literally on the proof of His healing page are verse's which not only prove He created Science, but prophesy He would return in this day of Microbiology! On The proof in the news and science page, are proofs of evolution being created by Gods son for this very day! It is evolution, but not of God, it is of His enemie's, hosts not of His book of Life! That evolved for sinister purpose's/causing aging and death! Much respect r.p.berry / Elijah paul MosesElijah paul Moseshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07363732235676353717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54939315227001844732010-06-19T09:04:57.337-07:002010-06-19T09:04:57.337-07:00Nat continued to fabricate instead of learning abo...Nat continued to fabricate instead of learning about reality:<br />"If the genes don't have the same sequence of nucleotides, they are different, even if the function is the same."<br /><br />Your attempt to pretend that there is some bright white line here is simply wishful thinking and dishonesty. YOURS AND MY GENES have different nucleotide sequences, so your dishonest gambit fails.<br /><br />"And I'm assuming that they are different at some level, because if they weren't how would we account for the differences in gastrulation?"<br /><br />I gave you a hint in the questions you were too cowardly to answer, Nat.<br /><br />----How different, Nat? Are you claiming that scientists are incapable of testing whether orthologs will work in another species? That we can't turn an endogenous gene off and add in an exogenous ortholog? Why are you so arrogant, Nat?—<br /><br />Answer the questions. You might learn something!<br /><br />"If they functioned exactly the same, then gastrulation would be the same."<br /><br />An utter lie that contradicts vast amounts of empirical data. You are afraid to look for evidence because you have zero faith in your position.<br /><br />"I said above that if you tried the car experiment with a lot of cars, the result would be the same."<br /><br />There's no need for your analogy, then. We've produced huge differences by artificial selection of wolves for only 40,000 years. <br /><br />"And I always understood that the mutation was undirected and was not influenced by anything other than chance."<br /><br />You understand a creationist lie. You've made up additional lies to avoid looking behind them for the truth.<br /><br />"That is how I undertand random."<br /><br />Mutation is only random in one, single respect. Your understanding is fatally flawed. Did Darwin ever use the term?<br /><br />"And "Coyne is False" is obviously referring to what he wrote."<br /><br />No, it's obviously referring to Coyne.<br /><br />"How can a person be false?"<br /><br />Ask the person who wrote it.<br /><br />"What a person says can be false."<br /><br />Yes, and most of what you claim about biology is demonstrably false.<br /><br />""You are ignorant and arrogant" is a personal attack."<br /><br />No, it's an observation. Your unwillingness to answer my questions about empirical fact supports the observation.<br /><br />"And why is what Jesus said relevent? Why are you even bringing it up?"<br /><br />Because the author of this blog is an adjunct professor at a Christian college, of course. Do you even think before you write this stuff?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30309701055538161522010-06-19T06:23:33.205-07:002010-06-19T06:23:33.205-07:00natschuster: And I always understood that the muta...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>And I always understood that the mutation was undirected and was not influenced by anything other than chance. That is how I undertand random. </i><br /><br />Random mutation means uncorrelated with potential fitness effects.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70476225586989496652010-06-18T15:24:01.769-07:002010-06-18T15:24:01.769-07:00If the genes don't have the same sequence of n...If the genes don't have the same sequence of nucleotides, they are different, even if the function is the same. And I'm assuming that they are different at some level, because if they weren't how would we account for the differences in gastrulation? If they functioned exactly the same, then gastrulation would be the same.<br /><br /><br />I said above that if you tried the car experiment with a lot of cars, the result would be the same. <br /><br /><br />And I always understood that the mutation was undirected and was not influenced by anything other than chance. That is how I undertand random.<br /><br /><br />And "Coyne is False" is obviously referring to what he wrote. How can a person be false? What a person says can be false. "You are ignorant and arrogant" is a personal attack.<br /><br />And why is what Jesus said relevent? Why are you even bringing it up? Why not mention Confusius, Buddha, Mohamed, etc, as well?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16082161327538451132010-06-17T17:13:05.749-07:002010-06-17T17:13:05.749-07:00"But the genes are different. That is my poin..."But the genes are different. That is my point."<br /><br />My point is that you don't know that the sequence differences cause any FUNCTIONAL differences, and your too ignorant to understand that many orthologs have been empirically tested and are already known to be functionally interchangeable.<br /><br />IOW, you're lying. You're presenting an unfounded assumption as a fact. IOW, you're behaving arrogantly.<br /><br />"And evolution starts out as random change."<br /><br />You're lying again. The "random" is only true in a SINGLE context—wrt fitness. This is a predictable creationist LIE. Moreover, selection isn't random, so your labeling of evolution as simply random is a lie.<br /><br />Note that Darwin never even wrote the word "random," so your fixation on it is less than honest.<br /><br />"In my car analogy I that I am saving the changes that improve my car's functioning, and scrapping the car if it doesn't. That, IMHO, is analogous to natural selection."<br /><br />Not even close. First, you're only using a single car—it's pretty certain to fail. Second, you are using artificial selection, which we already know causes dramatic evolution. <br /><br />"And I didn't see Dr. Hunter attacking Coyne personally, just what he wrote."<br /><br />He wrote, "Coyne is false." That's personal.<br /><br />"You are attacking me."<br /><br />You betcha. You're arrogant, dishonest, and incredibly ignorant, but that doesn't stop you from pretending that you understand biology better than people who devote their lives to studying biology.<br /><br />"And I'm not a Christian. "<br /><br />I didn't claim you were. I just noted what Jesus Christ emphasized in His ministry.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61790209009288257252010-06-17T16:51:48.846-07:002010-06-17T16:51:48.846-07:00But the genes are different. That is my point.
An...But the genes are different. That is my point.<br /><br />And evolution starts out as random change. In my car analogy I that I am saving the changes that improve my car's functioning, and scrapping the car if it doesn't. That, IMHO, is analogous to natural selection. <br /><br />And I didn't see Dr. Hunter attacking Coyne personally, just what he wrote. You are attacking me. <br /><br />And I'm not a Christian.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10562312737492296892010-06-17T16:34:03.288-07:002010-06-17T16:34:03.288-07:00nat wrote:
"The genea that cotrol gastrulatio...nat wrote:<br />"The genea that cotrol gastrulation in different species are different at some level, or gastrulation would be the same in the species."<br /><br />No, Nat, you're simply lying. You are presenting an assumption (gene activity during gastrulation is context-independent) and presenting it as a fact. That's dishonest.<br /><br />Are you claiming that scientists are incapable of testing whether orthologs will work in another species? That we can't turn an endogenous gene off and add in an exogenous ortholog?<br /><br />Answer the questions. Don't be a dishonest coward.<br /><br />"It may be at the level of genes that control gene expression."<br /><br />Once again, you are assuming that there are nice, neat "levels," as though life was designed. Does the evidence indicate that your assumption is valid?<br /><br />"And are you saying that the fact that they are orthologs means they are identical?"<br /><br />Nope. I'm saying that they are orthologous, and that you are too brain-dead to understand how real scientists have tested genes for functional identity.<br /><br />"I didn't see any name calling in the "Why Coyne is False" post."<br /><br />My pointing out that you are arrogant isn't name calling, Nat.<br /><br />"And even if there was, why I am answerable for what Dr. Hunter posts?"<br /><br />It's about your hypocrisy. That's something that Jesus Christ said infinitely more about than he did about evolution!<br /><br />"I recall saying that if I make random changes to my car, I won't be able to turn it into a truck, not that it would morph by itself."<br /><br />If you make random changes to a mouse, you won't be able to turn it into another species, either. Evolution isn't random, so your analogy is a smelly lie.<br /><br />"My point is that it is really hard to change a complex, functioning, integrated system via a random process and wind up with another complex, integrated, functioning system."<br /><br />My point is that you lie about evolution whenever you characterize it. Natural selection is anything but random. Calling evolution "random" is LYING. Pure and simple.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43401606239985013072010-06-17T15:09:47.946-07:002010-06-17T15:09:47.946-07:00I didn't see any name calling in the "Why...I didn't see any name calling in the "Why Coyne is False" post. And even if there was, why I am answerable for what Dr. Hunter posts?<br /><br />I recall saying that if I make random changes to my car, I won't be able to turn it into a truck, not that it would morph by itself. My point is that it is really hard to change a complex, functioning, integrated system via a random process and wind up with another complex, integrated, functioning system.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31403666041630801282010-06-17T15:03:14.992-07:002010-06-17T15:03:14.992-07:00The genea that cotrol gastrulation in different sp...The genea that cotrol gastrulation in different species are different at some level, or gastrulation would be the same in the species. It may be at the level of genes that control gene expression. Did I say amino acid sequences? I meant to say genes.<br /><br />And are you saying that the fact that they are orthologs means they are identical?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72179771902238092312010-06-17T08:03:13.328-07:002010-06-17T08:03:13.328-07:00"The only claim I made was that that gastrula..."The only claim I made was that that gastrulation in different species was different."<br /><br />You claimed that it involved different genes, and to support it, you quote-mined something you found about the telencephalon, which doesn't exist in a gastrula.<br /><br />You were arrogant.<br /><br />"The genes you listed that control gastrulation hace the same name, but that doesn't mean they are the same genes."<br /><br />They are orthologs.<br /><br />"And even if they are, they are different in the different species."<br /><br />How different, Nat? Are you claiming that scientists are incapable of testing whether orthologs will work in another species? That we can't turn an endogenous gene off and add in an exogenous ortholog?<br /><br />Why are you so arrogant, Nat?<br /><br />"That is why gastrulation proceeds differently."<br /><br />What an arrogant lie! Tiny differences in gene EXPRESSION are the key, not differences in amino-acid sequence.<br /><br />"And evolution starst with an individual that has a selective advantage."<br /><br />Yes it does, but that wasn't the analogy you arrogantly offered. You claimed that evolution was silly because individual cars don't morph into individual trucks. You are too arrogant to admit that you were wrong.<br /><br />"That being said, it has always been my experience that when people enage in personal attacks, e.g. "you're arrogant" it is an indication that they are insecure in their own position. But that's just me."<br /><br />So where will I find your complaint about the blog post titled "Why Coyne is False," Nat?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47429643825987364262010-06-17T06:55:51.215-07:002010-06-17T06:55:51.215-07:00natschuster: And evolution starst with an individu...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>And evolution starst with an individual that has a selective advantage. It survives and reproduces while all the other members of the population die out. Its offspring become the new population. Its starts with the individual. </i><br /><br />Evolution is usually analyzed on the level of the population. There are all sorts of competing traits in a population, and populations may divide, rejoin and divide again. The field is called population genetics.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50315997940723489772010-06-17T06:51:14.980-07:002010-06-17T06:51:14.980-07:00Fil: Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or ge...<b>Fil</b>: <i>Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or geneticist I will never comprehend the evidence as well as they do. </i><br /><br />A lot of science is out of reach for most people, but much of the evidence for Common Descent can be easily verified. Find a good <a href="http://www.unh.edu/esci/mapexplan.html" rel="nofollow">geological map</a>, take a hike and verify your local geology. You might even be able to find a few common fossils. Now that you have verified your local geology, and knowing that many other people have done so around the world, you should be able to understand the basics of geology, including the <a href="http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/principle-of-superposition.html" rel="nofollow">Principle of Superposition</a> which allows us to place *relative* dates on fossils. Having done that, we can now take a look at the overall history of life on Earth. <br /><br />Before there were humans, there were primates. Before primates there were mammals. Before mammals, primitive amniotes. Before amniotes, even more primitive land vertebrates. Before land vertebrates, lobbed fishes. Before lobbed fishes, primitive fishes with jaws. Before jawed fishes, jawless fishes, primitive vertebrates, craniates, chordates. And before that, colonies of single-celled organisms. Wow! Life has substantially changed over time, and clearly, more modern forms are derived from more primitive forms. Legs didn't just appear, but were preceded by fish with bony fins. Jaws didn't just appear, but appeared in an existing fish. And when we look at the embryos, we can see the jaws were derived from gill arches! Fins to legs to arms to wings to fins! And the closer we look, the more evidence we have, the more clearly we can understand the history of descent with modification. <br /><br /><b>Fil</b>: <i>Only problem is, not every biologist agrees with evolution or many of the things associated with it. </i><br /><br />Virtually all biologists strongly agree with the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. <br /><br /><b>Fil</b>: <i>Evolutionists argue among themselves. </i><br /><br />Of course they do! That's a *signature* of a robust scientific theory.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41285199692079077892010-06-17T02:30:37.571-07:002010-06-17T02:30:37.571-07:00Smokey:
The only claim I made was that that gastr...Smokey:<br /><br />The only claim I made was that that gastrulation in different species was different. <br /><br />The genes you listed that control gastrulation hace the same name, but that doesn't mean they are the same genes. And even if they are, they are different in the different species. That is why gastrulation proceeds differently. <br /><br />And evolution starst with an individual that has a selective advantage. It survives and reproduces while all the other members of the population die out. Its offspring become the new population. Its starts with the individual.<br /><br />That being said, it has always been my experience that when people enage in personal attacks, e.g. "you're arrogant" it is an indication that they are insecure in their own position. But that's just me.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55760527083639831302010-06-16T21:36:12.431-07:002010-06-16T21:36:12.431-07:00Fil said...
I read that to mean: Yes, look at the...<i>Fil said...<br /><br />I read that to mean: Yes, look at the evidence for yourself, but also listen to what these people say since they are experts.<br /><br />The fact is I cannot win for losing. Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or geneticist I will never comprehend the evidence as well as they do. So I can spend all my free time looking at evidence gaining little traction OR I can look at it a bit, take what educated people say and form an opinion. Only problem is, not every biologist agrees with evolution or many of the things associated with it. Evolutionists argue among themselves. Who is right?</i><br /><br />Acceptance of evolution by those in the scientific community is over 98%, and acceptance by professional biologists is well over 99.9%.<br /><br />There are certainly heated scientific debates going on over specific details of evolutionary theory, but there is no scientific debate at all over the basic tenets of the theory. <b>None</b><br /><br />You face the same 'problem' every day with every day decisions. When you feel heart pains do you go to a hospital and see a cardiologist, or do you go find a witchdoctor who claims he can cure you by waving a dead chicken over your head? When your car breaks down do you take it to a certified auto mechanic or to a voodoo lady who says chants over the hood? There must be a 'controversy', not 100% consensus or the witchdoctor / voodoo lady wouldn't be there, right?<br /><br />Most people go with the consensus because <b>it works</b>. That's how it gets to <b>be</b> the consensus. Not by some evil atheist scientist conspiracy, not by dissent being stifled, but because ToE <b>works.</b><br /><br />I've tried to give you a small sampling of the huge amount of positive evidence for ToE that's out there. If you stick around I'll provide lots more.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26153369782131549602010-06-16T20:07:41.062-07:002010-06-16T20:07:41.062-07:00This is funny.
Me:"You say look at the evid...This is funny. <br /><br />Me:"You say look at the evidence. I do."<br /><br />Smokey:You don't.<br /><br />Me:"Not as in depth as some because I don't have the time."<br /><br />Smokey:You only look at what people say. You are afraid of the evidence.<br /><br />Me:"It's interesting how you say "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. ""<br /><br />Smokey:Yet all you and Dr. Hunter post about is what people say.<br /><br />So Smokey says I should focus on the evidence and not what people say.<br /><br />NEXT:<br /><br />In another post:<br /><br />Thornton:OK, fair enough. But know that there are people who have studied it their entire adult lives and do understand it. They're called evolutionary biologists, geneticists, etc. If you're going to reject their accumulated knowledge you'd better have more than personal incredulity in your quiver.<br /><br />I read that to mean: Yes, look at the evidence for yourself, but also listen to what these people say since they are experts.<br /><br />The fact is I cannot win for losing. Since I am not a evolutionary biologist or geneticist I will never comprehend the evidence as well as they do. So I can spend all my free time looking at evidence gaining little traction OR I can look at it a bit, take what educated people say and form an opiniom. Only problem is, not every biologist agrees with evolution or many of the things associated with it. Evolutionists argue among themselves. Who is right? <br /><br />Can't be as smart as them.<br />Can't get them to come to a 100% consensus.<br /><br />So you know what? I may just stop bothering.<br /><br />And kudos Smokey. That was the least insulting post I've seen from you.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49014279936110046582010-06-16T19:38:30.055-07:002010-06-16T19:38:30.055-07:00"You say look at the evidence. I do."
Y..."You say look at the evidence. I do."<br /><br />You don't.<br /><br />"Not as in depth as some because I don't have the time."<br /><br />You only look at what people say. You are afraid of the evidence.<br /><br />"It's interesting how you say "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. ""<br /><br />Yet all you and Dr. Hunter post about is what people say.<br /><br />"But when I disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence then I am an idiot and wilfully blind."<br /><br />No, it's because your interpretation isn't based on the evidence.<br /><br />"So the only way I could not be an idiot and wilfully blind is to agree with YOUR and your colleages interpretation."<br /><br />Now you're just lying.<br /><br />"Did you read that article?"<br /><br />Did it have any evidence in it?<br /><br />"He is saying BYE BYE tree of life. Not evolution. But the tree."<br /><br />According to you. But you're afraid to look at the evidence.<br /><br />"Did you read that article on elephant tusks? They admit the don't know the factor older animals played. THEY ADMIT IT."<br /><br />More about what people say, nothing about evidence.<br /><br />"" In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). "<br /><br />"That statement of mine was incorrect."<br /><br />And it was the ONLY statement you made about evidence!<br /><br />"The metabolizing of citrate (I believe) was the significant change. Zachriel mentioned there were 10-12 changes and a size increase. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. When I believe I am wrong. Not when YOU believe it."<br /><br />So, you're wrong about those experiments. Does that mean that your conclusion is wrong, too, or is it insulated from any evidence?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34494970282715631212010-06-16T12:41:50.356-07:002010-06-16T12:41:50.356-07:00LMAO Smokey. If that is how you reason I claim to ...LMAO Smokey. If that is how you reason I claim to know more than biologists then I feel bad for evolution that you are on it's side. Your prediliction for contempt and snide remarks do your side no justice.<br /><br />You say look at the evidence. I do. Not as in depth as some because I don't have the time. It's interesting how you say "You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. " But when I disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the evidence then I am an idiot and wilfully blind. So the only way I could not be an idiot and wilfully blind is to agree with YOUR and your colleages interpretation.<br /><br />""What you say Dupre meant is not what he meant."<br /><br />Did you read that article? He is saying BYE BYE tree of life. Not evolution. But the tree.<br /><br />""Adaptation does not equal microevolution."<br /><br />It doesn't. You assume in your arrogance it does.<br /><br />"That one statement tells me that THEY DO NOT KNOW ITS EVOLUTION. They assume it. They cannot determine the factor older animals played in this scenario so their assumption is invalid. A long line of assumptions has propped up this theory.... just like a house of cards."<br /><br />Did you read that article on elephant tusks? They admit the don't know the factor older animals played. THEY ADMIT IT.<br /><br />"" In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). "<br /><br />That statement of mine was incorrect. The metabolizing of citrate (I believe) was the significant change. Zachriel mentioned there were 10-12 changes and a size increase.<br /><br />I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. When I believe I am wrong. Not when YOU believe it.<br /><br />(Now, let's see if Smokey can respond to this without his usual derogatory and condescending remarks.)Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44805289485896818092010-06-16T11:10:46.356-07:002010-06-16T11:10:46.356-07:00"Give me some of my quotes."
OK:
"..."Give me some of my quotes."<br /><br />OK:<br /><br />"Dupree is calling the tree too simple. He is saying there is MORE to the pattern of life than one a simple tree suggets."<br /><br />"What you say Dupre meant is not what he meant."<br /><br />"I have zero problem with adaptation, that is definitely shown, sometimes within a year/generation. Adaptability, such as in finches, does not, however, guarantee the ability to adapt to anything however, which is what it seems to me like evolution claims. No situation is so unique that some reasoning cannot be made up for it."<br /><br />"Adaptation does not equal microevolution."<br /><br />"That one statement tells me that THEY DO NOT KNOW ITS EVOLUTION. They assume it. They cannot determine the factor older animals played in this scenario so their assumption is invalid. A long line of assumptions has propped up this theory.... just like a house of cards."<br /><br />" In that E Coli experiment of 50,000 generations there is one specific change( it took place at 30,000 or so if I recall). "<br /><br />This last one is especially arrogant because it's completely false.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8240346383366273982010-06-16T10:39:14.694-07:002010-06-16T10:39:14.694-07:00"That being said, you are clearly claiming to..."That being said, you are clearly claiming to understand biology better than the people who actually produce the evidence,'<br /><br />I am? Where? Give me some of my quotes.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69335937591292826812010-06-16T10:36:39.184-07:002010-06-16T10:36:39.184-07:00"Oooooooooo. Please forgive me for asking que..."Oooooooooo. Please forgive me for asking questions."<br /><br />Asking questions isn't the problem. Making up your mind without asking first is.<br /><br />"I should just take your obvious brilliance at face value and adopt your views as my own."<br /><br />Nope. You should base your views on the evidence, not what anyone says about the evidence. <br /><br />That being said, you are clearly claiming to understand biology better than the people who actually produce the evidence, which you're afraid to examine for yourself.<br /><br />That's the epitome of arrogance.Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61592786264857590302010-06-16T10:07:35.589-07:002010-06-16T10:07:35.589-07:00"Should you be claiming to understand biology..."Should you be claiming to understand biology better than the experts when you understand it less than a successful high-school student does? "<br /><br /><br />Oooooooooo. Please forgive me for asking questions. I should just take your obvious brilliance at face value and adopt your views as my own.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13456602028931431212010-06-16T07:43:18.250-07:002010-06-16T07:43:18.250-07:00Nat:
"But the genes that control gastrulation...Nat:<br />"But the genes that control gastrulation can't be exactly the same, or they follow the same pathways and stuff. so there are important differences as well. Anyway, I'm still not sure what the relevance is."<br /><br />They are the same: for example, nodal, BMP4, Cer, FGFR1, Snai1, FGF8.<br /><br />"Now, maybe you could provide some links on the topic of conservation of genetic control of gastrulation. The only information I could find was the article sited above."<br /><br />Which was consistent with what I said, not your claim.<br /><br />"And the mutations that confer an advantage happen in organism that reproduce asexually as well. So it can happen in an individual."<br /><br />In single-celled asexual organisms, yes. But do you now concede that your analogy was misleading for multicellular organisms, which was the context in which you offered it?<br /><br />"And even if a mutation happnes in the parents, the advantage it confers happens only for the offspring, so it is acting on individuals."<br /><br />Of course, but individuals don't evolve, which was your claim.<br /><br />"And where did I say I thought upthe car arguement myself?"<br /><br />Where you wrote, "And I only brought up the car analogy because you gave me permission to think for myself."<br /><br /><br /> Fil said…<br /><br />"You are saying that in humans the egg and the sperm that eventually fertilizes it already have mutations?"<br /><br />Correct. Mutations happen all the time, but only those in the germline are inherited.<br /><br />"And it is NOT the combining of the two that produces mutations?"<br /><br />Correct.<br /><br />Should you be claiming to understand biology better than the experts when you understand it less than a successful high-school student does?Smokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904417073935434187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87360084605010400222010-06-16T05:43:19.097-07:002010-06-16T05:43:19.097-07:00Cornelius Hunter: For the majority of physics prob...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>For the majority of physics problems the flat earth works well (but not 100%). </i><br /><br />That's right. Euclidean geometry is quite adequate for many purposes. The Round Earth Theory has to explain these observations, as well as other observations of a larger scale. <br /><br />Similarly, a more complex theory of phylogeny has to explain the observed nested hierarchy as it applies to many taxa of interest, as well as any new observations it is attempting to incorporate.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57678729618730784212010-06-16T05:23:07.780-07:002010-06-16T05:23:07.780-07:00Smokey:
"The mutations that confer advantage...Smokey:<br /><br />"The mutations that confer advantage to the individuals occurred BEFORE the fertilization that created them; i.e., in their parents. Epic fail of Genetics 101. This is why you are so arrogant—you can't be bothered to learn the most fundamental things before claiming that the experts are wrong."<br /><br />You are saying that in humans the egg and the sperm that eventually fertilizes it already have mutations? And it is NOT the combining of the two that produces mutations?Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69465391055165120352010-06-16T02:09:43.702-07:002010-06-16T02:09:43.702-07:00Smokey:
But the genes that control gastrulation c...Smokey:<br /><br />But the genes that control gastrulation can't be exactly the same, or they follow the same pathways and stuff. so there are important differences as well. Anyway, I'm still not sure what the relevance is. <br /><br />Now, maybe you could provide some links on the topic of conservation of genetic control of gastrulation. The only information I could find was the article sited above.<br /><br />And the mutations that confer an advantage happen in organism that reproduce asexually as well. So it can happen in an individual. And even if a mutation happnes in the parents, the advantage it confers happens only for the offspring, so it is acting on individuals.<br /><br />And where did I say I thought upthe car arguement myself?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.com