HI TROLL. I dont recall ever saying a car could run exclusively on water.

you fail.

regardless, since some truckers now use hydrogen from water to help power their trucks, youve been pwned.



[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 1:10 AM. Reason : 0]

2/4/2006 1:05:14 AM

JoshNumbers, I think you misunderstood a lot of my arguements, if you are very adamant about the subject as you say you are, I suggest you look at both sides of the arguement, I have plenty of books on evolution from both sides. I don't think you really want to look outside your own view, but I defintily encourage you to keep doing research. If you ever want to discuss the topic outside internet message boards i'd be welcome to talk to anyone about it. Hope you find the proof you need, for either side. I'll be praying for you.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 8:29 AM. Reason : ]

2/4/2006 8:27:34 AM

ok

so there is this species thats like a mix between humans and apes thats like 4 million years old named lucy

and somehow evolution isnt true?

2/4/2006 8:47:10 AM

I already posted an article of lucy, go back a couple of pages.

2/4/2006 8:52:14 AM

i just dont get why people dont believe in evolution when its kinda obvious

2/4/2006 8:53:19 AM

Quote :

"^ You are brutally retarded."

I loled. Going in the quote thread.

Anyone who gets a flu shot every year should be required to sign a form saying "I believe in evolution." Why do you think you're getting the shot year after year?

I think people are afraid of the idea of evolution because it's really REALLY hard to grasp the scope of time required. Millions of years. Thing about how many generations that requires. Geebus... that's a lot of mutation. Kinda cool when you realize it got us here today.

2/4/2006 11:13:07 AM

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't have to worry about the bird flu. That must be comforting.

2/4/2006 12:43:31 PM

first off, 99.9% of what Issac said is totally incorrect.

you assume that things evolve overnight. it takes millions of years for species to evolve for the most part.

2/4/2006 12:53:42 PM

^^ See someone like Isaac is just going to "explain" that away to himself by saying "oh, that's just micro evolution."

Why do some people think that "micro evolution" occurs, but at the same time believe that "macro evolution" cannot happen? It's like people can't put together the fact that "macro evolution" is simply the result of "micro evolution" over a large period of time.

If you believe in micro evolution, how can you not believe in macroevolution? They are the same thing....

Quote :

"I'll be praying for you."

rofl.

Quote :

"The point made above is basically we have never seen one species produce another."

This never happens instantly, all living things are going to slowly change form over time (Or perhaps die out entirely). We have ways of classifying all of the shit that exists on our planet. Do you realize that the only reason a "species" even exists is because humans have given these lifeforms such classifications?

Sometimes a mutation can make an individual better suited to live, and if that individual is able to reproduce they may produce more individuals with that trait. Over a LONG ASS TIME those with the better traits may become more abundant because they're more able to reproduce (Due to surviving longer). After millions and millions of years, you end up with a bunch of different types of living matter.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/4/2006 1:32:09 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes a mutation can make an individual better suited to live"

not according to some people.....

2/4/2006 1:53:38 PM

They are the same thing.^^

2/4/2006 1:53:51 PM

Quote :

"The point made above is basically we have never seen one species produce another."

of course 'we' have. there are fossils in my department at nc state that basically show species being derived from other species over and over again.

2/4/2006 1:55:56 PM

I think all that stuff was just god testing you dude.

2/4/2006 2:08:53 PM

Let me try and change my examples and hopefully this will make a little more sense as far as genetics are concerned: ok so lets go back to dogs: dogs general genetic design, Fur (F), 2 Eyes, 2 Ears, 1 mouth, etc. I know absurdly simple example, but this is to demonstrate the idea, and if I'm wrong, reference some textbook, or acredited name to show me where my idea on genetics is false

So Dog is : MEELLLLFT, so the idea is one mouth, two eyes, 4 legs, Fur, and Tail, now these will all vary, yes correct, so you may some how get MMELLLF where you have some crude mutated, but the whole point, which hasn't been addressed, is there are limitations, no matter how I alter the given information, whether it has millions/billions of years or not, with the genetic information, and the rules for mutation, there will never be a dog that develops gills, or something other than the genetic directions that are within a dog. The dog must repopulate within these genetics, and mutations only are lack/copies of so the boiled down point is...... if the animal's genetics represent ABCD, you can have alterations ABBCD AD ACCDD, but you will never get ABFD, since there is no original genetic material for it. No matter how much time you give something, this will always hold true. hope this clears things up.


So if you do disagree with this, please just don't say "i'm 99.9% wrong" just some me where my error is, and if so document where.

2/4/2006 2:12:20 PM

Where are you getting this shit from?

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 2:15 PM. Reason : lol]

2/4/2006 2:15:07 PM

Quote :

"the genetic information, and the rules for mutation, there will never be a dog that develops gills, or something other than the genetic directions that are within a dog."

Why would a dog even evolve gills? That would violate natural selection.

Quote :

"since there is no original genetic material for it"

mutations produce new seqeunces. the word mutate refers to a random process, one where mistakes are made in copying DNA. mistakes lead to random error.


pick up a biology text book.
this concept is FUNDAMENTAL. you just plain have no idea what you are talking about.

one base can be replaced by ANY base by chance. youre stating things that have no basis in biology. stop making things up.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : -]

2/4/2006 2:26:42 PM

Don't worry Isaac we'll be praying for you.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : The only letters you need to be worrying about are ATGC.]

2/4/2006 2:31:07 PM

I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you. You're either trolling or you're very stupid or very misinformed.

Quote :

"So Dog is : MEELLLLFT, so the idea is one mouth, two eyes, 4 legs, Fur, and Tail, now these will all vary, yes correct, so you may some how get MMELLLF where you have some crude mutated, but the whole point, which hasn't been addressed, is there are limitations, no matter how I alter the given information, whether it has millions/billions of years or not, with the genetic information, and the rules for mutation, there will never be a dog that develops gills, or something other than the genetic directions that are within a dog. The dog must repopulate within these genetics, and mutations only are lack/copies of so the boiled down point is...... if the animal's genetics represent ABCD, you can have alterations ABBCD AD ACCDD, but you will never get ABFD, since there is no original genetic material for it. No matter how much time you give something, this will always hold true. hope this clears things up."

Here are some pictures of dogs!

2/4/2006 2:56:07 PM

you are, in a way, making a 'straw man' argument.

of COURSE a dog is not going to spontaniously develop gills.
nobody is saying it could.


what does happen, however, is that over many many many generations, changes in the DNA of animals change through mutations. sometimes these mutations in the genetic code are beneficial, and sometimes they arent. the ones that AREN'T generally are weeded out because they may cause an undesirable trait, and the members of a population that have that trait will be less likely to live and breed. If the trait that the mutation caused IS beneficial, the members of the population that have these traits might be more likely to survive and pass along that gene to their offspring.
now, over many many generations (hundreds of thousands of generations) these mutations add up and the resulting animal may be very different genetically from it's ancestors hundreds of thousands of generations ago. they will be very similar, however, to their parents.

and i see what you are trying to say about the genetic code only having the ability to lose 'data' through random mutations... well, that's wrong, simply put.

2/4/2006 4:59:21 PM

Quote :

" Many insects are immune to pesticides we've been using. So these insects already had that info for resistance to an aritifically sythesized compound that never previously existed??????"

You cant skirt this point. I have disproved your theory, Issac.

Accept evolution, and move on.

[Edited on February 4, 2006 at 11:03 PM. Reason : -]

2/4/2006 11:03:20 PM

sorry i was doing hw and just had this thought:

what is the muslim stance on evolution?

2/4/2006 11:06:44 PM

it depends

is evolution flammable?

2/4/2006 11:20:41 PM

Nerdchick 1, Islam 0

2/4/2006 11:30:45 PM

^^lol

2/5/2006 1:16:25 AM

Quote :

"Let me try and change my examples and hopefully this will make a little more sense as far as genetics are concerned: ok so lets go back to dogs: dogs general genetic design, Fur (F), 2 Eyes, 2 Ears, 1 mouth, etc. I know absurdly simple example, but this is to demonstrate the idea, and if I'm wrong, reference some textbook, or acredited name to show me where my idea on genetics is false So Dog is : MEELLLLFT, so the idea is one mouth, two eyes, 4 legs, Fur, and Tail, now these will all vary, yes correct, so you may some how get MMELLLF where you have some crude mutated, but the whole point, which hasn't been addressed, is there are limitations, no matter how I alter the given information, whether it has millions/billions of years or not, with the genetic information, and the rules for mutation, there will never be a dog that develops gills, or something other than the genetic directions that are within a dog. The dog must repopulate within these genetics, and mutations only are lack/copies of so the boiled down point is...... if the animal's genetics represent ABCD, you can have alterations ABBCD AD ACCDD, but you will never get ABFD, since there is no original genetic material for it. No matter how much time you give something, this will always hold true. hope this clears things up."

you do know there's not a "mouth" gene, right?

pretty subtle changes during development can lead to drastic changes in phenotype. check out some research on Hox genes in flies. simple knockout-type mutations cause changes in body-segmentation (ie leg number and placement)--all from just one member of the homeobox being removed or transposed within the chromosome. to actually address your point, transposition of archetypal protein subunits (ie those that are characteristic of alpha-helices or beta-sheets, etc) can lead to the assembly of novel proteins which will be expressed as long as some promotor is present in the region.

a rudimentary example of this most people are familiar with is sickle cell anemia, which is due to a single mutation that changes a single amino acid. being heterozygous for this mutation was certainly a useful survival trait for those in areas prone to malaria infections. for other examples, look in any of the many single nucleotide polymorphism databases: there are myraid examples of single nucleotide mutations causing drastic changes in phenotype both harmful and beneficial.

[Edited on February 5, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : more]

2/5/2006 2:23:46 PM

Quote :

"Nerdchick 1, Islam 0"

Too bad Nerdchick is flammable...

2/5/2006 2:29:45 PM

GoldenViper 1, Nerdchick 0.

2/5/2006 2:33:28 PM

2/5/2006 3:02:02 PM

Quote :

"you do know there's not a "mouth" gene, right?"

i dont think he does. which is why explaining things to him is probably pointless.

[Edited on February 5, 2006 at 4:03 PM. Reason : -]

2/5/2006 4:02:55 PM

Isaac, exactly how many years in hell did your preacher tell you i will be spending for my belief in evolution?

2/5/2006 4:29:53 PM

god wants us to be ignorant, it's the very first thing you learn in the bible

2/5/2006 4:35:37 PM

god knew that adam was going to eat the fruit. It was all apart of his plan. You have to believe that or you cannot prove the existance of god.

2/5/2006 4:40:12 PM