Whoaly shit Gaz, you drop some bait and they sure
jump don’t they? Been a while since I’ve seen some
good ol fashion’ trollin’. Damn, I hate to keep
score but you hooked 6 or 7 with one good cast!

Congrats.

I am a long time viewer of this blog and quite frankly I’m a little disappointed how “dude” was subsequently handled.  In my experience, the best way is not to waste time upon the foundations of their promoted theories but rather build up a solid foundation for your own argument.  Just the existance of your theory and it being “right” is enough to tip them over the deep edge.  When they ask for the proof, please by all means BURY them in the stuff, even if it is a waste of time.  Makes it sound more irrefrutable.

To answer “dude”, lets look at one of the most interesting of the proteome complexes that has been discovered.  The RIP complex is responsible for “spell checking” the gene sequences of organisms such as M. grisea and correcting mutations as they occur in the code.  However the RIP complex will occasionally insert a “mutagen” randomly into the DNA and subsequently generate mutations of its own.  In M. grisea for example, this complex is very active in this regard and the amount of RIP prolifterations borders upon genetic instability.  So prolific in fact that vast genetic differences inside genus’s are evident.  For example, Humans are approximately 95% or greater similar in genetics to a chimp.  M. grisea and N. crassa are both pyrenomycetes, so they really should be similar however the genetic symmetry is as similar to that of humans and Xenopus.  That is like 65% similarity in the SAME GENUS!

Something must be evolving if we are experiencing a 65% similarity in organisms that should be much closer.  It is through such mechanisms such as the RIP complex that allow evolution to work.  There, that wasn’t so hard.  Proof that fungus is evolving.

R. Dean et al. The genome sequence of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe grisea. Nature April 21 2005; pg. 980-986.

“Dude” was an unbelievable ass and an obvious comment troll. He deserved no such courtesies.

if ‘Evolution’ - however you want to define it - is so solid and easily provable, then how come every time scientists think they have come up with evidence, they find that they have to re-think the entire thing over and over again [thinking they found life on Mars for example… that all went quiet after they found out they were wrong. that was the only thing that came up in my head for the mo; there’s just TOO MANY examples of failed proof to think about]

I got one with the existance of an RIP complex in the genetic coding that is partly responsible for microevolution.  Your turn.  Give me a source by your ”Christ think tanks to back up a claim that evolution is bunk.  A micro biology answer is prefered since fossil data is done to death and we already know that such and such drawings were a little fudged.  HIT ME I DARE YA!

“Dudeâ€? was an unbelievable ass and an obvious comment troll. He deserved no such courtesies.

Leave no one behind.  One who thinks he has won will just keep running around telling everyone about how he has one.  They smite with a book, I smite with jargon.  Just goes on forever.  http://www.evolutionisdead.com is such an example.  On the surface it looks like a ID only site but look deeper and a whole community of “us” swarms like a rancid undercurrent beneath a blue sea.  I’ll give em whatever courtesis they want, for I know they won’t return the favour.  But the comment and sentiment is much appreciated, thank you.

Now where did Gaz get too?  He looked like fun.

Psychromorbidus- love your posts.

All kinds of neat-o facty shit in there.

Alas, I only have the energy for petty banter.

There is always room for petty banter.  Just playing “hard ball”, that’s all.  I have a zero-tolerance attitude for acedemic arrogance.

Maybe Gaz hasn’t responded b/c he’s busy reading the Talk Origins FAQ… nah, I’d have better luck with a lotto ticket.

There is always room for petty banter.

It’s a good way to subscribe to a thread.

This is only a theory, as we have not yet managed to test every piece of matter in the universe.  Until we do we can not be 100% sure that it fits every circumstance.  However, as it is only a theory, please explain the reason why we do not fly off the planet under centrifugal force.

that is precisely the point I’m trying to make if it’s only a theory, why do you always state it as sheer fact, as though it’s as obvious as the spots on a teenager’s face?

Maybe Gaz hasn’t responded b/c he’s busy reading the Talk Origins FAQ… nah, I’d have better luck with a lotto ticket.

typical comment of accusal once again; It was just time to come off the computer for the day. I can’t be on here every second of every day; I DO have a life you know, unlike some people who must’ve had a LOT of time on their hands to be able to read through everything to do with Evolution.

speaking of which, if Evolution is about ‘variety of life’, and not how a dinosaur became a bird [as one “theory” suggests], then what else should I call you? Mr Millions of Years-Man?
that is why I use the term ‘Evolutionists’ very loosely, because I don’t know what else to call it!

what does metamorphosis or variation have to do with questions about the veracity of evolutionary theory?

don’t you think you’re contradicting decrepitoldfool here? he said:

evolution has nothing to do with how life began, or how the universe began.  It is an explanation of species diversity.

so what’s the difference between variation and diversity then?

if the transitional species theory is about changing one thing into another over millions of years, then logically, does that mean that the caterpillar can do it in a matter of hours/days? also, would you agree that a caterpillar and a butterfly are 2 completely different creatures? - 1 eats until it’s fat, the other can fly.

I’ve gotta go again now, but there’s no point in telling you where, because you’ll probably just make some stupid comment about it, as usual

I’m sure my every word will be picked upon, discussed, evaluated & obsessively scrutinized first, before you even get to the point! By diverting half the questions into mindless arguments about pointless issues, and “banter” as Qoayn ‘happily’ puts it.

Gaz, you are confusing development with speciation.  A caterpillar and a butterfly are the same critter in different stages of development.  They are not different species.

If you pile on enough variations between individuals, and they become separate populations unable to interbreed, that is one definition of speciation.

You really DO have other things to do than learn about science.  It shows.

typical comment of accusal once again;

And yet I was right. 

You asked for an answer.  You were shown where the answer can be found.  If you can’t be bothered with reading it, then why repeat the question?  The answers aren’t 3 word sentences.

Gaz spews forth with…

I’m sure my every word will be picked upon, discussed, evaluated & obsessively scrutinized first, before you even get to the point! By diverting half the questions into mindless arguments about pointless issues, and “banter� as Qoayn ‘happily’ puts it.

You’ll note I’m not wasting my time on you. You’ve already illustrated that you’re ignorant of even a basic high school biology education in the first couple of comments and that alone makes it pointless to engage you. I’ve been over these same stupid questions too many times previously here on SEB to be bothered with someone as obviously clueless and arrogant as you appear to be yet again.

Go read up on the theory and gain some understanding and then come back and try to hold a conversation. You’re just wasting my time otherwise.

just to let you know, I haven’t actually had a science lesson for about 6 years; so I agree with you there that it’s showing.
Time doesn’t give me chance to read everything on all the subjects - but I suppose I will try to read up more on them in future.

A caterpillar and a butterfly are the same critter in different stages of development.  They are not different species.

in a way, I agree with you completely there. But still, you’d never call a caterpillar a butterfly while it’s still a caterpillar - and vice versa.
In essence it’s a new creature, even though it’s the same one, but in a different form.

No, I wouldn’t call a caterpillar a butterfly, but either one may correctly be called a danaus plexippus.

Gaz: I’m sure my every word will be picked upon, discussed, evaluated & obsessively scrutinized first, before you even get to the point! By diverting half the questions into mindless arguments about pointless issues, and “banter� as Qoayn ‘happily’ puts it.

Oooh! Is somebody a little bitter that his bullshit is being called upon?

In essence it’s a new creature, even though it’s the same one, but in a different form.

I have no idea what point you’re trying to put forward with this argument about butterflies and caterpillars, but technically you could say the same thing about any living creature. I for one don’t see much of a resemblance between a human infant and that same human as an adult. Notwithstanding the obvious differences in size, they almost look like two separate species.

[quote="Gaz"]if it’s only a theory, why do you always state it as sheer fact, as though it’s as obvious as the spots on a teenager’s face?

Because it is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact because it is accepted as true by the vast majority of scientists, and will be until it is falsified by enough evidence.

It is a theory in that we don’t understand every aspect of it.

The fact that you don’t raise obejctions to things like the theory of relativity, super-string theory, or the theory of gravity, atomic theory, theory of limits, or germ theory of disease seems to imply that your obejction isn’t necessarily scientific but perhaps ideological?

What about a required reading list? Here are a few that come to mind immediately (on top of talk.origins):

logical fallacies

The “many questions” fallacy comes to mind…

theory versus scientific theory

I am indeed quite disappointed with Gaz.  He didn’t state ANY theory edgewise that is plausible to replace evolution.  He didn’t even mention any phenomena that may have a role in disproving any claims.  Just did the typical “I’m right, your wrong cause your wrong” skit without any verification.  If he had enough time to find this site, get mad about and post frequently, surly he can look something up to back up his claims.  Hell, steal from someone if you have to.  I recently heard about a great arguement from one ID’er that talked about MSR in bones as a possible claim.  Was a nice piece, if anything else.  Hell, I’ll disprove myself just to prove it is possible for all you lazy slobs.

Lets take a look at ATP synthase, a protein that transforms mechanical movement of hydrogen ions into chemical energy.  And yet it is against the laws of physics to convert mechanical energy into chemical energy.  How does this “magically” convert ADP into ATP with just hydrogen flow out of the cell?  Surely another design is needed to explain this, one that contridictes the traditional idea about how cells evolved.  Behold ID!

There.  I shot myself with thermodynamics and I CAN"T ANSWER THAT.  This is just an another example of some of the weird definitions and explanations given in bio when not enough is known.  Now that wasn’t that hard gentlemen.  Surely with your superior wit and endowed knowledge, you’ll be able to trump this example and blow my mind.  (Not to be rude or anything) If you are going to seriously debate the view, make sure your standing on firm ground.  Makes pulling the rug up from under you much harder.

Thermodynamics and chasing enthalpy usually shoot
anyone in the ass. hahaha

You expected more from Gaz? ha. it will return im certain.
theres lots to read and proofead over and
over before an adequate responce is generated to
obliderate us all from our sinful existance.

...probably stuck in an infinite preview loop
deciding which smileys best suit the mood.

this message was previewed 4 times before it was approved.

Gaz, you’re wasting your time with these godforsaken darwinists.  Their answers are going to be complicated, time-consuming to understand, and full of uncertainties; and you don’t have all day, as you said.  Isn’t it nice to be able to answer any question with “God did it”?

Zilch, that does it. We do need a FAQ site; there’s no need to reinvent talk.origins and other sites that somebody interested in serious research could be referred to, but a collection of pithy comebacks like yours right above would be just the ticket. If Les isn’t opening up the Stupid Evil FAQs, I do happen to have an empty site I’m willing to donate to the cause.

ah well, we all have our own beliefs.
I think because we are all locked into our own belief systems, and we look at the evidence we want to look at, and want to hear - which goes both ways - I think it will be stale-mate for a long time to come; no-one’s going to budge from their oppinions on what really happened.

in closing, here’s just 2 links left to show you [for now]
what Scientists have discovered over the past several decades had already been written down thousands of years before Science existed!
you can’t deny what Scientists of the past used to think, compared to now:
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scienceconfirmsthebible.shtml

and still, this is what I think of Evolution [wasn’t sure how to do the link thing] :D
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=8511&start=1&end=10&display=photoshop

btw, nice link about ‘Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories’ there. *nods*

Like I said, not even worth wasting my time on.

in closing

Any bets he really means it?  They seldom do.

elwed, I’d be glad to contribute.

ah well, we all have our own beliefs.
I think because we are all locked into our own belief systems, and we look at the evidence we want to look at, and want to hear - which goes both ways - I think it will be stale-mate for a long time to come; no-one’s going to budge from their oppinions on what really happened.

Gaz- I, and most of the rest of us here, have looked at plenty of evidence about evolution, and have also read the Bible and talked to lots of Christians, so you can’t say we are “locked” into our own belief systems.  But that’s a major difference between scientific and religious worldviews- scientists that stop looking are doing bad science, whereas believers who stop looking are proving their faith.