DutchLiam84
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Please micah...PLEASSSSEEEE use the quote button!!!!
Please micah...PLEASSSSEEEE use the quote button!!!!
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evol...
- Thread starter Squawk
- Start date
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Anachronous Rex
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Oh. Your. God.
I understand that you can't be bothered to read anything that he says... but you can at least click Ctrl + F, and type in Chromosome 2.
Oh. Your. God.
I understand that you can't be bothered to read anything that he says... but you can at least click Ctrl + F, and type in Chromosome 2.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Wow...
micah1116 is probably the biggest piece of dishonest shit to ever post on this website. It is weird, because if he's religious then he should believe that being a lying piece of shit will send him straight to whatever hell his religion advocates. That's completely aside from the plagiarism, the stupidity, and the bone-headed inability to comprehend the basics of debate.
In other words, this is not shaping up to be one of the better debates. :lol:
Wow...
micah1116 is probably the biggest piece of dishonest shit to ever post on this website. It is weird, because if he's religious then he should believe that being a lying piece of shit will send him straight to whatever hell his religion advocates. That's completely aside from the plagiarism, the stupidity, and the bone-headed inability to comprehend the basics of debate.
In other words, this is not shaping up to be one of the better debates. :lol:
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
OHOHOHO! THAT'S OUR JOE!
*everyone has a hearty laugh, while the credits roll*
Gnug215 said:
OHOHOHO! THAT'S OUR JOE!
*everyone has a hearty laugh, while the credits roll*
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Ohh ohh I know this one, They are not all identical because we only share the ones that our last common ancestor passed down to us.
Imagine your grandfather aquires a characteristic which is passed down among his children, all of his children and their children will contain it, thus you would have it, however, is his sister did not have it her children would not contain it, so her offspring would not have it. Now while you would have to acknowledge that you are related to this people they are not as closely related to you as the ones which do contain the characteristic that your grandfather had.
Also the 14 out of 98,000 is a BS number, from my knowledge (and a CDK007 video) that number is at best just the K level retrovirus's and not a representation of all 98,000 of our ERV's
Thirdly, I find it hilarious that he seems to acknowledge that they exist but doesn't seem to understand that ERV stands for endogenous retro virus, with his comment that they are not virus, he's right that they are not virus's they are the remains of virus's, and that doesn't mean our body's can't incorporate some role (in times a critical role) from their addition.
Micah said:
Ohh ohh I know this one, They are not all identical because we only share the ones that our last common ancestor passed down to us.
Imagine your grandfather aquires a characteristic which is passed down among his children, all of his children and their children will contain it, thus you would have it, however, is his sister did not have it her children would not contain it, so her offspring would not have it. Now while you would have to acknowledge that you are related to this people they are not as closely related to you as the ones which do contain the characteristic that your grandfather had.
Also the 14 out of 98,000 is a BS number, from my knowledge (and a CDK007 video) that number is at best just the K level retrovirus's and not a representation of all 98,000 of our ERV's
Thirdly, I find it hilarious that he seems to acknowledge that they exist but doesn't seem to understand that ERV stands for endogenous retro virus, with his comment that they are not virus, he's right that they are not virus's they are the remains of virus's, and that doesn't mean our body's can't incorporate some role (in times a critical role) from their addition.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
I understand why Squawk does not want to de-rail this "debate" by discussing this, but how about if I try it.
The article is entitled "Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution" and is written by Alex Williams.
This is the first sentence and it already starts with a lie. Since any new gene introduced into a genome would be considered new and the only information life deals with is DNA, a mutation of any sort would be new information being introduced.
Best guess? This is another lie in the hopes that no one that knows anything about biology would ever see this article. We have observed new mutations in humans, which led to new and useful genes.
Again, another lie. A great example of this is the nylon-eating bacteria, which was first discovered in the wild and led later researchers to replicate what happened in the lab.
This came from the first three sentences of that article. I see no point in reading the rest of the article with this many mistakes to start with.
Micah1116 it seems your problem is that you simply refuse to see the evidence in front of your nose. You would much rather believe lies and the liars that tell them than find the truth. In my opinion, you are not ready for a debate like this. You simply need to get a basic understanding of biology first.
As for the chicken and the egg argument, eggs came first.
micah1116 said:
I understand why Squawk does not want to de-rail this "debate" by discussing this, but how about if I try it.
The article is entitled "Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution" and is written by Alex Williams.
Alex Williams said:
This is the first sentence and it already starts with a lie. Since any new gene introduced into a genome would be considered new and the only information life deals with is DNA, a mutation of any sort would be new information being introduced.
Alex Williams said:
Best guess? This is another lie in the hopes that no one that knows anything about biology would ever see this article. We have observed new mutations in humans, which led to new and useful genes.
Alex Williams said:
Again, another lie. A great example of this is the nylon-eating bacteria, which was first discovered in the wild and led later researchers to replicate what happened in the lab.
This came from the first three sentences of that article. I see no point in reading the rest of the article with this many mistakes to start with.
Micah1116 it seems your problem is that you simply refuse to see the evidence in front of your nose. You would much rather believe lies and the liars that tell them than find the truth. In my opinion, you are not ready for a debate like this. You simply need to get a basic understanding of biology first.
As for the chicken and the egg argument, eggs came first.
Anachronous Rex
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Well this has turned out to be much less fun then the Proteus debate. All this talk of chromisomes and retroviruses is simply giving me no opportunities to spank Micah with funny pictures.
Well, other than this:
Well this has turned out to be much less fun then the Proteus debate. All this talk of chromisomes and retroviruses is simply giving me no opportunities to spank Micah with funny pictures.
Well, other than this:
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Probably not capable of being both more creative and less crude... I tend to become more profane as I get warmed up. This is clearly not the best place to go down that road, so I won't.Gnug215 said:
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Micah116, I am assuming that Squawk and you discussed exactly what this debate would cover. If you wished to discuss the subject of geology and dinosaurs, you could have made that part of this debate before it started. Simply because Squawk has you on the ropes, does not mean you can change the debate. It means you should have done better research.
However, you do understand you can open up your own thread about geology and dinosaurs, and discuss it with other users on here. You are not limited to only having debates between users of this forum. Furthermore, since geology and dinosaurs are not apart of this debate, you are able to discuss them in other threads on this forum without running a foul of this debate's rules.
Furthermore, since I have formal training in geology and an intrest in dinosaurs, I think looking at a creationist's ideas about those subjects would be interesting at least (if not down right hilarious).
micah1116 said:
Micah116, I am assuming that Squawk and you discussed exactly what this debate would cover. If you wished to discuss the subject of geology and dinosaurs, you could have made that part of this debate before it started. Simply because Squawk has you on the ropes, does not mean you can change the debate. It means you should have done better research.
However, you do understand you can open up your own thread about geology and dinosaurs, and discuss it with other users on here. You are not limited to only having debates between users of this forum. Furthermore, since geology and dinosaurs are not apart of this debate, you are able to discuss them in other threads on this forum without running a foul of this debate's rules.
Furthermore, since I have formal training in geology and an intrest in dinosaurs, I think looking at a creationist's ideas about those subjects would be interesting at least (if not down right hilarious).
kenandkids
New Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
How about we let Dr. Stamp moderate?
ImprobableJoe said:
How about we let Dr. Stamp moderate?
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
He could be browsing the forum using a crappy symbian or webkit browser on a dumbphone, and if the quote button even renders it is very difficult to scroll to, and even if he could it might overflow the memory.
he_who_is_nobody said:
He could be browsing the forum using a crappy symbian or webkit browser on a dumbphone, and if the quote button even renders it is very difficult to scroll to, and even if he could it might overflow the memory.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Re: Debate Analysis: Does evidence support neo-darwinian evo
Well thank you for that clarification.
However, if this is the case micah1116 should know that he has a week to respond in this debate, plus the option of a two-week wild card. This means I am still unsure why he would rush his posts.
scalyblue said:
Well thank you for that clarification.
However, if this is the case micah1116 should know that he has a week to respond in this debate, plus the option of a two-week wild card. This means I am still unsure why he would rush his posts.