Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leaving aside your incredible hubris and presumptuousness about those of us who post here, without dragging this into an extended discourseI will just present one example of what I am referring to.
From evidence to inference: probing the evolution of protein interaction networks.
Ratmann O, Wiuf C, Pinney JW.
Abstract
The evolutionary mechanisms by which protein interaction networks grow and change are beginning to be appreciated as a major factor shaping their present-day structures and properties. Starting with a consideration of the biases and errors inherent in our current views of these networks, we discuss the dangers of constructing evolutionary arguments from naïve analyses of network topology. We argue that progress in understanding the processes of network evolution is only possible when hypotheses are formulated as plausible evolutionary models and compared against the observed data within the framework of probabilistic modeling. The value of such models is expected to be greatly enhanced as they incorporate more of the details of the biophysical properties of interacting proteins, gene phylogeny, and measurement error and as more advanced methodologies emerge for model comparison and the inference of ancestral network states.
I did not say it was all one thing or the other, but there is significant inference in evolution theory . . . significant. The only direct observation of evolution I am familiar with is Lenski, et al.'s 2009 "Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
That's the best you've got? WOW just WOW!
You clearly don't know anything about evolution or the evidence that we have that supports it to the level of a scientific Theory.
Keep your lame attempts and lack of evolutionary understanding to yourself...it holds no value here. I am not interested in your Piled High and Deep garbage.
Your presumptuousness is beyond the pale. Neither I nor Jerwade are evolution deniers. But that doesn't prevent us from poking holes in the pomposity of those who over-represent it. Lenski's is the ONLY experiment that presents direct evidence of an actual change of species. The others are what deniers like to call examples of "micro-evolution" within species. Get off your high horse and try to learn more about who you are posting about.
1. The Science Journal said Man has a Soul (Fact).
2. Go YouTube and in the search box type HushWhisper and look at those videos of what was found on the planet. The Story of Creation is in picture form on this planet, along with images of it's Creator.
I am not here disputing whether or not we have a soul.
However to make this silly claim that the Science Journal said so, goes to show that you don't know how to properly site a journal, much less the correct journal.
No, "The Science Journal" did not say that we have a soul.
A researcher named Robert Lanza is making the claim that there is now evidence that souls exist. (biocentrism)
Again, I am not here disputing whether or not we have a soul.
The rest of your statements are not worthy of of anything...these are merely your opinion/delusions/interpretations.
What numbers are you talking about? What point are you trying to make or is this just another one of your posts simply based on not understanding what you read?
As usual you can't follow or understand what you read.
When I stated..."You are comparing apples to atoms here".
What I am saying is that there is no comparison. One is based on faith and myths the other on empirical evidence.
Get it now?
LOL you don't speak or represent science in any way.
Science has a problem with foolish Creationists blabbing pseudoscience and trying to dilute science at schools in order to make it fit their theological myths.
lmao ... more than you do, dude, you are not trained, that's easy to tell. If you're lucky you have a bio degree; maybe. You are an "atheist pastor" pushing off science saying stuff it does not. we all have problems with fundies in any belief sytem. science doesn't, it's not a person.
Your presumptuousness is beyond the pale. Neither I nor Jerwade are evolution deniers. But that doesn't prevent us from poking holes in the pomposity of those who over-represent it. Lenski's is the ONLY experiment that presents direct evidence of an actual change of species. The others are what deniers like to call examples of "micro-evolution" within species. Get off your high horse and try to learn more about who you are posting about.
Again, here you are showing that you you don't know what you are talking about, and you can't even hold a proper conversation on the subject.
Observable evolution is not about a species change. It's about an adaptation occurring that helps a species survive.
There are numerous examples of this observable evolution. Look it up vs. coming here trying to act as if you understand and KNOW anything about the facts of observable evolution. Here are just a few examples of observable evolution. If you care to learn anything, you can easily look up more examples.
lmao ... more than you do, dude, you are not trained, that's easy to tell.
Darn, you called me out for not being trained in how to deal with posters who act as if they understand a topic, but clearly don't.
The real problem with these types of posters is that they fail to understand that we live in the age of information technology. Why not look up information vs. trying to belittle a person posting solid well documented facts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
If you're lucky you have a bio degree; maybe.
I would not say that I acquired my B.S or my M.S degrees through luck. It takes a lot of discipline, dedication, and hard work to obtain a STEM degree, especially at the grad school level.
The only luck I feel is when the roulette ball randomly lands on a number where my chips are placed.
I would be worried about myself if I demonstrated the type of grammar and writing skills that I have seen in most of your posts...it makes me question if you even made it to high school.
Just curious... do you not have the ability to observe and analyze your posts that are full of grammatical/syntax errors, as well as demonstrating a lack of scientific understanding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You are an "atheist pastor" pushing off science saying stuff it does not. we all have problems with fundies in any belief sytem.
Again this is nonsensical. Atheist Pastor?
Care to elaborate or post evidence of any thing that I have posted that shows me "pushing off science saying stuff it does not"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
science doesn't, it's not a person.
Who claimed that science was a person? You have reading interpretation issues as well.
Our current understanding of nature has changed and developed since the Bible Myth was first touted by Iron Age peasants who didn’t know that the Earth orbited the Sun…therefore it’s natural that science is inconsistent with those claims that were based on ignorance.
The facts of science are inconsistent with the Bible Myths.
the observable species change is the last piece. Like finding the higgs, to most of us it didn't matter. It would have been way cooler if they didn't. Only people that are fundies needed it. Higgs only showed we are on the right track. The same goes for species change. It's a done deal, we will see it. It's just a matter of when. We may even create it. We might not be able to breed with AI ... that won't stop us from trying ...
Darn, you called me out for not being trained in how to deal with posters who act as if they understand a topic, but clearly don't.
The real problem with these types of posters is that they fail to understand that we live in the age of information technology. Why not look up information vs. trying to belittle a person posting solid well documented facts?
I would not say that I acquired my B.S or my M.S degrees through luck. It takes a lot of discipline, dedication, and hard work to obtain a STEM degree, especially at the grad school level.
The only luck I feel is when the roulette ball randomly lands on a number where my chips are placed.
I would be worried about myself if I demonstrated the type of grammar and writing skills that I have seen in most of your posts...it makes me question if you even made it to high school.
Just curious... do you not have the ability to observe and analyze your posts that are full of grammatical/syntax errors, as well as demonstrating a lack of scientific understanding?
Again this is nonsensical. Atheist Pastor?
Care to elaborate or post evidence of any thing that I have posted that shows me "pushing off science saying stuff it does not"?
Who claimed that science was a person? You have reading interpretation issues as well.
Our current understanding of nature has changed and developed since the Bible Myth was first touted by Iron Age peasants who didn’t know that the Earth orbited the Sun…therefore it’s natural that science is inconsistent with those claims that were based on ignorance.
The facts of science are inconsistent with the Bible Myths.
no, people pushing off the bible as facts are at odds with people that don't. science is not at odds with the bible. You are at odds with the bible. why is that? what happened in your youth?
the observable species change is the last piece. Like finding the higgs, to most of us it didn't matter. It would have been way cooler if they didn't. Only people that are fundies needed it. Higgs only showed we are on the right track. The same goes for species change. It's a done deal, we will see it. It's just a matter of when. We may even create it. We might not be able to breed with AI ... that won't stop us from trying ...
You are making zero sense once again.
You need to be more specific and write more clearly. Nothing written here is understandable logic or proper use of the English language.
Why do you pretend to understand science when you clearly don't?
no, people pushing off the bible as facts are at odds with people that don't. science is not at odds with the bible. You are at odds with the bible. why is that? what happened in your youth?
Obtuseness at it's finest.
The Origin of Species, The Origin of the Universe, and Evolution are at complete odds with the Bible myths presented in Genesis.
It makes sense that you don't get this...you are no scientist.
The Origin of Species, The Origin of the Universe, and Evolution are at complete odds with the Bible myths presented in Genesis.
It makes sense that you don't get this...you are no scientist.
You are probably good with science. You are not with literature. Myth is not presented as fact, it is presented as allegory. Your fundamentalist background is showing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
