U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-19-2013, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,223 posts, read 1,595,677 times
Reputation: 884

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
To answer your question...nothing.
Absolutely nothing to teach evolution as a theory with a huge amount of holes in it.
Darwinism and neo Darwinism both are unworkable theories and anyone who understands them and is honest, knows this.

They keep waiting for that missing piece of the picture which just keeps on showing up.

 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,462 posts, read 28,348,352 times
Reputation: 29076
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwm1964 View Post
Absolutely nothing to teach evolution as a theory with a huge amount of holes in it.
Darwinism and neo Darwinism both are unworkable theories and anyone who understands them and is honest, knows this.

They keep waiting for that missing piece of the picture which just keeps on showing up.
Funny how when the holes are filled in as new technology and discoveries come along the theory of evolution just gets stronger.

Your last sentence makes no sense. If a missing piece of the picture shows up (and missing pieces show up every day), it is no longer missing.
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,223 posts, read 1,595,677 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Funny how when the holes are filled in as new technology and discoveries come along the theory of evolution just gets stronger.

Your last sentence makes no sense. If a missing piece of the picture shows up (and missing pieces show up every day), it is no longer missing.
I'm all for the theory of evolution, unfortunately the last time I checked into it there wasn't any evidence of macro-evolution and micro-evolution is a bit of a misnomer as all that means is natural within species.

If you have more information I am more than willing to listen to it with a very open mind.
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:23 PM
 
10,134 posts, read 6,343,695 times
Reputation: 8434
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
Evolution is biological history, mutation, and statistics.
What's wrong with teaching?
Nothing, as long as it's taught as theory.
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:31 PM
 
Location: WA
4,246 posts, read 7,847,536 times
Reputation: 2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
Nothing, as long as it's taught as theory.
Agreed. It is a theory, akin to the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the cell theory.

So, just as we teach students that the flu is caused by viruses, and not from "bad air" or "miasma", we'll teach students that species become reproductive isolated and change over time due to environmental selection pressures. Not because the "locally recognized deity put them there"
 
Old 03-20-2013, 03:55 AM
 
9,124 posts, read 5,627,280 times
Reputation: 3856
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Red cells have no DNA at all.
Aside from the fact that this is not entirely accurate, you again miss the elephant in the living room, which is why you would be better served by listening more, and talking less.

Mature red blood cells have neither a nucleus or DNA, but immature ones have both. As they reach maturity, an action similar to cell division takes place which "pinches off" the nucleus and the DNA contained therein. This allows the cell to carry more oxygen throughout the body, while collecting more CO2 to be delivered to and expelled by the lungs.

More importantly, and to the reason I brought this matter to your attention, was to highlight the fact that neither the nucleus of a cell, or the DNA directs the essential processes that occur in a living cell, other than reproductive and protein creation tasks. Apparently, and too obvious to miss is the reality that some other factor handles these essential processes of the cell, otherwise, that blood cell couldn't function, since it has neither a nucleus or DNA. Dogma is the only thing standing in the way between this rather elementary conclusion and the insistence that the nucleus of the cell is the central brain controlling it. It's really a matter of simple deduction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The cell nucleus evolved from prokaryotes.
Yes, yes, yes ... the broken record mantra ....Dar-Win ... Dar-Win ... Dar-Win

From less complex to more complex, by means of subtraction. And higher taxes make you richer

But why then are there so many stubborn little prokaryotes infesting the entire planet still today? Did they not get the Darwin memo that says they must evolve, and form a nucleus, because evolution can't be stopped?

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The only cells that matter in evolution are germ cells, so your peculiar take on cell metabolism is irrelevant.
Now this statement is virtually incomprehensible! Are you telling me that genetic mutation is reliant upon a bug? Or are you making some strange, and hard to follow reference to the nucleus challenged bacteria for which we all are supposed to share as the common ancestor to all things living? If it's the first, you are really lost ... simple transcription error and the failure to correct it results in genetic mutation. Radiation exposure can result in genetic mutation ... so there are other causes of mutation than the work of a pathogen. If you're talking about the latter ... well, again, that bacteria shouldn't even be alive according to you, since it has no nucleus ... yet it seems to be functioning just fine without one, and even has an immune system ... it can adapt and become impervious to antibiotics ... and no, that's not evolution ... it's adaptation ... it's the immune response inside the bacteria. Just like when you get sick and have a fever and a runny nose ... are you evolving because you have a fever that kills off the offending bug infecting you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
With apologies to Shakespeare, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Guy, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
You should realize that applies WAY MORE to you than me, you evolved monkey you!

You see, I make no such attempt to explain the origin of life. I certainly don't subscribe to the fairytale of the white bearded guy with the magic wand, floating in the clouds, nor the other fairytale from a man fitting a similar description who today would be appalled by the blatant distortions of his own theory to cover it's obvious flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
By the way, I see you never commented on this post:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/28699663-post851.html

If matter is a "vast void of energy and information", the Big Bang is not such an unreasonable concept is it?
Take a read at the open letter to the scientific community written and signed by some very prominent scientists who believe the big bang is a big lie, and the conduct of the cosmology community as a whole is a big fraud.

cosmologystatement.org

Excerpt:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.


Sounds like the same deal that's going on with Darwinism is playing out with the dogma of the Big Bang.
 
Old 03-20-2013, 07:50 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,290,725 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
The problem with evolution is you are teaching children that they are nothing more than another species of animals. Human beings are not animals, and animals are not human beings. An animal has no moral consciousness. It acts out of instinct and programmed behavior.
This is an issue of labeling, not of evolution. If you want to label yourself as being separate from the animal kingdom then by all means do so. It will not change the reality that that is exactly what you are however.

I would not get caught up in labels though. They are just a means to help communicate. A monkey is a "hominid". So are you. So you are both "Hominids". So what? Just because the same word or "set" incorporates you and something else... that does not mean we are saying you are the same in every way as that something else.

We can teach evolution in schools without issue therefore. Nothing about teaching it precludes acknowledging the differences... small and vast..... between us and other animals in the animal kingdom. The fact we both fall under the definition of "Hominid" or "Animal" or "Mammal" in no way takes away from any of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
If evolutionists truly believe that human beings are simply another class of species then they can't say bestiality is immoral and wrong. Evolution strips away our very humanity and degrades things like love and passion to nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.
Again this is just a matter of labels. Even if "love" is just a chemical reaction in the brain.... and there is no evidence on offer (much less from you) to suggest otherwise.... then so what? That does not take away from it, the experience of it, or its importance to us. Labels are empty here. Getting caught up in a tizzy about what we call these things... or how we define them.... in no way takes away from their value to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
Funny how skeptics and atheists won't entertain the possibility that the science behind evolution is wrong.
Tosh. Straw man tosh at that. We of course entertain that possibility. That is in fact how science... a subject you clearly do not know much about.... works. The entire methodology of science is based around an approach called "Falsification". What that means is that we do not try to prove things true so much as we try to prove them false.

So not only are we willing to entertain the possibility evolution is wrong.... the entire enterprise of science is BASED on entertaining that possibility... about all things.... all the time. What we call "proven theory" in science is not so much things we have proven to be true in science.... but things that have resisted all attempts at falsification.

That you would espouse the above nonsense therefore shows that not only do you not understand the methodologies of science.... you actually have them EXACTLY wrong and backwards.
 
Old 03-20-2013, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,248,484 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Aside from the fact that this is not entirely accurate, you again miss the elephant in the living room, which is why you would be better served by listening more, and talking less.

Mature red blood cells have neither a nucleus or DNA, but immature ones have both. As they reach maturity, an action similar to cell division takes place which "pinches off" the nucleus and the DNA contained therein. This allows the cell to carry more oxygen throughout the body, while collecting more CO2 to be delivered to and expelled by the lungs.

More importantly, and to the reason I brought this matter to your attention, was to highlight the fact that neither the nucleus of a cell, or the DNA directs the essential processes that occur in a living cell, other than reproductive and protein creation tasks. Apparently, and too obvious to miss is the reality that some other factor handles these essential processes of the cell, otherwise, that blood cell couldn't function, since it has neither a nucleus or DNA. Dogma is the only thing standing in the way between this rather elementary conclusion and the insistence that the nucleus of the cell is the central brain controlling it. It's really a matter of simple deduction.
A cell nucleus is not the only place where DNA and RNA are found.

Quote:
Microarray analysis of RNA from human RBCs

Recent proteomic studies of RBCs based on 1D/2D-electrophoresis 6, 7 or mass spectrometry assay 8, 9, allowed to recognize 272 proteins. Our data generated from microarray studies (n=7) evidence the presence of transcripts for 1019 genes in RNA of human RBCs including the above mentioned 272 proteins. The complete array dataset with genes reported has been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus database (accession number - GSE3674).
It was found 529 genes for cellular metabolism (among them 96 genes for protein biosynthesis), 228 genes for signal transduction (among them 112 genes for intracellular signalling cascade), 104 genes for development, 107 genes for immune response, 62 genes for protein localization, and only 53 genes for programmed cell death as well as 5 genes for autophagy. The function of remainder (160 genes) is yet unknown.
In our work the percentage of genes sorted according to key developmental functions corresponds to results presented by Kakhniashvili and Tyang 8, 9. Interestingly, human RBCs contain 40-50% of genes encoding cell cycle processes (including 3-5% of genes for transcription/translation) as compared to only 10-20% of genes responsible for self-destruction processes.
For the first time we report about the presence of genes in human RBCs encoding initiation, activation and regulation of transcription and translation (for instance RNA polymerises I,II,III, zinc/PHD finger- DNA-binding proteins, cysteinyl, lysyl-tRNA synthetase), important RNA-stabilising factor - poly(A) binding protein, anti-apoptotic proteins (for instance beclin 1, reticulon 4, BCL2, IAP) together with genes for RNA degradation (for example ribonuclease T2) as well as genes encoding typical apoptotic proteins such as cyclooxygenase, apoptotic protease activating factor, caspase 8. Other authors were able to show a protein synthesis in human platelets by megakaryocyte-derived mRNAs 19. The finding of RNA in anucleate cells like erythrocytes support the idea of nucleus independent protein synthesisand supports data 20 about possible mechanism of globin m-RNA stability in human RBCs.
Further experiments are needed to understand the mechanisms and the biological meaning of these findings. But gene expression profiling of human erythrocyte could be an important key for understanding the machinery of anucleate protein synthesis and its meaning in the pathophysiology of diseases.
Gene expression analysis of human red blood cells



Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Yes, yes, yes ... the broken record mantra ....Dar-Win ... Dar-Win ... Dar-Win

From less complex to more complex, by means of subtraction. And higher taxes make you richer

But why then are there so many stubborn little prokaryotes infesting the entire planet still today? Did they not get the Darwin memo that says they must evolve, and form a nucleus, because evolution can't be stopped?
Evolution is not a progressive march forward from simple to complex. Evolution moves backwards, sideways, and sometimes forward in terms of complexity. Organisms survive because they're able to fill niches and are able to effectively reproduce, a human's arbitrary opinion of "superior" or "inferior" has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
2. Does evolution proceed toward increasing complexity? In the approximately 3.8 billion years since life originated on Earth, evolution has resulted in many complex organisms and structures. The human brain and stereoscopic eyes are just two examples. At the same time, simpler organisms like algae, bacteria, yeast, and fungi, which arose several billion years ago, not only persist but thrive. The presence of single-celled organisms alongside complex organisms like humans testifies to the fact that evolution within a given lineage does not necessarily advance toward increasing complexity. When more complex organs are advantageous, complex organs have arisen. Single-celled organisms, however, fill many roles, or niches, much better than any multicellular organism could, and so they remain in a relatively stable state of adaptation.
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:03 AM
 
1,066 posts, read 1,118,361 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
But why then are there so many stubborn little prokaryotes infesting the entire planet still today? Did they not get the Darwin memo that says they must evolve, and form a nucleus, because evolution can't be stopped?
Smart guy.
Stupid statement.
 
Old 03-20-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Michigan
2,198 posts, read 2,248,484 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
The problem with evolution is you are teaching children that they are nothing more than another species of animals. Human beings are not animals, and animals are not human beings. An animal has no moral consciousness. It acts out of instinct and programmed behavior.
So we should not teach children the truth because some people aren't comfortable with it? Should we not teach about the Mai Lai massacre as well?

Humans are a species of animal. No amount of wishful thinking can ever change that fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
If evolutionists truly believe that human beings are simply another class of species then they can't say bestiality is immoral and wrong.
Yes they can. They can say whatever they want is immoral or wrong, as humans have been doing for thousands of years. Right or wrong is an arbitrary opinion, and it's one that has constantly changed throughout human history; across groups, individuals, geographical areas, religions, and time periods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
Evolution strips away our very humanity and degrades things like love and passion to nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain.
So we should just delude ourselves into believing whatever makes us feel good?

I think I'll spend the rest of the day believing I'm a billionaire. Who cares if it's not true?
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top