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.
Because I am not interested in wasting my time educating you on things you can easily look up. I made it easy for you in posting those links and no I have not posted anything from a climate change website.
Well did you not just claim that you have taken all of these biology and genetics courses?
Surly you would know the answer to these questions if you had indeed taken these courses. You are a proven liar with each question.
You would not even need me to post such papers if you truly took all the science courses you claimed.
You are beyond pathetic in your attempts to claim to understand science.
Do you read what you post or
Just google
Search for something related to your topic and post it?
That paper is simply a review of the many hypothesis related to the "very puzzling" enzyme production that I asked about. It does not prove anything, and the fact that there are multiple hypothesis suggest there is a good
Debate ongoing about the origin of DNA enzyme formation and it isn't any kind of solid consensus....
Try again, maybe next time without calling me a liar again. It seems your repeated "liar" cries are being believed by others now, so at least you have that to look at as a success
Yes I do and in fact it's a very good paper, but it requires a person who is scientifically literate to appreciate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
It does not prove anything, and the fact that there are multiple hypothesis suggest there is a good.
Well I suppose you would need a good understanding of the Scientific Method to truly appreciate that paper. No surprise you don't get the paper as it clearly went right over your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
Debate ongoing about the origin of DNA enzyme formation and it isn't any kind of solid consensus.
Well then there's your answer to your dumb question. I suppose you think some creator made those enzymes. That's not even a hypothesis. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
Try again, maybe next time without calling me a liar again. It seems your repeated "liar" cries are being believed by others now, so at least you have that to look at as a success
If you don't want to be called a liar then stop lying. Seems pretty straight forward.
Heck, we have not even found the link between monkeys and humans, and we share 98%+ DNA with the suckers. Where are those transitionals and why have we not found them considering this evolution is some of the most recent to have taken place?
Can you explain to us why you think have not found the link between monkeys and humans?
Can you explain to us how we share 98%+ DNA with monkeys?
Also can you explain to us where you are getting your information because the science does not agree with you nor does it state such things.
Just for your information humans are not descended from monkeys or any other primate living today. We do share a common ape ancestor with chimpanzees. This common ancestor lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. But humans and chimpanzees evolved differently from that same ancestor.
Seem like a person who has taken all of the courses that you claim to have taken would know these things.
It's clear that you don't even know that chimps are not monkeys...you should know this if you took at least one of the classes that you claimed to have taken.
Mata,
I am not sure why you are still calling me a liar. What in that paper gave an answer to my question?
If you are going to say it gives lots of answers to my question then I would counter the review gives many possible solutions but these solutions, while steeped in science, are speculative guesses and nothing more, hence the term hypothesis I stated earlier. The review give no data link or research oriented answers, only hypothesis and it is simply a review of the many hypothesis which attempt to explain this "puzzling question" (the authors words, not mine). If we are going to debate how evolution is a scientific fact, as you have stated in your previous posts, then I think we need more than guesses to substantiate the fact of evolution...as it stands, you have no more than a scientifically steeped religious belief in something called evolution because you refuse to see it for what it is....ideas strung together with guesses and postulations holding together the most primal parts of the theory you say is fact. You still haven't answered or put forth an answer to why there aren't millions of transitional fossils in the record, as I posted a long while back today about. You simply skipped over that all the while calling me a liar and illiterate.
Listen, ma'am, I am not trying to change your opinion. That simply isn't possible. But to call me illiterate and a liar is silly and I will go toe to toe with you on any scientific thing you want to post up if I think you are overstating the scientific validity of what you post.
Oh and to your other hung up point about monkeys vs chimps....I called a chimp a monkey once and he wasn't offended....it isn't a big deal and most people would forgive the transgression but you seem stuck on it, so I will give you that, I was wrong about monkeys, it is chimps humans are most closely related genetically. My bad. Doesn't make me a liar, just made a racist remark about a chimp being a monkey. Again, in a religion/philosophy board I would not expect such a mistake to make such a big impression and the root source of your ill will toward me.
I am not sure why you are still calling me a liar.
Come on now you are just being ridiculous. Do you really need me to spoon fed you? You claim to have taken all of those science courses but yet you say things like this.
Quote:
Heck, we have not even found the link between monkeys and humans, and we share 98%+ DNA with the suckers. Where are those transitionals and why have we not found them considering this evolution is some of the most recent to have taken place?
You will not find science making these claims anywhere. If you truly took any of those courses you would know this. The only logical conclusion any logical person could come to based on these unsubstantiated claims (in fact all of your claims), is that you were lying about taking any of those courses. You are truly scientifically illiterate...your comments demonstrate this very clearly. Now what were you posting earlier about having taken all of those science courses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
What in that paper gave an answer to my question?
You truly are hopeless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
it gives possible solutions but these solutions, while steeped in science, are speculative guesses and nothing more, hence the term hypothesis I stated earlier.
OK since it's clear that you are scientifically illiterate...this comment is steeped in it...lets start with some basic definitions.
Speculation:the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Scientific Hypothesis: In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.
Do you now get how ignorant your statement is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
If we are going to debate how evolution is a scientific fact, as you have stated in your previous posts.
I stated no such thing in my previous posts. Go back and re-read.
There is no debate that Evolution is a well-established Scientific Theory. Scientific Theories explain facts.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Now what were you posting earlier about having taken all of those science courses? It appears that you have never taken one science class in your entire life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
then I think we need more than guesses to substantiate the fact of evolution...
Only a scientifically illiterate person would make such a statement.
Did you forget or are you so scientifically illiterate that you can't understand simple links such as this one?
Scientific Theories don't become Theories only on "guesses." Now what were you posting earlier about having taken all of those science courses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
as it stands, you have no more than a scientifically steeped religious belief in something called evolution because you refuse to see it for what it is....ideas strung together with guesses and postulations holding together the most primal parts of the theory you say is fact.
Folks this post of his is what scientifically illiteracy reeks of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
But to call me illiterate and a liar is silly and I will go toe to toe with you on any scientific thing you want to post up if I think you are overstating the scientific validity of what you post.
You are both a liar and scientifically illiterate. You have not met me toe to toe on anything scientific. If you want to go toe to toe on a science discussion that then I suggest you start by taking those classes that you listed.
Ha, that's the funny thing. You are so high and mighty behind your computer that you feel the privilege to call someone scientifically illiterate when you don't want to give credence to their ideas. You a using the semantics of science to hide behind the fact you have no answers for any of my questions, you can not meet the concepts by content, so you bash them by being the almighty scientific literacy judge. Brilliant. Love the technique. Classic deflection because you have no answer other than insults and begrudgery. I acquiesce to your almighty scientific literacy and will retire for the night. I look forward to more of your insults and such tomorrow.
Can you explain to us why you think we have not found the link between monkeys and humans?
Can you explain to us how we share 98%+ DNA with monkeys?
Also can you explain to us where you are getting your information because the science does not agree with you nor does it state such things.
Just for your information humans are not descended from monkeys or any other primate living today. We do share a common ape ancestor with chimpanzees. This common ancestor lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. But humans and chimpanzees evolved differently from that same ancestor.
Seems like a person who has taken all of the courses that you claim to have taken would know these things.
It's clear that you don't even know that chimps are not monkeys...you should know this if you took at least one of the classes that you claimed to have taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
Heck, we have not even found the link between monkeys and humans, and we share 98%+ DNA with the suckers. Where are those transitionals and why have we not found them considering this evolution is some of the most recent to have taken place?
But in fact they didn't change into a different kind of species.
Yes they did and I have already explained how. That you want to define what a 'species' in your own way rather than how science defines 'species' isn't going to make you correct. I'm about to leave for 10 days and I'll explain it to you (yet again) when I get back Edgar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The timepiece required an intelligent designer. The timepieces didn't evolve by themselves by chance.
Duuuuuh! That is because timepieces are not found occurring naturally. They are man-made items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
Where and when did I reveal myself...
When you claimed there was a link between monkeys and humans for one.
...but hey! You could always prove that you know what you are talking about.
1. Please explain the general idea of DNA genome mapping and how it is used to track the genotypic background of a modern species.
2. Explain three types of tRNA or DNA transcription errors in mitosis.
Right! I'm gone. I'll look forward to your answers when I get back.
Explain what highly conserved genes are and how they relate to evolution?
Explain why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and why the Great Ape have 24?
Explain how Human Chromosome 2, which is unique to the human lineage of evolution, emerged as a result of the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in other primates? Hint see my fancy chromosome picture that you did not understand earlier.
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.
