Sorry, you lack the knowledge necessary to discuss this. I tried to be kind. Don't waste my time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ancient ALIEN Creationism - science or new age RELIGION?
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
Sorry, you lack the knowledge necessary to discuss this. I tried to be kind. Don't waste my time.
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Sorry, you lack the knowledge necessary to discuss this. I tried to be kind. Don't waste my time.
Like his namesake...our Donald is as ignorant as they come...
Sorry, you lack the knowledge necessary to discuss this. I tried to be kind. Don't waste my time.
Look kid, there is currently no answer, not from you, and not from me. The important thing is natural selection HAS NO PART IN THIS, and no one in the establishment seems to want to know why.
To your credit you are not saying that I am wrong, because I have been wrong exactly never.
What will the code when discovered reveal?
Next
Last edited:
Cortisol does not explain what is happening, as the human nose can smell over a trillion scents, presumably a mouse even more. There are not enough chemicals on the Earth to explain this by chemistry. Thus a code has to be involved, to make it far worse these experiments were done in 2013 and there have been no new ones that I can find on the net, thus this is being shut down as it cripples evolutionary theory that hails that all such changes are the result of natural selection. In this experiment the mouse creates it's own positive change in 1 generation. When this is understood Darwin will be a dead comedian
The code is all based on chemistry. You are so clueless.
Look kid, there is currently no answer, not from you, and not from me. The important thing is natural selection HAS NO PART IN THIS, and no one in the establishment seems to want to know why.
Yeah, it certainly could have something to do with whether these epigenetic markers spread. What is different here is not about the natural selection but the mutation side as this is not based on changes to the dna sequence.
But you don't even understand what dna is. So why do I waste my time? That's the real question.
Yeah, it certainly could have something to do with whether these epigenetic markers spread. What is different here is not about the natural selection but the mutation side as this is not based on changes to the dna sequence.
But you don't even understand what dna is. So why do I waste my time? That's the real question.
No reason to. There isn't a geneticist who does not believe in evolution and none who believe in God except perhaps in the most broad and liberal sense, certainly not in a supernatural cloud daddy projection of ancient people, much less the bearded dude on Mount Nebo that would sustain the beliefs of these antiscience creationist types.
No reason to. There isn't a geneticist who does not believe in evolution and none who believe in God except perhaps in the most broad and liberal sense, certainly not in a supernatural cloud daddy projection of ancient people, much less the bearded dude on Mount Nebo that would sustain the beliefs of these antiscience creationist types.
There are lots of biologist that believe in God as God is the most logical beginning of life. Here is one
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Yeah, it certainly could have something to do with whether these epigenetic markers spread. What is different here is not about the natural selection but the mutation side as this is not based on changes to the dna sequence.
But you don't even understand what dna is. So why do I waste my time? That's the real question.
Wrong kid, epigenic markers are neither random mutations or naturally selected........................They are in fact the complete opposite of everything Darwin predicted.
Try again....................
There are lots of biologist that believe in God as God is the most logical beginning of life. Here is one
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
You are such a yawn. This is well trod soil. That guy was the expert id goofball on the losing end of the id lawsuit. His university disavowed his position. Everyone knows about that guy if they've ever had to tolerate a Christian Science hating lunatic online like you.
No, there are not a lot of them. Go away. You are a clown ID goofball. I bet you have a triptych of Jesus on a Dino in your living room.
You are such a yawn. This is well trod soil. That guy was the expert id goofball on the losing end of the id lawsuit. His university disavowed his position. Everyone knows about that guy if they've ever had to tolerate a Christian Science hating lunatic online like you.
No, there are not a lot of them. Go away. You are a clown ID goofball. I bet you have a triptych of Jesus on a Dino in your living room.
Now you may explain how a fear of cherries is transmitted to an individuals offspring by random mutation and natural selection????????????????????
LOL, random mutation is not possible because the change is in response to a particular fear.............thus natural selection can't be being employed....
Moral, this is not evolution as proposed by Darwin.
Please explain
Silly
Wrong kid, epigenic markers are neither random mutations or naturally selected........................They are in fact the complete opposite of everything Darwin predicted.
Try again....................
I did not say it was random mutation though epigenetic changes can be caused by mutations. I said the impact of the study is on the part of the theory of evolution that suggests that variation comes form mutation. It's not a big impact either as random mutation and changes in the dna sequence are still needed to explain most variations. There is no sign the inheritable epigenetics will have a lasting impact as this study only showed an effect to two generations.
It has nothing to do with the natural selection part of the theory of evolution, which deals with how specific traits are selected or propagated.
Now you may explain how a fear of cherries is transmitted to an individuals offspring by random mutation and natural selection????????????????????
LOL, random mutation is not possible because the change is in response to a particular fear.............thus natural selection can't be being employed....
Moral, this is not evolution as proposed by Darwin.
Please explain
Silly
Natural selection had nothing to do with the study. The change only passed to two generations.
However, I do think this epigenetic ability could certainly help a species deal with new threats quickly.
I did not say it was random mutation though epigenetic changes can be caused by mutations. I said the impact of the study is on the part of the theory of evolution that suggests that variation comes form mutation. It's not a big impact either as random mutation and changes in the dna sequence are still needed to explain most variations. There is no sign the inheritable epigenetics will have a lasting impact as this study only showed an effect to two generations.
It has nothing to do with the natural selection part of the theory of evolution, which deals with how specific traits are selected or propagated.
Dick this is not about you or what you said. Darwins evolutionary theory says that changes happen by natural selection and random mutation over a long period of time. The mouse experiment PROVES that this particular change is NOT random, and that it happens DELIBERATLY in one generation. This experiment disproves much of evolution, which is why no grants are being awarded to further this research
Dick this is not about you or what you said. Darwins evolutionary theory says that changes happen by natural selection and random mutation over a long period of time. The mouse experiment PROVES that this particular change is NOT random, and that it happens DELIBERATLY in one generation. This experiment disproves much of evolution, which is why no grants are being awarded to further this research
Your response was not about what I said, that's for sure. Changes happen by random mutation. This mutation might not be considered random but other epigenetic changes can be caused by random mutations. The key difference is that this is not a change to the dna sequence.
It disproves nothing but does certainly add to our understanding. They are still studying this and other epigenetic factors. They are in fact in the process of mapping the epigenome.
http://www.epigenome.org/
You are an idiot and a liar.
Now you may explain how a fear of cherries is transmitted to an individuals offspring by random mutation and natural selection????????????????????
LOL, random mutation is not possible because the change is in response to a particular fear.............thus natural selection can't be being employed....
Moral, this is not evolution as proposed by Darwin.
Please explain
Silly
Stupid hypo. Go away, dummy.
Your response was not about what I said, that's for sure. Changes happen by random mutation. This mutation might not be considered random but other epigenetic changes can be caused by random mutations. The key difference is that this is not a change to the dna sequence.
It disproves nothing but does certainly add to our understanding. They are still studying this and other epigenetic factors. They are in fact in the process of mapping the epigenome.
http://www.epigenome.org/
You are an idiot and a liar.
Everything that is believed by those who champion Darwin's theory says that this mouse change is not possible in one generation, or without natural selection, thus this is a completely new concept. That said it deserves to be studied, but the establishment is putting their hands over their ears and eyes and pretending that the experiment never happened. This fact is more telling than the experiment that has already disproved natural selection as the only source of change. The more we look, the less clear evolution is...........................some no longer want to look, I wonder what they are afraid of
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[3][4] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.[5][6]
Wiki
Donald runs or I mmediately abandons everything he says, like the idiot in chief namesake.
Wiki
Donald runs or I mmediately abandons everything he says, like the idiot in chief namesake.
Everything that is believed by those who champion Darwin's theory says that this mouse change is not possible in one generation, or without natural selection, thus this is a completely new concept. That said it deserves to be studied, but the establishment is putting their hands over their ears and eyes and pretending that the experiment never happened. This fact is more telling than the experiment that has already disproved natural selection as the only source of change. The more we look, the less clear evolution is...........................some no longer want to look, I wonder what they are afraid of
You clearly have no clue. Again, natural selection does not cause change. It is not a source of change. It selects the changes.
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[3][4] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.[5][6]
Wiki
Donald runs or I mmediately abandons everything he says, like the idiot in chief namesake.
The same VAST MAJORITY of the scientific community that voted for Clinton because Trump had no chance to be elected. They were ALL wrong.
Now they are burning their own colleges in protest.........genius not
LOL cry on kid
You clearly have no clue. Again, natural selection does not cause change. It is not a source of change. It selects the changes.
Natural selection the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Since the mouse experiment clearly shows a change designed to be beneficial in one generation, it does not fit into the concept of evolution