+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Plants may have a single ancestor

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    And yet you've offered nothing to support this assertion.
    Whatcha need, other then fresh u-trau?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Evolutionary science has a great deal of quantitative evidence to support it.
    Yuppers, ^^^^^^ ya already said that..... The fact of the matter is, that the so called "evidence" has contradicted much of the theology of Darwinism/evolution, n' the theory has had to have a number of major revisions every few years fer you true believers ta stay on point, (at least my religion is fairly constant).

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Religion concerns itself with matters of spirituality, science concerns itself with find out the 'why', regardless of if it isn't in step with previously held beliefs, not something that can be said of religion and it's dogmatic requirements.
    A distinction of semantics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Another accusation that lacks substance, evolutionary science has itself evolved and learned a great deal from research. The fact that it's changed is a sign that it's often being challenged and that our understanding of it grows constantly.
    Yer religion is surely evolvin' alrighty.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Science requires no faith, only understanding and a willingness to learn.
    Darwinism requires copious amouts of faith: Einstein.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Got to wonder why you're so afraid.
    Skeeeeeered yer sayin'? Not me.

    Ya need ta stick to readin' me werds not try ta readin' me simple mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    I can't prove whether you did or did not, but I can say with certainty that you didn't understand it, that's all over the "language" you use.
    You have no idea what I understand or don't understand.

    Ya can't read minds, (even the mind of a hillbilly with only one functional brain cell), and you don't know me at all. Let's keep that clear: shall we?


    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    You talk about it in terms of "proof", which is missing the point. It's a theory, with a lot of evidence and folks are constantly trying to disprove it and more often than not, failing at that goal.
    Theories and or a hypothesis are always tested and if they don't stand up they blow up: real simple, (takes only one functional [engaged] brain cell ta understand the process).

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    All you can do is tell me I'm wrong, you won't be able to produce a single piece of evidence that disproves what I'm saying.
    Much, not all, of what ya say is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Please present this evidence, and I'd like some real science not a link to some evangelical site please. Failure to provide this solidifies the fact that your position is fabricated and unsupportable.
    You deny that single cell life is now known to be extremely complex contrary to Darwin's hypothesis, yer sayin'?

    What "evidence" of the complexity of single cell life do you need?

    Would you even understand said evidence, if it bit ya in the arse?


    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    They're verifiable and available for you to criticize, please do so and return to me with your refutation.
    Since yer not my momma, why don't you produce evidence of a fosil or some such that proves that all living things came from a single ancestor. I don't think a horse ever was a fish nor do I think you true believers have ever produced a record that proves such. Lack of said evidence proves yer Darwinism/evolutionism is in fact a religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    See there's the thing with science and the scientific method again, it's set up to be proven wrong and to be challenged. I find it amazing that people will challenge conclusions reached by thousands of scientists with every reason to prove one another wrong, but won't stop for one second to question a flaming, speaking shrubbery or a man parting a river with a stick....
    The verses in the old book may or may not be literal. Jesus Christ is God as a matter of faith and doesn't need proof. That is what faith is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Yup, was doing some other work this morning and got some numbers jumbled. About 4.5 billion years, but you didn't bother addressing the point I made.
    N' here you have claimed I had never proved ya wrong. If ya admit yer wrong isn't that sufficient proof?

    I have adressed each "point" you have made sentence by sentence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Truth is subjective, evolution is not.
    The religion of evolution is surely "subjective", Jesus Christ is not "subjective" at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    It's as simple as that. You want to reject something that has evidence to support it for something that is 100% reliant on faith.
    Who said I rejected the THEORY of evolution? I don't, (at least completely).

    Ya need to stick with me typed werds n' not attempt ta read me simple mind.

    I stated that yer Darwinism/evolution, (as a true believer), is a religion and it is.

  2. Prosper.com, finance, financial, investing, lending, borrowing, banking, credit card, payday, borrowers, lenders, debt consolidation, Prosper, investment, personal loans, personal loan, investors, investment opportunities, debt consolidation

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldMercsRule View Post
    Whatcha need
    Facts, evidence. The two essentials you're entire counter argument lacks.

    major revisions every few years fer you true believers ta stay on point
    First, this is a flat out lie, yes there's been changes but they haven't been "major", but sadly for you most of the changes provide further evidence for the case. Learning must be a scary thing for you.

    A distinction of semantics.
    Nonsense, willful ignorance is the only way to maintain your view on this.

    Darwinism requires copious amouts of faith
    Then I can only deduce that you don't have the slightest idea what faith is.

    Not me
    Especially you, you're terrified you might learn something that challenges your fragile world view.

    You have no idea what I understand or don't understand.
    On the contrary, every word you right underscores my analysis.

    Theories and or a hypothesis are always tested and if they don't stand up they blow up
    Agreed, so why keep bringing up that the theory changes? That's the nature of a theory, it changes as we learn more, that's exactly the point. We know the answer to this though, you're afraid of learning and education. Your world view is fragile and not up to being challenged.

    You deny that single cell life is now known to be extremely complex contrary to Darwin's hypothesis, yer sayin'?
    You're moving the fence posts, you challenged that life didn't evolve from a single ancestor and have presented no evidence to the contrary, not that anyone is surprised.

    a record that proves
    For someone who claims to understand the scientific method, you keep using this word inappropriately. This is precisely the example I was looking for to prove just how little you understand.

    Who said I rejected the THEORY of evolution?
    It's the defacto position you're assigned when you reject one of it's primary tenants.

    I'm not worried though, once upon a time folks thought the earth was flat an the sun revolved around it.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Facts, evidence.
    I've stated lots of facts, since yer not my momma: you can search fer yer own "evidence" to counter me facts, if ya wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    The two essentials you're entire counter argument lacks.
    As I stated: facts have been presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    First, this is a flat out lie, yes there's been changes but they haven't been "major", but sadly for you most of the changes provide further evidence for the case.
    I don't lie, the changes have been both major and somewhat minor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Learning must be a scary thing for you.
    Why would ya say that? I already told ya I'm not skeeeeeeered at all, n' I luv ta learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Nonsense, willful ignorance is the only way to maintain your view on this.
    I've never claimed ta be the sharpest tool in the ol' shed.... That said: me views are well supported, n' yer jus' so full of yer religion n' Commie kool aid ya can't see the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Then I can only deduce that you don't have the slightest idea what faith is.
    I surely do know what faith is, I'm not a godless Commie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Especially you, you're terrified you might learn something that challenges your fragile world view.
    I'm not skeeeeeered at all...... n' me world view is anything butt: fragile.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    On the contrary, every word you right underscores my analysis.
    Nope the Commie kool aid has ya in a fog......., n' yer undies seem ta be in a big bunch......

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Agreed, so why keep bringing up that the theory changes? That's the nature of a theory, it changes as we learn more, that's exactly the point. We know the answer to this though, you're afraid of learning and education. Your world view is fragile and not up to being challenged.
    I'm not skeeeeered at all; I luv challenge; n' me views are not fragile at all..... burp....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    You're moving the fence posts, you challenged that life didn't evolve from a single ancestor and have presented no evidence to the contrary, not that anyone is surprised.
    Nope never made such a statement, yer not good at all at readin' a simple mind, so I'd give it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    For someone who claims to understand the scientific method, you keep using this word inappropriately. This is precisely the example I was looking for to prove just how little you understand.
    "Fence posts" yer sayin'? Yer tryin' ta build a box, butt: the Commie kool aid makes the edges reeeeeeeeeel fuzzy..... burp.... Me use of werds is perfectly appropriate......

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    It's the defacto position you're assigned when you reject one of it's primary tenants.
    As I've stated: yer not my momma; nor me professor so yer not entitled ta assign chit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    I'm not worried though, once upon a time folks thought the earth was flat an the sun revolved around it.
    Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldMercsRule View Post
    I've stated lots of facts
    More dishonesty.

    Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
    Nope, nor do I believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Your kind who condemn science for challenging your dogma get proven wrong every single time, history and science are both on my side. All you've got left is the sand, to bury your head in.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    More dishonesty.
    If the truth bit ya in the arse ya wouldn't know what it was.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Nope, nor do I believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
    Darn n' here I though you'd be a tooth fairy kinda feller.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    Your kind who condemn science for challenging your dogma get proven wrong every single time, history and science are both on my side.
    You know less then zero about me: Einstein..... n' yer mind readin' skills aren't so hot......

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    All you've got left is the sand, to bury your head in.
    I reeeeeeely like sand...... it's fun ta build castles in n' such....... or lay on n' watch purdy girls under me sun glasses......
    mmm...mmm...mmm

  7. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post

    Looking it up I see listed:
    —plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—


    Then, using your list, it's safe to assume that the 'accidental combining of inanimate objects in a primordial pool' millions or billions of years ago...that resulted in 'us'. actually occurred 6 or more times? Accidentally?
    'WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA' WHERE 'VIRTUAL' REALITY IS A WAY OF LIFE'

  8. Default

    Since clearly I'm not going to get anything but childish, emoticon filled replies, I thought I could do more to stamp out ignorance with some links to people who explain this topic far better than I.

    Evolution 101 brought to you by Berkeley. The various sub-topics are covered in a language that even someone who can't spell 'really' or 'pretty' can understand.

    I also stumbled upon another gem from Harvard - Dept of Molecular and Cellular Biology - it has links to several articles that delve into the topic.

    The thing that also perplexes me is how someone can talk out of one side of their mouth about heredity and genetics and never realize that if you believe in either of those then you cannot deny evolution, from a molecular perspective the topics are inseparable.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ronmatt View Post
    'accidental combining of inanimate objects in a primordial pool'
    It's not accidental, it's random and the objects aren't inanimate, their cells, so quite the opposite. These cells contain, the earliest ones contained genetic material in RNA, as these cells produced offspring and the nucleotides in RNA were recombined, it was done so randomly, hence why we're similar to our parents, but not clones of them, we inherit a random recombination of chromosomes from both of our parents, this random recombination over the course of billions of years resulted in the diversity of life we have today.
    Last edited by Anikdote; Feb 27 2012 at 05:50 AM.
    X
    ▲ ▲

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
    Possibly. Or possibly life started multiple times. That is part of the point of the article, is narrowing down the possibilities.
    You answered my question as well. I suppose I haven't entertained the thought of life starting multiple times.
    There is no love in Fear.

    Feminism is pretty much an all whites club pretending to be concerned with equal rights of racial minorities.

  11. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anikdote View Post
    It's not accidental, it's random and the objects aren't inanimate, their cells, so quite the opposite. These cells contain, the earliest ones contained genetic material in RNA, as these cells produced offspring and the nucleotides in RNA were recombined, it was done so randomly, hence why we're similar to our parents, but not clones of them, we inherit a random recombination of chromosomes from both of our parents, this random recombination over the course of billions of years resulted in the diversity of life we have today.
    Thanks... and the cells and genetic material came from where again? did the RNA molecule that randomly formed (mind you, not accidentally...I bin schooled) into this neat pattern; what was the purpose in the grand scheme of things? To go on and create life? Where did that motivation come from?....sorry I forgot...it was 'random'.
    Last edited by ronmatt; Feb 27 2012 at 07:35 AM.
    'WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA' WHERE 'VIRTUAL' REALITY IS A WAY OF LIFE'

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks