Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 97914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #870 on: October 28, 2013, 12:55:13 PM »
Ok, well this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. 

It was/ is a conspiracy, but it is not theoretical.  It is fact.  [wiki]Wedge strategy[/wiki]:
Quote
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.
   

Bold mine.  The nice thing about wiki is it has references.  It actually has a pdf of the wedge document. You have been told of this already and are either jerking our chains or are staying deliberately ignorant.  Either way, you are behaving like a jerk.

Dr. Behe and others clearly are experts in biochemistry and DNA.

So? So are the hundreds and, dare I say, thousands of scientists, geneticists and biologists who disagree with them.

I don't see anything wrong with at least talking about the IC aspect of it in classrooms.

I've asked you several times, with no response, how anyone would know something was IC.  How can you tell IC from your own ignorance?

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

This might be the stupidest argument I have ever heard.  "Kids aren't paying attention, so who cares what they're told?"  Get off the internet and go play in traffic, clown.


Regardless, criticisms of Darwin theory should be allowed in science class b/c challenging theories is part of science.

Sure.  Unfortunately for you, nothing you or the discovery institute offers is a legitimate challenge or criticism. 

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #871 on: October 28, 2013, 01:22:14 PM »
It was/ is a conspiracy, but it is not theoretical.  It is fact.  [wiki]Wedge strategy[/wiki]:
Quote
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The strategy also aims to affirm God's reality.
   

Bold mine.  The nice thing about wiki is it has references.  It actually has a pdf of the wedge document. You have been told of this already and are either jerking our chains or are staying deliberately ignorant.  Either way, you are behaving like a jerk.

You didn't bother to reference Discovery Institute's response the "wedge document" "controversy". http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349  (cited  to avoid accusation of plagiarism, lol)  These paranoid Darwins accused them of trying to impose a theocracy on this country and eliminating church and state which clearly isn't their agenda.   We could also argue that Darwins push phony science if they think it disproves God,  that is the same argument you make about ID people.   As I have pointed out before, the motivations don't matter, and clearly Behe and others make scientific arguments that Darwin evol can't lead to irreducible complexity and clearly Darwin scientists like Miller have responded to it as thought it was a scientific argument.  If it wasn't, they would just ignore it. 

Quote
I've asked you several times, with no response, how anyone would know something was IC.  How can you tell IC from your own ignorance?

  I have explained IC numerous times.  It is common sense that some systems need all their parts to work and if one were removed it would fail.  If you want to argue not any IC systems in the body, that is cool.   Just not convincing.  lol   I can't make you accept anything.  No need to either.  I'm not trying to your vote. 

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Quote
This might be the stupidest argument I have ever heard.  "Kids aren't paying attention, so who cares what they're told?"  Get off the internet and go play in traffic, clown.
     lol, my argument was it is dumb for Darwin parents and "creationist" parents to get so worked up over what is talked about in some high school science class.   It is a trivial issue, in my view.   I don't have kids though.   lol  I don't care either way what is taught,  they can't censor the truth because the truth always triumphs in the end.    People always fear new bold ideas that go against the conventional wisdom.  But over time, they begin to accept the new ideas because people know the truth when they see it.   


« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 01:27:17 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2118
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #872 on: October 28, 2013, 01:41:44 PM »
Ok, well this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. 

It was/ is a conspiracy, but it is not theoretical.  It is fact.  [wiki]Wedge strategy[/wiki]

I described and linked the Wedge document back on reply #697. He didn't read it. He most likely didn't even read DI's response to secular criticism that he used to reply to you with. He just doesn't care to learn about it.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3563
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #873 on: October 28, 2013, 01:52:30 PM »
Actually, this is bit of a fallacy.  It becomes correct if you rephrase it as: "Most mutations that persist in living individuals are neutral." 

The lethal mutations are simply gone very soon after they happen - not there for us to catalogue.  For obvious practical reasons (DNA extraction) we usually only study individuals that were viable.
No, actually it's not a fallacy.  If even a sizable percentage of mutations were harmful enough to be lethal, that would have severe consequences for life on Earth.  I doubt the number of outright lethal mutations is even as high as 1%, though as I'm not a biologist, that's merely an educated guess.  Even if you throw in all of the merely harmful mutations (meaning, they would impact the organism's ability to survive long enough to reproduce), I doubt the number goes above 10% or so.

Nope.  You missed my point about fecundity  -  it solves your objection easily.
Git mit uns

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3563
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #874 on: October 28, 2013, 02:05:12 PM »
jaime

this is incorrect.  Neutral mutations are passed on but neutral mutations would not lead to gradual change because they are not helpfu to the lifeforml.   Neutral essentially means they have no impact on the status quo.

No, Jaime is correct. Neutral mutations play a big role in setting the stage for more complex novel functions arising from later mutations on top of the existing neutral mutations being carried.

It is one of the many explanations for reducibility of complexity.
Git mit uns

Online Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2882
  • Darwins +317/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #875 on: October 28, 2013, 02:21:00 PM »
What is difference between creatures without minds to non-life?

You will say anything to string people along. It is time you were banned from this site.

I can't see plants and animals evolving from the same common ancestor though, just way too differnent.

From someone who claims to have studied microbiology?



I don't know what the evolution theory says about that.  I meant that as an implied question more or less.   I don't know how evolution would explain it as I understand evolution and I have the basic high school understanding of evolution, just a real basic overview. At least I think I do. 



My understanding is that DNA does not follow evolution paths but I am also not an expert on DNA so I will have to research this further.  I have looked at some of the arguments surrounding DNA but it is hard to follow if you have no base knowledge in DNA to begin with.


Do you really expect anyone to believe you studied microbiology, viruses and DNA after saying you know nothing about the subject?


I always thought an "intelligent designer"  may have used viruses to do it, as viruses take over host's cells and maybe they end up incorporating some of the host's DNA into their own and then transfer it to another host's DNA, so new genetic info gets added to a lifeform.    The odd thing about viruses are they are not really life, just DNA with in a membrane. They can't replicate except inside of a host cells and they take over the host cells molecular machinery.   

SO maybe God released life form v.1.0  and then as he mastered his craft he used these non-life DNA tranducter devices (viruses) to manipulate the DNA to lead to greater complexity.   Who knows.  lol

I took a microbiology class a few years ago and the virus stuff is so cool.   


Are you collaborating with someone to write these posts? Is that why your posts so often contradict each other?

You are basically saying that do you expect anyone to believe an argument that an eye, etc are IC when all these things evolved by Darwin natural selection.  You are asserting that Darwin evolution explains it but we are saying it does not , because the intermediate precursors are non-functional given that the final system fails if 1 part is removed.

Who is this WE?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 02:34:19 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3563
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #876 on: October 28, 2013, 02:23:00 PM »
It appears everybody is at church this morning, except me.   lol   isn't it ironic.

Sunday is a good day for sleeping in and having sex, or going fishing.  This Sunday I went fishing :)
Git mit uns

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +172/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #877 on: October 28, 2013, 02:24:52 PM »
I don't have kids though.

please keep it that way

Quote
People always fear new bold ideas that go against the conventional wisdom.  But over time, they begin to accept the new ideas because people know the truth when they see it.   

Like a heliocentric solar system?
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #878 on: October 28, 2013, 02:28:06 PM »
If you argue a fetus has no mind then you are basically saying it isn't human life.   I'm not sure why she brought the abortion debate to this thread though.

We are the ones you have been waiting for.    Team ID
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14161
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #879 on: October 28, 2013, 02:32:43 PM »
I'm not sure why she brought the abortion debate to this thread though.

Probably because I let people know in this thread that the person they're talking to thinks organisms without minds aren't alive.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #880 on: October 28, 2013, 02:36:51 PM »
I'm not sure why she brought the abortion debate to this thread though.

Probably because I let people know in this thread that the person they're talking to thinks organisms without minds aren't alive.

We were talking about fetuses and the issue of human life.  If it was a plant inside the woman's womb then we wouldn't care.  lol

you too eager to do gotcha you say things that make no sense.

given that weird creepy quote that you have in bold below your posts,  I wonder about the fitness of your mind.   lol
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3563
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #881 on: October 28, 2013, 02:37:58 PM »
Well I think you are missing the point of IC.  It isn't just about removing 1 structure, it is the remaining parts then have no function

Hahaha  ;D This is so funny.  If only, if only you'd worked with me in posts #306 - 308 you'd not be making a nong of yourself.  What if you made the effort to find out what the parts were once used for (Miller did  ;) ) and what if you found the parts are redundant copies of other parts that are still useful?  Fizzle goes your bubble :-[

It takes a only a fraction of humility to learn, but pride rules out your admitting to a lesson from an atheist - you'd rather genuflect to a fairy story.
Git mit uns

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18290
  • Darwins +640/-134
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #882 on: October 28, 2013, 02:40:47 PM »
Well I think you are missing the point of IC.  It isn't just about removing 1 structure, it is the remaining parts then have no function

Hahaha  ;D This is so funny.  If only, if only you'd worked with me in posts #306 - 308 you'd not be making a nong of yourself.  What if you made the effort to find out what the parts were once used for (Miller did  ;) ) and what if you found the parts are redundant copies of other parts that are still useful?  Fizzle goes your bubble :-[

It takes a only a fraction of humility to learn, but pride rules out your admitting to a lesson from an atheist - you'd rather genuflect to a fairy story.

It's not pride he has, it's stupidity.

-Nam
"presumptions are the bitch of all assumptions" -- me

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +172/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #883 on: October 28, 2013, 02:41:43 PM »
given that weird creepy quote that you have in bold below your posts,  I wonder about the fitness of your mind.   lol

quoted from OwnLogic, as evidenced by the way it says it above the quote.  It's a weird creepy quote from a theist, spotlighting how some theists tend to think.

I think there's a different fitness of mind you may want to concern yourself with.
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14161
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #884 on: October 28, 2013, 02:45:37 PM »
We were talking about fetuses and the issue of human life.  If it was a plant inside the woman's womb then we wouldn't care.  lol

What does that have to do with whether or not a zygote is alive?  Apparently it's not alive to you.  That's odd to me.  My hand also does not possess a mind; presumably it, too, is not alive.  Nor is it an example of human life.  Brings up the question of what kind of life my hand is, if not human life.

you too eager to do gotcha you say things that make no sense.

given that weird creepy quote that you have in bold below your posts,  I wonder about the fitness of your mind.   lol

The weird creepy quote was picked because it's weird and creepy; there's a practice going around on here whereby if someone says something either mind-crogglingly stupid, or outrageously creepy/scary, someone will pick up the quote and use it in their signature for all to see.  It's sort of a "look at the crazy sh!t that I just found!" thing.

The "mindless organisms aren't alive" thing is close to supplanting the quote I currently have there by OwnLogic.  It's not as creepy, but it's far more stupid.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Online Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2882
  • Darwins +317/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #885 on: October 28, 2013, 02:54:22 PM »
I'm not sure why she brought the abortion debate to this thread though.

Probably because I let people know in this thread that the person they're talking to thinks organisms without minds aren't alive.

We were talking about fetuses and the issue of human life.  If it was a plant inside the woman's womb then we wouldn't care.  lol

you too eager to do gotcha you say things that make no sense.

given that weird creepy quote that you have in bold below your posts,  I wonder about the fitness of your mind.   lol

That's a good one!

How about explaining how to do a microbiology course without understanding anything?


« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 03:18:25 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #886 on: October 28, 2013, 02:56:26 PM »
You didn't bother to reference Discovery Institute's response the "wedge document" "controversy". http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

did you even read the Wedge document?  that defense seems to be knocking down strawmen.  It also affirms every criticism leveled at them in the wiki article. 

And remember, the judge, a conservative appointed by george bush, in the Dover case didn't buy their bullshit either.

lol

You are pushing my buttons, drTroll.   stop it.

These paranoid Darwins accused them of trying to impose a theocracy on this country

That's great.  Whatever.  But this was not in the wiki article.  The word "theocracy" never appears. So this "defense" is a defense against imaginary foes and arguments of their own making.

  I have explained IC numerous times. 

You've not answered my question and this is a further dodge.  The evolution of the eye has been pointed out numerous times as to how it is still beneficial without almost all of its parts, yet you continue to use it as an example of IC. What's your pr

  lol, my argument was...

I know what your argument was.  It was a monumentally stupid argument.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3563
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #887 on: October 28, 2013, 02:57:50 PM »
Nah, it is just a copy of the previous DNA.   It isn't new information.   
From the first mutation in the copy it becomes new information.

Evolution should lead to new DNA.
And it does - by the basic processes you refused to learn about from the homework task I set you in replies # 306 - 308.
I gave you a chance at dignity - to learn something and grow - but instead you decided to make a fool of yourself and embarrass your cause.
Git mit uns

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3563
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #888 on: October 28, 2013, 03:13:40 PM »
I always thought an "intelligent designer"  may have used viruses to do it, .......

SO maybe God released life form v.1.0  and then as he mastered his craft he used these non-life DNA tranducter devices (viruses) ....

God "mastered" sweet FA.  Do you have any idea how much misery and death viruses cause across the globe in humans, other animals, and plants?





Is that what you class as "intelligent"?  You are ignorant and sick.
Git mit uns

Online jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5043
  • Darwins +1075/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #889 on: October 28, 2013, 03:42:56 PM »
  I have explained IC numerous times.  It is common sense that some systems need all their parts to work and if one were removed it would fail.
And it's been explained to you, numerous times, in numerous ways, why this doesn't matter the way you think it matters.  Everyone here may as well be talking directly to a Behe book - not Behe himself, but the book.  This static 'thing' that cannot process information and respond.  There is no difference.  It's exactly like trying to change the sentence "IC systems cannot evolve through gradual, incremental change" by reasoning with it.  No matter what the hell anyone says to that sentence (written on a piece of paper, stored electronically, etc), that sentence will not change.

Perhaps if you stopped being a stubborn, close-minded, pig-headed git you'd understand.  You're refusal to learn anything is getting extremely frustrating; your willful ignorance is painful to watch, and participation in conversation with you has become mere train-wreck entertainment.  You're making yourself look either like a fool or a dogmatic robot incapable of rational thought.  I assume you'll take exception to that labeling, but what else is one to draw from your dialogue?

Maybe instead of spending so much time "laughing out loud" in your posts, you maybe should try FUCKING THINKING.

P.S.
Burn your mechanical engineering degree.  You're going to be a fucking embarrassment to our profession.  From this 31 page monster of a thread, you have demonstrated a complete and utter lack of critical thinking skills, a total commitment to dogmatic thinking, and an inability to learn.  You make for an awfully bad problem solver.

-----------------------------

I'm finding this thread to be particularly frustrating to read through and participate in, reminiscent of certain month-insect-## related threads.  It's like talking to a brick wall.  No amount of criticism, rebuttal, information, data, is getting through to this guy.  Nothing.  All information that does not run in line with what he has already established as true makes any impact on him.  Such conversation gets summarily ignored by him.  It's like...I dunno.  It's exasperating to know that people like this exist and can otherwise navigate through life.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8886
  • Darwins +1119/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #890 on: October 28, 2013, 03:45:02 PM »
Nope.  You missed my point about fecundity  -  it solves your objection easily.
No, I didn't.  I am well aware of fecundity and its implications, but it is as much a response to predation and disease as it is to lethal genetic mutations.  Or, to put it another way, if the percentage of lethal genetic mutations was sufficiently high, then predation and disease would be a much more deadly threat to the survival of a species than they actually are.

Though, I admitted that I didn't know what the actual number was.  If you can show me that the percentage of lethal mutations is at least an order of magnitude higher than my earlier estimate, I'll acknowledge your point.  Say, 10% or so, since I estimated less than 1%.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #891 on: October 28, 2013, 04:12:00 PM »

Is that what you class as "intelligent"?  You are ignorant and sick.

Some Darwins also think viruses played a role in evolution by the same process I described called transduction.   They refer to this as a natural genetic engineering of sorts.   But you have to wonder how the viruses got there in the first place.  How do they know to infect a host cells?  Viruses are not even lifeforms. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #892 on: October 28, 2013, 04:17:37 PM »
Nah, it is just a copy of the previous DNA.   It isn't new information.   
From the first mutation in the copy it becomes new information.

Evolution should lead to new DNA.
And it does - by the basic processes you refused to learn about from the homework task I set you in replies # 306 - 308.
I gave you a chance at dignity - to learn something and grow - but instead you decided to make a fool of yourself and embarrass your cause.

William, yet another falsity? 
Consider:

Speciation by hybridization and polyploidy thus cannot be a viable mechanism for the vast majority of evolution even in plants because:

    (1) it occurs only within flowering plants,
    (2) it does not produce new morphological characteristics (as noted by Jonathan Wells, "according to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy 'does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera' or higher levels in the biological hierarchy").
    (3) polyploid hybrids cannot arise without pre-existing parent species, meaning it entails a collapse -- not gain -- of pre-existing diversity.

Since this species cannot arise without pre-existing parent plant species, obviously this mechanism cannot be responsible for all plant species. As another paper cited by the FAQ (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1971) states: "Though widespread and important in some plant families, species formation by allopolyploidy is uncommon in the living world at large."4 -

See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/plants_polyploi055301.html#sthash.hnphcwnu.dpuf
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #893 on: October 28, 2013, 04:34:50 PM »
We were talking about fetuses and the issue of human life.  If it was a plant inside the woman's womb then we wouldn't care.  lol

What does that have to do with whether or not a zygote is alive?  Apparently it's not alive to you.  That's odd to me.  My hand also does not possess a mind; presumably it, too, is not alive.  Nor is it an example of human life.  Brings up the question of what kind of life my hand is, if not human life.

you too eager to do gotcha you say things that make no sense.

given that weird creepy quote that you have in bold below your posts,  I wonder about the fitness of your mind.   lol

The weird creepy quote was picked because it's weird and creepy; there's a practice going around on here whereby if someone says something either mind-crogglingly stupid, or outrageously creepy/scary, someone will pick up the quote and use it in their signature for all to see.  It's sort of a "look at the crazy sh!t that I just found!" thing.

The "mindless organisms aren't alive" thing is close to supplanting the quote I currently have there by OwnLogic.  It's not as creepy, but it's far more stupid.

Ok, well I meant non-personhood, not non-life.  I think that is understood if you read the context.  I actually said non-life in a response and you asked me why I used that when you called "creatures without minds".   I think that I clarified "non-life"  as  meaning pseudo  life or a clump of cells.    A human being without a brain isn't a functioning human being.  A plant doesn't need a brain, a human does.  Many of you were excited no doubt when they starved that Terri Schiavo woman to death due to her brain damage and those fundamentalists thought that was wrong.

I think the brain is developed at an earlier stage than most abortion supporters will admit to. 

Re:  my microbiology class,  I made an A in the class, only person who did.   So there.  Next.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14161
  • Darwins +475/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #894 on: October 28, 2013, 04:42:53 PM »
Ok, well I meant non-personhood, not non-life.

If you meant non-personhood, then you should have said that, insted of non-life.  It's not my fault that you said something stupid.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Online Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2882
  • Darwins +317/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #895 on: October 28, 2013, 04:46:28 PM »

Some Darwins also think viruses played a role in evolution by the same process I described called transduction.   They refer to this as a natural genetic engineering of sorts.   But you have to wonder how the viruses got there in the first place.  How do they know to infect a host cells?  Viruses are not even lifeforms.

How does the flu virus know that you want the flu? Maybe it knows you want time off work?

So you studied microbiology and don't know how a virus infects a host?

I am looking forward to see what your next method of stringing people along will be. You have done the " I could be wrong" speech, and the qualifications "I can learn" speech. What will be next? Maybe "I have finally understood your first post" speech. That would keep everyone hooked for a few more pages.

PS you probably mean "introns".  Look that up. I don't want to waste time explaining.

Also look up the origin of the mitochondria. If you really studied microbiology you might even know it.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 05:01:42 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #896 on: October 28, 2013, 05:09:14 PM »
Did he really he ask why anyone cares what is taught in school, since the kids aren't paying attention anyway? As a college professor, I am tagging that for a sig, people. Jesus Christ, this is one tiresome guy. What is his deal? To make sure that US kids learn fake science or no science and can't get into college or become doctors? Maybe I should rethink my anti-gun stance. Let him get near my daughter's high school and say some sh!t like that.

We had a lecture from a Chinese scholar last week at my college. She was so smart it hurt. Dr. T would make her brain short-circuit. In China, she would probably arrange for the authorities to have him killed before he was able to pass on his genetic material. She was one of those Darwins (sic).

I cannot imagine anyone from another country saying it did not matter what their kids were taught in school so it might as well be made-up sh!t promoted by a few religious wackadoodles.

I hope he is getting paid to try to make US people more ignorant. Maybe he is on the payroll of some organization that recruits people from India to work in our universities and medical facilities. To paraphrase an Italian friend of mine, I would rather assume Dr Tesla was greedy than just plain stupid.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #897 on: October 28, 2013, 05:09:34 PM »
I know how, but I don't know why the virus does it.  Seems like it has to be programmed. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #898 on: October 28, 2013, 05:12:45 PM »
I care more about my daughters learning mathematics, physics, writing and other useful stuff.

Darwin is just philosophy stuff in the end, it isn't a useful tool that you can apply in your life.  Your belief on origine of species has no bearing on your success,  many MDs don't think Darwin evol is legit.   You guys make it seem like the Foundation of Science much like Jesus freaks think the Bible is the Foundation of their beliefs.

but Darwin evol foundation is built on quicksand  and I have exposed it as a fraud. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla