Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Btw, there are many experiments on genetic modification which you can read about, where features of one animal were made to appear in another by injecting DNA.

Pigs injected with jellyfish DNA to make the pigs glow in the dark.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080109-pig-glow.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com/glow-dark-piglets-and-future-genetic-therapy-265955


92
If I had the paper you provided earlier before I posted this question, I wouldn't have even asked the question.

So you introduced the discussion about the development of teeth and asked silly questions without seeing the original paper which I had to find for you.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I read through the paper you provided and this experiment you pointed me to does nothing to support macroevolution. The experiment consisted of triggering a genetic switch during the embryonic development stage in order to activate genes that were ALREADY PRESENT for teeth. Now, if the experiment had produced new genes and a new biological function or structure emerged, then you would have been onto something. I'm looking for evidence where the genetic information didn't already exist in the gene pool of the creature.

You are joking?

The original authors say it does support evolution in a very precise way.

Quote
The structures formed are similar to those seen in the first-generation teeth of the alligator in position, histological differentiation, and morphogenesis. This finding is consistent with the idea that developmental programs are hierarchical and that atavisms will reinitiate early steps before later processes of more complex teeth.

If you are looking for genetic material which did not already exist in the gene pool of the creature, you would not be talking about evolution, you would be talking about genetic modification.

This proves the OP that some christians do not (want to) understand evolution.

The reason that these experiments prove macroevolution is exactly because they turn on inherited unused genes which are already present in the animal.
93
General Religious Discussion / Re: Bible God/Jesus is a Pervert
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 02:42:12 AM »
I just assumed they were real. I remember someone telling me about them a while back and I did a quick search and thought I'd proven it to you guys. Boy, was I wrong. This doesn't mean the Bible is false.

My original statement was that we know DNA has not degraded.

Do you agree now that Adam and Eve did not have perfect DNA or are you going to make more false assumptions that every word of the bible is real?
94
This discussion is Groundhog Day. Macroevolution has been explained ad nauseam - evolution at the level of speciation and above. The term was coined by an entomologist who was attaching a label to a phenomena that he actually observed, and has been observed countless times since.

To deny macroevolution but accept microevolution is to believe that a change in gene frequency can occur in all genes except the ones that control reproduction, as without those changes new species wouldn't arise, a la speciation. But these are just labels - they're categories we ourselves create to make the explanations of our observations simpler and more uniform.

Perhaps BS can change all of the terminology involved in the field and magically make all observations disappear with it...
95
Reviews / Re: Rate the Last Film You Saw
« Last post by Fiji on Today at 01:46:42 AM »
Gravity 8.5/10

While at its core, it's just a disaster movie with a low bodycount I really digged the scienceporn.
Bullock was damned good ... and this for a lady who's been stuck in no-brainer romcoms of late.
For some reason, Ryan turns to religion at a few points in the story ... the movie makers couldn't resist some no-atheists-in-foxholes, I guess. Well, in the end she ditches any thought of prayer and actuallt gets stuff done (hey, maybe that's why it was put in)

I, Frankenstein 5/10

Plenty of CGI eyecandy but the story was paperthin. I guess the idea was to make Frankenstein/Adam a darker Hellboy. But while the actor did a pretty good job, he was let down by the script. Also, a bit of a pet peeve of mine, Franky's strenght and durability keeps getting higher as the story progresses. It's as if season 7 Buffy could fly and shoot lasers out of her ass.

Kick-Ass 2 6.5/10

Pretty good story but they should have decided before writing it if they were ok with people dying. Now it was seesawing between "everybody dies" and "everybody has massive character shields". The romance between Kick-Ass and Hit Girl could easily been massively cringeworthy but they handled it tastefully.
I would have given a 7 but I substracted half a point for the shit joke. What is it with US movies and shit jokes?! It's as if writers, whenever they feel like they need just one more joke, but can't think of anything, they just go "Yeah, let's stick a shit joke in there, that's always funny"
96
Jst; does humanity do anything good without Biblegod having a hand in it?
97
General Religious Discussion / Re: Bible God/Jesus is a Pervert
« Last post by Hamsaka on Today at 01:34:42 AM »
I think you could divide humanity between those who can tolerate the tension and delayed gratification of seeking what's true and those who can't, and end up clutching onto whatever boosts their ego.

That's the whole problem with any kind of religious belief, even the most progressive forms.  It gives people permission to lie to themselves and then regard those lies as some kind of virtue.  I don't think Skep's thinking problems are superficial (nor are any True Believer's).  The distorted thinking goes to the bone. 

The real problem isn't having these distorted ideas about religious beliefs.  If that were ALL, I doubt anyone here would give a shit!  But that distorted ego-stroking thinking goes into making all kind of decisions about life, to the point we have idiots in government lobbying Christian law based on the most outrageous notions, like the 'sanctity of life' of a three day old human embryo who's cells cannot be used for research.

Otherwise, who'd give a crap that a frightening majority (if the Pew Institute stats are correct) of people who can't or won't get honest intellectually.  All the Theists could hate on the Evolutionists and Darwinists and "scientism" to their heart's content.  But it wouldn't infect everyone's supposed free will, which probably doesn't exist in the way our self-centered minds think it does anyway.
98
General Religious Discussion / Re: Bible God/Jesus is a Pervert
« Last post by Fiji on Today at 01:12:00 AM »
I just assumed they were real. I remember someone telling me about them a while back and I did a quick search and thought I'd proven it to you guys. Boy, was I wrong. This doesn't mean the Bible is false.

*looks at statement above*
*looks at username*
*looks at statement*
*looks at username*
*looks at statement*
*looks at username*
...
I ... I got nothing
99
General Religious Discussion / Re: Bible God/Jesus is a Pervert
« Last post by Nam on Today at 12:33:12 AM »
Jdawg,

Take a breather, man.

-Nam
100
General Religious Discussion / Re: Objective Morality?
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 11:30:48 PM »
In NEW YORK CITY?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]