This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
MY mother and father had sex.. just like lots of mothers and fathers have sex and there was a lot of sperm produced and these sperm swim to meet and try to fertilise the egg - one must have been successful and hey presto I was born.. I believe my mother was made by her mother and her father having sex.. SEX made me!
1-25 of 67
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Adaydreambeliever
Then who made your father and your father's father and all of your family line?
SEX made me!
Then who made your father and your father's father and all of your family line?
Elessar · 26-30, M
@GodSpeed63 More and more sex.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Elessar
Yes, almost. For life on Earth, everything is driven by sex and death within a constantly changing environment
A 3.5 billion year history of common ancestry. Evolution by Natural Selection
You already know that... after all, any educated adult in a developed country knows that.
Everything is sex
Yes, almost. For life on Earth, everything is driven by sex and death within a constantly changing environment
A 3.5 billion year history of common ancestry. Evolution by Natural Selection
You already know that... after all, any educated adult in a developed country knows that.
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
Puhleeze come off the know-it-all BS
Puhleeze come off the know-it-all BS
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic You feel that my comment was incorrect in some way?
Please specify the details that lead you to that conclusion
Please specify the details that lead you to that conclusion
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
You know and I know that Darwin wasn’t a biologist. You can not mathematically back up anything.
You know and I know that Darwin wasn’t a biologist. You can not mathematically back up anything.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic I fail to see what Darwin’s academic training has to do with anything here.
In like vein, I’m unsure what you feel needs to be mathematically supported.
Please clarify.
In like vein, I’m unsure what you feel needs to be mathematically supported.
Please clarify.
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2 If you to push your belief button on an outdated scientific principle then go right ahead. It is a model with a lot of assumptions and sketchy observations to be taken seriously.
Are you trying to state anything?
Are you trying to state anything?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic
Which is..?
Which is..?
I thought my statement was perfectly clear. I’ll reiterate...
For life on Earth, everything is driven by sex and death within a constantly changing environment
A 3.5 billion year history of common ancestry. Evolution by Natural Selection
an outdated scientific principle
Which is..?
a model with a lot of assumptions and sketchy observations
Which is..?
I thought my statement was perfectly clear. I’ll reiterate...
For life on Earth, everything is driven by sex and death within a constantly changing environment
A 3.5 billion year history of common ancestry. Evolution by Natural Selection
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
You just listed what you can’t prove.
It is a theory losing ground.
Back in Darwin’s day they didn’t know about RNA and DNA.
You don’t have that excuse for ignorance.
You just listed what you can’t prove.
It is a theory losing ground.
Back in Darwin’s day they didn’t know about RNA and DNA.
You don’t have that excuse for ignorance.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic Oh, you’re talking about Evolution by Natural Selection, are you? Only, it wasn’t clear, because you referred to scientific principles and models, whereas the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a well-established, coherent, and consistent explanation for the evidence around the development of life on Earth.
I’m pleased that you’ve referred to DNA, because sone of the most cogent evidence comes from genetics.
Shall we examine some of that evidence?
I’m pleased that you’ve referred to DNA, because sone of the most cogent evidence comes from genetics.
Shall we examine some of that evidence?
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
Will you quit this attitude?
I can’t stand when people pretend they know something.
We have been here before and you ran away with fear for your lack of pretend knowledge.
Will you quit this attitude?
I can’t stand when people pretend they know something.
We have been here before and you ran away with fear for your lack of pretend knowledge.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic Really? Oh gosh. I don’t have any recollection of that happening, but perhaps we’ll have more luck this time.
Let’s begin, and we’ll see how I go... and, of course, you are always free to point out where you feel I’m pretending to have knowledge of this topic
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on exactly the same place on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
Let’s begin, and we’ll see how I go... and, of course, you are always free to point out where you feel I’m pretending to have knowledge of this topic
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses.
This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes.
That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on exactly the same place on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 Don't worry toots. You can deny all this drivel tomorrow. You do it all the time. Have a nice flight to Saturn.
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
That doesn’t prove the theory of natural selection.
I told you once and I’ll tell you again.
First if you have been keeping up on big bang since hawking died; the evidence to support it is faltering so hold your tongue on the outdated idea of billions of years.
They don’t have a clue on age.
I told you about the mathematics of amino acids and the simplest proteins that you have forgotten since last time.
There isn’t enough time to randomly combine amino acids into the simplest proteins even in the most optimum conditions.
That doesn’t prove the theory of natural selection.
I told you once and I’ll tell you again.
First if you have been keeping up on big bang since hawking died; the evidence to support it is faltering so hold your tongue on the outdated idea of billions of years.
They don’t have a clue on age.
I told you about the mathematics of amino acids and the simplest proteins that you have forgotten since last time.
There isn’t enough time to randomly combine amino acids into the simplest proteins even in the most optimum conditions.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic Oh, you’re switched to discussing the Big Bang now, have you?
Perhaps you’d like to examine the evidence around that, as you seem to have lost interest in examining the genetic evidence.
The Big Bang accounts for a raft of evidence, including:
the expansion of the universe
The hydrogen-helium ratio
the cosmic background microwave radiation
but perhaps you have a different theory that completely, consistently, and coherently accounts for those phenomena?
If so, please share it.
I see that you now also wish to switch to abiogenesis. Well, OK...
Randomly? Why is it necessary to randomly combine amino acids?
Tell me, is arbitrarily switching between several different topics without actually discussing any of them the same as running away?
Perhaps you’d like to examine the evidence around that, as you seem to have lost interest in examining the genetic evidence.
The Big Bang accounts for a raft of evidence, including:
the expansion of the universe
The hydrogen-helium ratio
the cosmic background microwave radiation
but perhaps you have a different theory that completely, consistently, and coherently accounts for those phenomena?
If so, please share it.
I see that you now also wish to switch to abiogenesis. Well, OK...
randomly combine amino acids
Randomly? Why is it necessary to randomly combine amino acids?
Tell me, is arbitrarily switching between several different topics without actually discussing any of them the same as running away?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 Don't worry toots you can deny your science tomorrow. You do it all the time.
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
I am sorry that you focus on one area and can’t handle the fact that “natural selection” inherently works off of the mathematics of probability but it is obvipis math doesn’t mean a whole lot to you with your science...details, details.
You are way behind on any current knowledge of astrophysics.
Should I wait until you do your homework so that you can prune your brain of now useless facts?
Some people and their science.
I am sorry that you focus on one area and can’t handle the fact that “natural selection” inherently works off of the mathematics of probability but it is obvipis math doesn’t mean a whole lot to you with your science...details, details.
You are way behind on any current knowledge of astrophysics.
Should I wait until you do your homework so that you can prune your brain of now useless facts?
Some people and their science.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic
Does it? Oh gosh... that’s a novel way of looking at it.
Let’s look at my understanding of it, and then you can point out the mathematical aspects that you feel to be missing.
Genes march backwards into the future. Each replication of genes enters an unpredictable and constantly changing environment. Each iteration carries features that may improve, or diminish, that iteration’s chances of again successfully replicating. Where such features are heritable, they will, in turn, enter the next iteration and again face a changing environment. Those features which confer lasting advantage over time will continue to be selected by this cycle of sex and death within a constantly changing environment.
That’s Natural Selection... the mechanism which drives the process of Evolution.
Your turn now... please specify your mathematical objections to my understanding.
(incidentally, the 'mathematics of probability' is generally referred to as ’statistics’)
inherently works off of the mathematics of probability
Does it? Oh gosh... that’s a novel way of looking at it.
Let’s look at my understanding of it, and then you can point out the mathematical aspects that you feel to be missing.
Genes march backwards into the future. Each replication of genes enters an unpredictable and constantly changing environment. Each iteration carries features that may improve, or diminish, that iteration’s chances of again successfully replicating. Where such features are heritable, they will, in turn, enter the next iteration and again face a changing environment. Those features which confer lasting advantage over time will continue to be selected by this cycle of sex and death within a constantly changing environment.
That’s Natural Selection... the mechanism which drives the process of Evolution.
Your turn now... please specify your mathematical objections to my understanding.
(incidentally, the 'mathematics of probability' is generally referred to as ’statistics’)
Pfuzylogic · M
@newjaninev2
Stats might be what you call it when you don’t understand the math.
I understand that you can’t explain the beginning. The idea that the universe works in one domain of science has passed. The idea that space-time is flexible has passed also. All of what you have established for an expanding universe with your “Lucy establishing any facts of evolution are passed. I still can’t believe you cling to that fraud.
Stats might be what you call it when you don’t understand the math.
I understand that you can’t explain the beginning. The idea that the universe works in one domain of science has passed. The idea that space-time is flexible has passed also. All of what you have established for an expanding universe with your “Lucy establishing any facts of evolution are passed. I still can’t believe you cling to that fraud.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pfuzylogic Oh gosh, quite a lot to work through here... I see that you’re still jumping from topic to topic without actually discussing any of them, but let’s see what can be teased out from your word soup, she we?
I’m uncertain what you mean by ‘one domain of science’, and I can’t really help you there unless you clarify the claim. What is it that you’re trying to say?
Flexible spacetime (not hyphenated... it’s just one thing). I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with the word ‘flexible’, but perhaps you’re referring to the relativistic nature of spacetime? if so, then not only has relativism not ‘passed’, it’s now even better understood that it ever was. After all, I’m sure you’ll already understand that your feet and your head aren’t the same age, and that there’s no single point in the entire universe that shares the same present moment.
if you don’t, I’d be happy to explain that to you.
Again, I’m not sure what the expanding universe has to do with ‘Lucy’ and just as unsure what all that has to do with Evolution.
Perhaps you could stop skipping between topics (running away?) long enough to put some clarity around your comments.
I’m uncertain what you mean by ‘one domain of science’, and I can’t really help you there unless you clarify the claim. What is it that you’re trying to say?
Flexible spacetime (not hyphenated... it’s just one thing). I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with the word ‘flexible’, but perhaps you’re referring to the relativistic nature of spacetime? if so, then not only has relativism not ‘passed’, it’s now even better understood that it ever was. After all, I’m sure you’ll already understand that your feet and your head aren’t the same age, and that there’s no single point in the entire universe that shares the same present moment.
if you don’t, I’d be happy to explain that to you.
Again, I’m not sure what the expanding universe has to do with ‘Lucy’ and just as unsure what all that has to do with Evolution.
Perhaps you could stop skipping between topics (running away?) long enough to put some clarity around your comments.
1-25 of 67