- Status
The types of storage I was mentioning are also 3 dimensional like DNA.
Your previous post lists a bunch of numbers most of them meaningless, the length of a DNA strand, the number of cells in the human body.
Ultimately though it does not matter how 'big' you make the 10% of DNA the separates by geographical region as you are still left with 9x more DNA making us human that does not break along the same lines.
For x > 0 ... 9x > x
You continue to offer no reason why we should stress the minority of our DNA over the majority.
Your previous post lists a bunch of numbers most of them meaningless, the length of a DNA strand, the number of cells in the human body.
Ultimately though it does not matter how 'big' you make the 10% of DNA the separates by geographical region as you are still left with 9x more DNA making us human that does not break along the same lines.
For x > 0 ... 9x > x
You continue to offer no reason why we should stress the minority of our DNA over the majority.
Last edited:
whar;4817695 said:
Yet here we are in a subfourm entitled Religion & Race????
And.....
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”
LOL.....@ you herbs......
The Error of Presumption
To say then that the human eye is definite proof of a lack thoughtful design, is a bit presumptuous....
This seems to be especially true when one considers the fact that the best of modern human science and engineering has not produced even a fraction of the computing and imaging capability of the human eye.....
How can we then, ignorant as we must be concerning such miracles of complex function, hope to accurately judge the relative fitness or logic of something so far beyond our own capabilities?????
Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them?????
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments on such things such things that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.
Last edited:
bambu;4879299 said:
That isn't reason enough to make a case for intelligent design. The universe has been evolving for many more years than we have been conscious of it. Either way, some cameras exceed our naked visual capabilities (http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/01/eye-camera.html) and tele/microscopes were invented to aid humans in seeing things they wouldn't normally be able to without them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope), so I guess there's the answer to your ridiculous argument. So unless you can provide proof that the eye was designed and not evolved, then your argument holds no weight.
Last edited:
You will also have to give a better explanation for the transitional observations and records. There are hundreds of examples of species intermediate between different classes (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) and a high amount of evidence against your i.d. theory (http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm) (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html)
Last edited:
You would have to explain all of this in terms of intelligent design as opposed to evolution, including numerous examples such as bacteria building immunities to antibiotics, rats gaining immunities to poisons and so on.. Evolution has already been proven by science. If you don't like it, propose a better theory. I've asked you to do this before and you still haven't I suppose out of fear that it will be easy to refute; you already know that creationism is not supported by any observation or facts of the universe. But again, please, if you are so passionate about this subject and your creationist ideas, provide a theory that will help us to see that the universe is created and not evolved.
Last edited:
That youtube video is obviously creationist babble and bias; ultimately false
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
1. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.
2. There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). "Still fruit flies" covers a wide range.
3. Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
1. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.
2. There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). "Still fruit flies" covers a wide range.
3. Fruit flies do not remain the same species of fruit flies. Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon (Korol et al. 2000). We would not expect to see much greater divergence in historical times.
Last edited:
Dumb Nigga....
All living creatures were created with the ability to reproduce only after their own kind....
1. Name the new species of fruit fly that was observed to evolve.....
2. Name the new species of bacteria that was observed to have evolved......
3. Name the new species of one living creature that was observed to have evolved.......
All living creatures were created with the ability to reproduce only after their own kind....
1. Name the new species of fruit fly that was observed to evolve.....
2. Name the new species of bacteria that was observed to have evolved......
3. Name the new species of one living creature that was observed to have evolved.......
Last edited:
the answer to your questions are in my previous posts. Do you know how to read?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Last edited:
Again, can you provide a theory of intelligent design that explains our observations? I'm asking you to do so and you're blatantly avoiding that. We can at least compare theories if you are really about this shit. Be a man, bambu and stand the fuck up for what you believe in, you coward
Last edited:
Silly Nigga.....
Your previous posts does not prove shit......
1) All "new species" that were observed are hybrids that are sterile (unable to produce offspring)......
2) A "new species" that is unable to survive without aid from scientists *Einstein or Frankenstein*
3) In some rare cases scientists have been able to manipulate the gene pool so that some are able to reproduce......
This actually provides more evidence for creationism rather than evolution.....
Can you read nigga????
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Your research, deconstructed.....
Sterile males
In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.
In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications. *Einstein or Frankenstein*
Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
Here is my theory again stupid nigga....
All living creatures were created with the ability to reproduce only after their own kind....
Your previous posts does not prove shit......
1) All "new species" that were observed are hybrids that are sterile (unable to produce offspring)......
2) A "new species" that is unable to survive without aid from scientists *Einstein or Frankenstein*
3) In some rare cases scientists have been able to manipulate the gene pool so that some are able to reproduce......
This actually provides more evidence for creationism rather than evolution.....
Can you read nigga????
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Your research, deconstructed.....
Sterile males
In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.
In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications. *Einstein or Frankenstein*
Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
Here is my theory again stupid nigga....
All living creatures were created with the ability to reproduce only after their own kind....
Last edited:
They're sterile because the two species are evolving away from each other. You didn't deconstruct anything. That's exactly what's supposed to happen. When one species becomes two, they aren't supposed to interbreed after that. Excerpt from the article here:
Your theory given has still not been able to explain the universe as observed, in example the fossil record. Would you like to take a stab at it? Can you please explain in detail your intelligent design theory or are you going to continue to run from your own beliefs? Simply stating that you believe all creatures were created only to reproduce after their own kind does not explain the universe as we know it. The BBC News article alone shits all over your theory. Again, bambu, please explain how the universe was created and explain to me in full detail how creation plays a part in reality as we know it. PLEASE DO! All of the evidence I posted earlier needs to be refuted with your i.d. theory. Get to it, brother, please. I'm waiting to hear this wisdom.
BTW, You're calling me stupid because of your own insecurities. Try again.
BBC NEWS;4890325 said:
Your theory given has still not been able to explain the universe as observed, in example the fossil record. Would you like to take a stab at it? Can you please explain in detail your intelligent design theory or are you going to continue to run from your own beliefs? Simply stating that you believe all creatures were created only to reproduce after their own kind does not explain the universe as we know it. The BBC News article alone shits all over your theory. Again, bambu, please explain how the universe was created and explain to me in full detail how creation plays a part in reality as we know it. PLEASE DO! All of the evidence I posted earlier needs to be refuted with your i.d. theory. Get to it, brother, please. I'm waiting to hear this wisdom.
BTW, You're calling me stupid because of your own insecurities. Try again.
Last edited:
- Status
