worldnewsnetdaily: Stephen Hawking admits Intelligent Design Highly Probable

[Blake]

" The*English theoretical physicist and*cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last*week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.

Presenting himself before students at the University of Cambridge, the world-famous scientist declared that his years of research on the creation of the cosmos have led him to isolate a strange scientific factor which he says is in many ways contrary to the universal laws of physics.

This strange phenomenon which he names the*God factor, would be at the origin of the creation process and would have played a great role in determining the actual form of the Universe.......


http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/


:depressed

[Ignignokt]

" The*English theoretical physicist and*cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last*week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.

Presenting himself before students at the University of Cambridge, the world-famous scientist declared that his years of research on the creation of the cosmos have led him to isolate a strange scientific factor which he says is in many ways contrary to the universal laws of physics.

This strange phenomenon which he names the*God factor, would be at the origin of the creation process and would have played a great role in determining the actual form of the Universe.......


http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen-hawkins-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable/


:depressed

Back to the cucktainer, you!!

[Blake]

More:

http://www.thatsfake.com/did-stephen-hawking-really-concede-to-intelligent-design/

[Blake]

Back to the cucktainer, you!!

Freudian innuendo on cue

[Ignignokt]

Stephen Hawking? But he's white? Why don't they trot out that Buck who hosts that Carl Sagan Show. My wife loves that show, she watches it solo while i sit in the other room playing with my pokemon while i try to drown out her moans.

[RD2191]

Back to the cucktainer, you!!
:lmao

[Blake]

Rofl the things you think of

[Aztecfan03]

It was obvious blake was just trolling? WHy the hell did you fall for it?

[Koolaid_Man]

If I was fucked up like he is I wouldn't believe in god either :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

but Hawking should still be thankful since he was caught buying hookers....at least his dick ain't useless....only issue is his ugly ass has to pay more...

[cantthinkofanything]

Not commenting on the OP.

But how the hell are we going to know when Hawking gets senile? People will be taking his word as gospel and he might have gone completely off his rocker. But it will all sound super intelligent with his robot voice and genius handicap.

[Infinite_limit]

http://th07.deviantart.net/fs25/200H/f/2008/132/f/d/Sexy_Alien_Wallpaper_by_SpiderDemon.jpg

[mouse]

A.D. Alternative Design.

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/304293_121130201392765_268746249_n.jpg?oh=51f6e8c9 a5570852d3ad353247c66e9c&oe=55E06400

[spurraider21]

:lol

The story seems to have first appeared on World News Daily Report which is a popular fake news website which deals exclusively with starting rumours such as this.

[Avante]

Some things simply can't happen by chance. You could take a handfiul of rocks and everyday for one bilion years toss them and they will never end up in a perfect circle, never!

We are living on a planet perfectly set up for us to thrive. This could only come about by some Designer, Designers. And it's so damn obvious it's ridiculous.

The Sun is the perfect distance, we rotate at the perfect speed, we have the perfect seasons, then we have DNA which MUST need a Designer.

Only fools don't get it.


Dummy...but science says....

Did science see the cell phone in 1478?

[spurraider21]

Did science see the cell phone in 1478?
wow. therefore god must exist!

[Avante]

wow. therefore god must exist!

Where do I ever mention God?

[ohmwrecker]

If humans are the best this creator can do, I don't know how "intelligent" the design is tbh.

[spurraider21]

Where do I ever mention God?
you mentioned designer, which for all intents and purposes is a god

[Avante]

you mentioned designer, which for all intents and purposes is a god

That's where you don't listen. How many times have I said..."I don't buy the Bible"...well? All that God stufff is man made, He could be Allah, Odin, Jupiter, Oisis, Zeus, Jehovah and whatever. That's all men trying to explain things, yep all a load of bullshit.

I have no idea how all this happened other than something/someone designed it. What that was..???? Nobody knows, so we just pick the story we like best.

[spurraider21]

Some things simply can't happen by chance. You could take a handfiul of rocks and everyday for one bilion years toss them and they will never end up in a perfect circle, never!

We are living on a planet perfectly set up for us to thrive. This could only come about by some Designer, Designers. And it's so damn obvious it's ridiculous.

The Sun is the perfect distance, we rotate at the perfect speed, we have the perfect seasons, then we have DNA which MUST need a Designer.

Only fools don't get it.


Dummy...but science says....

Did science see the cell phone in 1478?
right there. you are implying a god. i dont care which god, christian, or not.

the function of a "designer" is the exact same as that of a god. they're 1 and the same.

[Avante]

If humans are the best this creator can do, I don't know how "intelligent" the design is tbh.

Robert Johnson dies in 1938 not three minutes ago I heard him singing about those crossroads. Thats pretty fucking impressive.

[ohmwrecker]

Robert Johnson dies in 1938 not three minutes ago I heard him singing about those crossroads. Thats pretty fucking impressive.

Shame we only got 29 songs out of him.

[Avante]

right there. you are implying a god. i dont care which god, christian, or not.

the function of a "designer" is the exact same as that of a god. they're 1 and the same.

That is the mistake you continue to make, stop trying to use human logic with this...ok? It isn't real obvious this is far beyond our puny limitations, well it should be. That's why nobody knows a damn thing for sure.

[Avante]

Shame we only got 29 songs out of him.

Ya know we read that but actually very few of those who recorded prior to 1940 had that many recordings. Tons of those prewar guys had a few records. Some one/two. Hell, a few with just one side.

What bums me about Robert Johnson is that he never played an electric guitar. With those huge hands/longggggggg fingers he would have been amazing.

[spurraider21]

That is the mistake you continue to make, stop trying to use human logic with this...ok? It isn't real obvious this is far beyond our puny limitations, well it should be. That's why nobody knows a damn thing for sure.
lol... then why do you pretend to know "there MUST be a designer" if you are just going to play the whole "we dont understand" card

you contradict yourself, old man

[Avante]

lol... then why do you pretend to know "there MUST be a designer" if you are just going to play the whole "we dont understand" card

you contradict yourself, old man

Wow~~~~~~

Dude, you really are bad at picking up on what people are saying.

We can't understand any of this, ok? That's why we have all those religions, just people trying to explain it,ok? That's what I mean by we don't understand...ok? Damn!

I'm talking about all this not coming about by chance, and that should be very very obvious, it had to have been designed by something. I don't know what that was, nobody does so we find the story we like best, you like the....science says this...some others like...according to Allah...while others...God said....and on and on and on.

I go with what makes the most sense.

[Aztecfan03]

lol... then why do you pretend to know "there MUST be a designer" if you are just going to play the whole "we dont understand" card

you contradict yourself, old man

WHy do you even try? Old man is as dumb as a box of rocks.

[RD2191]

A.D. Alternative Design.

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/304293_121130201392765_268746249_n.jpg?oh=51f6e8c9 a5570852d3ad353247c66e9c&oe=55E06400

[Avante]

WHy do you even try? Old man is as dumb as a box of rocks.

Dumb is this...WHy...hahaha!!!!!! Little man, there is nothing I can't take you totally to school in, ok? I can't believe you don't know that.

Hey stupid, you do know that 90% of Americans disagree with spurraider, right?

[Avante]

It's like this....

We humans simply cannot accept the fact we have finally found something so out of our relm of comprehension we can't fathom it. So we try everything to explain it. As we know we have had 1000's of Gods. Each tribe, group of people having a multitude of Gods over everything.

Pay attention....

There are no Gods and there never has been, yep, one huge load of bullshit. But that doesn't mean we don't have something all powerful that put all this togerher. Who out there is naive enought to think the sun isn't the absolute perfect distance from us? Who thinks the speed the earth rotates at isn't absolutely perfect? The seasons, the nutrients in the ground. The sperm and the egg, it's all perfect. How could anyone think that didn't need a Designer? DNA?

We have very few atheists because most people simply aren't that stupid, they understand the odds of this all coming about by chance are small. They know it would take something all powerful to give us all these things we need to survive.

The Christian God is what people want things to be like, it sooths their mind makes them feel good. It's simple to play that just like it is with all the other Gods/religions.

Our MasterBlaster, DeluxDesigner is not a God, Gods are man made.

[spurraider21]

a designer that caused the universe and life to be is also referred to as a god. not any one specific god. whether you call it a god, a designer, a creator, a watchmaker... we get it, they refer to the some entity. don't waste your time getting into the semantics of all of it.

and again, as i have told you MANY times, saying

a) i dont believe in a god

and saying

b) i know for certain god does not exist

are two entirely different statements. i have always claimed choice A, and you repeatedly (and i mean REPEATEDLY) try to turn it into claim B. the fact that you always make the same mistakes over and over and over again during these discussions is why its hard for people here to take you seriously

[Avante]

a designer that caused the universe and life to be is also referred to as a god. not any one specific god. whether you call it a god, a designer, a creator, a watchmaker... we get it, they refer to the some entity. don't waste your time getting into the semantics of all of it.

and again, as i have told you MANY times, saying

a) i dont believe in a god

and saying

b) i know for certain god does not exist

are two entirely different statements. i have always claimed choice A, and you repeatedly (and i mean REPEATEDLY) try to turn it into claim B. the fact that you always make the same mistakes over and over and over again during these discussions is why its hard for people here to take you seriously

Not really asking for your approval or ok on this, ok? I'll get into anything I want, got it?

You do not believe all this came about because of some supreme being so why the bullshit? You believe there is no superior being so why the games?

We aren't certain the sun with show up tomorrow, we aren't certain about anything, so that's lame.

Do you believe Jesus Christ died for our sins? YES OR NO?

[spurraider21]

Not really asking for your approval or ok on this, ok? I'll get into anything I want, got it?

i never suggested you needed my approval. just letting you know why you are rarely taken seriously around here


You do npt believe all this came about because of some supreme being so why the bullshit? You believe there is no superior being so why the games?

you are right. i dont believe there is a superior being that created life and the universe. i'm not playing any games, i've been very clear about this for a long time


We aren't certain the sun with show up tomorrow, we aren't certain about anything, so that's lame.

i am certain the sun exists. there are actually many things we are certain about. the existence of a god is certainly not one of them


Do you believe Jesus Christ died for our sins? YES OR NO?

i thought i've been very clear about this. no, i dont believe in any of that. not sure why you needed to ask YES OR NO in all caps... i've expressed this many times

[spurraider21]

basically what that last rant told me is that you are unable to differentiate between:

a) i dont believe in god

and

b) god doesn't exist

if you can't understand the difference, that's fine. no need to get upset at me about it, though.

[Avante]

i never suggested you needed my approval. just letting you know why you are rarely taken seriously around here



you are right. i dont believe there is a superior being that created life and the universe. i'm not playing any games, i've been very clear about this for a long time



i am certain the sun exists. there are actually many things we are certain about. the existence of a god is certainly not one of them



i thought i've been very clear about this. no, i dont believe in any of that. not sure why you needed to ask YES OR NO in all caps... i've expressed this many times

Yeah, don't wanna take the one guy here who knows more about music, football, literature, life than anyone else here too seriously, hahaha!!!!!!!!!! Dude, why say stupid shit like that? Who here can't I take to school on a multitude of things? Why you play that, ????

I think only a total idiot would dismiss intelligent design. It makes far more sense than that silly shit you buy into it. And what's comical is you don't even see it.

[Aztecfan03]

There are no Gods and there never has been, yep, one huge load of bullshit. But that doesn't mean we don't have something all powerful that put all this togerher.

http://replygif.net/i/639.gif

[spurraider21]

Yeah, don't wanna take the one guy here who knows more about music, football, literature, life than anyone else here too seriously, hahaha!!!!!!!!!! Dude, why say stupid shit like that? Who here can't I take to school on a multitude of things? Why you play that, ????
you do know quite a bit about those things. but every time you post one of your lists about them, people here just gloss over it. they don't take you seriously. you'll start a thread about blues and post a million songs and artists... and nobody here seems to care or take you seriously. there's a reason for that, and it's on full display in this thread


I think only a total idiot would dismiss intelligent design. It makes far mor sense that that silly shit you buy into it. And what's comical is you don't even see it.
that's your opinion. its not based on evidence or fact though. just on how you feel inside. and opinions based on internal feelings as opposed to evidence are not going to be taken seriously in a discussion like this

[Avante]

http://replygif.net/i/639.gif

You cannot be this simple, it would be impossible.

[Avante]

you do know quite a bit about those things. but every time you post one of your lists about them, people here just gloss over it. they don't take you seriously. you'll start a thread about blues and post a million songs and artists... and nobody here seems to care or take you seriously. there's a reason for that, and it's on full display in this thread


that's your opinion. its not based on evidence or fact though. just on how you feel inside. and opinions based on internal feelings as opposed to evidence are not going to be taken seriously in a discussion like this

Hard to take things seriously when you don't know anything about them. Who can't talk movies, the news, burgers, sex sex and sex, that shit bores me so I go other places. And it has gotten enought play here to know it works. What do you do?

And the only thing on display here is how out of touch with reality you are, you do know most people disagree with your stance, right? Why is that? Why do so few agree with you? And cool this...the facts....the only facts are we don't know how all this came about.

[spurraider21]

And the only thing on display here is how out of touch with reality you are, you do know most people disagree with your stance, right? Why is that? Why do so few agree with you? And cool this...the facts....the only facts are we don't know how all this came about.
i don't think most people are as read up on it as i am either, and that's a big part of it. most people in this country believe in the bible, and jesus. that means most people disagree with you too.

there is plenty of evidence that supports a big bang... not much evidence that supports a deity

[Avante]

i don't think most people are as read up on it as i am either, and that's a big part of it. most people in this country believe in the bible, and jesus. that means most people disagree with you too.

there is plenty of evidence that supports a big bang... not much evidence that supports a deity

And who here is as read up on music, track, football, literature as I am? See my point?

Those who believe in Jesus and the Bible are saying what I;m saying they do believe in a Designer, so they really aren't disagreeing with me.

Dude, look at how you act, you try so hard to belittle others, thats how jerks act and most the jerks I;ve known are atheists.

So you really believe something as complex as DNA came from ...BIG BANG...are you serious?

[spurraider21]

And who here is as read up on music, track, football, literature as I am? See my point?
yeah, and when it comes to track and the blues, i'll defer to you. when it comes to sciences, you should defer to those who actually know about it.


Those who believe in Jesus and the Bible are saying what I;m saying they do believe in a Designer, so they really aren't disagreeing with me.
you disagree with them in a great way. they believe in a god with a personality who had a son, etc. their beliefs are different than yours


Dude, look at how you act, you try so hard to belittle others
i dont try that hard. when it comes to these discussions, you basically belittle yourself by making yourself look stupid. i just point it out


thats how jerks act and most the jerks I;ve known are atheists.
oh look, more anecdotal evidence. this is your go-to move


So you really believe something as complex as DNA came from ...BIG BANG
why do you keep asking questions to which you already know the answer?

[SnakeBoy]

If I was fucked up like he is I wouldn't believe in god either :lol

"God did NOT create the Universe", says Stephen Hawking. To which God replied, "enjoy your chair"

[Avante]

yeah, and when it comes to track and the blues, i'll defer to you. when it comes to sciences, you should defer to those who actually know about it.


you disagree with them in a great way. they believe in a god with a personality who had a son, etc. their beliefs are different than yours


i dont try that hard. when it comes to these discussions, you basically belittle yourself by making yourself look stupid. i just point it out


oh look, more anecdotal evidence. this is your go-to move


why do you keep asking questions to which you already know the answer?

How many religions agree with each other, yet they all believe in a Designer. Which is all that matters, how that is done means nothing. So we pretty much do agree, yep, wrong again.

So you are saying unless all of us agree with you we look stupid, right? So I look stupid because I'm like the vast majority of people, right? So Hawking is stupid, right? Isn't he saying what I am?

I asked about the Big BANG/DNA because it is absolutely impossible to have both and you don't even realize that, wow!

And stop with this stupid....those who know science...haha!!!!!! You have any idea at all how many times science has been wrong?

[SnakeBoy]

i thought i've been very clear about this. no, i dont believe in any of that. not sure why you needed to ask YES OR NO in all caps... i've expressed this many times

The historical record is pretty clear that Jesus willingly died for our sins. Not sure why you wouldn't believe something that happened. The big question is was he the Son of God or just some guy who gave his life based on a delusion.

[spurraider21]

The historical record is pretty clear that Jesus willingly died for our sins. Not sure why you wouldn't believe something that happened. The big question is was he the Son of God or just some guy who gave his life based on a delusion.
no, not really

[spurraider21]

How many religions agree with each other, yet they all believe in a Designer. Which is all that matters, how that is done means nothing. So we pretty much do agree, yep, wrong again.
yeah but all religions also disagree with each other. they are all theist, i'll grant you that. but most religions are ancient and used religion as an explanation for things they didn't understand. much of which we have come to understand since then.


So you are saying unless all of us agree with you we look stupid, right? So I look stupid because I'm like the vast majority of people, right?
no, i dont think you're stupid because you disagree with me. i think you're stupid based on some of your responses. based on your misunderstanding of things i say. based on you repeatedly making the same argumantative mistakes... over and over again.


So Hawking is stupid, right? Isn't he saying what I am?
no, hawking is an atheist. if you read what i posted on page 1, this article was completely false and the website that posted it is a fake news website


I asked about the Big BANG/DNA because it is absolutely impossible to have both and you don't even realize that, wow!
it's not impossible at all. ask any scientist... or people who spend their lives studying this


And stop with this stupid....those who know science...haha!!!!!! You have any idea at all how many times science has been wrong?
yeah. i also know how many times it's been right. science also corrects itself. you like to mock all the times science was found to be wrong. you know how those mistakes were discovered? through science.

[Avante]

"God did NOT create the Universe", says Stephen Hawking. To which God replied, "enjoy your chair"

Jesus was God in the flesh, not the son of God.

[spurraider21]

Jesus was God in the flesh, not the son of God.
i thought you dont believe in jesus and all that stuff?

[Avante]

yeah but all religions also disagree with each other. they are all theist, i'll grant you that. but most religions are ancient and used religion as an explanation for things they didn't understand. much of which we have come to understand since then.


no, i dont think you're stupid because you disagree with me. i think you're stupid based on some of your responses. based on your misunderstanding of things i say. based on you repeatedly making the same argumantative mistakes... over and over again.


no, hawking is an atheist. if you read what i posted on page 1, this article was completely false and the website that posted it is a fake news website


it's not impossible at all. ask any scientist... or people who spend their lives studying this


yeah. i also know how many times it's been right. science also corrects itself. you like to mock all the times science was found to be wrong. you know how those mistakes were discovered? through science.

Well if ya think I;m stupid no need to go on with this.

[Avante]

i thought you dont believe in jesus and all that stuff?

And you wanna talk about being stupid, WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, is Santa Clause not a fat guy with a beard who rides around behind some reindeers delivering gifts? DOES THAT MEAN i BELIEVE IN HIM?

Dude,you really do struggle at getting things, dead serious. You don't ever seem to get it.

MosES parted the Red Sea, ok? The Hulk is big and green, ok? Wanna talk about Lois Lane and Clark Kent?

Sheesh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[spurraider21]

And you wanna talk about being stupid, WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, is Santa Clause not a fat guy with a beard who rides around behind some reindeers delivering gifts? DOES THAT MEAN i BELIEVE IN HIM?

Dude,you really do struggle at getting things, dead serious. You don't ever seem to get it.

Moss parted the Red Sea, ok? The Hulk is big and green, ok?

Sheesh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but according to the bible jesus is very clearly the son of god

[Avante]

but according to the bible jesus is very clearly the son of god

WHAT????????????????

Dude, are you serious? Jesus was God coming to earth as a man, you really don't know that?

Notice how you totally ignored what I said about not getting things? Why do you do that?

[SnakeBoy]

Jesus was God in the flesh, not the son of God.

Correct, but it's just an expression to differentiate between God (the Father) and God (the Son).

[spurraider21]

judy's church group will be disappointed

http://i.gyazo.com/79cb8b5980e47b2a183c948a577f8130.png

[Avante]

judy's church group will be disappointed

http://i.gyazo.com/79cb8b5980e47b2a183c948a577f8130.png

spurraider this is the one ya simply...ok I was wrong....ok?


One of a thousand, trust me!


Because Jesus was God in the flesh, He alone could pay the debt we owed to God. His victory over death and the grave won the victory for everyone who puts their trust in Him (John 1:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.12); 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%2015.3-4), 17 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%2015.17)).



Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-in-the-flesh.html#ixzz3Y1K1pgt6

[spurraider21]

spurraider this is the one ya simply...ok I was wrong....ok?


One of a thousand, trust me!


Because Jesus was God in the flesh, He alone could pay the debt we owed to God. His victory over death and the grave won the victory for everyone who puts their trust in Him (John 1:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.12); 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%2015.3-4), 17 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%2015.17)).



Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-in-the-flesh.html#ixzz3Y1K1pgt6

from your link...

Jesus Himself understood the speculation about His identity. He asked His disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" (Matthew 16:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2016.13);Mark 8:27 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%208.27)). The answers varied, as they do today. Then Jesus asked a more pressing question: "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2016.15)). Peter gave the right answer: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2016.16)). Jesus affirmed the truth of Peter’s answer and promised that, upon that truth, He would build His church (Matthew 16:18 (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%2016.18)).

[spurraider21]

believe it or not, avante, i studied this shit. at my school we had weekly religion class every year from 1st grade through 8th grade. my grandfather was a priest

[Avante]

believe it or not, avante, i studied this shit. at my school we had weekly religion class every year from 1st grade through 8th grade. my grandfather was a priest

And I have been married to a woman for over 30 years who teaches Sunday school and who was raised by a religious freak. And I once got curious about just this. So just like them blues/track/football I did the homework and read everything.

I can totally overwelm you with tons of info telling you that Jesus was God in the flesh. There really is no debate here.


God came as man in the person of Jesus Christ
The hypostatic union- the Son as the visible representation of the invisible Father, that he took on human flesh- two natures in one person, 100% humanity and 100% deity. Each are their own nature that did not intermingle but made up the person of Jesus.
Col 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
The word firstborn does not have anything to do with born. It means first in rank, an heir, to have preeminence in position, not origin. As in Rev.1:5, Heb.1:5-6 both clarify the meaning of firstborn by its context. Christ was not the first raised from the dead to eternal life in the body. Which gives him headship over the human race.
The Father is over the Son positionally, just as the husband is the same nature as his wife but over his wife in position

spurraider, don't fight this one, ok? You will come off looking totally ridiculous, alright?

[Aztecfan03]

I can totally overwelm you with tons of info telling you that Jesus was God in the flesh. There really is no debate here.



He was. He was also the Son of God.

[spurraider21]

And I have been married to a woman for over 30 years who teaches Sunday school and who was raised by a religious freak. And I once got curious about just this. So just like them blues/track/football I did the homework and read everything.

I can totally overwelm you with tons of info telling you that Jesus was God in the flesh. There really is no debate here.


God came as man in the person of Jesus Christ
The hypostatic union- the Son as the visible representation of the invisible Father, that he took on human flesh- two natures in one person, 100% humanity and 100% deity. Each are their own nature that did not intermingle but made up the person of Jesus.
Col 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
The word firstborn does not have anything to do with born. It means first in rank, an heir, to have preeminence in position, not origin. As in Rev.1:5, Heb.1:5-6 both clarify the meaning of firstborn by its context. Christ was not the first raised from the dead to eternal life in the body. Which gives him headship over the human race.
The Father is over the Son positionally, just as the husband is the same nature as his wife but over his wife in position

spurraider, don't fight this one, ok? You will come off looking totally ridiculous, alright?
:lol there's a reason christians say "the father, the son, and the holy spirit"

jesus is an extension of god... he is of god, but to deny that he was the son of god is just lunacy

[Avante]

:lol there's a reason christians say "the father, the son, and the holy spirit"

Ok, you wouldn't listen.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhWXZP9GV7I

[SnakeBoy]

Ya'll are really just getting tripped up by the semantics of the concept of the Trinity. You're not alone, all of Islam can't grasp the concept and think Christianity is polytheistic.

[spurraider21]

so we're just going to ignore that jesus prayed to his father.

ok.

[SnakeBoy]

so we're just going to ignore that jesus prayed to his father.

ok.

Fully man and fully God. I guess you don't know as much about Christianity as you think you know.

[Avante]

so we're just going to ignore that jesus prayed to his father.

ok.

Dude, you really don't have a clue about this.


Yes I don't expect anyone to watch all of this, nut give it a few minutes,ok Do you have any idea at all how wrong you are?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJ1Q0pR15M

[spurraider21]

the holy trinity are all of one entity, that's not of dispute. christianity is monotheistic.

but jesus being the son of god is not even something that is part of debate

[Avante]

Fully man and fully God. I guess you don't know as much about Christianity as you think you know.

spurraider listen to him and me, ok? Drop your, I can't be wrong...ok? You are 100% wrong, ok?

[Aztecfan03]

Fully man and fully God. I guess you don't know as much about Christianity as you think you know.

It seems like Spurraider gets that but Avante definitely doesn't.

[Avante]

the holy trinity are all of one entity, that's not of dispute. christianity is monotheistic.

but jesus being the son of god is not even something that is part of debate

Dude...STOP IT...ok? You look totally stupid right now,ok? Why totally ignore those videos, telling you how it is?

You want a few thousand more telling you you are wrong?

[Avante]

It seems like Spurraider gets that but Avante definitely doesn't.

Dude, read it again, ok? You try so hard at this ya don't pay any attention,

[spurraider21]

Dude, you really don't have a clue about this.


Yes I don't expect anyone to watch all of this, nut give it a few minutes,ok Do you have any idea at all how wrong you are?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJ1Q0pR15M
oh yay, we've started the part of every avante argument where he spams youtubes he's never watched. next we'll get articles he hasn't read

[SnakeBoy]

It seems like Spurraider gets that but Avante definitely doesn't.

I don't think either of them fully gets it. It's a difficult concept. Like I said, 1.5 billion Muslims don't get it. Hell even Jehovah's Witnesses can't grasp the concept and they're Christians.

[Avante]

oh yay, we've started the part of every avante argument where he spams youtubes he's never watched. next we'll get articles he hasn't read

So now we get you realizing you're wrong again trying to act stupid. I watch every video I post. Keep in mind these are all old arguments done many times on these boards,

Here ya go, learn about the Holy Trinity, something else you know nothing about.


Why Break It Up?

Why do we have to be confusing and break God up into three parts?

It sounds confusing at first, but when we understand the jobs of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, breaking it up makes it easier for us to understand God. Many people have stopped using the term "Trinity" and started using the term "Tri-Unity" to explain the three parts of God and how they form the whole. Some use math to explain the Holy Trinity. We cannot think of the Holy Trinity as a sum of three parts (1 + 1 + 1 = 3), but instead show how each part multiplies the others to form a wonderful whole (1 x 1 x 1 = 1). Using the multiplication model, we show that the three form a union, thus why people have moved to calling it the Tri-Unity.

[spurraider21]

lol multiplication

[SnakeBoy]

lol you two trying to understand the Trinity

[Avante]

lol multiplication

How about the three parts of God are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, yep, they are one.

What does this tell you......


Why do we have to be confusing and break God up into three parts?


spurraider, time to simply.."ok ok I really don't know much about this. now if ya wanna talk evolution....."..ok? Totally out of your league here, ok?

[Avante]

lol you two trying to understand the Trinity

Trying? I do understand the Trinity, what would you like to know?

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw_78i-Ujls

[SnakeBoy]

Trying? I do understand the Trinity, what would you like to know?

You're arguing whether Jesus was God in the flesh or the Son of God, so no you don't understand. Keep searching youtube...you'll figure it out eventually.

[Avante]

You're arguing whether Jesus was God in the flesh or the Son of God, so no you don't understand. Keep searching youtube...you'll figure it out eventually.

God came to earth as Jesus Christ. You do get this, right?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKri-0UiTew

[SnakeBoy]

God came to earth as Jesus Christ. You do get this, right?


Ok let's see if you have any hope of getting it.

Did God leave where He was when He came to earth as Jesus Christ?

[Avante]

Ok let's see if you have any hope of getting it.

Did God leave where He was when He came to earth as Jesus Christ?

How about answering my question first, ya reckon?

[Avante]

spurraider, you finally did something smart. This one was the time to tuck tail and run.

The 45 second mark says it all.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XBFxf2maFI

God was the Word and The Word became flesh and dwelled among us.

That's it, no need to go any further.

[spurraider21]

no, this conversation lost my interest. you started posting youtubes, which is when you've run out of things to say. and snakeboy is just making side comments here and there without providing anything of substance

plus its past 2am and i have to get some shut-eye

[Avante]

no, this conversation lost my interest. you started posting youtubes, which is when you've run out of things to say. and snakeboy is just making side comments here and there without providing anything of substance

plus its past 2am and i have to get some shut-eye

translation

Just got my ass handed to me, I guess I need to stick to stuff I now, hmmmmm? not sure what that would be however. I better split, that damn Avante, how's he do that? Is there anything he doesn't know about?

[Blake]

"God did NOT create the Universe", says Stephen Hawking. To which God replied, "enjoy your chair"

:cry but God is love :cry

[TDMVPDPOY]

believing in a bible when there was other races already more advance then jews....

[Blake]

Jesus was God in the flesh, not the son of God.

Luke 1:35New International Version (NIV)

35*The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you,*and the power of the Most High*will overshadow you. So the holy one*to be born will be called[a]*the Son of God.



You're such a fucking retard.

[Blake]

Fully man and fully God. I guess you don't know as much about Christianity as you think you know.

And fully son. And fully shit.

[Leetonidas]

A.D. Alternative Design.

https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/304293_121130201392765_268746249_n.jpg?oh=51f6e8c9 a5570852d3ad353247c66e9c&oe=55E06400

this picture :lmao

[MultiTroll]

http://toonbarn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Its-the-Great-Pumpkin-Charlie-Brown.jpg
My dream lives!

[Blake]

Edgy

[SnakeBoy]

How about answering my question first, ya reckon?

John 10:30 I and the Father are one


So...Did God leave where He was when He came to earth as Jesus Christ?

[Avante]

John 10:30 I and the Father are one


So...Did God leave where He was when He came to earth as Jesus Christ?

I've talked with two different pastors about this (friends of Judy) long ago, one said God left heaven for earth the other said Jesus was God in sprit not physical. And as you know there is a bit of a debate about that.

Don't even try to act like you are the one who knows, ok?

[SnakeBoy]

I've talked with two different pastors about this (friends of Judy) long ago, one said God left heaven for earth the other said Jesus was God in sprit not physical. And as you know there is a bit of a debate about that.

Don't even try to act like you are the one who knows, ok?

I know you don't understand the concept of the Trinity.

lol 24 hours after I first asked you the question you come up with the story that you talked to pastors about the same question

[Avante]

I know you don't understand the concept of the Trinity.

lol 24 hours after I first asked you the question you come up with the story that you talked to pastors about the same question

Yo do realize this isn't the first time I've talked about this, right? I assumed it was obvious I was talking about long ago.

I noticed you didn't give an answer to your question.

[RandomGuy]

Some things simply can't happen by chance. You could take a handfiul of rocks and everyday for one bilion years toss them and they will never end up in a perfect circle, never!

We are living on a planet perfectly set up for us to thrive. This could only come about by some Designer, Designers. And it's so damn obvious it's ridiculous.

The Sun is the perfect distance, we rotate at the perfect speed, we have the perfect seasons, then we have DNA which MUST need a Designer.

Only fools don't get it.

Dummy...but science says....

Did science see the cell phone in 1478?

Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.

Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon.


Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.


Avante here actually does both forms:


[That we are the result of random natural processes] simply can't happen by chance, [therefore the argument that we are the result of random natural processes is false]
P= We are the result of random natural processes


[I cannot imagine how anything could happen without a designer "we... must have a Designer"], [so therefore, we have a Designer]
P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[RandomGuy]

I've talked with two different pastors about this (friends of Judy) long ago, one said God left heaven for earth the other said Jesus was God in sprit not physical. And as you know there is a bit of a debate about that.

Don't even try to act like you are the one who knows, ok?

This whole exchange sounds to me like two people arguing about whether unicorns like apples or not.

Kinda misses the point that there is no evidence unicorns even exist in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, you really don't have a clue about this.


Yes I don't expect anyone to watch all of this, nut give it a few minutes,ok Do you have any idea at all how wrong you are?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJ1Q0pR15M

ik7GRQ9hoVY

or if you prefer:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm


Most progressive Christians believe that much material in the Christian Scriptures is actually folklore -- myths that grew up around the memory of Jesus during the 40 to 70 years between his execution and the writing of the Gospels. During that interval, stories about Jesus' magical powers, his supernatural origins, etc. accumulated to produce a mixture of Yeshua, the itinerate teacher / native healer and Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior

Jesus is essentially plagarized out of other mythologies, and more likely than not grafted onto someone who actually existed.

Not unlike Gilgamesh and a host of other mythological figures, with historical basis.

[bigzak25]

This discussion is tired. God could open up the heavens and reveal himself and he would be scoffed at by internet trolls such as yourselves. Move on with your lives.

[RandomGuy]

This discussion is tired. God could open up the heavens and reveal himself and he would be scoffed at by internet trolls such as yourselves. Move on with your lives.

That would be evidence of a sort, and far more than we have now.

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/042009/small_DIY%20Jesus%20on%20a%20tortilla%20.jpg

[DMC]

1B4 Rob posts "I'm atheist, debate me" pic with false dichotomy between atheism and religion, as if atheists go around arguing with a god they don't believe exists instead of arguing against that thing they are against.. theism.. a belief.

[DMC]

That would be evidence of a sort, and far more than we have now.

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/042009/small_DIY%20Jesus%20on%20a%20tortilla%20.jpg

http://www.legacyrecordings.com/media/cache/08/94/089486bd4e3e25a6033811277b38f9ad.jpg

[spurraider21]

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/pictures/WSOP2005Event19ChrisFerguson.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

This whole exchange sounds to me like two people arguing about whether unicorns like apples or not.

Kinda misses the point that there is no evidence unicorns even exist in the first place.

The exchange was about Avante not quite comprehending the Christian view of God. Nothing to do with whether or not God is real.

It's no surprise that the resident atheists run to any mention of God and desperately try to validate their own beliefs.

[Avante]

ik7GRQ9hoVY

or if you prefer:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm



Jesus is essentially plagarized out of other mythologies, and more likely than not grafted onto someone who actually existed.

Not unlike Gilgamesh and a host of other mythological figures, with historical basis.


So it's you who has the answer right and everyone else is wrong, right?

[Avante]

The exchange was about Avante not quite comprehending the Christian view of God. Nothing to do with whether or not God is real.

It's no surprise that the resident atheists run to any mention of God and desperately try to validate their own beliefs.

I have lived with a Christian for 30 years I think I have it figured out.

[pgardn]

Avante has taken one too many pile divers.
Im guessin The Iron Sheik got tired of just torture (camel clutch) and went for the spine.


Avante, you have been totally sliced and diced, just stop it, please...

[Avante]

Avante has taken one too many pile divers.
Im guessin The Iron Sheik got tired of just torture (camel clutch) and went for the spine.


Avante, you have been totally sliced and diced, just stop it, please...

How's that as if you have actually read anything here. Dude, you work way too hard at...Avante must be wrong 100% of the time...ok? Relax little man, ok?

[Avante]

I do get a kick out anyone who..."I'm the one who really knows the truth"....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

None of us know shit, it's just pick one of the stories and go with that.

[pgardn]

I do get a kick out anyone who..."I'm the one who really knows the truth"....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

None of us know shit, it's just pick one of the stories and go with that.


I have lived with a Christian for 30 years I think I have it figured out.


Alrighty then.

[Avante]

I have lived with a Christian for 30 years I think I have it figured out.


Alrighty then.


I'll go slow...

I was talking about what they believe..ok?


Wow!

[pgardn]

I'll go slow...

I was talking about what they believe..ok?


Wow!

Oh you are damn right you'll go slow.
You don't believe populations of living things change over time, you don't believe the Earth is round, damn right, we don't know or believe anything. Cause YOU said.

[Avante]

Oh you are damn right you'll go slow.
You don't believe populations of living things change over time, you don't believe the Earth is round, damn right, we don't know or believe anything. Cause YOU said.

Dude, you really aren't good at this, ok? You come off as an idiot, alright?

[SnakeBoy]

I have lived with a Christian for 30 years I think I have it figured out.

So did God have to leave where he was in order to come to earth and become Jesus? Try asking Judy, assuming she believes in the Trinity.

Here's a hint that you were already given by spurraider.


so we're just going to ignore that jesus prayed to his father.

ok.

[mouse]

Jesus is essentially plagarized out of other mythologies, and more likely than not grafted onto someone who actually existed.
.


I can see how some stories may fluctuate depending on who's telling it and how much time has elapsed.

After all a thousand years from now someone might read a book that claims Tom Cruise had super powers to climb skyscrapers and Patrick Swayze could kill three men with one kick.

That doesn't mean they never existed.

There are to many eye witnesses that saw Jesus walk on water or heal the blind not to mention the 1000s that saw him get crucified.

[RandomGuy]

The exchange was about Avante not quite comprehending the Christian view of God. Nothing to do with whether or not God is real.

It's no surprise that the resident atheists run to any mention of God and desperately try to validate their own beliefs.

Meh, was throwing in my 2 cents on an exchange without feeling like going back and reading through 10 pages of posts.

LOL "desperate" "beliefs"

What I wonder is why you feel the need to make up things that other people think/feel.

[RandomGuy]

So it's you who has the answer right and everyone else is wrong, right?

Once one gives up the automatic assumption that God exists, and actually looks at the evidence available, reads a bit on mythologies of the Mediterranean and ancient south east asia, it is a pretty reasonable conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

I can see how some stories may fluctuate depending on who's telling it and how much time has elapsed.

After all a thousand years from now someone might read a book that claims Tom Cruise had super powers to climb skyscrapers and Patrick Swayze could kill three men with one kick.

That doesn't mean they never existed.

There are to many eye witnesses that saw Jesus walk on water or heal the blind not to mention the 1000s that saw him get crucified.

Actually you have ONE person's account of what thousands of OTHER people saw. That is a bit of a difference. In comic books there are lots of witnesses to things Superman did too.

I think that Jesus probably existed, but was simply a guy, who did normal human things, and didn't have a virgin mother.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, you really aren't good at this, ok? You come off as an idiot, alright?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246896&page=4&p=7955585&viewfull=1#post7955585

Just sayin'.

[xellos88330]

If we were all microbial single cell organisms in primordial soup, how in the hell do complex creatures evolve from that when a single cell is incapable of determining it's own surroundings? How does it know to adapt and evolve without intelligent thought? How does it know that hey, it is cold... need a thicker membrane or something.

I understand that at first it seems simple, but seriously. How does a single cell organism actually evolve when it is incapable of instinct or thought? It just sits there. How does it know to move? How does it know to reproduce? How does it know it needs cilia? How does it know what to eat? There are just so many questions. I can see how evolution could work for more advanced creatures, but everything tends to start small which would mean that we all were once a single cell organism. In the 4 billion or so years, could that really have been enough time for a single cell organism that doesn't know shit, to become something like us?

[RandomGuy]

If we were all microbial single cell organisms in primordial soup, how in the hell do complex creatures evolve from that when a single cell is incapable of determining it's own surroundings? How does it know to adapt and evolve without intelligent thought? How does it know that hey, it is cold... need a thicker membrane or something.

I understand that at first it seems simple, but seriously. How does a single cell organism actually evolve when it is incapable of instinct or thought? It just sits there. How does it know to move? How does it know to reproduce? How does it know it needs cilia? How does it know what to eat? There are just so many questions. I can see how evolution could work for more advanced creatures, but everything tends to start small which would mean that we all were once a single cell organism. In the 4 billion or so years, could that really have been enough time for a single cell organism that doesn't know shit, to become something like us?

Your understanding of evolution is flawed here.

Organisms, large or small, don't "know" anything and consciously adapt.

Ones that are better suited to their environment reproduce more, that is pretty much it.

You might want to try this thread for a bit more explanation on it:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241376

[xellos88330]

Your understanding of evolution is flawed here.

Organisms, large or small, don't "know" anything and consciously adapt.

Ones that are better suited to their environment reproduce more, that is pretty much it.

You might want to try this thread for a bit more explanation on it:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241376

So the DNA in the very first parent cell to exist should have all of the information necessary to survive on this planet and evolve to become us billions of years in the future?

[SnakeBoy]

Meh, was throwing in my 2 cents on an exchange without feeling like going back and reading through 10 pages of posts.

LOL "desperate" "beliefs"

What I wonder is why you feel the need to make up things that other people think/feel.

Well you just admitted to having some type of pavlovian response to seeing any mention of the word God. Seems desperate to me.


Your understanding of evolution is flawed here.

Organisms, large or small, don't "know" anything and consciously adapt.

Ones that are better suited to their environment reproduce more, that is pretty much it.

You might want to try this thread for a bit more explanation on it:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241376

Organisms actively adapt. This has been demonstrated by science repeatedly.

[RandomGuy]

So the DNA in the very first parent cell to exist should have all of the information necessary to survive on this planet and evolve to become us billions of years in the future?

Again, no.

Information can, and is, added through mutation.

The only thing necessary for the first few self-replicating molecules is that they self-replicate, and that over millions of replications, some variability crept in.

[xellos88330]

Again, no.

Information can, and is, added through mutation.

The only thing necessary for the first few self-replicating molecules is that they self-replicate, and that over millions of replications, some variability crept in.

So how the hell is the new information "added"?

A mutation possibility should only exist within the given amount of information. I can understand the DNA being rearranged, but not additional DNA being added. I don't think that is possible to add DNA.

EDIT

[RandomGuy]

Well you just admitted to having some type of pavlovian response to seeing any mention of the word God. Seems desperate to me.


??? Not sure where I said anything of the sort. Sorry just don't see it.

I am still left wondering why you choose the adjective "desperate".


Organisms actively adapt. This has been demonstrated by science repeatedly.

You and xellos appear to be using the word "adapt" differently, I would wager. Organism forms do respond to selective pressures, and yes, this has been demonstrated, and forms a core precept of the theory of evolution.

[RandomGuy]

So how the hell is the new information "added"?

A mutation possibility should only exist within the given amount of information. I can understand the DNA being rearranged, but not additional DNA being added. I don't think that is possible to add DNA.

EDIT

It is possible.

I will simplify a bit here, but if you do some reading on genetic mutations, you can find other methods of how information can be added to a genome.

Given:
DNA codes for proteins.
Proteins are then formed into all sorts of things.
For purposes of this example, I will limit the consideration of, say, enzymes.

STEP 1 An organism has genes for enzymes A, B, and C. Genome is: A, B, C,


Duplication errors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication ) will occasionally add an extra copy of one of those genes.

STEP 2 After mutation, organism now has two copies of the genes for C. Genome is A, B, C, C


This results in an organism that usually just produces twice as much of the C enzyme. Replication errors ( http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/Ch7F3.htm ) will occasionally corrupt the "extra" copy. "C" then is corrupted and codes for a related, but entirely different and new enzyme "D"

STEP 3 After mutation, organism now has a new gene, "D". Genome is A, B, C, D

This is ONE method by which information can, and is, added to genomes. There are MANY others.

Easy enough to read on it. Here is a start.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127

[RandomGuy]

The "no new information" is a common misconception.

Indexed at talk origins as CB102, with more links to specific scientific studies showing, in much more detail than my VERY simplified example does, exactly how information is added through mutations and time:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[spurraider21]

mutation can add, remove, or reorder genes. this is known

[SnakeBoy]

You and xellos appear to be using the word "adapt" differently, I would wager. Organism forms do respond to selective pressures, and yes, this has been demonstrated, and forms a core precept of the theory of evolution.

So now that you admit your previous statement was wrong why don't you address the issue xellos raised instead of dismissing it? It's a valid topic. I'll be more specific, how does a simple organism "know" to actively adapt at a genetic level?

[spurraider21]

So now that you admit your previous statement was wrong why don't you address the issue xellos raised instead of dismissing it? It's a valid topic. I'll be more specific, how does a simple organism "know" to actively adapt at a genetic level?
it doesn't. the mutations/variations occur randomly. the ones that aren't fortunate enough to gain a beneficial adaptation might die off. this is what we call extinction, and it happens quite a bit. well over 90% of all species that ever lived... are now extinct. the ones who are fortunate enough to gain a beneficial adaptation survive, and they pass that adaptation down. this is called natural selection.

[SnakeBoy]

it doesn't. the mutations/variations occur randomly. the ones that aren't fortunate enough to gain a beneficial adaptation might die off. this is what we call extinction, and it happens quite a bit. well over 90% of all species that ever lived... are now extinct. the ones who are fortunate enough to gain a beneficial adaptation survive, and they pass that adaptation down. this is called natural selection.

This has been disproven by science. It's the high school biology class version of evolution that your sticking to even though it has been proven incorrect.

[spurraider21]

random variation is disproven by science? :lol

[RandomGuy]

So now that you admit your previous statement was wrong why don't you address the issue xellos raised instead of dismissing it? It's a valid topic. I'll be more specific, how does a simple organism "know" to actively adapt at a genetic level?

(sighs heavily)
No, I am not admitting that my previous statement was wrong, I was pointing out that two people can use the same word and mean entirely different things, which seems to me to have been the case.

The answer to your/his question is, and was: They do not "know" anything. They just are.

Organisms that are better suited for their environment will reproduce more than those that aren't as well suited, in much the same manner as companies that can offer better/cheaper products than their competitors grow and make more profit. This is simply natural selection and environmental feedback in operation. This process does NOT require any kind of sentience or direction, as is implicit in "know".

[RandomGuy]

This has been disproven by science. It's the high school biology class version of evolution that your sticking to even though it has been proven incorrect.

Mutations are pretty much random.

Please show anything that says "mutations occur randomly" has "been disproven by science". A link would be helpful.

[SnakeBoy]

Mutations are pretty much random.

Please show anything that says "mutations occur randomly" has "been disproven by science". A link would be helpful.


Scientists Catch Evolution in the Act

COLUMN By LEE DYE Mar 22, 2011, 5:58 PM

Photo: Pam Soltis at the Florida Museum of Natural History



Scientists say they have caught "evolution in the act" in a series of experiments that open a new window into understanding how new species gradually morph into plants and animals that are distinctly different from their parents.

The experiments, conducted at the University of Florida in Gainesville, surprised the scientists by demonstrating that the development of a new species doesn't occur instantly, but instead is the product of succeeding generations that are able to alter their genetic blueprint as they gradually mature into a stable plant or animal.

The star of the show is a humble member of the daisy family, Tragopogon miscellus, better known as "goatsbeard," which began its long journey toward stability about 80 years -- and 40 generations -- ago.

"We can see for the first time what happens when a new species is formed," biologist Doug Soltis of the University of Florida said in a telephone interview. "We can see the process unfold, and it's still ongoing even as we speak. They (the plants) haven't figured all this out yet."



In Experiments, Scientists Say, New Species Had Greater Diversity

The research, published in the journal Current Biology, offers some startling insights. The new species first appeared in the Pacific Northwest sometime after 1920 when its parents produced a hybridized offspring with double the number of chromosomes. But unlike its parents, the genes were not rigidly programmed to perform certain functions. Instead, for many generations the genes acted sort of like free agents.

"Different genes are expressed at different times and in different places," Soltis said. So the new species had much greater diversity than would have been expected, creating a genetic blueprint as it went along, from one generation to the next, turning some genes on, and others off, and eliminating some entirely.

That, of course, gave goatsbeard an enormous advantage in adapting to new environmental challenges or opportunities.

"This is evolution at work," Soltis said. "You can see the fine tuning begin to take place."




Scientist: Flower Evolved 'Before Our Very Eyes'
Soltis began this research back in the 1980s when he and his wife, Pam, were living in Pullman, Washington.

Pam, who is now curator of evolutionary genetics at the Florida Museum of Natural History and a co-author of the study, and her biologist husband were intrigued by a daisy-like plant growing in their own backyard. It turned out that the flower was a hybridized product of two species introduced from Europe about 80 years ago.

Those same two species had hybridized in Europe earlier, but the resulting plant failed. In America, however, the new species was roundly successful, quickly surpassing its own parents and spreading rapidly.

The offspring had doubled its number of chromosomes, a normal process in species formation, but something else clearly was at work. Years later, the couple began experimenting with the plant in a lab they share on the Gainesville campus.

It was an extraordinary opportunity because the flower had evolved recently, "before our very eyes," as Soltis put it, and it had already passed through about 40 generations in 80 years, leaving a genetic history.

They were able to duplicate in the lab what they had already observed in nature, but in controlled conditions.

"The brand new individual that we made in our greenhouse seemed like it had a reset button," Soltis said.

It could reassign its genes, defying the widely-held belief that a genetic code is a fairly rigid blueprint. Instead, the researchers found "variations from plant to plant and which genes they are expressing and which ones they are eliminating. They are still trying to sort this out themselves."

"What we found was a surprise," said Richard Buggs of Queen Mary University in London, who worked on the study as a postdoctoral researcher at the Florida museum and lead author of the report. The "reset button ... could allow subsequent generations to experiment by switching off different genes."

Until now, it was not known that the evolutionary process took place over many generations.




Research Suggests Evolution Is Complicated, Fluid, Diverse
"We didn't know how quickly it happened," Soltis said. "Is this something that occurs almost instantly? It's not. You can see that after 40 or 50 generations. They are still making decisions. We didn't know that. We still don't know how long it takes for this to sort out and settle down and stabilize."

Evolution is frequently described as a "typo" in the genetic blueprint, but this research suggests it is much more complicated, and fluid, and diverse than the instantaneousness of a typo.

It's likely that this is the evolutionary path taken by all life forms, from plants to vertebrates, and it occurred in our own lineage many years ago. A new species slowly makes its way through life, allowing succeeding generations to reprogram genes to meet new challenges, thus emerging as a stable plant or animal after finding the most successful combination.

This new work is an intriguing window into evolution, but like all good science, it also raises a number of questions. What's the triggering mechanism? What causes a daisy to make a "decision" about how to deploy, or eliminate, a specific gene?

"That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."

So for now, they will keep looking through that new window. And all because of a daisy that attracted the attention of a couple of young scientists nearly three decades ago.

[spurraider21]

that whole thought process is only including those species which have properly adapted to survive. if you only look at those species, sure, it might look "planned" or "known." but does that mean 99.9% of species (which have gone extinct) were just genetically "stupid"?

i mean its easy to look at flowers and bees and their synergy and think "wow, they must have planned this, its so perfect."

and then you realize that 99.9% of all plant species that ever lived have gone extinct and that 99.9% of all insect species that ever lived have gone extinct. i guess those just weren't very good planners

[RandomGuy]

random variation is disproven by science? :lol

I suspect (ok hope) he is going to state that natural selection is not random, which is definitely true. Different environments and biomes definitely select strongly for some traits.

But natural selection is far different than mutations which happen at the genetic level, and are very, very, very random. It can be said that mutations take certain forms, and those forms are not random, i.e. the types of mutations can be classified, as I have noted.

Just guessing at this point. Hopefully he will clarify a bit.

[SnakeBoy]

I suspect (ok hope) he is going to state that natural selection is not random, which is definitely true. Different environments and biomes definitely select strongly for some traits.

But natural selection is far different than mutations which happen at the genetic level, and are very, very, very random. It can be said that mutations take certain forms, and those forms are not random, i.e. the types of mutations can be classified, as I have noted.

Just guessing at this point. Hopefully he will clarify a bit.

I just want you to address the question that xellos raised. You're trying to dismiss the question by claiming mutations are purely random while at the same time admitting they aren't random.

Here I'll give you another example. If you grow a culture of E. coli and then add lactose to the culture it will turn on genes that allow it to metabolize lactose, when there is no more lactose it will turn off those genes.

So the question is how does E. coli "know" to do that?

The answer is very simple, in fact it's right in front of your face in the article I posted.

[RandomGuy]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-capture-evolution-lab/story?id=13197168

Sorry, it doesn't really say what you think it does, Vizzini.

The article does, though, point out one of the more fascinating abililities of plants namely the ability of plants to take on multiple copies of genes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid ).

These plants didn't make any "decisions" in the conscious sense.

What you have is a doubling of genetic material, and a very random shuffling with successive generations as different genes are randomly shut on/off through sexual selection and pairing. Nothing really more complicated then that.

A bit of reading on how things can be randomized and categorized can be seen here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm

BTW: The original work of discovering dominant/recessive genes was some wonderful work of a monk who simply observed plants.

The article does NOT say that MUTATION is not random. As I noted in my other response, natural selection is the thing here that is given as not random.

[SnakeBoy]

Sorry, it doesn't really say what you think it does, Vizzini.

The article does, though, point out one of the more fascinating abililities of plants namely the ability of plants to take on multiple copies of genes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid ).

These plants didn't make any "decisions" in the conscious sense.

What you have is a doubling of genetic material, and a very random shuffling with successive generations as different genes are randomly shut on/off through sexual selection and pairing. Nothing really more complicated then that.

A bit of reading on how things can be randomized and categorized can be seen here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm

BTW: The original work of discovering dominant/recessive genes was some wonderful work of a monk who simply observed plants.

The article does NOT say that MUTATION is not random. As I noted in my other response, natural selection is the thing here that is given as not random.

Why won't you answer the question? The answer is even bolded for you. If an evolutionary biologist is willing to say it, why aren't you?

[SnakeBoy]

The article does NOT say that MUTATION is not random. As I noted in my other response, natural selection is the thing here that is given as not random.

So evolution occurs through mutations which are random, natural selection is not random. Therefore you are saying natural selection is not evolution. Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

I just want you to address the question that xellos raised. You're trying to dismiss the question by claiming mutations are purely random while at the same time admitting they aren't random.

Here I'll give you another example. If you grow a culture of E. coli and then add lactose to the culture it will turn on genes that allow it to metabolize lactose, when there is no more lactose it will turn off those genes.

So the question is how does E. coli "know" to do that?

The answer is very simple, in fact it's right in front of your face in the article I posted.

His question is based on a misunderstanding of the theory, and you are further compounding the mistake.

Mutations are random.

Natural selection is not.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

Both are required for the process of evolution to occur. One is random. The other is not.

Not sure how I can make it any simpler. Genetic change is not the same as positive or negative feedback of that change.

Out of all the random mutations (i.e. rolls of the dice) one of them will be made ( two sixes) that will allow the organism that posses it to prosper.

Remove the lactose, and the gene "stands or falls" on whether it helps or hinders in other ways. (edit) Genes can have both positive and negative aspects. The lactose gene, for example, could cause an organism to be less heat tolerant for example. If the environment has a lot of lactose, the positive feedback of being able to use lactose outweighs the drawback of not being as heat tolerant. Remove the positive feedback, i.e. lactose, and the negative then outweighs the positive, and the gene frequency will decline. This is not a "choice" this is simply feedback. (end edit)

Respectfully:
You really, really should read a bit more on how natural selection works, it would help you get what I am trying to say here.

There lots of examples of things with negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks. (edit 2) Read up on sexual dimorphism and birds for example. (brightly colored males and dull colored females)

[SnakeBoy]

Out of all the random mutations (i.e. rolls of the dice) one of them will be made ( two sixes) that will allow the organism that posses it to prosper. Remove the lactose, and the gene "stands or falls" on whether it helps or hinders in other ways.


You really are flailing about here. It's not a random mutation that allow E. coli to metabolize lactose when it is present.

[RandomGuy]

You really are flailing about here. It's not a random mutation that allow E. coli to metabolize lactose when it is present.

Erg. Sorry. Added some edits that hopefully help.

I am trying to be fairly respectful here. "flailing" is not really returning the favor.

Again, you are making a very basic, and common, mistake. I have tried to point it out to you, you will have to do a bit more reading, if it matters to you to understand it correctly.

Don't take my word for it. Read a bit more. Please.

[SnakeBoy]

Erg. Sorry. Added some edits that hopefully help.

I am trying to be fairly respectful here. "flailing" is not really returning the favor.

Again, you are making a very basic, and common, mistake. I have tried to point it out to you, you will have to do a bit more reading, if it matters to you to understand it correctly.

Don't take my word for it. Read a bit more. Please.

Just answer the question. It's a bolded quote from an evolutionary biologist. Why are you so unwilling to say it?

[SnakeBoy]

I am trying to be fairly respectful here. "flailing" is not really returning the favor.


I'm not trying to be disrespectful but your unwilling to answer the simple question xellos raised. I given you examples and you keep changing your tune.

Let's see...
Mutations are random
Mutations aren't random
Natural selection isn't evolution
etc. etc.

That seems like flailing to me.

[z0sa]

that whole thought process is only including those species which have properly adapted to survive. if you only look at those species, sure, it might look "planned" or "known." but does that mean 99.9% of species (which have gone extinct) were just genetically "stupid"?

i mean its easy to look at flowers and bees and their synergy and think "wow, they must have planned this, its so perfect."

and then you realize that 99.9% of all plant species that ever lived have gone extinct and that 99.9% of all insect species that ever lived have gone extinct. i guess those just weren't very good planners

Truth nuke. People see this "perfect" system and think it is obviously indicative of design, when it's really just the harsh reality of the environment and fellow lifeforms eliminating the less adapted.

[K...]

Hi everyone, I will answer questions here.

There is only one true god and it is oblivion. Which is not a god. Or a thing. But it is everything. It takes a while to explain which is why i think we should start with q

[RandomGuy]

Why won't you answer the question? The answer is even bolded for you. If an evolutionary biologist is willing to say it, why aren't you?

Go back and carefully re-read your bolded text. Whose word is "decision", and why is it in quotes?

[SnakeBoy]

Go back and carefully re-read your bolded text. Whose word is "decision", and why is it in quotes?

lol still won't answer.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but your unwilling to answer the simple question xellos raised. I given you examples and you keep changing your tune.

Let's see...
Mutations are random
Mutations aren't random
Natural selection isn't evolution
etc. etc.

That seems like flailing to me.

I think you are confusing your lack of comprehension with my "flailing".

Sorry. I really can't help you, if you can't take personal responsibility and do some more reading.

Xellos raised a question that includes as an inherent assumption, something that is false.

If I were to ask you the common example of "when did you stop beating your wife" or "when did you stop stealing from your employer" you would be just as unable to answer it, because the assumption required to effectively answer it, i.e. "you are beating your wife" or "you are/were stealing from your employer" are false.

Quite frankly, I am just as confused as to what question you think I am avoiding.


how in the hell do complex creatures evolve from that when a single cell is incapable of determining it's own surroundings? How does it know to adapt and evolve without intelligent thought? How does it know that hey, it is cold... need a thicker membrane or something.

The answer to the questions above is:

They do not know.

Out of all the non-lethal random mutations or existing traits, some will be, on balance, beneficial. Organisms with more beneficial traits than competing organisms will tend to reproduce more than organisms that lack it.

That's it.

I have directly answered that question, and addressed his point.

Unless you think there is some other question I am avoiding? You will have to clear that up, if you want it answered.

[RandomGuy]

lol still won't answer.

You didn't go back and re-read it, did you?

[SnakeBoy]

They do not know.


lol "they"...I was asking you.



They do not know.

Out of all the non-lethal random mutations or existing traits, some will be, on balance, beneficial. Organisms with more beneficial traits than competing organisms will tend to reproduce more than organisms that lack it.



lol follows it up with providing his own bullshit answer to what "they" do not know.

[RandomGuy]

lol "they"...I was asking you.



lol follows it up with providing his own bullshit answer to what "they" do not know.

Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Won't take personal responsibility, and has to accept my intellectual welfare. Here is your check, some of us just have to make everybody else do the work for them. I realize that the hard work of critical thinking is not something for everybody, so here goes.

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


Scientists Catch Evolution in the Act

COLUMN By LEE DYE

....

This new work is an intriguing window into evolution, but like all good science, it also raises a number of questions. What's the triggering mechanism? What causes a daisy to make a "decision" about how to deploy, or eliminate, a specific gene?

"That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."

In this piece, we have an author, Lee Dye, who has written an article. It is common for journalists to directly contact people who do the actual science and interview them.

Stay with me Snakeboy, because this will blow your mind:

Interviews... require someone to ask questions.

That someone is usually.... wait for it... the journalist.

Assumed form.

Q: [Lee Dye]This new work is an intriguing window into evolution, but like all good science, it also raises a number of questions. What's the triggering mechanism? What causes a daisy to make a "decision" about how to deploy, or eliminate, a specific gene?

A: [Dr. Soltis] "That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."

Of course, in this case, we didn't even get to see the direct question. Commonly that is shown in source material as bolded text directly before a specific response. We have a paraphrase.

The writer also decided to use quotation marks to set off the word "decide".

Why is THAT?

Normally this is to tell the reader that there is some other additional meaning.

The author does not elucidate.

I take it though, to mean that during the sexual selection process when two sex cells are forming a new zygote, there has to be some genetic process that winnows through things, or only allows one gene out of the ploidy to be expressed.

This molecular action is likely what the scientist is alluding to, and does not require any sort of conscious decision on the part of the organism.

"know" in this case and "decide" do not mean what you think they do.

http://software-carpentry.org/blog/2013/10/inigo.png

[SnakeBoy]

"That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."

Scientists have no problem saying it. Atheist who thinks science validates his world view goes to great lengths to avoid saying it.

[RandomGuy]

"That's a great question," Soltis said. "Right now we are just beginning to understand that they do that. What are they responding to when it happens? I don't really know that we have an answer to that."

Scientists have no problem saying it. Atheist who thinks science validates his world view goes to great lengths to avoid saying it.

http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/images/Truly-You-Have.svg.jpg

Man, you really, truly suck at this shit.

What is your point exactly?

This will require you to take the personal responsibility to string more than a few sentences together.

I will say "I don't know" when I don't know the answer. It is easy. Again, really not seeing where you are going with this.

In the meantime, I have a life outside the message board. I have a cool new roman empire game I really would like to get to.

Hopefully when I come back tomorrow, you will have made your point a bit more clearly. I won't be holding my breath. Lazy is as lazy does.

[SnakeBoy]

I will say "I don't know" when I don't know the answer.

You didn't. When pressed you finally said "they" (scientists) don't know. Then you made up your own answer.

[SnakeBoy]

Again, really not seeing where you are going with this.


Only a fool knows everything.

[Avante]

Only an idiot would think this all came about by chance. The only question is who/what is responsible, that we simply don't know. Nobody does.

BIG BANG/evolution...hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blake]

Only a fool knows everything.

You're sure acting the fool here.

[spurraider21]

Only an idiot would think this all came about by chance. The only question is who/what is responsible, that we simply don't know. Nobody does.

BIG BANG/evolution...hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Morpheus-meme.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

You're sure acting the fool here.

What's the problem Blake? I just asked RG a question. I even provided him the answer from a biologist studying evolution.

[Avante]

http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Morpheus-meme.jpg

Evolution is a fairy tale and only dummies like you don't see it.

[spurraider21]

Evolution is a fairy tale and only dummies like you don't see it.
amazing that some simpleton with no education knows more about science, biology, and evolution than 99% of all scientists and evolutionary biologists

[ChumpDumper]

Evolution is a fairy tale and only dummies like you don't see it.You don't see any of the videos you have posted.

[Blake]

The answer is very simple, in fact it's right in front of your face in the article I posted.

This was a horrible condescending fail, tbh.

And i bet you still don't get how it was either. Even though RG put it right in front of your face.

[Avante]

amazing that some simpleton with no education knows more about science, biology, and evolution than 99% of all scientists and evolutionary biologists

Like I've told you many times I can take you and all those scientists etc to school on far more topics than they can me. I've probably read my books in the last 5 years than you've read.

Don't be an idiot guy, ok?

[Blake]

Like I've told you many times I can take you and all those scientists etc to school on far more topics than they can me.

the topic here is evolution you stupid old fuck.

[spurraider21]

not about biology, that's for certain

[Avante]

the topic here is evolution you stupid old fuck.

As if you ever enter a thread respecting the topic, right?

This out of a thread about Bruce Jenner, where's the talk about the topic asshole?


Yeah, seriously man, you're not getting any unbiased bystanders to laugh any more. I guarantee they're thinking the same thing i am which is holy shit lol wtf smh all this cuck erotica he comes up with.

But at least you still get some lols from ms, rob and now the fat ol fuck so there's that. :tu :tu

[Avante]

not about biology, that's for certain

When was the last time you actually checked in what the scientific world thought about the theory of evolution?

[RD2191]

Evolution:lol A fish that walked on land and became a rat which then became a monkey which then became a human.

[spurraider21]

Evolution:lol A fish that walked on land and became a rat which then became a monkey which then became a human.
all in one lifetime iirc

[Avante]

all in one lifetime iirc

The sad thing is you really believe that stupidity.

[spurraider21]

the sad thing is you missed the joke

what's even sadder is you're about to respond saying "you really think didn't get it? hahahahahaha"

[mouse]

mutation can add, remove, or reorder genes. this is known

Evolution myths............. Mutations can only destroy information

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species.
This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

[Avante]

the sad thing is you missed the joke

what's even sadder is you're about to respond saying "you really think didn't get it? hahahahahaha"

The really sad thing is I wasn't even talking about the joke, I was talking about your stance.


Here have some more...


What Do Scientists Think about Evolution?


There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

[spurraider21]

Evolution myths............. Mutations can only destroy information

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species.
This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility
link?

[spurraider21]

The really sad thing is I wasn't even talking about the joke, I was talking about your stance.


Here have some more...


What Do Scientists Think about Evolution?


There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03pY7j82XbM

[spurraider21]

Evolution myths............. Mutations can only destroy information

Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species.
This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility
oh look, a whole section on insertions, not just deletions. if you took freshman biology you'd understand




By effect on structure[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutation&action=edit&section=8)]





Illustrations of five types of chromosomal mutations.




Selection of disease-causing mutations, in a standard table of the
genetic code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code)
of
amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids)
.
[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-28)

The sequence of a gene can be altered in a number of ways. Gene mutations have varying effects on health depending on where they occur and whether they alter the function of essential proteins. Mutations in the structure of genes can be classified as:


Small-scale mutations, such as those affecting a small gene in one or a few nucleotides, including:

Point mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mutation), often caused by chemicals or malfunction of DNA replication, exchange a single nucleotide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide) for another.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-29) These changes are classified as transitions or transversions.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#cite_note-30) Most common is the transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_(genetics)) that exchanges a purine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purine) for a purine (A ↔ G) or a pyrimidine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine) for a pyrimidine, (C ↔ T). A transition can be caused by nitrous acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_acid), base mis-pairing, or mutagenic base analogs such as 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrdU). Less common is a transversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transversion), which exchanges a purine for a pyrimidine or a pyrimidine for a purine (C/T ↔ A/G). An example of a transversion is the conversion of adenine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenine) (A) into a cytosine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytosine) (C). A point mutation can be reversed by another point mutation, in which the nucleotide is changed back to its original state (true reversion) or by second-site reversion (a complementary mutation elsewhere that results in regained gene functionality). Point mutations that occur within theprotein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) coding region of a gene may be classified into three kinds, depending upon what the erroneous codon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codon) codes for:

Silent mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_mutation), which code for the same (or a sufficiently similar) amino acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid).
Missense mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missense_mutation), which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense_mutation), which code for a stop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_codon) and can truncate the protein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein).


Insertions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)) add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element), or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g., AT repeats[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]). Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splicing_(genetics)) of themRNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA) (splice site mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_site_mutation)), or cause a shift in the reading frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_frame) (frameshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation)), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reversed by excision of the transposable element (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element).
Deletions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_deletion) remove one or more nucleotides from the DNA. Like insertions, these mutations can alter the reading frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_frame) of the gene. In general, they are irreversible: Though exactly the same sequence might in theory be restored by an insertion, transposable elements able to revert a very short deletion (say 1–2 bases) in any location either are highly unlikely to exist or do not exist at all.


Large-scale mutations in chromosomal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome) structure, including:

Amplifications (or gene duplications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication)) leading to multiple copies of all chromosomal regions, increasing the dosage of the genes located within them.
Deletions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_deletion) of large chromosomal regions, leading to loss of the genes within those regions.
Mutations whose effect is to juxtapose previously separate pieces of DNA, potentially bringing together separate genes to form functionally distinct fusion genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_gene) (e.g., bcr-abl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcr-abl)). These include:

Chromosomal translocations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_translocation): interchange of genetic parts from nonhomologous chromosomes.
Interstitial deletions: an intra-chromosomal deletion that removes a segment of DNA from a single chromosome, thereby apposing previously distant genes. For example, cells isolated from a human astrocytoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrocytoma), a type of brain tumor, were found to have a chromosomal deletion removing sequences between the "fused in glioblastoma" (fig) gene and the receptor tyrosine kinase "ros", producing a fusion protein (FIG-ROS). The abnormal FIG-ROS fusion protein has constitutively active kinase activity that causes oncogenic transformation (a transformation from normal cells to cancer cells).
Chromosomal inversions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_inversion): reversing the orientation of a chromosomal segment.


Loss of heterozygosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_heterozygosity): loss of one allele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele), either by a deletion or a recombination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination) event, in an organism that previously had two different alleles.

[Avante]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03pY7j82XbM

How about actually responding to what was said there? Could it be you know that's how it really is?


So what do scientists think about the theory of evolution in 2015?

[spurraider21]

How about actually responding to what was said there? Could it be you know that's how it really is?
you respond to everything i say with a video or article. i'm only returning the favor

[spurraider21]

How about actually responding to what was said there? Could it be you know that's how it really is?
you respond to everything i say with a video or article. i'm only returning the favor. although i cant really blame you, since you really know nothing about biology anyway. you wouldn't be able to meaningfully contribute to the conversation

[Avante]

you respond to everything i say with a video or article. i'm only returning the favor

How many times do I need to tell you, we did not come from a nothing on some ocean floor to what we see today? Do you pay any attention at all? So there was nothing and then...LIFE!!!!!!....right? You honestly believe that bullshit?

Prove that life came from nothing.

[spurraider21]

How many times do I need to tell you, we did not come from a nothing on some ocean floor to what we see today? Do you pay any attention at all? So there was nothing and then...LIFE!!!!!!....right? You honestly believe that bullshit?

Prove that life came from nothing.
you keep saying it, but you provide no argument for it. you just repeat it. your only form of argument comes from article/youtube spamming

[mouse]

link?


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246896&p=7968197&viewfull=1#post7968197

[mouse]

your only form of argument comes from article/youtube spamming

Unlike your football YouTube videos your spamming Avante with?

[spurraider21]

Unlike your football YouTube videos your spamming Avante with?
i'm going to give him the same consideration he gives me. just like you, he likes to spam videos. and just like with you, i used to sit and refute each one.

instead of responding to the refutation, he just spams another video. he no longer deserves my responses. so from now on, if he's going to spam a video, i'm going to spam one back... at least until he starts responding to my comments/refutations

[Avante]

you keep saying it, but you provide no argument for it. you just repeat it. your only form of argument comes from article/youtube spamming

An argument for we can't get life out of non living organisms? Which tells us we must not have had anything to evolve.

So where did life begin and why a need to evolve at all?

[spurraider21]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246896&p=7968197&viewfull=1#post7968197
:lol

thats taking circular reasoning to new heights

[spurraider21]

An argument for we can't get life out of non living organisms? Which tells us we must not have had anything to evolve.

So where did life begin and why a need to evolve at all?
life from non-living organic matter is called abiogenesis.

evolution is genetic variation in populations over time. these are two entirely different conversations.

you can have evolution without abiogenesis, and you can have abiogenesis without evolution

[Avante]

i'm going to give him the same consideration he gives me. just like you, he likes to spam videos. and just like with you, i used to sit and refute each one.

instead of responding to the refutation, he just spams another video. he no longer deserves my responses. so from now on, if he's going to spam a video, i'm going to spam one back... at least until he starts responding to my comments/refutations

Why are you so afraid to see what those far more schooled in this than myself have to say? They all disagree with you as do I?

[spurraider21]

Why are you so afraid to see what those far more schooled in this than myself have to say? They all disagree with you as do I?
why are you so afraid to see what 99% of the scientific community has to say? instead you cling to the 1%

[Avante]

life from non-living organic matter is called abiogenesis.

evolution is genetic variation in populations over time. these are two entirely different conversations.

you can have evolution without abiogenesis, and you can have abiogenesis without evolution

Didn't mouse just point out that abiogenesis is impossible? And...you cannot have evolution without it...WHATS TO EVOLVE?????????????

[spurraider21]

Didn't mouse just point out that abiogenesis is impossible? And...you cannot have evolution without it...WHATS TO EVOLVE?????????????
he claimed its impossible. he didn't really have much to back up his claim

[Avante]

why are you so afraid to see what 99% of the scientific community has to say? instead you cling to the 1%

99%...???

[spurraider21]

Didn't mouse just point out that abiogenesis is impossible? And...you cannot have evolution without it...WHATS TO EVOLVE?????????????
you can have evolution without abiogenesis, and you can have abiogenesis without evolution. you want a quick explanation?

Evolution without abiogenesis

evolution is the change of the genetic makeup of a population over time. now lets imagine a scenario without abiogenesis. no life from non-life. lets say life was planted on earth in the form of bacteria. as the conditions of the earth change, the bacteria will either die, or adapt to these changes. if it dies, it dies. if not, it has undergone evolution

abiogenesis without evolution

so lets assume we had life come from non-life. we had the "primordial ooze" full of amino acids and other organic molecules. these undergo constatn reactions over thousands, millions, and billions of years, forming newer and more complex compounds along the way. one of the compounds has a specific structure and protein composition which allows a a reproduction of the molecule. this is your abiogenesis, the life from non-life. if this reproductive/replication process does't have mutation, each subsequent replication is exactly the same as the one before.

if there are no changes in the genetic code, there is no evolution. you just have the same organism duplicating itself without change.

[spurraider21]

99%...???
at least

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+percent+of+scientists+believe+in+evolution

[Avante]

you can have evolution without abiogenesis, and you can have abiogenesis without evolution. you want a quick explanation?

Evolution without abiogenesis

evolution is the change of the genetic makeup of a population over time. now lets imagine a scenario without abiogenesis. no life from non-life. lets say life was planted on earth in the form of bacteria. as the conditions of the earth change, the bacteria will either die, or adapt to these changes. if it dies, it dies. if not, it has undergone evolution

abiogenesis without evolution

so lets assume we had life come from non-life. we had the "primordial ooze" full of amino acids and other organic molecules. these undergo constatn reactions over thousands, millions, and billions of years, forming newer and more complex compounds along the way. one of the compounds has a specific structure and protein composition which allows a a reproduction of the molecule. this is your abiogenesis, the life from non-life. if this reproductive/replication process does't have mutation, each subsequent replication is exactly the same as the one before.

if there are no changes in the genetic code, there is no evolution. you just have the same organism duplicating itself without change.

You're a funny little guy. If I post a video.article it's....blah blah....so what do you do? The same thing.

So what sort of life did we see at first?

[spurraider21]

You're a funny little guy. If I post a video.article it's....blah blah....so what do you do? The same thing.

So what sort of life did we see at first?
when you post a video/article, its usually created by some person who really has no understanding of basic science and biology. anybody who has a college dropout level education would be able to tell you what's wrong with them.

[Avante]

when you post a video/article, its usually created by some person who really has no understanding of basic science and biology. anybody who has a college dropout level education would be able to tell you what's wrong with them.

Kind of like telling me 99% of scientists believe in evolution and knowing how many times they have all been wrong, right?

You want that long list?

I'll try again...

So what was the first life on the planet? The one that got the ball rolling.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so afraid to see what those far more schooled in this than myself have to say? They all disagree with you as do I?Where was this guy schooled?

Who is he?

Just too much of this out there..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4PaBaJP8u0

[spurraider21]

Kind of like telling me 99% of scientists believe in evolution and knowing how many times they have all been wrong, right?

You want that long list?

I'll try again...

So what was the first life on the planet? The one that got the ball rolling.
at least i didnt make up the 99% thing. i looked it up first.

unlike you when you said 9/10 people dont believe in evolution

[RandomGuy]

You didn't. When pressed you finally said "they" (scientists) don't know. Then you made up your own answer.

http://www.troll.me/images/yoda-senses/i-sense-butthurt.jpg

So you don't really have a point that you can actually be bothered to lay out, when asked?

Or are you taking a page out of Avante's troll handbook, and just reposting the same stuff over and over regardless of what the response is?

Given how badly you seem to be doing at putting together a coherent logical thought, I can see why you might be hesitant to lay out something.