Reply With Quote
you're doing a terrible job of repenting.
Little people it's not working, ok? So why keep acting stupid? Isn't it boring as by now?
I was on a ship with over 300 sailors, now come on little people how damn stupid are you? Now what do you think most of them did on liberty, yep...you guessed it. And all of you little s would have been right there with us and you know it. So why the...I'm re ed...bull ? I'm laughing at you people and you don't see it, wow~~~~~~~~~
Little people there were no little kids hustling drinks in those bars when I was there, ok? So why act ignorant?
you're doing a terrible job of repenting.
You;re a funny little guy.
clambake...you need to stop smoking.
buddy...huh? I don't smoke.
clambake...you don't have any will power
buddy...ah....I don't smoke
clambake...you can do it, others have.
buddy...what are you talking about, I DON'T SMOKE!!!!!!!!!
clambake...I have faith in you, you can do it
Dude, why do you continue to totally ignore reality? There were no little kids working in bars when I was there. You can;'t read? Stupid, the drinking age was 18, now think just a little bit, ok slick?
Wow~~~~~~~~~~~~
well....you're not smoking now.
but you will be.
Why this need to act re ed....well?
Top 20 things I think of when I think of Texas, no particular order.
The Alamo
Blind Lemon Jefferson
Johnny Winter
Texas Southern
Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys
Delbert McClinton
The first recordings of Robert Johnson
Townes Van Zandt
Dallas Texans
Eric erson
Lightnin' Hopkins
Janis Joplin
ZZ Top
Earl Campbell
TCU
Abilene Christian/Bobby Morrow
Prarie View
West Texas State
Ray Wylie Hubbard
Victoria Spivey
you don't have mike renfro on that list.
your repenting needs to start now.
repenting is time sensitive.
It is funny how people act in hiding isn't it?
In person.
Jane...I need to lose a few pounds.
Joe....you look just fine.
Joe in hiding behind a computer.....well no ya fat .
In person.
Bob....I was a state 400 champ in high school, can still run.
Joe...I bet ya still got it.
Joe in hiding behind a computer....who the cares, and I bet you got fat and now waddle when ya try to run..... .
It is funny.
Last edited by Avante; 02-03-2016 at 02:56 AM.
FYI, Evolution is not just a scientific theory, (which you mongoloids don't even understand the term "Theory" within the scientific method) it is a FACT.... Not an opinion or a belief.... but a justifiable, repeatedly tested, undeniable, solid as any other scientific "theory", more tested than the "theory of Gravity" inescapable ING FACT. A cold, hard, unrelenting, uncompromising, unyielding, cant pray it away ING FACT!!
The evidence is SO OVERWHELMING, the only way to disprove it at this point would be for a sky daddy to appear out of no where and unequivocally announce his presence to everyone and explain everything in minute detail more accurate than science has ever done. And we ALL know, that isn't happening.... BECAUSE HE/SHE/IT ISN'T REAL!!!!!
The only people STILL calling it "just a theory" are those who just do not understand what the term "theory" means in scientific terms...
you may not like it, it may upset you, but a fact is still a ing fact no matter how much you pray and want to believe otherwise.
Last edited by phyzik; 02-03-2016 at 03:33 AM.
So there were no animals in the sea or on land. Then one day................go ahead explain how we got the elephant and the spider..ok? Come on amigo prove your point or shut the up...got it?FYI, Evolution is not just a scientific theory, (which you mongoloids don't even understand the term "Theory" within the scientific method) it is a FACT.... Not an opinion or a belief.... but a justifiable, repeatedly tested, undeniable, solid as any other scientific "theory", more tested than the "theory of Gravity" inescapable ING FACT. A cold, hard, unrelenting, uncompromising, unyielding, cant pray it away ING FACT!!
The evidence is SO OVERWHELMING, the only way to disprove it at this point would be for a sky daddy to appear out of no where and unequivocally announce his presence to everyone and explain everything in minute detail more accurate than science has ever done. And we ALL know, that isn't happening.... BECAUSE HE/SHE/IT ISN'T REAL!!!!!
The only people STILL calling it "just a theory" are those who just do not understand what the term "theory" means in scientific terms...
you may not like it, it may upset you, but a fact is still a ing fact no matter how much you pray and want to believe otherwise.
So all living creatures origins can be traced back to ......what? Come on little fella...what?
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-team-cr...tion-life.html
ust as physicists comprehend the origin of the universe by observing the stars and archeologists reconstruct ancient civilizations with the artifacts found today, evolutionary biologists study the diversity of modern-day species to understand the origin of life and evolution.
In a study published in the prestigious magazine Nature, Centre for Genomic Regulation researchers Toni Gabaldón and Alexandros Pitis are shedding light on one of the most crucial milestones in the evolution of life: cells' acquisition of mitochondria.
he first living beings were single-cell organisms, predecessors of the bacteria that inhabit the world today. Those cells were quite simple but, at some point over the course of evolution, they gave way to a more complex cellular lineage: the eukaryotes, or cells with a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells have given rise to the most complex life forms existing on earth, including multicellular organisms such as animals, plants or fungi. One of the keys of this complexity can be found in mitochondria, a cellular organelle considered to be the generator of cell energy, although that is not their only role. It is believed that by acquiring mitochondria, cells were able to use more energy, facilitating qualitative leaps in their structure and organization. That is why the addition of mitochondria is considered a crucial milestone in the evolution of life.
Up until now, a number of theories have sought to explain how cells came to acquire mitochondria. Although there is consensus as to the "how" ?the first mitochondria must have been a bacterium that entered another, and remained there, becoming part of the cell? the "when" has so far been unclear. Some scientists advocated an early incorporation of mitochondria, and considered that step as the first necessary to begin advancing toward eukaryotic cells as they are known today. Other theories proposed a later inclusion of mitochondria, as a more complex host cell could favor the entry of another cell and that cell's permanence within its interior. Now, predoctoral scientist Alexandros Pitis and ICREA research professor and group leader at CRG Toni Gabaldón have clarified the matter, proposing a theory that would define the time frame for the acquisition.
They don't believe in science, and pander to evangelicals -- as a result, the Republicans remain a party of stupid
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/make...darwins_right/You say man evolved from an ape . . . but if we evolved from an ape, why is an ape still an ape and a person still a person?”
It’s a question often asked by religious critics of the theory of evolution. To answer it Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller reached back to expert-witness testimony he delivered in a Harrisburg courtroom a decade earlier. Miller was speaking at a three-day symposium celebrating the 10th anniversary of the December 2005 Kitzmiller decision, which dashed evangelicals’ hopes that “intelligent design” could be taught in public schools as a counter-theory to evolution.
No candidate running for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination has publically accepted the theory of evolution. Their views on the subject—from the imbecilic observations of neurosurgeon Ben Carson to the disingenuous position of Jeb Bush—are calculated to attract evangelical voters.
Speaking to a group of Seventh Day Adventists in 2011, Carson attributed evolution to the Adversary (Satan). “I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the Adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct.”
Carson intends to write a book called “The Organ of Species” to correct the errors in Darwin’s theory. “Not The Origin of Species,” he said, “the Organ of Species, and we’re going to talk about the organs of the body and how they completely refute evolution.”
In a 2007 GOP primary debate, former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee dismissed the idea of common ancestry: “If anyone wants to believe that they are descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it. I don’t know how far they want to march that back.”
Rick Santorum was unequivocal in a 2008 interview with the Center for Religion in Public Life: “I think there are a lot of problems with the theory of evolution, and do believe that it is used to promote a worldview that is anti-theist, that is atheist.”
Ted Cruz doesn’t take a position on the issue, but defers to his father, a self-taught itinerant preacher. Rev. Rafael Cruz speaks at campaign events––and at a 2011 men’s prayer breakfast in Houston he described evolution as Marxist propaganda.
“There is nothing scientific about evolution,” Cruz explained. “Evolution is one of the strongest tools of Marxism because if they can convince you that you came from a monkey, it’s much easier to convince you that God does not exist.”
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie bristled when a reporter asked in 2011 if he accepted the theory of evolution. At a town hall meeting the same year, Christie described evolution as “required teaching,” but with a caveat. “If there’s a certain school district that also wants to teach creationism, that’s not something we should decide in Trenton.”
Marco Rubio refuses to address evolution, although a widely circulated quote regarding the age of the earth suggests he’s determined to keep science at arm’s length.
“I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States,” he told GQ magazine in a 2012 interview. “I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think . . . people should have the opportunity to teach them all.”
Rand Paul came close to accepting the theory of evolution. Backed into a corner in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, the Kentucky senator said: “Obviously, we evolved.” But he split the difference on how we evolved. “It’s harder to argue the contrary, that there was no God involved,” Paul said.
Carly Fiorina has said nothing in public on evolution, and the two candidates described as moderates equivocate. While running for governor of Ohio in 2009, John Kasich said he supported teaching evolution and what he called “creation science” in the state’s public schools. Asked about the Dover decision when he was governor of Florida in 2005, Jeb Bush told The Miami Herald: “I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.”
That is, the theory that is understood to be the unifying theme of all biological science should not be a part of the curriculum.
In the end, what Christie, Bush, and Kasich propose—teaching something called “creation science” to balance what students learn about evolution—is illegal, at least according to the Kitzmiller decision and the Supreme Court decisions that inform it.
In his opinion Judge Jones referred to a problem that has nothing to do with legal precedents or the First Amendment’s separation clause. Quoting Berkeley paleontology Professor Kevin Padian, the judge wrote that confusing “students about science generally and evolution in general . . . makes students stupid.”
Dr. Carson has no problems with Newtonism. For the moment, the rules of gravity remain in place.
What an idiot, sheesh~~~~~~~
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...bout-evolution
Long ago, perhaps even before the celebrated mists of time, there was a great family of animals that lived in Africa. The story starts some 10 million years ago and then the family grew and spread out. Around three million years ago, a branch of it spilled into Europe and Asia. As the animals moved into new territories, they adapted to more northern climes. Eventually, some crossed the bridge of Beringia, migrating from north-east Asia into North America.
It sounds a familiar story. Surely this is all about our ancestors – the African origins in the Miocene, with key fossils appearing from ancient sediments in Kenya; some of this group colonising Europe and Asia; the march into the new world. But this is not the story of hominins: of australopithecines, paranthropines and . This is the story of the elephantines: of mammoths, Loxodonta and Elephas.
The tale of the elephant’s tooth is somehow different, a change in behaviour clearly precedes a change in anatomy
The most striking characteristics of living elephants – trunks and tusks – had appeared in their gomphothere ancestors by 20 million years ago. For a large animal with a short neck, the trunk was an extremely useful development, allowing these proboscideans to grasp leaves and bring them to the mouth, thus providing an evolutionary advantage.
The development of a trunk and the transformation of incisors into tusks were accompanied by a change in the shape of the skull. Inside the mouth, the teeth were also changing. A short jaw left little room for a full set of molars, while the teeth needed to be able to sustain a long lifetime’s worth of heavy wear. Evolution provided a neat solution to both problems. Rather than having a whole set of premolars and molars crammed into the mouth at the same time – as in your mouth – there was just a single, large tooth occupying each side of the upper and lower jaw at any time. As this tooth wore down, another would be growing behind it, ready to slide into place when the worn-out tooth fell out, providing the animal with up to six sets of teeth in a lifetime.
...
It’s just possible that this type of change, originating with a change in behaviour, played an important role in human evolution. Around two million years ago, there was a large shift in body shape away from short legs, which first appears in erectus. It’s likely that many of the new anatomical features, from longer legs to enlarged gluteal muscles and chunkier achilles tendons, are related to increased efficiency in running. If a group of humans began to run regularly, perhaps allowing them to hunt or scavenge more effectively, anatomical changes would follow, especially among the still-developing youngsters. Once running became an important part of behaviour, any mutations that enhanced it would be favoured. But the real source of novelty, perhaps, was that change in behaviour and not a genetic mutation.
The great proboscideans that roamed the African landscapes where our own ancestors evolved remind us that evolutionary novelty doesn’t always originate in the genes.
Random changes in behavior speed bacteria evolution
Random changes in microbes’ behavior can speed up evolution, a new study shows.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...eria-evolutionThese shifts — called phenotype switches — can promote genetic mutations that help microbes better survive their environment, researchers report online January 19 at BioRxiv.org. Understanding how the microbes evolve is “particularly important for antibiotic resistance,” says study coauthor Bartlomiej Waclaw, a physicist at the University of Edinburgh.
Waclaw and colleagues used computer modeling to look at how an organism’s phenotype — in this case, its growth behavior — might influence its genetic makeup, or genotype, in an unchanging environment. The experiment could represent how bacteria replicate and evolve to reach an antibiotic-resistant state, the researchers suggest.
Eh go a kid got
Come on guy you really think bars hired little kids to hustle drinks, what are you re ed?
I'm in a....
mood today.
So staying in that mood....
rolling....
Last edited by Avante; 02-04-2016 at 04:17 PM.
Are humans driving evolution in animals?
(short answer is yes)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35462335Are humans inadvertently driving evolution in other species? Mounting evidence suggests activities such as commercial fishing, angling and hunting, along with the use of pesticides and antibiotics, are leading to dramatic evolutionary changes.
Sitting down to a roast chicken dinner doesn't seem like an obvious opportunity to consider evolution. But it is.
Think about it: those big tasty carrots, that plump, tender chicken and those handsome potatoes all differ markedly from their natural ancestors.
A wild carrot is barely more than a slightly enlarged purple tap-root and red jungle fowl certainly don't have the extravagant cleavages found on modern broiler chickens.
The intentional selection of the qualities we like (such as flavour and size) in domesticated livestock and cultivated crops has led to descendent animals and plants that differ genetically from their ancestors. This change in gene frequency is evolution, and in this case has come about by a process called artificial selection.
Natural selection is basically the same process. The difference is that instead of humans selecting individuals to breed, natural selection pressures such as predation, or the reluctance of females to mate with lower quality males, cause some individuals in a population to prosper and produce offspring while others fare poorly, leaving fewer offspring.
If the trait that caused the parents to prosper has a genetic basis, then the offspring will inherit that trait and likewise prosper, changing the frequency of genes in the population.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
