Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-13-2005, 11:29 AM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Darwin and DNA

[ QUOTE ]
Entertaining concepts but wrong. It's basically taking some interesting concepts in genetics and twisting them around.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way man. When Dan figures out how to activate the magical pixie DNA so that I can have a talking dog, my life will be totally way cooler.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-13-2005, 11:45 AM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

This thread addresses your issues with the "randomness" in evolution.

No offense, but you're the dogmatic one here. You don't even understand genetics, yet you've chosen to misapply it.

You copy and paste nicely from quasiscientific sources, but you don't know what you're talking about and neither do the sources you've latched onto.

I've dealt with fruits of your sort before. It's not worth my time. You'll probably never learn enough genetics to know why the nonsense you're preaching is even wrong. And it would only take you a few weeks to learn it.

Give me my talking dog. Until then, Mr. Ed is as close as you get. And the series was cancelled decades ago.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-13-2005, 11:55 AM
Rduke55 Rduke55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

[ QUOTE ]
This thread addresses your issues with the "randomness" in evolution.

No offense, but you're the dogmatic one here. You don't even understand genetics, yet you've chosen to misapply it.

You copy and paste nicely from quasiscientific sources, but you don't know what you're talking about and neither do the sources you've latched onto.

I've dealt with fruits of your sort before. It's not worth my time. You'll probably never learn enough genetics to know why the nonsense you're preaching is even wrong. And it would only take you a few weeks to learn it.

Give me my talking dog. Until then, Mr. Ed is as close as you get. And the series was cancelled decades ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is harsh and uncalled for.
Especially considering our "debate" in the other thread where you're spouting some strange point that highlights deficiencies in your thinking about evolution. At no point did I say anything like this to you, despite the fact that the "sometimes a little information is worse than no information" idea goes on in your points in the other thread and it demonstrates a superficial knowledge of the way evolution works.
We're here to discuss things, and those of us with more information on certain subjects should educate, rather than insult, people with less information.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-13-2005, 12:09 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Darwin and DNA

Intersting post, thanks. The more we try to approach things from different angles, the better off we'll be towards getting to the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-13-2005, 12:13 PM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

You're entitled to your opinion.

I've discussed these types of things with people copying and pasting this kind of info before.
Copy and pasters usually don't even articulate their own arguments so there isn't much point to discussion.

And maybe you didn't read his post very carefully. His claim is that there is a talking gene in the dog hidden in intron DNA. If that's the case, someone should be able to express the gene and produce a talking dog. It's not as unreasonable or sarcastic as it may have sound. And I really do think a talking dog would be way cool. If he could produce a talking dog, it would go a long way toward proving the theory he copied and pasted was correct.

The guy talked like he had some insights into recent scientific developments in intronic DNA. He then demonstrated he doesn't even really understand what intronic DNA is or what scientific research had found about intronic DNA something like 6 years ago.

If you think I have deficiencies in this topic, why do you think I have some responsibility to impart knowledge to others? Do you advocate the spread of misinformation and fallacious reasoning? How inconsistent can you be?

Don't bother preaching to me about what you think I should do. And don't follow me into someone else's thread with your issues with me in another thread. It's self-centered and very inappropriate.

I willingly impart information on a routine basis as my post history demonstrates. In this case, I've decided the subject is uneducatable on this matter and simply likes ideas consistent with his religious beliefs. Surely, you realize that trying to convert the dogmatic is a futile process.

I'm the bigger loser here, btw, because I actually know that taking part in this discussion would be a waste of my time from past experience.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-13-2005, 12:18 PM
Zygote Zygote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 693
Default Re: Darwin and DNA

All properties of the past-present-future exist a prior in the "no boundary condition" based on Feynman's multiple history idea. This theory tied with evolutionary theories makes much more sense than what this guy is proposing. Also, i'm curious, does the scientific community house any credence in his theories, and if so, do they generally accept them as alterantives?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-13-2005, 12:49 PM
Rduke55 Rduke55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

So educate him on why this isn't possible without calling him names.

Don't flatter yourself that I followed you. I posted in this thread before the post of yours, in this thread, I had issues with. You merely seem like the most noticable bully in two of the threads I have commented in.

I just pointed out your bad behavior and gave an example on where you may have been guilty of the same behavior of the poster you were insulting.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:17 PM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

part1. No. You care. You do it.

part2. I'm always flattered by fans. Do you honestly believe you can bully in a forum post? Heh

part3. "may have been guilty of the same behavior" What behavior would that be? And what's this "may have" nonsense?

The guy implied I was dogmatic just because I concluded his theory was nonsense. I guess it's ok if he calls me names, eh? I was nice, but honest, until then. Then I stopped being nice. The only thing bad I did was call him a fruit. My comment about him never understanding genetics was based on the assumption that he'd never read about it, not that it was beyond his understanding. Truth be told, some people that latch onto quasi-scientific theories do so because they have trouble with mainstream science.

I don't know if Dan is such an individual, but I'm leaning toward not. I think Dan is just a sneaky religious type in disguise to be honest. Just trying to package his religious wares in scientific-sounding verbiage to offer proof to non-critical thinkers. This forum is sort of a poor candidate for that sort of thing, but it might go off really well in a conspirology forum. He essentially admitted already he is into intelligent design. Very common agenda.

The old forum I frequented had similar posters, but they were into anti-Semitic crap that talked about evil "Zionists" in the place of Jews. I much prefer people promoting intelligent design than hate, but I still don't appreciate people with disguised agendas.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:20 PM
Rduke55 Rduke55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

Why lower yourself to their level?
You're obviously in the right. Be civilized about it.

I'm not trying to get into a personal thing with you but the behavior I was talking about was the "genotype is more important than phenotype in natural selection"
That's a view, while not as ignorant as the talking dog thing, demonstrates a clear misconception of the subject at hand. Rather than me just saying "That's completely ridiculous and anyone who studies evolution will tell you so." I engaged in debate.
You called him a fruit.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-13-2005, 01:26 PM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: The Worship of Random, God of Darwinism

It's like Bill Hicks said: I don't mean to sound cold or cruel or viscious, but I am, so It comes out that
way.

You may find it hard to believe, but I can think of a worse things to call people than fruits. Scout's honor.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.