This is depressing

[CFLarsen]

Please try to exercise the reading skills of a reasonably intelligent fourth grader.

Please try to debate from your own arguments, and not by a Google search.

1. The topic was the MECHANISM of evolution, not the existence of evolution.

You mentioned natural selection, which is part of evolution. Please exemplify a theory that describes the MECHANISM of evolution, but leaves out natural selection.

2. There are competing theories.

And we are most anxious to hear your explanation of these.

3. I am not going to read to you. You have outgrown that.

OK, I'll play along: From the first page on the Google search, not one excluded natural selection as part of their theories. All dealt with genetics.

Please exemplify a theory that describes the MECHANISM of evolution, but leaves out natural selection.

4. You DO get one.

?

 

[TeaBag420]

Please try to debate from your own arguments, and not by a Google search.

When I'm dealing with someone who considers posting a link to a thread on this site which asserts that there are amoeba [sic] in the center of the Earth citing a source, I will offer a google search as my own argument. And for that, you get one (vide infra).

You mentioned natural selection, which is part of evolution. Please exemplify a theory that describes the MECHANISM of evolution, but leaves out natural selection.

Again, I'm not going to read to you.

...
OK, I'll play along: From the first page on the Google search, not one excluded natural selection as part of their theories. All dealt with genetics.

Please exemplify a theory that describes the MECHANISM of evolution, but leaves out natural selection.

Is there an echo in here?

Again, I'm not going to read to you.

Originally posted by TeaBag420
4. You DO get one.
?

That would be a "blow me" ... a little award we have in this country.

Then, you apparently got so worked up that you had to post again. I shall address your concerns seriatim:

"That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a Nobel prize in biology. You claimed there was. There isn't. Stop talking around the issue and admit your error."

No, I never made that claim. Why do you feel an irresistible urge to lie? Again, blow me.

"The Bank of Sweden (Sveriges Riksbank) Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel...."

Calling my first wank of the day the Nobel Prize for ejaculation doesn't make it true. Did you notice the part where the prize is called "The Bank of Sweden Prize..."? I have an economist on staff and they are quite clear about the difference. Why not you? You get another one.

 

[CFLarsen]

When I'm dealing with someone who considers posting a link to a thread on this site which asserts that there are amoeba [sic] in the center of the Earth citing a source, I will offer a google search as my own argument. And for that, you get one (vide infra).

But a specific link is useful. What, specifically, should I look for in your google search? Perhaps you are not even interested in debating from specific?

Again, I'm not going to read to you.

Ah. So you cannot name one such example. You are not interested in specifics, only grand, vague claims.

That would be a "blow me" ... a little award we have in this country.

Very suave.

No, I never made that claim. Why do you feel an irresistible urge to lie? Again, blow me.

In what category would someone win a Nobel Prize for understanding evolution, if not biology (of which there is none)?

Calling my first wank of the day the Nobel Prize for ejaculation doesn't make it true. Did you notice the part where the prize is called "The Bank of Sweden Prize..."? I have an economist on staff and they are quite clear about the difference. Why not you? You get another one.

Did you notice that the information was found on the official Nobel Committee's webpage?

 

[Anders]

And as you are no doubt aware, dickweed, Nobel and
"Nobel" prizes are often award years after the work they honor. Also, strictly speaking, there is no Nobel Prize for Economics.

Dickweed? That's a new one. I don't think I am one though.

 

[Anders]

Please try to exercise the reading skills of a reasonably intelligent fourth grader.

1. The topic was the MECHANISM of evolution, not the existence of evolution.

2. There are competing theories.

3. I am not going to read to you. You have outgrown
that.

4. You DO get one.

Well, which are the competing theories? As a molecular biologist I just care for evolution in the genome which of course is the only way evolution can go, as genes govern every aspect of our body and all living bodies.

 

[Dancing David]

TeaBag420,

While entertaining as a troll you are not addressing the questions people ask, take your beef to another forum. Your behavior is offensive and not what the Critical Thinking forum is about. You need to defend your bold assertions, which you haven't done. It is a poor arguement technique to just say "I won't read to you."

Why not present what salient features you feel there are to competing mechanisms for the natural selection portion of evolutionary theory.

You can't and that is why you don't.

 

[farmermike]

Wouldn't old uncle Teabag be a hoot at a family gathering unless of course the whole family were just as obnoxious.Don't undercook the possum

 

[TeaBag420]

Okay, the mechanism of evolution is amoeba [sic] on asteroids and in the center of the Earth, as referenced by Eos of the Eons earlier in this thread:

" Yes, we do understand how evolution works.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...?threadid=48297 "


And I'm still not going to read to you.

 

[Dancing David]

TeaBag420:

You have yet to defend what you have said and instead keep linking to a thread in which many different ideas are discussed as though EoE had responsibility for all that was written there.
So what competing theories are there for the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution?

Last call to defend your own statements TeaBag, I doubt you can which is why you spin.

1. The topic was the MECHANISM of evolution, not the existence of evolution.

2. There are competing theories.

Well what are you referencing in statement 2. ?

Well, no, we don't. There are several competing THEORIES, of which natural selection is the best known, but the matter has not been resolved. No Nobel for you, I guess.

Okay genius, which competing theory is currently in vouge? How does it match the observable data? How close are these competing theories to resolution?

 

[TeaBag420]

TeaBag420:

You have yet to defend what you have said and instead keep linking to a thread in which many different ideas are discussed as though EoE had responsibility for all that was written there.

NO, DUMBASS, I DON'T. I have REFERRED to a thread to which E.o.E LINKED as proof that we know the mechanism behind evolution. Each time I R-E-F-E-R to this thread, I mention that it BEGINS with the assertion that there are amoeba [sic] on asteroids and in the center of the Earth.

If you have a problem with Eos's reasoning, take it up with him; I did.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I think he has been edumacating himself on creationut information. He doesn't care to learn from any source with accurate information. He even refuses to check out the threads in our own science forums.

This is the result of people eroding science education. It is really really sad.

It's only getting worse currently. I want my kids to have a decent education. Yes, I will have to home school them on this subject, but it's been 10 years since I myself learned it.

There is a serious lack of effective ways to teach evolution properly at anybody's disposal.

Heck, this was a problem in my school in grade 8. We had a creationut science teacher. He simply poo pooed evolution and told us to read the pages in the text book for passing the final exam. We didn't cover it all in the classroom except for his biased version of why evolution is bunk.

I don't want this to happen to my kids, but my hands are freakin tied.

 

[TeaBag420]

I think he has been edumacating himself on creationut information. He doesn't care to learn from any source with accurate information. He even refuses to check out the threads in our own science forums.

This is the result of people eroding science education. It is really really sad.

Dumbass. Dickweed. I was doing graduate level biochemical research (at George Washington University) at age 15, studying bovine leutinizing hormone releasing hormone, so blow me.

Yes, I refuse and continue to refuse to "check out" the thread YOU posted that BEGINS by asserting that amoeba [sic] exist on asteroids and in the center of the earth.

Just because Creationism is wrong doesn't make everything you say automatically right. And it doesn't mean you're a fag.

There is a serious lack of effective ways to teach evolution properly at anybody's disposal.

Heck, this was a problem in my school in grade 8. We had a creationut science teacher. He simply poo pooed evolution and told us to read the pages in the text book for passing the final exam. We didn't cover it all in the classroom except for his biased version of why evolution is bunk.

I don't want this to happen to my kids, but my hands are freakin tied.

Okay, I may have been wrong about that last part. Big Daddy State gon' take care of you.. no need to worry about the other prisoners taking liberties. The teacher gave you a textbook and told you to read it. Are you saying because he didn't read it aloud to you in class you didn't learn it? Were you able to read in 8th grade?

By your own assertions, you have learned about evolution. Very well, then, you contradict yourself. I feel sorry for your kids, having such a retard for a parent, who doesn't even realize when he has learned something he claims he has learned. Did you turn the stove off? Better check!

 

[CFLarsen]

TeaBag420,

Why are you so hostile?

There is no need to begin calling people names, just because they ask you to defend and debate your claims. How difficult can it be, if you have such an impressive background?

If you are hostile because you find us oh-so-dumb, then teach us, instead of preach to us. If you find that we are not worth it, then perhaps you might be overestimating your own intellectual level just a wee bit?

On the other hand, if you simply aren't capable of explaining those "competing theories" to natural selection, say so. Admit that you were too quick. No harm in that.

But that you think that natural selection is evolution makes me think that you really have no idea just what the heck you are trying to say. It just sounds great, and makes a heck of a post. Yay, that'll show'em!

But that's just me.

This is a debating board, remember? If you want to merely assert something, without being questioned, then go to a board for believers.

Just don't be surprised to be questioned on a skeptics board.

 

[Anders]

Okay, the mechanism of evolution is amoeba [sic] on asteroids and in the center of the Earth, as referenced by Eos of the Eons earlier in this thread:

" Yes, we do understand how evolution works.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...?threadid=48297 "


And I'm still not going to read to you.

Firstly: Link doesn't work.

Secondly: amoeba on astroids and in the center of earth perhaps are theories about the origin of life, not evolution. All evolution is based on mutations in DNA. Good mutations makes the organism survive, bad kills them. Simple as that. Were there anything else before DNA, well, yes! Do we know that? No! Do we have any ideas about what it was? Yes! Probably RNA was the information carrier before DNA. RNA is not that stable as DNA is, so DNA based organisms survived at a better rate than RNA base organisms. But that's just a theory, which will be very hard to prove.

 

[drkitten]

[BAll evolution is based on mutations in DNA. Good mutations makes the organism survive, bad kills them. Simple as that. [/B]

This is an oversimplification (for which read, "wrong"); there are a lot of ways for evolution to occur that don't involve mutation. The usual definition of evolution -- 'a change in allele frequency over time' -- starts out by assuming that there is variation in genes, and then explains how the frequency of the genes themselves changes in response to (among other things) selection pressure.

Mutation is one way (and a significant way) that genetic variation can arise, but there are others, and a lot of research since Darwin has been going on into identifying the exact role that mutation plays in evolution. But statements like "all evolution is <something way oversimplified>" play right into the hands of the creationists, because it's very easy to show that that oversimplification is wrong (which also explains why modern biologists don't believe that oversimplification), and if that really is what evolution IS, then evolution must be wrong, too.

 

[BillHoyt]

This is an oversimplification (for which read, "wrong"); there are a lot of ways for evolution to occur that don't involve mutation. The usual definition of evolution -- 'a change in allele frequency over time' -- starts out by assuming that there is variation in genes, and then explains how the frequency of the genes themselves changes in response to (among other things) selection pressure.

Mutation is one way (and a significant way) that genetic variation can arise, but there are others, and a lot of research since Darwin has been going on into identifying the exact role that mutation plays in evolution. But statements like "all evolution is <something way oversimplified>" play right into the hands of the creationists, because it's very easy to show that that oversimplification is wrong (which also explains why modern biologists don't believe that oversimplification), and if that really is what evolution IS, then evolution must be wrong, too.

I believe you missed the "s" Anders put on "mutation." He wrote "All evolution is based on mutations in DNA." That is correct. He was not writing strictly about new mutation events, which is your point. His remark encompassed both those and pre-existing mutations, and is quite right. Beyond that, though, since there would be no variation in a population without mutation events (at least in the past) one has to wonder about the value of your point here.

 

[Chanileslie]

Well, no, we don't. There are several competing THEORIES, of which natural selection is the best known, but the matter has not been resolved. No Nobel for you, I guess.

Or for you. Natural selection is just one part of the Theory of Evolution and it is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection in and of itself is not a theory, but a part of a scientific theory based on evidence and facts.

 

[Chanileslie]

You, on the other hand, do get a "BLOW ME" for bringing some attitude up in this joint after fair warning.

This has not been news since I first learned to read about fifty years ago. You might want to look into reading. It's really kewl.

Since you are apparently Steven Hawking, have your wife take a minute out from beating you to enter the following:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mechanism+of+evolution&btnG=Google+Search

Did I forget to say "BLOW ME"? No, it appears I didn't.

Hmm, the articles talk about a new mechanism of evolution that is not a competing theory, but rather a refinement on the current theory. That is what is great about a scientific theory is that it allows for study and further understanding as well as refinements. Although to be honest, it is rather a deeper understanding of how a mechanism that has been a part of evolution for a long time works - genetic mutation.

 

[Chanileslie]

Dumbass. Dickweed. I was doing graduate level biochemical research (at George Washington University) at age 15, studying bovine leutinizing hormone releasing hormone, so blow me.

Unfortunately at this point, that education is not showing through in your posts in this thread. You don't even to have appeared to have read much the very articles that you put up as evidence in your google link. Also, you stated in your opening post that there were 'competing theories' and indicated that natural selection is a theory un to itself, but it is not, it is a part of a theory that is not precluded by the google search that you posted because genetic mutation has been a part of the Theory of Evolution for a very long time and the google link only showed that they have been reviewing refinements of that.

Now, instead of being insulting and rude, perhaps you can show us your biochemical and scienctific knowledge and point us in the direction where you feel many of us have gone wrong in our understanding of evolution.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

I was staying out of this thread, but your last post to Eos was the last straw. How is this guy getting away with being so directly insulting in a modded forum?

Teabag, go take your pills and have a lie down.