Evolution My ToE

[dad]

Yes, it is news. It is just more of your nonsensical views. Have you really gone off the deep end completely?

Maybe do a simple search and learn about a bible year. In prophesy and also back in Noah's day a year was 360 days.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting.

Yes, it certainly is a very interesting subject.

The rest of your post comes across as rather dismissive. Did I touch a nerve?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, it certainly is a very interesting subject.

The rest of your post comes across as rather dismissive. Did I touch a nerve?

No nerve was touched in this operation.
Dismissive? That makes two of us.
The first two comments in your post comes across as dismissive, so after that, copy and paste, seemed like a good idea.

First, you don't seem interested in sticking to the papers you gave me, but keep mentioning other things, and that is just adding to the confusion of knowing what you are really addressing... even though I am trying.

Second, refusing to point out which paper supports the claim you are making... that the papers say, bring into question if you are not just saying things - not written - and expecting me to just say 'yes'.
(I did search at least two papers for what you said, without finding what you claimed) So it's like, you are saying, 'it doesn't matter, as I know what they say'... which leads to...

Third, your saying 'This isn't in dispute', seems to be saying, 'this is final, and is not up for debate', so it doesn't matter what I have to say about it. Yet, it is a hypothesis in the same way 'all life from the LUCA" is, and you don't mind debating that.

Seems quite dismissive, to me.

The last comment didn't seem as though there was much effort to elaborate, for my benefit. It was quite ... without interest. Yup. Dismissive.
So I figured you lost interest. Or maybe you wanted to ask questions.
'Cause then there is that strange line of questioning.... Obviously you weren't paying attention to what was said on that issue, because there is no way you would ask me a question like 'Which ones?' if you were paying attention to that.

Nope. No nerves struck at all.... unless they were yours.
I mean, you said it... "Because honestly, at this point it kinda feels like you're asking me to prove to you that water is wet." So it doesn't appear I am wrong. You lost interest, didn't you?

For the record, though, disagreeing with you does not require you to prove anything.
Even so, you have not shown that the objection I am making is invalid. Rather, you admitted it is a valid argument - though not directly.

if they [scientists] had good evidence-based reasons for it [adjusting their conclusion].

Sorta. When it comes to whether a mutation is beneficial or otherwise, it's simply a matter of the effect it has on the organism.

You have no way of telling if genes are performing the function although having a mutation, or mutations.
It's like in the case of the LCT gene. Sure hypothesize, but really, they don't know.
DNA repair is very efficient... It has to be. We are not perfect, but we work.

 

[ecco]

443 PP23 Dad
Almost wish that was true, as they are in a better position to get info out to a wide audience. But alas I must take the credit for the concept.

So, yes. You admitted you made up the stories about the speed of light changing and about nature in the past being different.​

False. I am not aware that a different nature, if one existed here on earth would be much dependent on light speed?? Please explain how the strong nuclear force, gravity, etc etc etc all depend on 'the speed of light'?

You've already admitted that nature was different in the past here on earth. Don't you remember? Continents zipping across the Pacific, etc. I realize it must be hard to keep up making stories and keeping track of the nonsense you spout. But, it's a forum, you can just go back and refresh your memory. Oh, wait. You know that. So, it's obvious that your denials and attempted evasions are just you, again, ducking and dodging.

Even if all we want to discuss is how time may not be the same in far space as it is in the area of the solar system, the speed of light is not really an issue. Light would simply take whatever time exists for it to take wherever it moved!

Do I really need to explain to you what "time" is? Do you not understand that if time is/was changeable then the speed of light would not be a constant?

 

[Jose Fly]

No nerve was touched in this operation.

Oh good. I'm very glad to hear that.

Dismissive? That makes two of us.
The first two comments in your post comes across as dismissive, so after that, copy and paste, seemed like a good idea.

I apologize if what I posted came across that way. It wasn't my intent at all.

First, you don't seem interested in sticking to the papers you gave me, but keep mentioning other things, and that is just adding to the confusion of knowing what you are really addressing... even though I am trying.

I did stick papers I provided you. The one I last quoted from was from the search results I provided you earlier.

Second, refusing to point out which paper supports the claim you are making... that the papers say, bring into question if you are not just saying things - not written - and expecting me to just say 'yes'.

I'm really confused here. On one hand you're complaining that I'm providing you too many papers, but here you're complaining that I'm not providing you papers. And not to put too fine a point on it, but when it comes to showing that at least some types of resistance are genetically-based....every paper I've provided you does that.

All I can say is, I'm doing my very best to provide you with resources (papers, websites) to help answer some of the questions you've been asking. Specific to resistance (both to antibiotics and insecticides) being genetically based and arising from mutations, I've provided a lot of resources to substantiate that fact, and have even quoted directly from those sources. I've also described an experiment I conducted myself that was specifically designed to illustrate that very point.

So I'm not sure what else I can do, nor do I understand why you seem to be objecting to something that's been common knowledge for over half a century. Maybe a better way would be for you to provide, and quote from a paper that supports your position?

I did search at least two papers for what you said, without finding what you claimed) So it's like, you are saying, 'it doesn't matter, as I know what they say'... which leads to...

Third, your saying 'This isn't in dispute', seems to be saying, 'this is final, and is not up for debate', so it doesn't matter what I have to say about it. Yet, it is a hypothesis in the same way 'all life from the LUCA" is, and you don't mind debating that.

Again, I've provided you multiple papers that describe precisely how they determined resistance to be genetically-based, even to the point of identifying the exact genetic sequences that provide the resistance. What else do you think needs to be done before you would accept this commonly-understood reality?

Seems quite dismissive, to me.

I suppose at this point I don't know what else I, or anyone else, could do to make the point to you that at least some types of resistance are genetically based. You seem so reluctant to acknowledge it no matter what, it makes me wonder what's really going on here.

The last comment didn't seem as though there was much effort to elaborate, for my benefit. It was quite ... without interest. Yup. Dismissive.
So I figured you lost interest. Or maybe you wanted to ask questions.
'Cause then there is that strange line of questioning.... Obviously you weren't paying attention to what was said on that issue, because there is no way you would ask me a question like 'Which ones?' if you were paying attention to that.

You mentioned people who advocated the view that mutations are directed. Since then, I've been asking who those folks are and you haven't said. So if you could specify (as in give names) that would help a lot.

I mean, you said it... "Because honestly, at this point it kinda feels like you're asking me to prove to you that water is wet." So it doesn't appear I am wrong. You lost interest, didn't you?

Not losing interest, just a little baffled as to why you're so opposed to the notion of genetically-based resistance.

For the record, though, disagreeing with you does not require you to prove anything.
Even so, you have not shown that the objection I am making is invalid. Rather, you admitted it is a valid argument - though not directly.

To be honest, I don't even know what your objection is. You've asked me to support the claim that resistance is genetically-based and that resistance can arise via mutations. I've done that in spades, and the only objections I've seen you make are mostly about being given too much material. I can't recall you actually making a counter argument against anything specific in any of the papers or other resources I've posted.

If I missed your objection, I apologize and ask that you post it again. I promise I'll do my best not to miss it this time.

You have no way of telling if genes are performing the function although having a mutation, or mutations.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we can't tell what a mutated version of a gene does?

It's like in the case of the LCT gene. Sure hypothesize, but really, they don't know.
DNA repair is very efficient... It has to be. We are not perfect, but we work.

Hmmmm.....this kinda gives me the impression that the real root issue for you is about the ability of mutations to make an organism resistant. IOW, a gene providing resistance is fine, but a mutation leading to resistance is unacceptable to you. Is that right? If not, could you please clarify?

 

[ecco]

Speak for yourself...I do.

Tes. You speak for yourself and no one else because no one else believes as you do.

When it comes to who authored the Gospels, there are two schools of thought:

1. Those of Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching.
2. Those of Dad

I realize that you think you know more than Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching. But, you don't. There is no reason to believe that you know more than Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching. There is only one person who believes that Dad knows more than Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching - that person is Dad.

You have no basis for your assertions - none.

The basis upon which you claim this is found to be fiction.

When it comes to wthe validity of the Exodus, there are two schools of thought:

1. Those of Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching.
2. Those of Dad and a few diehard fundamentalists.

I realize that you think you know more than Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching. But, you don't. There is no reason to believe that you know more than Biblical Scholars who spend lifetimes and careers studying and researching. You and your fellow diehard fundies have not trekked the deserts looking for evidence of the Exodus. The researchers have, and what they found proves there was no Exodus as described in the Bible.

 

[ecco]

I sure do.

So, no then, you do not believe in spirits. Fine. The denial is noted.

Are you completely deranged? I just admitted that I do believe in spirits. I even put up a picture to make it easy for you to comprehend.

I really don't know what else I can do.

Perhaps this will help:

What are the 5 spirits?
Brandy, gin, rum, tequila, vodka, and whiskey are each unique and have distinct styles within themselves. Learn the basic characteristics of each of these liquors to give you an understanding of what makes each special and how to use them in drinks.​

 

[ecco]

That leaves the historical and Scriptural accounts that you deny for no reason.

What historical accounts do I deny? What historical accounts have I denied?

That leaves the historical and Scriptural accounts that you deny for no reason.

I deny the validity of stories that were written 4-6000 years ago. I deny the validity of stories that were written 2000 years ago by people like David Koresh and Jim Jones and Joseph Smith and Ballulah. You deny the validity of stories that were written by David Koresh and Jim Jones and Joseph Smith and Ballulah.

The reasons for our denials are the same.

 

[ecco]

Light speed changing? No idea what you are talking about. Where...when...why??

You've said Time has changed. You even say Time is different Here and There. If Time has changed, anything measured using Time has changed. Including the Speed of Light.

 

[ecco]

Nothing to say on topic then. OK. Just admit you were defeated a long time ago, save your breath.

You are indeed funny. Once again you make up stories. You now imagine you have somehow "defeated" me. You ignore that you are not just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Scientists and Biblical Scholars. So, you may as well write:

I, the great and glorious and all knowing Dad, have defeated all the Scientists and all the Biblical Scholars with my knowledge and wisdom.
​

I guess you missed all that Jesus taught about humility.

 

[ecco]

Maybe do a simple search and learn about a bible year. In prophesy and also back in Noah's day a year was 360 days.

Uh huh. Now, be a good boy and quote some Scripture to support your allegation. Wanna bet you duck and dodge again?

If you want to make the argument that at some times in the past ignorant people thought the earth circled the sun in 360 days, well OK. But a year is the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. If you want to assert that back then the earth made one revolution in 360 days, bring it on. But you will need more than your made-up story about time being different back then.

 

[nPeace]

Oh good. I'm very glad to hear that.


I apologize if what I posted came across that way. It wasn't my intent at all.


I did stick papers I provided you. The one I last quoted from was from the search results I provided you earlier.


I'm really confused here. On one hand you're complaining that I'm providing you too many papers, but here you're complaining that I'm not providing you papers. And not to put too fine a point on it, but when it comes to showing that at least some types of resistance are genetically-based....every paper I've provided you does that.

All I can say is, I'm doing my very best to provide you with resources (papers, websites) to help answer some of the questions you've been asking. Specific to resistance (both to antibiotics and insecticides) being genetically based and arising from mutations, I've provided a lot of resources to substantiate that fact, and have even quoted directly from those sources. I've also described an experiment I conducted myself that was specifically designed to illustrate that very point.

So I'm not sure what else I can do, nor do I understand why you seem to be objecting to something that's been common knowledge for over half a century. Maybe a better way would be for you to provide, and quote from a paper that supports your position?


Again, I've provided you multiple papers that describe precisely how they determined resistance to be genetically-based, even to the point of identifying the exact genetic sequences that provide the resistance. What else do you think needs to be done before you would accept this commonly-understood reality?


I suppose at this point I don't know what else I, or anyone else, could do to make the point to you that at least some types of resistance are genetically based. You seem so reluctant to acknowledge it no matter what, it makes me wonder what's really going on here.

Communication problem.

You mentioned people who advocated the view that mutations are directed. Since then, I've been asking who those folks are and you haven't said. So if you could specify (as in give names) that would help a lot.

Why not read the article, and you decide who it's talking about.

Not losing interest, just a little baffled as to why you're so opposed to the notion of genetically-based resistance.


To be honest, I don't even know what your objection is. You've asked me to support the claim that resistance is genetically-based and that resistance can arise via mutations. I've done that in spades, and the only objections I've seen you make are mostly about being given too much material. I can't recall you actually making a counter argument against anything specific in any of the papers or other resources I've posted.

If I missed your objection, I apologize and ask that you post it again. I promise I'll do my best not to miss it this time.

I'm tired Fly. It's not easy making a point two or three times, and it's missed. We've been here before.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we can't tell what a mutated version of a gene does?

No, I am not saying that.

.....this kinda gives me the impression that the real root issue for you is about the ability of mutations to make an organism resistant. IOW, a gene providing resistance is fine, but a mutation leading to resistance is unacceptable to you. Is that right? If not, could you please clarify?

Nope. Is a mutation a new gene that came from nowhere and inserted itself there?
I know the question may sound silly, but bear with me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Communication problem.

I'm tired Fly. It's not easy making a point two or three times, and it's missed. We've been here before.

I understand. The good thing though is, we're only really discussing two main topics, so it should be pretty easy to clarify. Let's start with the first one...

Do you object to the notion that at least some forms of antibiotic and insecticide resistance are genetically-based? If you do, what is your objection?

Is a mutation a new gene that came from nowhere and inserted itself there?

No.

 

[nPeace]

I understand. The good thing though is, we're only really discussing two main topics, so it should be pretty easy to clarify. Let's start with the first one...

Do you object to the notion that at least some forms of antibiotic and insecticide resistance are genetically-based? If you do, what is your objection?

Could you please explain what you mean by genetically based?

No.

So a mutation may occur during replication, or some other environmental factor, but let's stick to copying errors for now.
What follows a copying error... normally?

 

[Jose Fly]

Could you please explain what you mean by genetically based?

I mean that a specific genetic sequence provides an organism the ability to resist an antibiotic or pesticide.

So a mutation may occur during replication, or some other environmental factor, but let's stick to copying errors for now.
What follows a copying error... normally?

I'm going to focus this part on just single-celled organisms. Since the mutation occurred during replication, the new organism now has the mutation. What comes next depends on the effect the mutation has.

 

[dad]

443 PP23 Dad
Almost wish that was true, as they are in a better position to get info out to a wide audience. But alas I must take the credit for the concept.

So, yes. You admitted you made up the stories about the speed of light changing and about nature in the past being different.​

The bible does speak of a different past, and this has what to do with the speed of light?

Do I really need to explain to you what "time" is?

If you thought you knew, of course you should post your opinion. Funny thing is that science doesn't know.

Do you not understand that if time is/was changeable then the speed of light would not be a constant?

You thought it was constant all through the universe?? Ha. Proof?

 

[dad]

Are you completely deranged? I just admitted that I do believe in spirits. I even put up a picture to make it easy for you to comprehend.

I really don't know what else I can do.

Perhaps this will help:

What are the 5 spirits?
Brandy, gin, rum, tequila, vodka, and whiskey are each unique and have distinct styles within themselves. Learn the basic characteristics of each of these liquors to give you an understanding of what makes each special and how to use them in drinks.​

So, no then you either do not believe in spiritual beings or you cannot tell the difference between drinks and spirits.

 

[dad]

What historical accounts do I deny? What historical accounts have I denied?

Do you believe that spirit beings were the first rules of ancient Egypt for example? Or do you deny it?

! deny the validity of stories that were written 4-6000 years ago.....

The reasons for our denials are the same.

Back to admitting your denial again. Try to pick a position and stick to it.

 

[dad]

You've said Time has changed. You even say Time is different Here and There. If Time has changed, anything measured using Time has changed. Including the Speed of Light.

No. On earth I have not used time as any significant factor that we know about. Where a question with time arises is in deep space, We don't know what it is like there.

 

[nPeace]

I mean that a specific genetic sequence provides an organism the ability to resist an antibiotic or pesticide.

I don't see any reason to deny that genes play a significant role is resisting and suppressing "foreigners"... as I specifically stated before.

I'm going to focus this part on just single-celled organisms. Since the mutation occurred during replication, the new organism now has the mutation. What comes next depends on the effect the mutation has.

Why focus on single celled... any particular reason for doing so?
Why does the organism automatically have a mutation? What about the repair enzymes? What's wrong with them?