EVOLUTION is a figment of Chef Mike's imagination.

[ARMANIXXX]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

While I am pressed for time, I thought I would quickly give you something to think about on CREATIONISM vs evolution.



Where are they Chef? Where are they? Are they under your bed? Are they at the gas station pissed off like the rest of us, pumping nearly four dollar gas. Perhaps a few are at McDonalds.....McNuggets are the shiznit huh? Oh....I know, surely they must be at their computers looking for online car insurance. Mabey they'll join us later and send us some new TS porn pics......I'm sure we'd all like that.


Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.

Where are they Chef? Mabey some of the girls have seen em. I'm sure they make great customers. You got a couple stashed away? Well, even if you did, there should be LOTS others.

Ahh... but there's not is there Chef?

Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.


You have nothing sir.......nothing exept a FEW relic bones that show a few deformed humans where there should be THOUSANDS........HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.


Chew on that for a while buddy.


















I have to go now, and fight some traffic........Those fuckin cavemen drive like shit.

[Quinn]

:popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn

[tsntx]

i think they are kinda busy w/ their geico commercials and trying to get their series picked up so they may not be here commenting soon.

[osna]

HUH????????????

[gaiseric]

Armanixxx, I tried very hard to ignore this thread but I can't. You obviously have a deeply held religious belief, but why do you feel the need to inflict it on everyone else.
I have just stated in another thread that I have no religious belief, but on the other hand, it doesn't bother me what other people want to believe. If someone wants to believe in a supreme being that is a blind, 3-legged goat, why should I care. The thing that really pisses me off is when people who hold strong religious beliefs feel the need to ram it down my throat. If you want to believe in words that were written a few hundred years after the supposed event, go for it, just don't try and force it on the rest of us. Accept that we are not all believers and leave it at that.
Religious arguements eventually lead to religious wars - look at history.

[LOCpunks]

Armanixxx, I tried very hard to ignore this thread but I can't. You obviously have a deeply held religious belief, but why do you feel the need to inflict it on everyone else.
I have just stated in another thread that I have no religious belief, but on the other hand, it doesn't bother me what other people want to believe. If someone wants to believe in a supreme being that is a blind, 3-legged goat, why should I care. The thing that really pisses me off is when people who hold strong religious beliefs feel the need to ram it down my throat. If you want to believe in words that were written a few hundred years after the supposed event, go for it, just don't try and force it on the rest of us. Accept that we are not all believers and leave it at that.
Religious arguements eventually lead to religious wars - look at history.

This is all very glib, so I won't address most points. But didn't you say in the circumcision thread that parents shouldn't spread their faith to their children? Not until they are "old enough" to make the decision for themselves? That seems in direct conflict with this statement now that "It doesn't bother me what other people want to believe." Religion is a community and especially family-oriented entity. Just like language and other cultural norms, it has to be taught early on to be effective. A child isn't going to get up by himself, put on a suit and tie, and go out into the world and be a good, moral person. Religion should be approached in that respect. I am actually aethist and anti-fundamentalist myself; but that's just the thing, some of you are so anti-religious that you label anything religious as fundamentalist. People have a right to raise their children. I don't espouse rigid structures when it comes to religion, but to disallow parents from spreading their faith to their children? THAT'S FASCISM. That's the equivalent of disallowing parents from teaching their children MORALS. It's actually very ironic here that the "chilren's rights" advocates here AREN'T Christian fundamentalists.

It seems we've entered an age where children make all their own choices. Parents are no longer necessary.

[specialk]

:popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn

Quinn...I'm out of pcorn, can you spare a bag??

[muhmuh]

...

youre getting the wrong end of the stick here ... all he said was not to push your own beliefs on anyone including your children until theyre old and mature enough to think for themself

also note that christian ethics and christian religion are two seperate entities

[chefmike]

LMFAO at this zealot of a xian who is also an avowed cock-weasel....just ask yourself this IAMAMORONXXX: what would Jesus think?

Isn't there a bible fable that mentions something about bad things happening to sodomites like yourself, deacon?

And while you are denying evolution, would you also care to share with us your belief that the earth is flat, genius?

[Rogers]

Wow, ARMANIXXX, just fucking WOW!!! Maybe you should try google before you embarass yourself:

The top 10 missing links:
http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks-1.html

It takes time to find these skeletons, as the population numbers of these species were very low. Many dinosaurs species had high population numbers, hence more dinosaur fossils have been found.

So how do dinosaurs figure in your thoughts, or lack of thoughts, ARMANIXXX? Or do you think God made dinosaurs fossils just to test our belief in him?

[BeardedOne]

i think they are kinda busy w/ their geico commercials and trying to get their series picked up so they may not be here commenting soon.

[rick_932]

why is there no historical, non-biblical evidence that Jesus existed?

[LOCpunks]

...
all he said was not to push your own beliefs on anyone including your children until theyre old and mature enough to think for themself

also note that christian ethics and christian religion are two seperate entities

I am aware of what he said, and I responded because I take issue with that viewpoint. Using words like "force" and "push" to make points seem more valid doesn't change the fact that people should have the right to teach their children their faith. Because if you're telling me that parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children religion until, what...age 16? 18? Then you're out of your mind.

As for Christian ethics, many people would disagree. They may not be viewed as one and the same, but are certainly viewed by many as hand-in-hand. Just because some of you seem to view teaching Christianity to children as synonomous with fundamentalism doesn't make it so. Some would be wise to actually learn what fundamentalism is.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of bible-belters and fundamentalists. But some of you take this anti-everything-that-isn't-ridiculously-liberal stance too far. As much as you would like to make religion in and of itself appear destructive, it isn't. It is simply political entities which abuse religion to make it so. Raising kids with religion isn't the problem.

[dc_guy_75]

Religiosity and education are negatively correlated.

I'd bet Armani never finished college.

[muhmuh]

I am aware of what he said, and I responded because I take issue with that viewpoint. Using words like "force" and "push" to make points seem more valid doesn't change the fact that people should have the right to teach their children their faith. Because if you're telling me that parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children religion until, what...age 16? 18? Then you're out of your mind.

its a matter of presentation and false interpretation
the were right your wrong no matter what stance you often find in american born again christians and the vatican is the problem here

if you teach your children about your own religion as well as any other religion there is its a proper way of teaching them... if you give them a bible and simply tell them everything in there is the absolute truth and anything that disagrees with whats in there is wrong its bad parenting


Just because some of you seem to view teaching Christianity to children as synonomous with fundamentalism doesn't make it so. Some would be wise to actually learn what fundamentalism is.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of bible-belters and fundamentalists. But some of you take this anti-everything-that-isn't-ridiculously-liberal stance too far. As much as you would like to make religion in and of itself appear destructive, it isn't. It is simply political entities which abuse religion to make it so. Raising kids with religion isn't the problem.

stop putting words in my mouth


edit:


The top 10 missing links:
http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks-1.html

Homo erectus
According to one theory, males rammed each other with their thick skulls in order to win females.

1-2 million years later... nothing much has changed

[Rod la Rod]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

While I am pressed for time, I thought I would quickly give you something to think about on CREATIONISM vs evolution.



Where are they Chef? Where are they? Are they under your bed? Are they at the gas station pissed off like the rest of us, pumping nearly four dollar gas. Perhaps a few are at McDonalds.....McNuggets are the shiznit huh? Oh....I know, surely they must be at their computers looking for online car insurance. Mabey they'll join us later and send us some new TS porn pics......I'm sure we'd all like that.


Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.

Where are they Chef? Mabey some of the girls have seen em. I'm sure they make great customers. You got a couple stashed away? Well, even if you did, there should be LOTS others.

Ahh... but there's not is there Chef?

Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.


You have nothing sir.......nothing exept a FEW relic bones that show a few deformed humans where there should be THOUSANDS........HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.


Chew on that for a while buddy.

Evolution is a hoax?

Please take a remedial biology class.

You don't believe in Darwin's "Natural Selection".

Do you believe in civilization's artificial selection? Do you believe in a French Poodle? How about a Thoroughbred racehorse? Were these species created by God? Did they occur in nature or were they created by man through careful breeding?

Do you believe in gravity? Is the earth flat?

You need to understand what evolution means. You are profoundly ignorant. Really it is not that difficult to understand. Evolution is settled. It is a fact. The mechanism for natural selection is very well established and understood. I am embarrassed for you. The USA is the only advanced country in the world where this kind of ignorance exists.

There really is no excuse for this kind of intellectual laziness. This is a shame.

















I have to go now, and fight some traffic........Those fuckin cavemen drive like shit.

[goldensamba]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

While I am pressed for time, I thought I would quickly give you something to think about on CREATIONISM vs evolution.

Where are they Chef? Where are they?

They are the same place the "burning bush" proof and the "walking across water" proof is among other things. Please tell us you are not seriously calling out Evolution because it lacks enough proof.

If that's the case then the Bible is a book of magic and fairy tales. I am so tired of hearing religious people say it's this way because there is no proof. Since there is no proof for about 90% of the bible then it also must be untrue. You are undone by your own argument.

People with intellect have figured out that it is easily possible to believe in both things if you aren't a nutjob extremist on either side.

[trish]

The theory of evolution makes two main claims:
1. Species have some characteristics that are reliably inheritable, though they are subject to mutation. Darwin explained that many of the inheritable characteristics must somehow be encoded discretely in the genome, otherwise a characteristic that is underrepresented in a population would be quickly diluted and disappear, contrary to what biologists observe.

Today there is absolutely no controversy about the truth of claim 1. I believe everyone posting to this board knows about DNA and how it in essence digitally codes for the proteins that determine how we grow from a mere cell into a human being with brown eyes, black hair etc. Darwin’s prediction was nearly one-hundred years in advance of the actual discovery of the structure and function of DNA. That the code mutates is easily demonstrated with experiments geneticists have performed using fruit flies, bacteria, viruses, frogs etc. and also the experiments nature has performed on unfortunate human beings.

2. In some environments certain characteristics are beneficial and others are detrimental. If a population lives in a particular environment for generations, those genes responsible for detrimental characteristics will be selected against. Barring catastrophic accidents, those coding for beneficial characteristics will be selected for.

There’s nothing controversial here either. Put a population of alligators in northern Alaska and they’ll probably die out. Put a population of rabbits in Australia and they’ll probably thrive. Natural selection is just common sense. What’s not to believe.

Put the two claims together and it easily follows that populations will vary over time as their genetic codes mutate and natural selection acts on the resulting new sets of characteristics that arise. Since sexual compatibility is an inheritable characteristic, it can happen that two populations of the same species can diverge to the point where members of the one population are sexually incompatible with those of the other. In other words, now there are two species instead of one.

Now there are a number of questions to ask. Does it happen? Given the extent of geologic, time have populations varied? Yes. There are many examples within the fossil record. One can observe it happening on the Galapagos Islands. Unfortunately for us a non-sexual version of speciation demonstrably occurs yearly within the Asian populations of the influenza virus.

Next question, did humans evolve in this way from prior primate populations. The same DNA evidence that you use as a juror to send criminals to jail and acquit the innocent conclusively supports the affirmative answer; not to mention that fossil evidence that is never complete but seems to increase every year.

Next question, what does this have to do with religion? The answer is of course: nothing; it has nothing to do with religion. Isn’t that obvious? All this is just boring science. Most of us slept through it during high school and college. But what about the creation story in Genesis? Which one: the one where Eve was made from Adam’s rib or the other one? What about the story of the frost giant who was felled by Odin and became the Earth? Isn’t it clear none of those stories have anything to do with religion? What moral lessons are to be drawn from the story that the every thing was created in six days? How does that help you live your life? When the Bible, the Koran or the Tibetan Book of the Dead make physical claims it’s science…not religion. Often it’s bad science, often wrong science. But given the age of these texts, it’s forgivable science. So let’s forgive it and move on. There’s no need to support the physical, biological or geological claims of any religious text. There is a need to refute them only to the extent they continue to be unjustifiably supported. I think the moral here is: not every thing in the revered texts is religion. Sometimes the authors spoke about other things and sometimes they were wrong. So what? There’s plenty of religion in the good book that we can argue and that has nothing to do with science. But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

[LOCpunks]

if you teach your children about your own religion as well as any other religion there is its a proper way of teaching them...

if you give them a bible and simply tell them everything in there is the absolute truth and anything that disagrees with whats in there is wrong its bad parenting


Don't put words in my mouth either haha. The latter is a textbook example of fundamentalism. What you're saying here is that there are extremely limited ways to teach your children religion - a) teach them about every religion (What are there, thousands? Several thousand, easy.) or b) beat them with a bible. That's just bullshit. That's the narrowmindedness that I take issue with in the first place.

And even regarding Christian fundamentalism in general terms...who are any of us to take issue with their religious customs? Because the child has a "civil right" to not be taught Christianity? I think the very people who are concerned about civil rights should be more concerned about the parents' "civil right" to raise their children as they see fit.

After all, this is America. What are you, a Nazi? :roll:

I kid, I kid. Well, sort of. It's just funny to see in the social and political forum (No, not THIS forum...generally speaking) so many "liberals" telling a group of people how to live their lives, and trying to break down the only institution holding together millions of families and their communites. It just reaks of hypocrisy.

[ARMANIXXX]

Ahhh.


It seems as if I've sparked a little debate here.
Some questioning my authority, experience, education, some even seemingly questioning with whom I'm speaking to.

Where shall I begin?


Tell you what. I'm gonna use the ol KISS method a professor once taught me in college.

I'll just say this:

I've had this arguement MANY times with many of my biological professors. Guess what....NONE of them can answer with certainty...NONE. EVOLUTION is NOT a fact, it is an ongoing, working THEORY.


I'll tell you what, since I've personally seen many primates of the Ape genology, and since I've NEVER seen the GEICO Caveman,

I'll direct this challenge to any and ALL of you:


YOU FIND ME A BREATING AND LIVING MISSING LINK, I WILL GET YOU YOUR OWN GANGBANG WITH ANY AND ALL TS GIRLS THAT YOU WANT AND LIKE.

I promise ;)























Now....be off with you, and sin no more. lol

[North_of_60]

No certainty in science, man.
Even less in religion.
Living in faith is living a lie. You choose.
For myself, thank God I'm an atheist.

[trish]

HEY ARMANIXXX, LOOK IN A MIRROR.


YOU FIND ME A BREATING AND LIVING MISSING LINK, I WILL GET YOU YOUR OWN GANGBANG WITH ANY AND ALL TS GIRLS THAT YOU WANT AND LIKE.

I'll soon send you a list of the TS girls I want at my "party".

[dc_guy_75]

I've had this arguement MANY times with many of my biological professors. lol

You're either slightly retarded, or you've been drinking heavily.

[insert_namehere]

I've had this arguement MANY times with many of my biological professors. lol

You're either slightly retarded, or you've been drinking heavily.

Well, you know.... as opposed to his ADOPTIVE professors.

[Oli]

Ahhh.


It seems as if I've sparked a little debate here.
Some questioning my authority, experience, education, some even seemingly questioning with whom I'm speaking to.

Where shall I begin?


Tell you what. I'm gonna use the ol KISS method a professor once taught me in college.

I'll just say this:

I've had this arguement MANY times with many of my biological professors. Guess what....NONE of them can answer with certainty...NONE. EVOLUTION is NOT a fact, it is an ongoing, working THEORY.

How about this...as the majority here seem to think that evolution is no longer debatable, how about you, Professor, prove that the Genesis creation myth is in fact true?
Is there any physical evidence to back it up?

You see, the lack of evidence you cite as the hole in evolution is the cavern in your argument.

You show us irrefutable evidence, Trish will go to church with you everyday, and she might even consider becoming a Nun!

[muhmuh]

After all, this is America. What are you, a Nazi? :roll:

wow godwins law this early... well thats it for you then

[trish]

only if i can be this kind of nun...

[LOCpunks]

After all, this is America. What are you, a Nazi? :roll:

wow godwins law this early... well thats it for you then

Oh come on, I said immediately after (which you conveniently omitted in your quote) I was joking. Really, I'd like to see your answer. It's easy to roll your eyes and avoid rebutting...but I'm just curious to see where you stand.

[guyone]

Stop picking on my pal ChefMike.

[El_hefe]

>why is there no historical, non-biblical evidence that Jesus existed? <

There is, Josephus, one of the "fathers" of historical scholarship, a contemporary of Jesus & a non believer mentions him in his writings.

[ARMANIXXX]

I've had this arguement MANY times with many of my biological professors. lol

You're either slightly retarded, or you've been drinking heavily.

__________________________________________________ _____________________




Well.....I may have had a drink or 3. lol




Still, My arguement still stands and I don't care if you don't like it.

My arguement of Evolution (primate to modern day man) being an UNPROVEN theory, it IS FACT.

Any arguement to the contrary is conjecture.

I win........Sorry.

*shrug*

*goes back to the porn room*

[White_Male_Canada]

. But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

That`s great.

Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,

how did the first protein invent itself ?

[trish]

The Bible doesn't tell us how the first protein was formed. Why not? Because it's not a religious question. So if and when it is finally understood in some detail, there will be nothing in the Bible to confirm or contradict that understanding. Are you threatened by this question? Why?

[Rogers]

. But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

That`s great.

Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,

how did the first protein invent itself ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

[White_Male_Canada]

The Bible doesn't tell us how the first protein was formed. Why not? Because it's not a religious question. So if and when it is finally understood in some detail, there will be nothing in the Bible to confirm or contradict that understanding. Are you threatened by this question? Why?

Nope.

It`s all science and evolution, so describe to us how the first protein ever, invented and constructed itself.

[trish]

What's all science and evolution?

[White_Male_Canada]

. But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

That`s great.

Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,

how did the first protein invent itself ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

You`re kidding right ? Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to 80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive "potentials for sequentional evolution" ! ?

Cassette mutagenesis experiments suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.Recent mutagenesis research has provided additional support for the conclusion that functional proteins are exceedingly rare among possible amino acid sequences. The probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10 to the 77 power.

[trish]

I don’t know how the first protein was formed on Earth or found it’s way to Earth. Neither do you. I take it you’re hinting that God made it. I’m guessing there are no gods. But neither of those two propositions (in the forms I just gave them) are very meaningful hypothesis when it comes to explaining what we want to know about the appearance of the first proteins. To say that God made the first protein may or may not be correct, but it doesn’t tell me anything about how that protein was made or how it got here. Neither does the simple assumption that it occurred without supernatural aid. Obviously I’m not the one who’s going to tell everyone how the first proteins formed. It’s no great triumph to point your finger and shout, “You can’t explain the appearance of the first proteins,” because you don’t have an explanation either. In the race to find an explanation, it does seem the Urey-Miller experiments point in a promising direction. I’m not up on the directions toward which the god hypothesis is pointing. Maybe you can fill us in on the chemical pathways the Christians are proposing.

As far as the evolution of man goes (which was the initiating question of this thread), the case is quite different. The mechanisms are understood and the evidence is well documented and still mounting. Man evolved from primates.

[White_Male_Canada]

In the race to find an explanation, it does seem the Urey-Miller experiments point in a promising direction. .

To repeat myself:

You`re kidding right ? Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to 80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive "potentials for sequentional evolution" ! ?

[trish]

To repeat myself without shouting,

Maybe you can fill us in on the chemical pathways the Christians are proposing.

[guyone]

If you've got so many problems with religion why don't you just stop going to church?

[White_Male_Canada]

To repeat myself without shouting,

Maybe you can fill us in on the chemical pathways the Christians are proposing.

At issue here is not God but your central premise.Whether you speak one of the modern creeds,be it communism,socialism,neo-marxism,existentialism,positivism,freudism,atheism ,etc.All these doctrines of which one of you probably belong to took as their point of departure the so called “death of God”.All resting on the fundamental conviction , once thought to be scientifically demonstrated,that human life arose in the universe as a chance event.All had this in common,the central idea of the “random universe”.

Dawkins himself noted that scientific theories (neo darwinism) can rely on only so much “luck” before they cease to be credible.Now, when will the atheist/darwinists prove a single protein arose unaided.

[trish]

At issue here is the very issue YOU brought up several posts back: how can we account, in detail (you wanted details, right?), for the appearance of proteins on Earth. I concede God may or may not have made them, but neither proposal answers the question. Let’s grant that God made them. What did He use? Which protein did He make first? Which building blocks did He make first? Did he construct the building blocks for the first time as He was linking them into the first protein? Did He have to defy entropy or was His procedure in accord with thermodynamics. A proper answer to your question will no doubt provide answers to some of these questions as well.

[White_Male_Canada]

At issue here is the very issue YOU brought up several posts back: how can we account, in detail (you wanted details, right?), for the appearance of proteins on Earth. I concede God may or may not have made them, but neither proposal answers the question. Let’s grant that God made them. What did He use? Which protein did He make first? Which building blocks did He make first? Did he construct the building blocks for the first time as He was linking them into the first protein? Did He have to defy entropy or was His procedure in accord with thermodynamics. A proper answer to your question will no doubt provide answers to some of these questions as well.

Ideals such as ID and the anthropoc principle are de reguire.Planck`s constant, h , and , g . The slightest infinitesimal change in any of these values would have resulted in a universe so profoundly different as to be unrecognizable and radically inhospitable to life.

Einstein said that the greatest velocity possible is that of light in free space. Nothing can go faster because, mass increases with velocity. It would take an almost infinite amount of thrust to increase the speed of the almost infinitely massive object, the ship your inside of.At the speed of light, the almost disappears, and we have an infinite mass needing an infinite amount of energy to keep it traveling at the infinite speed of light.

Now scientists beleive all this without ever experiencing any of it. They just accept it never asking why. But, their approach, on behalf of their career, respects their tabus. Where a Christian's universe is described in historic terms or metaphor, a physicist`s universe is made of numbers.The scientists say it is infinite, not comprehensible, or simply not known yet. The religionist or non-secular scientist, says that which is ultimate and not known, should be described by what is known, plus logic.

source;Larry Leonard

[trish]

You're the one who asked the technical question and thought its answer would somehow be religiously significant. If you think you're in a better position to answer it, then please do. Which protein did God make first and how did He make it?

[White_Male_Canada]

You're the one who asked the technical question and thought its answer would somehow be religiously significant. If you think you're in a better position to answer it, then please do. Which protein did God make first and how did He make it?

Just did. To repeat :

Now scientists beleive all this without ever experiencing any of it. They just accept it never asking why. But, their approach, on behalf of their career, respects their tabus. Where a Christian's universe is described in historic terms or metaphor, a physicist`s universe is made of numbers.The scientists say it is infinite, not comprehensible, or simply not known yet. The religionist or non-secular scientist, says that which is ultimate and not known, should be described by what is known, plus logic.

You`re the numbers person. When will the atheist/darwinists scientifically prove a single protein arose unaided.

[trish]

Never. The assertion that "proteins arose unaided" is not a scientific hypothesis. At least not in that vague form. Care to be more specific about what you mean by "unaided" and what you mean by "prove".

[Oli]

. But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

That`s great.

Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,

how did the first protein invent itself ?

:offtopic Nice thread hijack asshole.

[Rogers]

. But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

That`s great.

Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,

how did the first protein invent itself ?

:offtopic Nice thread hijack asshole.
He's playing a flanker, Oli. He knows that there is nothing in the fossil record that backs up Creationism, so he's asking us to prove how the first proteins (i.e. the basic building blocks of life) were formed. We can only make proteins ourselves using complex experiments. So he's implying that God did it. He forgets, that although we can make our own proteins, we cannot recreate fusion. Yet a fusion reaction is initiated every time a star fires up. So does God go around the Universe lighting stars? _Canada, will probably say yes, he does, or he gets one of his Angels to do it. :lol: 8)

[White_Male_Canada]

But in the world of physical fact, modern science reigns.

That`s great.

Let`s take a step back to the beginning Trish ol` gal,

how did the first protein invent itself ?


:offtopic Nice thread hijack asshole.


He's playing a flanker, Oliquote

And you`re being sincere as a know-nothing Google cut and paste moron:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

You`re kidding right ? Using purified water/dumping in ampicillin/super heating to 80C/centrifuging/adding reagents/SEEDING/non-conclusive "potentials for sequentional evolution" ! ?

To google, cut and paste the long discredited U.M. experiment CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY tells us you`re an ignoramous.

[trish]

Will Christians ever prove a god, or several of them, constructed the first proteins? Of course not. When and if we deduce the chemical pathways that lead to the first proteins we will only know they were the end result of natural processes that were initiated under a given set of presumed primordial conditions. Then we can always speculate whether or not a committee of gods was responsible for those initial conditions. And so the question of creation and design arises again. Answering the question for proteins will be of interest to those of us interested in the physical world and how it works, but it has no bearing, absolutely none on the religious question of whether or not the gods exist. It WILL, however, answer the question, was there a god who did it literally within a six day limit, and I think we already know the answer to that one.

[LG]

I can't believe I missed this whole discussion.

I can't believe there are still people who deny that evolution, as a theory, makes more sense than any creationist bullshit.

I can't believe that they think that only finding the missing link can ever prove evolutionists right when they are unable to explain dinosaurs, Noah's ark, the geological age aof the earth and the common links between different species.

I can't believe they don't know that we share 97% of our DNA with the two species of chimpanzees, including the bonobo, the only animal with a higher sex drive than human.

I can't believe that they don't manage, if they are so religious, to reconcile their religion with neo-Darwinism and accept evolution as a mechanism by which God might act, but would rather accept that there is no mechanism at all.

I can't believe they don't know anything about pepper moths, which prove natural selection in action, about the new strains of microbes and experiments on drosophila flies that show exactly how natural section can produce new trait and- in the case of bacteria- whole new species.

I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Maybe God provided the initial spark and set the ball rolling, or maybe some electrical impulse or effect of a heat change altered those first proteins (the point is not how the first proteins arose- after all, proteins are no more than clumps of amino acids composed of three relatively plentiful elements- but when and how the first clump of proteins and other molecules began to qualify as living) but even that's not the question here. Do we accept that populations can adapt, survive or die based on how suitable they are for their environment (or 'fit') and that this can lead to the creation of news species, especially when mutations can create new genotypes that are phenotypically similar, perhaps, but more adept at survival? Or do we just say God threw all these creatures down on earth and that was it? And that he did it all in a week and with a day off at the end to unwind and play a round of golf as well?

And here's an interesting piece for you from the SciAm and something from the NCSE:


New Creation Museum Mostly Illustrates that Creationists Have Lots of Cash

The guy who developed the Jaws and King Kong rides at Universal Studios is behind the new Creation Museum, which is set to open May 28 just south of Cincinnati. (The Times has a great review.)

Pro: Now Cincinnati will be known for something other than race riots.

Con: Now Young Earth Creationism, which one would hope would be recognized as both bad theology and bad science, has its Mecca. (Can a Hajj be far behind?)

(For those of you unfamiliar with Young Earth Creationism, it's worth noting that one of its central tenets is that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that dinosaurs are in fact Dragons. Really!)



And now a word about the creation "museum"

The young-earth creationist ministry Answers in Genesis opened the doors of its lavish creation museum in northern Kentucky during the Memorial Day weekend. Here is a sampling of memorable quotes from the press coverage:

"Taking the Bible seriously doesn't mean you have to take it literally or reject evolution." -- Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, quoted in the Chicago Daily Southtown (May 27, 2007)

"It is important to remind our teachers, our education leaders, our public officials, our legislators, concerned parents and ourselves that a commitment to science education is essential for bolstering America's faltering leadership in science and technology globally. Supporting the creationist museum instead of supporting rigorous science education will not help us achieve this leadership goal." -- Thomas Gregg, Jnanendra K. Bhattacharjee, and Gary Janssen, all professors of science at Miami University, writing in the Cincinnati Enquirer (May 26, 2007)

"Twenty-seven million is a lot of money. I wonder what that would do for real education. This is shameful." -- Edwin Kagin, organizer of the Rally for Reason, quoted in the Cincinnati Post (May 29, 2007)

"This may be fascinating, but this is nonsense ... It's fine for people to believe whatever they want. What's inappropriate is to then essentially lie and say science supports these notions." -- Lawrence M. Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University and a board member of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon), quoted in the Washington Post (May 27, 2007)

Asked to rate the museum on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best: "I'd give it a 4 for technology, 5 for propaganda. As for content, I'd give it a negative 5." -- Lawrence M. Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University and a board member of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon), quoted by the Associated Press (May 29, 2007)

"No qualified spokesperson or group for the scientific community recognizes any part of this as a museum." -- Steve Rissing, a professor of biology at the Ohio State University and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science, quoted in the Dayton Daily News (May 26, 2007)

They will get kids coming into classrooms saying, 'My mom took me to this great, fancy museum this summer, and they say you're lying to me' ... This is not a good way to start the science class." -- NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott, quoted in the Cincinnati Post (May 25, 2007)

Also worth a visit are Martha Heil's discussion of the media coverage at The Panda's Thumb blog, P. Z. Myers's extensive collection of blog reactions to the museum's opening on his Pharyngula blog, and Lawrence M. Krauss's creation museum guide "Top 10 Reasons Why the Universe, the Sun, the Earth, and Life are not 6000 years old" (PDF).

[muhmuh]

Do we accept that populations can adapt, survive or die based on how suitable they are for their environment (or 'fit')

btw while we have this discussion
is anybody good enough in etymology to find out when fit turned from meaning suitable to meaning physically strong?

[LG]

Do we accept that populations can adapt, survive or die based on how suitable they are for their environment (or 'fit')

btw while we have this discussion
is anybody good enough in etymology to find out when fit turned from meaning suitable to meaning physically strong?

From etymonline:
fit (adj.) Look up fit at Dictionary.com
"suited to the circumstances, proper," c.1440, of unknown origin, perhaps from M.E. noun fit "an adversary of equal power" (c.1250), which is perhaps connected to fit (n.1). The verb meaning "to be the right shape" is first attested 1581. First record of fitness is from 1580. Survival of the fittest (1867) coined by H. Spencer.

Incidentally, in the UK, the terms 'fit' and 'well fit' can refer to physcial attractiveness, as in:
"Gor blimey, Kiff, look at that bird! She's well fit, in'she?"
"I wouldn't call 'er fit, Nige; I'd say she looks like a slag, but I s'pose I wouldn't kick her out of me bed".

[muhmuh]

Survival of the fittest (1867) coined by H. Spencer.

hm this would support my hunch that fit as strong is largely interconnected with social darwinism and the misinterpretation of darwins ideas

[guyone]

Hey LG. Nice avatar but still miss the Maoist.

[LG]

Hey LG. Nice avatar but still miss the Maoist.

Thanks guyone. The sexy Asian girl might make a comeback, but I'm in the mood for a little Lou Reed right now...

[trish]

The recent issue of Nature (447 28 June 2007 pg1055-6) has a review of Michael Behe’s recent effort The Edge of Evolution. The review is by Brown University biologist Professor Kenneth Miller.

I should like to quote a few paragraphs:


“Behe cites the malaria literature to note that two amino-acid changes in the digestive-vacuole membrane protein PfCRT (at positions 76 and 220) of Plasmodium are required to confer chloroquine resistance. From a report that spontaneous resistance to the drug can be found in roughly 1 parasite in 1020, he asserts that these are the odds of both mutations arising in a single organism, and uses them to make this sweeping assertion:


"On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten million years. Since that is many times the age of the universe, it's reasonable to conclude the following: No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years."


Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the odds of a mutation "of the same complexity" occurring in the human line. He hasn't. What he has actually done is to determine the odds of these two exact mutations occurring simultaneously at precisely the same position in exactly the same gene in a single individual. He then leads his unsuspecting readers to believe that this spurious calculation is a hard and fast statistical barrier to the accumulation of enough variation to drive darwinian evolution.
It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.
Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result. Not only are each of these conditions unrealistic, but they do not apply even in the case of his chosen example. First, he overlooks the existence of chloroquine-resistant strains of malaria lacking one of the mutations he claims to be essential (at position 220). This matters, because it shows that there are several mutational routes to effective drug resistance. Second, and more importantly, Behe waves away evidence suggesting that chloroquine resistance may be the result of sequential, not simultaneous, mutations (Science 298, 74–75; 2002), boosted by the so-called ARMD (accelerated resistance to multiple drugs) phenotype, which is itself drug induced.
A mistake of this magnitude anywhere in a book on science is bad enough, but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error.”


So a word of warning: don’t waste your money on Behe’s newest blunder. Subscribe to Nature, or Science or Scientific American or any of a number of other real science journals or magazines instead.

[muhmuh]

its moot point anyway... both bacteria and viruses have a huge evolutionary advantage over multi cell organisms and despite all that neither have we died out from infections nor are all strains as harmless as herpes or warts by now
obviously our immune systems red queen is running every bit as fast as theirs

[trish]

The Sisyphus allusion seems really appropo to your last post.

[AjaxSwann]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

Where are they?

Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.

Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.
.

OK. Lemme get this straight. Since you can't find a Missing Link between Man and Ape, you trash the enitre concept of Evolution?

Evolution involves the gradual change of organisms over time, as they adapt to changes their environment, and pass on the adapted genes to their offspring, generation after generaton after generation.

You don't need an Ape Man to see that occurring.

And you don't need millions of years to notice a change in how animals or even humans change over time.

Creationism is based on faith in a higher power.
Evolution is based on science.

Your beliefs are your own affair. But belief in God(s) doesn't prove anything about the Universe was created, now where the Missing Link is.

A Missing Link isn't necessary to prove/disprove Evolution.

[SmashysmashY]

How do you explain endogenous retroviral gene insertion without common descent?

[dderek123]

I've watched and listened to your ramblings of "God" being a "made up" entity for a while.

Where are they?

Who's "they" you ask? The proverbial caveman of course. The Missing link. The transitional man in between ape and Human.

Bottom line, your claim of CREATIONISM being a hoax, I'm here to tell you your Evolutionary belief is no more functional.....LESS so in fact.
.

OK. Lemme get this straight. Since you can't find a Missing Link between Man and Ape, you trash the enitre concept of Evolution?

Evolution involves the gradual change of organisms over time, as they adapt to changes their environment, and pass on the adapted genes to their offspring, generation after generaton after generation.

You don't need an Ape Man to see that occurring.

And you don't need millions of years to notice a change in how animals or even humans change over time.

Creationism is based on faith in a higher power.
Evolution is based on science.

Your beliefs are your own affair. But belief in God(s) doesn't prove anything about the Universe was created, now where the Missing Link is.

A Missing Link isn't necessary to prove/disprove Evolution.

I think there is some confusion in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Creationism is the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. The theory of Evolution has been observed in many life forms including humans. Creationism has never been observed, ever (and no, the intelligent design argument does not hold water).

Why can't both be accurate/correct? God or some omnipotent Creator could have created the earth, the moon, the stars, the galaxies and the universe a long time ago. And then Evolution kicked in and has taken us to where we are now. Evolution is a theory of if/how life forms change over time. Evolution does not address how life began. It only has to deal with how life changes over time due to mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. This is why I see as arguing over Creationism vs. Evolution is like arguing over apples vs. oranges.

Abiogenesis is the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. This is what should be compared with Creationism. Both address how life began long, long ago. On the Abiogenesis side some say the Big Bang was how life began. Creationists argue life was created by God. Yet neither has been observed nor can be proven. Some say evidence of the Big Bang can be seen by observing how the universe is expanding, but that is not a proof. Creationists argue that God must have created everything just because he did. So it boils down to a matter of faith. You can believe in Creationism or Abiogenesis but you can’t base it on a logical proof or material evidence (not yet).
So what do you chose? Both could be considered very sound theories. Remember that relatively short time ago scientific “experts” believed the earth was flat. And not so long ago experts “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around. I personally think ones personal choice for Creationism vs. Abiogenesis or Science vs. Religion is mostly guided by what they WANT to believe. If you find it more comforting to believe in Creationism then go right ahead who am I to say you are wrong? If you find it makes more sense to rest your beliefs on scientific theories then that’s just fine as well.
But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.

Here’s some food for though on the subject. (I didn’t create these, and all of them are quite long)

http://glumbert.com/media/watchmaker
http://glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism
http://glumbert.com/media/dawkinsbishop
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/113
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22

[tsafficianado]

dderek boldly suggests as follows

But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.

sorry derek, we don't allow none of that stuff around here. you start in with that 'open eyes and open minds' stuff on this thread and you will find yourself outside looking in.

[dderek123]

dderek boldly suggests as follows

But, I believe it is important to continuously question your beliefs. To challenge your own and others ideas would be most healthy for everyone. Also, I believe it is most important that this practice ought to be carried out peacefully between people with open eyes and open minds.

sorry derek, we don't allow none of that stuff around here. you start in with that 'open eyes and open minds' stuff on this thread and you will find yourself outside looking in.

Yeah I figured as much, messageboards don't usually have the most openminded debators. Just a bunch of Master Debators... lol. I've been a lurker on this board for a while and it's definitely not as bad as YouTube comments (that's not setting the bar very high at all though). I just wanted to try to clear up the Creationism vs. Evolution bit. It's a misunderstanding thats really common.
But seriously, I've argued with people until I was blue in the face over politics and science vs. religion. And usually at the beginning I'm very eager to engage in discussing, and by the end I'm fed up with talking. I think it's because when you discuss these things you're indirectly challenging someone's beliefs of how everything came to existence. When you challenge that people tend to immediately go on the defensive/offensive or just ignore you. It's kind of difficult to imagine, but challenging someone's beliefs on how everything works can really shake up their reality and twist the world upside down on them so to speak.

It's possible, but not very probable that someone will be "converted" on an internet messageboad or in a pub or in a living room.

[trish]

dderek’s proposal looks like a compromise, but neither side can agree to the dual proposal. First the compromise is inconsistent with genesis which clearly states god created (and later noah selected) all the animals of the world. It’s biological design and creationism that fundamentalists want to teach as science in our public schools. Second, biologists might allow that god created the galaxies, the solar system and earth, but astrophysicists can demonstrate that that’s contrary to the evidence.

[karenandfriends]

Just Google ken miller or watch some of his videos on youtube. Every field in science supports evolution. Vaccines are based on evolutionary science and would not work otherwise. Evolution in no way disproves god and Ken Miller is a devout Christian.

It’s the intellectual equivalent of saying the sun goes around the earth. Soon as you say it anybody with quarter of a brain just shuts up and walks away thinking, oohh boy this guys a retard, I think I need to put some distance between me and him.

I still think it’s cute that out of all the gods there is to choose from, the one your parents happened to believe in is the real one and all the people born in other countries with parents believing in other gods have it all wrong.

I’m not implying that Americans are stupid and that you’re a mental midget…oh no wait yes I am.

[chefmike]

LMAO...one day I really need to count all the threads by angry posters where I am somehow part of the topic/title...gotta be close to twenty by now...it ain't easy being me...

[hippifried]

There's no missing link. Nothing's missing at all. What a silly request.

[Thatiger23]

:popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn

Hey Quinn i was wondering did you make a lot of popcorn and if u did can u pass a bag?

[trish]

An Imagined Conversation Between Simplicio and Savantus.

Savantus: Hi, Simplicio, how goes it?

Simplicio: Hello, Savantus. Not so well?

Savantus: Let me guess. You still have doubts your parents are really your parents.

Simplicio: I still have my doubts, yes.

Savantus: You look very much like them. You have your mother’s eyes and nose, your father’s chin and mouth.

Simplicio: No doubt we share those characteristics; I believe we are related. Possibly they are my grandparents.

Savantus: Your grandparents! Hey, I remember the last time we talked the three of you were having an DNA analysis done. How’d that go?

Simplicio: The doctors were happy enough, but to my mind it was inclusive.

Savantus: How so?

Simplicio: They determined that half of my chromosomes were identical to a subset of my alleged father's chromosomes and the other to my alleged mother's.

Savantus: How is that inclusive?

Simplicio: It’s just test tubes, microscopes and centrifuges. You know theoretical stuff.

Savantus: So you prefer to believe those are your grandparents and not your parents?

Simplicio: I have no choice. I have my grandfather’s mouth and chin, my grandmother’s eyes and nose. But I’m taller than both of them! Neither of them have my hairline or my smallish ears. There must be someone who shares more of my characteristics and theirs; a missing link between me and them…my parents.

Savantus: I see. Suppose you find your parents. Given that the number of possible characteristics is nearly infinite, do you suppose that you will have traits that neither of them share?

Simplicio: Possibly….but then there will be another gap. How will I know they are my real parents and not my grandparents?

Savantus: What if you never find a couple who fill the gap exactly as you expect? What if there is no "missing link"?

Simplicio: Obviously, if there's no one between the couple who I now take to be my grandparents and me, then I'm not even related to my presumed grandparents! If there's no link to join the chains, there are just two unrelated chains, right?

Savantus: You’ve got a real problem there, Simplicio.

[blacktgirls]

LMFAO at this zealot of a xian who is also an avowed cock-weasel....just ask yourself this IAMAMORONXXX: what would Jesus think?

Isn't there a bible fable that mentions something about bad things happening to sodomites like yourself, deacon?

And while you are denying evolution, would you also care to share with us your belief that the earth is flat, genius?are you calling him a sodomite because he likes oral sex or are you saying he is a sodomite because you think the females on this forum were not born emotionally and self identifiably female?

[dafame]

The truth is we did not evolve from primates nor did an entity created the universe in 7 days and 7 nights. We are a genetically engineered species.

They can't find the missing like because it doesn't exist. Humans do not fit into the natural cycle of species development on this planet for at all because we are not from this planet in totality. A superior race of beings came to this planet for resources. Only they needed a slave that would be better adapted to working in our environment. So they altered the dna of one of the creatures that was already here. One that had the physical characteristics that would allow them to perform the tasks required (this was a more recent relative of the primate). They infused some of their own dna into this creature and the end result was us.

If we evolved from primates why are they 10 times stronger than we are?

Why do we have 46 chromosomes to their 48? That's an awful lot of dna to just vanish.

That's the truth although it may be hard to believe. Religion however is a hoax. It preys on mans instinctual need to attempt to master the Oedipus Complex. God is the ultimate father figure and he keeps us safe from everything that goes bump in the night. www.zeitgeistmovie.com

[chefmike]

A superior race of beings came to this planet for resources. Only they needed a slave that would be better adapted to working in our environment. So they altered the dna of one of the creatures that was already here. One that had the physical characteristics that would allow them to perform the tasks required (this was a more recent relative of the primate). They infused some of their own dna into this creature and the end result was us.
LMAO...uh huh...makes perfect sense to me...and I thought that it was the bible bangers who were spouting nonsense...silly me :roll:

[chefmike]

A superior race of beings came to this planet for resources. Only they needed a slave that would be better adapted to working in our environment. So they altered the dna of one of the creatures that was already here. One that had the physical characteristics that would allow them to perform the tasks required (this was a more recent relative of the primate). They infused some of their own dna into this creature and the end result was us.
Actually that sounds a lot like the BS that scientologists espouse, and look at all the schmucks that they've duped...maybe you could even start YOUR own religion, huh?

And it would also be tax-exempt(like scientology) so you could give more money to Zod!

Kneel before Zod!

[trish]

defame conjectures:
The truth is we did not evolve from primates... A superior race of beings came to this planet for resources. ... they altered the dna of one of the creatures that was already here.

Actually this much of the story is consistent with the fact that we evolved from primates. However, the story rejects natural selection as the mechanism.
But of course the story goes on...

... They infused some of their own dna into this creature and the end result was us.
Now we do share something like 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. The codes that are distinct are not Earth shatteringly different from the codes we share. A lot of our biological differences stem simply from the timing of gene activation during morphogenesis.

Why do we have 46 chromosomes to their 48? That's an awful lot of dna to just vanish.
That's an interesting question. You should look it up (so should I but I'm kinda multitasking here at the moment already). As I recall reading, it can be shown that four of our chromosomes are halves of two of the Chimpanzee chromosomes. (If I get time, I get back to you on this point.)[Edit: Actually I've got it backwards. We've a fused pair of "ape" chromosomes. Hence we have one less pair than do apes, but almost exactly the same amount of genetic material. See my post below]
Genetically, it seems our development is not out of the natural order of terrestrial events.

If we evolved from primates why are they 10 times stronger than we are?
If penquins evolved from birds...indeed are birds...why can't they fly? Because they came down from the skies and took to the land and water. We aren't as strong as apes because we came down from the trees, where upper arm strength is a requisite for survival.

They can't find the missing like
You don't doubt Penquins have evolved from flying birds, but do you have a link? There are lots of links that lead from Chimpanzee to Homo-sapiens. Where in the pantheon (of) primates is the gap any more significant than the gap between Penquin and it's nearest known ancestor?
Indeed what counts as a gap? See my post above. The modern fossil evidence (DNA) shows no gaps in either line.

Natural selection and mutable genes make a sufficient and indeed a rather mundane explanation for the existence of humans on Earth. It is consistent with genetic and fossil evidence. It's internal and external consistency along with it(s) very mudane nature gives us reason to think it likely true.

Alien mutation of existencing species would "explain" the existence of humans on Earth too. But why should we believe it? Why Aliens? Why not Gods? Or God? What explains the existence of the Aliens or the Gods? Wouldn't their evolution have been unnatural on their planet? What you want us to believe is that the first conscious thinking species to evolve on a planet is by its nature unnatural and requires an explanation that goes beyond the biology of the host planet. That I don't buy.

[hippifried]

LUCY!

You got some 'splainin' to do! :shrug

[trish]

we've a fused pair of chromosomes, explaining why we've got 46 instead of 48 chromosomes. Here's one elementary link on the topic:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

[dafame]

we've a fused pair of chromosomes, explaining why we've got 46 instead of 48 chromosomes. Here's one elementary link on the topic:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Trish what do you look like? I've been slowly falling in love with your mind with each post of yours I read.

[chefmike]

Trish is so smart that it sometimes makes my head hurt just trying to understand what she says...

[trish]

That's NOT FAIR. ILLEGAL USE OF FLATTERY! :oops: :oops:

[trish]

LUCY!

You got some 'splainin' to do! :shrug

I'm sooo fuckin' slow, I just now got this joke! BABALOOOOOO!!! :D
(it's was the word 'splainin' that hit me on second reading)

[hippifried]

:lol: