Jan, learn to read, it's NOT the change in the gene pool as you have ERRONEOUSLY stated...it's the change in the FREQUNCY of ALLELES.
pomegranate
JoinedPosts by pomegranate
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Problem: These are NOT substantiated FACTS supported by the FOSSIL RECORD. These are 100% hypothetical WISHES.
Because this is a HUGE problem with the evolutionist. It seems a SHITLOAD of MICROBE Bugs came on the FOSSIL scene of things in ONE FELL SWOOP. BANG.
"Houston, we have a shitload of decomposers, please advise."
The other problem with evolution and bacteria is THEY SPREAD LIKE A RAGING BASTARD.
Go study these little bad asses of biology. There is NO WAY any THEORIZED life form LESSER than a bacteria could have survived the BARRIER WALL OF THE BACTERIA.
From Berkely again:
Bacteria are of such immense importance...capacity for rapid growth and reproduction.
Jan, I'll back off. I AM an arrogant no good SOB sometimes. That's one of my many faults.
Enjoy the thread, I'm outa here.
Adios!!
Edited by - pomegranate on 5 August 2002 16:25:15
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Remember Jan, I will have a hard time believeing ANYTHING you say now because you refute simple SCIENTIFIC FACT out of your own self induced ignorance.
Jan says:
First, bacteria was not the earliest life.
But, the truth is, that is a lie. Every average HIGH SCHOOL science student knows this as FACT.
Right Jan?
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Hey Jan!!
What about BACTERIA you bogus microbiologist?
Now, let's look at your science fact shall we?
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." (Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)
Let's examine the WORD alleles shall we?
allele (
- One member of a pair or series of genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome.
That doesn't CHANGE WITH BIRTH Jan the scam.
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Make sure ya click da PRETTY BLUE link to get you educated OTAY?
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Here ya go Jan the bogus science man - from Berkeley University:
It may seem surprising that bacteria can leave fossils at all. However, one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends far back into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known.
Did you get that Dr. Suess?
Edited by - pomegranate on 5 August 2002 15:55:13
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
You are a BOZO!! At least you make me LAUGH MY ASS OFF!!
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
And yes, a child being born is evolution. When one is born, the species is evolving.
There is not ONE scientist that will agree with this grade school absurdity.
When one is BORN, the species is INCREASING not evolving...
<shaking head, laughing in amazament>
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Only insofar as the periodic table was created by humans as a representation of the elementary blocks of the physical world, and humans are of course life.
Duh. I am talking about the ELEMENTS themselves, not the identifying/naming of them and charting them Jan. What the heck kind of response is this? You said it yourself. THE ELEMENTARY BULIDING BLOCKS. The building blocks ARE COMPLEX.
Oh yeah baby...these complex BUILDING BLOCKS, they just made themselves now didn't they? POOF! there it is. POOF! there it is.
You are simply wrong in saying that all life form only live off organic material. Restating nonsense does not make it less so.
You know Jan, HERE's A LOVELY FACT FOR YOUR FAT EGO: EVERYTHING eats SOMETHING. What's eating you?
Your statement above is as good as the best WT writers in Brooklyn. Claiming something to be wrong with NO FACTS to back it up. It's wrong well, er...well just because you say so HUH? Yeah OK. I better go hide, Jan has spoken.
New sources of nutrition provides new evolutionary niches for life to exploit.
In Jan's make believe world maybe. There is NOTHING new under the sun friend. Evolutionary riches for life to exploit? What the HELL is that?
In a world full of life, naturally species will find ways to use all these rich sources of nutrition.
Ahh, is it me? Or is this pure BS?
The earliest life forms did not have this luxury, so they lived off the basic materials than they first originated in, and non-organic food.
Go back to the laboratory Simon. You're off in the world of the unfactual right now.
This is just ignorant nonsense.
Really? I have yet to see you submit ONE SCIENTIFIC fact. All your doing is spouting self made OPINIONS supported by Jan's keyboard and mouse.
First, bacteria was not the earliest life.
Now I know you're an imbecile.
OK BOZO the clown, a FACT FOR YOU: From MS ENCARTA encyclopedia:
"Bacteria inhabited Earth long before human beings or other living things appeared. The earliest bacteria that scientists have discovered, in fossil remains in rocks, probably lived about 3.5 billion years ago.
OK Jan the astute scientist, did you get THAT FACT SPORT?? Good. Now. If you wanna play debate pomegranate, do yourself a favor. KNOW WHAT THE F*$K you're talking about OK?
Second, the bacteria's role in decay does not make it an enemy of evolution. Quite the opposite. You seem to assume some teleological evolution, which is not what scientists do.
See the the above. You are talking out your anus.
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
pomegranate
Certain bacteria can directly metabolize inorganic materials such as hydrogen sulfide, iron, nitrogen etc.
All of the above mentioned componds are a direct result of DECAYING living things. Evolutionists will have one believe that these inanimate BASIC compouds popped into existence and all came together some how to form life. Yet all the while, what they see all around them is life that dies releasing these very inanimate compounds invarying amounts and degrees depending on what the life form was.
Chemoautotrophic bacteria are the type of bacteria you are refering to. They can exist on crude "chemicals" and materials such as sulpher. The problem for you is, is where did the CRUDE material come from that these chemoautotrophic bacteria use as FOOD TO KEEP EXISTING? I say from preceeding life that falls into decay, which will release ALL of the crude chemicals and base materials that these microorganisms use for FOOD for THEIR continued existence.Fact: Bacteria are the oldest life forms on earth,
So, are we to theorize that all life on earth has evolved from BACTERIA? That must be true if bacteria is first life. BUT, bacteria is an ARCH-ENEMY of evolution. How so? It is scientific fact that ALL bacteria BREAK DOWN matter, organic or inorganic. They are DECOMPOSERS. They DISMANTLE. Evolution is supposed to COMPOSE. Bacteria would KILL evolutionary life before it got off the ground as a COMPOSITION. WATER also is an ENEMY of evolution. Things in water BREAK DOWN. Depolymerization.
Between bacteria, water, and of course the MIRACULOUS appearing of the PERIODIC TABLE of basic elements coming out of freekin nowhere, I'd say evolution bites.
---------------------------------------
Your notion that all food, even at the molecular level is somehow alive, or is the residue of something that once lived is incorrectI believe I have proved you quite incorrect.
Without life, there would be no periodic table. Without the periodic table, there would be no life.
Edited by - pomegranate on 5 August 2002 0:19:21