Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: kyomu on September 13, 2009, 08:51:27 AM
-
I am really flipped at the movie called "Creation" is banned because of only 39% of american citizen are believing in evolution theory.
How about you guys? Especialy American Getbigers.
-
haha wtf only 39%?
Oh well, better than somewhere like the Philippines where its only like 0.1
-
39%
That can't be right.
-
haha wtf only 39%?
Oh well, better than somewhere like the Philippines where its only like 0.1
Yahoo news is saying this now. I have just read it now.
-
it always amazes me the level of intelligence of guys on this board who are mainly americans and contradict every view i have on americans in general.
im serious
-
it always amazes me the level of intelligence of guys on this board who are mainly americans and contradict every view i have on americans in general.
Thanks Flodder.
-
Thanks Flodder.
There is huge difference between inteligent and fool in USA.
Very inteligent or extremely stupid. There is no middle.
-
There is huge difference between inteligent and fool in USA.
Very inteligent or extremely stupid. There is no middle.
See red states VS blue states !
-
See red states VS blue states !
What is? Movie?
-
There is huge difference between inteligent and fool in USA.
Very inteligent or extremely stupid. There is no middle.
I'm an educated fool with Michelle Pfeiffer on my mind.
Got my 10 in my hand and a gleam in my eye.
-
I'm an educated fool with Michelle Pfeiffer on my mind.
Got my 10 in my hand and a gleam in my eye.
A fool dont call him/her self as a fool. ;)
-
It's not a Theory its the TRUTH.
-
The only parts of America that are "smart" are the Northeast and Western coasts. We don't consider the rest to be the "smart" parts of America.
-
It's not a Theory its the TRUTH.
Evolution theory is 100% truth. But Darwins mutation theory is not 100% truth.
-
I am really flipped at the movie called "Creation" is banned because of only 39% of american citizen are believing in evolution theory.
How about you guys? Especialy American Getbigers.
The best thing they can do is ban a movie it only serves to create ( no pun ) more interest .
-
The only parts of America that are "smart" are the Northeast and Western coasts. We don't consider the rest to be the "smart" parts of America.
Well, you are one of the guy who believe that Obama and those politicians are ruling your country. ::)
-
darwin was a dumb ass niggaaahh haha
giraffes reaching for high trees so their necks grew haha what a bitch
-
darwin was a dumb ass niggaaahh haha
giraffes reaching for high trees so their necks grew haha what a bitch
What do you want to say? You dont believe in the evolution?
-
Well, you are one of the guy who believe that Obama and those politicians are ruling your country. ::)
Haha, and you're one of those retards that thinks the Illuminati exists and pulls the strings from the shadows with every significant event on this planet.
What's worse? Not believing in the theory of evolution or claiming that Paco's steroid cycle isn't much bigger than the cycles of anyone else who uses? Delusional is delusional.
-
What do you want to say? You dont believe in the evolution?
no i do but darwin was dumb^^
he had his points but you know...^^
-
Haha, and you're one of those retards that thinks the Illuminati exists and pulls the strings from the shadows with every significant event on this planet.
What's worse? Not believing in the theory of evolution or claiming that Paco's steroid cycle isn't much bigger than the cycles of anyone else who uses? Delusional is delusional.
Again, No I am not believe in Iluminatti thing.
But, economic dinasties are the king.
In Japan, Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo...etc.
In your country, Roth child, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan...etc
If you study macro economy and history a bit, you will understand it EASILY.
-
what was Darwin's belief on striated glutes?
-
Again, No I am not believe in Iluminatti thing.
But, economic dinasties are the king.
In Japan, Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo...etc.
In your country, Roth child, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan...etc
If you study macro economy and history a bit, you will understand it EASILY.
So you've changed your tune? You used to talk about the Illuminati and how you had a "feeling" about things. It was pretty easy to tell that you didn't know jack shit when you tried to pass a feeling off as fact without any evidence backing it up.
And let's be honest. How are the bible thumpers any different from you? One sucks the bible's dick in between being spoon fed lies and you suck Paco's dick in between being spoon fed lies. Two birds of a feather.
-
I think it's valid up to a certain point, like causing variation within the species and perhaps the genus level. But I don't think it is correct or applicable when it comes to explaining the whole picture - inanimate matter "evolving" into complex life forms, all the way up till humans.
I think most of the current theories in evolutionary biology are wrong and that the origin of humanity was engineering, rather than evolution.
-
what was Darwin's belief on striated glutes?
it has its beginning 2 bio. years before christmas when the tyranosaurus striatedglutus was on his peak
-
there's nothing to believe in when it comes to science
-
I think it's valid up to a certain point, like causing variation within the species and perhaps the genus level. But I don't think it is correct or applicable when it comes to explaining the whole picture - inanimate matter "evolving" into complex life forms, all the way up till humans.
I think most of the current theories in evolutionary biology are wrong and that the origin of humanity was engineering, rather than evolution.
The Illuminati crafted humans from dirt in the depths of Atlantis. Kyomu had a feeling about this.
-
darwin was a dumb ass niggaaahh haha
giraffes reaching for high trees so their necks grew haha what a bitch
You either are jesting or you have no grasp on what Darwin actually said.
-
So you've changed your tune? You used to talk about the Illuminati and how you had a "feeling" about things. It was pretty easy to tell that you didn't know jack shit when you tried to pass a feeling off as fact without any evidence backing it up.
And let's be honest. How are the bible thumpers any different from you? One sucks the bible's dick in between being spoon fed lies and you suck Paco's dick in between being spoon fed lies. Two birds of a feather.
Sorry, Never. I am not Sevas.
Have you ever travel to another country and raise any business?
Have you ever had a extremely economicaly powerful friends?
I dont believe in anything. Just I say what i saw directly.
-
And we're off. Another multimillionaire Getbigger that has seen things only a handful of the most powerful people on the planet have! And from a rice cake factory in Barcelona nonetheless!
-
most is true, a big part is speculative and some things have alrdy been proven as being wrong. Also darwin didnt know about genes but their discovery happened shortly after what he and another guy discovered ( he shared / took a lot of stuff from other people of the same era).
-
The Illuminati crafted humans from dirt in the depths of Atlantis. Kyomu had a feeling about this.
LOL! I'm not talking about the illuminati or reptilians from Nibiru or anything. But there are more gaps and anomalies in the fossil record than there is enough evidence to conclusively back up Darwin's theory - fossil records of human beings dating up to 100s of millions of years ago, including (very limited) evidence of even ancient technology and so forth.
-
And we're off. Another multimillionaire Getbig that has seen things only a handful of the most powerful people on the planet have! And from a rice cake factory in Barcelona nonetheless!
Yes. I sell my products in all over Spain, France and Portugal. ;)
Plus, I have several clients who are very important in Spain and one is world wide (El Bulli).
They tell me many intersting stories about their clients. ;)
And also, when I was living in Kyoto, I had several Yakuza friends. They often told me how the politicians are marionattes.
Please refrain yourself from talking to me like that. I am not a young kid like you.
-
USA here - Taoism
-
-
only idiots don't believe in evolution.
a question to anyone who doesn't believe in evolution: why do human fetuses have non functioning gills?
-
god put those dinosaur bones here to test our faith
-
a question to anyone who doesn't believe in evolution: why do human fetuses have non functioning gills?
Satan.
-
god put those dinosaur bones here to test our faith
According to christians who are severely brainwashed, yes. The evolution theory was already thousands of years known by very few people. The masses never knew such theories like in this case until Darwin came with it.
-
Satan.
Satan and god are the same.
-
god put those dinosaur bones here to test our faith
hahaah
thank you
-
Again, No I am not believe in Iluminatti thing.
But, economic dinasties are the king.
In Japan, Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo...etc.
In your country, Roth child, Rockefeller, J.P Morgan...etc
If you study macro economy and history a bit, you will understand it EASILY.
there is also a japanese Iluminatti family
the imperial one
but the other 13 don't aknowledge them because they say that they come from a lower worker cast of reptilian dracos
they shape shift and are all hybrids
yakuza, the big bussinessmen, the politicians are all under them
-
But I don't think it is correct or applicable when it comes to explaining the whole picture - inanimate matter "evolving" into complex life forms, all the way up till humans.
that was never ever part of darwins theory..
ps I am a bit more in the know than most because I have an honours degree in bio.. 8)
-
there is also a japanese Iluminatti family
the imperial one
but the other 13 don't aknowledge them because they say that they come from a lower worker cast of reptilian dracos
they shape shift and are all hybrids
yakuza, the big bussinessmen, the politicians are all under them
All royalty is a waste of (tax-)money. They should work for their own money just like everyone.
-
I'm losing all respect for Kiwiol reading his posts in this thread... sigh...
The Luke
-
I'm losing all respect for Kiwiol reading his posts in this thread... sigh...
The Luke
Didn't that happen well over 3 years ago, when I doubted your claim that Sarcasm was a 13 year old? ;D
-
Didn't that happen well over 3 years ago, when I doubted your claim that Sarcasm was a 13 year old? ;D
I would say thats a nice name for a 13 year old ;D
-
Didn't that happen well over 3 years ago, when I doubted your claim that Sarcasm was a 13 year old? ;D
Actually that would have been f'n hilarious if Sarcasm had turned out to be a 13 year old.
-
All royalty is a waste of (tax-)money. They should work for their own money just like everyone.
lol
you all work for them
they own the fucking world
Here are the top 2 Iluminatti families
they are reptilian human hybrids and look like this when they shapeshift
(http://www.think-aboutit.com/images/reptilian2.gif)(http://dljh1964.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/final-meeting.jpg)(http://www.theuniversalseduction.com/images/2162.jpg)
these fuckers are vicious
-
Actually that would have been f'n hilarious if Sarcasm had turned out to be a 13 year old.
According to Teh Luke, he still is - apparently, Sarc's mother wrote a letter to Ron, telling him off for letting Sarcasm post here and Luke has a copy of that letter.
-
-
One sick video.... :-\
-
Didn't that happen well over 3 years ago, when I doubted your claim that Sarcasm was a 13 year old? ;D
...sorry you weren't in on that joke.
A few of the mods knew about the Sarcasm/Squadfather/QuakerOats situation before Derek Anthony pasted it all over the board.
The 13-year-old set-up was just perfect: his posting patterns coincided (roughly) with the school day (lots of posts before 9am; at "luch hour" and early evening: lights out at 10pm). Couple that with all the gimmicks and the reports of "tiny-tit ownings" at the gym (despite never posting a clear pic or vid to back up his lift claims), and everyone started to question whether Sarcasm/Squadfather/QuakerOats actually was a troubled teenager.
How else could he justify his incessant childishness...?
Personally I thought he would learn his lesson and dial it back a bit... maybe even embrace the idea of him being a 13-15 year old... if you write at a thirteen year old level (or if your writing convinces people you are 13) then it's time to turn off the computer and read a book... not time to form an internet gang (Teh Squad) of similar infantiles.
But sadly, he couldn't dial it back... couldn't resist the overt attacks... and the real truth came out.
Suppose now we all wish he'd actually been a 13-year-old... maybe even Sarcasm/Squad himself.
The Luke
PS-Kiwiol, I was referring to the anti-scientific hokum you are putting forward in this thread. Disappointing.
-
...sorry you weren't in on that joke.
A few of the mods knew about the Sarcasm/Squadfather/QuakerOats situation before Derek Anthony pasted it all over the board.
The 13-year-old set-up was just perfect: his posting patterns coincided (roughly) with the school day (lots of posts before 9am; at "luch hour" and early evening: lights out at 10pm). Couple that with all the gimmicks and the reports of "tiny-tit ownings" at the gym (despite never posting a clear pic or vid to back up his lift claims), and everyone started to question whether Sarcasm/Squadfather/QuakerOats actually was a troubled teenager.
How else could he justify his incessant childishness...?
Personally I thought he would learn his lesson and dial it back a bit... maybe even embrace the idea of him being a 13-15 year old... if you write at a thirteen year old level (or if your writing convinces people you are 13) then it's time to turn off the computer and read a book... not time to form an internet gang (Teh Squad) of similar infantiles.
But sadly, he couldn't dial it back... couldn't resist the overt attacks... and the real truth came out.
Suppose now we all wish he'd actually been a 13-year-old... maybe even Sarcasm/Squad himself.
The Luke
PS-Kiwiol, I was referring to the anti-scientific hokum you are putting forward in this thread. Disappointing.
Any pics of you and bigfoot hanging out?
-
Any pics of you and bigfoot hanging out?
...nope, there is some grainy thermal footage on the way though.
Check out:
www.mikegreenethermal.co m
...but don't go rebroadcasting the footage, or illegally bootlegging it. Mike is good people and he's only charging $3 a view to recoup a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of dollars he's spent just in equipment over the years.
When it (whatever it is) walks in front of the tree you'll probably notice (as bodybuilders should) the very unusual shoulder/ribcage structure and the truly monstrous biceps/delts.
It's pretty blurry... but still noticeable.
Personally, I'm just back from an expedition to the Blue Mountains outside Sydney Australia... found footprints; tree sctructures, met some witnesses, saw some bites marks, heard a distant territorial display (foot stomping, branch breaking) but still no proper sighting.
The Luke
PS- sorry for the thread hijack
-
...sorry you weren't in on that joke.
A few of the mods knew about the Sarcasm/Squadfather/QuakerOats situation before Derek Anthony pasted it all over the board.
The 13-year-old set-up was just perfect: his posting patterns coincided (roughly) with the school day (lots of posts before 9am; at "luch hour" and early evening: lights out at 10pm). Couple that with all the gimmicks and the reports of "tiny-tit ownings" at the gym (despite never posting a clear pic or vid to back up his lift claims), and everyone started to question whether Sarcasm/Squadfather/QuakerOats actually was a troubled teenager.
How else could he justify his incessant childishness...?
Personally I thought he would learn his lesson and dial it back a bit... maybe even embrace the idea of him being a 13-15 year old... if you write at a thirteen year old level (or if your writing convinces people you are 13) then it's time to turn off the computer and read a book... not time to form an internet gang (Teh Squad) of similar infantiles.
But sadly, he couldn't dial it back... couldn't resist the overt attacks... and the real truth came out.
Suppose now we all wish he'd actually been a 13-year-old... maybe even Sarcasm/Squad himself.
The Luke
Wow, so you and some of the "mods" here (must be the REALLY elite ones) had us all going the whole time and all those 9000 word posts you wrote everytime someone laughed at the absurdity of the idea of Sarc being a 13 year old were all just a joke that guys like me were never in on, huh?
Never have I been so owned in my life :(
-
Never have I been so owned in my life :(
I don't want to be a dick bro, but have you seen how tall you are ???
j/k ;D
-
Wow, so you and some of the "mods" here (must be the REALLY elite ones) had us all going the whole time and all those 9000 word posts you wrote everytime someone laughed at the absurdity of the idea of Sarc being a 13 year old were all just a joke that guys like me were never in on, huh?
Never have I been so owned in my life :(
Hahaha, The Luke tried to pull this "everyone was in on it" act the last time it came up. This guy's credibility was destroyed years ago.
-
I don't want to be a dick bro, but have you seen how tall you are ???
j/k ;D
Why do you think I live in the Shire? >:(
Hahaha, The Luke tried to pull this "everyone was in on it" act the last time it came up. This guy's credibility was destroyed years ago.
I love how he's still trying to sell us that Sarc was 13 years old about 3 years ago ;D
-
I don't know, I think this is evidence we may be going backwards
-
darwin was a dumb ass niggaaahh haha
giraffes reaching for high trees so their necks grew haha what a bitch
natural selection is dumb?
you sound like a clever boy ::)
-
Hahaha, The Luke tried to pull this "everyone was in on it" act the last time it came up. This guy's credibility was destroyed years ago.
Ron thought it was funny... Mindspin too... If I remember correctly even Chick made some comment about Sarcasm being a kid. Good stuff, Sarcasm/Squadfather couldn't even defend himself because he had taken such pains to remain anonymous and his 20,000-odd posts were so childish and formulaic.
Ask Ron, he let it run for a quite a while before he squashed the rumours. He sent me a couple of pms about it, if memory serves he said "You really have them going" (or similar). He might even have the pm (I don't keep mine, too many inquiries from the Bigfoot/Reptillian nutbars).
Guess the mighty Sarcasm/Squadfather was pestering him with pms and emails, he always did that whenever he was exposed.
The Luke
-
i believe that god made adam and steve and everything else is bullshit
-
i believe that god made adam and steve and everything else is bullshit
Natural selection at work.
-
I don't know, I think this is evidence we may be going backwards
What about coneheads? ???
-
natural selection is dumb?
you sound like a clever boy ::)
no but the way darwin thought it was was dumb
-
assassine
-
no but the way darwin thought it was was dumb
how so?
-
What about coneheads? ???
What about massively obese whales?
-
how so?
he thought giraffes had short necks and by trying to reach high trees their neck grew...
no joke
-
the different theories can coexist yes?
-
he thought giraffes had short necks and by trying to reach high trees their neck grew...
no joke
well...
he means they got if from natural selection moron...
natural selection = those best fitted to their enviroment survives better and reproduces more
giraffes is as good example as any other species... giraffes with longer necks survived better than those with shorter cause they where able to eat more.
-
well...
he means they got if from natural selection moron...
natural selection = those best fitted to their enviroment survives better and reproduces more
giraffes is as good example as any other species... giraffes with longer necks survived better than those with shorter cause they where able to eat more.
i know what natural selection is my friend...
he had some points but overall the evolution theory is further developed by other guys(don't know their names now)
-
I don't know, I think this is evidence we may be going backwards
Why in the name of fuck did he wear black panties for that photo shoot?
-
it always amazes me the level of intelligence of guys on this board who are mainly americans and contradict every view i have on americans in general.
im serious
Have u ever been to The United States?
-
i know what natural selection is my friend...
he had some points but overall the evolution theory is further developed by other guys(don't know their names now)
by the sound of your post it sounds like you thought that the basic theory he had was totally wrong which it isn't. you're just backpeddling now ;)
-
by the sound of your post it sounds like you thought that the basic theory he had was totally wrong which it isn't. you're just backpeddling now ;)
no no
of course the basic idea was right
but the natural selection did not work like he thought it would
-
no no
of course the basic idea was right
but the natural selection did not work like he thought it would
X2
-
When you think about it, evolution is really interesting, but what in nature isn't? Creationists miss alot.
-
i believe in god but creationist are plain stupid
-
Evolution theory is 100% truth. But Darwins mutation theory is not 100% truth.
what the hell?
evolution is the result of incremental mutations, which IS Darwin's theory.- a mutation doesnt necessarily mean a bad thing...and its usually not even noticeable as its at a molecular level.
Until Darwin published the results of his findings, archeologists had alot of trouble tying together what they were finding, then all of a sudden BAM, it made perfect sense, and its been the same for almost 100 years.
-
I believe in the theory of evolution except for one thing..Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. There must be other mechanism that drives natural selection, because otherwise natural slection would be selecting against itself, and that makes no sense whatsoever.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Hahahahaha that was funny , I have Shermer's book Why Darwin Matters good read
-
i believe 3 glasses of wine and i feel fine.
other than that, most thigns are above my comprehension
-
Ron thought it was funny... Mindspin too... If I remember correctly even Chick made some comment about Sarcasm being a kid. Good stuff, Sarcasm/Squadfather couldn't even defend himself because he had taken such pains to remain anonymous and his 20,000-odd posts were so childish and formulaic.
Ask Ron, he let it run for a quite a while before he squashed the rumours. He sent me a couple of pms about it, if memory serves he said "You really have them going" (or similar). He might even have the pm (I don't keep mine, too many inquiries from the Bigfoot/Reptillian nutbars).
Guess the mighty Sarcasm/Squadfather was pestering him with pms and emails, he always did that whenever he was exposed.
The Luke
What makes this post even funnier is the fact that Berserkerfury was and is Squad and always has been...He's actually signed in many times as Squad(on the mma board) thinking he was BF...His alters all have the same common denominator..
-
His alters all have the same common denominator..
...do tell?
The Luke
-
...do tell?
The Luke
See if you can find any threads with BF ripping into Squad...Squads posts almost always started with Hahaha when he was agreeing with someone pwning another...BF also starts a lot of his threads that way...Classic Squad...Squad/oats hates everything Tapout/Affliction with a passion(but very rarely posts on the MMA board)...BF hangs out on the MMA board almost exclusively...Read any dozen BF posts and see if you can see the similarities...
-
See if you can find any threads with BF ripping into Squad...Squads posts almost always started with Hahaha when he was agreeing with someone pwning another...BF also starts a lot of his threads that way...Classic Squad...Squad/oats hates everything Tapout/Affliction with a passion(but very rarely posts on the MMA board)...BF hangs out on the MMA board almost exclusively...Read any dozen BF posts and see if you can see the similarities...
Completely different people, you're really stretching here.
You would have been a really good gimmick if you kept to the dancing. ;)
-
Completely different people, you're really stretching here.
You would have been a really good gimmick if you kept to the dancing. ;)
says you...And you should have stuck to just doing commericials ;)
-
says you...And you should have stuck to just doing commericials ;)
Your name is not Keith J***** by any chance?
-
says you...And you should have stuck to just doing commericials ;)
AAAAAAAaahahahhahahahhahaaLmaoroflcopterahahahhahaalolahshahhasd
;D ;D :D ;D :) ;D :)
::)
-
this is a very interesting thread... I believe in evolution 100% it's funny that so many people get offended by this....
-
I agree with this.
Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. .
SUCKMYMUSCLE
They don't. This has been proven to be false. You're only over a 100 years behind.
only idiots don't believe in evolution.
a question to anyone who doesn't believe in evolution: why do human fetuses have non functioning gills?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2049
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html
-
I agree with this.
This has been proven to be false. You're only over a 100 years behind.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2049
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html
Günther is hot :D
-
it always amazes me the level of intelligence of guys on this board who are mainly americans and contradict every view i have on americans in general.
im serious
Where are you from Mars?
-
I agree with this.
They don't. This has been proven to be false. You're only over a 100 years behind
Ok, so what is the mechanism besides mutations that drive evolution? Elucidate this for me, brainiac. Let's see.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ok, so what is the mechanism besides mutations that drive evolution? Elucidate this for me, brainiac. Let's see.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I talked to a buddy of mine that served on the Special Forces, he said no one has ever been kicked out for being too muscular or too advanced or too strong or anything along those lines.
You're full of shit.
-
Ok, so what is the mechanism besides mutations that drive evolution? Elucidate this for me, brainiac. Let's see.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Huh? I said I agree with you, evolution via beneficial mutations doesnt make sense, brainiac.
-
OMFG! That was awesome! LOL!
-
Ironneck your example of the giraffe was completely wrong, that is not how evolution works.
suckmymuscle, take into account that many mutations are neutral, they have no effect on survivability or reproduction. Neutral, and even harmful mutations, can piggyback ride on the success of other mutations. Mutations occur in each en every generation of each and every plant/animal and fungus, meaning a gazillion-trillion-billion-shitload mutations each year.
A mutation is beneficial when it increases reproduction chances directly (example, having stronger/more sperm) or indirectly (being stronger than other rivals, so able to be top dog and getting more 'tail'. By having greater survivability, chances of reproduction are increased also; according to Darwin "dead animals don't reproduce too well".
We can glean a number of basic examples form this:
-bird that lays more eggs than others of its species, reproductive advantage, this bird's dna is spread wider through the population.
-alpha-gorilla stronger than other gorillas, more intercourse, more siblings.
-lizard is better able to withstand the severe conditions of it's habitat, he lives longer and manages to spawn more siblings.
Take into account that there's many characteristics working at once: the stronger alpha male may have bad sperm: despite his increased reproduction chances it may not lead to an increased spread of his dna.
What is beneficial for reproduction does not have to be good for survivability, and vice versa.
As much as benefit, luck is a huge factor. Creationists paint a picture of nature following the ideal path from one-celled organism to homo sapiens. That is a very flawed idea, along the course of history 90% of species if not more died out. Over-specialization, bad luck or pushed off by competition, most of nature's mutations find a very early grave. What is left is a group of mutations that is proven over time, for instance sexual reproduction: it significantly increases mutations in dna, increasing adaptiveness and ultimately survivability and reproduction chances.
-
I believe in the theory of evolution except for one thing..Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. There must be other mechanism that drives natural selection, because otherwise natural slection would be selecting against itself, and that makes no sense whatsoever.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Early life forms, and indeed many extant life-form, are ASEXUAL - and not because they spend all day in a basement like you. That is to say evolution (mutation and selection) was occurring long before sexual reproduction itself evolved. Sexual reproduction may have evolved to further promote genetic diversity, but is no way fundamental to the theory of evolution.
-
Where are you from Mars?
Holland
-
Early life forms, and indeed many extant life-form, are ASEXUAL - and not because they spend all day in a basement like you. That is to say evolution (mutation and selection) was occurring long before sexual reproduction itself evolved. Sexual reproduction may have evolved to further promote genetic diversity, but is no way fundamental to the theory of evolution.
No, that is not how it works. There is no goal or purpose of evolution. Those who have advantages survive and pass on their traits. That is all. Humans need to look for meaning and purpose but the universe is devoid of any such thing except what exists in sentient beings.
-
Ironneck your example of the giraffe was completely wrong, that is not how evolution works.
suckmymuscle, take into account that many mutations are neutral, they have no effect on survivability or reproduction. Neutral, and even harmful mutations, can piggyback ride on the success of other mutations. Mutations occur in each en every generation of each and every plant/animal and fungus, meaning a gazillion-trillion-billion-shitload mutations each year.
A mutation is beneficial when it increases reproduction chances directly (example, having stronger/more sperm) or indirectly (being stronger than other rivals, so able to be top dog and getting more 'tail'. By having greater survivability, chances of reproduction are increased also; according to Darwin "dead animals don't reproduce too well".
We can glean a number of basic examples form this:
-bird that lays more eggs than others of its species, reproductive advantage, this bird's dna is spread wider through the population.
-alpha-gorilla stronger than other gorillas, more intercourse, more siblings.
-lizard is better able to withstand the severe conditions of it's habitat, he lives longer and manages to spawn more siblings.
Take into account that there's many characteristics working at once: the stronger alpha male may have bad sperm: despite his increased reproduction chances it may not lead to an increased spread of his dna.
What is beneficial for reproduction does not have to be good for survivability, and vice versa.
As much as benefit, luck is a huge factor. Creationists paint a picture of nature following the ideal path from one-celled organism to homo sapiens. That is a very flawed idea, along the course of history 90% of species if not more died out. Over-specialization, bad luck or pushed off by competition, most of nature's mutations find a very early grave. What is left is a group of mutations that is proven over time, for instance sexual reproduction: it significantly increases mutations in dna, increasing adaptiveness and ultimately survivability and reproduction chances.
you fucking dumb???
i said it does not work like this
darwin said that it would be like that
-
People who spend their free time on a bodybuilding gossip board are not qualified to discuss this subject. Generally speaking, intelligent people are not hanging here.
-
you fucking dumb???
i said it does not work like this
darwin said that it would be like that
Woah there buddy, easy does it!
My bad if I did not read your post correctly.
Edit: I re-read your post, Darwin himself did not suggest that either, he said that the giraffe with the longest neck (by sheer genetic variance) had an advantage over the others.
-
People who spend their free time on a bodybuilding gossip board are not qualified to discuss this subject. Generally speaking, intelligent people are not hanging here.
You're right, but statistics do not help us much at the individual level.
-
The only parts of America that are "smart" are the Northeast and Western coasts. We don't consider the rest to be the "smart" parts of America.
for once we agree on something.
-
Woah there buddy, easy does it!
My bad if I did not read your post correctly.
Edit: I re-read your post, Darwin himself did not suggest that either, he said that the giraffe with the longest neck (by sheer genetic variance) had an advantage over the others.
sorry that i insulted you
it's the university stress
-
haha wtf only 39%?
That is due to the high non-white population in the USA.
-
I believe in the theory of evolution except for one thing..Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. There must be other mechanism that drives natural selection, because otherwise natural slection would be selecting against itself, and that makes no sense whatsoever.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
hahahahahaha when are you going to realize what you say doesn't matter to anyone even when you cut & paste it from another site. Getbig is alot like your real life, you don't matter to anyone. Sorry for the reality check. Aren't you late for the bus to school and don't forget the lunch mommy made you
-
People who spend their free time on a bodybuilding gossip board are not qualified to discuss this subject. Generally speaking, intelligent people are not hanging here.
Wrong. The intelligence distribution in a community of this size is no different than the one you live in. If anything, the personalities here are more interesting than the average person you meet IRL.
-
Wrong. The intelligent distribution in a community of this size is no different than the one you live in. If anything, the personalities here are more interesting than the average person you meet IRL.
I strongly disagree with your opinion but I do respect it. I've lurked around here long enough to get a good feel and although there are some exceptions including the likes of yourself and 240, the rule is certainly the likes of Johnnynoname, Swede, and tbombz.
-
I am really flipped at the movie called "Creation" is banned because of only 39% of american citizen are believing in evolution theory.
How about you guys? Especialy American Getbigers.
americans = dumb.
-
americans = dumb.
What I've realized is that americans most certainly have the brainpower, it is their culture/mindset that sometimes prevents them from using it.
-
americans = dumb.
sorry but modern republicans = dumb... not americans as a whole... unfortunately they represent a large % of our population...
-
sorry but modern republicans = dumb... not americans as a whole... unfortunately they represent a large % of our population...
Your main problems = the low IQ groups.
-
Your main problems = the low IQ groups.
And having to separate paper, plastic, and different colors of glass. You know someone out there is putting green glass in the brown glass bin just to be an asshole.
-
Huh? I said I agree with you, evolution via beneficial mutations doesnt make sense, brainiac.
Ok, so what is the mechanism that drive3s evolution, Einstein? You said this has been proven wrong for 100 years. From what I understand, mutations are still believed my many evolutionary biologists to be the driving force in evolution.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
why are there so many unrelated topics in this G/O boards? ???
-
Ironneck your example of the giraffe was completely wrong, that is not how evolution works.
suckmymuscle, take into account that many mutations are neutral, they have no effect on survivability or reproduction. Neutral, and even harmful mutations, can piggyback ride on the success of other mutations. Mutations occur in each en every generation of each and every plant/animal and fungus, meaning a gazillion-trillion-billion-shitload mutations each year.
A mutation is beneficial when it increases reproduction chances directly (example, having stronger/more sperm) or indirectly (being stronger than other rivals, so able to be top dog and getting more 'tail'. By having greater survivability, chances of reproduction are increased also; according to Darwin "dead animals don't reproduce too well".
We can glean a number of basic examples form this:
-bird that lays more eggs than others of its species, reproductive advantage, this bird's dna is spread wider through the population.
-alpha-gorilla stronger than other gorillas, more intercourse, more siblings.
-lizard is better able to withstand the severe conditions of it's habitat, he lives longer and manages to spawn more siblings.
Take into account that there's many characteristics working at once: the stronger alpha male may have bad sperm: despite his increased reproduction chances it may not lead to an increased spread of his dna.
What is beneficial for reproduction does not have to be good for survivability, and vice versa.
As much as benefit, luck is a huge factor. Creationists paint a picture of nature following the ideal path from one-celled organism to homo sapiens. That is a very flawed idea, along the course of history 90% of species if not more died out. Over-specialization, bad luck or pushed off by competition, most of nature's mutations find a very early grave. What is left is a group of mutations that is proven over time, for instance sexual reproduction: it significantly increases mutations in dna, increasing adaptiveness and ultimately survivability and reproduction chances.
You missed the point completely. It doesen't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrminental, but that mutatations being the mechanism that drives natural selection makes no sense because the DNA molecule avoids mutations at all costs. A mutation only occurs when a gene expresses itself incorrectly, resulting in a new protein being synthesized than would otherwise be the case. So you are basically saying that what drives evolution are flaws in gene expression that the DNA tries to avoid at all costs? My point is that, since adapatations to the challenges of the natural environment are necessary for the DNA to survive but that the DNA does not encourage mutations, then there must be another mechanism that drives evolution, otherwise the DNA would encourage mutations, by causing as many errors in gene expression as possible and by making living organisms seek mates with the highest amounts of assymetries possible, which is the opposite of what happens. Understand now?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
hahahahahaha when are you going to realize what you say doesn't matter to anyone even when you cut & paste it from another site. Getbig is alot like your real life, you don't matter to anyone. Sorry for the reality check. Aren't you late for the bus to school and don't forget the lunch mommy made you
Jealously reeks from your post. You are not as intelligent as me and you know it, and it drives you insane. Let's remind everyone of what you look like, so it can be clear why you're so bitter: ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ok, so what is the mechanism that drive3s evolution, Einstein? You said this has been proven wrong for 100 years. From what I understand, mutations are still believed my many evolutionary biologists to be the driving force in evolution.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You must be high or something, I never said mutations have been proven wrong ,I was refering to the gills on human fetuses.
I agreed with you that mutation driving evolution doesnt make sense.
-
sorry but modern republicans = dumb... not americans as a whole... unfortunately they represent a large % of our population...
::)
-
You missed the point completely. It doesen't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrminental, but that mutatations being the mechanism that drives natural selection makes no sense because the DNA molecule avoids mutations at all costs. A mutation only occurs when a gene expresses itself incorrectly, resulting in a new protein being synthesized than would otherwise be the case. So you are basically saying that what drives evolution are flaws in gene expression that the DNA tries to avoid at all costs? My point is that, since adapatations to the challenges of the natural environment are necessary for the DNA to survive but that the DNA does not encourage mutations, then there must be another mechanism that drives evolution, otherwise the DNA would encourage mutations, by causing as many errors in gene expression as possible and by making living organisms seek mates with the highest amounts of assymetries possible, which is the opposite of what happens. Understand now?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Sucky,
Your post is what scientists refer to as "NOT EVEN WRONG".
You need to understand the process before you critique some imagied flaw in the theory. Mutation is NOT always detrimental to an organism, nor is it the only method of adaption.
Sexual reproduction introduces huge VARIATIONS in the expression of genes (the genotype) in the phenotype (the body). Perhaps if you think in terms of variation instead of your mistaken concept of mutation you might better grasp the process.
Your argument that DNA avoids mutation "at all costs" is simply wrong, and countered with a singe word: cancer.
I think you have coflated one of the basic MECHANISMS of evolution (mutation) with the PROCESS itself.
Variation among a breeding species/population is caused by:
-mutations (deletions, transpositions, reversals, insertions of genes and gene groups)
-sexual blending of genes
Evolution itself is caused by:
-adaptive advatage
-reproductive advantage
-sexual selection
-population filtering (immunity; adaptability; "fitness" or aptness)
-species radiation
Believe me when I tell you that you misuderstand the basics sufficiently that you won't comprehend why you are mistaken... not without further study.
The Luke
-
Sucky,
Your post is what scientists refer to as "NOT EVEN WRONG".
You need to understand the process before you critique some imagied flaw in the theory. Mutation is NOT always detrimental to an organism, nor is it the only method of adaption.
Sexual reproduction introduces huge VARIATIONS in the expression of genes (the genotype) in the phenotype (the body). Perhaps if you think in terms of variation instead of your mistaken concept of mutation you might better grasp the process.
Your argument that DNA avoids mutation "at all costs" is simply wrong, and countered with a singe word: cancer.
I think you have coflated one of the basic MECHANISMS of evolution (mutation) with the PROCESS itself.
Variation among a breeding species/population is caused by:
-mutations (deletions, transpositions, reversals, insertions of genes and gene groups)
-sexual blending of genes
Evolution itself is caused by:
-adaptive advatage
-reproductive advantage
-sexual selection
-population filtering (immunity; adaptability; "fitness" or aptness)
-species radiation
Believe me when I tell you that you misuderstand the basics sufficiently that you won't comprehend why you are mistaken... not without further study.
The Luke
What did bigfoot evolve from?
Do you have a job yet ???
-
Yes it's true..........religion is the root of all evil.
-
Sucky,
Your post is what scientists refer to as "NOT EVEN WRONG".
You need to understand the process before you critique some imagied flaw in the theory. Mutation is NOT always detrimental to an organism, nor is it the only method of adaption.
Sexual reproduction introduces huge VARIATIONS in the expression of genes (the genotype) in the phenotype (the body). Perhaps if you think in terms of variation instead of your mistaken concept of mutation you might better grasp the process.
Your argument that DNA avoids mutation "at all costs" is simply wrong, and countered with a singe word: cancer.
I think you have coflated one of the basic MECHANISMS of evolution (mutation) with the PROCESS itself.
Variation among a breeding species/population is caused by:
-mutations (deletions, transpositions, reversals, insertions of genes and gene groups)
-sexual blending of genes
Evolution itself is caused by:
-adaptive advatage
-reproductive advantage
-sexual selection
-population filtering (immunity; adaptability; "fitness" or aptness)
-species radiation
Believe me when I tell you that you misuderstand the basics sufficiently that you won't comprehend why you are mistaken... not without further study.
The Luke
Again, it is irrelevant whether mutations are beneficial or not. The point is that mutations are flaws that should not happen, and flaws that the DNA avoids committing. This is the keypoint. So you are telling me that the mechanism that drives natural selection is something that the DNA selects against? What kind of retard logic is this? Going by your logic, people who are the most assymetrical should be the most attractive, because they have the highest number of mutations, and yet these people are considered the least attractive. Riddle me that? You are wrong. Period. The one who is talking out of his ass is you. Lol.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Oh, and The Luke, before you claim I know nothing on the subject, consider that I am one of the founders of the gene expression discussion groupwww.gnxp.com (http://www.gnxp.com). I have forgotten more on the subject than you'll ever know. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Your main problems = the low IQ groups.
and that = modern republicans. well, more or less..the people that vote for them. there are somoe very intelligent people directing the republican policies... however those people and their motivations are not at the forefront.
-
Oh, and The Luke, before you claim I know nothing on the subject, consider that I am one of the founders of the gene expression discussion groupwww.gnxp.com (http://www.gnxp.com). I have forgotten more on the subject than you'll ever know. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Sure you are, Jason. ::)
-
Oh, and The Luke, before you claim I know nothing on the subject, consider that I am one of the founders of the gene expression discussion groupwww.gnxp.com (http://www.gnxp.com). I have forgotten more on the subject than you'll ever know. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
...you don't seem to now that DNA cannot and does not copy itself with perfect fidelity.
The Luke
-
SMM talks like someone with an agenda. There is no should in biology. Once you examine theories from a prescriptive point of view it is no longer science.
-
...you don't seem to now that DNA cannot and does not copy itself with perfect fidelity.
The Luke
And yet it strongly selects against mistakes in gene expression. Riddle me that? Why are people with the most mutations the least prefered as sexual mates? Sure, all of us are mutants. No one has each gene allele expressing their proteins perfectly. However, the fact that the DNA avoids as much as possible synthesizing proteins incorrectly and avoids this futurely as well by avoiding to mate with people who show evidence of a high degree of mutations indicates that mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution otherwise the DNA would select for it and not against it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
And yet it strongly selects against mistakes in gene expression. Riddle me that? Why are people with the most mutations the least prefered as sexual mates? Sure, all of us are mutants. No one has each gene allele expressing their proteins perfectly. However, the fact that the DNA avoids as much as possible synthesizing proteins incorrectly and avoids this futurely as well by avoiding to mate with people who show evidence of a high degree of mutations indicates that mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution otherwise the DNA would select for it and not against it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
...I could correct the mistakes in this, if you like?
I dont want to unnecessarily embarrass "one of the founders of the gene expression discussion groupwww.gnxp.com".
The Luke
-
...I could correct the mistakes in this, if you like?
I dont want to unnecessarily embarrass "one of the founders of the gene expression discussion groupwww.gnxp.com".
The Luke
Go ahead. Make my day. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I am really flipped at the movie called "Creation" is banned because of only 39% of american citizen are believing in evolution theory.
How about you guys? Especialy American Getbigers.
I don't believe it but it is the theory I would go with in any relevant thought process.
-
I'm an educated fool with Michelle Pfeiffer on my mind.
(http://celebrity-pics.movieeye.com/celebrity_pictures/Michelle_Pfeiffer_214901.jpg)
one of the most gorgeous women ever...
-
(http://celebrity-pics.movieeye.com/celebrity_pictures/Michelle_Pfeiffer_214901.jpg)
one of the most gorgeous women ever...
Long time no see Sperms. How is that painting of Debussey's penis coming along? 8)
-
And yet it strongly selects against mistakes in gene expression. Riddle me that?
...strongly selects: yes. But not perfectly. There is still plenty of room for mutation.
None of this is actually up for debate as the process of mutation has been fully modelled, studied and even observed. Even the mechanisms of mutation have been quantified and identified, everything from simple deletions; repetitions; insertions; transpositions and plain old random coding errors to very complicated exotic mechanisms involving viral manipulation of gene sequences.
People "strongly select" against bumping into each other in the street because it is usually disadvantageous, but sometimes people bump into each other; fall in love; marry and spend the rest of their lives walking almost everywhere together.
I still watch where I'm going: strongly select against making mistakes. That doesn't mean people can't bump into each other and fall in love.
Why are people with the most mutations the least prefered as sexual mates?
They aren't.
This is a common misconception adhered to by those who WANT or NEED to find some error, any error in the evolutionary theory (I'll presume you are some version of Creationist).
In reality, humans do indeed select mates based on certain genetic criteria:
-general health
-body structure
-facial (and body) bilateral symmetry
-ethnicity
-smell
General health is pretty obvious, body structure is probably secondary to that (with an emphasis on secondary sexual characteristics but with a neotenic twist), and the smell component is based upon a biological imperative to find a mate with as few immune system trace smells in common as possible in order that any offsping produced have the best possible mix of immunities. If memory serves me there are someting like six individual immunity smells associated with humans, and each human carries three of these distinct smell markers (don't quote me on those exact numbers, I'm a physicist by training not an endocrinologist).
But then we have ethnicity and bilateral symmetry.
The ethnicity aspect is based around a preference to limit the chances of in-breeding, while still producing viabe offspring... humans prefer a mate that is a happy medium of being as diverse from their own gene pool as possible while simultaneously not being so distantly related as to hinder the chances of conception.
Capt Kirk happily made it with the green Orion slave girl, but he didnt ask the Gorn if he had a sister, get it? Both green, both alien chicks... but more chance of impregnating the green-skinned hottie than the green scaled egg-laying lizard woman.
If you average male faces across the entire population, the hypothetical "mathematically average guy" looks suspiciously like Brad Pitt... that's why most girls find him so attractive, he's genetically right in the middle of human diversity: not so distant as to be reproductively incompatible to the vast majority of women, nor so closely related as to represent an in-breeding danger to the vast majority of women.
Similarly, half-caste/mixed-race people are considerd attractive by a large overlap of both groups from which they are derived... despite a natural hman preference for ones own racial group.
Now on to the crux of the problem... bilateral symmetry. Critics with a poor understanding of geneitcs (Creationists) often conflate bilateral symmetry with some measure of mutation. Such is NOT THE CASE.
Strands of DNA helix are NOT involved in producing each side of the body, nor any body macro-structures. The helix is simply a storage/replication method for the DNA molecule itself, bodily asymmetries DO NOT reflect any underlying DNA asymmetry or mutation.
Humans prefer symmetrical mates (especialy facially symmetric mates) as a high degree of facial symmetry is a good effective measure of overall health.
Facial and bodily symmetry is a measure of proper GROWTH, not a measure of mutation.
If someone has a lob-sided face, that usually means they have suffered several low-grade sinus infections, indicating they are sickly stock. Likewise a strong jaw (relative to gender) and good cranial symmetry indicates good nutrition during a relatively disease-free childhood.
There is absolutely NO WAY for any animal (human or otherwise) to select a mate based on mutation quotient... as such mutations almost always go unexpressed in the phenotype (most DNA is inactive "junk" DNA).
Mutations only become obvious when they are so detrimental as to produce an obviously damaged individual. For example, most humans would be put off a prospective mate if that mate was grotesquely deformed/crippled by a simple single gene mutation such as produces Proteus Syndrome (what John Merrick, the so-called Elephant Man semingly suffered from).
Most humans would prefer a nice musky-smelling, healthy-looking, symmetrical and attactive mate... a mate who might well carry recessive gene expressions for hundreds of fatal genetic congenital disorders.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutation.
The vast, vast majority of mutations have NO EFFECT and NO EXPRESSION.
A small percentage of mutations result in cancer, and a smaller still fraction resut in entirely new gene expressions which then become traits that compete in the gene pool.
Mutation is merely the mechanism which randomly gives rise to new genes... evolution is the process by which these new genes compete for replication.
The entire premise of your argument is faulty.
Sure, all of us are mutants. No one has each gene allele expressing their proteins perfectly. However, the fact that the DNA avoids as much as possible synthesizing proteins incorrectly
...no it doesn't.
It still allows room for mutation. Only ring structure DNA sequences (as found in some primitive microbes) actively prevent and correct DNA mutations, and even they still allow for some mutation errors to occur. Google "spirococci radium durens" a germ that has near perfect reproductive fidelity due to its unique self-correcting DNA structure.
...and avoids this futurely as well by avoiding to mate with people who show evidence of a high degree of mutations...
...doesn't happen.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutations or mutation quotient, they are selected based on phenotype.
....indicates that mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution otherwise the DNA would select for it and not against it.
...just plain wrong. So very, very wrong.
This is tantamont to claiming that because the layering of bricks builds walls, then rockslides should produce cathedrals... obviousy they don't, therefore the layering of bricks does not build walls.
Stupid. Faulty extrapolaion, from faulty misconceptions.
Oh, and The Luke, before you claim I know nothing on the subject, consider that I am one of the founders of the gene expression discussion groupwww.gnxp.com (http://www.gnxp.com). I have forgotten more on the subject than you'll ever know. ;)
...guess you forgot the basic concepts.
The Luke
-
...strongly selects: yes. But not perfectly. There is still plenty of room for mutation.
None of this is actually up for debate as the process of mutation has been fully modelled, studied and even observed. Even the mechanisms of mutation have been quantified and identified, everything from simple deletions; repetitions; insertions; transpositions and plain old random coding errors to very complicated exotic mechanisms involving viral manipulation of gene sequences.
People "strongly select" against bumping into each other in the street because it is usually disadvantageous, but sometimes people bump into each other; fall in love; marry and spend the rest of their lives walking almost everywhere together.
I still watch where I'm going: strongly select against making mistakes. That doesn't mean people can't bump into each other and fall in love.
They aren't.
This is a common misconception adhered to by those who WANT or NEED to find some error, any error in the evolutionary theory (I'll presume you are some version of Creationist).
In reality, humans do indeed select mates based on certain genetic criteria:
-general health
-body structure
-facial (and body) bilateral symmetry
-ethnicity
-smell
General health is pretty obvious, body structure is probably secondary to that (with an emphasis on secondary sexual characteristics but with a neotenic twist), and the smell component is based upon a biological imperative to find a mate with as few immune system trace smells in common as possible in order that any offsping produced have the best possible mix of immunities. If memory serves me there are someting like six individual immunity smells associated with humans, and each human carries three of these distinct smell markers (don't quote me on those exact numbers, I'm a physicist by training not an endocrinologist).
But then we have ethnicity and bilateral symmetry.
The ethnicity aspect is based around a preference to limit the chances of in-breeding, while still producing viabe offspring... humans prefer a mate that is a happy medium of being as diverse from their own gene pool as possible while simultaneously not being so distantly related as to hinder the chances of conception.
Capt Kirk happily made it with the green Orion slave girl, but he didnt ask the Gorn if he had a sister, get it? Both green, both alien chicks... but more chance of impregnating the green-skinned hottie than the green scaled egg-laying lizard woman.
If you average male faces across the entire population, the hypothetical "mathematically average guy" looks suspiciously like Brad Pitt... that's why most girls find him so attractive, he's genetically right in the middle of human diversity: not so distant as to be reproductively incompatible to the vast majority of women, nor so closely related as to represent an in-breeding danger to the vast majority of women.
Similarly, half-caste/mixed-race people are considerd attractive by a large overlap of both groups from which they are derived... despite a natural hman preference for ones own racial group.
Now on to the crux of the problem... bilateral symmetry. Critics with a poor understanding of geneitcs (Creationists) often conflate bilateral symmetry with some measure of mutation. Such is NOT THE CASE.
Strands of DNA helix are NOT involved in producing each side of the body, nor any body macro-structures. The helix is simply a storage/replication method for the DNA molecule itself, bodily asymmetries DO NOT reflect any underlying DNA asymmetry or mutation.
Humans prefer symmetrical mates (especialy facially symmetric mates) as a high degree of facial symmetry is a good effective measure of overall health.
Facial and bodily symmetry is a measure of proper GROWTH, not a measure of mutation.
If someone has a lob-sided face, that usually means they have suffered several low-grade sinus infections, indicating they are sickly stock. Likewise a strong jaw (relative to gender) and good cranial symmetry indicates good nutrition during a relatively disease-free childhood.
There is absolutely NO WAY for any animal (human or otherwise) to select a mate based on mutation quotient... as such mutations almost always go unexpressed in the phenotype (most DNA is inactive "junk" DNA).
Mutations only become obvious when they are so detrimental as to produce an obviously damaged individual. For example, most humans would be put off a prospective mate if that mate was grotesquely deformed/crippled by a simple single gene mutation such as produces Proteus Syndrome (what John Merrick, the so-called Elephant Man semingly suffered from).
Most humans would prefer a nice musky-smelling, healthy-looking, symmetrical and attactive mate... a mate who might well carry recessive gene expressions for hundreds of fatal genetic congenital disorders.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutation.
The vast, vast majority of mutations have NO EFFECT and NO EXPRESSION.
A small percentage of mutations result in cancer, and a smaller still fraction resut in entirely new gene expressions which then become traits that compete in the gene pool.
Mutation is merely the mechanism which randomly gives rise to new genes... evolution is the process by which these new genes compete for replication.
The entire premise of your argument is faulty.
...no it doesn't.
It still allows room for mutation. Only ring structure DNA sequences (as found in some primitive microbes) actively prevent and correct DNA mutations, and even they still allow for some mutation errors to occur. Google "spirococci radium durens" a germ that has near perfect reproductive fidelity due to its unique self-correcting DNA structure.
...doesn't happen.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutations or mutation quotient, they are selected based on phenotype.
...just plain wrong. So very, very wrong.
This is tantamont to claiming that because the layering of bricks builds walls, then rockslides should produce cathedrals... obviousy they don't, therefore the layering of bricks does not build walls.
Stupid. Faulty extrapolaion, from faulty misconceptions.
...guess you forgot the basic concepts.
The Luke
This post is idiotic beyond description, and it's author believes that sounding pedantic makes him right. Well, it doesen't. I will address it tomorrow because I'm really tired right now.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
This post is far beyond my comprehension. I will address it tomorrow because I'm really owned right now and will have to stay up all night doing research on google to try prove you wrong.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
;D
-
Uh, no. I will address it. Everything he wrote is bullshit, especially considering that I didn't even say the things he claims I did. You know what? I will reply to it now just to shut your stupid mouth.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Uh, no. I will address it. Everything he wrote is bullshit, especially considering that I didn't even say the things he claims I did. You know what? I will reply to it now just to shut your stupid mouth.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Temper flaring up? 8)
-
SMM is such a tool...
If the widely accepted and proven theory of natural selection by mutation is wrong then what is your theory?
Here's a link for you debunking all your bullshit btw. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/27241-mutations-natural-selection.html
-
...strongly selects: yes. But not perfectly. There is still plenty of room for mutation.
Yes, because the DNA cannot impede it from happening. If it could, it would, evident in that organisms that show a high amount of mutations are preterred sexually by the opposite gender of their species. It doesen't mean it actually seeks mutations to happen. So how does this prove me wrong?
None of this is actually up for debate as the process of mutation has been fully modelled, studied and even observed. Even the mechanisms of mutation have been quantified and identified, everything from simple deletions; repetitions; insertions; transpositions and plain old random coding errors to very complicated exotic mechanisms involving viral manipulation of gene sequences.
Lmao...what the fuck has studies done with retrovirus gene therapy got to do with mutations where exogenous agents are not used as catalysts for the mutations? And the process by which mutations occur is irrelevant because how does this address my point that mutations are not actively seeked out by the DNA? All these errors, deletetions, insertions, etc, result either from a failure of RNA-transcryptase enzyme to properly code the informations for protein synsthesis contained within the gene alleles, or an alteration in the gene allele itself, something that should not happen. Again, dumby, how does this prove me wrong?
People "strongly select" against bumping into each other in the street because it is usually disadvantageous, but sometimes people bump into each other; fall in love; marry and spend the rest of their lives walking almost everywhere together.
An abstruse analogy that escapes me. If you mean that people are DNA and that mutations are the bumping and the children are the genetic change, then your analogy doesen't apply because people bump in each other and get married and have kids because it is a biological imperative for people to reproduce the species, but the DNA doesen't actively seek mutations to happen, so if the mutations(the bumping) occurs, it often does not result in children(the gene passing on the next generation), because people who show signs of mutations are selected against. And yes, to add insult to the injury I am causing you, people sometimes bump purposefully into each other as a means of introducing themselves to members of the opposite sex. Idiot. ;)
I still watch where I'm going: strongly select against making mistakes. That doesn't mean people can't bump into each other and fall in love.
Stupid analogy. People seek and each other and yes, they in many cases seek to bump into each other as an excuse to introduce themselves. Does the DNA actively seek making mistakes of transcription? No.
This is a common misconception adhered to by those who WANT or NEED to find some error, any error in the evolutionary theory (I'll presume you are some version of Creationist).
Way off your mark. I'm by no means a creationist. In fact, you haven't even read my post where I stated that I believe in the theory of evolution except for this fatal flaw.
In reality, humans do indeed select mates based on certain genetic criteria:
-general health
-body structure
-facial (and body) bilateral symmetry
-ethnicity
-smell
Thanks for stating the obvious, genius. And people choose those who are closest to the average exactly because they are the least genetically dissimilar. The traits that you see the most often in the population are those that have the highest inclusive fitness proven over generations, and people with too many variations from the norm are preterred.
General health is pretty obvious, body structure is probably secondary to that
Body morphology correlates strongly with general health. A person who had infantile paralysis and has one arm has a much poorer general health than someone with both arms the same size. It indicates a higher propensity for developing infections, a weaker immunological system, inferior motility which impedes a series of fitness-increasing activities, etc.
(with an emphasis on secondary sexual characteristics but with a neotenic twist),
Only in the case of women, dumby. In men, secondary sexual characteristics are less important than social status and mature facial features are preferred over neoteny. This is especially true when women are ovulating.
and the smell component is based upon a biological imperative to find a mate with as few immune system trace smells in common as possible in order that any offsping produced have the best possible mix of immunities. If memory serves me there are someting like six individual immunity smells associated with humans, and each human carries three of these distinct smell markers (don't quote me on those exact numbers, I'm a physicist by training not an endocrinologist).
Yes, this is true.
But then we have ethnicity and bilateral symmetry.
The ethnicity aspect is based around a preference to limit the chances of in-breeding, while still producing viabe offspring... humans prefer a mate that is a happy medium of being as diverse from their own gene pool as possible while simultaneously not being so distantly related as to hinder the chances of conception.
Yes, but inbreeding, historically, even after transportations methods became easily available, has been far more common on a per capita basis than interethnical mating. This goes to show that sexual selection is more cautious regarding genetic differentiation rather than genetic status quo.
Capt Kirk happily made it with the green Orion slave girl, but he didnt ask the Gorn if he had a sister, get it? Both green, both alien chicks... but more chance of impregnating the green-skinned hottie than the green scaled egg-laying lizard woman.
How is this relevant to anything? I hardly think Star Trek is the epitome of scientific excellency...and I never disagreed with this point.
If you average male faces across the entire population, the hypothetical "mathematically average guy" looks suspiciously like Brad Pitt... that's why most girls find him so attractive, he's genetically right in the middle of human diversity: not so distant as to be reproductively incompatible to the vast majority of women, nor so closely related as to represent an in-breeding danger to the vast majority of women.
Again, it is the similarity that makes the average face attractive and not the difference. If it were the difference, than elephant man would be the most attractive of all.
Similarly, half-caste/mixed-race people are considerd attractive by a large overlap of both groups from which they are derived... despite a natural hman preference for ones own racial group.
All the high paid supermodels, with a few exceptions, are of pure Northwestern European ethnicity. They are more popular with non-European ethnicities than the models of said non-Europeans ethinicities are with their own people. You: fail.
Now on to the crux of the problem... bilateral symmetry. Critics with a poor understanding of geneitcs (Creationists) often conflate bilateral symmetry with some measure of mutation. Such is NOT THE CASE.
Strands of DNA helix are NOT involved in producing each side of the body, nor any body macro-structures. The helix is simply a storage/replication method for the DNA molecule itself, bodily asymmetries DO NOT reflect any underlying DNA asymmetry or mutation
Ugh, no, completely wrong. The information that codes for the synthesis of all bodily proteins and their arrangements are defined by the DNA. So if there is a gene allele that codes for the formation of the ear, and one ear comes out with a bizzare shape, then the gene expresseed itself incorrectly when coding for that ear. If both ears come out flawed, the gene itself experienced a disarrangement of it's nucleotids. As you may know, there are four and small changes in the arrangement of them causes a gene to code for a completely different protein.
Humans prefer symmetrical mates (especialy facially symmetric mates) as a high degree of facial symmetry is a good effective measure of overall health.
And a good measure of overral health is a good measure of overral good genes. People with congenital diseases like diabetes, artherosclerosis, Down's Syndrome, etc, are seldom healthy. Nice redundant argument.
Facial and bodily symmetry is a measure of proper GROWTH, not a measure of mutation.
And the process of growth is controlled by genes - with environmental influences like nutrition playing a role. A person that grows assymetrically is more likely to carry mutations. This is obvious. And besides, it's not always that assymetry only appears after extra uterine growth starts. In many cases, the assymetries are alsready apparent in the foetal stage.
If someone has a lob-sided face, that usually means they have suffered several low-grade sinus infections, indicating they are sickly stock.
Which came before, the egg or the chicken? People with good formation of the nose are less liekly to develop inflamation of the sinuses, and the proper growth of the nose is controlled by, you got it, genes.
Likewise a strong jaw (relative to gender) and good cranial symmetry indicates good nutrition during a relatively disease-free childhood.
No, a strong jaw correlates with strong androgenic receptors in the skeletal structure of the jaw, which is perceived as a sign of dominance by women and thus attractive. It also indicates that the man in question is likely to be a good provider, since only someone competent at getting food could expend calories building a huge jaw.
There is absolutely NO WAY for any animal (human or otherwise) to select a mate based on mutation quotient... as such mutations almost always go unexpressed in the phenotype (most DNA is inactive "junk" DNA).
Irrelevant. What matters is not the total amount of mutations, but the relative number of mutations compared to others, which is easily detectable morphologically. Whether 10,000 genes are prone to express proteins or 10, the differences in mutations are easily morphologically apparent.
Mutations only become obvious when they are so detrimental as to produce an obviously damaged individual. For example, most humans would be put off a prospective mate if that mate was grotesquely deformed/crippled by a simple single gene mutation such as produces Proteus Syndrome (what John Merrick, the so-called Elephant Man semingly suffered from).
Wrong. There is a scale of attractiveness, with the average person having more mutations than a supermodel, and the elephant man having far more than the average person. And the supermodelm is perceived as more attractive, the average person less and the genetic freak the least.
Most humans would prefer a nice musky-smelling, healthy-looking, symmetrical and attactive mate... a mate who might well carry recessive gene expressions for hundreds of fatal genetic congenital disorders.
And this all correlates with genetic fitness. So thanks for stating the obvious and agreeing with me. ;)
Mates are NOT selected based on mutation.
The vast, vast majority of mutations have NO EFFECT and NO EXPRESSION
Not all mutations have morphological markers, yes, but they all have physiological markers. It is relative. Most people have mutations, and yet the degree is not enough to compromise their ability to pass on theri genes to the next generation.
A small percentage of mutations result in cancer, and a smaller still fraction resut in entirely new gene expressions which then become traits that compete in the gene pool.
I never denied that mutations are sometimes advantegeous. My point is that organisms avoid mating with those that express the highest amount of mutations. This indicates that, if mutations are the mechanism that drives natural selection, than natural selection is selecting against it. Why the fuck can't you understand this simple concept? :-\
Mutation is merely the mechanism which randomly gives rise to new genes... evolution is the process by which these new genes compete for replication.
The entire premise of your argument is faulty.
This is what you're saying: that mutations are the mechanism with which natural selection works with to determine which genes are adaptible. So natural selection should encourage selection for the highest amount of mutations possible, so as to increase the possibility of genetic options for species to meet the challenges the environment gives them to the highest degree possible. But this is not what happens. The most deformed, the most mutant are strongly selected against. See how retarded this logic is? The mechanism that drives evolution cannot be something that occurs unwillingly by the DNA and that it tries to avoid, but a mechanism that is encouraged by the DNA. What we see in Nature is that indiciduals with a high number of mutations are preterred compared to individuals with little mutations.
It still allows room for mutation. Only ring structure DNA sequences (as found in some primitive microbes) actively prevent and correct DNA mutations, and even they still allow for some mutation errors to occur. Google "spirococci radium durens" a germ that has near perfect reproductive fidelity due to its unique self-correcting DNA structure.
No, it does not "allow" mutations to occur, they occur despite the microbes best efforts to the contrary.
Mates are NOT selected based on mutations or mutation quotient, they are selected based on phenotype.
Redundant argument. Mutations are morphologically and physiologically expressed in the phenotype.
...just plain wrong. So very, very wrong.
This is tantamont to claiming that because the layering of bricks builds walls, then rockslides should produce cathedrals... obviousy they don't, therefore the layering of bricks does not build walls.
I never said that. Your analogies suck. Whether mutations produce brick walls or cathedrals is irrelevant because my point is that mutations are something that the DNA actively seeks to prevent and selectas against. So you are basically saying that if the DNA could reproduce perfectly from generation to generation adapted to a specific environment, then the environment changed demanding the genotype change to express a different phenotype, then the DNA would perish since it would have no active mechanism necessary to make the genotypical alteration for the organism it codes for to survive in the new environment? This is retarded to the max.
Stupid. Faulty extrapolaion, from faulty misconceptions.
You don't even know what conceptions I am talking about, which is why you think my extrapolations are flawed. Read what I wrote again, dumbass.
...guess you forgot the basic concepts.
Even if I forgot the most basic evolutionary and molecular biology, I would still know a hell lot more than you. ;D ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
i dont understand what these guys are talking about here
-
SMM is such a tool...
If the widely accepted and proven theory of natural selection by mutation is wrong then what is your theory?
Here's a link for you debunking all your bullshit btw. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/27241-mutations-natural-selection.html
Hey, moron. Tell that to "The Luke". He's the one claiming that mutations are conditione sine qua non of evolution, not me. 8)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Read my reply to him. Consider yourself owned, bitch. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
suckmymusclecock is melting down pretty bad it seems.....
-
suckmymusclecock is melting down pretty bad it seems.....
Lmao, my response to him was calm, objective and erudite. How does that constitute a meltdown? He was just plain wrong and I proved it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I don't know if I should be amused or saddened by how your average joe understands how we came about
too many question marks not enough explanations
for those who can actually think, here's our TRUE hystory
" As far as the history of this planet is concerned, you can consider that everything you ever learned is a complete lie. All history and science books are rewritten to accommodate the agenda of the controllers of this planet. These books are just as false as the New Age material spewing forth from such places as Sedona and Santa Fe, to name a couple of Illuminati meccas.
Disinformation is rampant everywhere. My information comes from my Montauk Project indoctrinations, experiences, conversations with scientists involved in Illuminati programs, communications with alien and interdimensional beings whom I met at various government projects, and through the probing of my own Oversoul.
I cannot offer you physical proof at this time. I can only tell you that it is available in certain places. Although all existence is simultaneous, and time and space are merely illusions of physical reality, for the purpose of this book I will present the majority of history from a linear perspective. There are also infinite universes, both physical and non-physical, but for now, I will only tell you about this one.
To understand how the Illuminati came to power, or even to comprehend what they are, it is important to understand the beginning of life on this world and its progression.
I do not believe in any religion, organized or otherwise. All religions, no matter what they are, are forms of group mind-control designed to manipulate large masses of people to stop thinking for themselves. I do believe in God. It has no religion.
In the subsequent years following the publication of my last book, much has been written about by other researchers concerning Reptilians and their rituals. This theme has found its way into the psyche of the public. Most people are still not willing to accept or even entertain the idea that hybrid Reptilians are in control of this planet and perform blood rituals and ceremonies using humans as the source of food and hormones. I wish it were not true. But I cannot change history, current events, or what I know to be true.
The controllers plan the pattern of coming events in such a way to purposefully disorient the masses while they alone see the destination and the order of life. The masses are lead to believe that haphazard events amidst chaos shape their existence.
In true reality, there is no such thing as chaos. Chaos is simply a pattern not yet understood or perceived.
Think about an ant crawling over a designed, tiled floor. The ant may seem confused or disoriented; not knowing which way to go. But a human being watching the ant from a higher perspective clearly sees the floor pattern and knows which way the ant can get to its destination. To the ant, there is only perceived chaos. To the human, there is a prescribed pattern.
To the controllers, the humans are the ants. The controllers are interested in directing the people in such a way that they do not know that they are being directed. The controllers work slowly and methodically from a global perspective to accomplish their goals.
With awareness, you too, can perceive order from the chaos, make some conscious decisions, and gain control of your own life and destiny."
" 2 - The Transparent People
When I worked at Montauk, I encountered an occasional alien species known as a Reptilian. They seemed to pop in and out of physical reality. The Reptilians primarily use the lower astral realms as their reference point, or point of entry, into physical reality. This is the origin of the legends of astral demons. My Montauk controllers explained that these beings were brought to the Draco star system eons ago by another group unknown to anyone. Further, they explained, no one knew anything of their true origins.
Communication with me was entirely telepathic (the Draco reptilian). Mentally, it told me that it came from the far future where humans no longer existed, and that its species was not from this reality. Continuing, it said that its species had traveled back into the distant past to create a race of beings, which I knew as the Reptilians, to antagonize and test humans.
It also told me that they were assisted by the Sirians of Sirius A in the creation of the Reptilians and their placement in the Draco star system.
For the Reptilians to function in physical reality, they needed physical genetics. The transparent people took genetics from the now physical Lyraens, who had blonde or red hair, and blue or green eyes. These genetics were mixed with the transparent peoples collective energy, thus manifesting physically as the Reptilians. This is why the current Reptilians need the energetics from Aryan-type people to survive on the physical plane.
Once the Reptilians were created in the astral, they needed a physical home base from which to accomplish their task. For this, they were taken to many different physical realities in which they could become the dominant species. Mentally, they were programmed to conquer and absorb all of the races and species that they encountered. Those that could not be absorbed were to be destroyed. The purpose of all of this is to determine the most perfect form in physical reality that can exist in any environment. Think of it as a gigantic, cosmic Survivor contest.
The Reptilians are programmed to believe that they are the superior physical form. Scientifically speaking, Reptilian DNA does not change very much over eons of time. It basically remains the same. For them, this is their proof that they are already perfect, without any need to adapt. Mammalian life, on the other hand, evolves and changes form constantly to survive.
To the Reptilian mind, this denotes weakness and inferiority. Reptilians are also androgynous, meaning male and female in one body. This is comparable to all non-physical forms that have no gender like God-Mind. For this reason, the Reptilians believe themselves to be more godlike because of their androgyny. Due to their ethnocentric values, they also consider it their right to control and conquer all of space and time.
Although the Reptilians operate out of a general group mind, they are separated into seven different Reptilian species, each created to perform specific functions.
This is their hierarchy, and is based on the nine level Angelic Hierarchy that I discussed in The Healers Handbook - A Journey Into Hyperspace (Sky Books, 1999).
As an aside, the Hindu caste system is a direct replica of the Reptilian hierarchy.
Because the Lyraens did not have a defense system in place, they were a sitting target for the Reptilians, also referred to as the "Draco". After being brutally attacked by the Draco Empire, the survivors of the Lyraen society dispersed to other locations throughout the galaxy. The remnants of the Draco attack on Lyrae are still seen by todays scientists.
In 1985, a newspaper article stated that scientists are able to observe remnant waves of a blast that fan outward, and emanate from a central part of this galaxy. They believe this blast to be several million years old and of such intense proportions that the wave is still traveling toward the edge of the galaxy before dissipating. They claim not to have any idea of what created the blast.
These survivors went to Orion, Tau Ceti, Pleiades, Procyon, Antaries, Alpha Centauri, Barnard Star, Arcturus, and dozens of other solar systems. In this solar system, the refugees colonized the planet now called Mars. At that time, it was the third planet in the solar system. A world called Maldek was the fourth planet in this solar system, and was also colonized.
The Lyraens were all blonde-haired, blue-eyed people, with an occasional red-haired or green-eyed person. In Lyraen society, red-haired people were considered special with extrasensory powers that connected them to non-physical realms. They were especially desired for breeding purposes. Special permission to breed with a red-haired person was required because of the extra, or superhuman, abilities that came with the offspring.
For this reason, red-haired people were kept separate from the rest, and even had their own subculture. They were also coveted by the Reptilians, who as a species did not have much psychic ability. Often, when Reptilians came to a world for occupation, the Lyraen refugees offered a group of red-haired people to appease them for a while. This practice eventually degenerated into sacrifices to appease the demons.
The planet Earth in those days was a water world in second orbit from the sun. There was little land above the surface. The only intelligent inhabitants were an amphibian race that was completely without technology. The atmosphere of the Earth was mostly liquid. The planet definitely could not sustain any type of human life forms.
The dispersed Lyraen descendants developed their own cultures over the eons of time. Even their genetics manifested differently as a result of the mind-patterns of each of the colonies. For instance, Mars and Maldek were similar to the current Earth environment, with warm to temperate climates and an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The gravity on Maldek was denser that Mars, so those people developed a thicker frame and a more aggressive attitude.
Eventually, skirmishes developed between the occupants of the two planets. Mars was rich in resources. The people of Maldek thought that they deserved these resources for survival. The Martians asked the beings of Sirius A, from the planet Khoom, for defense technology to shield their planet from attack, not only from the Reptilians, but from their humanoid neighbors and cousins. The Sirians are known throughout the galaxy as merchants of technology. They have the best, even sharing it with the Reptilians.
So, the Sirians created a defense mechanism located in the Mars underground.
Mars is a hollow planet, as are Earth and Jupiter. Planets created with material ejected from a star have hollow interiors. As a molten ball is thrown from the star and starts spinning away, it begins to cool. The centrifugal force of the globe spinning and moving at great speed pushes the molten interior to the sides, forming the crust of the planet. This, in turn, forces hot gases out of the poles to form openings at both ends. The molten core and gases that remain get trapped between the hollow interior and the plates below the crust of the globe. These are pushed out periodically in the form of volcanic activity.
The nexus point on any such globe is always at the 19th parallel of the planet. It is evident on Earth by the Hawaiian volcanoes, located at the 19th parallel; by the Mons volcano on Mars located at the 19th parallel; and at the red spot on Jupiter, also at the 19th parallel.
The geometry built into the monuments on Mars by the Sirians and Lyraen colonists explains about the 19th parallel through its geometric equations and measurements.
This geometry is also replicated and contained within the Giza Plateau in Egypt.
-
Read my reply to him. Consider yourself owned, bitch. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Since you are a founder of a gene expression discussion group, then would you care to elaborate on the role of the RNA polymerase II large subunit carboxyl terminal domain on the recruitment of transcription factors and subsequent initiation of transcription eukaryotes?
Big foot aside, the Luke is bang on here, whereas you my friend are on the wrong side of the bell curve.
-
The remnant Lyraens who colonized other planets formed an alliance against the constant Reptilian attacks. They called this alliance the Galactic Federation, comprised of 110 different colonies. The colonies belonging to the Federation wished to maintain their new identities, and no longer associate with the old way. Together, the Federation colonists managed to repel the Reptilian attacks.
There were three primary groups who did not join the Federation. These three groups were considered extremists, or nationalistic idealists, seeking to recreate the glory of the old Lyraen civilization. One group was the Atlans, located on a Pleiadian planet. The Pleiades actually consists of thirty-two planets orbiting seven stars. At that time there were sixteen different colonies of Lyraen descent throughout the Pleiades. These colonists all wanted to oust the renegade Atlans because they remained independent and did not assist their human cousins.
The other two groups were the Martians and Maldekians, who were already at odds with each other. For this reason, the Reptilians turned their attention toward this solar system with its two human colonies. In the Reptilians estimation, it would be easy to divide and conquer.
The Reptilians love to use comets and asteroids as weapons and ships, using them to travel through the stars. First, they create a small black hole as a propulsion system that pulls the larger planetoid towards its destination. When used as a weapon, they use a particle beam accelerator to create a blast that hurls the comet or asteroid to its target. All of the technology was obtained by the beings from Sirius A.(1)
In this way, they hurled a huge ice comet aimed at Mars and Maldek. The Reptilians, not being very technologically oriented, miscalculated the trajectory. The pull of the gigantic gas planet, Jupiter, pulled the comet off course. The ice comet then headed directly for Maldek. The citizens of that planet asked the Martians for help. Even though they were at odds with each other, they allowed some of the Maldekians to move to the Martian underground. The comet came so close to Maldek that the planet got caught between the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Mars, and the comet. This caused the planet to explode, leaving an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. (2)
The explosion pushed the ice comet close enough to Mars to rip the atmosphere off that planet, leaving only an extremely thin atmosphere. The explosion also pulled Mars further away from the sun.
The comet then continued on toward the Earth. The heat of the sun and the gravitational pull between the two globes forced the watery atmosphere of the Earth to polarize. This polarization pulled most of the ice from the comet to the polar regions of the Earth, thus covering most openings to the inner Earth, while at the same time exposing huge land masses for the first time.
The comet then switched places with Earth, taking up the second orbit from the sun, becoming the planet now known as Venus. The heat of the sun melted the ice on the comet, creating a cloudy covering to this new planet. The Earth was pushed out to the third orbit occupying the previous position held by Mars. The Earth was now ready to be colonized. Most of the surviving amphibians were transported to a new home on Neptune. Some stayed in the newly formed oceans.
The Reptilians who were inside the hollow comet, now Venus, came to the surface of this new world. They built seven domed cities, one for each of the seven groups in the hierarchy. In the mid-1980s one of New York's daily papers, Newsday, reported that a Soviet space probe penetrated the cloud layer of Venus and photographed seven white domes the size of small cities, all in a row.
After a page-long diatribe, the American scientists concluded that this was all a natural formation.
The Reptilians drove a large, hollowed out object into Earths orbit to begin the colonization process. This object is now called the Moon. Conventional science considers the Moon natural, yet it is the only known object in space that does not spin on its axis. The Moon faces the Earth in the same position all of the time, leaving one side in complete darkness. A sonic resonance sent to the surface of the Moon makes a pinging noise like a hollow object. If the Moon were solid, the noise would sound like a thump or thud. The Moon is hollow. A recent article in an astronomy magazine said that the Moon was being reclassified because it is considered to be hollow.
The Reptilians chose a large continental landmass to begin their civilization on the Earth, now referred to as Lemuria or Mu. This was a vast area in what is now the Pacific Basin, extending from Japan to Australia, and from the coast of California to Peru. The Hawaiian Islands are in the middle of this one-time landmass.
Here, an androgynous Reptilian culture developed. They brought with them the creatures that were their sustenance the dinosaurs. All beings create beneath them animals and plants that are a reflection of the mind-pattern. Reptilians create dinosaurs, humans create mammals. They are not designed to coexist on the same planet.
Additionally, the thinking process of the Reptilians differs from the human thinking process. Because Reptilians do not evolve rapidly and remain unchanging, their expansion is also slow moving and insidious. It would take several millennia for the Reptilians to decide whether or not they would coexist with humans. After all, Earth was still an outpost far from the centre of the Draconian Empire.
In the meantime, the Martians were now living underground with their hostile Maldekian guests. Something had to be done quickly to prevent them from destroying one another. So, the Martians petitioned the Galactic Federation to remove the Maldekian refugees to another planet. The Galactic Federation also received a petition from the Pleiadian Council at the same time, asking the Federation to remove the Atlans from their star cluster.
The Federation thusly decided to use the Atlans as a counterbalance on Earth. If the Atlans survived, the Maldekians would also be sent. The human/Lyraen descendants were literally throwing their own riffraff to the Reptilian colonists on Earth. In this way, the Federation would get rid of their undesirables. The undesirables would occupy the attention of the Reptilians. The Federation would gain valuable time to build their own forces against the Reptilians.
When the Atlans arrived on the Earth, they colonized what became known as Atlantis. Their continent stretched from what is now the Caribbean Basin to the Azores and Canary Islands, as well as several small island chains reaching up to what is now the East Coast of the United States, including Montauk Point.
The industrious Atlanteans rapidly grew to a large, prospering civilization needing more territory. The dinosaur population was rapidly increasing and becoming dangerous to the human colonists. The Atlanteans began destroying the dinosaurs to protect themselves. This did not sit well with the Reptilians. Soon major battles occurred on the Earth between the Lemurian Reptilians and Atlantean humans.
At the same time, the Maldekian refugees arrived on Earth. They created a large human colony in what is now the Gobi desert, northern India, Sumer, and other parts of Asia.
The Maldekians attacked the lunar surface where the Reptilians guarded their Earth outpost from invasion. The Maldekians also bombarded Atlantis and Lemuria with laser weapons. The dinosaurs were wiped out.
Additionally, the Martians also attacked the Reptilians from space since they, too, were searching for a Reptilian-free environment in which to live. This might be considered the real First World War on this planet.
It was a mess!
Footnotes:
1. The Sirians were at war with the Orion system. This hostility exists to this day. It is intriguing since the beings in Orion were once very human, as Lyraen colonists, and then were taken over by the Reptilians. However, the Sirians and the Reptilians trade with each other and the beings from Sirius A sell weaponry to the Dracos! A complex political situation indeed.
2. The comet also caused the planet Uranus to flip on its side. It is the only known planet that rotates north-South instead of East-West.
-
Conflict & Creation
To stop the fighting and make the Earth peaceful enough for colonization, a meeting was held by a council from the Andromeda Galaxy, on a planet called Hatona.
This meeting took place outside of the Milky Way Galaxy with a neutral council because all civilizations within the Milky Way Galaxy were in some way connected to the fighting, and all had some sort of stake in belonging to the winning side.
The Hatona Council convened for many decades as the fighting continued in this solar system. Finally, with their intercession, an agreement was reached between some of the human factions and the Reptilian Earth colonists. Keep in mind that this agreement was without the participation of the Reptilians from the original Draco Empire.
The agreement stated that a new breed of humanity would be created on Earth that would contain the DNA of all interested parties who participated in the "peace" process. A designated area on Earth would be set aside for the creation of this new species. The Earth-based Reptilians of Lemuria agreed to this under the condition that the Reptilian body be the foundation for this new being.
This is why the original Bible states, "Let us make man in our own image." This is a plural statement because it was a group project.
To achieve a new species from a Reptilian androgynous body, it was necessary to separate the genetics into male and female components. This is the allegorical story in the Bible of Adam and Eve. Creating Eve out of the rib of Adam is actually the story of separating the androgynous Reptilian body into male and female. This is why all humans on this planet have Reptilian DNA with Reptilian traits. This is also why human fetuses go through Reptilian-style development in the womb before looking humanoid.
Many prototypes were developed over millennia. Under the supervision of the Hatona Council, races were created and then destroyed when it was not acceptable by all parties. This explains why ancestors of mankind appear and then suddenly disappear in layers of archaeological analysis.
Twelve humanoid, and one Reptilian, groups donated DNA for this purpose. Mankind was developed in the area now known as Iran/Iraq, as well as parts of Africa. Hybrids were also developed on Atlantis and Lemuria. Remnants of these are seen today as the Bigfoot or Yeti in North America and Asia; the aborigines of Australia; and the pygmies and Watusi in Africa.
The African versions were created by beings from a nomadic, artificial planet known as Nibiru, or Marduk. These Reptilian-like beings travel in a manufactured world looping our solar system.
The Sumerians called them Anunnaki.
The cosmic joke to this project is that all of the groups donating DNA secretly programmed sequences to cause their genetic strand to be predominant. This set the precedent for eternal conflict. Humanity was doomed to fight and be controlled. No one group would ever be in charge. The project was doomed for failure before it even began!
Such DNA programming invites tyranny and oppression. Soul-personalities attracted to such a planet have a victim mentality. Many advanced cultures call Earth a prison planet, and dump their criminals here as punishment.
Once in a while, one of these soul-personalities reveal themselves, such as Richard Dahmer, Charles Manson, Richard Speck, and Vlad the Impaler (Count Dracula), to name a few.
This may be more however than a tempest in a teapot, because the galactic players appear to be willing to up the stakes with more intervention if their chess piece starts to lose. Enlil as Yahweh (the encoder in Bible Code) may not be willing to stand aside as his Israel under the hex Draco flag is destroyed by yet another nuclear blast. (predicted by Bible Code and Fatima & others) .
The Reptilians ensured that the new Man would be forever attached to the Reptilian frequency because the foundational prototype was Reptilian. This meant that the new Man could easily be mentally controlled by them.
Upon discovery of this information that the Reptilians wanted control of the new race, the Atlanteans began a severe electromagnetic bombardment of Lemuria. This bombardment caused the bulk of the continent to submerge into the ocean, now called the Pacific Ocean. The only parts left above the water are the Hawaiian Islands, the California coast west of the San Andreas fault, Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific Islands, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and the islands of southeast Asia.
The Reptilian survivors went to Northern India, the Earths interior, the planet Venus, and parts of Central and South America. Inner Earth became the "homeland" for most of the surviving Reptilians of Lemuria. Here, they created a vast underground civilization.
This started the legends of hell and demons living in fire under the Earth. They built tubes containing fast, subway-like vehicles that can travel to any point on the Earth within a few hours. They created the famed underworld cities of Akkadia, Agartha, Hyperborea, and Shamballa that are sought by explorers to this very day. These cities are built along the inside wall of the inner crust that lines the interior of the Earth.
Remember, the hollow Earth is not a theory, but a scientific fact caused by the cooling and spinning of a planet as it is ejected from a star or sun.
The primary entry points to the inner Earth are via the North Pole, where there is an opening of 1300 miles, and the South Pole, with an opening of 950 miles. These can be seen from space. That is why commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly over these areas; not because of magnetic disturbances, which is the "official" reason. Admiral Byrd reported on these openings in the 1920s until his information was concealed by the government.
At the very centre, or nucleus, of inner Earth, there is a globe of energy left over from the creation of this planet that acts as an inner sun. It is the light from this object suspended by gravity and centrifugal force that causes the light of the aurora borealis.
Numerous cave entrances to the inner Earth exist in the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Mountains in the western United States, as well as less numerous openings in the Ozarks and Appalachian Mountains. Entries also exist in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, and the Caribbean. There are also numerous sub-oceanic entry points, particularly in the deep trenches of the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Atlantic submarine mountain ranges especially on or near the Azores, Canary Islands, and the Falklands.
All of these areas are closely guarded by local governments and N.W.O. elite forces. Artificially created entrances exist under the new Denver airport, the Giza Plateau in Egypt, major Air Force complexes around the world, and many of the Temples in India and China. A major Chinese entry point is under the Shensi Pyramid that is out of bounds for everyone in Western China.
Of course, with the Reptilians off the Earths surface, the Atlanteans were free to play with this new mankind and establish humans as the ruler of this planet. They established colonies all over the remaining portions of land. They invited the Sirians to come and play with them. They booted the Marduk beings off-world and took control of their slaves. They created new hybrids for sea and land, one of which became the Merfolk, a genetic blend of human and dolphin. The dolphin species was brought here from the Andromeda Galaxy to monitor all of these events.
Whenever the Atlanteans detected underground Reptilian activity, they blasted the inner Earth with lasers and electromagnetic pulses to kill them. Unfortunately, this weakened the upper crust of the Earths top mantle riding over the trapped magma between the upper and lower crusts. After several millennia of these attacks, the Atlantean continent started to break up. Their civilization began to break up as a reflection of the physical deterioration of their continent. The Atlanteans became even more belligerent as fear and destruction overtook their mind-patterns. Black magicians and sorcerers took the place of scientists and religious leaders.
Fortunately, the population foresaw the destruction that was coming. Many refugees relocated to what is now Egypt, Peru, the Appalachian Mountains and Western Europe, just before the continent collapsed into the upper crust of the Earth. This collapse caused the Earth to flip on its axis, creating the legend of the Flood written about in the Bible, and in other world cultures.
This catastrophe was used as a window of opportunity by the groups that donated DNA to create mankind. They immediately began reorganizing the humans into new groups that became the basis for future nationalism.
*
The Sirians helped to create the ancient Egyptian culture
*
Those from Tau Ceti organized the Slavic culture
*
The Rigelians were busy in China and the Orient (3)
While all this was transpiring, the Reptilians saw an opportunity and seized it!
Footnote:
3. For further details of the flow of genetics an alien intervention in mankind, please refer to the Milky Way Galaxy chart on the book.
Go Back
6 - Bluebloods!
The inner Earth provided a subterranean locale for the Reptilians to regroup and formulate plans to retake the surface. At this point, the Reptilians were completely cut off from their home in the Draco constellation. Their spaceship, the Moon, was in human hands. They were alone, isolated on a now hostile planet. They needed to defend themselves.
They developed a plan to insidiously retake the surface by blending their genetics with the genetics of the surface humans. Because the human prototype already had Reptilian genetics, it was easy to access the mind-pattern. The Reptilian frequency was already established in the brain stem as well as the Reptilian brain section of these hybrid humans.
The population of Sumer was chosen as the starting point. These humans were primarily descendants of the Martian, Maldekian, and Lyraen refugees. The Reptilians have a preference for the genetics of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people whose mind-patterns and genetics are so easily controlled. They abducted members of the ruling classes, including political leaders.
Using these humans, they began a new hybridization program that took several generations to perfect. Their goal was to reach a human/ Reptilian genetic 50/50 split. This would produce a human-looking Reptilian that could easily shapeshift from Reptilian to human, then back again. Shapeshifting was accomplished simply by concentrating on the genetics the hybrid wished to open, or lock up, whatever the case may be.
For this program the Reptilians engaged the help of the Sirians who had the technology to implement such a program. The Sirians knew a lot about genetic alterations and mind-programming, which they freely shared with the Reptilians.
Once the hybridization program was complete, the Sumerian leaders were now shapeshifting Reptilians. The new Reptilian hybrid became the elite of that culture. Their blood, because of the increased Reptilian DNA, contained more of a copper content.
Since copper-based blood turns blue-green upon oxidizing, these Reptilian hybrids were called "Bluebloods".
The Bluebloods quickly realized that with a 50/50 human/Reptilian genetic split, it was necessary to intermarry to maintain the 50/50 split bloodline necessary to shapeshift. When the split increased too far to the Reptilian side, shapeshifting became difficult, and holding human form became impossible. In these cases, it was discovered that the ingestion of human hormones, flesh, and blood, allowed the Reptilians to maintain the human form.
Human form was necessary to maintain to avoid scaring the population, which was now not accustomed to the Reptilian form.
Control of the masses was easier when the orders came from a humanoid. The Reptilian format was kept to religious icons and legends. The statues of their gods and goddesses reflect the Reptilian influence, even showing a female Reptilian holding a hybrid baby. (click image right)
The shapeshifting Reptilian Bluebloods asked the Sirians for help with the daily maintenance of their human forms. The Sirians determined that feeding the hybrids human hormones and blood in an altered animal form would be the easiest way to do it unnoticed by the population.
The sacrificial animal used by most Middle Eastern people was the wild boar, so the Sirians chose it as the basis for this new animal hybrid. Human genetics were mixed with those of the wild boar to create the domesticated pig. This animal was served daily to the Bluebloods as a method of temporarily maintaining their human form until they could use an actual human in a sacrificial ceremony.
Because the domesticated pig is a combination of human and animal genetics, eating it is a form of cannibalism. This explains why the Hebrews considered it unclean to eat. This is also why the pig is considered to be the most intelligent animal on Earth, why pig skin can be grafted directly onto humans in burn cases, and why pig heart valves can be used in humans with little difficulty. Cancer drugs and other chemicals are often tested on pigs before humans.
The domesticated pig frequency, or group mind, is the perfect vehicle for animal species to enter before entering human form on their evolutionary progression. In many respects, pigs can be considered a form of humanity. To a lesser degree, the same is true about cats.
As time progressed, the civilization of Sumer declined and transformed into other cultures. Vast migrations from Sumer to other locations in Central Asia occurred. The migrating peoples took their Blueblood leaders with them, as they were their royalty and kings.
The Sumerians became known as the sum-Aryans, or just, Aryans. They spread out across Asia into the steppes of Russia and into the Northern Indian subcontinent. In India they encountered the dark-skinned Dravidians, who were Reptilian remnants from Lemuria. The Dravidians were driven to the central and southern parts of India, while the Aryan hybrids took control of the north, and into the foothills of the Himalayas.
The Aryan leaders, all Bluebloods, became the Sultans and Rajas of legend and history. Sumerians also created Babylonia.
The Sumerians also migrated to the area known as the Caucasus Region, where the Khazars developed. From the Caucasus Region, the Blueblood kings and their people spread west toward Europe, developing into the Franks, Cambrians, and Teutonic nationalities. These nationalities were also being manipulated by various alien cultures like the Antarians, Arcturians, Aldebarans, Tau Cetians, and other remnants of the Lyraens, such as the Atlans. The Atlans located here eventually became the Celts.
To back-track for just a bit, I had said in a previous chapter that the descendants of the Reptilian hybrid Sumerians went into Central Asia and the Middle East. They mostly established themselves in the Caucasus Mountains and became the Khazars. From here, they spread west toward Europe, seeding the national identities for the Vikings, the Franks, the Teutonic peoples, and the Russians. Keep in mind that when Atlantis sank, some of those refugees went to Western Europe and developed into the Celts. Some went to Greece and others to the Italian Peninsula.
These peoples were here before the hybrids moved in. It was during the interim time period from the destruction of Atlantis until the Sumerian descendants moved in that other alien groups started to add their genetic mix to the pot and develop individual cultures based on their home worlds.
These Blueblood leaders also infiltrated the Middle Eastern peoples, such as the Biblical Canaanites, Malachites, and Kittites.
At the same time in Egypt, the Sirians were reorganizing the Atlantean descendants there, known as the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians were blonde-haired, blue-eyed, with some green-eyed, red-haired people among them. The Phoenicians colonized the coastal Middle East and the British Isles. They even colonized parts of the North-eastern North American continent, all the way to the Great Lakes area. Some of their mines and writing son stone tablets can still be found in the woods of North America.
The Sirians were also genetically creating the ancient Hebrews. The Jewish people are actually a combination of these genetically manipulated Hebrews and the Sumerians. These Jewish people were then released into the Palestinian territory. The name, Palestine, comes from the ancient people, the Philistines, who were actually Phoenicians.
All of these mixed in the coastal plains of Palestine and created a new religion based on sacrifice and an avenging alien controller, that they called God, or Elohim.
Similarly, when the Aryans mixed with the Dravidians in India, they created the Hindu religion, which is actually a recreation of the Reptilian seven-tier hierarchy. The caste system of India is a direct copy of the Reptilian division of function.
At the same time that all of this was going on in western and central Asia, the Rigelians, were developing the remnants of Lemuria who escaped to the coast of eastern Asia. The Rigelians were a human civilization that was controlled, and eventually assimilated, by the Reptilians. The Rigelians assisted the inner Earth Reptilians in developing a hybrid that included Rigelian DNA.
The Rigelian/Reptilian hybrids set up dynasties in what is now Japan and China that developed independently of their western cousins.
In their mania for control, the Reptilians used the various races that donated DNA to the original human project. They fastidiously monitored these related sections of hybrids to determine which was best suited for overall control, and which for subservience. All the hybrids could be controlled through the Reptilian brain that hooked them into Reptilian mind-patterns, but some were more controllable than others.
In Europe, the Bluebloods insidiously took control of the various tribes and groups, becoming their kings and royalty. They infiltrated the Arcturian experiment, called the Etruscans and started to create a new global empire through the Romans. These European Bluebloods then entirely eliminated the Antarian experiment in Greece, and instigated their plan for globalization through the Roman Empire.
The Reptilians even offended the Sirians by infiltrating the Egyptian experiment and implementing their religion there.
The Reptilian hybrids became like the endometriosis of the known world, slowly growing into all areas and creating control through the Blueblood system.
-
(http://galleries.allover30.com/mature/Magdalene/8rA6Dw/mag002003001855003.jpg)
-
Since you are a founder of a gene expression discussion group, then would you care to elaborate on the role of the RNA polymerase II large subunit carboxyl terminal domain on the recruitment of transcription factors and subsequent initiation of transcription eukaryotes?
Lol...you just typed on google "molecular biology" and then copied verbatim the text from some random text you opened, and you think that makes you smart? I have news for you: you are dumb as dirt. ;)
Big foot aside, the Luke is bang on here, whereas you my friend are on the wrong side of the bell curve.
Lol, no, just because two morons agree on something, it doesen't make it right. I will gladly match my IQ against his and even more so against yours.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Lol, no, just because two morons agree on something, it doesen't make it right. I will gladly match my IQ against his and even more so against yours.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
The Luke has stated that his IQ is 130.
-
The Luke has stated that his IQ is 130.
My guess would be around 125, but 130 is possible. Anyways, I would score that in a test made for adults at the age of 7. He has no idea what he is talking about, makes shitty analogies, misuses scientific terminology, makes redundant arguments manipulating semantics to try to make A look like B, overuses tautologies, doesen't know the difference between genotype and phenotype, doesen't understand the difference between mutations due to failed gene expression due to RNA-transcryptase failure and those due to necleotide disarrangement, etc.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
My guess would be around 125, but 130 is possible. Anyways, I would score that in a test made for adults at the age of 7. He has no idea what he is talking about, makes shitty analogies, misuses scientific terminology, makes redundant arguments manipulating semantics to try to make A look like B, overuses tautologies, doesen't know the difference between genotype and phenotype, doesen't understand the difference between mutations due to failed gene expression due to RNA-transcryptase failure and those due to necleotide disarrangement, etc.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You were almost 3 times as intelligent as Debussey is now at age 7 :'(
-
You were almost 3 times as intelligent as Debussey is now at age 7 :'(
Go read my reply to him. That will raise your intelligence. Or maybe not, since brilliant refuttals to stupid points are seldom truly brilliant.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Go read my reply to him. That will raise your intelligence. Or maybe not, since brilliant refuttals to stupid points are seldom truly brilliant.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Sometimes you are just fucking awesome ;D
-
Read my reply to him. Consider yourself owned, bitch. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
LOL I find it amusing that you decided to stay awake and type out that entire rebutal which no one realy cares about just because I poked some fun at you ;D
sucky, this ones for you :-*.
-
LOL I find it amusing that you decided stay awake and type out that entire rebutal which no one realy cares about just because I decided to poke some fun at you ;D
sucky, this ones for you :-*.
That's actually a pretty cool video. It's from Terminator II, right? It looks like 5 megaton yield. Thanks for the video.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
(http://galleries.allover30.com/mature/Magdalene/8rA6Dw/mag002003001855003.jpg)
No thanx.
Dont like face.
-
she doesnt like your face
-
she doesnt like your face
I was waiting for that comment. ;D
-
Hey, moron. Tell that to "The Luke". He's the one claiming that mutations are conditione sine qua non of evolution, not me. 8)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
oh really
I believe in the theory of evolution except for one thing..Lamarck proposed mutations as the mechanism with which natural selection advanced. But this doesen't make any sense, because mutations are seldom beneficial. In fact, a mutation is nothing more than the failure of a gene to express protein synthesis correctly. Organisms that exibit signs of mutations are preterred by other members of their species for mating because depending on the mutation, basic functioning of the circulatory, immunological and even digestive processes can be compromised. In fact, the most salient feature of mutations are assymetries in the morphology of an organism, and assymetries are perceived as decreasing the sexual attractiveness of the organism to the opposite gender. It makes no sense that natural selection would advance through mutations and yet predispose us to find people of the opposite sex that exibit the greatest number of mutations as the most unattractive. There must be other mechanism that drives natural selection, because otherwise natural slection would be selecting against itself, and that makes no sense whatsoever.
and I think Luke said it wasn't the only mechanism..
Where as you state that any mutation would always make a specie unatractive...lol
-
I'm to dumb to understand this. Can we go back to discussing men in thongs, if we'd have intercourse with fat chicks, and making fun of minorities?
-
I'm to dumb to understand this. Can we go back to discussing men in thongs, if we'd have intercourse with fat chicks, and making fun of minorities?
Yes, mankind has evolved, and now we discuss "men in thongs". :-\
-
Yes, because the DNA cannot impede it from happening. If it could, it would, evident in that organisms that show a high amount of mutations are preterred sexually by the opposite gender of their species. It doesen't mean it actually seeks mutations to happen. So how does this prove me wrong?
Lmao...what the fuck has studies done with retrovirus gene therapy got to do with mutations where exogenous agents are not used as catalysts for the mutations? And the process by which mutations occur is irrelevant because how does this address my point that mutations are not actively seeked out by the DNA? All these errors, deletetions, insertions, etc, result either from a failure of RNA-transcryptase enzyme to properly code the informations for protein synsthesis contained within the gene alleles, or an alteration in the gene allele itself, something that should not happen. Again, dumby, how does this prove me wrong?
An abstruse analogy that escapes me. If you mean that people are DNA and that mutations are the bumping and the children are the genetic change, then your analogy doesen't apply because people bump in each other and get married and have kids because it is a biological imperative for people to reproduce the species, but the DNA doesen't actively seek mutations to happen, so if the mutations(the bumping) occurs, it often does not result in children(the gene passing on the next generation), because people who show signs of mutations are selected against. And yes, to add insult to the injury I am causing you, people sometimes bump purposefully into each other as a means of introducing themselves to members of the opposite sex. Idiot. ;)
Stupid analogy. People seek and each other and yes, they in many cases seek to bump into each other as an excuse to introduce themselves. Does the DNA actively seek making mistakes of transcription? No.
Way off your mark. I'm by no means a creationist. In fact, you haven't even read my post where I stated that I believe in the theory of evolution except for this fatal flaw.
Thanks for stating the obvious, genius. And people choose those who are closest to the average exactly because they are the least genetically dissimilar. The traits that you see the most often in the population are those that have the highest inclusive fitness proven over generations, and people with too many variations from the norm are preterred.
Body morphology correlates strongly with general health. A person who had infantile paralysis and has one arm has a much poorer general health than someone with both arms the same size. It indicates a higher propensity for developing infections, a weaker immunological system, inferior motility which impedes a series of fitness-increasing activities, etc.
Only in the case of women, dumby. In men, secondary sexual characteristics are less important than social status and mature facial features are preferred over neoteny. This is especially true when women are ovulating.
Yes, this is true.
Yes, but inbreeding, historically, even after transportations methods became easily available, has been far more common on a per capita basis than interethnical mating. This goes to show that sexual selection is more cautious regarding genetic differentiation rather than genetic status quo.
How is this relevant to anything? I hardly think Star Trek is the epitome of scientific excellency...and I never disagreed with this point.
Again, it is the similarity that makes the average face attractive and not the difference. If it were the difference, than elephant man would be the most attractive of all.
All the high paid supermodels, with a few exceptions, are of pure Northwestern European ethnicity. They are more popular with non-European ethnicities than the models of said non-Europeans ethinicities are with their own people. You: fail.
Ugh, no, completely wrong. The information that codes for the synthesis of all bodily proteins and their arrangements are defined by the DNA. So if there is a gene allele that codes for the formation of the ear, and one ear comes out with a bizzare shape, then the gene expresseed itself incorrectly when coding for that ear. If both ears come out flawed, the gene itself experienced a disarrangement of it's nucleotids. As you may know, there are four and small changes in the arrangement of them causes a gene to code for a completely different protein.
And a good measure of overral health is a good measure of overral good genes. People with congenital diseases like diabetes, artherosclerosis, Down's Syndrome, etc, are seldom healthy. Nice redundant argument.
And the process of growth is controlled by genes - with environmental influences like nutrition playing a role. A person that grows assymetrically is more likely to carry mutations. This is obvious. And besides, it's not always that assymetry only appears after extra uterine growth starts. In many cases, the assymetries are alsready apparent in the foetal stage.
Which came before, the egg or the chicken? People with good formation of the nose are less liekly to develop inflamation of the sinuses, and the proper growth of the nose is controlled by, you got it, genes.
No, a strong jaw correlates with strong androgenic receptors in the skeletal structure of the jaw, which is perceived as a sign of dominance by women and thus attractive. It also indicates that the man in question is likely to be a good provider, since only someone competent at getting food could expend calories building a huge jaw.
Irrelevant. What matters is not the total amount of mutations, but the relative number of mutations compared to others, which is easily detectable morphologically. Whether 10,000 genes are prone to express proteins or 10, the differences in mutations are easily morphologically apparent.
Wrong. There is a scale of attractiveness, with the average person having more mutations than a supermodel, and the elephant man having far more than the average person. And the supermodelm is perceived as more attractive, the average person less and the genetic freak the least.
And this all correlates with genetic fitness. So thanks for stating the obvious and agreeing with me. ;)
Not all mutations have morphological markers, yes, but they all have physiological markers. It is relative. Most people have mutations, and yet the degree is not enough to compromise their ability to pass on theri genes to the next generation.
I never denied that mutations are sometimes advantegeous. My point is that organisms avoid mating with those that express the highest amount of mutations. This indicates that, if mutations are the mechanism that drives natural selection, than natural selection is selecting against it. Why the fuck can't you understand this simple concept? :-\
This is what you're saying: that mutations are the mechanism with which natural selection works with to determine which genes are adaptible. So natural selection should encourage selection for the highest amount of mutations possible, so as to increase the possibility of genetic options for species to meet the challenges the environment gives them to the highest degree possible. But this is not what happens. The most deformed, the most mutant are strongly selected against. See how retarded this logic is? The mechanism that drives evolution cannot be something that occurs unwillingly by the DNA and that it tries to avoid, but a mechanism that is encouraged by the DNA. What we see in Nature is that indiciduals with a high number of mutations are preterred compared to individuals with little mutations.
No, it does not "allow" mutations to occur, they occur despite the microbes best efforts to the contrary.
Redundant argument. Mutations are morphologically and physiologically expressed in the phenotype.
I never said that. Your analogies suck. Whether mutations produce brick walls or cathedrals is irrelevant because my point is that mutations are something that the DNA actively seeks to prevent and selectas against. So you are basically saying that if the DNA could reproduce perfectly from generation to generation adapted to a specific environment, then the environment changed demanding the genotype change to express a different phenotype, then the DNA would perish since it would have no active mechanism necessary to make the genotypical alteration for the organism it codes for to survive in the new environment? This is retarded to the max.
You don't even know what conceptions I am talking about, which is why you think my extrapolations are flawed. Read what I wrote again, dumbass.
Even if I forgot the most basic evolutionary and molecular biology, I would still know a hell lot more than you. ;D ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Dear Mr and Mrs SuckMyMuscle,
I am afraid I have no option other than dropping your son, Sucky, from my class: Introductory Biology 101.
His spelling (red) and grammar (green) are far below par, and his intransigent refusal to learn the difference between genetic variation and genetic mutation has hindered my teaching no end.
His stubborn adherence to simple minded misconceptions makes him thoroughly unteachable, and his poor comprehension skills stifle every opportunity for intellectual advancement.
At least draw solace in the fact that you have raised an extremely self confident boy, who holds fast to his opinions, no matter how poorly formed.
Yours sincerely,
Someone Who Understands the Basics of Evolution
-
Dear Mr and Mrs SuckMyMuscle,
I am afraid I have no option other than dropping your son, Sucky, from my class: Introductory Biology 101.
His spelling (red) and grammar (green) are far below par, and his intransigent refusal to learn the difference between genetic variation and genetic mutation has hindered my teaching no end.
His stubborn adherence to simple minded misconceptions makes him thoroughly unteachable, and his poor comprehension skills stifle every opportunity for intellectual advancement.
At least draw solace in the fact that you have raised an extremely self confident boy, who holds fast to his opinions, no matter how poorly formed.
Yours sincerely,
Someone Who Understands the Basics of Evolution
Translation:"I can't answer any of his points, so I will attack his grammar and spelling, even though English is not his first language, and pretend that correcting his grammar makes me smarter by default, ending the discussion without a need to address any of his points that are too complex for my pea brain to understand."
I accept your admission of defeat, Luke. 8)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
oh really
and I think Luke said it wasn't the only mechanism..
Ok, so what mechanisms besides mutations are there that results in genetic variations? "The Luke" wrote 50 paragraphs, beat around the bushes and never answered this simple question. The only way for a gene to express a different phenotypical variations is for it to mutate so as to alter it's arrengement of nucleotides and thus code for the synthesis of a different protein.
What other mechanisms are there?
Where as you state that any mutation would always make a specie unatractive...lol
No, I said that, if mutations are the mechanism with which the DNA produces variations for natural selection to act upon, then something is wrong because the DNA seems to select against mutations by making organism that have the highest morphological markers of mutations unattractive as sexual mates.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Jesus fucking Christ...
Ok, so what mechanisms besides mutations are there that results in genetic variations? "The Luke" wrote 50 paragraphs, beat around the bushes and never answered this simple question. The only way for a gene to express a different phenotypical variations is for it to mutate so as to alter it's arrengement of nucleotides and thus code for the synthesis of a different protein.
What other mechanisms are there?
Nucleotides form alleles, NOT genes... one or more alleles together forms a gene.
Genes prodce the genotype, not the phenotype.
Genes do not only mutate by the rearrangement of nucleotides... whole alleles can move around. Nucleotides, alleles, even whole genes or gene sequences or entire chromosomes can be doubled up; delete entirely, reversed, place in the wrong position. Viruses can even insert DNA; activate and deactivae genes etc etc
Let me give you some simple examples, using a sentence to explain the changes: take leters for nucleotides, words for alleles and sentences for genes:
Suckmymuscle does not understand ....normal coding, four alleles (words) forming a gene (sentence)
Suckmymuscle does not understanH ...nucleotide error
Suckmymuscle does not understadn ...nucleotide reversal
Suckmymuscle does not understan ...nuceotide deletion
Suckmymuscle does not understandd ...nucleotide repetition
Suckmymuscle does not standunder ...nucleotide transposition
Suckmymuscle does not QwErTyUiOp ...random allele error
Suckmymuscle does not dnatsrednu ...allele reversal
Suckmymuscle does not ...allele deletion
Suckmymuscle does not understand understand ...allele repetition
Suckmymuscle understand does not ...allele transposition
All of this can happen. Even exotic DNA manipulations:
Suckmymuscle does not understand ANYTHING ...virus introduced allele
Similarly, gene or chromosome repetition; deletion or manipulation would involve action on whole sentences, even whole pages of text (continuing this conceit).
So simple nucleotide mutations ARE NOT the only method of mutation or variation.
But mutation (of whatever form) is the ONLY method by which new genes arise in the gene pool... accept this, there is NO OTHER MECHANISM.
No, I said that, if mutations are the mechanism with which the DNA produces variations for natural selection to act upon, then something is wrong because the DNA seems to select against mutations by making organism that have the highest morphological markers of mutations unattractive as sexual mates.
If mutated genes are reproduced it becomes variation.
Mutation generally creates NEW genes... variation is something different.
Imagine human sex chromosomes as simple binary DNA organisms, just two genes:
Male XY boinks Female XX producing all the weird and wonderful variations:
XX ...baby girl
XY ...baby boy
X ...female but not so fertile
XYY ...hyper male
XXXY ...male, but can gender identifies female (see Playmate centrefold Caroline "Tula" Cossey)
XXYY ...thick around the midsection and ugly, but male
XX(Male) ...feminine looking male
XX(Female: streak ovaries) ...female, but undeveloped
XXXXX ...female microcephalic
There is VARIATION between the male (XY; XYY; XXXY; XXYY; and XX(Male)) and female (XX; X; XXXXX; and XX(Female hypogonadic)) groups.
But only the De La Chapelle syndrome XX males are true mutants (where X and Y chromosomes have merged to create X shaped sex chromosomes that contain Y chromosome material).
And only the XXXXX females are identifiable as having anything wrong with them (microcephaly).
So XX and XY produce:
XX
XY
XYY
XXXY
XXYY
XX(Male)
XX(hypogonadic)
XXXXX
...yet only XXXXX is identifiable as deficient and avoided by mates.
So you can't choose a partner with the least amount of "mutation" as you put it because most mutation is expressed as established variation (where mutation has previously created new functioning genes). Any mutations a prospective mate may carry are generally NOT expressed morphologically.
In fact sexed animals prefer mates with as much VARIATION as possibe, without risking being reproductively incompatible.
Sexual selection is primarily based on VARIATION, not MUTATION.
MUTATION of active genes is rare; typically detrimental and only occasionally beneficial. If a mutation is passed on then it essentially becomes a form of VARIATION competing in the gene pool.
Your comprehension of how mutations express themselves in the phenotype is simply wrong.
The Luke
-
Jesus fucking Christ...
I can say the same, except that I don't believe in him. I will be short and sweet, but first I will correct some misenterpretations you've made.
Nucleotides form alleles, NOT genes... one or more alleles together forms a gene.
They form both, since genes are made of alleles. If B is made from A to yield C, then C is also made of A. This is simple basic deductive logic, genius.
Genes prodce the genotype, not the phenotype.
Where have I stated the opposite? I said genes express the phenotype.
Genes do not only mutate by the rearrangement of nucleotides... whole alleles can move around. Nucleotides, alleles, even whole genes or gene sequences or entire chromosomes can be doubled up; delete entirely, reversed, place in the wrong position. Viruses can even insert DNA; activate and deactivae genes etc etc
Let me give you some simple examples, using a sentence to explain the changes: take leters for nucleotides, words for alleles and sentences for genes:
Suckmymuscle does not understand ....normal coding, four alleles (words) forming a gene (sentence)
Suckmymuscle does not understanH ...nucleotide error
Suckmymuscle does not understadn ...nucleotide reversal
Suckmymuscle does not understan ...nuceotide deletion
Suckmymuscle does not understandd ...nucleotide repetition
Suckmymuscle does not standunder ...nucleotide transposition
Suckmymuscle does not QwErTyUiOp ...random allele error
Suckmymuscle does not dnatsrednu ...allele reversal
Suckmymuscle does not ...allele deletion
Suckmymuscle does not understand understand ...allele repetition
Suckmymuscle understand does not ...allele transposition
All of this can happen. Even exotic DNA manipulations:
Suckmymuscle does not understand ANYTHING ...virus introduced allele
Similarly, gene or chromosome repetition; deletion or manipulation would involve action on whole sentences, even whole pages of text (continuing this conceit).
So simple nucleotide mutations ARE NOT the only method of mutation or variation.
But mutation (of whatever form) is the ONLY method by which new genes arise in the gene pool... accept this, there is NO OTHER MECHANISM.
If mutated genes are reproduced it becomes variation.
Mutation generally creates NEW genes... variation is something different.
Imagine human sex chromosomes as simple binary DNA organisms, just two genes:
Male XY boinks Female XX producing all the weird and wonderful variations:
XX ...baby girl
XY ...baby boy
X ...female but not so fertile
XYY ...hyper male
XXXY ...male, but can gender identifies female (see Playmate centrefold Caroline "Tula" Cossey)
XXYY ...thick around the midsection and ugly, but male
XX(Male) ...feminine looking male
XX(Female: streak ovaries) ...female, but undeveloped
XXXXX ...female microcephalic
There is VARIATION between the male (XY; XYY; XXXY; XXYY; and XX(Male)) and female (XX; X; XXXXX; and XX(Female hypogonadic)) groups.
But only the De La Chapelle syndrome XX males are true mutants (where X and Y chromosomes have merged to create X shaped sex chromosomes that contain Y chromosome material).
And only the XXXXX females are identifiable as having anything wrong with them (microcephaly).
So XX and XY produce:
XX
XY
XYY
XXXY
XXYY
XX(Male)
XX(hypogonadic)
XXXXX
...yet only XXXXX is identifiable as deficient and avoided by mates.
So you can't choose a partner with the least amount of "mutation" as you put it because most mutation is expressed as established variation (where mutation has previously created new functioning genes). Any mutations a prospective mate may carry are generally NOT expressed morphologically.
In fact sexed animals prefer mates with as much VARIATION as possibe, without risking being reproductively incompatible.
Sexual selection is primarily based on VARIATION, not MUTATION.
MUTATION of active genes is rare; typically detrimental and only occasionally beneficial. If a mutation is passed on then it essentially becomes a form of VARIATION competing in the gene pool.
Your comprehension of how mutations express themselves in the phenotype is simply wrong.
The Luke
Ok, let me try this again. I never disagreed that genetic variations are in many cases beneficial. This is irrelevant because I am not challenging the results per se, but the fact that these results(variations) being necessary for survivability(natural selection), are accomplished by errors in nucleotide arrangement(mutations) that are not only not actively seeked out by the DNA, but are actually avoided. This is the crux of the problem. It would make perfect sense if these alterations were made through a volitional effort of the DNA, but they are not. I contend that the gene variations that account for, say, a crooked ear and a different color for eye's iris cannot be the result of the same process of mutations, because one is actively pursued to increase the physionomical traits that might have a survivability advantage for a specific niche(neutral value), whilst the other is not pursued and is actually selected against(mutations that result in morphological assymetries have negative value), and if they both result from the same process, then how does the DNA distinguish between mutations that should be allowed to compete for survival and those what shouldn't? Shouldn't they all be neutral? Since the DNA cannot analyse the results(lack of sentience) but only police the processes of gene fusion, reproduction and and expression, then there must be something different in the process that results in some morphological/physiological/physionomic that have neutral value and those that have an intrinsec negative value and organisms that posses it are immediately seen as undesirable mates. You put two random women, one Caucasian and the other Asian, and their different eye and hair colors are perceived either positively or negative by random men, but a distorted lopsided face in either of them will always be perceived as negative. There must be something different in the processes that give rise to neutral value variations and the negative value variations otherwise the DNA wouldn't be able to allow one type to pass free and the other to try to avoided as much as possible - and cells do try to avoid assymetrical growth as much as possible as the immune system attacks and destroys cells that grow too much or with it's structures flawed
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Please edit WALL OF TEXT... it's unreadable.
The Luke
-
Guys, get a life.
-
Guys, get a life.
...right there with you dude.
But isn't it interesting that someone who founded a genetics discussion forum, and claims to have forgotten more about the subject than any of us will ever know, doesnt understand the most basic tenets of his chosen expertise?
The Luke
-
;)
-
My guess would be around 125, but 130 is possible. Anyways, I would score that in a test made for adults at the age of 7. He has no idea what he is talking about, makes shitty analogies, misuses scientific terminology, makes redundant arguments manipulating semantics to try to make A look like B, overuses tautologies, doesen't know the difference between genotype and phenotype, doesen't understand the difference between mutations due to failed gene expression due to RNA-transcryptase failure and those due to necleotide disarrangement, etc.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Jesus christ retard there is no such thing as an "RNA-transcryptase" [sic].
-
Please edit WALL OF TEXT... it's unreadable.
The Luke
I won't edit. It is perfedctly readable, you sissy. Ok, let's try this one last time. I am going to explin this in a way that your brain can understand
- I am not arguing that mutations are how genetic adaptations occur.
- If you define mutations as change, then obviously the only way a gene can code for a phenotypical variations is by changing.
- Whether this change occurs by changing the arrangement of nucleotides, by deleting or insertion of genetic data is immaterial.
- My point is that there must be a fundamental difference between at least two processes of mutation at the biochemical level.
- The reason for this is that there are genetic variations that have neutral value - say, a different eye or skin pigmentation -, and variations that have an intrinsecally negative value.
- Some genetic variations have a neutral value - eye color can be attractive or unnatractive depending on a myriad of factors -, whilst some have a negative value - being born with six fingers is deemed an unattractive feature almost invariably.
- So how does the DNA avoid the negative-value mutations? If there is no difference in the processes at the biochemical level, that result in the neutral-value mutations and the negative-value ones, then the negative value mutations are simply a by-product of normal genetic differentiation and cannot be avoided. In this case, the only mechanism to avoid the propagation of these types of mutations would be to bestow organisms with the capacity to asses the degree and severity of these mutations in potential mates and avoid mating with specimens that posses a high degree of these mutations.
- Whilst it seems like this is the case, Nature seems to be capable of recognizing the abnormal biochemical processes that lead to the negative mutations, evident in that cells that divide improperly tend to abort themselves or are attacked by the immune system. Conversely, people and animals seem to be endowed with the capacity to recognize morphological and in a few cases physiological signs of these negative mutations and avoid them.
- In conclusion, whilst neutral-value mutations and negative-value mutations both result from changes in nucleotide/allele arrangement, there must be some specific patterns of nucleotide/allele arrangement that leads to the unwanted mutations that the DNA can recognize and avoid.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Jesus christ retard there is no such thing as an "RNA-transcryptase" [sic].
Yes there is, you fucking dumbass. The link isn't working. Go to google and type "RNA transcriptase" and then check the first page that shows up on the online-medical dictionary. Fucking owned. I will be waiting for your apology. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Yes there is, you fucking dumbass. The link isn't working. Go to google and type "RNA transcriptase" and then check the first page that shows up on the online-medical dictionary. Fucking owned. I will be waiting for your apology. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Step 1 - google "RNA transcriptase". I get one hit from such a reputable publication as the the "online medical dictionary".
Your google search also reveals 3 hits circa 1970, LMAO!
Step 2 - google scholar "RNA transcriptase" http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=rna%20transcriptase&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=rna%20transcriptase&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws). Again, less than a handful of peer-reviewed publications, all 1970s, use the term.
Step 3 - google recent peer-reviewed publications http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=rna+transcriptase&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004 (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=rna+transcriptase&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004). Nothing.
You claim to moderate a website on "gene expression" and yet, in relating a fundamental process the defines the transcriptome, you use a term that has not been in use for 30 years, lmao!!
Let me help you out idiot:
1 - DNA polymerases (which synthesize DNA)
2 - RNA polymerases (which transcribe DNA into RNA)
3- Reverse Transcriptases (which reverse transcribe RNA to DNA)
Why don't you tell me where your "RNA transcriptase" fits into all of this, simpleton?
-
Why don't you tell me where your "RNA transcriptase" fits into all of this, simpleton?
..he also seems to think physical asymmetries are caused by "mutations" and as such physical asymmetry (which is caused by uneven growth, not genes) is a mesure of how mutated an animal is?
He doesnt understand the most basic concepts of genetics, but criticises gentic theory.
You have a biology background yourself HarrySpotter?
The Luke
-
..he also seems to think physical asymmetries are caused by "mutations" and as such physical asymmetry (which is caused by uneven growth, not genes) is a mesure of how mutated an animal is?
He doesnt understand the most basic concepts of genetics, but criticises gentic theory.
You have a biology background yourself HarrySpotter?
The Luke
The Luke, I think in reality Sucky is probably a reasonably smart fella with ADHD, but has somehow convinced himself, probably by doing a 10-minute IQ test about 50 times over three days to finally hit the ceiling, that he is a prodigy. Yes, my background is DNA.
-
Yes, my background is DNA.
...is it common for people to believe that separate genes are involved in producing each ear?
Do people equate the separate strands with sides of the body?
The Luke
-
..he also seems to think physical asymmetries are caused by "mutations" and as such physical asymmetry (which is caused by uneven growth, not genes) is a mesure of how mutated an animal is?
He doesnt understand the most basic concepts of genetics, but criticises gentic theory.
You have a biology background yourself HarrySpotter?
The Luke
You obviously don't even understand what I am criticizing. You just repeat scientific data like an idiot savant and think that makes you smart. Hint: rote learning is not a sign of intelligence. You are a stupid person who has his head up his ass and doesen't even read your opponent's post before replying. You claim I am criticizing genetic theory. Lol, what a moron. And it's spelled genetic, and not gentic, you knucklehead.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
You obviously don't even understand what I am criticizing.
...I understand your misconceptions.
The Luke
-
Step 1 - google "RNA transcriptase". I get one hit from such a reputable publication as the the "online medical dictionary".
Your google search also reveals 3 hits circa 1970, LMAO!
Step 2 - google scholar "RNA transcriptase" http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=rna%20transcriptase&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=rna%20transcriptase&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws). Again, less than a handful of peer-reviewed publications, all 1970s, use the term.
Step 3 - google recent peer-reviewed publications http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=rna+transcriptase&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004 (http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=rna+transcriptase&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004). Nothing.
You claim to moderate a website on "gene expression" and yet, in relating a fundamental process the defines the transcriptome, you use a term that has not been in use for 30 years, lmao!!
Let me help you out idiot:
1 - DNA polymerases (which synthesize DNA)
2 - RNA polymerases (which transcribe DNA into RNA)
3- Reverse Transcriptases (which reverse transcribe RNA to DNA)
Why don't you tell me where your "RNA transcriptase" fits into all of this, simpleton?
You are backpaddling, you little dipshit. I don't give a shit about whether the term hasn't be used in 30 years. You claimed the term didn't exist, and I proved you wrong. Now you are trying to save face by claiming that I am stil wrong because the term hasn't been used for a long time. And I am more than "fairly" bright. I will match my IQ against yours any time. I have solved problems you wouldn't be capable of even if your life depended on it. People like you are the ones that piss me off the most: little academic types that think they are brilliant just because they specialized in one area and memorized tons of data by reading that subjects for 8 hours a day for 4 or 5 years. If I did that, I would have all the knowledge of the Universe, and not only of some tiny tiny area of Human knowledge. You are the guy who gets picked on at school for being a nerd; I am the guy that puts Man in space, develop the atomic bomb and cure diseases. I reached the ceilling of a test by taking it 50 times over 3 days? No, that's what you did to have the pathetic amount of knowledge you have on such a small area, styudying the subject all day long for years. I am just better than you. And much, much, much smarter. The end.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
...I understand your misconceptions.
The Luke
I understand that you read my post and couldn't understand anything of it. And it can't be the grammar - you know, I do the best I can being a non native English speaker -, because you've responded to my posts before.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
This suckmymuscle character is a gimmick right?
No one is this dumb, yet this versed.
The Luke
-
;)
-
This suckmymuscle character is a gimmick right?
No one is this dumb, yet this versed.
The Luke
This "The Luke" character is a gimmick, right? No one can be this dumb and poorly versed and with such shitty reading comprehesion. It is simply not Humanly possible, and chimps haven't been taught how to type as far as I am aware.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
SUCKMYMUSCLE,
Having given your argument some consideration, I have decided that it does indeed have merit.
I would recommend that you submit your unique, insightful critique of evolutionary theory to a scientfic journal for further deliberation.
Maybe you should copyright it first... perhaps write a book.
The Luke
-
You are backpaddling, you little dipshit. I don't give a shit about whether the term hasn't be used in 30 years. You claimed the term didn't exist, and I proved you wrong. Now you are trying to save face by claiming that I am stil wrong because the term hasn't been used for a long time. And I am more than "fairly" bright. I will match my IQ against yours any time. I have solved problems you wouldn't be capable of even if your life depended on it. People like you are the ones that piss me off the most: little academic types that think they are brilliant just because they specialized in one area and memorized tons of data by reading that subjects for 8 hours a day for 4 or 5 years. If I did that, I would have all the knowledge of the Universe, and not only of some tiny tiny area of Human knowledge. You are the guy who gets picked on at school for being a nerd; I am the guy that puts Man in space, develop the atomic bomb and cure diseases. I reached the ceilling of a test by taking it 50 times over 3 days? No, that's what you did to have the pathetic amount of knowledge you have on such a small area, styudying the subject all day long for years. I am just better than you. And much, much, much smarter. The end.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Brutal average-IQ meltdown. Monster projection of your own school experience. Epic delusions-of-grandeur.
And by the way, are suggesting that you're a polymath, Sucky?
-
...is it common for people to believe that separate genes are involved in producing each ear?
Do people equate the separate strands with sides of the body?
The Luke
The Luke, there are 100's of genes involved in the development of our ears.
Do people equate the separate strands with sides of the body?
The Luke
Not that I know of.
SUCKMYMUSCLE,
Having given your argument some consideration, I have decided that it does indeed have merit.
I would recommend that you submit your unique, insightful critique of evolutionary theory to a scientfic journal for further deliberation.
Maybe you should copyright it first... perhaps write a book.
The Luke
It's all old news. http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/pubs/ProkoschYeoMiller_2005_IntelligenceSymmetry.pdf (http://www.unm.edu/~hebs/pubs/ProkoschYeoMiller_2005_IntelligenceSymmetry.pdf)
Problem being, when a well read simpleton adds 2 and 2, he gets 5...
-
Not that I know of.
...sucky was explaining how one damaged gene could produce a single malformed ear, and a fully mutated gene woud produce two damaged ears.
That's what seemed so strange, the concept of a gene involved in the right ear and a separate gene for the left ear.
Surely everyone understands the genetic efficiency of bilateral symmentry.
The Luke