Author Topic: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?  (Read 14728 times)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #175 on: September 17, 2009, 02:06:09 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Genes prodce the genotype, not the phenotype.

  Where have I stated the opposite? I said genes express the phenotype.

Quote
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

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #176 on: September 17, 2009, 02:16:51 AM »
Please edit WALL OF TEXT... it's unreadable.



The Luke

DK II

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31269
  • Call me 4 steroids: 571-332-2588 or 571-249-4163
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #177 on: September 17, 2009, 02:17:32 AM »
Guys, get a life.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #178 on: September 17, 2009, 02:27:42 AM »
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

Mr Nobody

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40197
  • Falcon gives us new knowledge every single day.
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #179 on: September 17, 2009, 12:53:29 PM »
 ;)

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #180 on: September 17, 2009, 09:48:07 PM »
 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].  


suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #181 on: September 18, 2009, 08:54:11 PM »
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

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #182 on: September 18, 2009, 09:15:46 PM »

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

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #183 on: September 20, 2009, 11:03:17 PM »
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 . 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. 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?




The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #184 on: September 20, 2009, 11:08:52 PM »
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

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #185 on: September 21, 2009, 02:05:47 AM »

..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.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #186 on: September 21, 2009, 02:29:53 PM »
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

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #187 on: September 21, 2009, 11:18:29 PM »

..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

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #188 on: September 21, 2009, 11:23:25 PM »
  You obviously don't even understand what I am criticizing.

...I understand your misconceptions.


The Luke

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #189 on: September 21, 2009, 11:27:59 PM »


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 . 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. 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

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #190 on: September 21, 2009, 11:30:06 PM »
...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

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #191 on: September 21, 2009, 11:31:11 PM »
This suckmymuscle character is a gimmick right?


No one is this dumb, yet this versed.



The Luke

Mr Nobody

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40197
  • Falcon gives us new knowledge every single day.
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #192 on: September 22, 2009, 10:00:56 AM »
 ;)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #193 on: September 22, 2009, 03:06:01 PM »
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

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #194 on: September 22, 2009, 05:08:13 PM »
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

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #195 on: September 22, 2009, 06:20:06 PM »
 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?

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #196 on: September 22, 2009, 06:24:05 PM »

...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

Problem being, when a well read simpleton adds 2 and 2, he gets 5...

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: How many Getbigers believe in Darwins evolution theory?
« Reply #197 on: September 22, 2009, 06:41:20 PM »
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