Adolf Hitler

Richmond, KY

#187 Jul 5, 2012
All you less intelligent types thought i was nuts,Human genetic enginering is where it is at.We have been doing it to plants and animals for centuries.It is high time the human race got on that band wagon.
Anti-Idiot

Richmond, KY

#188 Jul 6, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"so how about you prove it's not true" diversion." No, to find out the facts regarding evolutionary biology, it's best to ask the experts. If there really is a controversy about whether or not evolution occurs, there should be an ongoing debate among the experts. So are the experts debating it?
"YOU first made the claim that evolution is fact, so the burden of proof is now yours." Sure. I need only point out that today's Anti-evolutionists aren't being prescribed 1950s' antibiotics to treat staph infection because most strains have evolved a resistance to those drugs. If you'd like to test the theory, do us all a favor: if you get infected with MRSA, convince a doctor to prescribe a round of the old antibiotics.
<quoted text>
Idiocy.

Of course "the experts" are debating it. Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize it since you obviously spend more time on topix than with any so-called expert. In your little bubble, every single scientist on earth agrees. You even said so a few posts back. LOL
In your little uninformed, Google-less world, you are calling FACT what scientists STILL deem a theory. Until all those experts can find 100% undeniable absolute proof, then you'll have to continue huddling in the corner whimpering over the word THEORY, wishing it said FACT.

Now, you are STILL beating a dead horse on the staph example even after you were proven wrong.
Until that STAPH transforms (evolves) into a completely NEW SPECIES, it is NOT evolution in the Darwin sense. It is simply a stronger strand of the same bacteria - STAPH.
You can't seem to understand that so ask your science teacher for help.

Just because we have developed more effective medications, does not prove anything except that our technology has changed.
You also have absolutely NO proof that MRSA did not exist in the 1950's or even before. Lots of people died of bacterial infections in the early 1900's even after being treated with penicillin.
So, perhaps resistant bacteria was present and doctors simply didn't have the knowledge, technology, or ability to recognize it and properly name or treat it.
The point is you simply do not know (nobody does) when MRSA first existed, we only know when we first "found out" about it. There's a HUGE difference.
Either way, this type of bacterial "adaptation" is NOT "Darwinian evolution." Period.

Now, I asked you to prove evolution. Since the "experts" haven't yet, I'm guessing you can't either?

BOOM
Anti-Idiot

Richmond, KY

#189 Jul 6, 2012
Anti-Theist:
You can end this discussion if you will only show me your concrete, undeniable evidence of macro-evolution.
There is not one shred of it. There has been NO missing link amongst any species ever found.
Darwin himself recognized that (in the quote I gave you in an earlier post).
You need to realize that human evolution, as described by Darwin, is still merely a BELIEF.
You accept the BELIEF on FAITH.
That makes you a target of ridicule for most experts.
You say your belief is based on science. That's fine, but it is still merely a BELIEF, an OPINION that is based on science.
And, those who oppose the BELIEF of evolution will cite as many scientific ideas upon which to base their "anti-evolutionary" beliefs. I can further obliterate your staph beliefs, if you'd like.

Until you can show me that concrete evidence of macro-evolution, you'll have to be content with simply being a man.. er, uh, KID of faith.

Since: Jun 12

Elkton, KY

#190 Jul 6, 2012
Must agree with this post. My son is on some very powerful medications and over time builds a resistance to them and the does has to be increased. He has not eveolved in any sense, he simply has become resistant to the current level.
Anti-Idiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiocy.
Of course "the experts" are debating it. Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize it since you obviously spend more time on topix than with any so-called expert. In your little bubble, every single scientist on earth agrees. You even said so a few posts back. LOL
In your little uninformed, Google-less world, you are calling FACT what scientists STILL deem a theory. Until all those experts can find 100% undeniable absolute proof, then you'll have to continue huddling in the corner whimpering over the word THEORY, wishing it said FACT.
Now, you are STILL beating a dead horse on the staph example even after you were proven wrong.
Until that STAPH transforms (evolves) into a completely NEW SPECIES, it is NOT evolution in the Darwin sense. It is simply a stronger strand of the same bacteria - STAPH.
You can't seem to understand that so ask your science teacher for help.
Just because we have developed more effective medications, does not prove anything except that our technology has changed.
You also have absolutely NO proof that MRSA did not exist in the 1950's or even before. Lots of people died of bacterial infections in the early 1900's even after being treated with penicillin.
So, perhaps resistant bacteria was present and doctors simply didn't have the knowledge, technology, or ability to recognize it and properly name or treat it.
The point is you simply do not know (nobody does) when MRSA first existed, we only know when we first "found out" about it. There's a HUGE difference.
Either way, this type of bacterial "adaptation" is NOT "Darwinian evolution." Period.
Now, I asked you to prove evolution. Since the "experts" haven't yet, I'm guessing you can't either?
BOOM
Anti-AntiTheist

Richmond, KY

#191 Jul 6, 2012
LEO X wrote:
Must agree with this post. My son is on some very powerful medications and over time builds a resistance to them and the does has to be increased. He has not eveolved in any sense, he simply has become resistant to the current level.
<quoted text>
Yes.
It is basically like the way our bodies respond to vaccinations. Being introduced to a smaller amount (inducing stimuli), over time, we adapt.
Anti is trying to claim the bacteria "evolve" in the Darwinian sense of the word (turn into a new species).
He doesn't realize that MRSA is just an example of a mutation in staph that had already existed. And, since bacteria can transmit plasmids, they can quickly transmit the resistance. That does not mean a new bacterial class is formed, only that plasmids were transmitted.

*It has recently been discovered that antibiotic resistant bacteria existed in prehistoric times, so it's nothing new.
It has just taken man thousands of years to recognize it.

* Source: R. McQuire,“Eerie: human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria,” Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, pp. 1, 23

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#192 Jul 6, 2012
"Of course "the experts" are debating it." What experts are debating the fact that evolution occurs? And by "expert," I don't mean a person with a degree in "Theology."

"you are calling FACT what scientists STILL deem a theory." Stephen Gould, one of the evolutionary biologists who devised Punctuated Equilibrium, wrote an article called "Evolution as Fact and Theory." I don't expect you to read it because you're willfully ignorant.

"Until that STAPH transforms (evolves) into a completely NEW SPECIES, it is NOT evolution in the Darwin sense." That is false. Evolution is CHANGE, small and substantial. Evolution does not require, and often does not lead to, speciation.

"It is simply a stronger strand of the same bacteria - STAPH." The bacteria did not get "stronger." Over many generations, some strains developed a resistance to certain anti-biotics.

"Just because we have developed more effective medications, does not prove anything except that our technology has changed." Actually, we're running out of effective medications because the bacteria evolves faster than we can develop them.

"You also have absolutely NO proof that MRSA did not exist in the 1950's or even before." I never made that claim. Most strains initially were sensitive to penicillin, but later, in the 1950s, strains evolved resistance to penicillin and methicillin. That's where the term MRSA is derived.

"So, perhaps resistant bacteria was present and doctors simply didn't have the knowledge, technology, or ability to recognize it and properly name or treat it." No ignoramus. Early on, penicillin worked most of the time. The resistant bacteria survived and passed on its resistance to future generations. Now, penicillin and other, older drugs, are useless in a high percentage of infections.
Anti-Idiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiocy.
Of course "the experts" are debating it. Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize it since you obviously spend more time on topix than with any so-called expert. In your little bubble, every single scientist on earth agrees. You even said so a few posts back. LOL
In your little uninformed, Google-less world, you are calling FACT what scientists STILL deem a theory. Until all those experts can find 100% undeniable absolute proof, then you'll have to continue huddling in the corner whimpering over the word THEORY, wishing it said FACT.
Now, you are STILL beating a dead horse on the staph example even after you were proven wrong.
Until that STAPH transforms (evolves) into a completely NEW SPECIES, it is NOT evolution in the Darwin sense. It is simply a stronger strand of the same bacteria - STAPH.
You can't seem to understand that so ask your science teacher for help.
Just because we have developed more effective medications, does not prove anything except that our technology has changed.
You also have absolutely NO proof that MRSA did not exist in the 1950's or even before. Lots of people died of bacterial infections in the early 1900's even after being treated with penicillin.
So, perhaps resistant bacteria was present and doctors simply didn't have the knowledge, technology, or ability to recognize it and properly name or treat it.
The point is you simply do not know (nobody does) when MRSA first existed, we only know when we first "found out" about it. There's a HUGE difference.
Either way, this type of bacterial "adaptation" is NOT "Darwinian evolution." Period.
Now, I asked you to prove evolution. Since the "experts" haven't yet, I'm guessing you can't either?
BOOM

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#193 Jul 6, 2012
"My son is on some very powerful medications and over time builds a resistance to them"

Your son did not develop resistance. The bacteria did. Evolution does not occur in individuals, but rather, in populations.
LEO X wrote:
Must agree with this post. My son is on some very powerful medications and over time builds a resistance to them and the does has to be increased. He has not eveolved in any sense, he simply has become resistant to the current level.
<quoted text>
leo x

Elkton, KY

#194 Jul 6, 2012
Uh, I never said they were antibiotics. Plus if you take biology, there is a vast difference between evolution and mutation.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#195 Jul 6, 2012
Mutations are random changes in a genomic sequence. They should be confused with natural selection, which "selects" (or weeds out) mutations. This is one process that leads to evolution.
leo x wrote:
Uh, I never said they were antibiotics. Plus if you take biology, there is a vast difference between evolution and mutation.
LEO X

Elkton, KY

#196 Jul 6, 2012
test post
LEO X

Elkton, KY

#197 Jul 6, 2012
Ok uh, the Aids virus...mutation or virus evolution?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#198 Jul 6, 2012
Mutations are part of the evolutionary process. I read the HIV most likely evolved from SIV, a similar virus that infects other primates, like monkeys (depending on whether you're referring to HIV-1 or HIV-2). We can probably blame the infection on the bush-meat trade in Africa.
LEO X wrote:
Ok uh, the Aids virus...mutation or virus evolution?
Anti-Hillbilly

Richmond, KY

#199 Jul 12, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
Mutations are part of the evolutionary process. I read the HIV most likely evolved from SIV, a similar virus that infects other primates, like monkeys (depending on whether you're referring to HIV-1 or HIV-2). We can probably blame the infection on the bush-meat trade in Africa.
<quoted text>
WRONG.

According to evolutionary law, a species must evolve into a stronger, better, more adapt version.
A mutation is always harmful to the species. A malfunction, not an adaptation. It is; therefore, almost the opposite of evolution. It is a step backward in the evolutionary process. One such example - albinism, which would make a particular animal (a rattlesnake for example) more vulnerable to predators because they are more easily seen in their natural habitat, minus their usual camouflaged coloring. There are millions of examples of how mutations are harmful. If they were truly evolutionary advancements, they would benefit the entire specie' advancement. So, you have been proved an uneducated hillbilly once again.
Anti-Hillbilly

Richmond, KY

#200 Jul 12, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
Mutations..... This is one process that leads to evolution.
<quoted text>
Absolutely incorrect and unfounded.
Read a science book.
Try 5th grade level. If it's still over your head, go down to 4th.
Anti-EOHIPPUS

Richmond, KY

#201 Jul 12, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"Of course "the experts" are debating it." What experts are debating the fact that evolution occurs? And by "expert," I don't mean a person with a degree in "Theology."
"you are calling FACT what scientists STILL deem a theory." Stephen Gould, one of the evolutionary biologists who devised Punctuated Equilibrium, wrote an article called "Evolution as Fact and Theory." I don't expect you to read it because you're willfully ignorant.
"Until that STAPH transforms (evolves) into a completely NEW SPECIES, it is NOT evolution in the Darwin sense." That is false. Evolution is CHANGE, small and substantial. Evolution does not require, and often does not lead to, speciation.
"It is simply a stronger strand of the same bacteria - STAPH." The bacteria did not get "stronger." Over many generations, some strains developed a resistance to certain anti-biotics.
"Just because we have developed more effective medications, does not prove anything except that our technology has changed." Actually, we're running out of effective medications because the bacteria evolves faster than we can develop them.
"You also have absolutely NO proof that MRSA did not exist in the 1950's or even before." I never made that claim. Most strains initially were sensitive to penicillin, but later, in the 1950s, strains evolved resistance to penicillin and methicillin. That's where the term MRSA is derived.
"So, perhaps resistant bacteria was present and doctors simply didn't have the knowledge, technology, or ability to recognize it and properly name or treat it." No ignoramus. Early on, penicillin worked most of the time. The resistant bacteria survived and passed on its resistance to future generations. Now, penicillin and other, older drugs, are useless in a high percentage of infections.
<quoted text>
All this messy drivel and you are still only doing two things:
1.) Quoting scientist's OPINIONS, which as you know is still not PROOF of evolution.
You can quote 10,000 people who share your opinion; that will not make your opinion FACTUAL or TRUE.

I can quote 10,000 people who claim they have seen Bigfoot. Doesn't prove his existence. Understand, now, Billy Hill? Now, show me some REAL PROOF of macro evolution. I've asked you for it several times and you CAN'T.

2.) Still calling MRSA proof of evolution even though it is STILL a form of STAPH, not an entirely new species, as evolution is defined.
As a matter of fact, Einstein, resistant bacteria was found in ancient fossils. That in itself debunks your theory since modern day (supposed) evolved species cannot exist alongside ancient "forms."
If it were truly evolved, then the former, inferior self would no longer be needed.
(An example from evolutionary teachings to prove my point: the Eohippus supposedly evolved into the modern day horse. Since that is supposed evolution, there is no need for the former, inferior Eohippus, now that the superior form (modern day horse) evolved.

Unfortunately for you, even evolutionary teachings contradict your claims. LOL

MRSA was, is, and will be STAPH. Now, when it transforms into some brand new SPECIES, rather than just a stronger strain of STAPH, then let all the scientists know. They'll hand over that Nobel to you.

Read a book. Today.
Anti-Darwin

Richmond, KY

#202 Jul 12, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
Evolution does not occur in individuals, but rather, in populations.
<quoted text>
Not according to Darwin himself.

His dilemma was that he could never find the anomalies that should exist in almost every stratum of EVERY species.
He recognized that it had to begin somewhere in one creature, in order to transform an entire population slowly and completely.
Because he never found those missing links, the "half and half species," he said he realized it was the biggest criticism of his theory. See, Darwin realized his OPINION was simply his BELIEF.
Sure, he believed it with all his heart, supposedly, but sadly for him, he was never able to prove it.

You; however, say you can prove it. THEN DO IT!
Simply quoting a scientist's OPINION is not proof. How many times do you need to read that to understand it?
Anti-LIES

Richmond, KY

#203 Jul 12, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"on Evolution...They don't debate the fact that evolution occurs. Got it?
<quoted text>
You claim ALL scientists believe and promote evolution as fact. You claim there is no debate as to whether or not it occurs.

I will now blow your opinion all to Hell:

The scientific magazine Discover (HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT, ANTI?) covered the story of how the THEORY of evolution is under assault today:
“Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”

Examples from the article: "Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated:
“For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."

After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded:
“[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years.. . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists.. . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.”

Further, the article states: Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said:
“The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added,“things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”

A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it:
“It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.”
Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed:
“We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind."

Booker also stated:“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question.. . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded:“As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably NEVER SHALL.”

Evolutionist HITCHING agreed, saying:“Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side.” He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions,“potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place.
And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.. . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

So, there you go, Anti. Since you offer quotes from notable scientists, here are quotes from notable scientists (DID YOU NOTICE HITCHING'S QUOTE?)
discussing the fact that the theory of evolution is under attack by even the most reputable scientists, many of whom are denying that it is even a "genuine scientific theory at all."

----->> I bet that brought tears to your eyes. Get a REAL education because your OPINIONS are absolutely worthless.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#204 Jul 12, 2012
"According to evolutionary law, a species must evolve into a stronger, better, more adapt version." That is incorrect. Evolution often leads to dead ends. That's one reason why the majority of species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct.

"A mutation is always harmful to the species." Wrong again. Mutations are sometimes helpful to a population. In those cases, they are selected and perpetuated.

"It is a step backward in the evolutionary process." Sometimes mutations are bad. Sometimes mutations are beneficial. You don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing worse than an ignoramus with an opinion.
Anti-Hillbilly wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
According to evolutionary law, a species must evolve into a stronger, better, more adapt version.
A mutation is always harmful to the species. A malfunction, not an adaptation. It is; therefore, almost the opposite of evolution. It is a step backward in the evolutionary process. One such example - albinism, which would make a particular animal (a rattlesnake for example) more vulnerable to predators because they are more easily seen in their natural habitat, minus their usual camouflaged coloring. There are millions of examples of how mutations are harmful. If they were truly evolutionary advancements, they would benefit the entire specie' advancement. So, you have been proved an uneducated hillbilly once again.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#205 Jul 12, 2012
No, really, most elementary students can understand this. Mutations occur and they are either helpful, harmful or neutral. Natural selection weeds out the helpful mutations from the harmful ones and traits are passed from one generation to the next. Evolutions occurs.

Anti-Hillbilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely incorrect and unfounded.
Read a science book.
Try 5th grade level. If it's still over your head, go down to 4th.
Anunnaki

United States

#206 Jul 12, 2012
Adolf Hitler wrote:
All you less intelligent types thought i was nuts,Human genetic enginering is where it is at.We have been doing it to plants and animals for centuries.It is high time the human race got on that band wagon.
The Anunnaki have been doing this to us for thousands of years, and it's still going on.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 9 min Mickey402 143,146
Add a Word, Drop a Word (Sep '11) 10 min Jennifer Renee 22,738
Topix Jobs 12 min HybridMoments 1
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 12 min Jennifer Renee 34,373
Big bust today...you are next! 39 min Ha Ha 1
Ed was arrested for stalking 1 hr Jackson Elected One 8
End KY Democrat's war on the COUNTIES 1 hr luvyah 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages