The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#507 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
My god?? I have not brought up god or a god once. You all do that enough for that is your biggest defense which I find quite silly and don't understand why you all even bring up god in at all.
Creationist bring up god trying to prove creation and disprove evolution while evolutionist bring up god trying to prove evolution and disprove creation. Kind of ironic when you think about it. You both use the same thing but in different ways.
Not really. Reality falsifies Biblical literalism in multiple ways. Does that falsify God? No, but then that's because God is a non-scientific concept. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Don't need to falsify God nor argue for atheism. It's all irrelevant to the validity of science.

By the way, did you finally get around to giving us your "scientific alternative" (read: admitting you're a creo) yet?

Or you one of those stupid fundie nihilists we get every now and then?

In which case we are in no danger at all.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#508 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that everything that is discussed you all think it either has to back or refute evolution? Why can't something be a new twist in evolution, evolution has no set path or goal correct? I appreciate your response but I will relay no explanation and/or link until the internet educated sunken sub gives an answer.
You know I had to scroll back up the page because I thought I was on the wrong thread. You may want to check the title of this thread you created. It proclaims evolution a lie so the question of refuting evolution is at the core of this discussion and should hardly be a surprise to you when it comes up.

You are assuming I am uninterested and don't consider new twists in evolution. Generally, I said I did not have enough information to agree with your question as it stands, but that doesn't close the door on further review and reanalysis. New twists are often the result of the very research we all discuss. This keeps the discussion on fish, but you should read the work of Robert Vrijenhoek to see the new twists he has found over the course of his research.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#509 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay twice? You are lost again. Saying you don't want to play is not paying anything but it is saying you are clueless and not as educated as you claim.
Poor little spoiled baby.

Yes, if you want something you must pay for it. Once again you are stuck on stupid. Now you are demanding that if I go along with your idiocy I have to pay myself. In other words I have to pay twice, once by playing your stupid little game that I do not want to play in the first place and second by admitting to something that is not strictly true. I made a small mistake that I owned up to. You made major idiotic mistakes and have not owned up to one of them.

Once again, if you were at all intelligent I would not have to explain this to you. Again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#510 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and one last thing sunken sub. The other day when you said E. Coli was not a species,,,
I guess you think H. sapiens is not a species either.
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
You lost on that one moron. I have been nice to you so far, but your inability to learn dragged that out of me.

Do you want me to quote the pertinent part of the article that even you linked that shows you are wrong for a third time? Nah. I did it twice, you were too incredibly stupid to understand a simple Wiki article that explained the diversity of E.coli is bigger than that of a single species and is treated as "one species" for convenience sake but not for reality's sake.

What a Maroon!

Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#511 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
My god?? I have not brought up god or a god once. You all do that enough for that is your biggest defense which I find quite silly and don't understand why you all even bring up god in at all.
Because YOU brought it up in your very first thread here, remember?

Evolution. The biggest atheist trick in the world.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMS...
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
The universe just happened to form.
The sun just happened to form.
The moon just happened to form.
Earth just happened to form in the goldie locks zone.
All water just happened to come from space but yet canít be found in space.
Oxygen just happened to be in higher concentrations here than anywhere we know of.
Rain clouds just happened to carry water across the earth to needed places.
Life just happened via abiogenesis from non-life.
Bacteria just happened to form in dirty water.
Then bacteria just happened to replicate itself.
Then bacteria just happened to multiply.
Then bacteria just happened to get complex.
Those bacteria just happened to evolve into food for itself.
Those bacteria just happened to evolve into other species.
Some of those species just happened to evolve to be food for other species.
Some of those species just happened to move from water to land.
Some of those species just happened to move from land to water.
Some of those species just happened to evolve to fly and run why others werenít so luck and have to crawl and slither.
Those species just happened to keep on evolving into more species. X a billion.
Each species just happens to die off after first becoming a new species.
Each species just happened to keep getting better and smarter, from mutations and natural selection.
Some of those species just happened to evolve to man of today.
Not a farfetched story at all. Has to be the only explanation!
Bacteria from nothing slowly evolving up to man who kills and destroys everything. Would that be like self-suicide over a period of time?
A standard Christian evangelical diatribe against evolution, whether form a Creationist Young Earth perspective, or a slightly more moderate "Intelligent Design" perspective.

You then ended with a standard fundamentalist Christian jab at so-called "atheistic scientists," remember?

Evolution. The biggest atheist trick in the world.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMS...
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Atheist;
All
Thick
Headed
Egotistical
Idiots
Spreading
Trickery
Clearly, you came here to advance an evangelical Christian agenda, but appear to have quickly thought the better of it.

Why use standard, fundamentalist Christian rhetoric against science and evolution and an old earth, if you are not, indeed, such a Christian working such and agenda?

Here's another peak at you, that is suggestive, if not conclusive, from the thread:

Why Should Jesus Love Me?
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#512 Nov 18, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Because YOU brought it up in your very first thread here, remember?
Yeah, smart cookie this one. Short term memory. He's been reminded more than once and he's still like "Who, me??"

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#513 Nov 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to quote the pertinent part of the article that even you linked that shows you are wrong for a third time? Nah. I did it twice, you were too incredibly stupid to understand a simple Wiki article that explained the diversity of E.coli is bigger than that of a single species and is treated as "one species" for convenience sake but not for reality's sake.
You mean this comment of your that you did not understand?
Escherichia coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. Genome sequencing of a large number of isolates of E. coli and related bacteria shows that a taxonomic reclassification would be desirable. However, this has not been done, largely due to its medical importance[26] and E. coli remains one of the most diverse bacterial species: only 20% of the genome is common to all strains.

Taxonomic reclassification - they want to classify some of the strains as sub-groups under the E. coli species because of their differences and even want different species reclassified as E coli strains.

If you would have read the two next paragraphs you would have seen that;

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.[28] Similarly, other strains of E. coli (e.g. the K-12 strain commonly used in recombinant DNA work) are sufficiently different that they would merit reclassification.
A strain is a sub-group within the species that has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other strains. These differences are often detectable only at the molecular level; however, they may result in changes to the physiology or lifecycle of the bacterium. For example, a strain may gain pathogenic capacity, the ability to use a unique carbon source, the ability to take upon a particular ecological niche or the ability to resist antimicrobial agents. Different strains of E. coli are often host-specific, making it possible to determine the source of fecal contamination in environmental samples.[8][9] For example, knowing which E. coli strains are present in a water sample allows researchers to make assumptions about whether the contamination originated from a human, another mammal or a bird.

Read these as well;

Phylogeny of Escherichia coli strains;
Escherichia coli IS a SPECIES. A large number of strains belonging to this SPECIES have been isolated and characterized. In addition to serotype (vide supra), they can be classified according to their phylogeny, i.e. the inferred evolutionary history, as shown below where the SPECIES is divided into six groups.

Serotypes;
A common subdivision system of E. coli, but not based on evolutionary relatedness, is by serotype, which is based on major surface antigens (O antigen: part of lipopolysaccharide layer; H: flagellin; K antigen: capsule), e.g. O157:H7).[29] It is however common to cite only the serogroup, i.e. the O-antigen. At present about 190 serogroups are known.[30] The common laboratory strain has a mutation that prevents the formation of an O-antigen and is thus non-type-able.

Dang not only to they keep referring to E.coli as a species they use that pesky "type" word that you said they donít use.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#514 Nov 18, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Because YOU brought it up in your very first thread here, remember?
Evolution. The biggest atheist trick in the world.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMS...
<quoted text>
A standard Christian evangelical diatribe against evolution, whether form a Creationist Young Earth perspective, or a slightly more moderate "Intelligent Design" perspective.
You then ended with a standard fundamentalist Christian jab at so-called "atheistic scientists," remember?
Evolution. The biggest atheist trick in the world.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMS...
<quoted text>
Clearly, you came here to advance an evangelical Christian agenda, but appear to have quickly thought the better of it.
Why use standard, fundamentalist Christian rhetoric against science and evolution and an old earth, if you are not, indeed, such a Christian working such and agenda?
Here's another peak at you, that is suggestive, if not conclusive, from the thread:
Why Should Jesus Love Me?
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
Not once did I mention a God in that comment. Yes I think both Christianity and Atheism both are religions and both have their share of idiots. One defends a God while the other defends a Theory. Both believe and have faith in what they defend as being right. The argument between Atheists and Christians is simply God exists/doesnít exist. The origin of life is just a chapter in that argument.

And what did I say in Why Should Jesus Love Me forum that I see you failed to post?

I said "If Jesus is real why would He not love you?"


On another thread called Prove there is a God I also said
"If someone showed you proof of God, how, if any, would it change your life? If it wouldnít then why bother with all the God stuff, just stick to science. The things that donít matter are nothing more than a waste of time."

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#515 Nov 18, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You know I had to scroll back up the page because I thought I was on the wrong thread. You may want to check the title of this thread you created. It proclaims evolution a lie so the question of refuting evolution is at the core of this discussion and should hardly be a surprise to you when it comes up.
You are assuming I am uninterested and don't consider new twists in evolution. Generally, I said I did not have enough information to agree with your question as it stands, but that doesn't close the door on further review and reanalysis. New twists are often the result of the very research we all discuss. This keeps the discussion on fish, but you should read the work of Robert Vrijenhoek to see the new twists he has found over the course of his research.
Yes look at the title of the thread and then look at the comments in here. Not one creationists or bible thumper has been in here for over 500 comments. Not one bible verse and not one person persistently saying God did it except for Dudley always bringing up God, a few others have too. Creationists do not want to discuss variation, speciation or evolution. Though it did attract the wanker Dudley and his gully gabbing game he plays which is no better than a creationist because like a creationists he adds nothing of science or meaning.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#516 Nov 18, 2013
And yet the idiot continues to be an idiot.

Why do you avoid the one simple paragraph that proves you wrong and then list others that do not prove you right?

"Escherichia coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. Genome sequencing of a large number of isolates of E. coli and related bacteria shows that a taxonomic reclassification would be desirable. However, this has not been done, largely due to its medical importance[26] and E. coli remains one of the most diverse bacterial species: only 20% of the genome is common to all strains"

You should have followed some of the links at Wiki from the quotes that you made and did not understand.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#517 Nov 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And yet the idiot continues to be an idiot.
Why do you avoid the one simple paragraph that proves you wrong and then list others that do not prove you right?
"Escherichia coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. Genome sequencing of a large number of isolates of E. coli and related bacteria shows that a taxonomic reclassification would be desirable. However, this has not been done, largely due to its medical importance[26] and E. coli remains one of the most diverse bacterial species: only 20% of the genome is common to all strains"
You should have followed some of the links at Wiki from the quotes that you made and did not understand.
This comment alone shows how simple you are.

If you to time to read my comment this is the first paragraph in it which you don't clearly don't understand because you did not read the next two that explain it. Read the next two paragraphs and you will see.

Escherichia coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. Genome sequencing of a large number of isolates of E. coli and related bacteria shows that a taxonomic reclassification would be desirable. However, this has not been done, largely due to its medical importance[26] and E. coli remains one of the most diverse bacterial species: only 20% of the genome is common to all strains. NOW READ THE NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS!

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.[28] Similarly, other strains of E. coli (e.g. the K-12 strain commonly used in recombinant DNA work) are sufficiently different that they would merit reclassification.

A strain is a sub-group within the species that has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other strains. These differences are often detectable only at the molecular level; however, they may result in changes to the physiology or lifecycle of the bacterium. For example, a strain may gain pathogenic capacity, the ability to use a unique carbon source, the ability to take upon a particular ecological niche or the ability to resist antimicrobial agents. Different strains of E. coli are often host-specific, making it possible to determine the source of fecal contamination in environmental samples.[8][9] For example, knowing which E. coli strains are present in a water sample allows researchers to make assumptions about whether the contamination originated from a human, another mammal or a bird.

Taxonomic reclassification - they want to classify some of the strains as sub-groups under the E. coli species because of their differences and even want different species reclassified as E coli strains. If you would have read the two next paragraphs you would have seen that. Read all three paragraphs and try to understand them. When you only put part of the topic of diversity that is quote mining. Only putting in what you want while leaving out the rest.

Here is the link if you would like that instead. It is all right there under diversity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli

You are worse than a creationist when it comes to understanding and lying.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#518 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes look at the title of the thread and then look at the comments in here. Not one creationists or bible thumper has been in here for over 500 comments. Not one bible verse and not one person persistently saying God did it except for Dudley always bringing up God, a few others have too. Creationists do not want to discuss variation, speciation or evolution. Though it did attract the wanker Dudley and his gully gabbing game he plays which is no better than a creationist because like a creationists he adds nothing of science or meaning.
We get it. You're a Discovery Institute ID type who is too cowardly to actually put his cards on the table.

How do you account for the fact that people of all religions, especially Christianity, accept the findings of the Theory of Evolution?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#519 Nov 18, 2013
You are still wrong in your reading of that paper. In fact there are differences at the genus level within E. coli. You clearly did not understand this segment:

"In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.[28] Similarly, other strains of E. coli (e.g. the K-12 strain commonly used in recombinant DNA work) are sufficiently different that they would merit reclassification."

So here you have the seemingly contradictory position of E. coli both above and below the Genus level. In other words it clearly is not one species.

I am sure that slappy will still be stuck on stupid.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#520 Nov 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
You are still wrong in your reading of that paper. In fact there are differences at the genus level within E. coli. You clearly did not understand this segment:
28] Similarly, other strains of E. coli (e.g. the K-12 strain commonly used in recombinant DNA work) are sufficiently different that they would merit reclassification."
So here you have the seemingly contradictory position of E. coli both above and below the Genus level. In other words it clearly is not one species."In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.[
I am sure that slappy will still be stuck on stupid.
Good grief you still don't understand it. They want to classify more subgroups for strains that sufficiently differ, which would be reclassification. Those four in the paragraph are separate species they want classified under E. Coli strains instead of being their own species. Look here

Shigella (S. dysenteriae:

Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. dysenteriae

S. flexneri:

Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. flexneri

S. boydii:

Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. boydii

S. sonnei:

Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. sonnei

Now as you see those four are said to be their own species but should be reclassified to be a E. coli strain instead. As the link clearly stated and I quote from the link;

"In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.

Quit be as ignorant and lying like a creationists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#521 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief you still don't understand it. They want to classify more subgroups for strains that sufficiently differ, which would be reclassification. Those four in the paragraph are separate species they want classified under E. Coli strains instead of being their own species. Look here
Shigella (S. dysenteriae:
Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. dysenteriae
S. flexneri:
Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. flexneri
S. boydii:
Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. boydii
S. sonnei:
Kingdom: Bacteria
Phylum: Proteobacteria
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria
Order: Enterobacteriales
Family: Enterobacteriaceae
Genus: Shigella
Species: S. sonnei
Now as you see those four are said to be their own species but should be reclassified to be a E. coli strain instead. As the link clearly stated and I quote from the link;
"In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.
Quit be as ignorant and lying like a creationists.
The poor moron will never understand.

Why do you go back to the mere listing that has already shown to be inadequate?

Why can't you understand that simple article? Is it because it disagrees with you?

The concept of species is a man-made one. It is not heaven sent as you seem to think. That article clearly states that the diverseity of E. coli is far beyond what most consider to be even the genus level.

Sometimes biology is "stuck" with earlier classifications. That does not make the earlier classifications correct. Work on your reading comprehension. I have noticed that one thing all creationists all have in common is poor reading comprehension skills.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#522 Nov 18, 2013
Do you think the lying creatard will get it?

I doubt that he will.

Once slappy is stuck on stupid he is really stuck on stupid.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#523 Nov 18, 2013
And add "taxa in disguise" to the concepts that slappy does not understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxa_in_disguise

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#524 Nov 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And add "taxa in disguise" to the concepts that slappy does not understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxa_in_disguise
I know exactly what it means but hey I think finally you are starting to catch on.

It means the species looked different and was not recognized as an already existing species so it was named a separate species instead when it should not have been. Which is why they say and I repeat again from the link;

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.

Keep it up and you will catch on.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#525 Nov 18, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes look at the title of the thread and then look at the comments in here. Not one creationists or bible thumper has been in here for over 500 comments. Not one bible verse and not one person persistently saying God did it except for Dudley always bringing up God, a few others have too. Creationists do not want to discuss variation, speciation or evolution. Though it did attract the wanker Dudley and his gully gabbing game he plays which is no better than a creationist because like a creationists he adds nothing of science or meaning.
That doesn't address my point. You made an error in your comment regarding the mention of refuting evolution, when this thread is about refuting evolution.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#526 Nov 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of species is a man-made one. It is not heaven sent as you seem to think. That article clearly states that the diverseity of E. coli is far beyond what most consider to be even the genus level.
Exactly species and speciation are man made. All the homo species are man made just the same. That for clarifying that.

And yes the E coli diversity is far beyond the genus level. You see diversity is "variety" which is why they broke them down into species, strains and subgroups below the genus level.

Your are more witless than any creationists I have ever encountered but at least you are trying to learn.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min DanFromSmithville 134,472
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 13,634
Science News (Sep '13) 10 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 18 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... Fri Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Fri DanFromSmithville 507
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web