Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Comments
5,041 - 5,060 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5113 Jan 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I'm guessing you didn't know Lamarck was right.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/...
Actually, if you had read the article you would know that it says the opposite of what you just claimed.

The resistance which was passed along was not a part of the genome.

This is like a mother passes resistances to a child through mother's milk.

It's not within the DNA of the individual.

Of course, why would you actually READ something before you link it?

This is why I typically don't read links. I've found that idiots tend to link things which say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they assert.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5114 Jan 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes he can and does twist things at every opportunity.
Actually, Aura. You are the one who has been twisting words. My posts have been REMARKABLY consistent.

You are the one who claimed that my argument was "whatever someone believes becomes reality" and then proceeded to kick that strawman around for several weeks.

You are also the one who continues to recant their statements or changing them, adding qualifiers which negate the meaning.

"Science can prove things 100%" is not the same thing as "science can _basically_ prove things 99.99% most of the time."

So, when you decide to live up to HALF the standard you want to impose on me, I'll take you criticism. Until then, could you please explain why it is that you continue to flip flop on such OBVIOUS statements as:

"The dictionary contains definitions of words. Those definitions include criteria. If the criteria is met, the word applies."

You've come down on both sides of that issue several times now.

How about you pick one and stick to it.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5115 Jan 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be clear. Are you saying that you DIDN'T say: "you cannot disprove anything, that's impossible"
I ask because you spend A LOT of time talking about how I'm a "liar" and I'd really like you to back it up with some facts for once.
For example, you claimed to have posted a lot of links that dispute my assertion that scientific experimentation can falsify a hypothesis. Yet, going back over the pages, I can't find a SINGLE post in which you linked something that says anything like that.
I mean, after all your endless nagging and bitchy whining about how unfair it is that I have a penis and therefore don't just take you at your word, I would hope that you could back up at least SOMETHING you've claimed was a lie by providing some actual evidence.
Oh wait, that's right. You're just a girl. You don't actually provide evidence for your assertions.
The first sentence, yes I did state that and it's true. You cannot disprove something, you disprove the evidence presented. Two completely different concepts.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5116 Jan 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you had read the article you would know that it says the opposite of what you just claimed.
The resistance which was passed along was not a part of the genome.
This is like a mother passes resistances to a child through mother's milk.
It's not within the DNA of the individual.
Of course, why would you actually READ something before you link it?
This is why I typically don't read links. I've found that idiots tend to link things which say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they assert.
RNA nimrod,

The experiments were designed so that the worms could not have acquired viral resistance through genetic mutations. The researchers concluded that the ability to fend off the virus was "memorized" in the form of small viral RNA molecules, which were then passed to subsequent generations in somatic cells, not exclusively along the germ line.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5117 Jan 4, 2013
Aside from the fact in Lamarck's day DNA hadn't even been discovered , so that wasn't his hypothesis anyway.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5118 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The first sentence, yes I did state that and it's true. You cannot disprove something, you disprove the evidence presented. Two completely different concepts.
Hypothesis: This button controls that light.
Testing: Push the button.
Effect: No change in the light.

The hypothesis is disproven.

I have not disproven ANY evidence. The evidence, in fact, is what disproves the hypothesis.

Further, disproving evidence does not have an effect on the hypothesis. It merely means that the evidence was incorrectly gathered or that the experiment was poorly designed.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5119 Jan 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
RNA nimrod,
The experiments were designed so that the worms could not have acquired viral resistance through genetic mutations. The researchers concluded that the ability to fend off the virus was "memorized" in the form of small viral RNA molecules, which were then passed to subsequent generations in somatic cells, not exclusively along the germ line.
And the RNA is not a part of their genome.

It's epigenetics, not genetics. It doesn't even reach the level of retrovirus inserts.

This is basically "worm vaccination".

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5120 Jan 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Aside from the fact in Lamarck's day DNA hadn't even been discovered , so that wasn't his hypothesis anyway.
His hypothesis was that if you cut all the tails off all the rats generation after generation, eventually rats will stop being born with tails.

This article does not support that claim.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5121 Jan 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
His hypothesis was that if you cut all the tails off all the rats generation after generation, eventually rats will stop being born with tails.
This article does not support that claim.

No more correctly would be if the rat chewed it's own tail off, or lost its tail by something it did
eventually rats will stop being born with tails.
There is a link to this they say it is a short term memory in RNA

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5122 Jan 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No more correctly would be if the rat chewed it's own tail off, or lost its tail by something it did
eventually rats will stop being born with tails.
There is a link to this they say it is a short term memory in RNA
I love cellular memory.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5123 Jan 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypothesis: This button controls that light.
Testing: Push the button.
Effect: No change in the light.
The hypothesis is disproven.
I have not disproven ANY evidence. The evidence, in fact, is what disproves the hypothesis.
Further, disproving evidence does not have an effect on the hypothesis. It merely means that the evidence was incorrectly gathered or that the experiment was poorly designed.
That's not a hypothesis, that's an assertion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5124 Jan 5, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I love cellular memory.
So you are a colony of ants?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5125 Jan 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No more correctly would be if the rat chewed it's own tail off, or lost its tail by something it did
eventually rats will stop being born with tails.
There is a link to this they say it is a short term memory in RNA
Did they demonstrate an actual change in the genome? No.

You are basically doing the Creationists Lateral Transfer argument in reverse.

"LeMark is right (in some small tangential way which doesn't actually involve what he was talking about)."

Is the same as saying::

"Darwin was wrong (in some small tangential way which doesn't actually involve what he was talking about)."

So, either both arguments are valid or both are invalid.

So, which is it is?

Is LeMark proven true and Darwin falsified? Evolution should be thrown out?

Or is it that this doesn't actually effect the genome. It would be the same if we injected the mother with a vaccine. And Darwin stands despite LGT

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5126 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a hypothesis, that's an assertion.
So, the experiment DOESN'T disprove it?

Your claim was that it is impossible to disprove ANYTHING EVER.

Does this experiment disprove that "assertion" that the button controls the light?

Can you outline an experiment which CONCLUSIVELY proves that the button DOES control the light? An experiment which rules out _all_ possible variables including ones about which you are unaware?

Can you do that?

If I'm right that you can't. Don't bother to try. That's been your tactic ever since you made this f up in the first place.

You've been talking a big game about how you know more about science than the rest of us.

Time to put up or shut up.

Show me.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5127 Jan 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they demonstrate an actual change in the genome? No.
You are basically doing the Creationists Lateral Transfer argument in reverse.
"LeMark is right (in some small tangential way which doesn't actually involve what he was talking about)."
Is the same as saying::
"Darwin was wrong (in some small tangential way which doesn't actually involve what he was talking about)."
So, either both arguments are valid or both are invalid.
So, which is it is?
Is LeMark proven true and Darwin falsified? Evolution should be thrown out?
Or is it that this doesn't actually effect the genome. It would be the same if we injected the mother with a vaccine. And Darwin stands despite LGT

Look nugatory it wasn't my work or claim, but it is peer reviewed
so have you written you paper on how wrong they are?
They are claiming information passed through 100 generations and not be expressed in the genome , so you prove them wrong. They only offered a suggestion as to how it did, because I don't think they really know yet.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5128 Jan 5, 2013
I don't see a conflict with NS nugatory, nor was one implied.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5129 Jan 5, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the experiment DOESN'T disprove it?
Your claim was that it is impossible to disprove ANYTHING EVER.
Does this experiment disprove that "assertion" that the button controls the light?
Can you outline an experiment which CONCLUSIVELY proves that the button DOES control the light? An experiment which rules out _all_ possible variables including ones about which you are unaware?
Can you do that?
If I'm right that you can't. Don't bother to try. That's been your tactic ever since you made this f up in the first place.
You've been talking a big game about how you know more about science than the rest of us.
Time to put up or shut up.
Show me.
No, the "experiment" merely demonstrates that the assertion is incorrect.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5130 Jan 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Look nugatory it wasn't my work or claim, but it is peer reviewed
so have you written you paper on how wrong they are?
I don't need to. It says right in the paper that this isn't a change in the genome. That's my point.
They are claiming information passed through 100 generations and not be expressed in the genome , so you prove them wrong.
I don't have to prove them wrong when they are saying what I am saying.

This is just another example of you insisting that I am wrong for saying something which you are ALSO saying.

Seriously, Aura. What is wrong with you? You KEEP doing this over and over again.

First, I'm wrong about the Zeus being called a Greek god because he's actually referred to as a Greek god.

Then, I'm wrong that science never proves something 100% because in fact science never proves something 100%.

Now, I'm wrong that these guys aren't claiming that it was in the genome of the species because they are in fact claiming that it's not in the genome of the species.

I'm honestly starting to think that you don't understand what the word "wrong" even means.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5131 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the "experiment" merely demonstrates that the assertion is incorrect.
Your claim was that science could _never_ prove that something was incorrect. That it could ONLY prove things correct.

This example demonstrates an experiment where something is proven incorrect.

You have yet to even suggest an experiment in which something can be prove correct.

Why is that? It's because you know you can't do it.

You f'd up, then got all bitchy about it. Now you're too embarrassed to admit you were wrong.

Which is funny, because that's the entire basis of your criticism against me.

You owe me an irony meter.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5132 Jan 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
I don't see a conflict with NS nugatory, nor was one implied.
Wrong mechanism.

LGT conflicts with inheritance not NS.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 41 min Anon 226,368
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 1 hr Patrick 33
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 1 hr Thinking 5
The Ultimate Evidence of God 1 hr Thinking 59
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Thinking 426
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 5 hr Patrick 52
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 5 hr Patrick 173
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••