Freethought & Rationalism Archive

deadman_932 · 07-08-2007, 09:52 PM

By the way, Elijah...if you and your gal, the "christian stripper" plan on using anything I've written in some "art" project, I expect to be paid. Certainly your speculations here were pretty damn worthless, so I'd prefer cash.

Vicious Love · 07-08-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

your gal, the "christian stripper"

What kind of monster would strip Christians?

07-08-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Love

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

your gal, the "christian stripper"

What kind of monster would strip Christians?

Ahem.....

Elijah · 07-08-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Cool. Let's see you do it.

No, they weren't.

Also wrong.

Quote:

Evolution whether it's lamarkist or Darwin isn't going to cause drastic changes in one generation, but subtle genetic ones over a long periods of time.

But if you don't go out and stand in the water and try to breathe, then how will your children ever learn it? Or your children's children? Someone's gotta be the first to teach his/her genes how to breathe water, right?

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

It's a slow process adapting from land back to water. Your not going to go from land animal back to gills. Your going to start turning semi-aquatic and start to develop aquatic features like: webbing hands/paws, hairless body, and greater control over breath for diving. As the generations pass if the food is more plentiful in the water then the land then you will move more into that environment and take on more of it's features.

You're not going to walk up to the ocean and be able to breath in the ocean like it's water, that's not what Lamarckisim is trying to say. Evolution moves just as slowly in the Lamarckist view as it does in Darwin's.

07-08-2007, 10:10 PM

Ok, and what's wrong with Darwin's view then? It does have all the evidence backing it, remember. So far you've come up with nothing to back Lamarck.

deadman_932 · 07-08-2007, 10:15 PM

And now, let us circle back to..."epigenetics!!"

07-08-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

It's a slow process adapting from land back to water. Your not going to go from land animal back to gills. Your going to start turning semi-aquatic and start to develop aquatic features like: webbing hands/paws, hairless body, and greater control over breath for diving. As the generations pass if the food is more plentiful in the water then the land then you will move more into that environment and take on more of it's features.

How?
No, I'm not a fucking Indian.

deadman_932 · 07-08-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

How?
No, I'm not a fucking Indian.

Dammit, don't you read comic books? Namor the Sub-Mariner? Aquaman? It's frikkin' SCIENCE, man.

07-08-2007, 10:21 PM

Nah man. Gave up teh bongs too.

Elijah · 07-08-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Love

Sure thing, Elijah. Just one tiny little problem: different species have different DNA, and different DNA is responsible for different traits. So unless these subtle processes of yours (weren't they supposed to be subtle genetic processes?) ultimately end up affecting DNA, they can't be responsible for the differences between species, nor for any of the billion and one traits (y'know, like having teeth) which we've conclusively linked to particular genes or combinations of genes.

Quote:

Don't know about your virus but if the mother resisted it then there is a chance that it will pass a form of that resistance down to the offspring.

Not entirely false, actually.

If half the animals of a particular species go to the trees when the food runs out and half the animals burrow into the ground after roots then that's going to create the differences between the species we see. The reason some of the animals live where they do is because at some point they had to.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2007, 09:52 PM	#91
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	By the way, Elijah...if you and your gal, the "christian stripper" plan on using anything I've written in some "art" project, I expect to be paid. Certainly your speculations here were pretty damn worthless, so I'd prefer cash.

07-08-2007, 10:10 PM	#95
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Ok, and what's wrong with Darwin's view then? It does have all the evidence backing it, remember. So far you've come up with nothing to back Lamarck.

07-08-2007, 10:15 PM	#96
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	And now, let us circle back to..."epigenetics!!"

07-08-2007, 10:21 PM	#99
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Nah man. Gave up teh bongs too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.