RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jan 12, 2018 18:44:17 GMT
Hmmmm.... Erin-related username, completely uninformed stance, a tendency to slog forward anyway.... How you feel about age of consent? Haha, I thin I've been away too long. I didn't spot that!
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 12, 2018 18:48:20 GMT
Hmmmm.... Erin-related username, completely uninformed stance, a tendency to slog forward anyway.... How you feel about age of consent? Haha, I thin I've been away too long. I didn't spot that! He's got that "Dr. Drew is my source" feel about him, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 12, 2018 18:57:40 GMT
It seems unlikely that the mutation rate would actually increase. . Why? It's been know for a long time that the mutation rate in Bacteria increases with environmental stress, there are mechanisms triggered by stress. For instance error prone sigma factors (enzymes for DNA replication) are preferentially used which increase point mutations etc. In plants transposons (jumping genes) are activated by environmental stress and increase the mutation rate. Shapiro's theories aren't really that controversial except when creationists think he's talking about intelligent design. I've always thought that mutations were caused by radiation exposure that would create random alterations of dna. But perhaps I'm misinformed on that (as the sole or primary cause. I can see how lots of chemical environmental factors could be involved during replication, and maybe that's where most mutations happen anyway.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 12, 2018 19:44:20 GMT
Haha, I thin I've been away too long. I didn't spot that! He's got that "Dr. Drew is my source" feel about him, no doubt. I already outed this guy as Saroadh a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jan 12, 2018 19:47:41 GMT
He's got that "Dr. Drew is my source" feel about him, no doubt. I already outed this guy as Saroadh a few weeks ago. Credit where it's due.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 12, 2018 20:00:43 GMT
I already outed this guy as Saroadh a few weeks ago. Credit where it's due. If he was trying to hide his identity then he's the worst in history. I was almost sure it was him after the first post, two posts later and it was obvious.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 12, 2018 20:09:40 GMT
Did the original post get deleted? I'm guessing it was a really terrible Creationist argument.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 12, 2018 20:16:32 GMT
Did the original post get deleted? I'm guessing it was a really terrible Creationist argument. It wasn't creationism, just something as ridiculous as creationism. He thought mutations arose to respond to environmental changes as though there is some sort of planning involved.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 12, 2018 20:19:55 GMT
Did the original post get deleted? I'm guessing it was a really terrible Creationist argument. It wasn't creationism, just something as ridiculous as creationism. He thought mutations arose to respond to environmental changes as though there is some sort of planning involved. Ah, theistic evolution. Not as absurd as Creationism/ID, but I still don't think it makes much sense.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 12, 2018 20:31:25 GMT
It wasn't creationism, just something as ridiculous as creationism. He thought mutations arose to respond to environmental changes as though there is some sort of planning involved. Ah, theistic evolution. Not as absurd as Creationism/ID, but I still don't think it makes much sense. Or Lamarckism.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 12, 2018 20:41:44 GMT
Ah, theistic evolution. Not as absurd as Creationism/ID, but I still don't think it makes much sense. Or Lamarckism. Oh it that was the OP was proposing? Pretty sure Mendel debunked that a while ago.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 12, 2018 20:51:06 GMT
Did the original post get deleted? I'm guessing it was a really terrible Creationist argument. It wasn't creationism, just something as ridiculous as creationism. He thought mutations arose to respond to environmental changes as though there is some sort of planning involved. I never mentioned planning at all. Quote me where I mentioned or implied planning.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 12, 2018 22:02:51 GMT
It wasn't creationism, just something as ridiculous as creationism. He thought mutations arose to respond to environmental changes as though there is some sort of planning involved. I never mentioned planning at all. Quote me where I mentioned or implied planning. With pleasure. Would you not agree that the presence of a certain challenge to an organism can cause the development of a trait that not only helps the organism deal with that challenge but also to deal with another challenge it is currently facing that it has no cause and effect relationship like that with? After all we know evolutionary responses are either suboptimal or nonexistent to certain challenges. So it is not theoretically impossible for there to be adaptions like that. It seems to me that if we accept that 1. there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of challenges and adaptions2.Responses to challenges are either suboptimal or nonexistent. 3.A trait can help deal with more than one challenges That it is absolutely possible for such an idea to be true. If there is no cause and effect then how do you explain that? Suggesting cause and effect heavily implies that the challenges in the environment cause mutations. Assuming from there that the mutations is intentional is not a big leap. Also: If we change an organisms environment it will, within generations adapt to face new challenges posed by that new environment. This also implies intentional adaptation, aka planning. Another thing: Asking for quotes after you deleted the posts in question is pretty dishonest in my opinion. Luckily for honesty, other posters quoted you.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 12, 2018 22:46:25 GMT
I never mentioned planning at all. Quote me where I mentioned or implied planning. With pleasure. Would you not agree that the presence of a certain challenge to an organism can cause the development of a trait that not only helps the organism deal with that challenge but also to deal with another challenge it is currently facing that it has no cause and effect relationship like that with? After all we know evolutionary responses are either suboptimal or nonexistent to certain challenges. So it is not theoretically impossible for there to be adaptions like that. It seems to me that if we accept that 1. there is a cause and effect relationship between the presence of challenges and adaptions2.Responses to challenges are either suboptimal or nonexistent. 3.A trait can help deal with more than one challenges That it is absolutely possible for such an idea to be true. If there is no cause and effect then how do you explain that? Suggesting cause and effect heavily implies that the challenges in the environment cause mutations. Assuming from there that the mutations is intentional is not a big leap. Also: If we change an organisms environment it will, within generations adapt to face new challenges posed by that new environment. This also implies intentional adaptation, aka planning. Another thing: Asking for quotes after you deleted the posts in question is pretty dishonest in my opinion. Luckily for honesty, other posters quoted you. 1.If I say there is a cause and effect relationship between famine and death and that if you increase how bad a famine is the response will be more death am I implying people are planing their deaths? How is that different to what I said? 2.People quoted me. So its not dishonest at all.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 13, 2018 0:46:15 GMT
If I say there is a cause and effect relationship between famine and death and that if you increase how bad a famine is the response will be more death am I implying people are planing their deaths? There is a cause and effect relationship between famine and death. So if you deliberately increase the famine, you are planning an increased death rate.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 13, 2018 7:58:11 GMT
If he was trying to hide his identity then he's the worst in history. I think it's impossible to be worse than Helen "I'm-not-Ada-but-a-random-newbie-who-started-a-thread-about-her-to-defend-her" Black
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 13, 2018 10:26:24 GMT
If he was trying to hide his identity then he's the worst in history. I think it's impossible to be worse than Helen "I'm-not-Ada-but-a-random-newbie-who-started-a-thread-about-her-to-defend-her" Black Helen Black was Ada?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jan 13, 2018 10:54:40 GMT
If I say there is a cause and effect relationship between famine and death and that if you increase how bad a famine is the response will be more death am I implying people are planing their deaths? There is a cause and effect relationship between famine and death. So if you deliberately increase the famine, you are planning an increased death rate. Except I never said deliberately.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 13, 2018 13:02:49 GMT
I think it's impossible to be worse than Helen "I'm-not-Ada-but-a-random-newbie-who-started-a-thread-about-her-to-defend-her" Black Helen Black was Ada? She was a sociological experiment.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 14, 2018 17:25:26 GMT
I must point out that you are the one that is coming across as a complete 'bufoon' in this. I'm not the one who can't even grasp what the other is saying. Yes you are, so far two pages of not being able to grasp the basics of what is being said.
|
|