Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[James R]

This isn't about sides, nor am I doing leopold a favour. Indeed, I responded to this thread as a favour to you. When a narcissist with a control complex is grandstanding, it is better to ground them in reality, rather than fuel their delusions. Granted, you're unlikely to change your behaviour overnight, but hey, people are unpredictable, and sometimes change their minds.

You're not very clear. You seem to be saying I'm a narcissist, though it could be that you're saying leopold is a narcissist. Probably the former. Let's assume it's me you're insulting. How exactly is that doing me a favour? Please explain.

And while you're at it, perhaps you can answer the questions I asked you in my previous post, above.

 

[wellwisher]

The misunderstanding, that causes many well intending loyalists to get irrational, is connected to evolution being similar to the study of natural life history. This branch of history is supported by good science. However, good science support for any area of history, does not make that subject of history, science. It is still history. This unconscious history connection is why dogma and politics are needed. One will not see this same recruitment of other social sciences with the periodic table of the elements, because this is science. Science is self standing and does not need social science smoke and mirrors to help convince the herd. Science is self standing and can be inferred independently.

The loyalists sell the position, if you deny the current evolution history theory, in any way, that means you also deny all the science support. This is irrational. I can accept the science data that lays the foundation for this history theory. I do not believe the current history interpretation is the best one.

The current history theory of evolution leaves out science facts connected to the impact of water, and how water sets global and local potentials within the cells, that contribute so many things. This is important data that needs to be included. If we leave out any data, we are drawing a curve through only part of the science data. This partial data curve may be perfect, but it is the wrong curve if we leave out data.

Science data the current history theory of Evolution, leaves out.

Relative to water and the DNA, if we compare packed DNA, such as packed chromosomes, to unpacked DNA chromosomes, the unpacked DNA has more surface area in contact with the water. This extra surface area of unpacked DNA, relative to packed DNA, allows unpacked DNA to exert more potential into the water (larger interface potential). Conversely, the higher surface area contact, also allows the bulk water, which reflects the entire cell, to exert more potential onto DNA. Unpacking allows a better two way flow of information to and from the DNA.

One key moiety that is exposed upon the unpacking of the DNA, are the phosphate groups. Single charged phosphate groups are chaotropic ions. These will add some chaos into the order of the water. They have an impact on water similar to K+. As such, another difference between packed and unpacked DNA is unpacked DNA, makes the water ordering looser. It flips the switch more toward the polar hydrogen bonding setting. The unpacking of the DNA gets the cell is ready for a new program with more polar switches.

Late in cells cycles the K+ level are increasing again. The K+ induced aqueous equilibrium is favoring aqueous chaos and therefore equilibrium with the unpacked state of the DNA. There is an equilibrium push to unpack the DNA. This in inhibited by steric hindrance and mediated by unpacking enzymes.

On the other hand, when the DNA is totally unpacked to allow the DNA to be duplicated during cell cycles, we have the maximum DNA exposure and maximum chaotropic impact onto the water. This causes the nucleus water into maximum chaos about the DNA. One result is the nuclear membrane will disperse; loses order.

When the cell interacts with the environment, the DNA is normally partially unpacked. The degree of the unpacking defines a certain level of aqueous surface area and phosphate exposure. Certain parts of the DNA remain fully packed, such as the centromere, with minimal surface contact with water. The net effect is there are potential gradients within the nucleus water, based on the degree of unpacking of the DNA, the dynamic unpacking ratio, and the geometry of the packing/unpacking. The DNA can be the same, but the water has a very distinct information image; differentiation, with potential flowing from high to low. The centromere by remaining totally packed and is the low energy pole in the water. The DNA that is active is the high energy pole. The cell is even higher in aqueous energy; food impact.

 

[billvon]

well that's what i asked for, "what is a transitional fossil between groups".

It is a transitional fossil. Do you know what a transitional fossil is?

 

[leopold]

What do I do, as Ayala?
. . .

Do I kick up a fuss and demand that Science correct the record? Nah! It's a minor error.

make it a perma ban james.
you are as fraudulent as the retraction.

my login info:
[Deleted by Bells]*

edit:
you wouldn't worry about a respected source lying about what you said but you come thoroughly unglued about what an anonymous person on the net says about NAIG?
heh, heh, you don't deserve the title of "science site administrator".
you sir are a liar.
shall we call you richard instead?

edit 2:
reported, just so the site owners are aware of your bullshit.


*Moderator Edit - Login information deleted.

 

[leopold]

I wish I could ask leading questions, and then compel my opponent to respond by threatening them with censorship. That would make debates so much quicker and cleaner.

doesn't it?
james doesn't WANT an honest inquiry into this.

Honestly James, this whole fiasco is ludicrous.

james doesn't care, this is an act of desperation on his part.

Why don't you just ban leopold now? He's made it quite clear that he's not going to play ball, and you don't seem to have much to contribute apart from attitude and repeating 'tick tock'.

correct, i'm not playing his "comply or die" game.

If you're attempting to appear fair, you are failing miserably.

something he does when the shit gets too deep.

 

[davewhite04]

Keep going.

Using your fountain of knowledge, pick a year, it is still a tiny frame of time to change so dramatically, it's as if not much happened in 150k years(i give yo 50k years). But you won't open your mind to possibilities because you're prideful, a know it all and someone who is closed minded, no offence intended.

Language or the ability to speak and communicate did not start with "humans".

Useful language and the written word did start with Humans, not a parrot.

 

[davewhite04]

doesn't it?
james doesn't WANT an honest inquiry into this.

james doesn't care, this is an act of desperation on his part.

correct, i'm not playing his "comply or die" game.

something he does when the shit gets too deep.

Leopold, just abandon the thread and say you don't want to partake in it, start a new specific thread and see how it goes, surely that would stop James from banning you.

 

[leopold]

Leopold, just abandon the thread and say you don't want to partake in it, start a new specific thread and see how it goes, surely that would stop James from banning you.

james has already made it clear.
i either post what he wants to hear . . . or i get banned.

 

[Billy T]

Wellwisher Your brain is "water-logged." Go to link beow and read to learn H2O has nothing, ZIP, to do with the process of reading DNA to make RNA.
I.e. It is ignored and only is the solvent for the four molecules the transcription process needs to a assemble into RNA or typical mRNA, which again without H20 playing any role but as solvent in which the needed moecules of the protein the RNA will build with help of other larger assemble that servers as the "factory" executing the RNA code, which was transcribed from DNA instruction code.

You need to learn before your water logged brain further causes your to invent more non-sense. I.e. read:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-information-in-dna-is-decoded-by-6524808
and then watch the video there to see that water is only a solvent in which the needed molecules are brought to the assembly sites by Browian motion.

Also I'm nearly sure your whole idea about "unpacked DNA" is pure "invented by you" fiction. What happens is that the two DNA strands do separate a tiny fraction (<0.1%) starting at one specific end of the double strand so the transcription RNA can start to re-code the same information (with one of the four links changed). As this process proceeds, that slightly separated region of DNA moves towards the other end of the double helix and the double helix re forms immediately as the RNA forming moves further down the double helix.- I.e. is never "unpacked DNA" playing games with water. In many cases the fabrication of RNA does not need to go all the way to the other end of the DNA (RNA is typically much smaller molecule) so large part of he DNA was never even briefly unbound from the mating section of the other strand.

You embarrass your self with your "water flood" of invented ignorance.

 

[Bells]

Using your fountain of knowledge, pick a year, it is still a tiny frame of time to change so dramatically, it's as if not much happened in 150k years(i give yo 50k years). But you won't open your mind to possibilities because you're prideful, a know it all and someone who is closed minded, no offence intended.


Useful language and the written word did start with Humans, not a parrot.

Speaking of "prideful", you do not think the ability to hunt, build tools and survive and the manner of communication and the language required for that was not useful language?

And no, that did not start with humans.

Your argument is so self absorbed and conceited..

Your so called "possibilities" limit you to your God and a few thousand years. Do you understand that all animals can communicate with each other, through a variety of means, either visual communication and verbal communication? That conceited belief that it all started with humans is what makes you a creationist. Is it that inconceivable to you that our early human ancestors had ways to communicate in a language of sort and through visual cues?

My advice, get your head out of your bible and go back to school. "No offence intended".

 

[Bells]

james has already made it clear.
i either post what he wants to hear . . . or i get banned.

That is not what he said. He wants you to address the issues honestly and answer the questions and provide links to support your argument as well as retracting your misrepresentations of others. It should not be that difficult to do.

 

[billvon]

Honestly James, this whole fiasco is ludicrous. Why don't you just ban leopold now? He's made it quite clear that he's not going to play ball, and you don't seem to have much to contribute apart from attitude and repeating 'tick tock'. If you're attempting to appear fair, you are failing miserably.

He is being quite fair, and has given Leopold several opportunities to come clean. But Leopold instead chooses to lie and deceive.

(BTW I think Leopold should have every opportunity to lie and deceive, but there are plenty of political sites out there where he would have that opportunity. It's not appropriate on a science forum.)

 

[Bells]

Leopold, reporting posts and swearing at the staff in said reports is not going to do you any favours.

And misrepresenting what James requested is also not going to win you any friends.

 

[origin]

Leopold, I think you should stand your ground and not answer James at all!

See ya.

 

[davewhite04]

Speaking of "prideful", you do not think the ability to hunt, build tools and survive and the manner of communication and the language required for that was not useful language?

And no, that did not start with humans.

Your argument is so self absorbed and conceited..

Your so called "possibilities" limit you to your God and a few thousand years. Do you understand that all animals can communicate with each other, through a variety of means, either visual communication and verbal communication? That conceited belief that it all started with humans is what makes you a creationist. Is it that inconceivable to you that our early human ancestors had ways to communicate in a language of sort and through visual cues?

My advice, get your head out of your bible and go back to school. "No offence intended".

 

[davewhite04]

Bells:

it's funny, how when people like you write nonsense no one disagreees... What was the first animal to talk and write?

No long post full of deceit and lies, just simple answers to what crazy theory you adhere to.

 

[Bells]

it's funny, how when people like you write nonsense no one disagreees... What was the first animal to talk and write?

No long post full of deceit and lies, just simple answers to what crazy theory you adhere to.

I won't point out the irony that you appear to be responding to your own post there..

You need to realise that without those very basic manner of communication, we would not be here today. To dismiss ancient civilisations because their languages were not advance is absolute folly.

And what lies and deceit? Evolution you mean? I am not the one dismissing it as though it did not matter.

 

[davewhite04]

I won't point out the irony that you appear to be responding to your own post there..

Okay darling.

You need to realise that without those very basic manner of communication, we would not be here today. To dismiss ancient civilisations because their languages were not advance is absolute folly.

Did everyone see what bells did there? I asked for an example of the animal kingdom, now she is trying to make me out as attacking ancient civilisations , the very area that I was defending.

I guess deceit is a burden you have to bare.

Are we agreed that humans formed the first verbal language? Or have you got another 2 of spades up your sleeve.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are we agreed that humans formed the first verbal language? Or have you got another 2 of spades up your sleeve.

Many species of cetaceans, both toothed whales (Odontoceti, which includes the sperm whale as well as the dolphins and porpoises) and baleen whales (Mysticeti, which includes all other cetaceans), communicate by producing sounds. Since we have not yet been able to understand these sounds, it's too early to call them "language."

It's widely asserted by anthropologists that humans developed spoken language rather recently, around 70KYA. This is when the archeological record suddenly yields evidence of complex, sophisticated, coordinated activities that could not possibly have been performed by people who were communicating with hand signals at the same time.

We have no idea when cetaceans began sending sound-signals to each other. But the fact that this activity is widespread among many different species, even different families, it must surely have been invented much earlier than our spoken languages--perhaps tens of millions of years ago.

So no, we are by no means "agreed that humans formed the first verbal language."

 

[davewhite04]

Many species of cetaceans, both toothed whales (Odontoceti, which includes the sperm whale as well as the dolphins and porpoises) and baleen whales (Mysticeti, which includes all other cetaceans), communicate by producing sounds. Since we have not yet been able to understand these sounds, it's too early to call them "language."

It's widely asserted by anthropologists that humans developed spoken language rather recently, around 70KYA. This is when the archeological record suddenly yields evidence of complex, sophisticated, coordinated activities that could not possibly have been performed by people who were communicating with hand signals at the same time.

We have no idea when cetaceans began sending sound-signals to each other. But the fact that this activity is widespread among many different species, even different families, it must surely have been invented much earlier than our spoken languages--perhaps tens of millions of years ago.

So no, we are by no means "agreed that humans formed the first verbal language."

Science... Archaeology... you disregard this to try and create a sensible debate using nonsense.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/573229/Sumerian-language

I'm not talking about dolphins squeaking, or apes banging their chests.

"much earlier than our spoken languages--perhaps tens of millions of years ago."

Perhaps all you like, there is no evidence.

Problem with atheists who support evolution is that they tend to go on a crusade to make humans as animal like as they can, is this to justify animal like behaviour?