Another creationist idiot (2008-07-22)

[PeZook]

So there you have it. The creationtards can't even determine that a piece of DNA even has information in the first place, because they've stripped away the surrounding context and insist on defining it in a vacuum.

First, let me tell you that was some jaw-dropping p0wnage

Second, the creationists won't understand a word of it, because all they do is copy and paste other people's arguments.

Third, it should be blindingly obvious to anybody with a brain that information is only relevant and meaningful in a certain context, even without going for mathematical proof: a report like "The third division has moved into position" is information, but only if given by certain people in a certain situation. If I said it on the bus to a random person, it's just gibberish

[wautd]

People who know there is a creator to answer to are much more moral than godless savages.(You for instance )

Oh lord

[XaLEv]

What's a "factorial"?

The factorial of a number is the product of all the positive integers less than or equal to it.

Example, 6! (six factorial) = 1*2*3*4*5*6 = 720.

[Darth Wong]

He responded yesterday. Amusingly enough, I nailed it precisely: he's in grade 9.

You really don't get it, do you? When you screech that I'm a "COWARD" for not exposing myself to physical violence, you are engaging in pitifully obvious macho posturing.

No, You don't get it. Putting down one religion and not another of a similar nature is biased. YOU have an ax to grind with Christianity itself, not an objective point of view.

Why don't you try talking to a biochemist? We've observed the addition of genetic material through natural processes, when extra genes get added to the sequence. That is "information" by your definition, since these genes will replicate themselves in subsequent generations.

Of course, you will simply alter your definition upon reading this, and add extra conditions which must be met. Creationists are experts at moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving anything.Send me a reference to this info; (you don't have one? oh )

Ah yes, the desperate refuge of the ignoramus: to refer to higher education as "brainwashing".

Higher education is an admirable thing. Evolution is brainwashing.

News flash: you learned a dumbed-down child's version of the scientific method in high school. If you want to learn the real thing, you have to go to university.

What if yours is the Dumbed down version ? Of course that will never occur to such an arrogant fool as yourself or your cronies.

More than a million people walking through the desert for 40 years should have left evidence of their passage. There is no such evidence, and they've looked in all the places it should be. Moreover, there is no Egyptian record of such events, nor is there any evidence of the sudden and massive devastation to their national power that should have taken place due to the multiple plagues and disasters supposedly visited upon them, never mind the overnight loss of more than a million slaves. And finally, there is the impossibility of supplying such a large expedition as it wanders about the desert. Therefore, no Exodus. Is that a sufficiently simple explanation for you?

You can't prove that it didn't happen ,so you're being close minded. ( I just used one of your battle tactics, You should feel honored.)

Why didn't you try looking it up? Are you afraid of what you might find? The only people who think the Exodus is a historically accurate story are religious groups. Even the Director of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University in Israel agrees that there is no evidence to support it, even though it's so important to the Jewish mythos and Israeli national self-identity.

I'll look it up tomorrow.

People who know there is a creator to answer to are much more moral than godless savages.(You for instance )

Prove it.

Ah, we resort to name calling...No, I didn't say you needed to or should face physical violence. I was making a comparison. Not that you would understand that.

I understand exactly what you are doing when you keep asking why I don't go out of my way to confront Muslim extremists; you think that this somehow degrades my credibility, because in your primitive mind, the strength of an argument is determined by willingness to face violence.

You don't get it. Putting down one religion and not another of a similar nature is biased. YOU have an ax to grind with Christianity itself, not an objective point of view. ( Yes, I said this once already)

You didn't even bother reading those quotes from "Mein Kampf", did you? Don't worry, I know how people like you operate. You fear information which might shake your confidence, so you avoid even looking at it.

Another side step of the truth. Here's a quote for you:

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

Adolph obviously believed in evolution. Despite your running commentary on each line,trying to convince your readers he was a devout Christian.

I read the rest of it too. My confidence isn't shaken.

"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for
intellectual professions"

Again..a direct comment on evolution. And Still my confidence isn't shaken.

So you think that anyone who believes in any non-Christian ideas at all is not a Christian? How do you explain all of the people in your own country who go to church every week and also check their horoscope in the newspaper every day?

Why can't you quit twisting words ? I neither said nor implied any such thing. You would think with your oh so high education you could read a simple sentence. There are limits as to what you can buy into and be a Christian,yes.

No, I point it out because you're obviously too slow to understand that Christianity does not necessarily make you a good person. Have you ever read the Civil War era Texas Declaration of Secession?

No, but it sounds like a fascinating read .

No, you don't grasp the concept at all. If someone is a deist, he does not believe in any kind of personal God, period.

There's still a creator involved Abe was a Christian.

You're arguing and writing at a grade 9 level at best. Don't kid yourself.

You probably think that this will look really clever and witty when others read it, don't you? You're way out of your league, kiddo. Your problem is that you don't even realize it.

This is true, You have (so far) a better education than I do. However this will not always be the case. If I can piss you off this much as a H.S. freshman, just think what I'll be able to do in a few years.

I also admire the way you edit out things you don't want anyone else to read. Did you realize there may be someone reading your tripe that could be from Knoxville ,Tn?

FYI I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I don't believe in the immortality of the soul, or that you even have a soul outside of your "personality" . The bible teaches no such concept, so you aren't going to burn in hell forever.

He's just becoming very drab and boring now. Time to switch to lecturer mode.

No, You don't get it. Putting down one religion and not another of a similar nature is biased. YOU have an ax to grind with Christianity itself, not an objective point of view.

Do you have any idea how preposterous it is to dismiss my criticisms of creationism by claiming that I, an atheist, am biased in favour of Islam? Especially when Islam has exactly the same creation myth that Christianity does?

Why don't you try talking to a biochemist? We've observed the addition of genetic material through natural processes, when extra genes get added to the sequence. That is "information" by your definition, since these genes will replicate themselves in subsequent generations.

Of course, you will simply alter your definition upon reading this, and add extra conditions which must be met. Creationists are experts at moving the goalposts.

I'm not moving anything.Send me a reference to this info; (you don't have one? oh )

Quite frankly, the concept of gene duplication is so commonplace that you could have easily looked it up in less than 5 minutes yourself. This only tells me how intellectually lazy you are. When you saw my argument, rather than lifting a finger to see if there was anything to it, you simply ASSUMED that it must be made-up.

Ah yes, the desperate refuge of the ignoramus: to refer to higher education as "brainwashing".

Higher education is an admirable thing. Evolution is brainwashing.

How would you know, since you've never taken a university course in biology or any other scientific subject?

What if yours is the Dumbed down version ? Of course that will never occur to such an arrogant fool as yourself or your cronies.

You honestly think that it's possible the university-level version is "dumbed-down" compared to the high school version? That's hilarious.

More than a million people walking through the desert for 40 years should have left evidence of their passage. There is no such evidence, and they've looked in all the places it should be. Moreover, there is no Egyptian record of such events, nor is there any evidence of the sudden and massive devastation to their national power that should have taken place due to the multiple plagues and disasters supposedly visited upon them, never mind the overnight loss of more than a million slaves. And finally, there is the impossibility of supplying such a large expedition as it wanders about the desert. Therefore, no Exodus. Is that a sufficiently simple explanation for you?

You can't prove that it didn't happen ,so you're being close minded. ( I just used one of your battle tactics, You should feel honored.)

I accept your admission of defeat.

I'll look it up tomorrow.

No, you won't. I know your type.

Another side step of the truth. Here's a quote for you:

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

Adolph obviously believed in evolution. Despite your running commentary on each line,trying to convince your readers he was a devout Christian.

I read the rest of it too. My confidence isn't shaken.

You don't realize the significance of the "halfway between man and ape" line, do you? He believed that aryans were made in the image of God, while the "lower races" were evolved from apes. That's why he thought that inter-marriage would produce "monstrosities halfway between man and ape". He was a Christian.

I explained this on my webpage, which you clearly never bothered reading. I understand that reading is difficult for some people, but you should really try to make the effort.

"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions"

Again..a direct comment on evolution. And Still my confidence isn't shaken.

You seem to think that if someone believes in evolution (even if he doesn't really understand it, like you), then he can't be a Christian. It doesn't work that way. The majority of American scientists are Christians, yet 99% of them accept evolution.

So you think that anyone who believes in any non-Christian ideas at all is not a Christian? How do you explain all of the people in your own country who go to church every week and also check their horoscope in the newspaper every day?

Why can't you quit twisting words ? I neither said nor implied any such thing.

I will let the reader be the judge of that, especially since you specifically mentioned astrology as a deal-breaker belief.

You would think with your oh so high education you could read a simple sentence . There are limits as to what you can buy into and be a Christian,yes.

And you have already mentioned both evolution and any kind of paganism (including astrology) as examples, thus eliminating most of the American population and validating my previous statement.

No, I point it out because you're obviously too slow to understand that Christianity does not necessarily make you a good person. Have you ever read the Civil War era Texas Declaration of Secession?

No, but it sounds like a fascinating read .

You know, an inquisitive person would have probably gone and looked it up on the Internet. It would have taken only a minute or two. But that's not the sort of person you are, is it?

No, you don't grasp the concept at all. If someone is a deist, he does not believe in any kind of personal God, period.

There's still a creator involved Abe was a Christian.

Wrong. Deism rejects any kind of personal God. I would ask you to look it up, but as I said, you've made it quite clear that you don't do that sort of thing.

You're arguing and writing at a grade 9 level at best. Don't kid yourself.

You probably think that this will look really clever and witty when others read it, don't you? You're way out of your league, kiddo. Your problem is that you don't even realize it.

This is true, You have (so far) a better education than I do. However this will not always be the case. If I can piss you off this much as a H.S. freshman, just think what I'll be able to do in a few years.

Doesn't it bother you that I was able to accurately identify your age, right down to your grade? Doesn't it occur to you that you're in over your head, you clearly don't know anything, and that you're dealing with someone who knows far more than you?

And by the way, it WILL always be the case that I have a far better education than you do. When I was in grade 9, I was the sort of person who would look things up. You aren't. I knew plenty of people like you in high school. You will never get a good education unless you change the way you think, starting with putting down that Bible and picking up some real books.

I also admire the way you edit out things you don't want anyone else to read.

Did you realize there may be someone reading your tripe that could be from Knoxville ,Tn?

You refuse to look at that thread on my forums, don't you? I posted all of your E-mails in full. And yes, I realize that there might be other southern rednecks reading my forum. They know what I think of the US South. Any place where it is socially acceptable to fly a symbol of racism and treason such as the confederate flag is not worth taking seriously. Smart people in the South don't try to defend its history or its religious fervour.

FYI I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I don't believe in the immortality of the soul, or that you even have a soul outside of your "personality" . The bible teaches no such concept, so you aren't going to burn in hell forever.

The Bible was written by illiterate goat herders who were so ignorant that they thought every kind of animal in the entire world lived within walking distance of Noah's house. It is not a book that any intelligent person could take seriously as fact.

In this world, there are people who like to exercise their minds, and there are people who would rather (metaphorically) lie on the couch and grow fatter and fatter until they are completely immobile. You are still young enough to choose to be the former, but you are unfortunately well on your way to becoming the latter.

I had you pegged the instant I saw the first paragraph of your first response; you are not even an individual. You're a walking stereotype. That's why you're good fodder for comedy on my web forum (I do try to make my readers laugh), but far too infantile to merit an addition to my website.

I think we can close the book on this twit. It's pretty obvious that he would rather gnaw off his arms than look anything up in order to expand his mental horizons.

[Patrick Degan]

What was this kid's hometown in Tennessee? Knoxville, or Knuckledrag?

[General Zod]

What was this kid's hometown in Tennessee? Knoxville, or Knuckledrag?

It's probably safe to say the names are interchangeable.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hey mike, here is a comprehensive list of papers on gene duplication

http://www.nslij-genetics.org/duplication/

What if yours is the Dumbed down version ? Of course that will never occur to such an arrogant fool as yourself or your cronies.

I have taken entire classes on what this little shit covers in three days of high school biology. Hell, I am about to head to grad school where I will take entire classes on a subfield of what he covered in three days of high school bio.

You seem to think that if someone believes in evolution (even if he doesn't really understand it, like you), then he can't be a Christian. It doesn't work that way. The majority of American scientists are Christians, yet 99% of them accept evolution.

Nitpick, this is not actually true... the majority of practicing scientists in the US are religious, but christians are a large minority once you account for jews.... Those with Ph.Ds are rarely christians.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks for the info, AD. BTW, it's funny how transparently dishonest he is, like retconning his "That would take a man willing to make a sacrifice for what he believes" argument into an accusation of bias and completely ignoring my challenge to back up his claim that religious people are always more moral than irreligious people.

The ironic thing is that his own views are FAR closer to those of an Islamic extremist than mine are. And they'll probably only get worse as he gets older.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I'm worried that this character is part of a growing trend in our country. I was a lazy bastard in high school, but even I made an attempt to read up on subjects whenever my intelligence in that area was questioned by either myself or other people. With google or yahoo, ignorance is not an excuse for the populous anymore when it comes to verifying your facts.

The ironic thing is that his own views are FAR closer to those of an Islamic extremist than mine are. And they'll probably only get worse as he gets older.

He recognizes this subconsciously, so this E-posturing is just his way of projecting.

[wautd]

Adolph obviously believed in evolution. Despite your running commentary on each line,trying to convince your readers he was a devout Christian.

here's some official nazi documents listing all kinds of books that had to be burned. I'd like to see him explain that away

c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

[Darth Wong]

Did anyone else pick up on the fact that he quoted a line from Hitler where he actually makes reference to the "Eternal Creator" and totally ignores that, then (falsely) claims that any Deist (such as Lincoln) must believe in a Creator and that anyone who believes in a Creator must be a Christian?

I didn't bother correcting it in my response because he wouldn't even understand the logical inconsistency there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Did anyone else pick up on the fact that he quoted a line from Hitler where he actually makes reference to the "Eternal Creator" and totally ignores that, then (falsely) claims that any Deist (such as Lincoln) must believe in a Creator and that anyone who believes in a Creator must be a Christian?

I didn't bother correcting it in my response because he wouldn't even understand the logical inconsistency there.

I did not, but now that you mention it... If you want, I am pretty damn bored before I head to texas, I could... play with this individual, with your permission. Either directly or by proxy (responding to his emails and having those be posted where he will see them)

[SirNitram]

I truly hate idiotic fundies ascribing things to Deism. They never bother to know what the fuck they're talking about.

(To be fair, it's kind of hard to ascribe much of anything beyond the supremacy of Reason to Deists. WE're kinda non-dogmatic.)

[PeZook]

I caught that. I actually wondered how the hell could he miss a transparently obvious reference to God that practically screams "I think I'm a good believer!!!"

[Themightytom]

Did anyone else pick up on the fact that he quoted a line from Hitler where he actually makes reference to the "Eternal Creator" and totally ignores that, then (falsely) claims that any Deist (such as Lincoln) must believe in a Creator and that anyone who believes in a Creator must be a Christian?

I didn't bother correcting it in my response because he wouldn't even understand the logical inconsistency there.

I saw it as well, and for a few seconds I started to try to figure out what he was mgetting at, but the cognition collapsed into entropy when I noticed he was in ninth grade.

Crazy people (Hitler) have a way of taking something that sounds right, and than elaborating a little too much. I read that statement as "We must protect the sanctity of marriage!" and thought "Hmm yes, well strong family units are helpful to socialization and identity formation, and they are certainly economically helpful, maybe I can be on board with this..."

Then the big H dovetails into "And marriage is important because otherwise we breed a half human half ape monstrosity that must forever contain the raging spirit within him!" and I kind of have to jump ship on it all.

When he identified his age he gave it all up.
That was pretty much where he picked up his shit and left. It was a tacit acknowledgement that,

Well i lost this battle, but I'll be back! When I'm older! Older and smarter! because i'm smart now! I'll be baaaaaack....

This can go two ways for him. he will recognize that he carries cultural programming and needs to evaluate the influence those things have on him if he wants to be his own person.

OR he will shrug and embrace the comfort of doing what he has been told all of his life but will never be able to defend why he does it, i mean God knows he probably won't bother to look anything up. (Please note the subtle use of irony)

[Darth Wong]

Did anyone else pick up on the fact that he quoted a line from Hitler where he actually makes reference to the "Eternal Creator" and totally ignores that, then (falsely) claims that any Deist (such as Lincoln) must believe in a Creator and that anyone who believes in a Creator must be a Christian?

I didn't bother correcting it in my response because he wouldn't even understand the logical inconsistency there.

I did not, but now that you mention it... If you want, I am pretty damn bored before I head to texas, I could... play with this individual, with your permission. Either directly or by proxy (responding to his emails and having those be posted where he will see them)

That would be amusing. But unless you E-mail him directly, he won't see anything. I know he's carefully avoided checking this forum.

[Revy]

It's people like this that really make you wish the Ark of Truth (from Stargate) was a real thing, even though it was a lame plot device. Some of these people are just so religiously brainwashed that the only way I can imagine of deprogramming them is to brainwash them to think for themselves rather than letting a silly old book think for them.

[Master of Ossus]

I love the part when he describes how the Texas Declaration of the Causes of Secession "sounds like a fascinating read." Not only did this confirm that he either doesn't know how to use Google or else completely doesn't care, but it also shows the sort of dishonest attempts to "sound smart" that people like this tend to throw around.

[Aquatain]

Whenever this type of mail drops into Mike's mailbox he must have a sense of Deja-vu, Honestly I'm impressed he can stand it - he might as well start a conversation with a brick wall, this way he doesn't lose faith in humanity and just maybe..the wall have something intelligent to say, at least the chances are higher than this type of moron.

[Kanastrous]

Look at how he phrased it in his first message: "That would take a man willing to make a sacrifice for what he believes."

He thinks that it's a devastating criticism of my character to say that I'm not willing to die for my beliefs, and like many Christians, he probably believes that this will also destroy all of my arguments by association. I'm quite willing to admit that I don't intend to die for my beliefs; if a Muslim put a gun to my head, I'd be praising Allah and Mohammed before he could take the safety off. If he would not do the same, it doesn't make him superior; it makes him stupid.

Mind you, I think we all know he would do the same, because he's just a posturing blow-hard.

He'd be a takfiri, a Muslim who conceals or denies his Muslim identity in the service of Allah, which is permissible in certain sects, including Wahhabism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Greetings,

My name is Ben. I recently read your email exchange with Mike Wong, and thought I would toss my two cents in. I am a graduate student in biology at the University of Texas, Arlington, and am somewhat better equipped to handle your objections to the Theory of Evolution than Mike is. I have little interest in the other parts of your argument, but my position is two fold. The first part is research, the second part is education. So here we go.

In your initial response to Mike, you said that "DNA blows evolution out of the water" I assume by this that you mean Dembsky's arguments regarding complex specified information. Holding aside the fact that the man is basically the laughing stock of mathematics and philosophy, and has not even submitted a paper for peer-review in years, his arguments are simply not true. Here is why. There are actually several reasons and I will go through each in detail.

Let's go into some definitions here. I will keep it simple.

Information: The simplest example of information is a coin toss. It is the answer to a yes or no question. A 1 or 0 in binary. From here we can answer other questions. The letter L for example is the result of 8 of these coin tosses.

Complex information: The result of a lot of these coin tosses.

Complex Specified Information: The Results have meaning.

The first mistake Dembsky makes is that he assumes that there is only one language. But that is not true. There may be only one DNA code on earth (a codon specifying a particular amino acid in a chain of synthesized proteins) but this need not be the case. It is perfectly possible for an enzyme (or in the case of a ribosome a ribozyme) to have developed that has a different codex. The fact that there is only one used on earth is actually supporting evidence for common descent.

To illustrate this another way, what would you say about the string of letters

ichhabedasGefuhlichbinnichtmehrinarabia


It looks like gibberish does it not? Would it shock you to find out that it is german for "I get the feeling I am not in arabia anymore?" (I thought kansas would be too obvious)

The point here is that if there are different languages possible, different configurations to say the same thing, to convey the same information, it cuts down drastically on the specification required of the information.

The next mistake he makes is he assumes that everything came together at once. That a modern strand of DNA was assembled together from nothing under neutral conditions. If he had ever taken organic chemistry he would know this is not true. To show how this is not true, I will link you to a very well done Youtube video. The music is good too by the way.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Genetic material (which does not have to even be modern DNA or RNA) is capable of self replication, with errors.

This is where the other part of the mistake comes in.

Information in a cell changes with every generation through mutation. Genetic material is also added and in some cases deleted. Here is how.

There are several types of mutations that can happen when a genetic strand is replicating. There are more than I will list, but the ones I am going to list are the most important.

1. Substitution. One nucleotide is substituted for another. Guanine becomes Cytosine for example. This does not change the info content of the strand, but can change its organization if it changes something to a start or stop codon, or changes the amino acid coded for by that part of the strand (there is redundancy in the code, so that does not always happen)

2. Addition/deletion. A single addition of one nucleotide somewhere in the chain. It minutely changes information content, and massively changes the organization because it shifts the reading frame of the strand (imagine trying to read the above german sentence if I deleted a letter and you didnt know that I did it...)

3. Gene duplication. Gene duplication is the driving force of evolution. Here is a comprehensive list of papers

http://www.nslij-genetics.org/duplication/

Gene duplication allows for mutation and natural selection to tinker with a gene while the organism possessing the mutation still has a functioning copy. Through this process we have gotten most of our genes. They are all the results of gene duplications and subsequent tinkering from our ancestors. This is documented, we can trace it.

There are also entire genome duplications that sometimes happen.

Your mud ball comment is also a bit of a strawman, and is dealt with in the Youtube video I showed you.

As for creationists being liars... they are. I am sorry, but the people leading the creationist and ID movements have been caught lying so many times through their teeth it is a disgrace. As for those hoaxes by scientists, we catch them outselves. Science is self-policing. Take Piltdown man for example, we exposed that one all on our own. And that hoax had less to do with god and more with turn of the century british nationalism


Now on to Hitler. Hitler was a devout catholic, even tried to become a priest. Additionally he worked rather extensively with the catholic church, and thought that while black people descended from Apes, the Aryan race was created by god. This is all documented in Hitlers own writings. If you cannot be bothered to read them that is hardly my fault.

As for evolution and racism, evolution has nothing to do with that. In fact, an honest understanding of evolution(the like the one I have, because I study evolution professionally) is one that casts down racism, because there is no such thing as being "superior" in evolution. Only better adapted to a given environment. There might be measurable differences between races, but those differences do not indicate superiority. To say that would be equivalent to a duck saying it is superior to a chicken because it has more extensively webbed feet.

In your third email to Mike, you said this

"Of course they're observed in mud balls NOW. The information is there to pass onward. You haven't explained how you know that it is possible for "information" to "arise" through natural processes. Not that I would expect you to know anything. "

to which I respond "see above"

If you want a detailed description of how DNA duplicates complete with pictures, I can do that for you if you like.

As for the scientific method, I find it funny that you are pretentious enough to try to tell an engineer what the scientific method is, or what is and is not science. You are a HS freshman by your own admission, what do you honestly think you know?. I have taken entire classes on a small subfield of evolutionary biology, the evolution of animal behavior. You cover all of evolution in three day, a week at maximum. Are you going to sit there and tell me, or Mike for that matter that you know science better than us?

We can have a pretty good idea that the exodus did not happen. For one, we have not found the mummified remains of thousands of jews out in the desert.

Then you make some bizarre reference to Hitler again, and how he took Evolution as fact. No. He did not. He twisted evolution to suit his purposes. He twisted a lot of things. But that is not the point. You display rather well that you do not actually know how science works.

A theory is a coherent set of interlocking naturalistic, explanations for a natural phenomenon that is used to make testable predictions about the results of experiment and observations.

If the prediction fails there are a couple possibilities: The theory is wrong. The scientist did not understand the theory. Or the theory needs to be expanded to fit new data.

very simple. Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. It is tested pretty much anytime someone runs an experiment in biology. And it holds up every time. It is also worth noting the germ theory is a theory, gravity is the theory, plate tectonics is a theory, etc etc etc.

Theories in science are not the same as theories on detective shows. They are more than educated guesses. As an aside, they are more useful than facts. A fact is just one data point. A theory ties together and explains facts, which allows us to solve problems.

Please, do a bit of reading, research and critical thought before you go spouting off like an idiot

[Revy]

I actually have an evoloution related question, if it's ok? I don't know much about genetics myself, but something I heard about had me confused.

It's to do with mitochondrial DNA. Is it true that children inherit DNA not just from their parents, but also from their mothers mitochondria as well? I read somewhere that females pass on some of their mitochondrial DNA as well as their own bodies DNA to their children, but males only pass on their own DNA.

If that's true, how does this affect evoloution? Does this mean that newly concieved humans (and possibly other living things) have three contributers to their genetic makeup, as opposed to just two? Does this mean that human cells actually contain elements of mitochondrial DNA in them, as well as human DNA? And if this keeps happening, won't that mean that with each successive generation, more and more of our DNA will acquire non-human genetic information? What does that mean for our evoloution?

I also heard that mitochondrial DNA is far more susceptible to genetic mutation than human DNA. But if we acquire mitochondrial DNA when we're conceived, doesn't this mean our genome becomes progressively more and more susceptible to mutation? I've heard of people suffering from mitochondrial related genetic diseases because of this, I think. That aside, is this element of mutation a part of evoloution? Does nature in fact deliberately add mitochondrial DNA to our own because of this factor, in order to increase genetic diversity?

Sorry if I'm talking a load of garbage, as I said all I know about the subject is bits and pieces I've heard or read, but this thing had me curious.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok. Your mitochondria are organelles inside your cells. They are responsible for producing ATP from sugars, which is the energy currency of the cell. Before they existed, primitive cells were not very efficient at this.

The Mitochondria were ancient bacteria, whether they were eaten by or parasitized other organisms is unknown, but somehow they managed tt inside other cells, and because of the shitload of ATP they produce, the cells they inhabit became very successful. Eventually the mitochindria and other cells co-evolved together to the point that they are required for eachother's survival, and came to dominate the little cellular ecosystem.

When your moms eggs are made by meiosis some of her mitochindria go along for the ride.

The mitochondria, if I remember correctly replicate on their own or at least partially on their own, and are more prone to mutation. However the selective pressure to remain functional is also very high, though they do lose genes if the nuclear genome can pick up the same function.

[Erik von Nein]

The mitochondria, if I remember correctly replicate on their own or at least partially on their own, and are more prone to mutation. However the selective pressure to remain functional is also very high, though they do lose genes if the nuclear genome can pick up the same function.

I believe the nucleus controls mitochondria replication, in that they only will when they get the signal from the nucleus. They're more prone to mutation due to their higher replication rate (compared to the cell, anyhow).

[Revy]

I had a fair idea about what Mitochondria were and what they do. I think they do replicate themselves, provided their host (ie us) has enough raw materials.

But the thing I cant seem to find out or figure out, is whether or not human cells contain, not only millions of mitochondria symbiotes attached to them, but mitochondrial DNA within our own nucleus, intermingled with our own DNA. After all, mitochondria are technically a whole seperate species to humans, so if they do end up blending in some of their DNA in with ours, I wouldn't think the end result would work too well. That almost makes it sound as if humans are actually a hybrid between homo sapien and these symbiotic organisms. If DNA from two different species is combined, isnt the result some kind of chimera? Or, does this happen so often with all complex life forms that it doesnt really count, because they do this naturally all the time?

My whole point is, if they do mix their DNA in with their hosts genetic material when the host reproduces, aren't they essentially effecting, steering, or otherwise altering our evoloution? Since evoloution comes about by passing on a mixture of genetic information, if they are involved as well as the two parents, then they would also be playing a part in evoloution too, especially if the DNA they add to ours is more likely to mutate than ours is. Which almost makes it look deliberate (by nature I mean, not god) - as if neccessity or somesuch intentionally made these organisms join with our cells, and inetentionally made them chuck in their DNA with our own, because it would increase the chances of mutation and diversity in the hosts.

Feh, I'm tired and I don't think I'm making much sense, sorry. I need to go get some sleep.