Evolution didn't happen

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 11, 2010, 04:02:06 PM

Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.

Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.

I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 05:21:49 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 11, 2010, 04:02:06 PM

Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.

Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.

I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?

I dont think Ive ever said that.  Ive always known that the swan was mostly monogamous.  Spreading the dominant seed to as many females is much more beneficial.  Why would the evolutionary process make a complete left turn from that?  The animals dont make a conscious decision to do that.  So nature had to help it along....and make it hard wired into their brains.  The question is why?

Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2010, 06:39:58 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 05:21:49 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 11, 2010, 04:02:06 PM

Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.

Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.

I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?

I dont think Ive ever said that.  Ive always known that the swan was mostly monogamous.  Spreading the dominant seed to as many females is much more beneficial.  Why would the evolutionary process make a complete left turn from that?  The animals dont make a conscious decision to do that.  So nature had to help it along....and make it hard wired into their brains.  The question is why?

Long Answer: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Short Answer: Altruism improves survival.

Alternative Answer: If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? loooool noob darwinist.

Quote from: Raist on April 26, 2010, 06:39:58 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 05:21:49 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 11, 2010, 04:02:06 PM

Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.

Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.

I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?

I dont think Ive ever said that.  Ive always known that the swan was mostly monogamous.  Spreading the dominant seed to as many females is much more beneficial.  Why would the evolutionary process make a complete left turn from that?  The animals dont make a conscious decision to do that.  So nature had to help it along....and make it hard wired into their brains.  The question is why?

Yes each of their brains is hardwired by their genes. The ones that were monogamous were able to form bonds and help each other raise the babies increasing their fitness.

Now any male that also had a brain wired to fly off to other ponds and mate with other females had the advantage of having multiple broods of offspring meaning a cheating gene was quite beneficial.

Yes swans are monogamous, except when they cheat on each other.


(Cheating also helps the female if she finds an already taken male that is better fit to survive than her husband.)


Thank you for providing this excellent example of a clear contradiction in behavior that happens to be beneficial.

Just in case it got missed:

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 21, 2010, 03:38:08 PM

The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.

Just in case it got missed:

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 26, 2010, 07:21:49 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 21, 2010, 03:38:08 PM

The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.

It was addressed both times. Troll harder.

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 27, 2010, 01:28:30 PM

Just in case it got missed:

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 26, 2010, 07:21:49 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 21, 2010, 03:38:08 PM

The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.

It was addressed both times. Troll harder.

Isn't trolling the entire point of this thread?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 27, 2010, 03:31:47 PM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 27, 2010, 01:28:30 PM

Just in case it got missed:

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 26, 2010, 07:21:49 AM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on April 21, 2010, 03:38:08 PM

The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.

It was addressed both times. Troll harder.

Isn't trolling the entire point of this forum?

fix'd

Plasmodium leads to the conclusion that evolution=BS.

Plasmodium leads to the conclusion that evolution=BS.

The defense mechanism against it in humans proves evolution=likely.

Being heterozygous for the sickle cell mutation means you can't get malaria. The sickle cell mutation is only common in people who have ancestors in regions where malaria was a problem.

[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]

With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.

The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium!  Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.

Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.

  

It was a paper written in a state of delirium!

You're really going with that fallacy?  The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has no bearing on the factualness of the claim.  A drunken man could say "the grass is green" and that wouldn't make it any less true.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 30, 2010, 12:03:45 PM

It was a paper written in a state of delirium!

You're really going with that fallacy?  The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has no bearing on the factualness of the claim.  A drunken man could say "the grass is green" and that wouldn't make it any less true.

I would favor the thousands of papers written that dispute the claims of a crazy/mentally unstable man any day.

[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]

With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.

The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium!  Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.

Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.

  

Uh, darwin came to the conclusions for origin of species while traveling on the Beagle. He spent those 20 years meticulously finding examples and studies to back up every single point in his book. Another biologist published a similar theory at the same time, but Darwin's thorough documentation and extensive knowledge on the subject got him credited with the discovery.

As for a delirious man giving him the idea, that is irrelevant to the idea itself and an ad hominem attack at best.

If heterozygous protection from malaria is disappearing that is likely malaria adapting to its new environment, ie the human body.


From now on either stick to debating the theory not the author of the theory or stick to the lower realms of debate.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 30, 2010, 12:03:45 PM

[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]

With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.

The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium!  Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.

Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.

  

Uh, darwin came to the conclusions for origin of species while traveling on the Beagle. He spent those 20 years meticulously finding examples and studies to back up every single point in his book. Another biologist published a similar theory at the same time, but Darwin's thorough documentation and extensive knowledge on the subject got him credited with the discovery.

As for a delirious man giving him the idea, that is irrelevant to the idea itself and an ad hominem attack at best.

If heterozygous protection from malaria is disappearing that is likely malaria adapting to its new environment, ie the human body.


From now on either stick to debating the theory not the author of the theory or stick to the lower realms of debate.

Actually he wouldn't have published it at the time if it wasn't for Wallace.
Also, the state of the human host is irrelevant to plasmodium. What matters is the state of its mosquito host.

Quote from: Raist on April 30, 2010, 03:07:25 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 30, 2010, 12:03:45 PM

[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]

With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.

The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium!  Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.

Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.

  

Uh, darwin came to the conclusions for origin of species while traveling on the Beagle. He spent those 20 years meticulously finding examples and studies to back up every single point in his book. Another biologist published a similar theory at the same time, but Darwin's thorough documentation and extensive knowledge on the subject got him credited with the discovery.

As for a delirious man giving him the idea, that is irrelevant to the idea itself and an ad hominem attack at best.

If heterozygous protection from malaria is disappearing that is likely malaria adapting to its new environment, ie the human body.


From now on either stick to debating the theory not the author of the theory or stick to the lower realms of debate.

Actually he wouldn't have published it at the time if it wasn't for Wallace.
Also, the state of the human host is irrelevant to plasmodium. What matters is the state of its mosquito host.

Could you please make your first statement relative to something we are discussing? A motivation to finish your research early is irrelevant especially after 20 years of having made your conclusion.

As for your second statement, I thought evolution didn't happen, the environment of neither host should matter according to your previous statements. Darwin's "Origin of species" was about animals adapting to their environment.

The reason malaria is almost unheard of in the U.S.A. is because of the man-made alterations to the female mosquito and it's age. By lowering the amount of days a female can live by a small amount, scientists were able to make it so that the female died before the diploid stage of plasmodium and reproduction completed in the stomach lining.

In other parts of the world, the mosqiutos are still able to reach the 26/28d age barrier and thus plasmodium can complete it's cycle.

The reason malaria is almost unheard of in the U.S.A. is because of the man-made alterations to the female mosquito and it's age. By lowering the amount of days a female can live by a small amount, scientists were able to make it so that the female died before the diploid stage of plasmodium and reproduction completed in the stomach lining.

In other parts of the world, the mosqiutos are still able to reach the 26/28d age barrier and thus plasmodium can complete it's cycle.

Thank you for this irrelevant statement?

We were talking about heterozygotic defense within a human against plasmodium, not its life cycle or why it isn't common in the U.S.

It isn't irrelevant.

As for your second statement, I thought evolution didn't happen, the environment of neither host should matter according to your previous statements. Darwin's "Origin of species" was about animals adapting to their environment.

It isn't irrelevant.

Quote from: Raist on April 30, 2010, 03:13:33 PM

As for your second statement, I thought evolution didn't happen, the environment of neither host should matter according to your previous statements. Darwin's "Origin of species" was about animals adapting to their environment.

And what does that have to do with heterozygous defense in humans not functioning any longer?

Again, your statement was off topic.

I would favor the thousands of papers written that dispute the claims of a crazy/mentally unstable man any day.

You honestly seem to not understand the fallacy.  Your comment if the equivalent to saying "Einstein got drunk once and came up with the theories of relativity, therefore the theories of relativity are wrong."  The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has absolutely no bearing on whether or not their claim is true.  The facts speak for themselves.  Debate the argument, not the person.

It isn't irrelevant. I'm talking about evolution. How hosts are involved is a part of the topic.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 30, 2010, 12:19:46 PM

I would favor the thousands of papers written that dispute the claims of a crazy/mentally unstable man any day.

You honestly seem to not understand the fallacy.  Your comment if the equivalent to saying "Einstein got drunk once and came up with the theories of relativity, therefore the theories of relativity are wrong."  The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has absolutely no bearing on whether or not their claim is true.  The facts speak for themselves.  Debate the argument, not the person.

No, his actual argument is "I can make a fallacious argument and get people to respond" and I actually just like to argue.

It isn't irrelevant. I'm talking about evolution. How hosts are involved is a part of the topic.

And completely irrelevant to anything we've said.

Ichi, this is below you. Either stay on fucking topic or make sense.

Can I get a mod in here to start removing his posts if he keeps this garbage up?

You said plasmodium it adapting to the human body. Example- people with sickle cell traits (hetero)
My point was that the vertebrate host of plasmodium is irrelevant to the survival of the species. The mosquito however, is what matters. If evolution were correct, the ability to infect sickle cell individuals is irrelevant to plasmodium.

You said plasmodium it adapting to the human body. Example- people with sickle cell traits (hetero)
My point was that the vertebrate host of plasmodium is irrelevant to the survival of the species. The mosquito however, is what matters. If evolution were correct, the ability to infect sickle cell individuals is irrelevant to plasmodium.

You only showed that the mosquito host is important, not that the human host is unimportant.

Therefore irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant because we were talking about humans surviving plasmodium, not plasmodium surviving in a mosquito.

It was my understanding that Wallace, while under the delusion's of high fever, had an epiphany.  It wasn't until later, after his fever passed, that he wrote down his ideas.  It wasn't that he did his work under the pressures of illness, it was that the idea came to him at that time of duress.

As soon as he said "Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round" I stopped reading.

Darwin had a great point following the Beagle, though.

Tracing purebred dogs back is fairly easy, and you can see how traits can be changed over time from one generation to the next to the next through choosing the dogs you want to breed.

Evolution just says instead of people selecting the breeding partners, over a large period of time the ones with the traits to survive will be more likely to breed, thus influencing the traits of their offspring.

I don't see what it's that hard to understand.

Darwin had a great point following the Beagle, though.

Tracing purebred dogs back is fairly easy, and you can see how traits can be changed over time from one generation to the next to the next through choosing the dogs you want to breed.

Evolution just says instead of people selecting the breeding partners, over a large period of time the ones with the traits to survive will be more likely to breed, thus influencing the traits of their offspring.

I don't see what it's that hard to understand.

0/10