James's theory on dinosaurs

  • 1799 Replies
  • 502529 Views
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • +0/-0
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #960 on: November 13, 2010, 03:29:29 PM »
I see your point. Thanks.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #961 on: November 13, 2010, 03:51:55 PM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #962 on: November 13, 2010, 03:57:13 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #963 on: November 13, 2010, 06:32:04 PM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

Actually, it is (or can be).  Although relatively uncommon, occasionally mutations will produce a competitive advantage in an organism.  The ability for humans to digest lactose in cow's milk is an example of such a mutation.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #964 on: November 14, 2010, 10:23:59 AM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

if it is passed on it does.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #965 on: November 14, 2010, 10:25:16 AM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.

?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #966 on: November 14, 2010, 10:28:49 AM »
While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

Mutating /= evolving.

if it is passed on it does.

Conditional is not equivalence.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #967 on: November 14, 2010, 10:30:56 AM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #968 on: November 14, 2010, 11:05:33 AM »
Since the book you quoted did not use it in any meaningful context, and I do not remember this term, I'd appreciate it if you'd enlighten me on species that do not evolve.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #969 on: November 14, 2010, 12:50:59 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,

lol, nice fail Clocktower.  Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #970 on: November 14, 2010, 12:58:42 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,

lol, nice fail Clocktower.  Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Since you know how to use Google, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Did you remember to put "terminal species" in quotes in the Google search parameters? Enjoy your journey of discovery.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #971 on: November 14, 2010, 01:23:48 PM »
This website explains very well what I meant, if you want to go to the Sharks and Crocodiles directly, it's right after the last image:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Some-Organisms-do-not-Evolve-into-more-Complex-Forms

Wow. Whoever made that page got their understanding of evolution from pokemon I'm guessing.

Complex is a relative term, any change in an organism to better survive in its new environment, (even if it is a tiny change like the shape of blood cells) changes the organism. Is it now more complex? Who knows. Is it evolving? Yes.

While it is possible for an organism to exist for millions of years without building up mutations in its genome, it is so unlikely odds are that it would not happen in this universe.

All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Lol, a terminal species?

An extinct species perhaps, but all extant species build up mutations and change with time. Even if the phenotype changes are not obvious.
<sigh> Why do I even try to educate so many? Did you even try to learn what a terminal species is?

Reference: terminal species usage,

lol, nice fail Clocktower.  Now perhaps you could actually provide a link that explains what a "terminal species" is, because that one provides absolutely no relevant information, and a google search seems to come up empty in terms of actually providing a definition of the term.
Since you know how to use Google, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Did you remember to put "terminal species" in quotes in the Google search parameters? Enjoy your journey of discovery.

I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #972 on: November 14, 2010, 01:31:16 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #973 on: November 14, 2010, 01:38:35 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #974 on: November 14, 2010, 01:44:41 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #975 on: November 14, 2010, 01:50:27 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #976 on: November 14, 2010, 01:52:43 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #977 on: November 14, 2010, 02:14:31 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.

Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #978 on: November 14, 2010, 02:15:45 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.

Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.

Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #979 on: November 14, 2010, 02:25:25 PM »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #980 on: November 14, 2010, 02:48:24 PM »
I tried this and got nothing.  :(  Surely you're not implying that you can't back your own point up; that's such an important thing to you!
Nope. Your failure here is your own alone.

You've always been the first to demand proof and references for what other people have said in the debate.  Don't you realize how hypocritical you're being right now?
False. I'm not always first. That I won't hold your hand this time reflects only that I'm bored with you and your laziness. I just Googled >"Terminal species" definition taxonomy< and received 990 hits. Now can you manage?

Fine, continue to be a hypocrite, and we will just ignore you.
I point you to 990 hits, and you still complain. I guess you're already ignoring me. How sad. You might have actually learned something about Evolution.

Just show me which one I can link to that will show me the definition of terminal species.

Sorry Roundy, but I'm going to have to go with ClockTower on this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lzXiyPbJ594C&lpg=PA126&ots=JhKFFxMO-n&dq=%22terminal%20species%22&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20species%22&f=false

markjo, I'm sorry, but fail.  That link has nothing to do with evolution.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

TrollCrusher

  • 28
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #981 on: November 14, 2010, 04:22:41 PM »
There are families of organisms and even genus that have remained almost unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
Case in point, Limulidae, the horseshoe crabs

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #982 on: November 14, 2010, 04:55:05 PM »
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.

It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #983 on: November 14, 2010, 05:33:11 PM »
I type in ""Terminal species" evolution" and " "Terminal species"biology" and the most I got was references to amino acids.

It seems Clocktower completely made something up. For shame!
Reference: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/Repr/Add/Knox1998BJLS.pdf p. 6.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #984 on: November 14, 2010, 06:28:41 PM »
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail.  That link has nothing to do with evolution.

Are you suggesting that genetics, and the associated chemical reactions, have nothing to do with evolution?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #985 on: November 14, 2010, 07:26:20 PM »
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail.  That link has nothing to do with evolution.

Are you suggesting that genetics, and the associated chemical reactions, have nothing to do with evolution?  ???

Why do I not get any results when I search for the word "genetics?"
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45172
  • +98/-138
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #986 on: November 14, 2010, 07:41:48 PM »
markjo, I'm sorry, but fail.  That link has nothing to do with evolution.

Are you suggesting that genetics, and the associated chemical reactions, have nothing to do with evolution?  ???

Why do I not get any results when I search for the word "genetics?"

That isn't what I asked you.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #987 on: November 14, 2010, 07:59:18 PM »
markjo, look:

Quote
All organisms evolve.
False. There are terminal species in many places in Evolution, for example.

Clocktower was clearly stating that there are organisms that don't evolve referred to as "terminal species".  This link discusses no such thing.  So even if this article is about genetics and its associated chemical reactions (I'll be the first to admit that I'm no biologist, and the language is frankly giving me a headache), it's irrelevant.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #988 on: November 14, 2010, 10:07:30 PM »
So... you can't enlighten me on the issue clocktower?

If you can't understand your own statements, how can I?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« Reply #989 on: November 14, 2010, 10:09:42 PM »
I'm pretty sure he has stopped responding because he has realized how wrong he was.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR ENGLSHGENTLEMAN/ROUNDY/PARSEC!!!!