Annual Evolution vs ID Gala! Celebrate!

[SeattleGriz]

As a Montana fan, I have now grown very, very weary of the whole rape case situation. So, while thinking of the rapist assholes, it naturally focused my thoughts on those Godless bastards known as evolutionists (would fuck their sisters if they didn't know the genetic consequences).

As this usually turns out the be an all knowing SeattleGriz vs Retards type discussion, I thought I would give those with a subpar IQ an opportunity to brush up on terms.

Clock is ticking. I am coming at you like a spider monkey all hopped up on Mountain Dew come Saturday.

Man am I bored.

LET'S GET IT ON MONKEY MAN!

[SeattleGriz]

C'mon you fucking lurking pussies. Join in this thread, if only to post boobies, barbeques and biochemistry.

Let's blow this shit out!

[SeattleGriz]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fucking classic.

The whole peppered moth bullshit, is just that...bullshit.

Cryptic colour patterns in prey are classical examples of adaptations to avoid predation, but we still know little about behaviours that reinforce the match between animal body and the background. For example, moths avoid predators by matching their colour patterns with the background. Active choice of a species-specific body orientation has been suggested as an important function of body positioning behaviour performed by moths after landing on the bark. However, the contribution of this behaviour to moths’ crypticity has not been directly measured. From observations of geometrid moths, Hypomecis roboraria and Jankowskia fuscaria, we determined that the positioning behaviour, which consists of walking and turning the body while repeatedly lifting and lowering the wings, resulted in new resting spots and body orientations in J. fuscaria and in new resting spots in H. roboraria. The body positioning behaviour of the two species significantly decreased the probability of visual detection by humans, who viewed photographs of the moths taken before and after the positioning behaviour. This implies that body positioning significantly increases the camouflage effect provided by moth’s cryptic colour pattern regardless of whether the behaviour involves a new body orientation or not. Our study demonstrates that the evolution of morphological adaptations, such as colour pattern of moths, cannot be fully understood without taking into account a behavioural phenotype that coevolved with the morphology for increasing the adaptive value of the morphological trait.

If you don't see the issue with this study, then you need to sit on the sidelines and wait for boobie pics.

By the way, Panda's Thumb responses will be harshly dealt with, as they show a huge lack of original thinking.

[CAA Flagship]

Haven't seen a SG rant at O'dark-thirty in a while.

[Ibanez]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

Fucking classic.

The whole peppered moth bullshit, is just that...bullshit.

Cryptic colour patterns in prey are classical examples of adaptations to avoid predation, but we still know little about behaviours that reinforce the match between animal body and the background. For example, moths avoid predators by matching their colour patterns with the background. Active choice of a species-specific body orientation has been suggested as an important function of body positioning behaviour performed by moths after landing on the bark. However, the contribution of this behaviour to moths’ crypticity has not been directly measured. From observations of geometrid moths, Hypomecis roboraria and Jankowskia fuscaria, we determined that the positioning behaviour, which consists of walking and turning the body while repeatedly lifting and lowering the wings, resulted in new resting spots and body orientations in J. fuscaria and in new resting spots in H. roboraria. The body positioning behaviour of the two species significantly decreased the probability of visual detection by humans, who viewed photographs of the moths taken before and after the positioning behaviour. This implies that body positioning significantly increases the camouflage effect provided by moth’s cryptic colour pattern regardless of whether the behaviour involves a new body orientation or not. Our study demonstrates that the evolution of morphological adaptations, such as colour pattern of moths, cannot be fully understood without taking into account a behavioural phenotype that coevolved with the morphology for increasing the adaptive value of the morphological trait.

If you don't see the issue with this study, then you need to sit on the sidelines and wait for boobie pics.

By the way, Panda's Thumb responses will be harshly dealt with, as they show a huge lack of original thinking.

Camo? Is that what this is about? Camo?

[kalm]

I think it was D1B or perhaps Gore Vidal who mentioned the patriarchal nature of monotheistic religions. Well if you consider the burden of proof for rape in some muslim cultures it's pretty easy to understand how less evolved they are. In fact I've often heard the remark that Islam is still wallowing in the 7th century where christianity left it in the dust. So one might say that christianity is more highly evolved than islam.

Now, back to the topic at hand. In 2010, Montana football culture attempted to make a leap out of the dark ages of Hauck with Pflu's flashy,new, finessed, Oregon style offense. It was clearly an attempt to break with the patriarchal nature of power football and perhaps a cleaner more controlled operation. But when the chips were down, it was still just the same old 20th century brand, masked with a little mis-direction and movement. It was decent for one year and probably would have worked better if they had also gone with a state of the art, built for the 21st century maroon turf, but alas, it was all just a facade.

Montana - the slightly evolved FCS equivalent of Egypt.

[Pwns]

As a Montana fan, I have now grown very, very weary of the whole rape case situation. So, while thinking of the rapist assholes, it naturally focused my thoughts on those Godless bastards known as evolutionists (would fuck their sisters if they didn't know the genetic consequences).

As this usually turns out the be an all knowing SeattleGriz vs Retards type discussion, I thought I would give those with a subpar IQ an opportunity to brush up on terms.

Clock is ticking. I am coming at you like a spider monkey all hopped up on Mountain Dew come Saturday.

Man am I bored.

LET'S GET IT ON MONKEY MAN!

Don't be so judgmental to a rapist. He is only doing what electrical and chemical events within his brain FORCE him to do. Believing that we have any real free will or sense of right and wrong is just like believing in fairies or unicorns or creationism. We're slaves to whatever happens with our neurons.

[kalm]

As a Montana fan, I have now grown very, very weary of the whole rape case situation. So, while thinking of the rapist assholes, it naturally focused my thoughts on those Godless bastards known as evolutionists (would fuck their sisters if they didn't know the genetic consequences).

As this usually turns out the be an all knowing SeattleGriz vs Retards type discussion, I thought I would give those with a subpar IQ an opportunity to brush up on terms.

Clock is ticking. I am coming at you like a spider monkey all hopped up on Mountain Dew come Saturday.
Man am I bored.

LET'S GET IT ON MONKEY MAN!

Don't be so judgmental to a rapist. He is only doing what electrical and chemical events within his brain FORCE him to do. Believing that we have any real free will or sense of right and wrong is just like believing in fairies or unicorns or creationism. We're slaves to whatever happens with our neurons.

So it's love the rapist hate the rape?

[JMU DJ]

it naturally focused my thoughts on those Godless bastards known as evolutionists (would fuck their sisters if they didn't know the genetic consequences).

Two points here:
1. So believing in creationism/god and evolution are mutually exclusive in your mind?
2. You can thank science for figuring out the sister fucking thing. Shame all those catholic kings were too dumb to figure it out themselves and married their sisters, leading to their own extinction.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... 174-Woods1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As this usually turns out the be an all knowing SeattleGriz vs Retards type discussion, I thought I would give those with a subpar IQ an opportunity to brush up on terms.

I'd post some sort of discussion, reference some scientific work, but you'd say something like "That's very interesting, I will need to read that article and get back to you." However, you won't respond because christiansagainstevolution.com hasn't come up with the argument for you yet or you will wait for JSO to come in and post some rambling, illogical post followed by your cheerleader comment "OH SNAP! What now godless swine!?!"

[BlueHen86]

As a Montana fan, I have now grown very, very weary of the whole rape case situation. So, while thinking of the rapist assholes, it naturally focused my thoughts on those Godless bastards known as evolutionists (would fuck their sisters if they didn't know the genetic consequences).

As this usually turns out the be an all knowing SeattleGriz vs Retards type discussion, I thought I would give those with a subpar IQ an opportunity to brush up on terms.

Clock is ticking. I am coming at you like a spider monkey all hopped up on Mountain Dew come Saturday.

Man am I bored.

LET'S GET IT ON MONKEY MAN!

Looks like somebody is trolling.

[SeattleGriz]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

Fucking classic.

The whole peppered moth bullshit, is just that...bullshit.



If you don't see the issue with this study, then you need to sit on the sidelines and wait for boobie pics.

By the way, Panda's Thumb responses will be harshly dealt with, as they show a huge lack of original thinking.

Camo? Is that what this is about? Camo?

It involves camo, but is more about how scientists didn't bother to even check the characteristics of moths when they produced the original study. This new study I quoted invalidates that study because it shows the moths "smarts" were never factored into the original study.

To put it in different terms. You have light and dark moths and one would expect that if the moths were in a forest of light trees, the light colored moths would be at an advantage and the dark ones would get eaten by birds at a much higher rate - survival of the fittest (natural selection).

Well, what the article I quoted points out, is that the moths just don't sit on the tree waiting to get eaten. The moths are smart enough to know they need to find a spot on the tree that best suits their body color. This factor was never taken into account.

But yet, the flawed study was held up as proof of evolution. It was later debunked because of the methods taken by the original scientist, only to be resurrected again as proof. This study should finally send it to the grave.

Lastly, natural selection is a process of evolution, not evolution itself. Evolution would be if the moths turned into a new species altogether, but that didn't stop the evolution field as trumpeting it as proof. More crap science pawned off as proof.

[SeattleGriz]

it naturally focused my thoughts on those Godless bastards known as evolutionists (would fuck their sisters if they didn't know the genetic consequences).

Two points here:
1. So believing in creationism/god and evolution are mutually exclusive in your mind?
2. You can thank science for figuring out the sister fucking thing. Shame all those catholic kings were too dumb to figure it out themselves and married their sisters, leading to their own extinction.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... 174-Woods1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As this usually turns out the be an all knowing SeattleGriz vs Retards type discussion, I thought I would give those with a subpar IQ an opportunity to brush up on terms.

I'd post some sort of discussion, reference some scientific work, but you'd say something like "That's very interesting, I will need to read that article and get back to you." However, you won't respond because christiansagainstevolution.com hasn't come up with the argument for you yet or you will wait for JSO to come in and post some rambling, illogical post followed by your cheerleader comment "OH SNAP! What now godless swine!?!"

I am talking ID, not creationism, and no, I do not believe ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. I and the proponents of ID believe in evolution for there is far too much science to dispute that. ID just doesn't believe that natural selection and random mutation has enough oomph to have generated all life on Earth from one common ancestor. There are plenty of scientists that believe Darwinian evolution is missing something as well. They don't believe in ID, but at least they are intellectually honest enough to admit the theory is lacking.

My beef is is that no matter what is produced in an experiment, the square peg results are always pounded into the circular hole known as evolution. Any dissent is treated like those that dispute global warming. How is that improving the theory of evolution if all the scientists in the field act like yes men? What is even more shocking is how the ID field is treated. There are some scientists that say they should embrace the ID research so they can tear it apart and finally put it in the grave, but yet you don't see that . You see many of them refusing to even debate ID proponents and then when any discussion is made it is only on a severely sloping field favoring the evolutionists. It would be like you only choosing to debate me in your field of study instead of those that have equal education. I would be an easy win for you.

As to your comment about posting stuff, that would be a fair analysis of how I have been in the past to your posts. What I have found though, is it usually ends up being me versus about five or six others and I tend to get overwhelmed trying to answer everything. Your stuff is always good and I am not afraid to admit it takes me a good amount of time to decipher what your quoted studies are saying. As stated above, I don't have the schooling horsepower to rebut your studies, but there are ID scientists that do.

Lastly, I do appreciate StOnge's input because he can talk the experiment terms I can't, but I don't think I have ever stated anyone was a heathen because of a StOnge post...you godless swine.

[biobengal]

But yet, the flawed study was held up as proof of evolution. It was later debunked because of the methods taken by the original scientist, only to be resurrected again as proof. This study should finally send it to the grave.

Lastly, natural selection is a process of evolution, not evolution itself. Evolution would be if the moths turned into a new species altogether, but that didn't stop the evolution field as trumpeting it as proof. More crap science pawned off as proof.

Typical ID'er, they often require a basic education in evolutionary biology. Clearly, your annual debate hasn't cluttered up the mind. If I may clear up some of your confusion, perhaps you'll be able to cast off the joke that is ID.

First, you're confused by the evidence that Kang and colleagues have presented. Instead of refuting the evidence from the peppered moth, this study reinforced it by examining evolution of behavioral traits which interact with divergence in morphology. Behaviors are subject to evolution in the same way as height, skin color and sickle cells. This is often the case, evolutionary adaptations often represent a correlated package of traits.

Second, you appear to be confused about the definition of evolution. Simply, evolution is change; it isn't change into a new species as you suggest. A definition based on the species concept would be intractable as species concepts are troublesome. There are other mechanisms of evolution: sexual selection, genetic drift, mutation; some also consider migration and founder events as separate processes.

[SeattleGriz]

But yet, the flawed study was held up as proof of evolution. It was later debunked because of the methods taken by the original scientist, only to be resurrected again as proof. This study should finally send it to the grave.

Lastly, natural selection is a process of evolution, not evolution itself. Evolution would be if the moths turned into a new species altogether, but that didn't stop the evolution field as trumpeting it as proof. More crap science pawned off as proof.

Typical ID'er, they often require a basic education in evolutionary biology. Clearly, your annual debate hasn't cluttered up the mind. If I may clear up some of your confusion, perhaps you'll be able to cast off the joke that is ID.

First, you're confused by the evidence that Kang and colleagues have presented. Instead of refuting the evidence from the peppered moth, this study reinforced it by examining evolution of behavioral traits which interact with divergence in morphology. Behaviors are subject to evolution in the same way as height, skin color and sickle cells. This is often the case, evolutionary adaptations often represent a correlated package of traits.

Second, you appear to be confused about the definition of evolution. Simply, evolution is change; it isn't change into a new species as you suggest. A definition based on the species concept would be intractable as species concepts are troublesome. There are other mechanisms of evolution: sexual selection, genetic drift, mutation; some also consider migration and founder events as separate processes.

Typical evolutionist. Starting off with the personal attacks. Nice job, way to follow the playbook.

I never said this study disproved the process of natural selection, in fact I stated it was quite obvious it should happen. I said it showed the original study was flawed and debunked it as being proof of evolution. A study that was originally debunked because the scientist pinned moths to trees to make a case. This case was in numerous school books and was a sham. How exactly can this be case closed if the moths behavior was never taken into account? Isn't that a big part of their camouflage, and thus survival of the fittest?

How wonderful and wide your definition of evolution is. Change. WOW! What a game changer! I can now go to work tomorrow and state I have evolved because my transposable elements made a change!! May I have a grant now? I also have stated my definition of darwinian evolution is natural selection + random mutations = all life has arisen from one common ancestor. There are many different definitions of evolution and I clarified mine from the start. Nobody disputes small changes happen.

By the way, I do understand there are other processes that drive genetic change, with randon mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection being the big four.

Either I didn't make myself clear enough, or you missed the point. How exactly does this flawed study (original) help prove that we are derived from one common ancestor? I know, silly question, but that is how it has been held up to the public over the years. The average person views evolution as us coming from one common ancestor and would expect this to mean a new species of moth, or entirely different species would eventually be created.

Once again, the square peg results are pounded into the circular hole known as evolution. No matter what happens, it always proves evolution.

[D1B]

Typical ID'er, they often require a basic education in evolutionary biology. Clearly, your annual debate hasn't cluttered up the mind. If I may clear up some of your confusion, perhaps you'll be able to cast off the joke that is ID.

First, you're confused by the evidence that Kang and colleagues have presented. Instead of refuting the evidence from the peppered moth, this study reinforced it by examining evolution of behavioral traits which interact with divergence in morphology. Behaviors are subject to evolution in the same way as height, skin color and sickle cells. This is often the case, evolutionary adaptations often represent a correlated package of traits.

Second, you appear to be confused about the definition of evolution. Simply, evolution is change; it isn't change into a new species as you suggest. A definition based on the species concept would be intractable as species concepts are troublesome. There are other mechanisms of evolution: sexual selection, genetic drift, mutation; some also consider migration and founder events as separate processes.

Typical evolutionist. Starting off with the personal attacks. Nice job, way to follow the playbook.

I never said this study disproved the process of natural selection, in fact I stated it was quite obvious it should happen. I said it showed the original study was flawed and debunked it as being proof of evolution. A study that was originally debunked because the scientist pinned moths to trees to make a case. This case was in numerous school books and was a sham. How exactly can this be case closed if the moths behavior was never taken into account? Isn't that a big part of their camouflage, and thus survival of the fittest?

How wonderful and wide your definition of evolution is. Change. WOW! What a game changer! I can now go to work tomorrow and state I have evolved because my transposable elements made a change!! May I have a grant now? I also have stated my definition of darwinian evolution is natural selection + random mutations = all life has arisen from one common ancestor. There are many different definitions of evolution and I clarified mine from the start. Nobody disputes small changes happen.

By the way, I do understand there are other processes that drive genetic change, with randon mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection being the big four.

Either I didn't make myself clear enough, or you missed the point. How exactly does this flawed study (original) help prove that we are derived from one common ancestor? I know, silly question, but that is how it has been held up to the public over the years. The average person views evolution as us coming from one common ancestor and would expect this to mean a new species of moth, or entirely different species would eventually be created.

Once again, the square peg results are pounded into the circular hole known as evolution. No matter what happens, it always proves evolution.

Yawn...more from the idiot who has never read Origin....

[biobengal]

No matter what happens, it always proves evolution.

I know, isn't it great? Thousands of studies each year, each one filling in the holes and tweaking our understanding, each bit of knowledge slides in nicely and religious explanations for diversity and man retreat to the margins and snipe around the edges.

Of course, there is no reasonable challenge to evolution. Even more than that, evolutionary theory is useful, it provides insight and predictions to the fields of medicine, agriculture, conservation and a host of other applications.

[Grizalltheway]

No matter what happens, it always proves evolution.

I know, isn't it great? Thousands of studies each year, each one filling in the holes and tweaking our understanding, each bit of knowledge slides in nicely and religious explanations for diversity and man retreat to the margins and snipe around the edges.

Of course, there is no reasonable challenge to evolution. Even more than that, evolutionary theory is useful, it provides insight and predictions to the fields of medicine, agriculture, conservation and a host of other applications.

End of this, and all other threads on this "debate".

[Chizzang]

I know, isn't it great? Thousands of studies each year, each one filling in the holes and tweaking our understanding, each bit of knowledge slides in nicely and religious explanations for diversity and man retreat to the margins and snipe around the edges.

Of course, there is no reasonable challenge to evolution. Even more than that, evolutionary theory is useful, it provides insight and predictions to the fields of medicine, agriculture, conservation and a host of other applications.

End of this, and all other threads on this "debate".

It's not even a real debate
Nobody can seriously "debate" observable evolution
What they end up debating is "God's roll" in Evolution, which is a meaningless exercise

[houndawg]

Notice that the IDers only tactic is to attack evolution, as if proving that evolution is wrong (which so far they have failed miserably at) proves that ID is right.

[Grizalltheway]

End of this, and all other threads on this "debate".

It's not even a real debate
Nobody can seriously "debate" observable evolution
What they end up debating is "God's roll" in Evolution, which is a meaningless exercise

You need to start talking some sense into our friend SG. He's an otherwise intelligent and likable dude.

[Chizzang]

It's not even a real debate
Nobody can seriously "debate" observable evolution
What they end up debating is "God's roll" in Evolution, which is a meaningless exercise

You need to start talking some sense into our friend SG. He's an otherwise intelligent and likable dude.

Actually he's a miserable troll and a fundamentalist dullard...
but I love him anyway




(and his wife is pretty hot too)

[SeattleGriz]

Notice that the IDers only tactic is to attack evolution, as if proving that evolution is wrong (which so far they have failed miserably at) proves that ID is right.

Actually, the main proponents don't attack evolution, they applaud good science. What they attack is when the results of studies are "interpreted" as a positive result for evolution when none should be made.

That is why they believe there is room for an intelligent agent in evolution.

[JMU DJ]

Another practice that isn't science is embracing ignorance. Yet it's fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don't know what this is. I don't know how it works. It's too complicated for me to figure out. It's too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.

What do you do with that line of reasoning? Do you just cede the solving of problems to someone smarter than you, someone who's not even human? Do you tell students to pursue only questions with easy answers?

.......

Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still call hurricanes "acts of God" are the people who write insurance forms.

Quoted from "The Perimeter of Ignorance"

[SeattleGriz]

Another practice that isn't science is embracing ignorance. Yet it's fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don't know what this is. I don't know how it works. It's too complicated for me to figure out. It's too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.

What do you do with that line of reasoning? Do you just cede the solving of problems to someone smarter than you, someone who's not even human? Do you tell students to pursue only questions with easy answers?

.......

Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still call hurricanes "acts of God" are the people who write insurance forms.

Quoted from "The Perimeter of Ignorance"

Oh, I see. It's all settled now isn't it, since Neil Tyson (who I really like) has chimed in. WTF does Tyson's thoughts have to do with the research that is going on in the ID field? Apparently he doesn't know that there are actually those within the ID field that know they need to produce peer reviewed research to be taken seriously and are doing just that in the field of bioinformatics. No it is not prodigious, but they are producing.

Shit dude. If Tyson disagrees with someone else's ideas and he can't prove it, does that make him ignorant? Likewise, there are plenty of non-ID scientists that think evolution is lacking. Does that make them ignorant as well? Once again, apparently he doesn't know that the main proponents of ID are very complimentary of, and agree with good evolution science. They just don't agree that ALL results HAVE to be forced into the theory of evolution. They also don't agree with all the constant "work arounds" that are done in order for said results to finally fit into the theory of evolution.

Laughable he would try to lump the doubters of global warming in the same group, especially in light of the horrid liberties that were taken in manipulating data. He needs to stick to his physics and the reproducible science it provides.

On a separate note, how exactly is that elucidating the origin of life going in the evolution field? The multiple theories haven't produced any results? Sounds like a philosophy of throwing spaghetti against a wall and hoping something sticks. See. It's easy to play this game.

[JMU DJ]

Quoted from "The Perimeter of Ignorance"

Oh, I see. It's all settled now isn't it, since Neil Tyson (who I really like) has chimed in. WTF does Tyson's thoughts have to do with the research that is going on in the ID field? Apparently he doesn't know that there are actually those within the ID field that know they need to produce peer reviewed research to be taken seriously and are doing just that in the field of bioinformatics. No it is not prodigious, but they are producing.

Shit dude. If Tyson disagrees with someone else's ideas and he can't prove it, does that make him ignorant? Likewise, there are plenty of non-ID scientists that think evolution is lacking. Does that make them ignorant as well? Once again, apparently he doesn't know that the main proponents of ID are very complimentary of, and agree with good evolution science. They just don't agree that ALL results HAVE to be forced into the theory of evolution. They also don't agree with all the constant "work arounds" that are done in order for said results to finally fit into the theory of evolution.

Laughable he would try to lump the doubters of global warming in the same group, especially in light of the horrid liberties that were taken in manipulating data. He needs to stick to his physics and the reproducible science it provides.

On a separate note, how exactly is that elucidating the origin of life going in the evolution field? The multiple theories haven't produced any results? Sounds like a philosophy of throwing spaghetti against a wall and hoping something sticks. See. It's easy to play this game.

Tyson touched a nerve I see