Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Any thoughts on Fleeming? Im here just for the free food. "One eyed worms" have had quite a different meaning since my teen age years

I'm sure i meant exactly what you were thinking of--this guy is a real dick.

I know about as much about Fleeming Jenkin as One Eyed Snake here knows about any scientific subject--which is to say, zilch. I went and had a look online, and it appears you covered it with your remarks about Mendel. That old monk made a lot of people look like monkeys. In university, my biology prof would wax almost poetic about Mendel. I took notes and hoped that not too much of it would be on the exam.

Ive hnded these clown several good solid debate points regarding some major failings in Drin nd his thinking yet no one bit.

Ill keep the simile of the "one eyed worm" in mind. IN FACT, I wont be able to remove it whenever I think of responding to it. Perhaps I should just let it wax on at you (or wax off)

     Nothing can outperform you, FM - nothing in the physical world. Oh, I forgot that you are not from this world, that you and Set are standing above the things, as we know them.
     Just a second ... to take some sushi and some wine and to get a place in the box to watch you life, FM - how exactly you and Set are going to create a brand new species out of one single mutated individual with advantageous or any other mutation - like for example the ability to breathe sulfuric and nitric acid. This is the Millennium evidence, FM and it is not to be missed. How exactly will you make a brand new species on the grounds of one single individual ... and if the probability for a mutation to happen is 10^-26, how much is the probability for one and the same mutation to happen both in one female and one male individual within that species ... and for that male and female individuals to have sex, to have sexual compatibility of the mutations and to have offspring in their lifetime? A number without any other comments and assessments would be O.K.

you seem to be spinning in layered spirals of ever decreasing radii. Therefore, soon, I predict, you will disappear up your own ass.

Bon Voyage.

Hows your komodo dragon fixation working for you?

Don't try to drag my name into your paranoid fantasies, you clueless ****-for-brains.

Is this an Ad Hominem or what????

what a whiner you are Quahog. Is "ad hominem" the only response you can muster?
You've yet to develop any cogent arguments about anything . In fact , if it weren't for your acceptance of silly idiotic websites about govt conspiracies ,aliens, and "hollow earths", youd have nothing to offer at all.

You are truly a dim bulb who mistakenly believes hes in touch with some kind of cosmic truths that the rest of us have missed . Did you ever consider that you may be a bit delusional? (hell youre waaay more delusional than just a "bit")

Farmer, could one say 'bit delusional' is a clever way of expounding on how one can be enclosed in a bit of delusion, as to say he who drowns in a drop of water?

You apparently never took biology in high school, Herald, where you would have learned some elementary genetics. Since you appparently have never heard of dominant and recessive triats, or genes, you're talking with an insurmountable handicap of ignorance. Even Gregor Mendel almost two centuries ago knew more about inherited traits than you do. Take brown eyes and blue eyes, for example. Brown eyes are carried by a dominant gene, blue eyes a recessive. Two brown eyed parents will have brown eyed kids. A brown eyed parent and a blue eyed parent will have brown eyed kids. You only get blue eyews if both parents are blue eyed (It gets a bit more complicated in the next generation, but over time the population of brown eyes becomes ever more dominant over blue eyes). So an advantageous dominant mutatiion in a single individual in an exogamous population (whcih most mammals are) confers a reproductive advantage in that individuals descendants, who become more numerous and mate with others more, and it spreads through the entire population. High school science, my boy. Did you flunk out of sixth grade?

ACTUALLY , I meant "whacks off"

     I will skip that as irrelevant to the topic and as fireworks thrown into the air at random ... without any evidence, as usual.
     Before reaching 'dominant and recessive triats' you have to solve some systems of math equations (incl. probability and probability distribution).
     How many brand new or substantially changed beyond recognition triats should an individual have to acquire to be considered as a brand new species? How many differences in the DNA sequences are enough to consider something as a brand new species? - data from statistics on DNA sequences of existing (and/or extinct) species would be O.K. No morphology and phenomenology are acceptable as valid evidence.
      What about 'knowing' wrong things on the grounds of misrepresentations and wrong interpretations and/or based on fake assumptions?
      ... and how are you going to make the green eyes (of the new species) out of that gene shuffle?
      ... which descendants are going to mate how without incest, especially the first and the second generation.
     I also have some mind-blowing theories about the origin of species. Suppose by some reason unknown (geographic barrier or biological incompatibility) some part of the individuals of a species are deprived of the access to mate with some other part. Both parts start developing along different threads and make two varieties of the same species. One of the varieties (or even both) may become extinct, whereat the remaining ones start developing as a brand new species.
     You may think that you are great in genetics, but you are missing the math - especially in its part plausibility and feasibility. BTW your 'positive mutations' should be subject to the laws of stochastic distribution. Not that I am interested, but can you give an example of a positive mutation ever happening and/or ever observed in the clinical studies? The circumstance that one can break a window by a stone does not prove at all that all the windows are made by throwing stones at them.

Clearly the answer is less than 2% since humans and chimps share over 98% of their DNA.


Ah.. the failure to understand how genes work bites you in the ass again.

So... no one has ever won the lottery based on your math?

why are genotypes displayed with two letters (Aa, Bb etc etc)?. If you know that, then you can answer your own questions.
You seem to be quietly trying to use this site to learn nd criticize at the same time.

     1. It is not 2% but 4%, and
     2. Why are you telling the percentage. Why don't you tell us the number. How much is O.K. 2% of 4EXP3BN (four to the power of three bullion). How much is that as a number?
     Why don't you simply answer the question: where will you take the new genetic information from in order to make the brand new colour of the eyes 'of the newly created species' (it doesn't matter which color) ... on the basis of gene shuffle. How will you succeed to make green by mixing black and white only?

     FM, you don't have the genetic information of the brand new species within the previous species - neither in parts, nor as a possibility of gene shuffle. How will you make a Cd genetics out of AA, Ab, aB and BB gene shuffle?

2% of any number is 2% of that number. Do you have any other stupid questions?

I guess you do have another stupid question.
How do you make the sky blue or green? It seems it's the same way you make eyes blue or green.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

All dna does is regulate the amount of melanin in the eye.

Now, do you have any other stupid questions?