Darwinism lacks explanation for new discovered life that has not evolved for >2 Billion years - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

ottopottomouse · 02-04-2015, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

while we're at it someone please explain the platypus

A duck and an otter had too much to drink one night and...

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

It would be more to our advantage to intensly study the microbiome living on our species and how it impacts our evolution, then that of deep see mud.

We've learned tons about ourselves by studying all forms of life and the medical advances from such alone are impressive.

The Porn Nerd · 02-04-2015, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

I know about that part.

While I was skipping school I watched all of katt williams' stand up. Katt Williams - Evolution & Athiests - YouTube

Oh you got it, ok great. I was going to post a YouTube video of Katt. LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Darwinism hinges on adaptation.

First, what does basketball have to with anything? LOL (The image looks like two basketballs to me.)

I think evolution has some major questions that need answering. I do not believe that the selection was "natural". God? Maybe...but I am betting more on alien intervention.

There is simply NO scientific explanation (that I am satisfied with) to explain HOW we cave dwellers went from hairy apemen to the magnificent space-travelling intelligent creatures we are today. It's as if someone 'flipped a switch' and we suddenly 'evolved' into what we are now. I don't buy it.

ALIENS!!!

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 11:24 AM

more (just relases study today) on how this discovery creates important questions around Darwin's theory::::::::::

Significance

An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007. The fossils are interpreted to document the impact of the mid-Precambrian increase of atmospheric oxygen, a world-changing event that altered the history of life. Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution?if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged?additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

Abstract
The recent discovery of a deep-water sulfur-cycling microbial biota in the ∼2.3-Ga Western Australian Turee Creek Group opened a new window to life's early history. We now report a second such subseafloor-inhabiting community from the Western Australian ∼1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation. Permineralized in cherts formed during and soon after the 2.4- to 2.2-Ga ?Great Oxidation Event,? these two biotas may evidence an opportunistic response to the mid-Precambrian increase of environmental oxygen that resulted in increased production of metabolically useable sulfate and nitrate. The marked similarity of microbial morphology, habitat, and organization of these fossil communities to their modern counterparts documents exceptionally slow (hypobradytelic) change that, if paralleled by their molecular biology, would evidence extreme evolutionary stasis.

the key part:
additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Perfect graphic

MaDalton · 02-04-2015, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

A duck and an otter had too much to drink one night and...

that is so far the most logical explanation i heard

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

more (just relases study today) on how this discovery creates important questions around Darwin's theory::::::::::

Significance

An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007. The fossils are interpreted to document the impact of the mid-Precambrian increase of atmospheric oxygen, a world-changing event that altered the history of life. Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution?if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged?additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

Abstract
The recent discovery of a deep-water sulfur-cycling microbial biota in the ∼2.3-Ga Western Australian Turee Creek Group opened a new window to life's early history. We now report a second such subseafloor-inhabiting community from the Western Australian ∼1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation. Permineralized in cherts formed during and soon after the 2.4- to 2.2-Ga ?Great Oxidation Event,? these two biotas may evidence an opportunistic response to the mid-Precambrian increase of environmental oxygen that resulted in increased production of metabolically useable sulfate and nitrate. The marked similarity of microbial morphology, habitat, and organization of these fossil communities to their modern counterparts documents exceptionally slow (hypobradytelic) change that, if paralleled by their molecular biology, would evidence extreme evolutionary stasis.

the key part:
additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis

Um that's the study your article links to, the basis of the article, and your OP. Lol

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Um that's the study your article links to, the basis of the article, and your OP. Lol

OK, you gotcha'd me on my thinking this was another study. good gotcha. Not sure what difference it makes, I am simply trying to create dialogue around the discovery and came across another quote that strongly states this dicovery requires more research.

but not sure why you feel the need to gotcha me on a technicality re: what I am clearly trying to have fun chatting with y'all about. but again, good job on that.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Oh you got it, ok great. I was going to post a YouTube video of Katt. LOL

First, what does basketball have to with anything? LOL (The image looks like two basketballs to me.)

I think evolution has some major questions that need answering. I do not believe that the selection was "natural". God? Maybe...but I am betting more on alien intervention.

There is simply NO scientific explanation (that I am satisfied with) to explain HOW we cave dwellers went from hairy apemen to the magnificent space-travelling intelligent creatures we are today. It's as if someone 'flipped a switch' and we suddenly 'evolved' into what we are now. I don't buy it.

ALIENS!!!

the basktballs threw me off too! Darwinism is still only a theory. It's certainly very most likely valid, but that's why discoveries like this are fun and exciting. They create new angles of challenging conventional wisdom and from that either comes more validation of the theory or proof that more proof is still needed, since you know, it's still a theory!

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

OK, you gotcha'd me on my thinking this was another study. good gotcha. Not sure what difference it makes, I am simply trying to create dialogue around the discovery and came across another quote that strongly states this dicovery requires more research.

I wasn't coming at ya like that man!

I read your post, the article you linked to, and the study your article linked to. It reminded me of something I learned in high school so I looked it up.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

I wasn't coming at ya like that man!

I read your post, the article you linked to, and the study your article linked to. It reminded me of something I learned in high school so I looked it up.

right on. i lumped your comment in with the others whose assumptions were being challenged.

I see this as an opportunity to move closer to proving the theory as fact, not the opposite. If we can further and better explain the theory in the lack of evolution then it makes sense we move closer to validating the theory.

there's also the option that this sort of testing misses out on some evolution. perhaps the organism evolved, then evolved back. DNA mapping then matching seems to be a more thorough test

Bladewire · 02-04-2015, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I see this as an opportunity to move closer to proving the theory as fact, not the opposite. If we can further and better explain the theory in the lack of evolution then it makes sense we move closer to validating the theory.

there's also the option that this sort of testing misses out on some evolution. perhaps the organism evolved, then evolved back. DNA mapping then matching seems to be a more thorough test

I agree. How many times they're going to reconfirm the same thing via these scientific papers?

As you can see from my link, they discovered this in 1968, in mud, in Australia. Since then it's been reconfirmed over and over again, I think 6 or 7 papers now since then. At what point does it finally become fact?

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

I agree. How many times they're going to reconfirm the same thing via these scientific papers?

As you can see from my link, they discovered this in 1968, in mud, in Australia. Since then it's been reconfirmed over and over again, I think 6 or 7 papers now since then. At what point does it finally become fact?

In my view, the results from all of the attempts over the years strongly suggest the theory as fact add up to mean it's valid to assume that evolution is a fact. BUT the important part is that science continues to try and proof it as fact. If all of science simply agreed years ago that evolution is fac and moved on, then gobs and gobs of science would not have happened.

Joshua G · 02-04-2015, 01:53 PM

dyna mo, forgive me in advance for insulting you. but you are the case study of why artificial intelligence will never work. i have never seen such high minded trite emanate from another individual. you are like a geyser of nonsense. if you were a robot, you would simply walk into a wall, & keep walking into it, forever.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua G

dyna mo, forgive me in advance for insulting you. but you are the case study of why artificial intelligence will never work. i have never seen such high minded trite emanate from another individual. you are like a geyser of nonsense. if you were a robot, you would simply walk into a wall, & keep walking into it, forever.

do you even science?

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua G

dyna mo, forgive me in advance for insulting you. but you are the case study of why artificial intelligence will never work. i have never seen such high minded trite emanate from another individual. you are like a geyser of nonsense. if you were a robot, you would simply walk into a wall, & keep walking into it, forever.

I'm going to proof in one sentence how fucking stupid this attempt at insult is.

The simple fact that scientists smarter than everyone in this thread put together are still devoting their lives, experience, strength and knowledge to adding more evidence to the theory of Evolution shows just how naive and vitriolic your attempt to use this thread to insult me really is.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua G

dyna mo, forgive me in advance for insulting you. but you are the case study of why artificial intelligence will never work. i have never seen such high minded trite emanate from another individual. you are like a geyser of nonsense. if you were a robot, you would simply walk into a wall, & keep walking into it, forever.

you're like the nelson of science.

420 · 02-04-2015, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I'm going to proof in one sentence how fucking stupid this attempt at insult is.

The simple fact that scientists smarter than everyone in this thread put together are still devoting their lives, experience, strength and knowledge to adding more evidence to the theory of Evolution shows just how naive and vitriolic your attempt to use this thread to insult me really is.

Funny stuff doesn't always have to make a lot of sense.

see: prison guy from in living color - In Living Color - Booked on Phonics - YouTube
and: dad from brady bunch - The Brady Bunch Movie: Tattle tail - YouTube

RebelR · 02-04-2015, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

god does not approve this thread

Which one? There are so many!

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420

Funny stuff doesn't always have to make a lot of sense.

see: prison guy from in living color - In Living Color - Booked on Phonics - YouTube
and: dad from brady bunch - The Brady Bunch Movie: Tattle tail - YouTube

You're right. JG ejaculated verbs and i needed to suppress my defecation.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Oh you got it, ok great. I was going to post a YouTube video of Katt. LOL

First, what does basketball have to with anything? LOL (The image looks like two basketballs to me.)

I think evolution has some major questions that need answering. I do not believe that the selection was "natural". God? Maybe...but I am betting more on alien intervention.

There is simply NO scientific explanation (that I am satisfied with) to explain HOW we cave dwellers went from hairy apemen to the magnificent space-travelling intelligent creatures we are today. It's as if someone 'flipped a switch' and we suddenly 'evolved' into what we are now. I don't buy it.

ALIENS!!!

dude, you're getting off pretty easy in here BTW. I'm runnin' blocker for ya!!!

marcop · 02-04-2015, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

lolz, it appears y'all are not familiar with the socratic method of creating dialogue around critical thinking.

The Socratic method applies to philosophical thought/enqiry/method, and is not applicable to scientific methods--they are different modes of knowledge. Duh.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

The Socratic method applies to philosophical thought/enqiry/method, and is not applicable to scientific methods--they are different modes of knowledge. Duh.

do you even socratic method?

Quote:

Socratic method is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs.

fucking duh.

gotcha denied

why not enjoy the topic instead of trying to gotcha me on an arcane tanget comment?

i mean really.

marcop · 02-04-2015, 02:37 PM

"do you even socratic method?? That statement makes no sense, and "Socratic" should be capitalized, i.e., "Socratic" not "socratic".

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain.

'Nuff said.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

The Socratic method applies to philosophical thought/enqiry/method, and is not applicable to scientific methods--they are different modes of knowledge. Duh.

here. this simple chart may help you understand the difference between what is going on in this thread and the results from the research we are actually discussing.

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

?Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.? Mark Twain.

'Nuff said.

the sad part is you had a chance to engage in a fun and exciting topic.

nuf said.

The Porn Nerd · 02-04-2015, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

dude, you're getting off pretty easy in here BTW. I'm runnin' blocker for ya!!!

I know, thank you! LOL I'm surprised I still have my ass after all that shit.

MiamiBoyz · 02-04-2015, 06:52 PM

Clearly this needs to be said with most of the stupid comments in this thread:

dyna mo · 02-04-2015, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

Clearly this needs to be said with most of the stupid comments in this thread:

best post in the thread!

iamBoogieman · 02-04-2015, 07:37 PM

Nice read.

Diomed · 02-04-2015, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

lolz, it appears y'all are not familiar with the socratic method of creating dialogue around critical thinking.

the simple fact is that this discovery allowed further proofing of the theory. FYI, it's still a fucking theory and consequently, this discovery allowed further discussion amongst the intelligent.

y'all are all too busy playing gotcha. have fun with that!

Yet another case of dyna mo being the lone correct soldier

Must be tough man. Funny how Your critical thinking seemingly always gives your dumbass a pass.

Connect four.

SilentKnight · 02-04-2015, 09:11 PM

The other day I saw a homeless vagrant I've been seeing on the street for the past ten years.

Same clothing as 2005.

Evolution has passed him by. Perfectly adapted to his environment.

iamBoogieman · 02-04-2015, 10:20 PM

alien engineered us.

The Porn Nerd · 02-04-2015, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamBoogieman

alien engineered us.

Your avatar proves this theory.

02-04-2015, 11:24 AM	#54
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,943	more (just relases study today) on how this discovery creates important questions around Darwin's theory:::::::::: Significance An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007. The fossils are interpreted to document the impact of the mid-Precambrian increase of atmospheric oxygen, a world-changing event that altered the history of life. Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution?if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged?additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory. Abstract The recent discovery of a deep-water sulfur-cycling microbial biota in the ∼2.3-Ga Western Australian Turee Creek Group opened a new window to life's early history. We now report a second such subseafloor-inhabiting community from the Western Australian ∼1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation. Permineralized in cherts formed during and soon after the 2.4- to 2.2-Ga ?Great Oxidation Event,? these two biotas may evidence an opportunistic response to the mid-Precambrian increase of environmental oxygen that resulted in increased production of metabolically useable sulfate and nitrate. The marked similarity of microbial morphology, habitat, and organization of these fossil communities to their modern counterparts documents exceptionally slow (hypobradytelic) change that, if paralleled by their molecular biology, would evidence extreme evolutionary stasis. the key part: additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory. Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis

02-04-2015, 01:53 PM	#64
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	dyna mo, forgive me in advance for insulting you. but you are the case study of why artificial intelligence will never work. i have never seen such high minded trite emanate from another individual. you are like a geyser of nonsense. if you were a robot, you would simply walk into a wall, & keep walking into it, forever.

02-04-2015, 02:37 PM	#74
marcop Content Producer Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 4,143	"do you even socratic method?? That statement makes no sense, and "Socratic" should be capitalized, i.e., "Socratic" not "socratic". “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” Mark Twain. 'Nuff said.

02-04-2015, 06:52 PM	#78
MiamiBoyz fgfdftre6 Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: In the closet with your dad! Posts: 6,690	Clearly this needs to be said with most of the stupid comments in this thread:

02-04-2015, 07:37 PM	#80
iamBoogieman So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Somewhere out there. :) Posts: 1,329	Nice read.

02-04-2015, 09:11 PM	#82
SilentKnight Megan Fox's fluffer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: shooting pool in Elysium Posts: 24,818	The other day I saw a homeless vagrant I've been seeing on the street for the past ten years. Same clothing as 2005. Evolution has passed him by. Perfectly adapted to his environment.

02-04-2015, 10:20 PM	#83
iamBoogieman So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Somewhere out there. :) Posts: 1,329	alien engineered us.