.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
DarianF
-
Posts
9,634 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DarianF
-
-
6 minutes ago, Bombadil said:
https://www.foxnews.com/health/fauci-each-person-needs-to-decide-individual-risk
Fauci doing the backtrack tip toe!
Could have just said that from Day 1 and everything would have been fine.
-
1
-
-
Just now, webtrekker said:
Haha! Great minds think alike, and all that!
I love having fun with Photoshop but at the end of the day this is serious stuff. I just hope these memes stir up a reaction in some of the sheep.
Don't underestimate the power of memes, even in serious matters.
-
1 minute ago, webtrekker said:
I've added a syringe for more realism!
...
LOL I was literally just about to reply again asking if you could add a syringe. We were on the same wavelength, it seems ;-) Great work buddy.
-
1 minute ago, screamingeagle said:
ytb has banned him over his views of covid,how do you explain that?
Because he's a very naughty boy.
-
2
-
-
Just now, webtrekker said:
More likely ...
(nice one! lol) out of reactions
-
1
-
-
Just now, jedidiah said:
Exactly, freedom of choice; and totally no need for abuse; we ‘peasants’ get enough of that in one way or another from the cult things.
Brotherhood.
Fair point.
-
1 minute ago, jedidiah said:
Did you even read their posts properly before you started spewing your abuse?
Man, what happened to decency?
I don't give a shit if anyone wears a mask or takes a poison jab and fifty boosters, as long as they don't force it on me.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:
Flu/covid
who the hell knows really
Dr Sam seems to know a bit. https://t.me/s/drsambaileyofficial
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Layton James said:
A new god is being made as we speak, and the next one will eventually wipe all knowledge of the ones that came before, then there will be no more fear.
Alan Watt was also spot on...
-
1
-
-
@Mitochondrial Eve My amateurish summary may not do the above answer justice. Here is a better summary of key concepts:
KEY CONCEPTS
A. A mutation is a random change to an organism’s DNA sequence.
B. The environment contributes to determining whether a mutation is advantageous, deleterious, or neutral.
C. Mutations that increase the fitness of an organism increase in frequency in a population.
D. Evolution can happen quickly (in hundreds of years, or even less); advantageous genetic mutations can increase in
frequency in a population quite rapidly, even if the fitness advantage to the organism is small.
E. Different mutations in the same gene, or even mutations in different genes, can result in the same phenotype.
F. While mutations can be random, natural selection is not random.
G. Selective pressure depends on the environment in which an organism lives. This means that other organisms in the
environment (in this case, the predators) can be a selective force.Source (teacher resource): https://www.biointeractive.org/sites/default/files/IDG_NaturalSelection.pdf
Original video (related to the above): The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection and Adaptation ---> https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation
-
1 minute ago, webtrekker said:
Remember - EVERYTHING you've been told is a lie. There are no exceptions. If it's something 'THEY' say, then it's a definite LIE.
Sorry @webtrekker I think you accidentally quoted me there. I think you meant to quote the dude I was responding to.
-
25 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:
Thanks for your reply Darian, but I cannot agree that macroevolution is a red herring and think it is a critical distinction that needs to be considered alongside mutation. The link below provides a comprehensive criticism of evolutionary theory which perhaps you may take the time to read and from which I have gathered the info in this post.
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
There is no dispute that the phenomenon of microevolution exists which is an observable and verifiable matter, however, critics of evolutionary theory assert that the changes which take place occur within strict limits that are never crossed. Apparently, according to the link above, "cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimise the accumulation of mutations".
Even if macroevolution takes place in incremental steps in the form of microevolution at a mechanistic level, Darwinians tell us that, via mutation and natural selection, new information is added to the gene pool which results in the invention of new parts or systems. It is this part which has never been observed and which is disputed. I see no reason why this shouldn't be termed "macroevolution".
Evolutionists inform us that, as opposed to microevolution, macroevolution happens too slowly - over thousands of generations - to be observable. However, there have been long term studies of bacteria and fruit flies. A new generation of bacteria can grow in as little as 12 minutes and fruit flies, a more complex organism, are widely used in laboratory studies because a generation takes only 9 days. Both bacteria and fruit flies are highly variable and many mutations have been observed, but they haven't been seen to turn into anything new. One study of fruit flies spanned 35 years with many mutations observed - but none became fixed and variations were limited. And an evolutionary biologist, Dr Richard E Lenski, commenced a long term study of bacteria in 1988 whereby, according to creationists including Scott Whynot who reviewed 26 of Lenski's papers, there have been no observations of mutations resulting in a gain of novel information.
And to reiterate Bartholomew's point from my previous post, apparently even evolutionists agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious. Do you agree that is the case @DarianF? And do you agree that, for apparently "macro" changes to take place, novel information needs to be brought to the gene pool for which mutation is a fundamental prerequisite?
Regarding the fossil record, it may also be worth pointing out the examples of Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx. Coelacanth was thought to have become extinct 65 million years ago having disappeared from the fossil record, and was touted by Darwinians as the first walking fish and an intermediate fossil - that was, until a specimen was found alive, unchanged and unable to walk in 1938. Archaeopteryx was formerly put forward by evolutionists as a great example of a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, but has since been found to not be a transitional creature after all. Evolutionists have also had to back track on giraffes and the horse series.
Another critical problem for the theory can be seen in the lack of transitional fossils between single-celled creatures and complex invertebrates and then between complex invertebrates and fish.
Of course I am no DNA expert either, but my question still remains as to whether such findings of closer genetic relationships between creatures is necessarily proof that evolution is the cause?
Also, the understanding of the workings of DNA, RNA and proteins is developing quite rapidly and, whereas previously so called junk DNA (as per the label given to it by evolutionists in the 1970s) was not believed to have served a purpose, researchers are now finding that it can carry out "vital work". Another point to consider is the developing field of systems biology and, with it, "Gene Regulatory Networks" which operate an overall complex body plan. The theory of evolution cannot explain how such a complex operating system came to be without a designer. According to Electrical Engineer Perry Marshall, "there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information".
Most appreciated, @Mitochondrial Eve. Obviously no quick answers here. Detailed stuff.
For your specific question, as I understand it, mutations are random. They are not inherently 'good or bad'. Environmental factors and survival pressures then determine which mutations are favoured over time. It's a pretty basic concept. I'm assuming the other part of your question is related to Genetic variation, gene flow, and new species? https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/v/genetic-variation-gene-flow-and-new-species
I think the question you're asking is the one asked / answered here: 'How can evolution happen if information cannot be added to DNA?' ( https://www.quora.com/How-can-evolution-happen-if-information-cannot-be-added-to-DNA ), or the one covered here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
Here is some more detail on the issue of mutations: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898/
So when you claim information cannot be added, what do you mean? And the original claim made - that you are using as the basis for the question - has it been peer reviewed? I'd love for you to throw me some specific journal articles my way to make sure I'm understanding the precision of what you're saying.
-
6 hours ago, Morpheus said:
That's an excellent article Ink and I wholly agree with the content. I especially liked this part:
Astronomer Fred Hoyle compared the odds that all the multi-faceted and multi-functional parts of a cell could coincidentally come together and create life analogous to “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein!”
Hoyle wrote that, “If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.” Even if someone placed all aforementioned substances necessary to create life in the tank and waited for a billion years not a single cell would ever form.
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. The beginnings of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.”
- Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe
“We are inescapably the result of a long heritage of learning, adaptation, mutation and evolution, the product of a history which predates our birth as a biological species and stretches back over many thousand millennia…. Going further back, we share a common ancestry with our fellow primates; and going still further back, we share a common ancestry with all other living creatures and plants down to the simplest microbe. The further back we go, the greater the difference from external appearances and behavior patterns which we observe today…. Darwin’s theory, which is now accepted without dissent, is the cornerstone of modern biology. Our own links with the simplest forms of microbial life are well-nigh proven.”
–Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe (1978), p.15-16 -
4 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:
Last time... there are other threads to post your memes.There is even one called "homemade memes." I know you claim to troll for amusement, but please understand this thread before posting again. Thanks.
That's funny, considering all the memes above mine
But okay I know you love your little safe spaces.
-
@Morpheus Now, as for the origin of life, that is an active area of research ( a good summary here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11919/chapter/7 ). As far as I recall, Hoyle was a proponent of life being brought to earth from space (exogenous delivery of some kind), but even if that were the case, you would still have to explain how that life got started elsewhere.
Chyba and Sagan wrote good papers about exogenous delivery of organic materials in 1992 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11538392/ ) and 1990 ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11538074/ ). Also discussed here ---> https://youtu.be/hF1VDUsmzu0?t=758
It's interesting that Hoyle himself believed life arrived to earth via comet ( https://www.irishtimes.com/news/according-to-hoyle-life-arrived-on-earth-by-comet-1.242215 ), but I think the kind of life he meant was life already formed in outerspace (but again, how did that begin? Same problem). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Some research suggests 'Carbonaceous meteorites contain a wide range of extraterrestrial nucleobases' ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21836052/ ) so that's a good angle to explore in the modern context.
-
40 minutes ago, Morpheus said:
Because it's the exact same horse shit necessary for the big bang.
The 'Junkyard Tornado' is a well known fallacy. It's called 'Hoyle's Fallacy' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado ). It has been hijacked by creationists and misapplied to evolutionary biology ( https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-tornado-in-the-junkyard/ ).
The most popular counterargument to it would be the 'Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit ).
You might want to check out 'Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations' by Ian Musgrave ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html ), which goes into more detail. Hoyle's argument is basically the argument from improbability ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vUSQMqyOo ).
-
1 minute ago, ink said:
Have you seen the people killing themselves in Shanghai now .... because they have no food and are not allowed out to get any (if they could anyway as all the shops have been shut down)
CHINESE DEMOCRACY IS COMING TO YOUR DOORSTEPS
They always test it there first, just like the first lockdowns.
-
19 hours ago, k_j_evans said:
Well, right at the beginning I tried wearing one and my pulse oximeter dropped by 2 points in about 5 mins. Now that wouldn't matter if you usually run at around 98%, but since I have emphysema, I rarely get above 95 - the bottom end of normal. So trying to wear a mask would soon get me down to dangerous levels. So, depending on your circumstances, I'd say that, from empirical observation, YES, masks do reduce blood oxygen levels. Didn't bother after that.
Mask up, the way nature intended...
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, SimonTV said:
Funny how 'the new virus' did that in China, but nowhere else. LOL
-
8 minutes ago, ink said:
Flu patients .... flu (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... it's a duck)
It's interesting how the flu exists, then doesn't exist, then magically exists again, whenever the Covid narrative requires it to exist or not exist.
-
2
-
-
37 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:
Wow.
tbh i would have never guessed. Thx for that. Is it possible your mask is too tight around your nose? Is it possible that you get a extreme anxious reaction as soon as you have a mask on, which raise your blood pressure and increase your oxygen demand which would automatically lower your spo2 level in your condition? Just a thought really.
looking at the literature, they all seem to suggest even with patients with serious lung conditions that the mask doesnt affect at all the spo2 levels. But yeah, im not daft to trust those studies either
again, im against mask since they are uselss. Only mask that works are p100.
-
2
-
-
Just now, SimonTV said:
What we are seeing now is a lot of people dying young in the street out shopping or just going about their normal day to day.
Sort of like those faked people dropping in the street in China when all this started, but this time, it's real?
-
4 minutes ago, Youknownothingbutyou said:
P100 mask is what medics use when we enter covid patients rooms
yep, no mask used by the public can block virus. Its all a big scam
p100 mask looks like a gaz mask and filter viruses. Just this aspect of the pandemic would be enough to dismiss the gouv attemot at “protecting” us. The only real protection ( and even this is debatable due to the protocol needed to respect when handling that mask) would be to force the entire population to wear p100 masks lol
You mean, when you enter the room of someone who has tested positive with with a bullshit PCR test for a fake virus?
-
2
-
-
Fear of God?
in Religion & Secret Societies
Posted
Wow. That is a very special position to be in. You're very blessed.