Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Defines an Organism? Biologists Say 'Purpose.'
ICR News ^ | December 10, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-309 next last
To: RoadGumby

None of your business, roadkill.


51 posted on 12/10/2009 9:09:06 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Why the animosity camel? You are loved.

Why do you behave as you do?


52 posted on 12/10/2009 9:10:00 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

...just like teenagers....


53 posted on 12/10/2009 9:10:18 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
You didn't answer the question..are you an organism that needs to stay alive for a reason and a purpose or are you a speck of dust? If you are a speck of dust then why do I need to talk to you?, you are sterile and will blow away soon.
54 posted on 12/10/2009 9:12:03 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Judging by the odor emanating from your post, that job has been finished for quite a while.


55 posted on 12/10/2009 9:12:35 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

“None of your business, roadkill.”

You should have replaced the ‘roadkill’ with ‘you silly English kniggitts!’ to properly Python-ize your retort. :)


56 posted on 12/10/2009 9:13:03 AM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You nailed it! That is why Darwinian Evolution is inherently leftist. Sure there might be a few confused Darwinists who share a few conservative values with genuine conservatives, but the overall tendency is hard to the left.


57 posted on 12/10/2009 9:13:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I would say it becomes extinct.


58 posted on 12/10/2009 9:16:34 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

It's just a flesh wound..
59 posted on 12/10/2009 9:16:48 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“maybe I just need to know less. “

Naw, it can’t be this.


60 posted on 12/10/2009 9:17:58 AM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Speak for yourself. Not everyone is a stimulus-response vehicle, as the Temple of Darwin would have us believe.


61 posted on 12/10/2009 9:18:08 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

That wasn’t my question. If an organism for whatever reason ceases to be able to reproduce, does it stop being an organism, or is it simply an organism that can’t reproduce?


62 posted on 12/10/2009 9:19:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: stormer

You, of all people, should not bang on about other’s ‘density’ given your comments on these threads and the use of someones silly pictures to mock what you cannot understand.


63 posted on 12/10/2009 9:21:01 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

That would make you proof prime that Darwin must be served..
Shallow gene pool and all...


64 posted on 12/10/2009 9:21:41 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It’s an extinct organism. Maybe defined in the fossil record, but extinct nonetheless.


65 posted on 12/10/2009 9:23:23 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Is that like the special purpose Navin Johnson had in “ The Jerk”?


66 posted on 12/10/2009 9:24:26 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

You are living proof that there are fools who ignore the overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, and yet try to pretent in their hearts that He does not exist.


67 posted on 12/10/2009 9:25:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

DNA is not super sophisticated, unless you don’t have the basic education to understand it. It’s only As, Gs, Ts, and Cs. Pretty basic to me.


68 posted on 12/10/2009 9:27:16 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Make some.


69 posted on 12/10/2009 9:29:01 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

It’s not extinct when it is still alive. And what about all the organisms that live past their reproductive age, such as women who go through menopause, are they still organisms?


70 posted on 12/10/2009 9:29:35 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

71 posted on 12/10/2009 9:29:37 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You have some kind of ‘second sight” now?

It is you who steadfastly maintain that one cannot believe in God, or much less be a Christian, without believing in the creation myth.

It is you who are blinded, and need to pray desperately for enlightenment.


72 posted on 12/10/2009 9:32:41 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I am right now and so are you in every reproducing cell in your body.

I have also made unique DNA sequences in the lab. I have a patent on a modified gene sequence that I constructed.


73 posted on 12/10/2009 9:33:08 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

...they do tend to undergo some temporary retrograde primeval metamorphosis subdued only by chocolate, tears, rage and the blue pills when the reach that point...


74 posted on 12/10/2009 9:34:21 AM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

TMI on your sex life.


75 posted on 12/10/2009 9:34:32 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

We’re talking species here. Not individuals.


76 posted on 12/10/2009 9:34:36 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Learn how to read, Wacka. I said the DNA code, not simply DNA. And btw, DNA is much more that As, Gs, Ts, and Cs. The fact that you don’t know this speaks volumes about your level of science education.


77 posted on 12/10/2009 9:35:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

That’s interesting.

I’ve always bee curious though as to whether we can create life without realizing what happens to life when it ceases to be life. Equations have two sides.


78 posted on 12/10/2009 9:38:27 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It is you that has NO science education. The only “letters” in the DNA code are the 4 bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine (A, T, G, and C). Pretty basic ;-).


79 posted on 12/10/2009 9:39:37 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
I have never said that you cannot believe in God without believing in biblical creation, nor have I ever said you cannot be a Christian without believing in biblical creation. This has been pointed out to you many times, but it doesn't bother you to keep lying about it. You are a living example of why Darwin's un-scientific, evo-atheist creation myth is both bad for society, and bad for the conservative movement.
80 posted on 12/10/2009 9:42:10 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Most organisms reaching senescence do expire; they represent a resource sink within the population. In advanced animals, species that engage in forms of altruistic behavior are more likely to have individuals within the population of advanced age; elephants, certain birds, and of course humans, are known for this trait. The situation with humans is complicated by medical technology which allows for individuals to survive otherwise lethal events or conditions.


81 posted on 12/10/2009 9:42:22 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
Not mine...ask dustperson for more info on that. Nothing matters in the dust bowl but the wind.

We organism have self preservation to tend to, when we do anything, it means something.

82 posted on 12/10/2009 9:42:33 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Wacka; GodGunsGuts
DNA is not super sophisticated, unless you don’t have the basic education to understand it. It’s only As, Gs, Ts, and Cs. Pretty basic to me.

I take it then, you understand it completely. You should have a Nobel Prize awaiting you then.

The rest of those ignurint scientists are just coming to the conclusion that *junk DNA* may just not be junk after all.

Why don't you go tell them that you have it all figured out and save them the effort?

83 posted on 12/10/2009 9:45:23 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
As noted, extinction applies to a species; extirpation applies to a species within a geographically defined area.
84 posted on 12/10/2009 9:46:02 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
See what your ignorance has done? Now I'm gonna have to get all remedial on you!

DNA is a very large molecule, made up of smaller units called nucleotides that are strung together in a row, making a DNA molecule thousands of times longer than it is wide.

Each nucleotide has three parts: a sugar molecule, a phosphate molecule, and a structure called a nitrogenous base. The nitrogenous base is the part of the nucleotide that carries genetic information, so the words "nucleotide" and "base" are often used interchangeably. The bases found in DNA come in four varieties: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine—often abbreviated as A, C, G, and T, the letters of the genetic alphabet.

A DNA molecule is a double helix, a structure that looks much like a ladder twisted into a spiral. The sides of the ladder are made of alternating sugar and phosphate molecules, the sugar of one nucleotide linked to the phosphate of the next. DNA is often said to have a sugar and phosphate "backbone."

Each rung of the ladder is made of two nitrogenous bases linked together in the middle. The length of a DNA molecule is often measured in "base pairs," or bp—that is, the number of rungs in the ladder. Sometimes, this unit of measurement is shortened simply to "bases."

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp1_4_1.shtml

85 posted on 12/10/2009 9:48:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Well..If DNA is just A,G,T,C let’s see the ‘wits’ spell something. shouldn’t be a problem, only for letters instead of twenty-six, no big deal.
86 posted on 12/10/2009 9:49:32 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It is so unbecoming when you lie to cover your tracks, when you also know full well that your posting history is easy to look up, and the proof is right there.

as a matter of fact, you did it again in your answer to me.

“You are a living example of why Darwin’s un-scientific, evo-atheist creation myth..”

Seems again that you believe the 9th commandment doesn’t apply to you.


87 posted on 12/10/2009 9:51:56 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: stormer

All I see is someone trying to avoid the obvious hole in his argument, and instead has decided to dig that hole even bigger. Let me know when you want out of the hole you have dug for yourself and I’ll throw you a rope.


88 posted on 12/10/2009 9:52:59 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Wacka
Very cool!

I have a friend who was going to name a slime mold he had discovered after me but he changed is mind after I mocked his adoration for professional wrestling - seriously.

89 posted on 12/10/2009 9:53:45 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Yeah, that’s it, let the evos show us how easy it is to spell with a four letter alphabet...LOL!


90 posted on 12/10/2009 9:54:31 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ll bite - what’s the “obvious hole”?


91 posted on 12/10/2009 9:57:57 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
My standards are obviously far above yours, otherwise I would be posting about how nature selects from random processes to create complex, specified, super-sophisticated digital DNA codes, while I ignored the fact that the only empirically verified source for complex, specified, digital codes are intelligent designers.

So your "standards" for science writing are that it reaches the correct (in your view) conclusion, not whether it's factually accurate along the way. That's what I thought.

92 posted on 12/10/2009 10:01:21 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stormer

You say that an orgnism is defined not by it’s overall purpose, but on its ability to reproduce. Pure bunk.


93 posted on 12/10/2009 10:01:56 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You’ll have to refresh my memory. Where and when did I say that?


94 posted on 12/10/2009 10:05:26 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
“So your “standards” for science writing are that it reaches the correct (in your view) conclusion, not whether it's factually accurate along the way.”

Works for Darwinism. No matter how much of its “evidence” is found not to be, its conclusions are not to be questioned.

(please see the Lucy and Ardi show)

95 posted on 12/10/2009 10:09:31 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why you should not post from ICR and expect to be taken seriously. Pay attention to the last sentence particularly.

“ICR claims it “met or exceeded” the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students.

ICR’s claim that it suffers from “anti-accommodational evolution-only-science enforcement policy practices” is frankly absurd. ICR has every right in the world to teach its Creationist pseudoscience to paying students and can continue to do that, so that falsifies its claim of illegal victimization by the State of Texas. It has no right, however, to demand that its graduating students be awarded a Texas-certified Master of Science degree, since under no definition of science or practice of legitimate science education in the United States is ICR’s curriculum “science.”
http://pandasthumb.org/


96 posted on 12/10/2009 10:10:18 AM PST by hurly (A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You just reinforced what I just said with pictures. Thanks.

The DNA “code”is made up of the four bases. The deoxyribo backbone is the structural part of the molecule.

Pretty simple when you see it, isn’t it?


97 posted on 12/10/2009 10:12:10 AM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

The point is you were wrong, DNA’s design is quite a bit more than simple letters...and you are also wrong about focusing on just the DNA, as I was specifically referring to the code contained in the DNA. In short, you were wrong on both counts, which is why I had to go all remedial on you :op


98 posted on 12/10/2009 10:18:28 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Structure...you show us structure. My bones are mass structure...so what?

I have some questions for you since you seem to believe you are one of the high Priests of cerebral cortex worship.

Where did the first spark of energy come from? Why has science stopped researching the paranormal and spiritual aspects of the brain? Why do they call it a scientific fact and then change it when new evidence come out?

Do you have complete unfailing faith in this centuries research or will you convert when the next "evidence" replaces this "evidence"? If you are a true believer you must decide now or you are ignorant, a fool, an infidel and heretic to your peers. You must read every science book written by man and believe it all without fail....trust. Should I subject myself to all this and just have faith that it will never change?

Why don't you tell us all now, ...is this science finished? Will it never change? Is it rock solid for the ages? Should we all start worshiping at the altar of your brothers cerebral cortex and bow down to their wisdom or wait until the next century?

You must have all the answers...scientists are so smart. Other scientist tell us so and besides, they call us all stupid, so we really must be right? Kind of like the totalitarian Priest used to do before they threw people out of bell towers.

Please save us from a fate worse than death. Tell us what to do to save ourselves from the scientific self made God's before they get us.

99 posted on 12/10/2009 10:21:05 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: hurly

Wow, the jackbooted evo-atheist science establishment has been saying that the global warming skeptics did meet their “standards” for science, and look how that is turning out. Indeed, those very same people liken human-caused global warming skeptics to Darwin-denying creationists and AIDS “denialists”! What sweet irony...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!


100 posted on 12/10/2009 10:23:10 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-309 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson