Skip to comments.What Defines an Organism? Biologists Say 'Purpose.'
Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
None of your business, roadkill.
Why the animosity camel? You are loved.
Why do you behave as you do?
...just like teenagers....
Judging by the odor emanating from your post, that job has been finished for quite a while.
“None of your business, roadkill.”
You should have replaced the ‘roadkill’ with ‘you silly English kniggitts!’ to properly Python-ize your retort. :)
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.
I would say it becomes extinct.
“maybe I just need to know less. “
Naw, it can’t be this.
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is a stimulus-response vehicle, as the Temple of Darwin would have us believe.
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?
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.
That would make you proof prime that Darwin must be served..
Shallow gene pool and all...
It’s an extinct organism. Maybe defined in the fossil record, but extinct nonetheless.
Is that like the special purpose Navin Johnson had in “ The Jerk”?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
...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...
TMI on your sex life.
We’re talking species here. Not individuals.
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.
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.
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 ;-).
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.
We organism have self preservation to tend to, when we do anything, it means something.
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?
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 thymineoften 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 bpthat is, the number of rungs in the ladder. Sometimes, this unit of measurement is shortened simply to "bases."
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, that’s it, let the evos show us how easy it is to spell with a four letter alphabet...LOL!
I’ll bite - what’s the “obvious hole”?
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.
You say that an orgnism is defined not by it’s overall purpose, but on its ability to reproduce. Pure bunk.
You’ll have to refresh my memory. Where and when did I say that?
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)
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 THECBs 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.
ICRs 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 ICRs curriculum science.”
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?
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
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.
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!!!!!