Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Once again you vociferously demonstrate your own ignorance, by changing the subject to avoid the truth.
HLPhat:" Post the published papers that document the process for manufacturing functional RNA/DNA and associated mechanisms for self-replication or STFU. "
Your ludicrous demands are of no interest to me, FRiend.
So do your own research, or STFU.
>>>>>Your ludicrous demands are of no interest to me, FRiend.
>>So do your own research, or STFU.
I’ve done enough research to know why a pretentious goon like you can’t produce a published paper documenting the process for manufacturing RNA/DNA and the associated self-replicating mechanisms.
Your buzzwords and bullshyte don’t compile in the real world Joek boy.
Liar.
The SUBJECT - is Evolution through the process of Natural Selection.
"there's nothing "practical" about this thread"
Natural Selection is ALL about producing PRACTICAL results.
OK then...
I'm sorry Saul; but your armor doesn't fit me well.
Ya wantin’ to monkey around??
>>Ya wantin’ to monkey around??
Tempting, but dead husbands leave no tails.
HLPhat: “ Warfare - the ultimate practical exercise in human evolution, is it? “
Sure, but you keep changing the subject.
This thread’s question is: what are the odds of evolution, and it proposes zero, but you have weaponized every subject but that in order to make yourself seem superior and belittle yours truly.
And for what purpose?
To say something important about the odds of evolution?
What is it?
>>Sure, but you keep changing the subject.
Liar. The subject is the odds of practical results being rendered by the process of Evolution through Natural Selection.
If that fact is belittling to you then BOOHOO for you.
Maybe you’ll feel better if you join the herd of like-minded poodlectuals in their “safe” environment at Evergreen College this fall.
[Evergreen's Collapse of Civil Discourse]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8MCxW_PLw
Seems you're already quite comfortable with their style of manipulating conversation and vocabulary as required to support your narative. You should fit right in.
Today's Biologists: The cheetah is endangered because of lack of diversity.
Today's Evolutionist: A positive evolutionary change in an animal is limited to a VERY small number of them (like ONE!)
I think if viruses were involved in the process of disseminating beneficial RNA/DNA it would more likely affect a significant portion of a local population.
For the same reasons as many other chemical processes, a fact you well know, but you wish to weaponize this question, for what reason?
Why do you hide behind a cloak of stupidity while assuming an air of infinite superiority?
Why not just make your point, pencil, and let it go with that?
I'll ask again: why do you hide behind a cloak of stupidity, while assuming an attitude of infinite superiority?
Why not just make your point?
HLPhat: "“God gave them over” What does this mean?"
Seems obvious to me, but maybe you tell us something new?
As always, you misunderstand.
Sorry, but all the "pretentious goonisms" here are yours, pal.
You've taken on an attitude of insulting god-like superiority that is simply inexcusable.
And you've used this matter strictly as a weapon to bludgeon with, rather than as data to support some point you wished to make.
Why is that?
As for me, I have no interest in such a paper, none, except as its results might find their way into other books similar to those I recommended above.
Sure, but this thread is on the "odds" of evolution, a question which is strictly theoretical, not "practical" and which, strangely, you seem to avoid like the plague.
Why is that?
Faith is based on nothing........ zero
No facts can "belittle", but your attitude of insulting superiority is not only inexplicable, its inexcusable.
You may know that a few genetic mutations appear in every individual, most harmless or harmful, occasionally helpful.
Whether the same mutation can appear in more than one individual in a generation is speculation, but if it's helpful that would increase the chances of survival.
As for your cheetah's, wasn't it claimed some years ago that Tiger (Woods) is a cheetah, but that's a category of species transformation I'm not familiar with.
Are you?
;-)
I disagree.
>>As always, you misunderstand.
I understand, per the pretentiously vapid act you’ve put on display, that you probably wouldn’t be able to read and understand such a paper... if one did exist.
How’s that application to Evergreen College coming along Mr. Poodlectual?
The odds are you’re practically a shoe-in for selection there.
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.