In a recent post Kevin sez:
1) Every living thing on the Earth uses the same genetic code. This shouldn’t be in dispute, but it goes farther than you may think. In fact, it’s not even just DNA and RNA. It’s how the DNA and RNA strands are interpreted.
Only the willfully ignorant would say something like that. Not to worry though, I am sure there are other evotards who think the same thing.
As I posted in that thread (it has been deleted):
"You don't have the same genetic code," replied Venter. "In fact, the Mycoplasmas [a group of bacteria Venter and his team have used to engineer synthetic chromosomes] use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells. So there are a lot of variations on the theme..."
Codon UGA codes for "STOP" in us but in Mycoplasma it codes for the amino acid tryptophan. And that is just a start.
But the main problem with a universal genetic code and universal common descent is the theory of evolution is SILENT of origins. Yet both UCD and a UCG need an origins of a single organism/ single population of like organisms. Otherwise you don't get either.
IOW evotards are so freaking stupid they don't even realize that.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIOW evotards are so freaking stupid they don't even realize that.
Have you considered writing your observations up as a letter to Nature?
Fuck that British piece of shit rag...
ReplyDeleteYou could send it to that USA! USA! USA! rag called Science, Joe.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. If and when accepted, you could finally crawl out of your momma's slimy basement and have that 15 minutes of fame. Finally get rid of that well-earned reputation as coward and incorrigible imbecile.
Go for it!
It must be Spring- the lowlifes are emerging from under their rocks...
ReplyDeleteNice projection troy.
Is that all you have?
Is that all you have?
ReplyDeleteIt's all that's required.
Trying to project your assholiness, ignorance and cowardice onto me is all that is required?
ReplyDeleteIf you, a known ignorant lying wanker, sez so...
Perhaps I should write a letter to Science and nature about the sky being blue, too.
ReplyDeleteThe sky isn't actually blue Joe. It just looks blue to humans (and probably some other animals), at times.
ReplyDeleteThe "blue" is actually a property of the sunlight that passes through the atmosphere. See:
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
Is the sky blue at night, when there is no sunlight Joe?
the whole tard:
ReplyDeleteThe sky isn't actually blue Joe. It just looks blue to humans (and probably some other animals), at times.
So my blue jeans aren't blue, they just look blue.
The snow isn't actually white, it just looks white.
The colors we observe aren't actually the colors they just lok like the colors.
Without light, there are no colors, unless absolute black is considered a color.
ReplyDeleteTurn off all the light sources in the basement you live in Joe and then tell me what colors you can see. Without light, are your jeans still blue?
Without eyes there isn't any color that can be perceived.
ReplyDeleteThanks for continuing to prove that you are an asshole...
Joe
ReplyDeleteSo my blue jeans aren't blue, they just look blue.
In fact your blue could be my green. You don't "see" the blue, your eyes generate a signal which your brain interprets. There is no photon containing blue that makes it to your brain.
The colors we observe aren't actually the colors they just lok like the colors.
Indeed, it's the subject of much discussion amongst the adults
Qualia ( /ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/), singular "quale" (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːle]), from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the experience of taking a recreational drug, or the redness of an evening sky. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."[1] Erwin Schrödinger, the famous physicist, biologist, and 'father' of modern quantum theory (and sometimes philosopher - see full article below) had this counter materialist take: "The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so.."
The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that they are seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem. Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term that is used, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Did you notice this Joe?
The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that they are seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem.
Seems that Wikipedia is a bit more open to these ideas then you claim.....
So get cracking. Plenty for you to read there. And when you are done perhaps you can let me know what blue is!
What the fuck was that supposed to mean?
ReplyDelete