http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6171083.stm

What's with you and babies, man? Seriously. You should see someone about it. A shrink or something maybe.

I can think of servel better forums for this thread, narc.

IFIOTW

Humanities

My God

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!111!!11 This made my fucking day!

^ Fuck you

You should go tell Bill Keller about it.

NOOOO This means less potential anarchocommies!

*Harvests flood control for stem cells*

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

You should go tell Bill Keller about it.

I'm planning to email him soon.

Baby Harvest...............sounds like a band.

quote:Originally posted by BigFishy:

I'm planning to email him soon.

BAN!

quote:Originally posted by Levo75:

BAN!

A nice friendly email, and I won't be mentioning TOTSE.

neither did the prank phone callers :P

That sounds pretty rad, it's like something from a horror movie.

I have a massive rager right now.

umm...rape?

That's some fucked up shit!

...at least someone is willing to try it out. Even America's too pussy to do it, and the UK too..but Ukraine. Nah, they're years ahead!

You're insane, I think we should harvest organs from you!

That article is more than fishy

LAWL

I like how Fish is mentioned in wiki, on the Totse page XD

Talk about an epic bump.

rape

:):):)

I love how it said something like "amid unproven claims that they can help treat diseases" :D

Yes—specific treatments are unproven. However, they can be induced into being any type of cell you fucking want. By definition, this means that they can be used to replace faulty/dead cells. Hell, our bodies already do something that's almost the exact same. But rather than focusing on the fact that stem cells have a great potential to help people, the author decides to pass them off as some unproven, bullshit phenomenon, just as creationists discredit evolution by saying it's "just a theory".

And who the fuck decided to kill babies for stem cells? Didn't they realize that as well as being completely unethical, in the long run it would end up hurting stem cell research? God dammit these people piss me off.

I love how it said something like "amid unproven claims that they can help treat diseases" :D

Yes—specific treatments are unproven. However, they can be induced into being any type of cell you fucking want. By definition, this means that they can be used to replace faulty/dead cells. Hell, our bodies already do something that's almost the exact same. But rather than focusing on the fact that stem cells have a great potential to help people, the author decides to pass them off as some unproven, bullshit phenomenon, just as creationists discredit evolution by saying it's "just a theory".

And who the fuck decided to kill babies for stem cells? Didn't they realize that as well as being completely unethical, in the long run it would end up hurting stem cell research? God dammit these people piss me off.

Evolution is just a theory...

Evolution is just a theory...

Wow. We have another one.

Evolution is just a theory...

So is gravity. And they're almost equally well documented.

So is gravity. And they're almost equally well documented.

Yes but you can see gravity happening every day. Evolution is supposed to be a huge long drawn out process that we won't see...

Yes but you can see gravity happening every day. Evolution is supposed to be a huge long drawn out process that we won't see...

We see evolution all the time.

We see evolution all the time.

You can see man-made things evolve, and you can see what seems to be the result of evolution, but can you literally see humans evolving daily?

You can see man-made things evolve, and you can see what seems to be the result of evolution, but can you literally see humans evolving daily?

Yes. Seeing mutations in humans shows that they mutate. Seeing natural selection work on other animals shows that nature selects toward those most fit to survive. Hence we are seeing humans evolving, whenever anyone with a congenital defect dies. Sad, but evolution nonetheless.

So is gravity. And they're almost equally well documented.

Every transition fossil is either a fraud or very dubious. There is no evidence of mutations where new genetic information is added to the genome, only mutations where genes are lost, inverted, or moved.

I challenge you to find a single mutation where new genetic information is added to the genome, rather than just moved from somewhere else.

Every transition fossil is either a fraud or very dubious. There is no evidence of mutations where new genetic information is added to the genome, only mutations where genes are lost, inverted, or moved.

That'd mean we're losing genes at an alarming rate overall

2006-12-13, 12:07

That'd mean we're losing genes at an alarming rate overall

Well, not quite because it's very slow; however, like I said there is no evidence of mutations where any new genetic information is added to the genome.

Every transition fossil is either a fraud or very dubious. There is no evidence of mutations where new genetic information is added to the genome, only mutations where genes are lost, inverted, or moved.

I challenge you to find a single mutation where new genetic information is added to the genome, rather than just moved from somewhere else.

To the HUMAN genome? If so, LOL. Do you know how fucking hard it is to sequence a human's entire genome? This is relevant because we can't really go searching for "new genetic information" when we don't know exactly where to find it, as it would take a hell of a long time to find it manually. Secondly, even if you could, what's the likelihood of someone who's being sequenced having new genetic material? Very low, as we've only been able to sequence for a short while, and useful additions of DNA aren't exactly common in humans (especially given how each generation takes a long time before creating the next).

Oh and BTW: there are tons of types of mutation. Frame shift, missense, nonsense, and the list goes on.

Now if you want to see evolution in action, I suggest you examine bacteria and viruses, as they evolve rather quickly compared to humans. Here is a source that promotes the theory of evolution—making it somewhat biased—but it does cite its sources.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

To the HUMAN genome? If so, LOL. Do you know how fucking hard it is to sequence a human's entire genome? This is relevant because we can't really go searching for "new genetic information" when we don't know exactly where to find it, as it would take a hell of a long time to find it manually. Secondly, even if you could, what's the likelihood of someone who's being sequenced having new genetic material? Very low, as we've only been able to sequence for a short while, and useful additions of DNA aren't exactly common in humans (especially given how each generation takes a long time before creating the next).

Oh and BTW: there are tons of types of mutation. Frame shift, missense, nonsense, and the list goes on.

Now if you want to see evolution in action, I suggest you examine bacteria and viruses, as they evolve rather quickly compared to humans. Here is a source that promotes the theory of evolution—making it somewhat biased—but it does cite its sources.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

In any genome, even the "evolutionary" changes in bacteria and viruses represent a loss of genetic information.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Well, not quite because it's very slow

That might matter if the world wasn't.. Oh right, 6000 years. Nevermind

That might matter if the world wasn't.. Oh right, 6000 years. Nevermind

You've still been unable to provide any evidence of a mutation where new genetic information is added to the genome.