KosherSwitch

[beginner_]

 Well just another reason why religions (all of them) are completey and utterly stupid and useless and actually hinder the world to advance and become better. But some are even more stupid.

 [Quote]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.

  [/Quote]

Robert M. Pirsig

[dkf]

@mott555 said:

Religious pedantic dickweeds. They'd fit right in here at TDWTF.

Pedantic dickweedery predates computers by thousands of years.

[drurowin]

 So they'd rather gamble than turn on a light on the Sabbath?  Religion seriously confuses me.  Why not have a roulette wheel or a slot machine that decides when to turn on the light?

[Guest]

I honestly don't understand how people can be so mindlessly discriminatory as to be against gay marriage.

 

Why should homosexuals be protected from making the same mistakes as the rest of us?

[MiffTheFox]

@Zecc said:

I honestly don't understand how people can be so mindlessly discriminatory as to be against gay marriage.

 

Why should homosexuals be protected from making the same mistakes as the rest of us?

"I objectify women because I find them attractive. Somebody might objectify me if they find me attractive." (It doesn't matter if women do apparently.)

[dhromed]

@OldCrow said:

So, to sum up. Intelligent creation and subsequent code-reuse across species seems more feasible than evolution.

 

lol

Not this shit again.

[dhromed]

@bgodot said:

Atheists are far better people,

 

Don't be such an arrogant asshole. You're making the rest of us look bad and harming the cause.

[drurowin]

 @dhromed said:

@OldCrow said:

So, to sum up. Intelligent creation and subsequent code-reuse across species seems more feasible than evolution.

 

lol

Not this shit again.

It's like saying Dalvik and Java are the same because they descended from a common root there, oldcrow.

 

[PJH]

@Zecc said:

I honestly don't understand how people can be so mindlessly discriminatory as to be against gay marriage.

 

Why should homosexuals be protected from making the same mistakes as the rest of us?

I subscribe to the view that if you're against gay marriage, then you simply shouldn't marry someone who's gay.

[Ben L.]

@PJH said:

@Zecc said:

I honestly don't understand how people can be so mindlessly discriminatory as to be against gay marriage.

 

Why should homosexuals be protected from making the same mistakes as the rest of us?

I subscribe to the view that if you're against gay marriage, then you simply shouldn't marry someone who's gay.

I'm fighting against the Combine. Does that mean I shouldn't marry Civil Protection?

[mikeTheLiar]

@Ben L. said:

I'm fighting against the Combine. Does that mean I shouldn't marry Civil Protection?

Probably, yeah. That wouldn't be a good idea.

[dhromed]

@mikeTheLiar said:

@Ben L. said:

I'm fighting against the Combine. Does that mean I shouldn't marry Civil Protection?

Probably, yeah. That wouldn't be a good idea.

 

Physical intimacy in a love relationship is fairly necessary, and I don't think CP or combine overwatch can provide that kind of attention.

[OldCrow]

 @alegr said:

@OldCrow said:

Or in short, according to DNA family trees, fly + cat = duck. And we know that that is unlikely. So, on further investigation of the presumed DNA developments, also presuming that evolution did happen, there are two options left. First is a super-creature, from which all other species have come through substraction only. The second is getting the same DNA-sequence in independent species by accident. Neither option seems likely.

So, to sum up. Intelligent creation and subsequent code-reuse across species seems more feasible than evolution. This also explains why the gene pool seems to get narrower for some species.

Examples?

Is's most noticeable in the smaller populations like cheetahs. But take a look at dogs. I think the origin of domesticated dogs is now being traced by comparing local dog populations to a theoretical (but likely) mother-breed that had the full pool. The current breeds were made by stripping genes off the pool.

 @alegr said:

@OldCrow said:

Also, just in case carbon timing is mentioned while I sleep: There is no actually verifiable reference sample, since no-one has a time-machine to get one with.

Oh, there has been reference samples. Like pieces of wood from known dated historical artifacts. Or trees dated by their rings.

 

 Besides the fact that wood is not a very good container for substances that you want to preserve for centuries, there's this:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/may/10/carbon-clock-could-show-the-wrong-time

Honestly, did you really think that the carbon-14 levels were stable through (supposedly) ice age, meteors (that supposedly killed dinosaurs) and changes in solar activity?

[OldCrow]

@drurowin said:

 @dhromed said:

@OldCrow said:

So, to sum up. Intelligent creation and subsequent code-reuse across species seems more feasible than evolution.

 

lol

Not this shit again.

It's like saying Dalvik and Java are the same because they descended from a common root there, oldcrow.

 

 

 

I'm not going to embarrass you by repeating myself. How about you read the full post that the quote was taken from?

 

Edit:

Removed insult. God didn't let me keep it. (Well...  not the really bad one anyways.)

 

[MiffTheFox]

@OldCrow said:

Is's most noticeable in the smaller populations like cheetahs. But take a look at dogs. I think the origin of domesticated dogs is now being traced by comparing local dog populations to a theoretical (but likely) mother-breed that had the full pool. The current breeds were made by stripping genes off the pool.

You really do have no idea how selective breeding works, do you?

[OldCrow]

@MiffTheFox said:

@OldCrow said:

Is's most noticeable in the smaller populations like cheetahs. But take a look at dogs. I think the origin of domesticated dogs is now being traced by comparing local dog populations to a theoretical (but likely) mother-breed that had the full pool. The current breeds were made by stripping genes off the pool.

 

You really do have no idea how selective breeding works, do you?

 

 Sure I do. You take a group of dogs and kill off or castrate those that don't exhibit the property that you want. Then you wait for them to reproduce, and repeat the process. In each iteration, you remove the genes that work contrary to the quality that you're looking for. Thus the word "selective".

 

[MiffTheFox]

@OldCrow said:

@MiffTheFox said:

@OldCrow said:

Is's most noticeable in the smaller populations like cheetahs. But take a look at dogs. I think the origin of domesticated dogs is now being traced by comparing local dog populations to a theoretical (but likely) mother-breed that had the full pool. The current breeds were made by stripping genes off the pool.

 

You really do have no idea how selective breeding works, do you?

 

 Sure I do. You take a group of dogs and kill off or castrate those that don't exhibit the property that you want. Then you wait for them to reproduce, and repeat the process. In each iteration, you remove the genes that work contrary to the quality that you're looking for. Thus the word "selective".

 

Genes are not a "there or not" thing. If you're breeding a dog with short hair, you don't delete the "long hair" gene, you set the "hair length" genes as low as they can go, and let random mutation lower the values further.

[mikeTheLiar]

@this entire fucking thread said:

Blah blah blah religion blah blah blah

Come on, people, just shut the fuck up already. I don't come here for semi-informed, semi-civilized, semi-erect religious discussion! You're just blathering at each other, and no one will walk away from this thread with a different opinion than they arrived with. Let it die, and don't waste any time arguing about what happens afterward.

[OldCrow]

 @MiffTheFox said:

@OldCrow said:

@MiffTheFox said:

@OldCrow said:

Is's most noticeable in the smaller populations like cheetahs. But take a look at dogs. I think the origin of domesticated dogs is now being traced by comparing local dog populations to a theoretical (but likely) mother-breed that had the full pool. The current breeds were made by stripping genes off the pool.

 

You really do have no idea how selective breeding works, do you?

 

 Sure I do. You take a group of dogs and kill off or castrate those that don't exhibit the property that you want. Then you wait for them to reproduce, and repeat the process. In each iteration, you remove the genes that work contrary to the quality that you're looking for. Thus the word "selective".

 

Genes are not a "there or not" thing. If you're breeding a dog with short hair, you don't delete the "long hair" gene, you set the "hair length" genes as low as they can go, and let random mutation lower the values further.

Untrue to an extent. Genes can be made extinct, and long enough breeding does just that. I've heard it said that some dog-show breeds have "only about 1 1/2 dogs' worth of genes between them all". I think this was in a documentary on TV, but couldn't give a source now.

Also, there is no such thing as "random mutation" when a new individual's DNA is born. There is randomness involved, yes; which genes the child gets from the sum of its parents is random. But no actual mutation or creation of totally new sequences happens. The "genes" or "sequence strings" don't break; they're either taken or left out.

 

[error]

@OldCrow said:

I don't understand how evolution works.

FTFY

[MiffTheFox]

@OldCrow said:

Also, there is no such thing as "random mutation" when a new individual's DNA is born. There is randomness involved, yes; which genes the child gets from the sum of its parents is random. But no actual mutation or creation of totally new sequences happens. The "genes" or "sequence strings" don't break; they're either taken or left out.

And that's what you don't understand about genetics.

[Guest]

@OldCrow said:

Also, there is no such thing as "random mutation" when a new individual's DNA is born. There is randomness involved, yes; which genes the child gets from the sum of its parents is random. But no actual mutation or creation of totally new sequences happens. The "genes" or "sequence strings" don't break; they're either taken or left out.

Good news for people with cancer!

And Down Syndrome.

[PJH]

@mikeTheLiar said:

Come on, people, just shut the fuck up already. I don't come here for semi-informed, semi-civilized, semi-erect religious discussion!

You could, you know, just fuck off and stop reading this particular thread if it bothers you that much.

[OldCrow]

@Zecc said:

@OldCrow said:

Also, there is no such thing as "random mutation" when a new individual's DNA is born. There is randomness involved, yes; which genes the child gets from the sum of its parents is random. But no actual mutation or creation of totally new sequences happens. The "genes" or "sequence strings" don't break; they're either taken or left out.

Good news for people with cancer!

And Down Syndrome.

 

Sorry for being so vocal, but this is too good to pass up.

I said that there were no mutations "when a new individual's DNA is born", so it kind of rules out cancer. Cancer's a good example against evolution in that it doesn't actually go into the gene pool, unless it happens to your sperm.

Which brings us nicely to the Down Syndrome. Yes, you're right it seems to involve gene mutations. But what I'd really like to know it the ratio of beneficial and catastrophic(i.e. Down) mutations. Considering the length of the full DNA sequence, the odds are pretty bad. But the most severely damaged ones simply don't get to the fetus stage.

 

Edit:

Typos

Also, what I'm trying to say is: The mutations are so rarely beneficial and so often Down that a million years with a population of a billion people would still not enrich the pool much. But you did have a good counter-argument. Well played, sir.

 

[Buttembly_Coder]

@OldCrow said:

Cancer's a good example against evolution in that it doesn't actually go into the gene pool, unless it happens to your sperm.

I forgot about that part where cancer always kills people before they have kids. Cancer can and does persist through family lines.

[OldCrow]

@Buttembly Coder said:

@OldCrow said:

Cancer's a good example against evolution in that it doesn't actually go into the gene pool, unless it happens to your sperm.

I forgot about that part where cancer always kills people before they have kids. Cancer can and does persist through family lines.

 

 Oh, they often have kids, since they want to leave a mark in this world before they go. A heritage, if you will.

But the kids tend to not inherit the cancer, which causes the mutation to be lost. Cancer is inherited in three generations approximately... never. But I'm sure you'll find some individual family that has this; the world is still wast.

[mikeTheLiar]

@PJH said:

You could, you know, just fuck off and stop reading this particular thread if it bothers you that much.

It's not the thread, it's the 700 email notifications......

....... ...... what's this?.........

.....options?

Oh goddam it.

[Buttembly_Coder]

@OldCrow said:

Oh, they often have kids, ...But the kids tend to not inherit the cancer, which causes the mutation to be lost. Cancer is inherited in three generations approximately... never.

Congratulations, you're close to figuring out how punnett squares work. each copy of a gene has basically a one in two chance to be passed on (greatly simplifying things, as you are a great simpleton), over three generations, that's one in eight, or "approximately never", if you use Christian Math, apparently.

[OldCrow]

@joe.edwards said:

@OldCrow said:

I don't understand how evolution works.

FTFY

 

Oh, I do understand how you think it works. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way. Evolution a bit like communism; it sounds good on paper, but the theory breaks rather quickly out there.

[OldCrow]

@Buttembly Coder said:

@OldCrow said:

Oh, they often have kids, ...But the kids tend to not inherit the cancer, which causes the mutation to be lost. Cancer is inherited in three generations approximately... never.

Congratulations, you're close to figuring out how punnett squares work. each copy of a gene has basically a one in two chance to be passed on (greatly simplifying things, as you are a great simpleton), over three generations, that's one in eight, or "approximately never", if you use Christian Math, apparently.

 

Actually, "cancer" is defined as growth that does not share an individual's DNA. Being prone to getting one can be hereditary. But the actual cancer is not carried in your DNA.

Therefore, the only way to really inherit cancer is to get infected from the mother while in womb.

Which one of us does not understand genes again?

[Buttembly_Coder]

@OldCrow said:

@joe.edwards said:

@OldCrow said:

I don't understand how evolution works.

FTFY

 

Oh, I do understand how you think it works. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way. Evolution a bit like communism; it sounds good on paper, but the theory breaks rather quickly out there.

The "theory" has been proven. It's essentially just a fact, an inherent property of any system with variation, if you will.

in any system, "things" that "work better" will tend to appear more often. "Working better" can mean almost anything, from a company outperforming a competitor and growing, to PHP being so easy to throw together that it's used by every idiot out there.

Too many theists are unable to separate evolution - the concept, from evolution - the origin of species, and they try to ignore every fact out there because it clashes with their dogma.

You can keep making an idiot of yourself if you want, but the fact is that you can't pretend science is on your side while actively denying the existence of science.

[Buttembly_Coder]

@OldCrow said:

Therefore, the only way to really inherit cancer is to get infected from the mother while in womb.

Which one of us does not understand genes again?

I'm guessing it's the one who thinks cancer is an "infection"

[OldCrow]

@Buttembly Coder said:

@OldCrow said:

@joe.edwards said:

@OldCrow said:

I don't understand how evolution works.

FTFY

 

Oh, I do understand how you think it works. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way. Evolution a bit like communism; it sounds good on paper, but the theory breaks rather quickly out there.

The "theory" has been proven. It's essentially just a fact, an inherent property of any system with variation, if you will.

in any system, "things" that "work better" will tend to appear more often. "Working better" can mean almost anything, from a company outperforming a competitor and growing, to PHP being so easy to throw together that it's used by every idiot out there.

Too many theists are unable to separate evolution - the concept, from evolution - the origin of species, and they try to ignore every fact out there because it clashes with their dogma.

You can keep making an idiot of yourself if you want, but the fact is that you can't pretend science is on your side while actively denying the existence of science.

 

Denying the existence of science? How's that? By using the scientific method to prove that Darwin was wrong?

The theory is still a theory, as it has not been proven. Your "working better" usually means that some genes get pushed to the side. But species being borne through evolution would require truly new genes to be borne. And this simply does not happen at a pace that would allow for the evolution theory to work in reality.

 

[dhromed]

Down syndrome is not caused by the mutation of a gene, but by a gamete with an extra chromosome.

@Buttembly Coder said:

Cancer can and does persist through family lines.

Risk of developing cancer does. Not the actual cell(group) that went cancerous, obviously.

[OldCrow]

@Buttembly Coder said:

@OldCrow said:

Therefore, the only way to really inherit cancer is to get infected from the mother while in womb.

 

Which one of us does not understand genes again?

I'm guessing it's the one who thinks cancer is an "infection"

 

Seeing as cancer is an organism, it very well can be infected under specific circumstance, such as between twins or from mother to child. But it is rare, as the immune system would destroy it in another person's body usually.

 

[Buttembly_Coder]

@OldCrow said:

@Buttembly Coder said:

@OldCrow said:

Therefore, the only way to really inherit cancer is to get infected from the mother while in womb.

 

Which one of us does not understand genes again?

I'm guessing it's the one who thinks cancer is an "infection"

 

Seeing as cancer is an organism, it very well can be infected under specific circumstance, such as between twins or from mother to child. But it is rare, as the immune system would destroy it in another person's body usually.

 

Show me where you found a definition of cancer that calls it an organism.

[dhromed]

@OldCrow said:

The theory is still a theory, as it has not been proven.

 

Hypotheses are things that have not been proven. A theory is the entire body of knowledge supported by observation.

Calling something a theory does not magically make it dubious. Quite the contrary. Information theory, for example, is quite well-established.

A theory is a big bunch of hypotheses that are out of beta and have earned their stripes in the Grand Arena Of Experiment.

@OldCrow said:

But species being borne through evolution would require truly new genes to be borne. And this simply does not happen at a pace that would allow for the evolution theory to work in reality.

It's called speciation.

[dhromed]

@OldCrow said:

Seeing as cancer is an organism

 

Cancer is not an organism.

[OldCrow]

@Buttembly Coder said:

Show me where you found a definition of cancer that calls it an organism.

 

I don't have a written definition for it, sorry. But I'd compare cancer-growth to a specialized strain of bacteria. Highly specialized, as it tends to survive in one person only and was born in that person. But it is a mass of living cells. And if it can spread via the blood-stream, it can be transferred to an identical twin with certainty.

 Edit:

borne -> born

[Buttembly_Coder]

@OldCrow said:

I don't have a written definition for it, sorry.

@Translate said:

From: bullshit

I don't have a written definition for it, sorry.

To: English

I have no idea what I'm talking about, and just hope I can find the magic combination of words to Win The Argument

[nosliwmas]

@OldCrow said:

I've heard it said that some dog-show breeds have "only about 1 1/2 dogs' worth of genes between them all". I think this was in a documentary on TV

Sounds reasonable. I, for one, am convinced that you are right.

[OldCrow]

@dhromed said:

It's called speciation.

 

It is called that, but a name does not make it reality. The basic mechanism we can agree upon. But the rate versus the timeframe we do not; I claim that it is not possible to produce new genes through mutation fast enough.

But that is secondary, as my primary proof is "God told me so". And He has verified His persona to me directly. To hear His testimony, you'll have to listen to Him yourself; I couldn't do that for you, unfortunately.

 

[OldCrow]

 Making signature guys of others is liable to get you banned, I think. So, please don't do that. I would not want to lose so intense a sparring partner.

[eViLegion]

@dhromed said:

• Prohibition of Idolatry
• Murder
• Theft
• Sexual immorality
• Blasphemy
• eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
• the requirement to establish courts of law.

Ah okay yes.

So... er... I guess I've fulfilled 6 out of 7 of those.

Do I really have to establish a court of law though? That sounds a bit tough for the modern day individual.

[Buttembly_Coder]

@eViLegion said:

So... er... I guess I've fulfilled 6 out of 7 of those.

Do I really have to establish a court of law though? That one sounds a bit tough for the modern day individual.

I'm pretty sure that jury duty counts

[boomzilla]

@mikeTheLiar said:

@this entire fucking thread said:

Blah blah blah religion blah blah blah

Come on, people, just shut the fuck up already. I don't come here for semi-informed, semi-civilized, semi-erect religious discussion! You're just blathering at each other, and no one will walk away from this thread with a different opinion than they arrived with. Let it die, and don't waste any time arguing about what happens afterward.

Indeed! Let's discuss something more tractable...say, the role of proper brace positioning in good coding standards.

[dhromed]

@OldCrow said:

my primary proof is "God told me so". And He has verified His persona to me directly. To hear His testimony, you'll have to listen to Him yourself

 

Er, ok.

That's basically insane, so I'm just going to move on to more productive uses of my time.

[eViLegion]

@Buttembly Coder said:

@eViLegion said:

So... er... I guess I've fulfilled 6 out of 7 of those.

Do I really have to establish a court of law though? That one sounds a bit tough for the modern day individual.

I'm pretty sure that jury duty counts

Aw shit... I declined to do that.

[dhromed]

@boomzilla said:

the role of proper brace positioning in good coding standards.

 

I successfully adjusted to a life of same-line.

[blakeyrat]

@OldCrow said:

But that is secondary, as my primary proof is "God told me so". And He has verified His persona to me directly. To hear His testimony, you'll have to listen to Him yourself; I couldn't do that for you, unfortunately.

Did he tell you to make a video game where the hero holds two katanas and each katana has a rocket in the handle so he can fly like a superhero? Is... is your handle CrazyJim1? It totally is you, isn't it?