AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Bjarne

form_srcid: Bjarne

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.206.80

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Bjarne

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Bjarne%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/12/31 07:35:27, Link
Author: Bjarne
Very well. As I infrequently lurker at this forum, I have finally decided to register.

I am a biologist from Germany (with the old diploma degree). Due to some personal developments, I have decided to teach at  Haupt- and Realschule (some kind of high schools). Unfortunately this means back to university for me to study some additional Chemistry, Pedagogics and Didactics.

I did stumble over Panda's Thumb, when I looked for sources about the Evolution-Creationism debate in the States, as this topic gets increasingly important over here.

Date: 2009/12/31 07:57:13, Link
Author: Bjarne
Near Wuppertal at the Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Area.

Date: 2009/12/31 10:12:20, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,16:13)
Quote (Bjarne @ Dec. 31 2009,08:35)
I did stumble over Panda's Thumb, when I looked for sources about the Evolution-Creationism debate in the States, as this topic gets increasingly important over here.

what kind of interest are you seeing in the evolution/creation discussions?  
from students?  the media?  the general populace?

we bees curious.

I am most interested on the ways the Creationists try to sneak Creationism into class rooms. There is some cooperation between fundamentalist Christian groups in Germany and the States and thus I believe that Creationists over here will use similar methods like they already do in the United States.

Additionally, I am interested in resources for teaching evolution in school. The schools I will teach in will have a large amount of students from the lower strata of society. Creationist ideas will be more predominat there than at the Gymnasium, which are more some kind of upperclass schools.

Date: 2009/12/31 11:11:06, Link
Author: Bjarne
Are Tardigrades, commonly known as water bears or moss piglets, related to bears or pigs, Robert?

Date: 2010/01/02 04:22:44, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,08:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
         
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed

Why is that?

       
Quote
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.

And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
       
Quote
Today there is no need.

Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

       
Quote
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.


Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

       
Quote
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.


Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
       
Quote
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.

Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
       
Quote
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!

The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.

Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site Learn Genetics - University of Utah has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

Genetics Home Reference lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)

I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.

Okay, you have made two premises.

1st: Dogs show a remarkable variability (I can agree on that).
2nd: Marsupial reproduction is a necessary adaption to a certain kind of reproductive stress.

If we combine both premises, we can predict that, if we put dogs artificially under the required reproductive stress, we would necessarily get marsupial dogs.
Why don't you do this experiment to harden your speculation?

Date: 2010/01/05 03:37:22, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.

I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.

Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?

Date: 2010/01/05 06:45:33, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 05 2010,12:44)
Quote
Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?

I hate to disappoint you but I think we already have his answer here.

I just want to make sure that I did get the core of his idea right. After all, I am no native speaker of English.

Date: 2010/01/07 08:48:34, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,10:51)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.

I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.

Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?

No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear.

So, except for the swimming part, I did get your idea right?

A host of widely different animals migrated to Australia over some hypothetical landbridge and then they did experience the same kind of reproductive stress, which did lead to the development  of a similar  feature, the marsupial reproduction system?

This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.

Date: 2010/01/12 14:18:31, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 12 2010,04:32)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 07 2010,08:48)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 07 2010,10:51)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 05 2010,03:37)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 04 2010,11:48)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 02 2010,10:45)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
     
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 30 2009,18:51)
I'm still trying to figure out a couple of things. First, if marsupial wolves and canine wolves are the same thing then why do marsupial wolves share more traits (of both soft and hard tissue) with kangaroos, opossums, and numbats then they do with canine wolves? Second, why do the canine wolves share more traits with, say skunks or aardwolves, than they do kangaroos, opossums, and numbats (and while I'm thinking about it following Robert Byers logic aardwolves should be canines and yet they are placed in the Hyaenidae which in turn are placed in the Feliformia  - what's up with that)?

You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

I think you need to go back an reread my comment. I said marsupial wolves share more traits in common with kangaroos. This is based on more that just staring at movies and pictures which only gives information on superficial characters that lack phylogenetic significance (such as coat color). So I ask, what thousands of characters do marsupial wolves and canine wolves share? Better yet, why have all the anatomists and paleontologists missed these thousands of traits? Surely, if they appear in pictures and movies they should show up on an actual examination of the skeleton and soft tissue. Yet when scientists actually look at this material very few of these thousands of alleged traits appear. You want us to take your word over the word of scientists. You have looked at pictures and movies and you feel that somehow this makes your opinion count for more than scientists who have actually examined the material in question. Your picture informed words over those who have measured the bones, traced the origins and insertions of muscles, counted the teeth, examined the brains, and looked at the internal organs.
I also notice that you don't address the question of all the traits canine wolves share with hyenas and felines.

I don't like the word "scientists" being applied to the few researchers who study fossil marsupials.
Anyways.
In fact there is nothing superficial about anatomy ,
In fact the sameness of marsupial types with placental types etc is so great that a concept called convergent evolution must be invoked to explain it.
This concept makes my case.
They would admit the anatomy is so alike between a marsupial lion and our lions that they say mutation with selection over time because of like niche must be the reason.
In fact only reproductive tendencies and a few points about teeth ot skulls etc separate otherwise same shaped creatures.
The classification here has been on these minor points because they can't imagine how a whole fauna in a area could evolve a like reproductive etc mode.
Yet they try to say niche brought about same looking creatures requiring thousands of points of anatomy and time/selection/mutation.
I say the niche is the area or some reproductive stress need.
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.
This is by the way a common theme in classification about many orders of creatures. Marsupials is just a famous one.

Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?

No.
The migratrions to Australia happened soon after the flood over dry land. Then the land was drowned segregating life.
I see the mechanism as needed back then but not later.
It was probably just to maintain a steady reproduction on the fly. There was a rush to fill the earth quick. Its now in a neutral gear.

So, except for the swimming part, I did get your idea right?

A host of widely different animals migrated to Australia over some hypothetical landbridge and then they did experience the same kind of reproductive stress, which did lead to the development  of a similar  feature, the marsupial reproduction system?

This would be nothing, but convergent evolution. You are just trying to disprove, in the loosest sense of the word, convergent evolution with convergent evolution.

Your somewhat on target. Yes the niche was the stress or area and the origin of a common adaptation instantly.

Its not convergent evolution by way of mutation/selection.
Just quick draw innate triggered adaptation.
I know its new but the evidence forces this conclusion. Evolution doesn't have the evidence or just interpretation of common data.
Of coarse I also have a witness and boundaries from Genesis.

This is highly exciting, Robert.

Can you please give me the chapter and verse of Genesis in which God magically changed the Bauplan of the Australian mammals?

I am sure it is only because of my faulty Bible translations, that I can't find anything of such a claim in the book of Genesis.

Date: 2010/01/19 05:56:55, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:11)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 16 2010,04:59)
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.

My point about DNA is that it is just what it is. A atomic score for life. So since there is, we say, a common blueprint then common Dna scores should be expected if there is a close resemblance between parts.Dna is just a number for the parts department.
So my having the same Dna as a ape or a "marsupial with a marsupial" is not a trail of heritage but simply same, part, same dna.
In being related to my father its just a special case of very alike Dna because we were so close. Yet its not a accurate conclusion to draw back in time from this to other beings on earth just because of sameness in Dna.

Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:14)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?

Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.


So please explain me then, why we can induce morphological changes by changing the DNA (with a gene knock-out for example), but no changes in the DNA by changing an animal's morphology (by cutting off its tail for example)?

If we follow your idea, that the DNA changes after a morphological change,  we would expect it the other way round.

Date: 2010/01/21 07:08:16, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 21 2010,04:40)
Quote (Bjarne @ Jan. 19 2010,05:56)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:11)
 
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 16 2010,04:59)
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.

My point about DNA is that it is just what it is. A atomic score for life. So since there is, we say, a common blueprint then common Dna scores should be expected if there is a close resemblance between parts.Dna is just a number for the parts department.
So my having the same Dna as a ape or a "marsupial with a marsupial" is not a trail of heritage but simply same, part, same dna.
In being related to my father its just a special case of very alike Dna because we were so close. Yet its not a accurate conclusion to draw back in time from this to other beings on earth just because of sameness in Dna.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 19 2010,09:14)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 16 2010,07:22)
Robert, so you understand that your DNA is a lot like your dad's DNA. That means that a comparison of your DNA to his will show that you are his son.

How about your dad's DNA to his dad's DNA? It follows that that same test can show that your dad is his dad's son, right?

Do you suppose that same test might be able to tell that you and your brother are siblings?

Do you suppose that same test can tell that your first cousin is your first cousin?

Yet its not a logical conclusion, save without presumption, to keep going back. Like parts will make like dNA. Its just a special case with my relatives that it does track heritage.
It could only be that from a common blueprint Dna would be the same for like parts in like order.


So please explain me then, why we can induce morphological changes by changing the DNA (with a gene knock-out for example), but no changes in the DNA by changing an animal's morphology (by cutting off its tail for example)?

If we follow your idea, that the DNA changes after a morphological change,  we would expect it the other way round.

Fine. A little change will change things. its all from a common blueprint.
Perhaps a little dna change will turn back a marsupial mole to a regular mole.
Know where you can get these moles?

Why should I get marsupial moles? Its your idea that they are closely related and thus it is your duty to test it.

Date: 2010/01/29 05:01:13, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 28 2010,16:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 28 2010,08:36)
oh it howled at night huh.

Grasshopper mice howl at night too.

Q.E.D. Mouse=wolf

Therefore jebus.

But is it a vertebrate or an insect?

Date: 2010/02/01 13:35:53, Link
Author: Bjarne
Mr.Byers, I've read in this discussion, that the quoll is of the 'cat kind'. It seems like the reason for this is, that quolls are also called 'marsupial cats'.

Do you agree with that?

Date: 2010/02/03 12:01:40, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 03 2010,18:23)
Quote (Lowell @ Feb. 03 2010,08:55)
Quote
the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.

Robert should use this as the title for his Ph.D. dissertation at Patriot University.

The first line could be, "Hello, my name is Robert Byers." Just like Kent Hovind's "dissertation."

Did anyone keep a copy of Kent's opus? I only see an error message from the wikileaks page.

I think I still have one. Is it possible to send pdf files by PM on this board?

Date: 2010/02/13 11:02:53, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 12 2010,07:10)
Are you trying to say the mar/wolf once hopped and lost the ability or that it was evolving toward hopping and didn't quite make it?

Well, yes. It once hopped and then lost this trait due to the species' extinction. Being dead greatly reduces one's hopping ability.

Date: 2010/02/17 05:23:16, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Feb. 17 2010,10:52)
iTS NOT IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER IN THIS CASE.

It is. Right next to the cone of cold and the ray of disintegration.

Date: 2010/02/18 07:29:13, Link
Author: Bjarne
Its pretty impressive though, that you can make almost a whole introductions from various iterations of the sentence: "Ken Ham is the President of AIG and thus the Creation Museum"

Date: 2010/03/03 15:04:06, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (snoeman @ April 18 2007,06:27)
Arden:
 
Quote
It's totally relative based on what your first language is. For an English speaker, Finnish is a motherfucker. For an Estonian, it's a walk in the park. For an English speaker, Dutch is a challenge but not THAT hard. Dutch would be vastly harder for a speaker of, say, Chinese.


How about Romance languages vs. Germanic languages for English speakers? I took French in highschool and German in college.  Personally, I found German much easier for me to learn than French, but I've wondered if my experience was not typical based on some anecdotal comments I've heard over the years.

Out of curiosity, if it's not too silly a question, do languages exhibit any kind of patterns or preferences in how new words or concepts are added over time? (e.g., tending to adopt from other languages, creating them based upon older words (or whatever the proper way of expressing that would be))

I ask because I've always liked the German version of "vacuum cleaner," i.e., "Staubsauger" or "Dust Sucker."  Equally descriptive, and more pithy, in my opinion.

I know this is pretty close to necromancy,  but...

I am a native speaker of German and had both English and French at school. Languages are certainly not my strong suit, but English was, with quite some work, manageable  to learn. After having learned some basic English, it was not too alien and I did recognize many parallels to German.

French on the other hand was a bitch to learn and I am barely able to understand it, let alone speak it.

Date: 2010/03/09 04:01:59, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!

Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.

Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?

Date: 2010/03/11 07:53:13, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
 
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!

Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.

Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?

No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.

Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?

Date: 2010/03/12 08:59:10, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,08:38)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,09:44)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 11 2010,07:53)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 11 2010,08:11)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 09 2010,04:01)
   
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 09 2010,07:12)
   
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 05 2010,11:12)
     
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 04 2010,22:54)
Genetics are not a trail but a result of like parts equals like dna.
No evolution here by selection on mutation and so. So it also teaches that creatures did change suddenly from innate abilities to adapt to the earth.

This would explain much about fossil and living diversity.

With all due respect, it wouldn't explain crap.

The genetics is irrelevant? What do you propose happens? The animal changes shape, grows a pouch, and then the DNA changes in response?

All your research team needs to do is explain this mechanism, and you're all set!

Well genetics was not my agenda when I began. I just ran into the claims of genetics to draw relationship between marsupials when in fact they are unrelated to each other save from like influences.
Dna is in fact just representing a parts department in life. Its only a special case that having such intimate like parts allows me to be connected to my father.
Therefore it must be there is a innate ability of life to react to influences in order to thrive. This atomic code means that when a change has taken place then ones dna will have changed too.
Dna is hand in glove with the living creature. Change the creature change the dna. The dna of coarse must be a part of the change.
Anyways dna is a primitive entry subject.
The relationships between creatures must be and is by anatomical principals.

Okay, I'll ask you this question again:
According to your speculation, DNA changes in reaction to anatomical changes in an animal. This idea predicts, that a mouse's DNA would change after we cut off its tail. Do you agree with that?


And a second question:
IF DNA does not do what we think it to do, how are proteins produced in a cell?

No. The tail didn't change but was removed without a innate change.
I'm saying Dna and bodies are hand in glove. The complexity of the body allows ideas that innate triggers are there to bring change to the body and so the Dna would also have added or subtracted from some atomic points.
As surely as upon puberty there is a change in the body though it includes the dna. The dna in this case has within already a ability to bring change. Its just a further step that change can change the dna.

Do I understand you correctly? You assume, that during puberty, our DNA changes?

And, how are proteins produced in cells?

I'm more concerned how DNA changes at "atomic points" - does that mean DNA is the same size as atoms?  Is DNA a new elementary particle?   Does this mean DNA is produced in the furnace of stars like heavier elements?  

Robert sounds like he gets his genetics from bad sci fi or horrible comic books.  

Robert, in science, let alone just English, words have specific meanings.  I know your crew likes to toss words out as if they can mean whatever you want them to mean, but they can't.  We call it "using sciency words" - using scientific terms in completely wrong usages in order to give a crackpot idea some illusion of science to the rubes.  I doubt you even know the meaning of half the words you use, and like Quack said, it's probably useless to try to teach you, since you are both unwilling and probably unable to learn.

I do see DNA as a atomic thing. I mean the smallness of nature revealing itself.
Dna is still  a very primitive field still. Conclusions are being made with no substantial evidence. So creationism can offer alternatives.
The evidence shows quick instant adaptation. So Dna must be flexible to aid in this.
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher on earth. So I know DNA is not a trail here but only a indication that like parts equal like DNA. Also a change to different parts amongst many unrelated creatures will result in like DNA for those parts.
No reason not to see it that way.

And how are proteins produced in cells?

Date: 2010/03/15 05:13:18, Link
Author: Bjarne
My cat has fur and a tail and claws and fangs, too. I wonder if it is also of the dog kind, Mr.Byers?

Additional proof: I called it a cat whelp, when he was smaller. And its food looks pretty much like the food I gave to my dog.

Date: 2010/03/24 03:39:20, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

 
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

Date: 2010/03/30 03:49:31, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,10:11)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

   
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.

If I am not totally mistaken, viviparous snakes are actually ovoviviarous. This means, that the already eggs breed on their way through the mothers body.
As far as I know, they do not have a placenta (a placenta is only found in  the clade Eutheria) , nor something close to it.
Thus all it takes to develop ovovivipary in a oviparous animal is  the eggs to be retained in the mother's body for a longer period of time. This is everything, but a drastic change.

And Mr.Byers, would you be so kind to explain how proteins are produced in cells? After all, according to your statements , they are not produced the way we do thing them to be produced.

Date: 2010/04/06 08:04:36, Link
Author: Bjarne
My cat just came home with this little fellow:



Its a grass snake (Natix natix). As far as I know, the only snake species present in my region.

Date: 2010/04/07 07:18:11, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Robert Byers @ April 05 2010,05:53)
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 30 2010,03:49)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 30 2010,10:11)
 
Quote (Bjarne @ Mar. 24 2010,03:39)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 24 2010,10:10)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 20 2010,09:35)
Meanwhile, over at The Panda's Thumb Byers undermines his argument:

     
Quote
In any issue of determining if old bones are of humans and not apes there is a clue. The bible teaches that women uniquely have great pain at childbirth. Animals do not. This is a great anatomical reality of our women’s skeleton and so if there is a female hobbit one just needs to examine, if possible, whether she had pain at childbirth by looking at her skeleton. If so we got a daughter of Adam. if not we got a dumb old monkey.


So we can tell the difference between "monkey" and human by looking at reproduction, but not marsupial and placental?

Reproduction can be different and yet not is evidence of segregated kinds.
Snakes can bear live young or by eggs yet they are still snakes.
With people there is a express intervention in nature by God to make a difference in reproduction. Animals are not affected.

Please, do you have any concrete idea, how snakes give birth? You might see that the difference between vivipary (actually ovivivipary in snakes) and ovipary is minuscule.
The difference between placental and marsupial reproduction on the other hand is less so.


And Mr.Byers, how are proteins produced in cells, if DNA does not do what we think it to do?

As I understand it. Some snakes deliver with eggs and some by live birth. The latter even have placental or close. In fact I was told this by evolution folks.

If I am not totally mistaken, viviparous snakes are actually ovoviviarous. This means, that the already eggs breed on their way through the mothers body.
As far as I know, they do not have a placenta (a placenta is only found in  the clade Eutheria) , nor something close to it.
Thus all it takes to develop ovovivipary in a oviparous animal is  the eggs to be retained in the mother's body for a longer period of time. This is everything, but a drastic change.

And Mr.Byers, would you be so kind to explain how proteins are produced in cells? After all, according to your statements , they are not produced the way we do thing them to be produced.

Just by what you said you make my case. It is quite a change. The principal is that some snakes birth live and some eggs. this is indeed a minor point but likewise placentals just"hold" thier offspring longer.
I was told by evolutionist opponents placentals were involved in the live birthing. i haven't studied it. i was educated only recently on forums like this. I see my point holding up either way.

I have no idea what your protein point is about!

Its quite interesting how each and every fact seems to "make your point". You seem to be intellectually rather flexible.

My point on the protein synthesis is, that to our understanding DNA plays an important part in it. DNA is basically the template from which proteins are copied. It is the blueprint for all of our proteins and thus, since proteins somehow the "bricks" we are made of,it is the blueprint for ourself and all other living organisms. I van explain it a bit more in detail, if you want, but as an expert, you will surely know the mechanism already.
Yet you deny that DNA has this role and you argue, that DNA is nothing, but an inventory list. One has therefore to conclude, that you do disagree with our modern understanding of protein synthesis.
So, how are proteins produced, if DNA is not involved in protein synthesis?

Date: 2010/07/05 16:46:44, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 03 2010,16:52)


This is one of the pictures in "Alpha" by Jens Harder, a hardcover comic about the history of our planet - 350 pages of sometimes scientific, sometimes phantastic drawings, black on white, red, or yellow, painstakingly inked. And it's only the first of two volumes; it ends with the first humans. He tries to be as scientifically accurate as possible.

Of course ideal for kids, but also for adults who share his enthusiasm for science and its wonders.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alpha-directions-Jens-Harder/dp/2742781021

Strangely, I could not find it on Amazon.com.

Hmm, this might be the perfect birthday present for my dad. Though € 50 is a bit much for a comic book for my taste. Is it worth the money?


I've just begun reading "The Greatest shown on Earth" in the hope of finding inspirations for future Biology classes. So far it looks quite promising in this respect.

Furthermore, I read Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" for the 4th or 5th time. Its really a nice book in my eyes.

Date: 2010/07/06 15:45:27, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 06 2010,13:41)
Quote (Bjarne @ July 05 2010,16:46)
Hmm, this might be the perfect birthday present for my dad. Though € 50 is a bit much for a comic book for my taste. Is it worth the money?

I think it is - it's huge, approximately 20 by 30 cm, elegant lay-out, expensive paper, and the drawings are real artwork.

Thanks. Its now definitely on the list of possible presents. :)

Date: 2010/08/25 07:23:23, Link
Author: Bjarne
Quote (Bjarne @ July 06 2010,22:45)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 06 2010,13:41)
Quote (Bjarne @ July 05 2010,16:46)
Hmm, this might be the perfect birthday present for my dad. Though € 50 is a bit much for a comic book for my taste. Is it worth the money?

I think it is - it's huge, approximately 20 by 30 cm, elegant lay-out, expensive paper, and the drawings are real artwork.

Thanks. Its now definitely on the list of possible presents. :)

Bought it for him and it really makes a great appearance. Unfortunately, I've hadn't heard yet, if he liked it.

 

 

 

=====