The Theory of Evolution

[Riprorin]

"Every now and then evolution throws up a creature so perfectly adapted to its way of life that improvement seems impossible. Such species are rewarded by longevity. They survive for eons with little change. They become what evolutionary biologists call "living fossils."

The dragonfly is a living fossil, one of the oldest orders in the animal kingdom."

Chet Raymo is a professor of physics at Stonehill College and the author of several books on science.
© THE BOSTON GLOBE - MONDAY, JULY 26, 1993

Link

 

[dannybin1742]

since you don't have the rocks to answer my previous questions, what do you have a college degree in and when did you get it?

i guess it was not in science, which is funny considering some of the people you are arguing with in this thread have degrees in various fields of science.

in essence someone who knows jack sh!t about biological science is agruing a concept they have absolutely no grasp on, and the kicker is you are just cutting an pasteing from websites that cherry pick facts and quotes, which has been show many time on this and other threads by more than a handful of us

 

[dannybin1742]

what was the point of that article? i'm at a loss here

looks like another one of those, hey this smart guys said it, it must be right quotes

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"Every now and then evolution throws up a creature so perfectly adapted to its way of life that improvement seems impossible. Such species are rewarded by longevity. They survive for eons with little change. They become what evolutionary biologists call "living fossils."

The dragonfly is a living fossil, one of the oldest orders in the animal kingdom."

Yes it is from the oldest phylum. That still doesn't prove that it's unchanged. Its a completely different species, even if it is from the oldest phylum. Show me a modern dragonfly in a fossil from the mecene era. You won't be able to, they are completely different species from the same group. Just as the alligator and crocodile are fairly simliar to their ancestors from the plestocine era the dragonfly is very similar to it's ancestors but that doesn't mean it's the same species as you claim.

But what you will do is redefine species to be general enough to handle the dragonflies changes, then redefine it strictly to discount other evidence of evolution. You will rewrite the definition to fit your needs under each individual circumstance. That isn't science, it's lieing.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Chet Raymo is a professor of physics

And yet another example, when you need a quote from modern times you find an unrelated scientist who is an evangelical and get him to talk about biology or anthropology. Cause you know, if he has a PhD in physics he's obviously an expert on dragonfly morphology. :thumbsup:

You know, what you posted might be more interesting if you didn't read it right out of the creationist play book, either that or the anti-evolutionists came up with a different line of attack than what they have been using for the last 30 years.

 

[dannybin1742]

owned again and again, doesn't it get old rip?

anyone notice how rip doesn't even show his profile?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
since you don't have the rocks to answer my previous questions, what do you have a college degree in and when did you get it?

B.S. Chemistry, minor in biology, Magna Cum Laude, (GPA = 3.76), 1982.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"Every now and then evolution throws up a creature so perfectly adapted to its way of life that improvement seems impossible. Such species are rewarded by longevity. They survive for eons with little change. They become what evolutionary biologists call "living fossils."

The dragonfly is a living fossil, one of the oldest orders in the animal kingdom."

Yes it is from the oldest phylum. That still doesn't prove that it's unchanged. Its a completely different species, even if it is from the oldest phylum. Show me a modern dragonfly in a fossil from the mecene era. You won't be able to, they are completely different species from the same group. Just as the alligator and crocodile are fairly simliar to their ancestors from the plestocine era the dragonfly is very similar to it's ancestors but that doesn't mean it's the same species as you claim.

But what you will do is redefine species to be general enough to handle the dragonflies changes, then redefine it strictly to discount other evidence of evolution. You will rewrite the definition to fit your needs under each individual circumstance. That isn't science, it's lieing.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Chet Raymo is a professor of physics

And yet another example, when you need a quote from modern times you find an unrelated scientist who is an evangelical and get him to talk about biology or anthropology. Cause you know, if he has a PhD in physics he's obviously an expert on dragonfly morphology. :thumbsup:

You know, what you posted might be more interesting if you didn't read it right out of the creationist play book, either that or the anti-evolutionists came up with a different line of attack than what they have been using for the last 30 years.

Stonehill is a Catholic college and the author, Professor Raymo, is an evolutionist.

 

[dannybin1742]

bs in chem and you don't understand how complex molecules can form in a reducing environment? basic organic has not changed that much in the last 23 years. i'm a biochemist and i know that........ you had to have taken organic, and biology has changed immensly in the last 23 years, as other posters have shown you

so whats your job?

so aaahhh,

yeah, how long have humans been around by current dating techniques, give or take 10k year is ok with me?

here is my estimate 100-120k years

in you infinite wizdumb how do you explain light from galaxies 1 billion light years away reaching earth if the earth is not at lease 1 billion years old?

or what would you say if we found primative life on another planet?

 

[conjur]

He's a professor of Astronomy and Physics...far from a biologist/evolutionist. Minoring in a subject does not make one an expert in that field...far from it.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
bs in chem and you don't understand how complex molecules can form in a reducing environment? basic organic has not changed that much in the last 23 years. i'm a biochemist and i know that........ you had to have taken organic, and biology has changed immensly in the last 23 years, as other posters have shown you

so whats you job?

I'm a senior scientist in the research laboratories of a major corporation.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
bs in chem and you don't understand how complex molecules can form in a reducing environment? basic organic has not changed that much in the last 23 years. i'm a biochemist and i know that........ you had to have taken organic, and biology has changed immensly in the last 23 years, as other posters have shown you

so whats you job?

I'm a senior scientist in the research laboratories of a major corporation.

How about letting us know which company so we can all dump our stock.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
bs in chem and you don't understand how complex molecules can form in a reducing environment? basic organic has not changed that much in the last 23 years. i'm a biochemist and i know that........ you had to have taken organic, and biology has changed immensly in the last 23 years, as other posters have shown you

so whats you job?

I'm a senior scientist in the research laboratories of a major corporation.

How about letting us know which company so we can all dump our stock.

LOL. So cold.

 

[dannybin1742]

a senior scientist without a phd? you expect me to beleive that, what a joke....


have you ever browsed through the senior research positions at pfizer or merck?

all REQUIRE a phd, post doc and at least 5 years experience, even in 1982 i'm sure they were requiring a phd for a senior research position, and with your lack of knowledge in organic demonstrated in the three other threads on this topic, i think you are lying

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
a senior scientist without a phd? you expect me to beleive that, what a joke....

Yup. I'm fortunate that my company cares about what you produce, not what your degrees are.

It helps that I have 53 US patents and have developed and commercialized products that have received awards from trade publications/organizations and have had success in the marketplace.

p.s. I didn't start in R&D. I worked as a small scale production/development chemist for about 6 years. After I completed a 2 yr internal technical training program, I worked for several years as a product engineer in manufacturing and moved over to R&D in 1995.

You can believe whatever you choose.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
He's a professor of Astronomy and Physics...far from a biologist/evolutionist. Minoring in a subject does not make one an expert in that field...far from it.

So?

And Darwin enrolled at Christ's College, Cambridge in 1827 on a BA course to qualify as a clergyman.

 

[shoegazer]

senior scientist? but, you aren't a scientist!

if you were you would give us a falsifiable hypothesis to explain life on this planet. but, you can't even do that. i've given you an example of a way to falsify evolution.

(advanced organism millions of years before it should appear in the fossil record. ie Homo sapiens over a million years ago)

creationism and intelligent design are not falsifiable. any evidence for anything can be made to fit them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
He's a professor of Astronomy and Physics...far from a biologist/evolutionist. Minoring in a subject does not make one an expert in that field...far from it.

So?

And Darwin enrolled at Christ's College, Cambridge in 1827 on a BA course to qualify as a clergyman.

And Poptarts are to be microwaved for 3 seconds.


Your point?

 

[dannybin1742]

t helps that I have 53 US patents and have developed and commercialized products that have received awards from trade publications/organizations and have had success in the marketplace.

p.s. I didn't start in R&D. I worked as a small scale production/development chemist for about 6 years. After I completed a 2 yr internal technical training program, I worked for several years as a product engineer in manufacturing and moved over to R&D in 1995.

this doesn't answer what you do?

so let me get this straight, you are a senior research scientist, who doesn't believe in science, can't answer simple dating questions when asked 6 times, and has no knowledge of simple organic chemistry even though you have a degree in chemistry.................. sounds to me like you are an technician, not a scientist

how many of those patents do you get royalties off of? if there were filed by a company you get zero, unless the company gives you money in good will

 

[dannybin1742]

you still have not explained what you R&D


i'll can be open with what i do, i do kinetics and crystalography on the enzyme SAICAR synthetase, which is heavily upregulated in various forms of cancer, but it not well understood, i my is the first paper that i authored with another grad student, he cloned the gene, i did the kinetics and statistical analysis,

as proof of what i work on, you can take my name and plug it into the iowa state phone directory and you'll see that i'm a grad student

oh yes

let me help you answer those questions i asked 6 times

how old is the earth 6-8B years old

how long have humans been walking around 100-120k years

dinosaurs did not walk with humans, there became extinct 65mya

so you are telling me if you boss asked you these questions (though highly unlikely) you couldn't even guess any answers IYO

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It helps that I have 53 US patents and have developed and commercialized products that have received awards from trade publications/organizations and have had success in the marketplace.

As you should know, you don't hold any patents, the company you work for may have put your name on said patents but they aren't yours and I sincerely doubt you are singly responsible for said patent as such a thing would be unheard of in a corporate environment. Just to clarify, I don't doubt that your name may be on them, and you may have played a large role in their development but I do not believe you have any control over said patents nor were you singlerly responsible for the inventions.

It bothers me when people take singular credit for what was undoubtably team work that is owned by a corporate entity. :|

 

[dannybin1742]

take for example the 5 1/4 in che disk, my mom who was a packaging engineer in the 80s filed a patent through verbatim for inventing the plastic case that that thin disk sits in (i'm serious, she has the patent plaque and everythng from it), but she only received $1 from verbatim, she stopped working for them in 86, yet they made lots of money off it

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
a senior scientist without a phd? you expect me to beleive that, what a joke....

Yup. I'm fortunate that my company cares about what you produce, not what your degrees are.

It helps that I have 53 US patents and have developed and commercialized products that have received awards from trade publications/organizations and have had success in the marketplace.

p.s. I didn't start in R&D. I worked as a small scale production/development chemist for about 6 years. After I completed a 2 yr internal technical training program, I worked for several years as a product engineer in manufacturing and moved over to R&D in 1995.

You can believe whatever you choose.

Behold the blinding power of faith.

"I can see the light... It burns!"

 

[0marTheZealot]

He's no more a scientist than Bin Laden is a firm believer in the trinity. See through the smoke. An incoming freshman wouldn't have made half the logical fallacies Rip has made in a single post.

 

[LT4CAMSS]

Dannybin1742 - I may have missed some new developments since last fall. Can you tell me when the estimate changed for the age of the earth? I last heard 4.9 (~5) Billion years. Please get back to me. It is of interest to me. Thanks.

 

[Czar]

nm