|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/07/2006 : 16:23:57 [Permalink]
|
Cyclops are a deformity, not a mutation, that occurs at a specific stage of developement.
As Dave_W pointed out, there are several known causes.
And I'll join with Dave in asking who it was that claimed this cat was an "icon of atheism".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 17:11:57 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Dude, some instances of trisomy 13 can be considered a "mutation," especially since lots of other whole-chromosome duplications are responsible for the diversity we see (and happen quite frequently in the plant world - look at those ferns with 600 chromosomes, for example). While some other chromosome duplications may not harm a human, trisomy 13 appears to generally be fatal.
My point was simply that without actual genetic testing, calling the problem which afflicted "Cy" a "mutation" is wholly without merit. And since I've got no clue as to what particular mutations might be responsible for cyclopia in cats, we'd need a veterinary geneticist specializing in felines to explain what kind of genetic testing is needed. Perhaps Mr. Adolfi has that sort of expert lined up and ready to go...
And yeah, I still want to know what sort of moron dubbed the poor cat an "icon of atheism." Whoever it was (if it was anyone), I bet the argument probably went along the lines of "no loving god would ever let such a thing happen, therefore god doesn't exist." It's a pathetic argument, but it seems pretty popular in general.
[Edited to correct spelling of Adolfi's name] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 18:19:56 [Permalink]
|
Whilst checking out a couple of news sites, I happened across this: quote:
One-Eyed Kitten Sold To Museum Exploring Creationism
UPDATED: 5:06 am PDT April 7, 2006
Email This Story | Print This Story
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A one-eyed, noseless kitten that stirred debate last year over whether it was a hoax will be the centerpiece of a new museum intended to promote the theory of creationism.
John Adolfi plans to feature Cy's remains at The Lost World Museum when it opens later this year. The Phoenix, N.Y., museum will feature such oddities as giant plants and eggs, deformed animal remains and unique archaeological finds, he said.
Adolfi believes in creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation.
He wrote on the museum's Web site that the theory of evolution states that "environmental pressures can lift species from the ape-like creature ... to us today. My question is this. Are there really positive mutations?
Doesn't look like it has anything we didn't already know -- just thought I'd mention it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2006 : 00:15:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
quote:
Actually, Dude, some instances of trisomy 13 can be considered a "mutation," especially since lots of other whole-chromosome duplications are responsible for the diversity we see (and happen quite frequently in the plant world - look at those ferns with 600 chromosomes, for example). While some other chromosome duplications may not harm a human, trisomy 13 appears to generally be fatal.
Most instances of polyploidy in humans are unfavorable or fatal.
Polyploidy is a significant mechanism in plant diversity, yes. But when plants experience this type of speciation event it is usually the whole set of chromosomes getting an extra chromosome.
And it is technically a mutation.
I was intending to say that it is probably not the most common cause of cyclopia when compared to the various known reasons that cause a developemental deformity. i.e. deformity is the more common cause. Didn't intend to imply that all cyclopia was strictly deformity, but it looks like that was what I said... must have been sleeping at the keyboard or something.
I guess Bibleland will conveniently leave out the dozens of known, thriving, plant species that are the result of chromosomal polyploidy mutations.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 04/08/2006 00:24:42 |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 19:17:04 [Permalink]
|
I like the reworded idea in the second piece better:If Mr Adolfi is paying good money for one-eyed oddities, I can provide him with bucketsful. And especially giggle-inducing is one of the comments:you clearly can't swing a dead cat in this country without hitting a creationist nincompoop. Though I don't completely agree with the last word in Mr. Adolfi's case - though it would be nice if he'd come back and comment on some of the replies his announcement has generated here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 16:21:14 [Permalink]
|
I must say, the quality of arguments has certainly improved over at the Lost Clue Museum.
quote:
From the Lost World Museum news.
"Evolutionists insist that all life is the result of “millions of beneficial chance mutations” that happened over millions of years — yeah, those mutations really worked well for Cy Kitty!
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 17:07:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
I must say, the quality of arguments has certainly improved over at the Lost Clue Museum.
quote:
From the Lost World Museum news.
"Evolutionists insist that all life is the result of “millions of beneficial chance mutations” that happened over millions of years — yeah, those mutations really worked well for Cy Kitty!
For someone who claims "Yes I'm YEC however I want to understand what your position is before I speak.", he seems quite unwilling to understand. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 23:07:18 [Permalink]
|
Bibleland, "Cy" is merely an Icon of Changing the Subject, and a perfect demonstration that you moronic Creationists would rather operate a freak and snake oil show than do science.
Scientists have never said that most mutations (of which which poor Cy, anyway, was apparently not an example) are beneficial. But with billions of years, mutations that were beneficial to species have occurred, over and over again, irrefutably, and with the evidence literally carved in stone eons before the date you suppose your God created the cosmos.
If you choose to insist that your twisted version of God created this stony evidence, and all the evidence of an ancient universe, just in order to test humanity in some way, then you are either crazy, stupid, or a liar. Or, more likely a little bit of each of the above.
Bibleland, I don't know where you plan to go to find the kind of knuckle-dragging rubes who you think might be religiously inspired by a sad little deformed kitten in a jar, but I know you have simply made a fool of yourself here; which is to say, you have accurately presented yourself and your ideology. And for that, at least, I thank you.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 06:17:57 [Permalink]
|
I rather be a fool in my attempt of letting the world know that mutations whether positive, neutral or negative over millions of years are one of the mechanisms of human (macro) development. I do not believe most people know this. Yet I'm helping your cause if evolutionary theory is correct.
Many through the repetition of one voice in the secular media are brainwashed in believing that rain on rocks over billions of years can develop on its own to a point of us having this discussion on this forum. Who's fooling who here? |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2006 : 06:19:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
I rather be a fool in my attempt of letting the world know that mutations whether positive, neutral or negative over millions of years are one of the mechanisms of human (macro) development. I do not believe most people know this. Yet I'm helping your cause if evolutionary theory is correct.
Many through the repetition of one voice in the secular media are brainwashed in believing that rain on rocks over billions of years can develop on its own to a point of us having this discussion on this forum. Who's fooling who here?
You aren't fooling anyone here, and you didn't answer any questions. Please try again. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Reztasohk
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2006 : 23:58:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Many through the repetition of one voice in the secular media are brainwashed in believing that rain on rocks over billions of years can develop on its own to a point of us having this discussion on this forum. Who's fooling who here?
Why is it that you people seem to think that an imaginary man in the clouds pulling reality out of his ass holds more credibility than scientifically proven evidence? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 05:45:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
I rather be a fool in my attempt of letting the world know that mutations whether positive, neutral or negative over millions of years are one of the mechanisms of human (macro) development. I do not believe most people know this. Yet I'm helping your cause if evolutionary theory is correct.
Many through the repetition of one voice in the secular media are brainwashed in believing that rain on rocks over billions of years can develop on its own to a point of us having this discussion on this forum. Who's fooling who here?
Evolutionary theory is correct, as has been pointed out, with reference, on occasions to numerous to keep track of. Also, most of the 'secular' media is full of shit, as has been pointed out by they, themselves on even more numerous occasions -- almost every time they open their mouths.
If you're going to discuss science, then reference scientists, not some talking head with barely enough brains to pour sand out of a boot. Same goes for religion -- they know jack-shit about that, as well. In such a case, the wise man will reference theologians.
Rain washing over rocks might be a good example of erosive processes, but it has nothing to do with either evolution nor abiogenesis. You are falling into an all too common logical fallacy: the Straw Man. It is easy to attack and destroy "rain-washed rocks over billions of years" which no one ever claimed, by the way; not so easy to refute the ongoing research even though it has not yet reached it's conclusions.
C'mon John; we can do better than this...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/01/2006 05:53:31 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 05:46:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reztasohk
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Many through the repetition of one voice in the secular media are brainwashed in believing that rain on rocks over billions of years can develop on its own to a point of us having this discussion on this forum. Who's fooling who here?
Why is it that you people seem to think that an imaginary man in the clouds pulling reality out of his ass holds more credibility than scientifically proven evidence?
Just to be pedantic, evidence is not scientifically proven. Nor can it be used to prove. It can support or not support a scientific theory, thats about it. In fact, scientific theories are never "proven" either. They are accepted if they are supported by enough evidence. Evolution, for example, is not proven, it is supported by the preponderence of evidence.
Thats my understanding anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, because it always bugs me a bit when people talk about evidence as proof, as in "show me evidence that proves such-and-such".
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2006 : 06:39:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In fact, scientific theories are never "proven" either. They are accepted if they are supported by enough evidence. Evolution, for example, is not proven, it is supported by the preponderence of evidence
This is splitting hairs. Though technically right, when someone says that evolutionary theory is proven to be true, they mean that it has enough strong supporting evidence to be considered as true. Science is always tentative, and when talking about science, you can assume a person is talking tentatively.
To always be grammatically precise in every sentence you utter, as a philosopher would have us do, is as ridiculous as it is annoying. I am reminded of the movie "The Life of Brian" by Monty Python where every time a person made a statement "Man..." a character would add in "and woman". |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/01/2006 06:43:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
