Stupid Americans trying to argue against evolution and Western Europeans wearing speedos to the beach - two things I've never been able to wrap my head around. It's not like it's complicated.
Evolution is just statistics for biologists, for some reason applied way too late based on throughout observation instead of the usual "F yeah, statistics!", and you look silly with a piece of fabric underscoring your limp dick. What is there hard to get?!?
Looking to the Gospels as "a suitable source of scientific information" or even as a precise, editorial and historical record of Jesus' life is rather like reading a biography about Lance Armstrong with the expectation of learning about life on Mars...it's not that the biography was wrong, it was that the reader brought with them a false set of expectations. :P
a good man is edward. he was strong in the anti war demonstration back in 2005 in scotland. not a big fan of men in make up, but he carries it off well. just saying. ;)
That makes no sense Eddy, they are just a different species, you get mud skippers, you get normal fish and the flying ones, and they are not still evolving, nobodys ever found any fossil evidence to back up if they ever evolved!
That means its purely human opinion!, and not science!.
@85Aheadstix not different species different breeds cause they are all fish and what is a breed then a group of the species evolving differently then the others he is not talking about the fish evolving in that specific order he is talking about the different breeds of fish seperatly
@Plestod Well yeah, thats called micro evolution or change within a species, but no creature can change into something completely different given any amount of time or chance, its Biologically impossible.
@85Aheadstix aparently you dont know much about biology humanity is in the species group called the primates and yet we look and think completely differnent then the rest of the species if given enough time a species can evolve into what ever is needed to survive and thus different breeds so dont say that no living thing can evolve no matter how much time cause even you are evolving as you read this dont underestimate life on the planet
@Plestod No im sorry, but thats not evolution your talking about, thats purely addaption, its a Biological fact that no creature can change into a completely different one given any amount of time or chance!, if you knew anything about genetics you would know that!.
genes do not mutate without end, if they do mutate they either become cancarous or simply revert back to their default state, i think you should read Dr Joseph mastropaolos( PH.d in biology) Why Evolution is Biologically impossible
@85Aheadstix Why is it impossible? Those that mutate "wrong" die, others live. All people are mutants. We all carry not very perfect copy of half of DNA of our parents.
There is proof of speciation. There are examples of new useful traits gained through evolution in a comparatively short period of time(E.Coli).
Anyone is welcome to try to destroy evolution. There is a lot of fame and money in this. But somehow in 150 years no one did.
"but thats not evolution your talking about, thats purely addaption"
Evolution = When addaptaions occur repeatively until enough subsequent adaptations have happend over enough time as to have altered the new form from the original by a large enough margin to make it distinctly different.
@whiteowl1415 Pfft!, thats pure assumption!, no body has ever proved that!, a gene can only mutate to certain extent, after that it siimply reverts back to its default state.
i'd love to see just one crap of credible evidence to back that up, remember, unless it can be observed, repeated and tested here and now in the observable world its simply assumption!, or human opinion!, not SCIENCE!.
@whiteowl1415 I'am afraid they do, even if a mutation occurs it s an error and usually becomes cancerous, either that or simpy reverts back to its defualt state, thats genetic fact!, i have over 30 pages to back this up, all peer reviewed by Hubert yockey peer reviewing board, even genetecist Dr Arthur jones Called it "PH.d proof"
Also watch Forbidden science: shattering the myths of Darwinian evolution.
@whiteowl1415 Well i dont really know abou that, but all i do know is that genes cannot mutate forever, its simply just an impossibility, Biologists knwo this for a fact even if they do not want to admit it.
And yes, dawkins does suck and has been destroyed by Mathematician and logical thinker John lennox.
@85Aheadstix mutant gene is ONE gene among others, and it can take place or get replace by others but they not really TURNING BACK TO DEFAULT. They just are flodded by others, until they disapear, the chance of coming back getting lower each generation and new mix gene. if some gene turn back to default, its a mutation in itself. The DNA cannot change completely diferent, but this is interpretation by the concept of degree and after what limits something turn a little different to completely.
Yes speciation has occurred and will continue to occur. There is nothing "biologically impossible" about that. Given time and genetic bottle necking as well as drift, complex macro evolution is the long term result of micro evolution based on continuous selection. This is solid science buddy and can't be argued with just because you say it can't happen. If you wan't to prove a point, you have to back it up with science. Let the big boys do the talking now.
What do you mean exactly by "genes cannot mutate forever"? Are you talking about the genes in one specific organism (like one specific bacterial cell and the lifetime it has, for example) or through generations (the daughter cells of that one specific bacteria and their daughter cells, etc.)? And by genes "reverting back to their default state" do you mean their "wild types"?
@Spetsop No i mean that a gene cannot mutate infinetly on and on, a gene has a limit to its mutation unless within the lifeforms own species, for example when they say that somehow a fish evolved legs over million of years, are we supposed to just accept that some how a fish evolved a set of legs over a million years???, so exactly where did the genetic information come from to say "grow legs", that kind of mutation is completey biologically impossible.
From what little I've bothered to read of your silly arguments it is clear that you have no understanding of evolution at all. Stop trying to sound smarter than you actually are because the end result is always the same; you end up looking stupid. Although for all i know you may be...
@z3r0t0l3r4ns macro evolution, which is what you're referring to, kinda', as most of your post is ad hominem, like most evos, is not a science, nor is there any supporting evidence, direct or otherwise. You have more faith in evolution than Darwin did and more faith than headstix has in the Bible because to be an evo, it requires faith, because there is no evidence.
@emaleroland America, what do you do to your sons to turn them into such iggerant fucktards, hmm?
Oh, we tell em about talking snakes, rib woman, a drunken 600 year old guy building a wooden fucking boat, ya know, TOTALLY internally conflict them whilst threatening hell
if they should ever try critical thinking, reason and logic to reject such utter guff.
Blimey, I'm not surprised they are totally fucked up?
@emaleroland America, what do you do to your sons to turn them into such iggerant fucktards, hmm?
Oh, we tell em about talking snakes, rib woman, a drunken 600 year old guy building a wooden fucking boat, ya know, TOTALLY internally conflict them whilst threatening hell
if they should ever try critical thinking, reason and logic to reject such utter guff.
Blimey, I'm not surprised they are totally fucked up?
@Spetsop ??, well i dont know, i didnt know they where numbered, the fact is dawkins was cronfronted by this and could not deny it once he saw the Hubert yockey peer reviewed evidence.
Which document, that's what I'm asking, what is your source?
And about genes not being able to mutate forever... so you do mean over generations of some life form? Why would it not be able to mutate forever, what's the process that's stopping it? As the DNA or RNA is replicated there is always a possibility of a gene mutating, some organisms just have a much better proof reading abilities to remove the mutated gene. But what would suddenly prevent it from mutating again?
@85Aheadstix Shame that Hubert Yockey actually agrees with evolution and has gone on record as stating that his comments have been selectively quote-mined by creationists.
As mentioned already, the Mastropoulos document is hilarious.
@hexkid Pfft!, BULLSHIT!, then Dr Arthur jones is a liar and all the pages i have sing a very differnt tune, besides i know that bullshit as person i got them from was at his rational respnse debate, im calling your bluff, thanks.
@85Aheadstix You've finally got there, you are right Dr Arthur Jones is a liar.
From Hubert Yockey's own page: "The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science."
Your bluff called and raised, yet more evidence that you have totally failed to investigate your sources.
@85Aheadstix You need to check your facts, Dr Joseph Mastropaolos has a BSc & PhD in Kinesiology not Biology. It is the study of physiology/physiotherapy and does not include the study of genetics or any detailed biology. Why are you suggesting that he is an expert on DNA and genetics?
If a glorified chiropractor is the best expert you have got then your argument is fatally flawed.
@hexkid Hmm no im afraid your wrong, above the document it says he is a PH.d in biology, and i got more information from UK geneticist Dr Arthur jones PH.d, infact hs is the guy that peer reviewed Mastropaolos work through Hubert yockey and called it "PH.d proof"
A glorified chiropractor??, have you even read his document????.
@85Aheadstix The document can claim whatever it likes but his actual qualifications are as follows:
B.S. in kinesiology from Brooklyn College (1950)
M.S in kinesiology from the University of Illinois (1955)
Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa (1958)
He has a complete lack of any training in genetics or general biology. That's like trying to claim that someone with a PhD in Mechnical Engineering is an expert on Quantum Mechanics.
@85Aheadstix You hardly need to have a black-belt in Google to figure out that this guy has no qualifications in Biology (especially genetics) all the info is there on his own web-site. The fact that you couldn't be bothered to check your sources is an indication of your gullibility and lack of intellectual integrity.
He writes about it because evolution threatens his belief in a bronze-age mythical creation story thats all.
@hexkid Pfft!, bullshit!, you can have any amount of micro evolution you want but the fact is that no creature can turn into something completely different!, thats fact!, show me any credible, testable, observable, and repeatble evidence from hear and now in the present that backs it up!, i dare ya!, cos nobody has, and i know evolutionary biologists!.
so my "stone aged" beliefs are even more backed up, against your fairy tale that a prince just turns into a frog, a true fairy tale.
@85Aheadstix According to evolution no creature does turn into a completely different creature without many thousands of intervening generations of mutations & natural selection. If a creature gave birth to a completely different species it would actually falsify the theory of evolution.
Evolution is both observable and repeatable both in nature and in the lab. I suggest you do some reading on Lenski's work with 50,000 generations of E-coli or Michael Rose's fruit-flies.
yes thats correct!, so where are these many millions!(as theyre should be) of tranitional fossils???
None have ever been found!, scientists have been confronted on this issue many times and they call it a "research" issue, the only issue seems to be that they dont exist!.
And yes evolution is repeatable, obervable and testable in a lab with viruses and ecoli as it takes days not millioons of years!, thats micro evolution, quite possible.
@85Aheadstix What? What? What? What is a 'transitional fossil' ? What do you think that is? There is none. ALL fossils and indeed all species are transitional. Then again, I'm not sure why I bother posting this because you don't show any inclination of actually researching. Of course animals don't transform, that's not what evolution means anyway.
@FrisianDude BULLSHIT!, thats crap!, theyre are no credible fossils that can be called transitional!, its called assumption by similarity!, not science!, but assumption!, even your precieous Tiktaalic was debunked!
@85Aheadstix How are you going to "debunk" it when you can't even spell it? It hasn't been debunked. It's significance was never in it being a "transitional" fossil. It's significance is in it's existence and even it's nearly EXACT LOCATION being predictable by evolutionary theory.
@85Aheadstix How about Archaeopteryx? Let me guess, it's either a lizard with well developed flight feathers or a bird with teeth, no beak, the wrong pelvis and claws on its wings. Face it. you're done. If you don't think so, well start next on microraptor.
@85Aheadstix I have read Mastropaolo's 'paper' entitled Life Devolves that he present to the EU Education Committee, it is hilarious. He claims that the human genome is 'devolving' because we have identified more genetic diseases in the last 20 years, these diseases have always been with us the fact that we have identified the cause to a specific mutation is called progress.
This document is truely a masterpiece in the Dunning Kruger Effect, epic.
@85Aheadstix I don't recall anyone suggesting that your trainers evolved.
New 'information' is added to the genome by a few processes that occur during replication. The most common is gene duplication where multiple copies of the same sequence of DNA are transposed. Once there are 2 copies of a gene the 2nd copy of mutate to create variants of the original gene which create different proteins (even a 2nd copy of the same protein can change the development of the embryo).
@85Aheadstix So you agree that mutations can and do add new information to the genome. That's at least a start to your education, I'll try and take it really slowly for you.
As to how did it all start that is not evolution, that is abiogenesis i.e. how life came from inorganic substances. There are a couple of v interesting alternatives, I suggest you do some reading on undersea vents or Dr John Sutherland's work on RNA from inorganic materials. Just consider it homework.
@hexkid yes, like i said before, evolution within a species is completely possible and its been proven, but for anything to completely change into something else given any amount of time and or change goes against the very laws of nature!!.
And no animal can do it today.
Ha!, and abiogensis?, what a load of assumed shit!, they can brove none of it!, its completely statistically and mathematically impossible!, Life cannot just happen from nothing, its impossible.
@85Aheadstix We will never be able to pin point the exact location of the original spark of life but Dr John Sutherland's worth has proved that it's not just possible but actually almost certain that self-replicating units would be formed in early Earth conditions in shallow puddles under IV radiation (i.e. sun-light with little oxone layer) and undergoing cycles of hydration & evaporation.
@hexkid Come on!, their have been countless experiments done by countless ecientists to attempt to create a self replocating sell, all attempts failed without any of them even coming up with the most basic proteins!, that all just proves that no chance created life, only intelligence can create.
Even the grat Miller said that "the idea of life arising from pure chance or non living matter was very un scientific" and he wrote the book on modern chemisty.
@85Aheadstix The creation of proteins didn't happen de-novo, there were much simpler self-replicating units before you get to the complexity of proteins. We already know how RNA -> DNA -> proteins progress and we can see how changes to the DNA affect the production of proteins. The bit of the jigsaw that was missing was how the first RNA formed and Sutherland has identified a solution to that element. Every time we will a hole your God-of-the-gaps gets smaller.
@85Aheadstix Look at it this way. We won't learn anything from the Bible. Bible told us the Earth was round? ok. Well we better find out what forces made it round. Bible didn't tell that. Bible told us the Earth is 6000 years old? Ok, we will take that. Let's study how the Grand Canyon and other stuff formed in that time. Bible told us it made all life? Ok. Let's study what is life and what species can do.
@85Aheadstix Yes but the Bible does not give us answers. The Bible did not teach us of the force of the gravity, the Bible did not teach us what layers are between the earth and the sun. The Bible did not teach us how the flowers procreate. The Bible did not tell us how rain or snow forms. The Bible did not tell us there are tiny tiny organisms we call bacteria that inhabit us. The Bible did not tell us how mountains formed and on and on. Science answers the "how?" questions.
@scrap222666 Pfft!, the Bible did not need to!, it gave us science to help explain that!, after all thats what science is!, the study of Gods creation!.
The layers where formed during the global flood(which i might add there is loads of evidence for) and the Bible does speak of atoms, it clearly says that "Creation is made up of tiny invisible elements" , thats atoms.
The Bible was written petically, not really in laymans terms, once you have studied theology you will understand this.
@scrap222666 Well i do trust them to an extent, its human opinion that i am against, there is no evolution and creation evidence, its all the same evidence its just that one scientists interpretation and of that evidence, i think creation makes far more sense then evolution, as we can observe, test and repeat everything within the 6 to 10 thousand year time scale, where as evolution is 4 billion years of assumption, nothing can be proved 100%, even dating methods are questionable.
@85Aheadstix Your ideas are all good but once you realize there is no higher agenda and treat evolution as any other scientific theory like perhaps string theory (also at it's infancy) you realize it has no real bearing anyway. So what if evolution is even 100% proven? Would it change anything? Bible just added more "not to be taken literally" stories in it. Original sin could of still taken place.
@scrap222666 String theory now???, now thats completey theoretic!, i saw a documentary on that and could not believe the amount of assumption, if thats all science has come down to these days Pure assumption, then i will never trust another mainsteam scientist again!.
And thats the thing, evolution is nowhere near 100% proven, infact countless evolutionists still say its got more holes then swiss cheese!, theyre are deffs more questions than answers!.
@85Aheadstix Exactly, now why is evolution any different from the string theory? How does it affect you more? They will probably teach string theory in some schools too, I mean it is a viable option.
Also if you want to argue, study biotechnology (like I do) or biology. Almost every reproductive process, especially the copying of protiens via tRNA and the creation and splitting of the double helix incorporates a certain error in the reproduction machanism, facilitating evolution. The more evolved a creature was, the more error it generated during evolution. Also the step-wise iterated process of organ creation is another proof. Countless others
Please tell me about on e hole in this theory. But lets just look at it logicly. Is there any flaw in its logic? Is there any reason to NOT believe it? There are countless reasons to believe. Also in response to your string theory jibe, string theory is in a branch of physics know as theoretical physics. There is almost no proof, and nor does anyone claim there is any. They just use occams razor, and elegance and logic to make progress.
@85Aheadstix The problem is that when you test a 6 to 10 thousand year time scale, it falls flat on its face. All assumptions stemming from it are moot.
@85Aheadstix Why should we consider the Bible to be a suitable source of scientific information when the Gospels can't even be consistent on fundamental facts such as the year that Jesus was born?
@85Aheadstix We'll add that to the increasingly long list of subjects that you know nothing about. Come on you must know your Bible if you are claiming it's the source of all knowledge. I didn't think that asking for something as basic as the year that Jesus was born would be too complicated for you to be able to deduce from the Gospels which are allegedly historically accurate.
Do some homework and quote me chapter & verse on the source of your info.
@hexkid The Gospels are slightly inconsistent because they were told by 4 different people, giving 4 different accounts of what happened in that time period... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John namely. No one knows specifically what year Jesus was born mate. If you had read your Bible you would know that, therefore, you have no good reason to criticize its facts if you haven't.
@Jagahon I have read the Bible and it is a hugely inconsistent account especially when you consider that it's core books were actively cherry-picked for their consistency by the Nicene Council. Within the Gospels there are several key verses which attempt to link Jesus's birth to specific historical events for example Matthew 2:1 born during reign of Herod & Luke 2:2 which links it to 1st Census of Quirinius. However Herod actually died more than 10 years before Quirinius govnd Syria
The four versions are quite different. Old Christians fixed and changed the “canonic” gospels looking for a consistent version but they did it unaccurately. Believers, of course, have not frequently a good knowlegde of ancient history. Religion is a disgusting form of superstition.
@85Aheadstix 'Bible does speak of atoms, it clearly says that "Creation is made up of tiny invisible elements" , thats atoms.' ... Chapter and verse please?
@85Aheadstix Given that you accept what you call "microevolution" what mechanism do you propose to PREVENT the eventuality of "macroevolution"? This ought to be good.
@85Aheadstix For evolution to start all that is required is self-replicable units.
RNA has the capability of self-replication and John Sutherlands work has shown that the constituents of RNA can be formed spontaneously from materials that were readlilt present on the early Earth.
Please try and keep up, I am taking it as slowly as I can.
@85Aheadstix So which part of Sutherland's work do you not understand? He started with very basic, common elements and end up with nucleotides after going through nothing more complex than repeated hydration & evaporation. These are the building blocks of RNA which is a self-replicating molecule. You claimed that this was impossible, shame you & your 'chemist' friends have been proved wrong.
@hexkid Once again, BULLSHIT!, i have never heard of this sutherland guy, and nor has my Chemist friend which means is just somemore go-no where hypthesis, yet some more evolutionary assumption!.
Send me all the info you have on this guy, come on!.
@85Aheadstix Why should I do your homework for you? Just Google 'John Sutherland +RNA', I am sure your 'chemist' friends could also search PubMed for his published papers.
Your lack of knowledge & lack of ability to perform simple searches is hardly a valid argument
@hexkid@85Aheadstix I can't believe I wasted my time in actually trying to convince this idiot about evolution. I read all these comments and now I realize what a bigot this headstix guy is. I mean one topic after another, there is simply NO stopping the amount of inaccuracy. I mean not checking your source before you use that as an argument is such a rookie error. I think he is brainwashed by the pamphlets they distribute in churches.
@TejasM14 Excuse me!?, give me one piece of credible evidence that actually supports evolution.
And you have been brainwashed into thinking all life evolved from a dollop of ectoplasm 4 billion years ago!, yet the complexities of a simple cell(though no cell is simple) completely refute that!.
The human brain for instance is the most complex organism in the physical universe!, the idea that it evolved via natural selection is a joke!, Dr david De witt PH.d in Neurology and micro biology.
@85Aheadstix You seem to have missed the point. If you want to expose your stupid ideas here you may do so. Any private communication from you will simply be deleted without any effort on my part to counter it. Care to try again, coward?
@85Aheadstix On second thought, don't bother, it would appear others have raked you over the coals here until a fork is a mere afterthought. You're done.
@85Aheadstix First of all let me say that I won't respond to private messages from you. They will be deleted and I will debate you only in a public forum like this one. This is to punish you for your censorship elsewhere. If you refuse, it will only prove the intellectual cowardice of which I have already accused you. The "jellyfish" you so haughtily ignored does not "devolve". Once it reproduces it uses transdifferentiation to return to the same state as it's new offspring. Coward!
Guys, stop going on about religion! It's comedy! Honestly.....
TheLostLupin 6 days ago 3
Oh my, the Hamburgeiros and evolution again -_-
Stupid Americans trying to argue against evolution and Western Europeans wearing speedos to the beach - two things I've never been able to wrap my head around. It's not like it's complicated.
Evolution is just statistics for biologists, for some reason applied way too late based on throughout observation instead of the usual "F yeah, statistics!", and you look silly with a piece of fabric underscoring your limp dick. What is there hard to get?!?
Cormalek 2 weeks ago
Looking to the Gospels as "a suitable source of scientific information" or even as a precise, editorial and historical record of Jesus' life is rather like reading a biography about Lance Armstrong with the expectation of learning about life on Mars...it's not that the biography was wrong, it was that the reader brought with them a false set of expectations. :P
RossESmithIII 3 weeks ago
Didn't you knew that Jesus invented calendars? And He was born in year 0 .... Dah...
Kickassery101 1 month ago
This is a good sketch!
emilyxdaniels 2 months ago
Mutation can easily add information to the genome. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand it or is lying.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
a good man is edward. he was strong in the anti war demonstration back in 2005 in scotland. not a big fan of men in make up, but he carries it off well. just saying. ;)
123jsbach 3 months ago
God came to the world and.... AND AND WHAT? where is the rest ?
jeermarff 4 months ago
@jeermarff there is no god ?
brentlostak 3 months ago
no dislikes :D
madmanatrakzi 4 months ago
he's in men's clothes 0_0
v8wr 4 months ago
That makes no sense Eddy, they are just a different species, you get mud skippers, you get normal fish and the flying ones, and they are not still evolving, nobodys ever found any fossil evidence to back up if they ever evolved!
That means its purely human opinion!, and not science!.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix not different species different breeds cause they are all fish and what is a breed then a group of the species evolving differently then the others he is not talking about the fish evolving in that specific order he is talking about the different breeds of fish seperatly
Plestod 4 months ago
@Plestod Well yeah, thats called micro evolution or change within a species, but no creature can change into something completely different given any amount of time or chance, its Biologically impossible.
So yes they must simply be different species.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix aparently you dont know much about biology humanity is in the species group called the primates and yet we look and think completely differnent then the rest of the species if given enough time a species can evolve into what ever is needed to survive and thus different breeds so dont say that no living thing can evolve no matter how much time cause even you are evolving as you read this dont underestimate life on the planet
Plestod 4 months ago
@Plestod No im sorry, but thats not evolution your talking about, thats purely addaption, its a Biological fact that no creature can change into a completely different one given any amount of time or chance!, if you knew anything about genetics you would know that!.
genes do not mutate without end, if they do mutate they either become cancarous or simply revert back to their default state, i think you should read Dr Joseph mastropaolos( PH.d in biology) Why Evolution is Biologically impossible
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix Why is it impossible? Those that mutate "wrong" die, others live. All people are mutants. We all carry not very perfect copy of half of DNA of our parents.
There is proof of speciation. There are examples of new useful traits gained through evolution in a comparatively short period of time(E.Coli).
Anyone is welcome to try to destroy evolution. There is a lot of fame and money in this. But somehow in 150 years no one did.
Glad1kun 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix
"but thats not evolution your talking about, thats purely addaption"
Evolution = When addaptaions occur repeatively until enough subsequent adaptations have happend over enough time as to have altered the new form from the original by a large enough margin to make it distinctly different.
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Pfft!, thats pure assumption!, no body has ever proved that!, a gene can only mutate to certain extent, after that it siimply reverts back to its default state.
i'd love to see just one crap of credible evidence to back that up, remember, unless it can be observed, repeated and tested here and now in the observable world its simply assumption!, or human opinion!, not SCIENCE!.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix
Genes have NEVER been shown to revert back to a state after changing. Once the change, they stay changed
Dog breeds are brought about by selected evolution. (I know, but they are still dogs)
Put a mastiff next to a Chihuahua, then tell me, just how far apart is it they have to get before we call them a seperate species?
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 I'am afraid they do, even if a mutation occurs it s an error and usually becomes cancerous, either that or simpy reverts back to its defualt state, thats genetic fact!, i have over 30 pages to back this up, all peer reviewed by Hubert yockey peer reviewing board, even genetecist Dr Arthur jones Called it "PH.d proof"
Also watch Forbidden science: shattering the myths of Darwinian evolution.
evolutionists are full of shit!.
There is even a quote from dawkins in agreeance.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix
Actualy it is estimated that 120ish Mutations occur in each individual Zygoe (Sperm or Egg cell)
MOST are benign and carried on.
Detremental mutation get mor plublicity, because who want the news to say Business as usual?
I will try to watch the video, but..
a) Dawkins sucks
b) Creationst love quopte mining out of context
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@whiteowl1415 Well i dont really know abou that, but all i do know is that genes cannot mutate forever, its simply just an impossibility, Biologists knwo this for a fact even if they do not want to admit it.
And yes, dawkins does suck and has been destroyed by Mathematician and logical thinker John lennox.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@85Aheadstix
Who said anything about mutating forever?
Not all DNA combinations will work, this is true, but the possible combinations are infinite.
Humans have 22 paris of Chromosomes. Chromosome 2 alone has more than 237 million base pairs
Imagine for a moment jsut how many different combinations of those base pairs there are, on just that ONE chromosome.
In totaly, humans have roughly 3,200,000,000 Base pairs
Paris japonica (canopy plant) has about 150,000,000,000 Base Pairs
whiteowl1415 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix
DNA can absolutely mutate forever. Come on!
joshplume 3 months ago
@joshplume Yes, within a species, but DNA cannot mutate a lifeform into something completely different, thats biologically impossible.
A gene has a mutative limitation, if it does mutate it either becomes canceruous or simply reverts back to its default state, FACT.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix mutant gene is ONE gene among others, and it can take place or get replace by others but they not really TURNING BACK TO DEFAULT. They just are flodded by others, until they disapear, the chance of coming back getting lower each generation and new mix gene. if some gene turn back to default, its a mutation in itself. The DNA cannot change completely diferent, but this is interpretation by the concept of degree and after what limits something turn a little different to completely.
laurentdsb 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix
Yes speciation has occurred and will continue to occur. There is nothing "biologically impossible" about that. Given time and genetic bottle necking as well as drift, complex macro evolution is the long term result of micro evolution based on continuous selection. This is solid science buddy and can't be argued with just because you say it can't happen. If you wan't to prove a point, you have to back it up with science. Let the big boys do the talking now.
joshplume 1 month ago
@85Aheadstix
Nylonase. Your argument is invalid.
blackplatypus 4 months ago
@blackplatypus Come again??.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@85Aheadstix
What do you mean exactly by "genes cannot mutate forever"? Are you talking about the genes in one specific organism (like one specific bacterial cell and the lifetime it has, for example) or through generations (the daughter cells of that one specific bacteria and their daughter cells, etc.)? And by genes "reverting back to their default state" do you mean their "wild types"?
Spetsop 3 months ago
@Spetsop No i mean that a gene cannot mutate infinetly on and on, a gene has a limit to its mutation unless within the lifeforms own species, for example when they say that somehow a fish evolved legs over million of years, are we supposed to just accept that some how a fish evolved a set of legs over a million years???, so exactly where did the genetic information come from to say "grow legs", that kind of mutation is completey biologically impossible.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix
From what little I've bothered to read of your silly arguments it is clear that you have no understanding of evolution at all. Stop trying to sound smarter than you actually are because the end result is always the same; you end up looking stupid. Although for all i know you may be...
z3r0t0l3r4ns 3 months ago 17
@z3r0t0l3r4ns hahaha, oh really?, so your the resident expert around here are you??
Well lets just see how cocky you are when you read Mastropaolos document, i mean c'mon, even dawkins could not deny it!, but you obviously can??
And Evolution is a rediculous theory to begin with, and does not answer eveything, far from it!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@z3r0t0l3r4ns macro evolution, which is what you're referring to, kinda', as most of your post is ad hominem, like most evos, is not a science, nor is there any supporting evidence, direct or otherwise. You have more faith in evolution than Darwin did and more faith than headstix has in the Bible because to be an evo, it requires faith, because there is no evidence.
emaleroland 1 week ago
@emaleroland America, what do you do to your sons to turn them into such iggerant fucktards, hmm?
Oh, we tell em about talking snakes, rib woman, a drunken 600 year old guy building a wooden fucking boat, ya know, TOTALLY internally conflict them whilst threatening hell
if they should ever try critical thinking, reason and logic to reject such utter guff.
Blimey, I'm not surprised they are totally fucked up?
Indeed sir, indeed!
Rockster969 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emaleroland America, what do you do to your sons to turn them into such iggerant fucktards, hmm?
Oh, we tell em about talking snakes, rib woman, a drunken 600 year old guy building a wooden fucking boat, ya know, TOTALLY internally conflict them whilst threatening hell
if they should ever try critical thinking, reason and logic to reject such utter guff.
Blimey, I'm not surprised they are totally fucked up?
Indeed sir, indeed!
Rockster969 19 hours ago
@Spetsop
Lol @ default size. He has no idea what he's talking about.
joshplume 1 month ago
@85Aheadstix
"There is even a quote from dawkins in agreeance." which one would that be?!?
Spetsop 3 months ago
@Spetsop ??, well i dont know, i didnt know they where numbered, the fact is dawkins was cronfronted by this and could not deny it once he saw the Hubert yockey peer reviewed evidence.
Just read the document.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix
Which document, that's what I'm asking, what is your source?
And about genes not being able to mutate forever... so you do mean over generations of some life form? Why would it not be able to mutate forever, what's the process that's stopping it? As the DNA or RNA is replicated there is always a possibility of a gene mutating, some organisms just have a much better proof reading abilities to remove the mutated gene. But what would suddenly prevent it from mutating again?
Spetsop 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Shame that Hubert Yockey actually agrees with evolution and has gone on record as stating that his comments have been selectively quote-mined by creationists.
As mentioned already, the Mastropoulos document is hilarious.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Pfft!, BULLSHIT!, then Dr Arthur jones is a liar and all the pages i have sing a very differnt tune, besides i know that bullshit as person i got them from was at his rational respnse debate, im calling your bluff, thanks.
85Aheadstix 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix You've finally got there, you are right Dr Arthur Jones is a liar.
From Hubert Yockey's own page: "The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science."
Your bluff called and raised, yet more evidence that you have totally failed to investigate your sources.
hexkid 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix You need to check your facts, Dr Joseph Mastropaolos has a BSc & PhD in Kinesiology not Biology. It is the study of physiology/physiotherapy and does not include the study of genetics or any detailed biology. Why are you suggesting that he is an expert on DNA and genetics?
If a glorified chiropractor is the best expert you have got then your argument is fatally flawed.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Hmm no im afraid your wrong, above the document it says he is a PH.d in biology, and i got more information from UK geneticist Dr Arthur jones PH.d, infact hs is the guy that peer reviewed Mastropaolos work through Hubert yockey and called it "PH.d proof"
A glorified chiropractor??, have you even read his document????.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix The document can claim whatever it likes but his actual qualifications are as follows:
B.S. in kinesiology from Brooklyn College (1950)
M.S in kinesiology from the University of Illinois (1955)
Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa (1958)
He has a complete lack of any training in genetics or general biology. That's like trying to claim that someone with a PhD in Mechnical Engineering is an expert on Quantum Mechanics.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid hahaha, this is brilliant!, so you obviously know so much better then him? a world renowened scientist?.
and if he is not a biolologist then why does he write about it???
I think your bluffing and im calling it!
You just know how to use google well!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix You hardly need to have a black-belt in Google to figure out that this guy has no qualifications in Biology (especially genetics) all the info is there on his own web-site. The fact that you couldn't be bothered to check your sources is an indication of your gullibility and lack of intellectual integrity.
He writes about it because evolution threatens his belief in a bronze-age mythical creation story thats all.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Pfft!, bullshit!, you can have any amount of micro evolution you want but the fact is that no creature can turn into something completely different!, thats fact!, show me any credible, testable, observable, and repeatble evidence from hear and now in the present that backs it up!, i dare ya!, cos nobody has, and i know evolutionary biologists!.
so my "stone aged" beliefs are even more backed up, against your fairy tale that a prince just turns into a frog, a true fairy tale.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix According to evolution no creature does turn into a completely different creature without many thousands of intervening generations of mutations & natural selection. If a creature gave birth to a completely different species it would actually falsify the theory of evolution.
Evolution is both observable and repeatable both in nature and in the lab. I suggest you do some reading on Lenski's work with 50,000 generations of E-coli or Michael Rose's fruit-flies.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Hmmm, ok, you arent listening!.
yes thats correct!, so where are these many millions!(as theyre should be) of tranitional fossils???
None have ever been found!, scientists have been confronted on this issue many times and they call it a "research" issue, the only issue seems to be that they dont exist!.
And yes evolution is repeatable, obervable and testable in a lab with viruses and ecoli as it takes days not millioons of years!, thats micro evolution, quite possible.
But not macro.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix What? What? What? What is a 'transitional fossil' ? What do you think that is? There is none. ALL fossils and indeed all species are transitional. Then again, I'm not sure why I bother posting this because you don't show any inclination of actually researching. Of course animals don't transform, that's not what evolution means anyway.
FrisianDude 3 months ago
@FrisianDude BULLSHIT!, thats crap!, theyre are no credible fossils that can be called transitional!, its called assumption by similarity!, not science!, but assumption!, even your precieous Tiktaalic was debunked!
KEEP TRYING!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix How are you going to "debunk" it when you can't even spell it? It hasn't been debunked. It's significance was never in it being a "transitional" fossil. It's significance is in it's existence and even it's nearly EXACT LOCATION being predictable by evolutionary theory.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix How about Archaeopteryx? Let me guess, it's either a lizard with well developed flight feathers or a bird with teeth, no beak, the wrong pelvis and claws on its wings. Face it. you're done. If you don't think so, well start next on microraptor.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix I have read Mastropaolo's 'paper' entitled Life Devolves that he present to the EU Education Committee, it is hilarious. He claims that the human genome is 'devolving' because we have identified more genetic diseases in the last 20 years, these diseases have always been with us the fact that we have identified the cause to a specific mutation is called progress.
This document is truely a masterpiece in the Dunning Kruger Effect, epic.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Well, you may laugh at it, but his paper and Hubert yockey shut Dawkins mouth right up!
dawkins had nothing to say, i also have the peer reviewed papers on that aswell!.
And we can see things devolving all around us, when you buy shoes do they start off crap anfd become brand new over time?, no!, one example!
Secondly how do you explain where new information comes from?.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix I don't recall anyone suggesting that your trainers evolved.
New 'information' is added to the genome by a few processes that occur during replication. The most common is gene duplication where multiple copies of the same sequence of DNA are transposed. Once there are 2 copies of a gene the 2nd copy of mutate to create variants of the original gene which create different proteins (even a 2nd copy of the same protein can change the development of the embryo).
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Hahaha, well yes!, but thats the only place that any major changes or mutations occur.
But the question is how do these fiew processors start?, do they just happen?.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix So you agree that mutations can and do add new information to the genome. That's at least a start to your education, I'll try and take it really slowly for you.
As to how did it all start that is not evolution, that is abiogenesis i.e. how life came from inorganic substances. There are a couple of v interesting alternatives, I suggest you do some reading on undersea vents or Dr John Sutherland's work on RNA from inorganic materials. Just consider it homework.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid yes, like i said before, evolution within a species is completely possible and its been proven, but for anything to completely change into something else given any amount of time and or change goes against the very laws of nature!!.
And no animal can do it today.
Ha!, and abiogensis?, what a load of assumed shit!, they can brove none of it!, its completely statistically and mathematically impossible!, Life cannot just happen from nothing, its impossible.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix We will never be able to pin point the exact location of the original spark of life but Dr John Sutherland's worth has proved that it's not just possible but actually almost certain that self-replicating units would be formed in early Earth conditions in shallow puddles under IV radiation (i.e. sun-light with little oxone layer) and undergoing cycles of hydration & evaporation.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Come on!, their have been countless experiments done by countless ecientists to attempt to create a self replocating sell, all attempts failed without any of them even coming up with the most basic proteins!, that all just proves that no chance created life, only intelligence can create.
Even the grat Miller said that "the idea of life arising from pure chance or non living matter was very un scientific" and he wrote the book on modern chemisty.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix The creation of proteins didn't happen de-novo, there were much simpler self-replicating units before you get to the complexity of proteins. We already know how RNA -> DNA -> proteins progress and we can see how changes to the DNA affect the production of proteins. The bit of the jigsaw that was missing was how the first RNA formed and Sutherland has identified a solution to that element. Every time we will a hole your God-of-the-gaps gets smaller.
hexkid 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Now I see why you're an intellectual coward. You have no intellect ... or even, apparently, spell-check.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix Look at it this way. We won't learn anything from the Bible. Bible told us the Earth was round? ok. Well we better find out what forces made it round. Bible didn't tell that. Bible told us the Earth is 6000 years old? Ok, we will take that. Let's study how the Grand Canyon and other stuff formed in that time. Bible told us it made all life? Ok. Let's study what is life and what species can do.
scrap222666 3 months ago
@scrap222666 You serious??, Our entire history s based on the Bible!, jack arse!
You clearly know nothing about theology!.
aISAIAH 22.12, The Roundess!, not flatness or the earth, Duuh!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Yes but the Bible does not give us answers. The Bible did not teach us of the force of the gravity, the Bible did not teach us what layers are between the earth and the sun. The Bible did not teach us how the flowers procreate. The Bible did not tell us how rain or snow forms. The Bible did not tell us there are tiny tiny organisms we call bacteria that inhabit us. The Bible did not tell us how mountains formed and on and on. Science answers the "how?" questions.
scrap222666 3 months ago
@scrap222666 Pfft!, the Bible did not need to!, it gave us science to help explain that!, after all thats what science is!, the study of Gods creation!.
The layers where formed during the global flood(which i might add there is loads of evidence for) and the Bible does speak of atoms, it clearly says that "Creation is made up of tiny invisible elements" , thats atoms.
The Bible was written petically, not really in laymans terms, once you have studied theology you will understand this.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix So why don't you trust old earth and evolution as like you said it was thanks to science that the Bible/God gave us we know of them.
scrap222666 3 months ago
@scrap222666 Well i do trust them to an extent, its human opinion that i am against, there is no evolution and creation evidence, its all the same evidence its just that one scientists interpretation and of that evidence, i think creation makes far more sense then evolution, as we can observe, test and repeat everything within the 6 to 10 thousand year time scale, where as evolution is 4 billion years of assumption, nothing can be proved 100%, even dating methods are questionable.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Your ideas are all good but once you realize there is no higher agenda and treat evolution as any other scientific theory like perhaps string theory (also at it's infancy) you realize it has no real bearing anyway. So what if evolution is even 100% proven? Would it change anything? Bible just added more "not to be taken literally" stories in it. Original sin could of still taken place.
scrap222666 3 months ago
@scrap222666 String theory now???, now thats completey theoretic!, i saw a documentary on that and could not believe the amount of assumption, if thats all science has come down to these days Pure assumption, then i will never trust another mainsteam scientist again!.
And thats the thing, evolution is nowhere near 100% proven, infact countless evolutionists still say its got more holes then swiss cheese!, theyre are deffs more questions than answers!.
Its still a theory that goes nowhere!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Exactly, now why is evolution any different from the string theory? How does it affect you more? They will probably teach string theory in some schools too, I mean it is a viable option.
scrap222666 3 months ago
@scrap222666 Well atleast we could probably repeat and test it here and now in the present!, unlike Evolutionary theorys!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Name one "evolutionist"? that says "it's got more holes than Swiss cheese." BTW, it's "than" "S"wiss cheese and not "then"
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
Comment removed
ls600h1 3 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix
Also if you want to argue, study biotechnology (like I do) or biology. Almost every reproductive process, especially the copying of protiens via tRNA and the creation and splitting of the double helix incorporates a certain error in the reproduction machanism, facilitating evolution. The more evolved a creature was, the more error it generated during evolution. Also the step-wise iterated process of organ creation is another proof. Countless others
ls600h1 3 weeks ago
@85Aheadstix
Please tell me about on e hole in this theory. But lets just look at it logicly. Is there any flaw in its logic? Is there any reason to NOT believe it? There are countless reasons to believe. Also in response to your string theory jibe, string theory is in a branch of physics know as theoretical physics. There is almost no proof, and nor does anyone claim there is any. They just use occams razor, and elegance and logic to make progress.
And what do you mean by goes nowhere?
ls600h1 3 weeks ago
@scrap222666 Could "have" still taken place. Learn to write in your mother tongue you, illiterate moron.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@MrMZaccone My mother tongue is Estonian. Then I know Russian and English as second and third languages.
scrap222666 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix The problem is that when you test a 6 to 10 thousand year time scale, it falls flat on its face. All assumptions stemming from it are moot.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix Why should we consider the Bible to be a suitable source of scientific information when the Gospels can't even be consistent on fundamental facts such as the year that Jesus was born?
hexkid 3 months ago 21
@hexkid Wha????, well i'll have to look into that one, i really dont know about it.
85Aheadstix 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix We'll add that to the increasingly long list of subjects that you know nothing about. Come on you must know your Bible if you are claiming it's the source of all knowledge. I didn't think that asking for something as basic as the year that Jesus was born would be too complicated for you to be able to deduce from the Gospels which are allegedly historically accurate.
Do some homework and quote me chapter & verse on the source of your info.
hexkid 2 months ago
@hexkid Actually, the year Jesus was born is never mentioned in any of the Gospels, so what would they have to be consistent about in that reguard?
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@hexkid a blanket statement with no evidence. Please be specific and enlighten us so we can verify your suggestion.
emaleroland 1 week ago
@hexkid The Gospels are slightly inconsistent because they were told by 4 different people, giving 4 different accounts of what happened in that time period... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John namely. No one knows specifically what year Jesus was born mate. If you had read your Bible you would know that, therefore, you have no good reason to criticize its facts if you haven't.
Jagahon 1 week ago
@Jagahon I have read the Bible and it is a hugely inconsistent account especially when you consider that it's core books were actively cherry-picked for their consistency by the Nicene Council. Within the Gospels there are several key verses which attempt to link Jesus's birth to specific historical events for example Matthew 2:1 born during reign of Herod & Luke 2:2 which links it to 1st Census of Quirinius. However Herod actually died more than 10 years before Quirinius govnd Syria
hexkid 1 week ago
@Jagahon You are asserting the bible as fact oh noez!
Rockster969 19 hours ago
The four versions are quite different. Old Christians fixed and changed the “canonic” gospels looking for a consistent version but they did it unaccurately. Believers, of course, have not frequently a good knowlegde of ancient history. Religion is a disgusting form of superstition.
ergopepito 59 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@85Aheadstix 'Bible does speak of atoms, it clearly says that "Creation is made up of tiny invisible elements" , thats atoms.' ... Chapter and verse please?
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix Given that you accept what you call "microevolution" what mechanism do you propose to PREVENT the eventuality of "macroevolution"? This ought to be good.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix For evolution to start all that is required is self-replicable units.
RNA has the capability of self-replication and John Sutherlands work has shown that the constituents of RNA can be formed spontaneously from materials that were readlilt present on the early Earth.
Please try and keep up, I am taking it as slowly as I can.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid BULLSHIT!, i have a friends with degrees in chemistry who all say that none of its been proven, pure hypothesis!, not proven!.
You keep trying!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix your mother is a transitional fossil. Preceded by a human being and parenting a jackass.
FrisianDude 3 months ago
@FrisianDude Your kidding right?, ive beaten you so you have resorted to childish name calling??
What are you 12????, your a sad little man, and i have you pity!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix So which part of Sutherland's work do you not understand? He started with very basic, common elements and end up with nucleotides after going through nothing more complex than repeated hydration & evaporation. These are the building blocks of RNA which is a self-replicating molecule. You claimed that this was impossible, shame you & your 'chemist' friends have been proved wrong.
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid Once again, BULLSHIT!, i have never heard of this sutherland guy, and nor has my Chemist friend which means is just somemore go-no where hypthesis, yet some more evolutionary assumption!.
Send me all the info you have on this guy, come on!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
@85Aheadstix Why should I do your homework for you? Just Google 'John Sutherland +RNA', I am sure your 'chemist' friends could also search PubMed for his published papers.
Your lack of knowledge & lack of ability to perform simple searches is hardly a valid argument
hexkid 3 months ago
@hexkid @85Aheadstix I can't believe I wasted my time in actually trying to convince this idiot about evolution. I read all these comments and now I realize what a bigot this headstix guy is. I mean one topic after another, there is simply NO stopping the amount of inaccuracy. I mean not checking your source before you use that as an argument is such a rookie error. I think he is brainwashed by the pamphlets they distribute in churches.
TejasM14 2 months ago
@TejasM14 Excuse me!?, give me one piece of credible evidence that actually supports evolution.
And you have been brainwashed into thinking all life evolved from a dollop of ectoplasm 4 billion years ago!, yet the complexities of a simple cell(though no cell is simple) completely refute that!.
The human brain for instance is the most complex organism in the physical universe!, the idea that it evolved via natural selection is a joke!, Dr david De witt PH.d in Neurology and micro biology.
85Aheadstix 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix You seem to have missed the point. If you want to expose your stupid ideas here you may do so. Any private communication from you will simply be deleted without any effort on my part to counter it. Care to try again, coward?
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix the influenza virus and antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Djinn551 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix I've never heard of Arthur Jones, Try blocking me here.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix On second thought, don't bother, it would appear others have raked you over the coals here until a fork is a mere afterthought. You're done.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix Watch as your arguments devolve in the face of this. Look up Turritopsis nutricula.
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
@85Aheadstix First of all let me say that I won't respond to private messages from you. They will be deleted and I will debate you only in a public forum like this one. This is to punish you for your censorship elsewhere. If you refuse, it will only prove the intellectual cowardice of which I have already accused you. The "jellyfish" you so haughtily ignored does not "devolve". Once it reproduces it uses transdifferentiation to return to the same state as it's new offspring. Coward!
MrMZaccone 2 months ago
fly Freddie fly
geekjacob1 4 months ago 16
My God i love this MAN...
He's talking about a perioftalmo... i can't believe it... a perioftalmo... My GOd...
Look at his face...
EDDIEEE you are the best...
satyaahimsa 5 months ago 35