jeri534

It's you're

Method

It's the THEORY of evolution. Hence the word THEORY, Doesn't make it a fact. Trying to bash someone on his own beliefs is like me bashing you for believing a theory for a fact, Childish and ignorant. Stop coming off like a stuck up prep-boy and relax.

MunkySpunk

Proteins ARE amino acids, dipshits.

And the generally excepted theory of evolution, which coincidentally is technically not a theory because it can't realistically be reproduced, is something called the RNA world. This holds emergence and natural selection favored the initial random formation of complex catalytic RNA molecules that eventually carried out self-replication, catalyzed chemical reactions (aka Ribozymes), and stored genetic information. The first Ribozyme was a self-excising intron found in the ribosomal RNA of the ciliated protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila by Thomas R. Cech who would later win the Nobel Prize for his findings and the subsequent rise and acceptance of the RNA world 'theory.' The first cells are thought to have possibly formed from lipids forming around these RNA molecules on a charged clay substrate. As it stands, the general consensus of biologists also holds we didn't evolve from 'proteins and amino acids'.

Put that in your fucking pipe and smoke it.

That being said, Mr. Physics-is-Phun, I don't know shit about snowboards compared to BA or a number of people on this board. It's called real-world experience. BA's got more than me and you combined, accept it.

Now, stop the damn sissy fight.

legallyillegal

my car runs on farts

__________________

THERE ARE SPECIFIC REASONS AS TO WHY I AM MORE LOCAL THAN YOU

GOD IS DONUT

keabler

ok so i now agree with munkyspunk because evolution technically isnt a theory

keabler

sorry dude, i should have said the presence of simple inorganic and organic compounds + energy lead to the formation of simple organic compounds (i.e. sugars, amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines) i was refering to just the possibility of forming simple organic compounds out of what would have been abundant on a young earth.

I'm not calling you a dick but does real world experience also "evolve" you into being a dick, which is the only reason this went on for as long as it did. cuz if so maybe I need to wait for the dick side of my personality to go up before i can fully under stand BA


shit i'll admit that since evolution cant be reproduced so it technically isnt a theory but saying that evolution is invalid because ppl call it a theory is wrong because scientific theories are much more meaningful. (such as the special theory of relativity)

jardo56

I had no idea snowboard dampening came with such a firey debate.

PS. I don't give a hoot if 'firey' is not a 'real' word. Oxford can blow themselves.

absoludicrous

rofl. look at what this thread started.

MunkySpunk

Where can I get one?
Evolution isn't wrong. Just because it can't be reproduced globally because we don't have a spare planet and 4 billion years doesn't make it invalid. Microevolution happens right before our eyes, you call it antibiotic resistance.
The whole 'it's not a theory' argument is based on semantics. It's got nothing to do with validity.
Fiery is a word. And I wish I could blow myself.

keabler

yeah it is sematics but i was just owning up to the fact that you are right. because i was paying attention to excruciation detail b4.

I didnt say evolution is wrong ... we dont have a complete model for evolution but the general idea definitely is correct.