User talk:Ratso

Hi,

"Convince me of what? Lies? YECs " etc. You respond using these words to some, in my view, irrational comments on YEC. However you do your (and probably my position as well) a dis-searvice if we get too heated. I know it is tough to stay calm on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to make anything worse. Actually trying to help. Sometimes it is best to leave a subject, come back later, even the following day and cooly respond with a view to encouraging someone to think outside their box, rather than just try to win arguements. They are probably trying to get us to think a bit more to, we owe it to them to have a serious go at undestanding what they are saying. I do hope this helps. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand what you're saying. I'm just wondering...All the evolutionists on here think that YEC is a pseudoscience, yet here we have scientists making big, expensive trips just to try to find a fossil (Tiktaalik) that "proves" evolution, and so they can disprove this "pseudoscience". Why are they so concerned about disproving it if it's just a "fake science"? Personally, I think it sounds as if they're not too sure of evolution themselves and are worried about creationists disproving their theory. Ratso 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We didn't make the trip to falsify creationism- to most people that's a given. We made the trip to aid our understanding of tetrapod evolution. The fossil changed our understanding of it- it now appears most tetrapod characters appeared before they were able to crawl. By the way, AiG LIED about Tiktaalik. Nitron Ninja Apple 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Reply
''"I saw you and Standonbible's discussion about evolution on his talk page, and I'd like to make a few clarifications myself. Beneficial mutations are rare, but mutations that introduce new information don't occur. For instance, the wide variety of finches on the Galapagos Islands is not an example of new information, but rather different organizations of the same information in that gene pool. A mutation that would turn gills into lungs isn't possible, because that would require new information which gene mutations can't produce. Nor could it simply be a rearrangement in already-present information, because gills and lungs are vastly different in their genetic makeup. And as for your autobiography on your page which states that the population is "too lazy to pick up an introductory textbook to science", I agree, because they are simply accepting the spoonfeeding of evolutionist scientists rather than investigating the matter themselves. Ratso 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"''
 * Much like Standonbible, you are making an absolute comment that is clearly false. The evolution of nylon eating bacteria alone (the ability to digest a substance that did not exist before the industrialized era) shows that mutations do introduce new information (in this case, the ability to digest nylon).  Furthermore, I have given Standonbible four different references that exactly contradict his and your absolute statements about gene duplication and polyploidy (there are at least 5000 others where those four came from).  However, I am not here to debate.  I hope you are true to your philosophy and actually investigate the matter, rather than blindly accepting the spoon-feeding that creationists like to dish out (the latest example being the beautiful disaster of Intelligent Design).  Again, I am not here to debate.  You have made an absolute statement and I have provided you with sources that blatantly contradict the absolute statement on many levels.  Let's leave it at that.  I'll go back to curing cancer with this false theory of evolution (I'm a at work right now) and you go to back to whatever creationism is trying to cure.--Roland Deschain 15:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Creationism is trying to cure stupidity among billions of other things. Your statement that Intelligent Design was a "beautiful disaster" is an absolutely false statement; much scientific evidence supports it. I don't know why you're using nylon-digesting bacteria as an example; the gene for digesting nylon was already in the bacteria, it just expressed itself when the bacteria needed to digest nylon. You're just repeating an old, worn-out argument that has been disproven. Besides, it's still the same bacteria. And if you think that science contradicts the Bible, just you wait and see how it contradicts evolution. Evolution depends upon "good mutations" occuring repeatedly, in every organism on earth nonetheless! You are ignoring this because it contradicts your wishful thinking that evolution is true. In addition to this, evolutionists claim that organisms are getting more complex and that the world is changing for the better, which is far from the truth. Organisms are breaking down and deteriorating, as is our planet, solar system and universe. Entropy contradicts evolution; you've probably heard this before and ignored it or come up with some silly attempt to counter it, which can't be done. In addition to these things, there are no "missing links"; every "ape-man" that has been found has simply been discovered to be either just an ape, just a human or just a hoax. Archaeopteryx, which is supposed to be the link between birds and reptiles, is simply a bird. So it had teeth! Some birds around that time had teeth! And scales? Birds around today have scales! And the Tiktaalik, which is the supposed link between sea and land animals, has also been found to simply be a fish. Like I've pointed out before, a gill cannot become a lung; even if this were possible the organism would die because it could not breathe in either environment. I'm sure you'll find some silly, blind way to contradict what I'm saying but you must acknowledge what I've pointed out. Ratso 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"These are perfect examples of how little you know of the subject. None of these are examples of "new" information; they are all simply the expression of genes that are already there. Polyploidy is simply a double set of the same information, thus it is not new. Gene duplication isn't "new" information; it is an error that causes a gene's specific region of DNA to be duplicated. This means either you didn't know quite enough about them or your definition of "new" information is off. Ratso 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * Every paragraph of creationist nonsense requires a 20 page essay to refute in detail. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor the will, but I will leave you with a very interesting paper.  Rather than give you thousands of papers showing gene duplication and evolution (see Standonbible's talk page for a couple of those) here's a really cool one in one of the top scientific journals in the world (any major library should have it).  It deals with large genome duplications that have been implicated in being a dominant force in the human/primate evolution.  It's 5 years out of date and much more work has been done since, but that's the most up to date review I could find.  Again, this is not to start a debate, but more to show you that while you are sitting screaming that it cannot be (the Earth cannot rotate!!!! if it did we would all be flung off into space), people are finding, describing, and understanding those impossible things.--Roland Deschain 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratso, you don't seem to understand that you have been lied to.

"Creationism is trying to cure stupidity among billions of other things. Your statement that Intelligent Design was a "beautiful disaster" is an absolutely false statement; much scientific evidence supports it."" - Incorrect. Indeed, that's why ID was found to be unscientific in a court of law (Kitzmiller vs Dover case).

"I don't know why you're using nylon-digesting bacteria as an example; the gene for digesting nylon was already in the bacteria, it just expressed itself when the bacteria needed to digest nylon. You're just repeating an old, worn-out argument that has been disproven." Incorrect, it was caused by a mutation (scientists have identified the gene involved) and the argument certainly hasn't been "disproven".

"Besides, it's still the same bacteria. And if you think that science contradicts the Bible, just you wait and see how it contradicts evolution. Evolution depends upon "good mutations" occuring repeatedly, in every organism on earth nonetheless! You are ignoring this because it contradicts your wishful thinking that evolution is true." - Have you honestly never heard of natural selection? It preserves the "good" and tosses out the "bad". Over time, beneficial changes inevitably tend to accumulate, and harmful ones inevitably have a tendency to drop out of the population. Each generation builds on the best of what has gone before.

"In addition to this, evolutionists claim that organisms are getting more complex and that the world is changing for the better, which is far from the truth. Organisms are breaking down and deteriorating, as is our planet, solar system and universe. Entropy contradicts evolution; you've probably heard this before and ignored it or come up with some silly attempt to counter it, which can't be done." - Natural selection counters it. It doesn't represent any reversal of entropy, because only some survive to reproduce: harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones, but natural selection ensures that this doesn't matter.

"In addition to these things, there are no "missing links"; every "ape-man" that has been found has simply been discovered to be either just an ape, just a human or just a hoax. Archaeopteryx, which is supposed to be the link between birds and reptiles, is simply a bird. So it had teeth! Some birds around that time had teeth! And scales? Birds around today have scales! And the Tiktaalik, which is the supposed link between sea and land animals, has also been found to simply be a fish." - A pack of cretionist lies. It is unfortunate that you have allowed yourself to be so misled. There is an unbroken set of human transitionals going back as far as the australopithecines (basically upright chimps, considered "apes" by creationists), archaeopteryx is only one of about thirty dinosaur/bird transitionals in various stages (like Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis and Ichthyornis), tiktaalik is likewise only one link in a whole chain of transitionals (like Panderichthys, Sauripterus, Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Densignathus rowei, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega and Pederpes finneyae, Tulerpeton, Elpistostege), and so on.

"Like I've pointed out before, a gill cannot become a lung; even if this were possible the organism would die because it could not breathe in either environment. I'm sure you'll find some silly, blind way to contradict what I'm saying but you must acknowledge what I've pointed out." - Lungs did not evolve from gills, they are swim-bladders. And are you really unaware of the existence of amphibious fish today that have both lungs AND gills?

It is unfortunate that few people will see this, because educating ignorant creationists one at a time is not a very efficient use of my time. But hopefully this will be enough to get you started, or maybe enough to at least dent your dogmatic certainty that these falsehoods must be correct. --Robert Stevens 10:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, educating ignorant evolutionists isn't an extremely beneficial use of my time, and since you're so blind it's going to be impossible to change your view that these dogmatic falsehoods must be correct. Your calling these truths a "pack of creationist lies" is the absolutely most false comment I've ever heard. You're so biased, so prejudiced, against creationism that you make all sorts of inflammatory comments against it in hopes of changing people's views. Well, you haven't changed mine. And it's obvious that I can't change yours, since you have been misled by these dogmatic falsehoods. I'm through. Ratso 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The falsehood of Biblical creationism was discovered by a scientific community which was initially composed almost exclusively of creationists: the Bible was once considered true by default. Scientists abandoned it when they discovered otherwise. Nowadays, it is the creationists, not the scientists, who must pledge allegiance to dogmatic "statements of faith" on joining creationist organisations: they must decide not to accept evidence that would contradict their belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Whereas evolution is accepted by people of all religions (including most Christians) who are open-minded enough to evaluate the evidence. Obviously, you have made up your mind not to join them - and that is your loss. --Robert Stevens 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is a filthy lie; Biblical creatioism has never been found to be false. It is evolutionists and all who accept evolution who accept dogmatic statements of faith. But tell me, where did you get these ideas? Frankly, there are many relevant scientists today who accept Biblical creationism as a fact. This is nothing but a filthy lie. Ratso 16:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the "Statement of Faith" page from Answers in Genesis: . Science has no equivalent.  Also, about 99.8% of scientists accept evolution according to the citation on the creation-evolution controversy page: and there are more "transitional fossils" than there are Bibles in the world (because therapsids are so abundant in the fossil record).  You really need to wake up to the extent that you have been misled.  I realise that this will be traumatic. --Robert Stevens 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!! HELP US! EVOLUTION IS TRUE AND CREATION IS FALSE BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE FOUND MISSING LINKS! PLEASE TELL ME IT'S NOT SO! AAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGHHH!!!! Traumatic, my foot! You think I wasn't aware of all of this stuff already? Well I was! anyway, these "transitional fossils" are probably not missing links at all, but were simply designed by God (Yes, there is a God) and went extinct, or they could be hoaxes, as Piltdown man was, or they could be just animals or people, such as Nebraska man and Java man. You need to wake up to the extent that you have been misled. Creation doesn't mislead; evolutionism does. Now stop bothering me with all your dogmacy! Ratso 17:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't bother people. Ratso is a poster-child for the simple axiom: The spirit of mutual inquiry is the very antithesis of religious faith! (I think David Hume first states this simple axiom).  It is no wonder that Wikipedia has been, is, and always will be a prime target for fundamentalist of all and any faith.--Roland Deschain 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the prime target for the rightful criticisms of people who can see that it is heavily biased due to the majority of evolutionist users on here who despise creationism. Now cut that junk out! Ratso 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenge
So you think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists world-wide are in some sort of world wide conspiracy? Where way more than 99% of the scientists disagree with your young earth creationist hypotheses? Do you think they are all hypnotized? Drugged? Insane? Evil? Working for satan? Does that not make you wonder? How on earth can they fool so many? So many of our best and brightest?--Filll 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You hit the nail in the head, buddy boy. Yes, I do believe that Satan has decieved much of the population of earth (the Bible says that many will be decieved). No, they aren't hypnotized or drugged or insane, and probably not evil per se, they are simply decieved. As for the so-called "best and brightest", I admit that many evolutionists have done valuable scientific work, but their idea that the earth is billions of years old, that we are apes and that we evolved from "chemical soup" is incorrect. Ratso 18:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nice and irrelevant per WP:NPOV's undue weight clause. JoshuaZ 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have no idea what the blue blazes you're talkin' about. Undue weight indeed! Ratso 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

degree of certainty
Ratso, you would find it rather difficult to prove that nobody every was thrown off the earth by rotation, as you say at RD's page. You are assuming it as common knowledge, but do you yourself personally know enough physics about the world in general to prove it? Particularly, would you be able to prove it to someone who really did have a doctorate-level knowledge of physics and was for some reason determined to prove you wrong? I know that evolution took place for analogous reasons. I know of zero evidence to the contrary, it is consistent with the structure and behavior of living organisms as we find them, and fits into a satisfying general world view. (I do admit to having the advantage of you--I am quite prepared to prove it at a research level, but enough good scientists at WP have already done so.)

The proof of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions about what will be found by observation and experiment, and nothing is found that contradicts it, or is not explainable by compatible processes. Darwin made specific predictions about what yet undiscovered fossils would be found, and so they have been, while none has been found that is no explainable. It makes predictions about what will happen in laboratory and field genetics, and when the different aspects of genetics have become well enough known, the predictions results support it. It particularly makes predictions about the common origin of life, and when molecular biology does finally a century later decipher the genetic code of apparently unrelated organisms,it is found that the sequences of the genes for their basic functions are very similar. It predicts the differences will be less for mammals than for vertebrates in general, and for 100s of genes, so they are. It does not at the beginning have an explanation of the rise of new functions, but when developmental genetics is known sufficiently, an explanation is found.

It could have been otherwise.We might have found strange fossil fish, but none that looked like an intermediate to amphibians. We found a prehistoric skull that did not fit into any really sensible pattern of evolutionary development, and 40 years later we found the evidence that it was a deliberate fake. We might have found that the genes for cytochrome in different animals were totally different in sequence. We might have found that the very peculiar species of bacteria not known to Darwin had their cells organised altogether unlike anything else, but we found that their cells had DNA and RNA and proteins, just as we, but sufficiently different in detail to explain why they were peculiar.

Darwin's theory says nothing about ultimate causes. What it says is that, since the origin of life, no phenomena have occurred which require for their explanation a divine intervention. The origin of life remains open, but even that problem seems tractable to scientific methods, and the area left unknown has decreased continually since Darwin.

This is enough to be proof. The true analogy is not being thrown of the earth but atmospheric dynamics. We do not yet know this subject to be able to predict in detail the weather over the next twenty years, or even the next month. But nobody now supposes that the weather is a divine miracle each day, for we do know how the patterns one day give rise to those of the next. We know better than to  try to solve the carbon dioxide emissions problem by expecting a miracle that will destroy 90% of it for us. DGG 05:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing you've said here that I haven't heard before, and I still say you are dogmatic. Sure most genes have similar functions; this is evidence for common design, not a common ancestor. Evolutionists must believe that all life came from a single cell which somehow evolved from a pool of chemicals; as far as we know life can't come from nonlife, but even if it could somehow be produced in a laboratory, that would just give more evidence to the fact that life can only come about as the result of intelligence, not random processes. The weather we see each day is not simply the result of previous patterns; God sustains this cycle. I know you probably think it's looney, but it is not one bit. Mutations can't produce new information, all they can do is reorganize existing information. Is that clear? No, it isn't because you have been blinded by secular evolutionists who wish to mask any attempt to teach creationism in our schools. You, not me, have been decieved. IS THAT CLEAR? I HAVE NOT BEEN DECIEVED, YOU HAVE!! NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK OR SAY, YOU AND ONLY YOU HAVE BEEN DECIEVED!! Ratso 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm through here too!


 * Are you under the delusion that writing in BOLD ALL CAPS makes your statements more true? David D. (Talk) 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just trying to make it clear that I'm not the one who's been lied to. Ratso 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think any one thinks you are being lied to. It looks a lot more like wilfull ignorance. For example, if you really thought about it, you'd see that a statement such as "Mutations can't produce new information, all they can do is reorganize existing information" is oxymoronic or your own definition of information is quite bizarre. David D. (Talk) 10:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise you can't produce new information; all you can do is twist around the information already present. If you think mutations can produce new information, then give me an example of new information such as a tentacle on a frog, antennae on a human or fins on a cat. That's sure be new information for their gene pools! Ratso 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment on "heavily biased due to the majority of evolutionist users" is probably due to the overwhelming evidence evolution has, and the overwhelming fun creationism is (also in the same line of thought see the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is just as likely or even more likely depending on the POV). I am a little sorry to say so but creationism is considered “dogmacy”, and not evolution. Your problem is (well problem is a big word… you can live properly and be a creationist, just as well as being a Jedi or an agnostic), the issue is that you believe in creationism, in the same way that you believe in God. What powers the real scientific mind is not belief as it makes one subjective. You clearly believe in what you say, which in itself isn’t usually a problem. But on Wikipedia, belief is often considered WP:POV, and as such doesn’t have it’s place here. Especially if your belief is against general knowledge (general knowledge yes, not general belief). Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of knowledge, in 2006 the knowledge is that creationism is false, and evolution is true. Wikipedia is not the place for you to liberate the world from its deceived state in which Satan has put it. You should go to university, study, get a Ph.d in the subject (if that’s already done, start over), and then change the view of evolution most of the scientific community has today. Prove to the scientific community that creationism is true. And then, only then, change (with proof) what people think. To beat them you have to play their game. But chances are, once you get rid of you beliefs (which you might not be able to achieve, and that would be sad), you’ll just see how logical evolution is, and how very logical and plausible creationism is (as much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster). You are permitted to believe whatever you like, but please, don’t let it get it the way of reason, (nor get in the way of Wikipedia).


 * If there's anyone who's letting their belief get in the way of reason, it's you and all the other blockheads on this site. I could stay on here all year and list the overwhelming evidence for creationism and against evolution and it wouldn't convince you one bit. I don't care about your definition of "knowledge"; you think that knowledge is that creationism is false and evolution is true. Well, it's the opposite. Evolution is absolutely false and creationism is absolutely true. I'm not going to try to liberate any of you from Satan's deception; I can see it's not going to work. He has much of the population enslaved with his false religions. At any rate, it's not going to be me who liberates anybody; only God can do that, and I can see that you have hardened your heart and mind against all sound judgement and reasoning in favor of evolutionism, which "liberates" you from all moral laws and allows you to do whatever you crap well please. It wouldn't matter if I did have a Ph.d in anything, because you won't listen to those who do have them. You call them pseudoscientists. Well, the biggest pseudoscience that I'm aware of is evolution, regardless of how many people are led astray by it. So, since you have chosen to believe this lie, I am not going to try to break you out of your mental block. If you want to talk to some actual creationist scientists (yes, there are scientists who are creationists and who are relevant in their fields), go to Answersingenesis or some such site and throw your "knowledge" at them. You can also try reading the Bible and see how it describes people like you (willfully ignorant). See yuh. Ratso 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this : . I am sorry to say so, but I think the one in a mental block is you. You are quite impolite, and (no offense) but also a little ignorant. (But you seem to know the Bible and God more than me). I did look at Answersingenesis, it says we all have the same evidence and the difference is in interpretation. How I usderstand their view is this: They start by believing in God and the Bible, I, as most scientists, don't. By the way, vandalizing the Flying Spaghetti Monster page doesn't help your cause. Nor adding speculations to the Albus Dumbledore article. Be more serious, and please stay calm and be polite.

Pro bug catcher 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why additions to the Albus Dumbledore article even has anything to do with this. No, I am not the one in a mental block. I believe the truth, you and the other evolutionists believe a lie. AiG starts by believing in God which is the absolute best place to start. You start by believing in a god called Random Chance, which is the worst and stupidest place to start. Now come on, who's ignorant here?! I sure am not; I've studied biology and I'm studying it in-depth right now, and I just got finished with the section on evolution vs. creationism, and the only conclusion I can come to is that evolution is a failing theory and that evidence, as well as logical reasoning, suggests that it was God, not a big explosion or a mutation, that created the world and life. I'll admit I've been rather impolite and I'm sorry if I've used any offensive language or words, but most of the evolutionists that have left comments here haven't exactly been that courteous, either. Ratso 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit I don’t understand the Big Bang, nor have the time to try and understand right now. But I can tell you I don’t believe in a god called Random Chance. A "mutation that would turn gills into lungs isn't possible, because that would require new information which gene mutations can't produce." A radical example like that would be hard to prove. But what if I told you antenea in insects are actually modified legs. With the "help" of many mutations, a leg appeared on the head, then it’s structure was modified, up to the point where antenea are used as sensory organs and not for movement (the source I have for this is the entomology teacher at UQAM, the university I study at, also, in a few seconds I found this on google ; and ). I am curious : How do you understand selection, be it natural selection or artificial selection? (As we both know, dog breeds were "made" by artficial selection, and many breeds have "new" mutations, which other breeds don’t have). Once I have an idea of your thoughts on selection, I’ll have a better comprehension of how you see mutation, and by extension evolution. It is true that the site I linked doesn’t cite sources, I’ll try not to link unsourced documents in the future. I would have a lot more to say, but first I’d like to understand how you understand selection. ttyl.Pro bug catcher 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Selection occurs, I realize, but as you should understand, the fittest don't always reproduce, therefore it's not always "survival of the fittest". As for mutations, I think I've made it quite clear how I view them. Since when are antennae modified legs? So your professor believes this, as well as a couple of sites on Google. That means virtually nothing. Antennae are for sensory purposes only, not former legs that mutated into little sensory organs that were now useless for anything but feeling. You keep insisting that mutations produce new information, but I have yet to see a good example of this. All the other examples such as polyploidy and gene duplication fail to meet the criteria for "new" information; either they are simply reorganizations of already existing information or they are duplications of that information. What is your idea of "new" information? Give me your definition, and then we can talk sensibly. Ratso 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My idea is actually simple, as you know; the “plan” for the living is DNA. A change in DNA results in a change in the plan, and a change in the organism. The plan was initially simple, it then diversified by “reorganization of already existing information or duplication of that information” and that simply because DNA is an arrangement of nucleic acids, not new nucleic acids for each new information, the new is the arrangement or the quantity of DNA.

An example easy to understand would be writing ; imagine letters make up DNA, words code for certain things, and once the words are put together they give something bigger (the text, analog to the organism). It would be stupid to “invent” new letters, they work as they are and can be changed to take virtually any meaning. Simply by adding letters or reorganizing them. So “new” doesn’t exist in the sense you use. New information is for example this: eternity becomes entirety (where the words are analog to structures). There is no new information, just a rearrangement that changes the structure. With accumulation these can lead to big changes. “With accumulation these can lead to big changes” becomes “Let a mechanical coin shut a cab we dig nest tough”. And that’s just reorganisation, not duplication. Now imagine what both can do. And selection, as you said is not only reproduction of the fittest. Only it is a very big process, and in total, the fittest has more chances of reproducing, and does so more, exceptions exist, but in total, the fittest does reproduce more. The one who isn’t fit enough dies, and with it its DNA and the change it would hold. In that way, with many, many, little “reorganizations of already existing information or duplications of that information” there is something new. For example the “new” between eohippus and Equus stenonis (see Evolution of the horse), or between dinosaurs and birds, or between the first bacteria and man. It’s practically impossible to give an example of a single mutation making big changes, to acknowledge “new” information you have to acknowledge evolution. They key to the understanding it to understand how the plan for life works. By the way discrediting my references, and teacher, they way you did is even more absurd, you give no reference at all for your claim (three is better than none), especially with one from the government of Canada, and another from the International Journal of Developmental Biology. Denying it is absurd, give me better references and I’ll believe your denial. As for “Since when are antennae modified legs? So your professor believes this, as well as a couple of sites on Google. That means virtually nothing.” : Since antennae exist. My professor and university and governmental sources know so. If that means nothing… what has meaning?Pro bug catcher 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't know how many times we've been through this. You finally admit that there is no such thing as new information. You said yourself that all organisms need is a reorganization of the existing information. You can't say, however, that the fittest reproduce more, because a lot of times they don't. Since they are in not much danger of being eaten, they will have few or no offspring a lot of times and the less fit will reproduce more.
 * You claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that man evolved from bacteria? How can you be sure? You can't. There is more than just a little difference between them; there is a big difference, so big that it would be impossible to bridge the two. And you (as well as your professor) claim that antennae are modified legs, and that I was stupid and foolish to discredit them. Give me some proof that they are modified legs, and I will take it back.
 * At any rate, you now realize that there is no "new" information, that this "new" information is a reorganization and duplication of the "letters" in the code of DNA. I never said that one single mutation could introduce big changes; it would take billions of the same mutation happening over and over again to introduce such changes as you suggest. Few mutations are actually beneficial, many are neutral but most are harmful. Now, seeing as how it takes beneficial mutations to cause an organism to become more complex, it would require that these rare beneficial mutations be occuring at a consistent rate billions of times over. That's not only improbable, it's impossible. If you think not then prove to me that it could happen. Otherwise, you've said enough. Ratso 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we are finally at the point where our information diverges. You seem to understand mutations well, “few mutations are actually beneficial, many are neutral but most are harmful” and “it would require that these rare beneficial mutations be occur[r]ing at a consistent rate billions of times over”, and that’s what happens, that’s evolution! Using the principle you don’t understand of natural selection. “You can't say, however, that the fittest reproduce more, because a lot of times they don't. Since they are in not much danger of being eaten, they will have few or no offspring a lot of times and the less fit will reproduce more.” That is, I am sorry to say, plain wrong… give me reputable sources for your false claim, and I might reconsider it, (acknowledge it isn’t false, but as we both know you can’t discredit natural selection that easily). It may be true that “a lot of times they don’t” but a lot more, (I mean a majority of cases, not multiple isolated cases) they do. As for “And you (as well as your professor) claim that antennae are modified legs, and that I was stupid and foolish to discredit them. Give me some proof that they are modified legs, and I will take it back.” I gave you a source from the International Journal of Developmental Biology, and you just ignore it. You gave no sources at all. It is true there is no new information in YOUR sense of the term, in my sense there is, I thought I was clear on that. It is also true, that I Pro_bug_catcher can’t give you proof of evolution, but science can, science has given it. For conclusion I think you are right about the fact this conversation is over.
 * If you don’t either discredit (with proof) or acknowledge: 1. Natural selection 2. The International Journal of Developmental Biology. 3. That antennae are modified legs. 4. That evolution doesn’t exist (that birds haven’t evolved from dinosaurs, and that life hasn’t evolved from unicellular simple life forms). 5. That mutations don’t bring new information (with accumulation).
 * Then yes indeed you do not understand evolution, (don’t know what you’re talking about) and should (since you do not understand, not because of what you think) keep your pseudoscience for yourself. Once you do understand (or have proof that I am the one misinformed) then we can continue.
 * I may have a little time to searche for reputable sources in my christmas break, until then I am a little to busy. By the way thank you for your time and for defending your point of view Pro bug catcher 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You make all these great, wild claims, but you fail to give examples for them. You claim that the fittest always reproduce the most, but you don't give me any examples of this occurring in real life. And about the antennae: I gave you a source from the International Journal of Developmental Biology, and you just ignore it. Snort! I am not; but it is not proof that antennae are modified legs. You claim I can't give you proof of evolution, but science can, science has given it. You fail to understand that science cannot be used to prove anything, and what you said is downright false. Science has never, ever proven evolution; at least, not the evolution you're talking about. Sure, we know that bacteria can mutate (reorganize their information) to render certain antibiotics useless, and we know that animals like finches can change to adapt to their environment (this happened in a matter of one or two generations). But it doesn't take billions of years, nor does it change the organism into a totally different type of organism (for instance, a fish into a frog, a reptile into a bird (Archaopteryx was a bird), or a blob of cytoplasm into a human being. You can take these words of mine and twist them and put them in italics to refute them but it's still going to be true.
 * I do understand evolution, I understand that it is the belief that organisms are changing to become more complex. Right? Yes. You obviously don't understand that evolution has not been proven and will never be proven. I could throw all sorts of examples at you, but you fail to see because you are blinded. There, that's proof that you are misinformed.
 * Earlier, you claimed that you do not belief in a god called Random Chance. Well, believe it or not, you do. If there's no intelligent designer out there, then it must have been Random Chance, the Blind Watchmaker, that created everything. If not, then it must have been an intelligent Creator.
 * One more thing about the modified "legs": why do you believe this? Do you believe it simply because your professor does and the people at your "scientific" journal do, or have you weighed the evidence carefully and come to the conclusion? Anyway, even if they are (which is unlikely), it certainly wouldn't prove evolution. They lost their ability to walk and climb, but they're still genetically similar, obviously. Your arguments are not in the least bit convincing; all you're doing is beating a dead horse, one that has been dead for a while (DO NOT PUT THIS IN ITALICS; THAT DRIVES ME NUTS). Ratso 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you have not discredited (with proof) or acknowledged the points above. And you have just kept the same information. When you know more about science (and what is it's purpose), about natural selection, about population mechanics, about probability. Then we may continue the conversation. If that is not done, I cannot do anything for you (and until then you can't do anything for me). But I ask you, why can't I be angostic, why am I obliged to believe in a god? You are the one who is blinded, I have tried to give you the key to removing your blindfold. It is now up to you to take it, or leave it. You could also try to take my blindfold off, with solid proof, solid sources. I have understood you points of view (you have not understood mine), I have given you soucres (not many, but more than none), you have given none.Pro bug catcher 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you've degenerated into stupid, blanket statements without any sources. I'll give you mine: the Answers in Genesis website, the CreationWiki website, my own observations, my biology textbook, among others. I have hesitated before because I know what your response is going to be to them. Your sources have been few and far between, but I suppose it's better than none, and now you have mine. I'm never, ever going to be able to take your blindfold off unless you're willing to have it taken off. How can you say I have one? Because I don't believe in your deception? The Bible is full of verses describing people like you, but I'm not going to give you any because you'll just make a mockery of them rather than listening to them. All I'll say is that God will eventually show the "wise" of this world just how stupid they really are. Your "key" to removing my "blindfold" is really a method of placing the blindfold on, and I'm going to leave it, thank you very much. You can't be totally agnostic; someone or something is going to be the object of your worship. Believe it or not, you can be your own god. Many people are. You can't just believe in nothing; there will always be something. Either it's you, it's chance, it's a historical figure, or it's a divine, omnipotent, omnipresent omniscient being. Now, since you seem to be through, I guess I will be too. see yuh. Ratso 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You do know how I would react to your sources, so I won't react at all. My references aren't very good, I know that, I'm studying until the 14th of December, until then I don't have enough time to give you better sources. But even if I did, you'd say they are wrong, however reputable, however clear, however recent. "You can't be totally agnostic" (blank statement right?). Believing in myself, isn’t that self confidence (not self worship)? I am through (unless you put a blindfold on, to take your words). Thank you for your time. Good luck to you. But please refrain from trying to disprove evolution without understanding its basics and its roots.Pro bug catcher 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Before I stop, I'd just like to say that I do understand evolution and its basics: the change from simple to complex. Okay? That good enough? Good. Now I'm through, so have a nice life (can't say you'll have a nice afterlife unless you listen to someone besides evolutionists). Ratso 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You have sadly proven you don't understand evolution. I can't really add more to that. You don't understand its basic principles and have proven so (unless you lied in your conversation). That is truly being close minded and "in a mental block". You should at least try to understand what evolution has to say (without changing your view of it, with your "creationist glasses"), if you have already done so, retry. You should understand probability, natural selection, accumulation of changes which make new" information... Good luck if you plan on even trying.Pro bug catcher 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, give me your definition, since you understand it so well. Ratso 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Edits such as this could be perceived by other editors as uncivil. Please be cool and keep a polite tone even when discussing controversial issues. Thank you. --Ginkgo 100 talk 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. That really wasn't uncivil, though. Ratso 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Break
You're quite welcome. You may consider me on an extended partial wikibreak. I am a doctor and it is difficult for me to predict my schedule; in addition, my free time can be quite limited. I edit when I have time; if you wish to see if I have been active recently, I would suggest taking a look at my contributions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okey. Ratso 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lies
Do you want me to show you several lies made by creationist organizations?


 * AAAUUUGGH! Please don't! I don't want to know! Yes, go ahead and show me; I'd love to see what these "lies" are. Ratso 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AiG's tiktaalik article, for example. "The hind limbs [of tetrapods] in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins."-David Menton. This is not wrong information. This is a lie. Tiktaalik's hind fins have never been found! Of course, I know you're bathing in your presuppositions so bad you'll be able to ignore this. Creationists have an amazingly competent Morton's Demon.


 * Okay, here's what probably happened: they probably are making a generalization of all fish, and since tiktaaliks are so similar to fish, they assume this about them. Ratso 22:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought as well; but they really shouldn't say it is in a certain shape. We don't know. (I think menton is right, but that's irrelevant. Strong back fins probably evolved after primitive amphibians learned to crawl. Besides, this was the only mention of the fossil in the whole article.) It is also important to note tiktaalik's skull is identical to that of tetrapods. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitron Ninja Apple (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

JPIV
Hey, just wanted to give you the heads-up that talk pages aren't supposed to be for general discussion. We're supposed to talk about how we can improve the article for the subject at hand. Anyway, it's likely that the GM plot probably won't be the final plot, if they ever make this film. If you see what Winston said in April 2005, Spielberg has yet to be satisfied with the script. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, sorry about that. Ratso 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)