Sendraks wrote:Wow. I mean......wow.

That's some serious mental gymnastics required to come up with an explanation quite so wrong, in order to avoid acknowledging something.

If only Kyranni actually put that mental energy to work in actually learning science, rather than pseudoscience and other sorts of woo.

You give me some citations where the bacteria in the Ames test were "engineered". They have created them using conditions such as temperature and pH changes that force bacteria into different states and chemicals that they call mutagens. However there is no where where they give EVIDENCE that the chemicals cause mutations that can be reversed, i.e., mutations that are not damage to the DNA. The truth is that the bacteria make changes in the presence of the chemicals.

So your approach is just blithely ignore what the research shows and also just post gibberish based on a hysterical misinterpretation of what a mutation is?

If you're going to deny that the evidence presented actually exists, what is the point in showing it to you again?

Sendraks wrote:So your approach is just blithely ignore what the research shows and also just post gibberish based on a hysterical misinterpretation of what a mutation is?

If you're going to deny that the evidence presented actually exists, what is the point in showing it to you again?

WHO is denying the evidence?

You are hiding behind a definition. By definition a mutation is spontaneous, random but the evidence shows otherwise. The genome is dynamic and there is evidence of jumping genes.

Give me a citations where the bacteria in the Ames test were "engineered". You can't give any citation because there is none. If the mutations were engineered then they would not reverse back.

See - your failure to understand science in no way passes muster as a basis criticising this research. Just a few moments reading up on mutations is edifying in demonstrating how wrong you are.

This thread is like a goddamn shart.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:This thread is like a goddamn shart.

I do not feel that my earlier push to ban a certain member would have impoverished this forum in any way- they're not even knowledgeable enough to object to the science in an educational manner. It's nothing but a non-stop exposition of delusion, double standards, and other assorted bullshit.

WELL, I'M SORRY I'M NOT WHAT YOU EXPECTED!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:WELL, I'M SORRY I'M NOT WHAT YOU EXPECTED!

Nobody ever is.

I'm sorry I disappoint you pa!

Not even pictures of my bumhole please him.

Yeah, I tried that. It just seemed to enrage him and he went after me with his whuppin stick.

It ain't right to give your Pa pictures of your bumhole.

Sendraks wrote: he went after me with his whuppin stick.

This better not be a euphemism, boy.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:It ain't right to give your Pa pictures of your bumhole.

I know that now Pa! Ahm sorreh Pa!

ScholasticSpastic wrote:This better not be a euphemism, boy.

It was a stick Pa! I didn't see no euphemism and I didn't know you could play one!

You lot is mentalists.

Fallible wrote:You lot is mentalists.

The number you were thinking of was five. Amiright?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Not even pictures of my bumhole please him.

Kyranni has a certain talent with remote viewing and sketching the results, perhaps she would do us the favor in this case...

scott1328 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Not even pictures of my bumhole please him.

Kyranni has a certain talent with remote viewing and sketching the results, perhaps she would do us the favor in this case...

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 2.....

Would anyone like to see pictures of my bumhole?