Saru Inc

I have a Leona Lewis song on my iPod. Never place bets that you'll never win.

How did Bush not care for it? Elucidate. And also, Obama stated the Constitution says what the gov't can't do, not what it CAN do. Sound familiar? Bah, why are we debating this, he won. Oh well. @Toast, because we know he would. I even have a friend who voted for Obama (she's 19) and she said he'd do it.

tbh, I look for a face, I mean, you can get implants and such, but unless you turn into Michael Jackson, you're stuck with that face. Also, hair, not sure why. And lastly, the biggest part: PERSONALITY. Some of the hottest girls in school are complete [wagon]. I hate them.

No one except Republicans with a huge chip on their shoulder are going to believe speculative nonsense like that, Saru. There's no basis in fact for that comment at all. Yes, McCain delivered a very gracious speech (I especially liked him acknowledging the history of the event), and I wouldn't have expected any less of him because he's a fundamentally decent human being. The same goes for Barack Obama. Ok, I admit, it was a cheap shot. But I honestly believe it would have happened, and we all know how conservative I am. But you guys would die if y'all met my parents, they make me want to go liberal they're so conservative.

I would too, (manly tears, ofc) if I was that close (realtively) to being VP. Oh well.

Haha, that's an epic pic!

No... Actually I'm not, my mom is though, lol she says we're moving to Columbia lolllll. I'm liwk "mama, puede hablar espanol?" didn't think so. :lol: I'm just think McCain gave a really good "we lost" speech.

It is quite confusing, but it's worked for 44 Presidents, so why stop now. @UtopianFlame, I posted them once, I'll go find them. And it's quite naive to say the far left (GW is right when he says Obama is not even close to left when it comes to Europe) never riots.

In what way am I trolling? Is it wrong for being sad the president you wanted did not win, of course not. But everyone I know says how Bush didn't win the popular vote, just shooting it back at them.

What the hell is your problem dude? Nothing is my problem, Europe is crappy atm, with riots everywhere, and whatsoever. And Obama wants to bring us to that. But actually, Obama won fair and square, the people want him. I just am liking McCain even more, because of the speech he is giving atm, he is very very gracious, and Obama would have yelled re count, we all know.

Props to McCain for being so gracious, you know if Obama lost he'd yell recount.

Yay I'll laugh when we get as bad as Europe

I laugh at this. To be fair, congratulations! We're [bleep]ed.

Oh, I just think that Warri0r, though I disagree with all his views, can debate. So yea, I get less frustrated. And I'm not sure, I used to be Presbyterian, then Baptist, then Non Demoniational, then Penecostal. Now I'm none, I'm a 'Christ Follower.' ( I got the term from the youtube vids. I find Christians as a whole, disgusting, I go to the youth group at my chuyrch, instead of seeeing nice faces, I see stoners making out, cussing out the youth group leader and listening to their iPods. And then they mock me for 'not reading the Bible enough.' My mom thinks I'm too cynical, but I don't like very many Christians. Most of my friends are Atheists, or Methodists.

I see what you're saying now, thanks. But in my opinion, I don't think that would apply in this situation. After all, both have facts, while Evolution\Science tend to rely on quantitative, Religion tends to stray to qualitative.

Can't believe no one has said yet "Do you know karate? 'Cause your body is kickin'"

That makes sense, but it doesn't make the two equally rational positions. Not by a long shot. Not trying to be stubborn, but I'm not sure I follow, could you elucidate please?

Did you read it? (No offence) It didn't try to convince you in anyway, all it was saying is, we're all given the exact same facts, and some people will always look at them differently, based on their background and such.

Skillerman explained abiogenesis fairly well. The only thing I'd fault him on is that endosymbiotic theory doesn't state that the Golgi apparatus came from bacteria (you don't really need to worry about that because it has nothing to do with the formation of the first cell). Alternately, you can check out this website. As for the second question, we're not the same because of mutations in the replication of DNA. Every time a cell divides, the DNA must be replicated; in essence it needs to form a clone of itself. The problem is that life isn't perfect, and every now and then mistakes creep in. A mutation can be the insertion or deletion of a single nucleotide or the substitution of one nucleotide for another. Assuming you don't know highschool bio (sorry if you do), a nucleotide is the basic building block of DNA and it comes in four types - A, G, T and C. So when the sequence "AGGTTCA" is replicated, on a rare occasion it may result in the copy being "AGCTTCA" or even "AGGTTTCA". These changes are passed down the cell generations and in organisms like us, to our sperm and eggs. Essentially, mutations are the foundation of evolution. Alternately, a broad class of processes called genetic recombination can cause more significant changes in DNA. For example, when our chromosomes are copied, the copies line up along the equator of a dividing cell before being partitioned into the two daughter cells. It's at this time that the clones can exchange information with each other, or the maternal copy can exchange information with the paternal copy. That's called crossing over, and unequal crossing over can result in one cell with extra information and the other with "deleted" information. This facilitates another process called gene duplication, which then leads to the evolution of gene families. Ok, I'll not go off on a tangent too much. You can ask me more about that if you like. Another means of attaining genetic identity between organisms comes with genome duplication, which, not unlike the crossing over scenario, results in both copies of all chromosomes entering the one daughter cell. This process is called nondisjunction, and it can also lead to duplication of entire individual chromosomes. Some of these changes are biologically feasible, while others aren't. You can think of Down Syndrome as an example here - they have an extra copy of the 21st chromosome. Again, the reason for that is a failure of cell division to partition the chromosomes properly, i.e. nondisjunction. Well, that deals with change, but something else I'm getting from your question is why aren't we more similar if we all came from a common origin. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your question, but I'll answer it anyway. Warren essentially touched on this point in his post - at the fundamental level, all life is remarkably similar. Firstly, all life uses DNA as the genetic material (made of the same four nucleotides, no less), and its function in all organisms is the same - to direct the production of proteins via the genetic code. Speaking of the genetic code, it is very similar across all life on earth and identical across most species, hence why we can express human proteins in E. coli, for example (diabetics probably know what I'm talking about as they get their insulin through that technology). The next logical obervation here is that all life uses the same subset of 20 amino acids to make proteins. There are some exotic outliers like selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, but those fundamental 20 are the main ones by far. The next point of similarity would be metabolism, where all organisms utilise glucose as their main metabolic fuel and shunt it through the glycolysis pathway to generate energy. The majority of organisms (save for some families of bacteria that rely only on glycolysis) then input the products of that process into the citric acid cycle, which provides energy to fuel another fundamental metabolic process - oxidative phosphorylation. Some bacteria get tricky and use sulphates, nitrates, hydrogen gas, etc, as final electron acceptors whereas we animals use oxygen gas for that purpose. And as Warren said, all organisms use the same energy currency to drive our chemical reactions - ATP. Some things I didn't understand, but I'm not a big fan of Biology, it's interesting, but for some reason I don't like. First off, could you explain what selenocysteine and pyrrolysine is? I'm guessing Amino Acids? And also, this paragraph points exactly to my link (Answers In Genesis) in that, it's a pressumption. When I see that, I think "well no duh, Adam and Eve had one set, and they had kids and so on." While you think of it as "it's just how the first strand was created, and it was never meant to differ."

So true Bball. But, remember, these are not sure votes. In fact, I was watching, and Obama jumped up, then jumped down, it's all guessing. Yea, I got an Obama shirt at FYE today, kinda for the shock value my parents would have, and I'm gonna write something on it depending who wins.

Lent, read the link I gave 'AnswersInGenesis' it's quite good, I imagine even an Atheist may like it.

"tl;dr" gotta agree with you there. :lol: But I was just showing the religious side of it. In fact, there's a crazy long line of genealogy in the Bible, in this one book, I forgot which though. =D> #-o #-o The one thing I can't understand, is after Noah, how did the Earth populate so fast. And, how did Noah's family commit incest, and not becoming mentally [developmentally delayed]ed (unlike the Hasburgs) :lol: :lol: :lol:

I wonder if McCain loses, but wins the popular vote, republicans will say it's not fair :P And Oy, fret not. The great nation of America does not forget you little people on the other side of the sea, it may even give you computers, if you're good. I'd say it just to mock the kids in my classes. My momsays I'm a freak because I've cooled down. I still want McCain to win more than ever, I've just realized, he's not going to win, and we've had really liberal presidets in the past (by American's standards) that I sorta liked. AKA LBJ.

Pulse, some of those votes aren't for sure, it's all a guessing game right? But apparently McCain is winning the popular vote. I imagine we all won't know for sure til a week from now.

Show me one phenominon that can't be explained by science that also disproves the theories of either evolution or the big bang and I'll be beyond impressed. Huh? Umm... Creation... Creation is not testible. Creation is an amazingly broad thing, anyway. Yet again you fail to provide testible, proven evidence. Well, in that case, many things aren't testible, Aliens aren't, for one. Anyways, you didn't read my first post, somethings will never be able to be explained, thus why they are miracles, and not acts of nature. Somethings, like the sun, are acts of nature, science can explain them, I'm not debating that. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp That's not really for or against Creation, but it was an interesting read. And this also, isn't for Creationism exactly, but for the Bible in general: And Now this, I think you guys disproved, I forget what you guys said, just posting it. And the link: http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm And lastly, I can see how people think of the Big Bang, because the Universe is expanding, but I don't know why it is. EDIT: There is some evidence that indeed, all creatures of the world are linked and share a common origin. Like the cycle of ATP and ADP, which provides the energy necessary for all creatures to carry out chemical reactions. Yea, well, according to the Bible, there was Adam, then Eve, then everyone else.