Quote:

---

piracetam said:
you can dance around the fact that the man is unoriginal and hypocritical all you want. you dissecting "are you serious" doesn't address the so-called insult anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Naturalists/'materialists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof. For starters, recent preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%. As well, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4% (Hahn). Whereas, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may in actually be closer to 85% to 90%. Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? Decoding the dogma of DNA similarity http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5111 No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from! Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!! Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or fa^tal to the life-form having the mutation! (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998, Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). "I have seen estimates of the incidence of the ratio of deleterious-to-beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). Therefore, I cannot ...accurately represent how rare such beneficial mutations really are." (Sanford; Genetic Entropy page 24) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an a@###!ual population (Philip J. Gerrish & Richard E. Lenski) "Clonal interference is not the only dynamic that inhibits the progression of beneficial mutations to fixation in an a%$ual population.Asimilar inhibition may be caused by Muller’s ratchet (Muller, 1964; Haigh, 1978), in which deleterious mutations will tend to accumulate in small a%%$%ual populations. As shown by Manning and Thompson (1984) and by Peck (1994), the fate of a beneficial mutation is determined as much by the selective disadvantage of any deleterious mutations with which it is linked as by its own selective advantage." http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1998,%20Genetica,%20Gerrish%20&%20Lenski.pdf Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? (Thomas Bataillon) Abstract ......It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v84/n5/full/6887270a.html High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans ( Esther K. Davies, Andrew D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley) "In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load...the presence of a large class of mildly deleterious mutations can never be ruled out. " http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5434/1748 ” Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information.” Trying to find an actual "hard" number for the "truly" beneficial mutation rate is, in fact, what Dr. Behe tried to do in his book "The Edge of Evolution". Dr. Behe states in Edge of Evolution on page 135. Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would explain the generation of the complexity we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite. That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications (births) of the malarial parasite, by Dr. Behe. Thus, the actual rate for "truly" beneficial mutations, that would account for the complexity we see in life, is far in excess of one-hundred-billion-billion mutational events. Thus, this one in a million number, that is often bantered about for “truly” beneficial mutations, is actually far, far too generous for the evolutionists to be using for their hypothetical calculations. In fact, from consistent findings such as these, it is increasingly apparent that Genetic Entropy is the overriding foundational rule for all of biology, with no exceptions at all, and that the belief in "truly" beneficial mutations is nothing more than wishful speculation on the naturalists part that has no foundation in empirical science whatsoever: The foundational rule of Genetic Entropy for biology can be stated something like this: All adaptations away from a parent species for a sub-species, which increase fitness to a particular environment, will always come at a loss of the original integrated complex information in the parent species genome. Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker). "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution? http://www.icr.org/articles/print/3466/ “It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA) “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.” (Lynn Margulis - Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29). “But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology) "Of carefully studied mutations, most have been found to be harmful to organisms, and most of the remainder seem to have neither positive nor negative effect. Mutations that are actually beneficial are extraordinarily rare and involve insignificant changes. Mutations seem to be much more degenerative than constructive…" (2002, p. 163 paleontologist Kurt Wise). "The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume." Dr. Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics - MIT) Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or fatal, then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,999^30,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a dead end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before killing him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,999^30,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome! Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%. The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes. They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye. Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be far below the culling power of natural selection to remove from a genome! Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/jt/1995/00000175/00000004/art00167 “The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology) “Evolution through random duplications”... While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment” John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! Holds over 25 patents! In addition to the gene gun, Sanford invented both pathgen derived resistance, and genetic immunization. If you have eaten today you have probably eaten some food touched by his work!)

---

Quote:

---

NastyDHL said:
I'm not avoiding that fact opinion, dude.  I have no loyalty to the guy, I don't wish for him to be respected or admired by others so I won't defend him or be unwilling to accept bad things about him.  I just want some unbiased truth about the dude because I think people on the shroomery may be being a bit too picky when they say they don't like Joe Rogan.  Maybe it's because it can be cooler to dislike what one would expect others to think is cool, or because people generally disagree with the dude's ideas or his past actions.  I just think that we should embrace him as a counter-culture icon and help propagate his messages, because at our current state we don't have enough room or time to be picky about who we should support.  The guy is out there keeping it realer than most, popularizing the theorization of our species and its history and future.  He (and like someone else said, Doug Stanhope) is spreading the ideas that psychedelics have potentially great benefits and I think we should stand behind him.

---

Quote:

---

Poptart said:

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
you can dance around the fact that the man is unoriginal and hypocritical all you want. you dissecting "are you serious" doesn't address the so-called insult anyway.

---

At least he is raising awarness about psychedelics in a positive way.

---

Quote:

---

piracetam said:

Quote:

---

I AM SWIM said:

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
are you serious?

his impromptu yet famous 2003 "dmt interview" voided his credibility on the subject; for one, he spouted theories as facts and basicly described the experience verbatim as terrence mckenna described it in 'alien love' from his alien dreamtime speech in 1993. also, he claimed he saw a perfect buddha appear right in front of him...what a coincidence.. Iggy Pop claimed he saw the same thing, during a Stuff interview two years before..

yet this man has the nerve to call out another comedian for stealing his material?


ha.

---

its actually quite common for users to experience going to the same places with DMT.

thats why there is a synchronised hyper space event

http://www.entheogenic-portal.com/

---

lol

what a coincidence. they have a similar event back at my fav forum...dmt-nexus.
is it common for people to have little alien entities tell them "do not be astonished"?

recognize alien love
I can appreciate his enthusiasm for dmt, but that's about it. he's not even that funny, and he was a commentator on the very thing hicks despised: barbaric distractions.

---

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
are you serious?

his impromptu yet famous 2003 "dmt interview" voided his credibility on the subject; for one, he spouted theories as facts and basically described the experience verbatim as terrence mckenna described it in 'alien love' from his alien dreamtime speech in 1993, without giving him credit. also, he claimed he saw a perfect buddha appear right in front of him...what a coincidence.. Iggy Pop claimed he saw the same thing, during a Stuff interview two years before..

yet this man has the nerve to call out another comedian for stealing his material?


ha.

---

Quote:

---

blewmeanie said:

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
are you serious?

his impromptu yet famous 2003 "dmt interview" voided his credibility on the subject; for one, he spouted theories as facts and basically described the experience verbatim as terrence mckenna described it in 'alien love' from his alien dreamtime speech in 1993, without giving him credit. also, he claimed he saw a perfect buddha appear right in front of him...what a coincidence.. Iggy Pop claimed he saw the same thing, during a Stuff interview two years before..

yet this man has the nerve to call out another comedian for stealing his material?


ha.

---

He actually gave Terrence McKenna the credit for quite a bit of what he was saying. He just didn't do it in that one interview. If you listen to a bunch of the interviews with him though, he talks about Terrence McKenna quite a bit.

---

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:

Quote:

---

Poptart said:

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
you can dance around the fact that the man is unoriginal and hypocritical all you want. you dissecting "are you serious" doesn't address the so-called insult anyway.

---

At least he is raising awarness about psychedelics in a positive way.

---

It doesn't matter though cause the government doesn't give a shit.  These drugs have no medical value so they'll never be legal.

---

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:

It doesn't matter though cause the government doesn't give a shit.  These drugs have no medical value so they'll never be legal.  All he really accomplishes is admitting to everyone that he likes to get high from my point of view.

---

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:

Quote:

---

Poptart said:

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
you can dance around the fact that the man is unoriginal and hypocritical all you want. you dissecting "are you serious" doesn't address the so-called insult anyway.

---

At least he is raising awarness about psychedelics in a positive way.

---

It doesn't matter though cause the government doesn't give a shit.  These drugs have no medical value so they'll never be legal.

---

Quote:

---

Poptart said:I got into psychedelics because of tool and bill hicks.

---

Quote:

---

blewmeanie said:

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:

Quote:

---

Poptart said:

Quote:

---

piracetam said:
you can dance around the fact that the man is unoriginal and hypocritical all you want. you dissecting "are you serious" doesn't address the so-called insult anyway.

---

At least he is raising awarness about psychedelics in a positive way.

---

It doesn't matter though cause the government doesn't give a shit.  These drugs have no medical value so they'll never be legal.

---

http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

---

Quote:

---

blewmeanie said:

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:
It doesn't matter though cause the government doesn't give a shit.  These drugs have no medical value so they'll never be legal.

---

http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

---

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:

Quote:

---

blewmeanie said:

Quote:

---

AmericanPsycho said:
It doesn't matter though cause the government doesn't give a shit.  These drugs have no medical value so they'll never be legal.

---

http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

---

I've heard about that.  It can help people cope with their terminal disease and they're about to die soon anyway.

---