Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ok,this is my last reply to this because it has gone off topic, evolution is the belief that life is going in a progression, that it started with the simplistic designs and has continued forward.The most obvious proof of evolution is to say, the history of life on earth makes it obvious. However the only modern examples of evolution are actually examples of DE-evolution. Selective adaptation is not evolution, it is, if the tall critter can reach more berries,then the tall critter will do better,have more tall babies,etc,etc, that is not evolution. This is all theory, no one is right or wrong, and its off topic. Ok,this is my last reply to this because it has gone off topic, evolution is the belief that life is going in a progression, that it started with the simplistic designs and has continued forward.The most obvious proof of evolution is to say, the history of life on earth makes it obvious. However the only modern examples of evolution are actually examples of DE-evolution. Selective adaptation is not evolution, it is, if the tall critter can reach more berries,then the tall critter will do better,have more tall babies,etc,etc, that is not evolution. This is all theory, no one is right or wrong, and its off topic. As for the last part,its self explanatory, read it again,it points out the whole theory is based on an assumption, that by current scientific standards is impossible, are leaps of "faith" ok when its convenient to science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Scientists can"t make nucleotides in the laboratory. Yes they can. Selective adaptation is not evolution, it is, if the tall critter can reach more berries,then the tall critter will do better,have more tall babies,etc,etc, that is not evolution. You have just described evolution perfectly, yet refuse to accept it's existence. This is all theory, no one is right or wrong, and its off topic. Not so. If one proposition excludes the possibility of the other, then one has to be wrong. evolution is the belief that life is going in a progression, that it started with the simplistic designs and has continued forward.The most obvious proof of evolution is to say, the history of life on earth makes it obvious. No, evolution A/ isn't a belief, and B/ has no direction (ie there is nothing driving a tendency to more complexity, for instance). It's sole purpose is to get DNA through to the next generation, and that can mean adapting in any direction at all that gives an advantage. However the only modern examples of evolution are actually examples of DE-evolution. Not so. Whilst "modern examples of evolution" is almost meaningless because of the infinitesimally slow pace of evolutionary change, there are a number of examples of speciation that have been observed recently......very recently indeed. I can add more to this list if you want. ......... its off topic. Well, with the greatest respect, you posted something about evolution that was simply incorrect (3 errors in one sentence). You can't do that and then complain if you get corrected. As for the last part,its self explanatory, read it again,it points out the whole theory is based on an assumption, that by current scientific standards is impossible, are leaps of "faith" ok when its convenient to science? Sorry, but this is arrant nonsense. The whole theory is not based on an assumption that is impossible. The reason for the universal acceptance of evolution is that it works, all its assumptions have been tested and retested thousands of times, and it better explains what is seen on the planet than anything else that fits within the laws of science. There aren't any great gaps in its basics.....no leaps of faith required........no great unknowns. Sure, there are still controversies within the science, but we are only talking nuances of the general theory (remember, theorem) such as the speed at which it generally works. Every new discovery in the field of biology since On the Origin of Species was published over 150 years ago has fallen within the rules, and that is as good a demonstration of its robustness as you can ever ask for. It isn't possible to say that about any of the alternatives. Mike Edited December 28, 2011 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) "Some scientists believe that Dr. Wimmer did not succeed in creating artificial life because a virus cannot reproduce on its own (it needs a host cell) and therefore it is not technically a living organism" Its a debate,not a fact,the scientist cant even agree and you present it as proof, did you read it? Seriously, I am done with this,it has nothing to do with Bigfoot,its a cut and paste pissing contest,I am not interested in continuing. I was simply trying to encourage out of the box thinking,not get into long drawn out debate on theories, never forget,as I said before,the same people that believed the earth was flat,and the universe revolved around where just as stolid,contemptuous,and thorough in their beliefs as many are today,science is always changing. It is based on the ASSUMPTION that the components came together and CREATED life,and all the scientist that disagree with your last link are wrong,and you are right,I get it. "Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years." Edited December 28, 2011 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) "Some scientists believe that Dr. Wimmer did not succeed in creating artificial life because a virus cannot reproduce on its own (it needs a host cell) and therefore it is not technically a living organism" We're talking about the nucleotides, not the life (or otherwise) that was created using them. You said that no-one had been able to produce artificial nucleotides, and there is no controversy over the fact that they have. Encouraging out-of-the-box thinking is fine, and I welcome it wholeheartedly (other than the use of the cliche!). However, that is no excuse for mis-representing what we already know. BTW, this isn't cut and paste stuff. I am married to a biologist, and have a daughter studying cellular biology at Uni. I have to know a bit about this stuff or I can't follow what is being talked about over dinner. Mike Edited December 28, 2011 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 John if you are getting in to the metaphysical aspect, you need to look at this situation from a physics point of view. I like the holonomic brain theory personally. It kind of conjoins what you and Mike are both talking about: Evolution is the process, but the spirit is the ghost in the machine. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Holonomic_brain_theory And it is related to the topic indirectly. You can't leave out evolution because if, and thats a big if, UFO's contain intelligent entities then it stands to reason that these entities would be interested in how all life is related on this planet, would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ok,this is my last reply to this because it has gone off topic, evolution is the belief that life is going in a progression, that it started with the simplistic designs and has continued forward.The most obvious proof of evolution is to say, the history of life on earth makes it obvious. However the only modern examples of evolution are actually examples of DE-evolution. Selective adaptation is not evolution, it is, if the tall critter can reach more berries,then the tall critter will do better,have more tall babies,etc,etc, that is not evolution. This is all theory, no one is right or wrong, and its off topic. Actually this is not really off topic. It relates to the veracity of the thinking that goes into research and the stance that individuals take. I have come to accept evolution because it explains the real world of fossils and genetics. Evolution means that I can predict that a hominid that is six to nine feet tall and covered with hair probably reaches sexual maturity at an age between nine and thirteen years of age just like humans and apes do. Why? Because humans and quite possibly bigfoot have evolved from a group of higher apes that were just like chimps, gorillas and orangutans all of whom become sexually mature around these ages. I can predict that bigfoot probably has opposable thumbs like humans and apes. I can predict that bigfoot are approximately 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees just like humans are because humans and bigfoot probably branched off from each other after they branched off from the common ancestor with chimpanzees. If humans are 98% identical with chimps then so are bigfoot. If this is true then bigfoot is even closer genetically to humans than a mere 98%. This means that some of our genetic codes are going to be more similar than they are to chimpanzee codes. Natural selection (not selective adaptation) is how a species evolves. Any difference (genetic in basis) can be selected if it is beneficial. This means that if an individual has an extra bone in its back and can reach higher into a tree for fruit then this may be passed on to future generations. If any individual with this extra bone has a mutant offspring that uses this bone to bend down better then this new variation will likely also be passed down. As generations of variations accumulate populations may grow and/or diverge. These populations will tend to grow more and more different as time passes. Each of these populations can then grow and diverge further building on the differences they already accumulated. A taller breed might need different bone structures than a shorter breed does. A weaker population might need better hiding skills. The only "accidents" in evolution are the mutations and permutations. Selection is not random but is dictated by the environment the population inhabits. Nonadaptive mutations tend to get weeded out. Useful mutations are SELECTED for the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Natural selection (not selective adaptation) is how a species evolves. Don't forget sexual selection. The peacock's tail and all that...... Great post, BTW. Mike PS......talking of "an extra bone in its back", as you were........did you know that a giraffe has the same number of vertebrae as us? Evidence, yet again, that evolution works with what it has got, rather than starting again from scratch. There is actually a nerve in a giraffe's neck that is about 20 feet long to join two things which are only a couple of inches apart. Again, evolution just kept on and on extending the nerve from the shorter necked ancestors, so that it continued following the same route, rather than starting from scratch with a new 3 inch nerve. PPS.....I'll bet Jodie's house that if we are ever visited by aliens that they are also the product of evolution. We'll only need a cell sample to check that out. Edited December 28, 2011 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 "Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years." Common usage is not the very definition of evolution. There are a number of definitions for the word and the one you are using is not scientific. There is a seeming trend to complexification but the majority of evolutions doesn't actually make living things more complex. Some actually become simpler. Most stay about as complex as they were before. Complexity does arise however from evolution. Evolution does not require it to do so. This is not the purpose of evolution. Evolution doesn't even really have a purpose it is simply the response of reproductive units (like living things) to an environment. Which units reproduce depends on the variations and the environment overall. The definition you are using has more to do with the apparent direction life has taken but there is nothing that says evolution has to lead somewhere. Don't forget sexual selection. The peacock's tail and all that...... Great post, BTW. Mike PS......talking of "an extra bone in its back, as you were........did you know that a giraffe has the same number of vertebrae as us? Evidence, yet again, that evolution works with what it has got, rather than starting again from scratch. There is actually a nerve in a giraafe's neck that is about 20 feet long to join two things which are only a couple of inches apart. Again, evolution just kept on and on extending the nerve from the shorter necked ancestors, so that it continued following the same route, rather than starting from scratch with a new 3 inch nerve. PPS.....I'll bet your house that if we are ever visited by aliens that they are also the product of evolution. We'll only need a cell sample to check that out. I tend to think of sexual selection as a variation of natural selection and not as anything other than. You have to be good looking to get a date. Or well maybe just make them laugh True the giraffe doesn't have any "new" structures at all but it's very different from a zebra despite that. Snakes have extra vertebrae and extra bones have developed in a number of other animals. The mutation isn't as dramatic as one might think as a whole vertebrae and the muscles attached to it are usually just a multiple production of already existing code. A simple control gene could be mutated to do just this. It could even be just a single nucleotide being altered. Once the new vertebrae exists in the population it can then worked to produce something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ok, I said I was done with this,but here is a link for you to consider,now again, I must state, I am simply stating the argument, not my personal beliefs,my personal beliefs are somewhere in between all this.I do however think its important to show that what you are saying,is a belief,nothing more. http://www.creationtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196&Itemid=196 Mike,you might want to discuss some of these points over dinner tonight,lol Through out history, science has mad mistake,after mistake,and made many advances to. I applaud them for trying, and the efforts put forth, but mankind has a long,long way to go,before they can be so arrogant as to claim so much knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) PPS.....I'll bet Jodie's house that if we are ever visited by aliens that they are also the product of evolution. We'll only need a cell sample to check that out. I think you could do better than my house, I imagine you are right anyway. There is a book out called "Hair of the Alien" by Bill Chalker where DNA analysis was done on a couple hairs left by a visitor. I read it years ago, it was interesting, you should be able to find it at your local library if interested: http://www.paraview.com/chalker/index.htm Now that I recall this book, I wonder if they have enough sample to run better tests on it now, if the results are in GenBank, and if it was used to compare with Dr. Ketchum's DNA samples........ Edited December 28, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) http://www.creationtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196&Itemid=196Mike,you might want to discuss some of these points over dinner tonight,lol Sorry..........you're joking, aren't you? We've already eaten, but, my, we had a giggle over that twaddle just now. You really aren't going to go to a creationist web-site for your science, are you? "The fact that DNA carries information is evidence that Darwin was wrong and that evolution doesn't happen" (I'm precis-ing the final of the 10 points). Number 7 invokes the most childish mis-interpretation I have ever read of the so-called "mitochondrial-eve". There isn't a single correct fact in the entire item (number 7). Be aware that Wells himself, in the book quoted in no. 7, has proposed that everyone alive today descended from one male who lived in Africa 60,000 to 90,000 years ago...............BUT, THAT ONE MAN WAS ONE OF MANY MEN ALIVE AT THE TIME. THIS IS NO "ADAM". EXACTLY THE SAME FOR MITOCHONDRIAL EVE. Go and read the sources in number 6, and you'll find that they have been completely mis-represented in the article. They have found FOSSILISED cells and blood vessels, not the real things. This is rather marvellous and exciting in itself, but is completely compatable with evolutionary science. Missing links? Well, the fossil record is pretty **** good now and improving all the time, so this old chestnut is a load of nonsense. Hmmm.......Science, the Homer Simpson way. Number one, although seriously out-of-date (quoting Pasteur, for instance, from about 100 years before DNA was found), has some merit. Not everything is known about this yet......but they are closing in on it, I'm told. I could go on.........and will, if you keep coming back for more. Listen, if you want to understand science, read some science. Don't try to understand science by reading the twisted nonsense of those who set out to undermine it, who don't understand it themselves, and who don't have any scruples whatsoever about lying and quoting out of context to further their cause. That's rather like asking Erich von Daniken for a history of the world. Mike Edited December 28, 2011 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Who came up with the term "Plasma Sphere"? That term was already coined for something else. http://plasmasphere.nasa.gov/ Thumbs down for originality. Pardon me FuriousGeorge, but you are presenting my original term here as two words, which is correct, and then linking to a NASA site that presents a one word concept "Plasmasphere" which is something else entirely. Now do I have to check all your other posts for twisting the issue and misrepresentations of what folks are trying to say ? And you are an admin/moderator ? Good grief ... -1 to you my friend Nice daytime Plasma Sphere shot Sasfooty ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Whoa slow down. Sloooow down. I'm askng because I'm curious to know how it was determined they are made of plasma, but mostly if we are supposed think that are definately plasma because of the other currently occupied namesake. It doesn't really matter about the claim to me, as I take it from your defensive posture you are implying. You can claim, report, or witness anything you like and I'm good with it. I only care about verification. That goes for all topics here. The name suggests that it was observed and verified. Was it? ...... And my admin duties are separate. I never mix opinions within a post with rule enforcement. Never. And I resent the implication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Ok, I said I was done with this,but here is a link for you to consider,now again, I must state, I am simply stating the argument, not my personal beliefs,my personal beliefs are somewhere in between all this.I do however think its important to show that what you are saying,is a belief,nothing more. http://www.creationtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196&Itemid=196 Mike,you might want to discuss some of these points over dinner tonight,lol Through out history, science has mad mistake,after mistake,and made many advances to. I applaud them for trying, and the efforts put forth, but mankind has a long,long way to go,before they can be so arrogant as to claim so much knowledge. Evolutionary theory is constantly being abridged and refined as new discoveries are made and techniques for DNA extraction are improved, some parts of it are established fact. No one has ever claimed it was finite. The fossil record is not complete, and probably never will be, but I do believe DNA studies are the next best thing. We are just getting started with understanding how all the pieces fit together. There will be much more enlightening information to come, I'm sure, hopefully I'll live long enough to read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Whoa slow down. Sloooow down. I'm askng because I'm curious to know how it was determined they are made of plasma, but mostly if we are supposed think that are definately plasma because of the other currently occupied namesake. ok my apologies here george that was outa line of me. I can't verify they are made of plasma, or what plasma really is, but Sasfooty has backed me up pretty good with her/his daytime photo that this is not our imaginations or a hoax. Previously I was using the term "plasma entities", and dropped in with "sphere" for this thread. the phenomina is real, thats for certain and not electromagnetic effects from geo sources, as it's movement, brightness and positions are affected by what the observer does. I'd go as far as saying I bet these are terrestrial as well. I saw one about a month ago at distance, in a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts