To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Dna Disproves Evolution?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

Beaver
Hi everyone, im new here. Im a firm believer in Darwins theory of evolution. smile.gif

Dont know if this has already been discussed before (did a search and couldnt find it) but while discussing evolution with some people someone mentioned that DNA is a pretty big nail in the theory of evolution. Basically, because DNA cannot change itself or combine with other species' DNA to create an entirely new species, this is proof that evolution (macro) cannot happen because there is no way to account for all the changes.

I am no expert in DNA so am a little unsure about it, weather it is a valid point or just another mis-use of a scientific fact to further manic creationists views about a creator.

Heres a bit i could find about it:
QUOTE
Macro evolution can only be defined as an organism acquiring, through mutation, a completely new gene which was not present in any of that organisms ancestors. If a new phenotype (physical structure) is caused by a gene which was present but recessive in any of the parent organisms, then that must be micro evolution.

A good example of micro evolution would be if our little tribe of people who all had brown eyes but had the "hidden" trait for blue eyes caused by a "recessive" gene, went off to some isolated area and lived out of touch with any other people. Over a period of generations, due to death, disease, or what ever, we bred out all of the genes for brown eyes so that we only had the genes for blue eyes and everyone now has only blue eyes. This can only be defined as micro evolution because the gene for blue eyes was already present in the parent organisms. Micro evolution works fine with both creation and evolution models. The debate is about macro evolution and not micro evolution.

For macro evolution to occur, our tribe would have to have never had or had reproductive contact with people who had the gene for blue eyes and, through mutation of the gene for brown eyes, we acquire a gene for blue eyes. We don't have any biological proof of this having ever occurred and this is what the debate is about.

Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene. The best evolutionists can do is the gene for sickle-cell anemia and they hang onto this as an example of positive mutation for proof of evolution. This is in spite of the fact that 25% of the recipients for this mutation (the ones who receive the gene from both parents) are killed by the disorder it causes. Evolutionists claim this as a positive trait because the people who receive the gene from just one parent have an increased resistance to malaria. They forget to tell you that only 50% of the offspring receive the resistance while 50% are either killed by the gene or don't receive the resistance. I don't know of anyone who thinks this is such a good gene that everyone should have it like the genes for eyes, ears, or fingers. If this is such a great mutation, why do we have a national organization to help people who have it?



*sorry, wouldnt let me link to the page. If you want, just type in "DNA disproves evolution" into Google and there are a few links.

I think their argument is, we have different DNA to say, a fish. Therefore as DNA doesnt change, it is impossible that we evolved from a fish. We must have only ever had our DNA as it is now and therefore a creator...blah...blah.

Is this correct or am i right in thinking this cant be quite all their making it out to be?
El_Machinae
There are many known ways for DNA to be added to the genome over the generations. This argument is a complete Red Herring. Anyone who says that DNA information cannot be added hardly knows anything about genetics. DNA addition has been known about for many, many years.

But really, from incredulity. Don't you think that 10s of thousands of geneticists would have noticed if genetics violated evolutionary theory?

smile.gif
NeoDevin
For someone who claimes to be ``a firm believer in Darwins theory of evolution'', you sure know very little about the subject. I would recommend reading through the talk origins faq to educate yourself a little on the subject, then come back if you still have questions.
calebthechemist
Beaver,
It has been a while since my biology classes but I will give this a whirl. The first thing that comes to mind is that the assumption that DNA doesn't change is false. I also think if you are looking for good examples of positive mutations start by arguing from the point of bacteria because they have huge numbers and short reproductive cycles(asexually) evolution is seen much more readily and beneficial mutations are easier to see. A great example is that of Nylon(I think it was Nylon) consuming bacteria(search for it there is plenty online).... If you want better examples of positive mutations you will have to wait for someone more well versed in biology than me. Also if you haven't read it I recommend reading "The Beak of the Finch" very interesting and full of information.
Regards,
Caleb
PuckSR
You know, if you really wanted to instantly shoot down their argument you would mention bacterial conjugation.

Some bacteria have a unique little trick where they basically share DNA. In other words, if the Nylon-eating bacteria is doing really well it can share the genes for nylon-eating with another bacteria who might prefer consuming methane.

This kills the "DNA cannot change" argument.

If they continue to insist that genomes cannot increase in size and information...just laugh. Honestly, this is a lie.

There is another similar lie.
"All of the hominid fossils in the world could fit onto a billiard table."
If you stacked them about 6 foot high and crammed them all together.
Beaver
QUOTE (NeoDevin+Feb 19 2008, 11:00 PM)
For someone who claimes to be ``a firm believer in Darwins theory of evolution'', you sure know very little about the subject. I would recommend reading through the talk origins faq to educate yourself a little on the subject, then come back if you still have questions.

Thanks for that. Although your attitude could have been a little better. No offense but there was no need to basically insult my intelligence on something for asking a question in a subject that i am trying to learn more about. A simple "Take a look here and it will help you" would have been fine. I admit i know very little about DNA and genetics, but i am young and willing to learn. Just be a little less blunt next time eh? smile.gif
PuckSR
Beaver...next time just check the following source:

Index to Creationist Claims

They try to track all of the creationist claims, and then explain them. In fact, they do more than explain them. They list relevant books and webpages that will have further information
Beaver
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 20 2008, 08:31 PM)
Beaver...next time just check the following source:

Index to Creationist Claims

They try to track all of the creationist claims, and then explain them. In fact, they do more than explain them. They list relevant books and webpages that will have further information

Thank you very much. That helps a great deal. smile.gif

Thanks everyone for the replies.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (Beaver+Feb 20 2008, 02:49 PM)
Thanks for that. Although your attitude could have been a little better. No offense but there was no need to basically insult my intelligence on something for asking a question in a subject that i am trying to learn more about. A simple "Take a look here and it will help you" would have been fine. I admit i know very little about DNA and genetics, but i am young and willing to learn. Just be a little less blunt next time eh? smile.gif

NeoD probably meant no offense, it's just that creationists are all over this board, and they've often tried dirty little tricks to get believers in evolution to concede points. Pretending to be a believer in evolution who has been exposed to "incontrovertible" evidence of creationism is a common creationist ploy, and you shouldn't blame him for being wary.
Beaver
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Feb 20 2008, 09:12 PM)
NeoD probably meant no offense, it's just that creationists are all over this board, and they've often tried dirty little tricks to get believers in evolution to concede points. Pretending to be a believer in evolution who has been exposed to "incontrovertible" evidence of creationism is a common creationist ploy, and you shouldn't blame him for being wary.

Ahh, right. Fair enough, i can see how he would be wary of me by how i worded my post.
•SHEOL•
DNA has always disproved (Darwin's) Evolution, so what's new......? laugh.gif
calebthechemist
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 20 2008, 10:12 PM)
DNA has always disproved (Darwin's) Evolution, so what's new......? laugh.gif

You will need to back this statement up. Heredity is a key point to evolution and the discovery of DNA is powerful evidence for evolution not against. Especially given DNA's properties that allow for easy introduction of mutation and thereby diversity.
Regards,
Caleb
NeoDevin
QUOTE (Beaver+Feb 20 2008, 12:49 PM)
Thanks for that. Although your attitude could have been a little better. No offense but there was no need to basically insult my intelligence on something for asking a question in a subject that i am trying to learn more about. A simple "Take a look here and it will help you" would have been fine. I admit i know very little about DNA and genetics, but i am young and willing to learn. Just be a little less blunt next time eh? smile.gif

My apologies, BigDumbWeirdo has it right, that's exactly what I figured you were at first. We get all kinds around here, and I guess I jumped the gun a bit with my opinion of you.

The advice still stands though, the talk-origins faqs and the index of creationist claims are mostly well referenced to peer-reviewed scientific papers, and are on the whole an excellent reference.
TEEJ
I think the existence of DNA disproves the existence of evolution, much the same way a scale disproves the existence of weight.

tongue.gif

In WWI, it was said "There Are No Atheists in Foxholes"....everyone was praying as the shells screamed in and the bombs blasted and the enemy machine gunned anyone who peeked out, etc.

I chronologically objected to being born that long ago, and never had to shelter in a foxhole to avoid getting blown to bits.

I'm sure it was comforting to the desperate men who WERE there to give them SOME hope that they might make it out of the predicament alive.

After that, its all a question of degree....some people feel like they are in that foxhole just leaving their house or having to talk to someone, or simply do not have faith in their own mortality....and live in fear of immortality, especially if they might have screwed up, and there's a referee who gets to judge how they did, and reward or punish them, forever, etc.

If part of the judgment involves getting others to believe what you believe...well, go find people to convince...so you don't get an eternity of punishment.

So - POP! They show up to save our souls.

Understandable....they ARE under the gun so to speak...so I have pity upon them.

____________________

Its human nature to want others to believe what you believe though...half the arguments here on this forum are people trying to convince other people to believe something........after all, the more people who believe something, the more secure we feel in that belief.

That goes for being an Atheist or a String Theorist or a Seventh Day Adventist or a Terrorist.

Its human nature....we evolved that way.

biggrin.gif

----------------------------------------------------


I was in an elevator going up to visit a client, and a passenger said he didn't believe in evolution in response to a News Paper Article the operator was reading about teaching Intelligent Design in schools.

The article next to it was talking about the bird flue, and how it so far was only killing birds, but that it might mutate, and spread to humans.

I asked the passenger if he was worried about getting the bird flue if it came here...and he said he was, because if it mutated to be able to infect humans, we could all get sick, etc.

I said, did you know that mutations happen all the time, its a change in the DNA that makes the animal different somehow, like it can suddenly grow feathers instead of scales, or not be poisoned by a particular pesticide, or have its toe nail turn into a hoof, so frequently that scientists can predict how long a species has been isolated by the number of mutations it has from its ancestors?

He said no, but "THAT'S what a mutation is?" I said yes, that's all it is....some mutations don't work, and the animal produces no or fewer off spring, sometimes it works, and the animal produces more offspring, etc.

The ones who produce more offspring pass more of their changed DNA along, and soon, they multiply, and out compete their ancestors, or move on, and take over somewhere else, etc.

So a fish that crawled along the bottom of the ocean might develop the ability to pop onto the beach to grab some crabs, or escape a predator....and a mutation might occur that allowed its offspring to spend more and more time where there were no predators, and produce more and more offspring, who eventually didn't need to go back to the water, and so forth.

He said "Damn you to hell...now I have to PRETEND to not believe in evolution"

DING! My floor, I got out leaving the poor man trying to decide how to believe in evolution w/o being ostracized in his community of the devoutly religious.

I met him one more time, he smiled. He had figured it out.

He believed in evolution as far as science went, but in the bible as far as religion went...and he was happy with that.

blink.gif

OK


I may be an atheist, but I'm not a missionary about it.







PuckSR
QUOTE
I may be an atheist, but I'm not a missionary about it.


Well, I think you will find very few Dawkins-type atheists in the world. I can, however, comment on another popular trend. I personally get extremely agitated when someone promotes a myth as a fact.

I am not talking specifically about creationism or the bible. I get upset when I hear my mother repeating an urban legend she learned in grade school. I am not exclusively against creationists. Psychics, UFOlogists, cryptozoologists, etc.. ALL piss me off.

Creationists just introduce an interesting challenge, because they are not a fringe minority like cryptozoologists.

Creationists have turned a ridiculous idea into what some consider an accepted fact. They right books about it, give lectures, and promote their idiocy(just like all of the other groups I mentioned)....but they actually sell out the lecture halls. People seem to turn off their reason and skepticism when we start talking about religion.

I just read another thread where a "bible defender" had posted an explanation of a biblical contradiction so outrageous that no one should have taken him seriously. However, many people do take it seriously.

N O M
QUOTE (calebthechemist+Feb 21 2008, 12:06 PM)
QUOTE (arsheol+)
DNA has always disproved (Darwin's) Evolution, so what's new......?

You will need to back this statement up. Heredity is a key point to evolution and the discovery of DNA is powerful evidence for evolution not against. Especially given DNA's properties that allow for easy introduction of mutation and thereby diversity.

He has never backed up anything else he's said on the forum, so not much chance here.

But like you say, this is one of the creationist's worst arguments, because anyone who understands how DNA works in reproduction knows that it argues strongly in favour of evolution.
calebthechemist
You would think after my debates with him in the Entropy vs Order thread I would have learned this by now. I keep holding out hope that at least once we can have a discussion where real ideas and banter are not interrupted by total babbling crap. Oh well, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

Regards,
Caleb
MisterBelfry
QUOTE
Heredity is a key point to evolution and the discovery of DNA is powerful evidence for evolution not against.

The discovery of DNA as the carrier of heredity will be evolution's downfall.
Devolution is the order of the day. Weismann's law is not just an epigenetic failure but more importantly points to the immaculate conception of God incarnate.


http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20223

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20429

The purple 429 is outside the physics general forum which is forum 12. This is forum 24.
franklin
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 19 2008, 11:55 PM)
You know, if you really wanted to instantly shoot down their argument you would mention bacterial conjugation.

Some bacteria have a unique little trick where they basically share DNA. In other words, if the Nylon-eating bacteria is doing really well it can share the genes for nylon-eating with another bacteria who might prefer consuming methane.

This kills the "DNA cannot change" argument.

If they continue to insist that genomes cannot increase in size and information...just laugh. Honestly, this is a lie.

There is another similar lie.
"All of the hominid fossils in the world could fit onto a billiard table."
If you stacked them about 6 foot high and crammed them all together.

yea, HGT destroys ToE because it proves that individuals DO in fact evolve genetically during their lifetimes. ToE says they don't.
PuckSR
QUOTE
yea, HGT destroys ToE because it proves that individuals DO in fact evolve genetically during their lifetimes. ToE says they don't.


Who told you that?
Of course the ToE suggests that individuals DO genetically change in their lifetime. When else are they supposed to change?
calebthechemist
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Feb 21 2008, 10:42 AM)
The discovery of DNA as the carrier of heredity will be evolution's downfall.

That makes no sense.
QUOTE

Devolution is the order of the day. Weismann's law is not just an epigenetic failure but more importantly points to the immaculate conception of God incarnate.


I fail to see what DNA has to do with Mary's Conception free from original sin.

Regards,
Caleb
MisterBelfry

QUOTE
Regarding your above 'devolution only' assertions, I think my post below (to franklin in the Evolution? thread),


Hi RealityCheck,
This I believe is our third thread. Interesting, forum 14, where we first met has a connection here. I will try to explain this. The canopy idea of Franklin's is what came to mind when Peter Ward* says that volcanism evaporated the oceans. As you may know, quantum mechanics seem to show that the global warming crowd is full of crap!
Anyhew, both devolution and evolution have to contend with what is termed co-evolution.
The contention is still the same, homology versus analogy; microevolution versus macroevolution; common descent versus common design. Devolution is the dynamic claim on the length of information flow. Evolution is an adult fanatasy which have partnered with the adult fanatasy that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that bacteria will rule the world once again++.



MrB.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20315
*, 01:59 PM
There are TONS of scientific or historical predictions one could make by reading the Bible, and applying current knowledge. But (despite the tens of thousands of active scientists) we're not seeing those predictions born out. <<<

What are you talking about? ---->

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20388

And this is what I was pointing to,


Now to be up to date,
Peter Ward writes for New Scientist:

This emerging branch of science is called biomarker analysis, or chemical palaeontology, and it is now so powerful that it threatens to make classical palaeontol[o]gy obsolete.

For those of us with a creationist framework, one can snippet:
"short-lived deluge" & "were a global phenomenon" ...Of course the last worldwide flood did not have a recovery period of 7,000 years. The earlier floods with shallow oceans fit in my Devolution interpretation of Genesis one, ...

++Only the K/T mass extinction was caused by an impact; the rest were the result of microbial hostile takeover. At the end of the Permian, the microbes nearly prevailed. Their day will come again.


Genesis one
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(KJV)
PuckSR
QUOTE
Evolution is an adult fanatasy which have partnered with the adult fanatasy that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and that bacteria will rule the world once again++.


Hmm...adult fantasies?
High levels of carbon dioxide in the past gave us our fossil fuels today
And bacteria already rule the Earth. Last time I checked they were everywhere. Your body has more bacterial cells in it than it does human cells. They can make you sick and they can cure you.

Bacteria do rule...we are just their humble servants.
MisterBelfry
Speak for yourself. tongue.gif

4. Dinosaurs
A water canopy surrounding the earth would result in what is known as a "greenhouse effect." The entire earth would be of the same, constant temperature. ...
http://www.biblerevelations.org/ronwyatt/dinosaur.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

The Flood of Noah
II 1990 pp143-154 "The existence of a pre-flood water vapor canopy on top of the existing .... "A Scientific Analysis of Genesis," by Edward F. Blick, Ph.D. ...
http://ldolphin.org/flood.shtml - 107k - Cached -

Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "edward f blick" canopy greenhouse.
PuckSR
QUOTE
4. Dinosaurs
A water canopy surrounding the earth would result in what is known as a "greenhouse effect." The entire earth would be of the same, constant temperature. ...
http://www.biblerevelations.org/ronwyatt/dinosaur.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages


Oh, I hear this water canopy thing alot....
What exactly is a "water canopy"? Are we going back to the ancient belief that the sky is another ocean?

Please, you are being lucid for once MrB. I would love to be entertained?

P.S. Is it evil to laugh at an idiot?
MisterBelfry
THE REMOVAL OF DRAGONS (DINOSAURS) OUT OF THE BIBLE OBSCURING THAT MAN AND DINOSAURS LIVED TOGETHER

On the issue of timing Satan has promoted the pseudo-science of evolution to confuse the age of the earth. Scripturally the earth is coming up around 6,000 years with a 1,000-year millennium to begin once the rapture and the seven-year tribulation have come to pass. The book of Genesis speaks of a canopied earth with much of the water in our current oceans sealed beneath the earth. A greenhouse world protected and designed from the core to its outer atmosphere. In Genesis 7 v 11 it says that there was an internal meltdown within the earth creating tremendous tectonic activity. Water sealed within the earth burst forth to the surface, volcanic activity of great magnitude occurred, the canopy collapsed, and every living thing died that moved upon the earth. The fossil graveyards of the world bear witness to the flood of Noah. Examination of the claimed scientific evidence for the old age of the earth and the fossil record has been proven to be a false science built on the belief in evolution. Christian scientists such as Henry Morris, John Morris, Ken Ham, Steve Austin, Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, Roger Oakland, Gary Parker, Andrew Snelling, John Whitcomb, Don Patton, Edward Blick, Byron Nelson, Reginald Daly, Walter Brown, etc have concluded that evolution is a belief system that does not fit any universal laws or physical facts.
http://www.geocities.com/truedino/kjvissue.htm


Many scientists used to believe that as a tectonic plate descends, no matter how much water is in it, all that water will be driven off by the heat of the mantle and disappear into magma which heads back up to the surface. But gradually evidence has accumulated that some water is making it down. Guust Nolet, at Princeton University, has found what he believes are traces of an ancient subducted plate under Central Europe, 300 kilometers below the surface. Though the slab itself has sunk from view-since subduction stopped 400 million years ago, Nolet says that seismic velocities are markedly slow. This is surprising under an old continent, where the relatively cold rock should produce fast seismic speeds. Nolet's interpretation is that the region is still enriched with water from the passing slab.

Although it is not easy to estimate how much water goes into the mantle through subduction compared with how much comes back out via volcanoes it seems that the whole system is roughly in balance. But what if the balance were to shift, and more water come out than goes in? Obviously the oceans would rise, but the more important effects would be in the atmosphere. "Water is the primary greenhouse gas," notes Jeanloz. If there were a massive build-up of greenhouse gases, he says, it could have a devastating effect on every living creature on Earth. But a sudden outpouring of water, Noah-style, is not likely even if the balance does tilt to a greater outflow. Rather it would be a gradual change on geological timescales, which would affect only our most distant descendants. Perhaps by then they will have evolved gills. (Lou Bergeron is a science writer based in Santa Cruz, California). From New Scientist, 30 August 1997
http://ldolphin.org/flood.shtml


PuckSR
QUOTE
On the issue of timing Satan has promoted the pseudo-science of evolution to confuse the age of the earth. Scripturally the earth is coming up around 6,000 years with a 1,000-year millennium to begin once the rapture and the seven-year tribulation have come to pass. The book of Genesis speaks of a canopied earth with much of the water in our current oceans sealed beneath the earth


So...you are insane....
•SHEOL•
QUOTE (NOM Feb 20 2008+ 09:08 PM)
He has never backed up anything else he's said on the forum, so not much chance here.

But like you say, this is one of the creationist's worst arguments, because anyone who understands how DNA works in reproduction knows that it argues strongly in favour of evolution.

I did, but of-course the moderator(s) at this partial & biased forum became upset & deleted it ASAP when they realized that, all of that blind faith that they & all the other people on this planet put into Darwin's theory crumbled all around them. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (geneticists+)
Scientist(s) (a.k.a. geneticists) impartially conducted the "theory of evolution" test(s), below to try to validate if Darwin's claim(s) of the origin of the life forms on Earth is correct, or incorrect.

Cross-Breeding: The geneticist(s) took (normal) pigeons & allowed them to indiscriminately mate (with other normal pigeons) & procreate & the end result(s) of their "Cross-Breeding" was pigeons who (thought that they) could no-longer fly & continuously walked around on the ground & those that forced to use their wings didn't (normally) fly-up & forwards like the other pigeons (that were not used in the test), but instead were flapping their wings & banging their heads on the ground performing (acrobatic) back flips, like they're training to obtain one, or more (gold, bronze, or silver) medal(s) in gymnastics, which totally destroyed "natural selection".

DNA Modification: The geneticist(s) took (normal) fruit flies with red eyes & altered one of their chromosomal gene(s) (blueprint) code(s) contained within their double helix, which determined eye color & the end result(s) of their "DNA Modification" was fruit flies (with white eyes) who also (thought that they) could no-longer fly & continuously followed the other males around, in weird patterns (& no-longer were "heterosexual", but were now "homosexual") & tried to mate & procreate only with other male (& not female) fruit flies (which is genetically impossible), which totally destroyed "evolving over time".

"When the other geneticist(s) presented their end test result(s) to their geneticist(s) colleagues (who believed in Darwin's theory) they said that, we have to use our imagination(s), faith(s), etc & assume that (Darwin's) "the theory of evolution" is correct, which immediately (& naturally) caused their geneticist(s) colleagues to laugh at them & say that, real science & scientists depend only on what it & we can calculate, measure, etc & don't rely on imagination(s), faith(s), religion(s), assumption(s) etc to validate anything in the fields of any of the sciences, etc."

After the (impartial) test(s) & their colleagues response(s) to the end result(s) of the test(s), they concluded that any individual(s) who accepts Darwin's "the theory of evolution" as fact is using non-scientific tools, but religious, superstitious, etc tools.

Well the verdict is in & scientist(s) (a.k.a. geneticists) & not religion proved 100% that, Darwin is wrong & that any person (who believe) will need greater faith than any religion on this planet can supply to accept his delusions as valid.

Darwin's "The Theory Of Evolution" is scientifically proven to only be his own delusions which he experienced during his sight-seeing-trip.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Feb 22 2008, 12:21 PM)
Speak for yourself. tongue.gif

4. Dinosaurs
A water canopy surrounding the earth would result in what is known as a "greenhouse effect." The entire earth would be of the same, constant temperature. ...
http://www.biblerevelations.org/ronwyatt/dinosaur.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages


The Flood of Noah
II 1990 pp143-154 "The existence of a pre-flood water vapor canopy on top of the existing .... "A Scientific Analysis of Genesis," by Edward F. Blick, Ph.D. ...
http://ldolphin.org/flood.shtml - 107k - Cached -

Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "edward f blick" canopy greenhouse.

You're right. It would result in surprisingly homogeneous temperatures around the world.

Of course, they'd all be in the three-digit range (Celsius, of course.)
Does 200° C sound comfortable to you?
Or living in 13,000 psi of pressure?
The Vapor Canopy FAQs
Zarkov
Well Beaver you are almost on the right track

DNA is a blueprint
as well as DNA a cell/organism has "cellular machinery" which when the DNA is accessed will create the nuts and bolts of the cell. This cellular machinery can make DNA, but only if DNA is already present.

Without the DNA/RNA the cell can not reproduce or repair itself, nor can it make DNA

Now this is a TRUE chicken and egg situation

which came first (this is not as easily solved as the proverbial "chicken and egg" problem is)

the DNA or the cellular machinery...... both are extremely complex

It would appear that BOTH the DNA AND the cellular machinery had to be made at the same time !!!!!!!!!!!!

This of course is impossible via evolution.

Now before you run off screaming creationism

let me say that all LIFE is ONE super-organism, one body,,,, where the DNA has fractal coding for all the life forms that make up the body of LIFE
and the cellular machinery of all cells is similar and compatible

so all life forms are coded for, and are expressed by the cellular machinery whenever environmental cues call them into existence. This is not a "let there be a (insert living thing)" act as creationists assert.

LIFE is obviously an extra- terrestrial that has infected the Earth, and in its growth phases the primordial toxic environment has been detoxified and the various "LIFE fluids" created (water and oxygen)

and so allow finer and finer creatures (life forms) to be expressed... until humankind is manufactured

but humankind in all its arrogant ignorance is now turning the process backwards....

time to leave this little rock, I'd say.

Good luck

Oh BTW LIFE is a fungus
Zarkov
QUOTE
The book of Genesis speaks of a canopied earth with much of the water in our current oceans sealed beneath the earth.


LOL, LOL... yes, it is said,....the cosmos (ferment) was split into matter and water
AND THEN along came LIFE !!!!!!

as if the writers of the Bible knew anything other than their immediate experience.

Total crap..... water does not exist without LIFE

The Bible (old testament) is simply a concoction, a poor exploration into the meaning of LIFE and everything, written by vested interests who failed in kindergarten science..

God knows ! Humans have no idea at all

Get real or you will be left behind, muttering into your old beard
Gorgeous
QUOTE
water does not exist without LIFE



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
water does not exist without LIFE



humankind in all its arrogant ignorance is now turning the process backwards....Humans have no idea at all




That would be You, then..."as if zarkov knows anything other than its immediate experience", and You being, presumably, the 'human' with 'no idea at all' in question.



g.
Capracus
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 25 2008, 10:01 AM)

Total crap..... water does not exist without LIFE
So where is this cosmic vagina that gives birth to comets, or the water ice contained in them?
Gorgeous
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 25 2008, 12:01 PM)
So where is this cosmic vagina that gives birth to comets, or the water ice contained in them?

laugh.gif

So, so tempting...



g.
MisterBelfry
QUOTE
The book of Genesis speaks of a canopied earth with much of the water in our current oceans sealed beneath the earth.



LOL, LOL... yes, it is said,....

"Many scientists used to believe that as a tectonic plate descends, no matter how much water is in it, all that water will be driven off by the heat of the mantle and disappear into magma which heads back up to the surface. But gradually evidence has accumulated that some water is making it down. Guust Nolet, at Princeton University, has found what he believes..."


February 08, 2007
"http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physorg.com%2Fnews90171847.html&title=3-D+

A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth's deep mantle."
MisterBelfry
QUOTE
See all the problems with assuming 'straightline' evolutionary phases EITHER WAY (evolution/devolution")?

.
But in any case, did you accept my point (made to franklin) that EVOLUTION INCREASES INFORMATION...based on the fact that at some point FLOWERING PLANTS and structure, chemistry, pollenation 'vectors' (eventually 'specialised' evolved birds, bats, insects, animals...the latter spreading seeds via after 'gut processing' etc etc)?

That was the only point that need be made re 'evolution' being 'correct' insofar as information CAN be ADDED due to ongoing CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL SELECTION PROCESSES/RESULTS over time.


And again, the WATER 'canopy' is neither here nor there regarding 'global warming'...since if temps are hot enough to put a lot of water into the atmosphereic column, then it will ALSO put the more 'greenhouse potent' CO2 AND METHANE AND OTHER even MORE POTENT GASES into the atmospheric column!




Devolution accepts the supernatural potential built into the world that was. Straightline information increase is an evolution problem. Devolution with shorter time fames can handle co-evolution better I assume. After each mass extinction, evolution has another constriction to face; not so for devolution *if* God pre-planned it all. That is, He prepared for the worse case scenarios. The potentials were built in, they don't repeat at least not in the exact same way. All this makes for an iffy science and more like a History channel story.


Whatever concerns of methane I've had... I have no more?
Showtopic= 15767
Methane

At the present concentration of 1.7 ppmv, and at 3 microns wavelength, methane can absorb 100% of the radiated power in this wavelength element. But, so can water. Moreover, the “side bands” are effectively insignificant. The same applies to methane’s other major peak at 7 microns. At 4 microns, carbon dioxide absorbs 100% of the power, while at 5, 6, and 8 microns, water can take 100% of the power. Therefore, no increase in the amount of methane will have any effect on temperature.




Showtopic= 17805
If(In) this link works you'll notice that methane does not make the cut from table D1 to table D2. Clouds, it looks to me, took the place of global warming potential methane! The GWP as this website{pages} makes clear is not scientific in origin. But it was developed for politicians. Global warming has been helped immensely by lawyers in Washington, D.C.


MrB.
PuckSR
haven't i already shown the stupidity of this claim MrB.

You would need a massive amout of ater under the earth. In fact, you would need aabout 10,000 feet of water to even begin to cause a flood.
MisterBelfry

From Showtopic= 20315:

"There is no evidence of a global flood
There isn't enough water"

>>>>

haven't i already shown the stupidity of this claim MrB.

<<<<

Raise just the Pacific Ocean to swamp depth ... How much of the world would flood? Is this one of those forest \ trees problem? Good grief, man! Now, the believablity is a different issue. Under current processes, it would be hard to swallow. I agree. However the plausibility is right in our frecking faces!!
This so called flood-myth of Noah pre-date sonar and depth charts!!!
And that is just the Pacific!!


MrB.
So, no, not in any thread that I have read.

Hi again RealityCheck; I will study your last post shortly.
PuckSR
How do you plan on raising the sea floor?
There is only so much matter in the earth....

If you filled in the pacific, you would need to sink in the Atlantic...

Besides, if your "flat marble earth" idea was sufficient...then why would you need to find water in the Earth's crust?
Oh, thats right...your flat marble earth idea is dumb

Volume of Earth's Oceans
Surface area of Earth

So Earth's surface area=510,065,600 km^2
Volume of Oceans=1,370,000,000 km^3

So, if we raised all of the ocean's to "marsh depth....the earth would be covered with 2.5 km of water.
2.5 km = 8,202.09974 feet

Hmm...so before the flood of Noah the tallest mountain must have been much shorter than 8,0000 ft?
That is a fairly flat terrain.
So, now you have created a super flat earth with super shallow oceans to explain the flood of Noah.
Do you have any proof of the MASSIVE tectonic movement that would be required for this to occur?

So far, here are the absurd assumptions we have to make to even begin to believe in the "flood"
1) The oceans were all super shallow
2) There were no mountains...everything was less than 8000 ft
3) The water was suspended in a water canopy above the earth
4) The oceans then sunk and the mountains then rose...
5) No evidence of this super-flood exists in the geological record.
MisterBelfry
Results 1 - 4, & 102 of about 771of 164 for "beijing anomaly". (1.67 seconds)

3-D seismic model of vast water reservoir revealed
Feb 7, 2007 ... "I call it the Beijing anomaly. Water inside the rock goes down with the sinking slab and it's quite cold, but it heats up the deeper it ...
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8222.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

Beijing Anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Beijing Anomaly is a seismic wave anomaly in the Earth's mantle, from ~700-1400 km depth, characterized by relatively high attenuation and decreased ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Anomaly - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

User talk:Michaelbusch/talkarchive2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI have moved it to Beijing Anomaly and made Underground Ocean into a dis-ambig. ... Nice work although do you think it is proper for the Beijing Anomaly to ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mic...ch/talkarchive2 - 207k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from en.wikipedia.org »

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Wysession has dubbed the new underground feature the “Beijing anomaly,” because seismic wave attenuation was found to be highest beneath the Chinese capital ...
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ 070228_beijing_anomoly.html - 34k -

Head2Christ Discussion Forum
How do I know it went ignored, because a few days ago he quoted a passage from scripture then followed it with a link to the Beijing anomaly. ...
www.headtochrist.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1367& pid=26219&mode=threaded&show=&st=& - 193k



Hmm...so before the flood of Noah the tallest mountain must have been not much shorter than 8,0000 ft?
That is a fairly flat terrain.
So, now you have created a super flat earth [The Earth is already smoother than any marble we have.-MrB.] with super shallow oceans [To compare to the second day of creation (from the face of the deep) in anticipation of a (another) worldwide flood] to explain the flood of Noah.
Do you have any proof [India subcontinent \ The time of Pelag & now the Beijing Anomaly] of the MASSIVE tectonic movement that would be required for this to occur?

So far, here are the absurd assumptions we have to make to even begin to believe in the "flood"
1) The oceans were all super shallow
2) There were no some mountains...everything was less than 8000 ft
3) The water was suspended in a water canopy above the earth
4) The oceans then sunk and the mountains then rose...


That sounds about right. Did anyone here realize that Science could be so much fun and used to figure out a jigsaw puzzle? Think of yourself as a history detective.

MrB.
MisterBelfry


One of the most dramatic features in the Wysession et. al global mantle shear-wave attenuation model is a very high-attenuation anomaly at the top of the lower mantle beneath eastern Asia. This anomaly is believed due to water that has been pumped into the lower mantle via the long history of the subduction of oceanic lithosphere -- crust and upper mantle -- in this region. The left figure is a slice through the earth, showing the attenuation anomalies within the mantle. The location of the slice -- red line in the upper right figure -- is a map of the seismic attenuation at a depth of roughly 620 miles. In both images, red shows unusually soft and weak rock, and blue shows unusually stiff rock (yellow and white show near-average values). The two figures in the lower right are resolution tests to see if the data have the resolution to retrieve Earth structure in these parts of the Earth. The sharper the black-white transitions are, the better the resolution is
User posted image: User posted image

Previous predictions calculated that a cold ocean slab sinking into the earth at 1,200 to 1,4000 kilometers beneath the surface would release water in the rock that would escape the rock and rise up to a region above it, but this was never previously observed.

Beijing anomaly

"That is exactly what we show here, the exact depth and high attenuation amounts right above it," Wysession said. "I call it the Beijing anomaly. Water inside the rock goes down with the sinking slab and it's quite cold, but it heats up the deeper it goes, and the rock eventually becomes unstable and loses its water. The water then rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water.

"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."

In recent years, seismologists have become excited at the possibility of a feature like the Beijing anomaly. The availability of vast amounts of digital seismograms made possible the discovery by Wysession and Lawrence, who wrote many thousands of lines of computer codes to do the analyses.

Seventy percent of the earth is covered by water, which is very important for the earth's geology, serving as a lubricant that allows efficient convection and plate tectonics and the continental collisions that form mountains.

"Water is like a lubricant, constantly oiling the machine of mantle convection which then drives plate tectonics and causes the continents to move about Earth's surface," Wysession said. "Look at our sister planet, Venus. It is very hot and dry inside Venus, and Venus has no plate tectonics. All the water probably boiled off, and without water, there are no plates. The system is locked up, like a rusty Tin Man with no oil."



Chapter 4 - In the Minds of Men, Fifth Edition This would include Noah and his ark. The hydroplate theory proposes that prior to the Genesis Flood there was a large volume of salty water held in ...
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInM...aylorIMMd04.htm - 94k -
PuckSR
you think you are using science MrB?

You start off with an assumption based on the bible(which is known to be factually flawed) ad then try to justify your assmption.

The really sad thing is that unlike real science...you never actually test your hypothesis.
You think the grand canyon was caused by a rapid flood....yet you never take a bucket of water and test this idea. if you rapidly pour water over some substrateyou never get the geological formations associated with the grand canyon.
The 'vast underground ocean' also doesnt fit a sudden flood. Water being subducted would typically create steam. You might be able to sneak it in slowly...but if you tryto do it too fast it becomes impossible. This is basic thermodynamics.
MisterBelfry
The term calcinated has done wonders & as a search parameter... Thanks RealityCheck.


One of the principles of scientific inquiry is to adopt the simplest explanation possible, and here, without any appeal to numerous ice ages and the assumption that ice of sufficient weight depressed the land, the one flood would seem to qualify as the simpler explanation. Moreover, the Flood requires a mechanism to raise the sea level but once, whereas Lyell's assumption requires a mechanism that will raise and lower the solid earth many times.

...

After reading Agassiz’s work Charles Lyell believed he had found the mechanism for the elevation and submergence of continents. He theorized that just as high mountains become ice-covered, so too might entire continents if they had become sufficiently elevated by subterranean volcanic action. He proposed that by the accumulation of enough ice, say two miles thick, this would depress the elevated continents below sea level. Here the ice would eventually melt allowing the submerged land to receive the sediments. Later, helped by the mysterious process of "isostasy," the continents would elevate once again above sea level. Of course, since there were twenty-one sedimentary layers of rock this entire process would have been repeated the same number of times. Lyell’s explanation was eagerly welcomed by anti-biblical enthusiasts, and, while they were reluctant to argue for twenty-one ice ages, the textbooks settled for four. In 1863 Lyell made tentative suggestions in this direction in chapters 12 to 16 of his Antiquity of Man. There have been half a dozen theories to explain the origin and the number of ice ages. It is perhaps in recognition of this that textbooks today speak of "interglacial periods" thus not having to commit themselves to any specific number.

www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMd04.htm

"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."

That needs to be repeated. People can get the wrong impression... saying something like a vast underground ocean. < <

Back to Taylor's book:

"Very seldom are the unsolved problems of conventional geology brought to the public attention, but in 1973 Derek Ager, a well-respected professor at University College of Swansea, published a small compendium of these problems, intended to stimulate fellow geologists into finding solutions.[39] The overriding constraint, however, was that the canon of faith in the millions of years demanded by the theory of evolution should not be violated. The result has been that the problems remain unsolved!"

So, your puzzle box has no picture to go by{unless it is Scripture}.
Unless it's Scripture and the picture is still awfully vague. I read somewhere that geology proposes, physics disposes. In that spirit, I propose that the Neogene world came about after the canopy(and many canopies whether by global warming or not probably won't work due to known physics) collapsed completely. The seven thousand years mentioned earlier is probably fine if you drop down an order of magnitude.
MrB.
Zarkov
QUOTE
1863


DNA was not even dreamed of back then
and now it is known only fools think Darwinian Evolution caused LIFE to grow from nothing and that all creatures grew by accident
or even worse is being stated today, and that is, each creature wanted to fit in to the web of living things; and so the bee like and use flowers and the flowers like and use bees...... because they both "knew" that that was the way it should be.
( a Lamarckian nightmare)

To try to answer unanswerable questions out of time, is worse than fantasy.

Darwin looked at a minute spectrum of LIFE and in his primitive wisdom he saw the obvious interconnectedness of LIFE
He had no idea just how complex an organism LIFE is....... and yet people today follow like sheep..... because the Bible told them so.

Stick to the here and now, but realise that the absolute truth always has a surprise in store

Human beings, you are totally pathetic.... you have a "science" and yet you fail to understand the simplest of things and continue to stick to superstition

Emotion has blinded y'all and extinction will be your fate.
tattoobody.org
If there is a similiar physical characteristic between apes and human. it only show to us that the artwork is done by the same "Arhitect of Universe"
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (tattoobody.org+Feb 29 2008, 01:08 PM)
If there is a similiar physical characteristic between apes and human. it only show to us that the artwork is done by the same "Arhitect of Universe"

That would mean that we were model ape 2.0.

And what would it say about us being made in the image of a god? If apes are physically similar, were apes also made in the image of god?

And what of all the other similarities of life on this planet? Did god have designers block an reuse basic designs over and over?
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (tattoobody.org+Feb 29 2008, 05:08 PM)
If there is a similiar physical characteristic between apes and human. it only show to us that the artwork is done by the same "Arhitect of Universe"

By this logic that would mean that Plants and Amoeba have a different Architect. tongue.gif
Cq27
Whoever told you that is an enormous dingus.

Macro evolution is not evolution from species to species.

Evolution happens within a species.

In the sea, there is a group of fish that are green.

One day a mutation happens, and a blue fish is born.

This blue fish is camouflaged and is not eaten, so it lives to reproduce even though it's not very strong or especially smart.

Therefore, when his children come of age, a good portion of them are green because he lived to pass on his DNA.

Now, when a different mutation happens and a red fish is born, he's noticeable and gets eaten. He does not pass on his DNA.

Anyways, over time, (long, LONG time,) most of that species of fish are blue, because they were the ones who lived.

See?

Without DNA, evolution wouldn't work.
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Without DNA, evolution wouldn't work.


Without Evolution, would there be 'DNA'?




g.
El_Machinae
RNA World theory says "no"! smile.gif
Gorgeous
And what about RNA? smile.gif



g.
PIATLAS
quote signature: HELP defeat aging - here is information

Given you've got a powerfull male chromosome of the hourglass heavy boned muscular physique that gives rise to mean-machine athletic sword/axe swing munggerer perhaps polite large gentle giant cops and curvaceous daughters then marry a woman from the male bloodline with similar qualities.

I'm half a century old and like my father look more than ten years younger. My hair is Dark brown however I have perhaps less than 31 gray hairs on the front sides and nowhere else. The interesting thing is that the left side of my scalp is greying faster than my right side with even one long gray hair in my left sideburn but not in my right. From the way DNA combines from parents it appears that the right hand is from the father and the shhhhh(muck)iness is appearing on the left. Marry a worthy wife to hold your bloodline hand. Examine the male hands of your brothers and father. My Hands are identical in every way to my father and his father. It's the same entity(male chromosome) just with different layering's of femdom. Let it be good.
PIATLAS
Evolution

Evolution of all invertebrates began with the Picaya Worm in the Cambrian Era

The Picaya Worms evolved a spinal node.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

DNA does not disprove evolution.
thunder8
Think about your computer. After it been operating for few years it developed quarks that drive you nuts. The only way to fix it clear your hard drive and start over.
In fact you can do experiments to see if there any good glitches. Like say computer all finds ways run smoother by chance. probably not because that is against murphy's law.

gmilam
QUOTE (thunder8+Mar 13 2008, 11:03 AM)
Think about your computer. After it been operating for few years it developed quarks that drive you nuts. The only way to fix it clear your hard drive and start over.
In fact you can do experiments to see if there any good glitches. Like say computer all finds ways run smoother by chance. probably not because that is against murphy's law.

I suspect that Mother Nature has a better operating system than MicroSoft does.
MisterBelfry
Posted @ Showtopic= 20744 by: MisterBelfry Today at 11:12 AM
MORE @

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20917&st=13

Although genes are made of DNA, much DNA
is not genes, and it is not clear that we can so
easily understand all of the structures and evo-
lutionary behaviors of DNA without some fur-
ther theoretical expansion.
W. Ford Doolittle, 1989

Introduction
In many ways, genomics and paleontology represent opposite ends of the professional spectrum in evolutionary biology. Some important recent interaction aside, the two fields have not generally been linked in any explicit way, and on occasion they have even become embroiled in an acrimonious contest of ‘‘molecules versus morphology.’’
photojack
Paleontology and genomics represent the OLD and the NEW realms of evolutionary biology NOT the opposites! Paleontology predates even Darwin and got things amazingly accurate just based on gross anatomy and morphology. Genomics is supporting and being used by modern paleontologists, as I type this! Paleontology will always exist, AUGMENTED by the newly developed realm of genomics. Where did you get that quote from and do you really understand any science? wacko.gif I recently saw a science video that showed a lady extracting soft tissue (blood vessels) from the center of a large fossilized dinosaur bone that likely contained fragmented DNA! (I hope someone here can find a link to that on YouTube or elsewhere!) Procedures and techniques being developed now and future implementations will continue to support the core of Darwinian evolution forever!

QUOTE
"A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown." ~ Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"EVOLUTION is the only BIOLOGICAL theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown." photojack quote within the framework of applicability to Mr. Einstein!  wub.gif 
photojack quote from the Irreducible Complexity thread.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"A theory is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown." ~ Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

"EVOLUTION is the only BIOLOGICAL theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown." photojack quote within the framework of applicability to Mr. Einstein!  wub.gif 
photojack quote from the Irreducible Complexity thread.

I suspect that Mother Nature has a better operating system than MicroSoft does.
gmilam quote.

... And I suspect that operating system is evolution, driven by natural selection, acting on DNA! Mother knows best! wink.gif ((laugh.gif))
MisterBelfry
the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me.

Now I have both Einstein and Roger Penrose on my side!

Posted by: MisterBelfry at Showtopic= 20725, 11:43 AM
Your view of thermodynamics is flawed.
Complexity=Chaos.
Things become more complex over time, this is true for everything. <<<

As a second edit @ Showtopic= 20875:

Trippy offers that this post makes no sense. That could be! My first edit was to shore up that last link as I copied and pasted the "space". It should work now.
In any event, Penrose seems to agree with me about the power of the Second Law. He offers some mind-blowing number. He says people are caught up in this "entropy ceiling" of the universe whereas it is phase space that counts-inflation or no inflation!

MrB.

Posted by: MisterBelfry Sowtopic= 20744, 12:08 PM
QUOTE
Paleontology and genomics represent the OLD and the NEW realms of evolutionary biology NOT the opposites!



Not necessarily the opposite, I agree. The controversy in "teach the controversy" is not made up by anybody. It is there in the literature. You should, as an editor of sorts, be aware of this. Maybe it would help to be more precise. Chemical paleontology and genomic size and degradation represent the NEW realms of biology and its history. The OLD bones of history has led to controversy on the means that Charles Darwin made famous. The process *does not* necessarily match the pattern of biological evolution. Intelligent Design does not manufacture this conflict. It exploits it.

MrB.
"Irreducible Complexity" thread-----> Showtopic= 20875


From The Edge of Evolution:

It's one thing to say that both Windows and Apple operating systems require formatting, and that they both have programs for copying, editing, and deleting computer code. It's quite another to say either that the codes arose by unintelligent processes, or even that Apple formatting could be switched to Windows formatting by a series of beneficial, random changes. Big changes in Moby ***—duplicating chapters, rearranging parpagraphs and sections—won't convert it into a new story any more than will small changes, such as spelling change or duplicating or deleting single words.

photojack
QUOTE
The controversy in "teach the controversy" is not made up by anybody.  blink.gif
MisterBelfry quote.

Oh yeah? It came from the likes of Dembski and Behe! Ideas as bad as that don't arise out of nothing. ohmy.gif Bad people formulate them with an agenda in mind.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The controversy in "teach the controversy" is not made up by anybody.  blink.gif
MisterBelfry quote.

Oh yeah? It came from the likes of Dembski and Behe! Ideas as bad as that don't arise out of nothing. ohmy.gif Bad people formulate them with an agenda in mind.

Chemical paleontology and genomic size and degradation represent the NEW realms of biology and its history. The OLD bones of history has led to controversy on the means that Charles Darwin made famous.  huh.gif
MisterBelfry quote.

What controversy? There is none among scientists, who virtually unanimously accept evolution as pure fact! Only the religiously indoctrinated THINK there is a controversy. wacko.gif

QUOTE
Intelligent Design does not manufacture this conflict. It exploits it.
MisterBelfry quote.

Intelligent Design does BOTH the "manufacturing" AND the exploitation! And those quacks Behe and Dembski are in it up to their eyebrows! dry.gif

P.S. Why do you post the same nonsense in two threads simultaneously? Isn't once enough?
DavidD
Evolution - solution!
Okey how my theory explaining complexity of programs evolution and soever?
In my theory is infinity smallest balls, which filling all space, without gaps. Those balls complexity is from one point of fiew infinity and from another point of fiew - probabilistic. Similar like you through coin in air and to simulate it's physics is very hard, but probablistic computer is not faster than deterministic computer. Of coursre probabilistic computer can be made on probabilities -noise. Whatesoevere. So universe make infinity analog fluctation of information, but coming out like probabilities. And like entanglement and superposition interference. So my balls sistem is most dificult and it can simulate everything most effiecent. For example biological neurons can't simulate my balls sistem better than it itself and similar like it simulating neurons. On the 0 level my balls sistem can simulate everything and when level is higher then it has more specific functions but the worsted it simulating 0 level depending how hight it is. Processors indeed are very high level sistems and thus they can only very bad simulate neurons and much more worst my balls sistem.
My balls theory explaining not only Sun and live, like god, but also quantum mechanic, and everything. I think it's more logical believe in my balls theory than in god.
MisterBelfry
QUOTE
Oh yeah? It came from the likes of Dembski and Behe! Ideas as bad as that don't arise out of nothing.  Bad people formulate them with an agenda in mind.

Exactly. Science is full of controversy, why should devolution\evolution not be?
Posted Showtopic= 20917, 11:11 PM
Macroevolution, hierarchy theory, and the C-value enigma
T. Ryan Gregory

Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at Seventy-ninth Street, New York, New York
PuckSR
Why shouldn't it be full of controversy?

Because Evolution is an observed phenomenon NOT just a theory.

There isn't any controversy surrounding the existence of the moon.
Maybe some controversy around its origins and what keeps it connected to the earth, but no controversy about its existence.
photojack
T. Ryan Gregory is light years away from and more respected than Behe or Demsbki. He is working on the issue of variation in the amount of non-coding DNA and is doing valid, peer-reviewed science! biggrin.gif

QUOTE
It is no longer a mystery why genome size does not reflect gene number in eukaryotes: most eukaryotic (but not prokaryotic) DNA is non-coding and therefore does not consist of genes, and as such total DNA content is not determined by gene number in eukaryotes. The human genome, for example, comprises only about 1.5% protein-coding genes, with the other 98.5% being various types of non-coding DNA (especially transposable elements) (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2001). It is unclear why some species have a remarkably higher amount of non-coding sequences than others of the same level of complexity. Non-coding DNA may have many functions yet to be discovered. Though now it is known that only a fragment of the genome consists of genes, the paradox remains unsolved.

Puzzle versus paradox.

Some prefer the term C-value enigma because it explicitly includes all of the questions that will need to be answered if a complete understanding of genome size evolution is to be achieved (Gregory 2005). Moreover, the term paradox implies a lack of understanding of one of the most basic features of eukaryotic genomes: namely that they are composed primarily of non-coding DNA. Some have claimed that the term paradox also has the unfortunate tendency to lead authors to seek simple one-dimensional solutions to what is, in actuality, a multi-faceted puzzle[citation needed]. For these reasons, in 2003 the term "C-value enigma" was endorsed in preference to "C-value paradox" at the Second Plant Genome Size Discussion Meeting and Workshop at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK, and an increasing number of authors have begun adopting this term.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_paradox

MisterBelfry, Thank you for bringing T. Ryan Gregory to our attention! HE IS A REAL SCIENTIST, OF THE HIGHEST CALIBER! ohmy.gif

If you can take and understand some real science, the Second Plant Genome Size Discussion Meeting and Workshop at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. came up with some appropriate guidelines, goals and desires for future research:

Possible areas for future research which would have significant impact on understanding the significance of genome size diversity were discussed and included:
1. Understanding the mechanisms of genome size change.
2. The ecological and physiological implications of genome size variation.
3. The relationships between genome size, evolution and extinction.
4. Phylogenetic aspects of genome size. Phylogenetics and evolution (e.g. links with phylogenetic studies to track patterns of genome size evolution).
5. Nuclear organization and genome size.

Overviews of the Plant DNA C-values database and the Animal Genome Size database were presented by Leitch and Gregory respectively. The two databases together represent the major sources of C-value data available on the Internet and have similar hit rates (c. 100 hits per day).

See: http://data.kew.org/cvalues/homepage.html
http://www.genomesize.com/

IN SHORT, T. Ryan Gregory IS CONTRIBUTING TO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNKNOWN ASPECTS OF NON-CODING DNA. BEHE AND DEMBSKI ARE DOING NOTHING BUT PSEUDOSCIENCE! THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE! cool.gif
MisterBelfry
How does this relate to "micro" and "macro" evolution? Only in the way I pointed out in my earlier post. They are one in the same, differentiated only in the effects of time.
Showtopic= 20917-photojack March 25 2008, 05:39 PM

He[M.J.B.] has no idea what he is promoting, since he supports a certain worldview while admitting it isn't true.
Showtopic= 20744-PuckSr March 25 2008, 03:29 PM


T. Ryan Gregory is light years away from and more respected than Behe or Demsbki. He is working on the issue of variation in the amount of non-coding DNA and is doing valid, peer-reviewed science!
Showtopic= 20487-photojack March 28 2008, 04:09 PM

Well, I would point out, so is Sanford and he *does seem* to be a clear Young Earth Creationist. Behe comes across to me as a theistic evolutionist, where; I am sure I said once, should be ignored!

MrB.
And while I don't think Mike J. Behe will ever be as prolific as S.J. Gould, he does have his clarity moments. On page 165 in a section called "OVER THE EDGE"

four pages from the Moby D ick reference:
"Although seendipity certainly plays its part in nature, advancing sheer chance as an explanation for profoundly functional features of life strikes me as akin to abandoning reason altogether."

Science should champion reason not subvert it with such dogmatic statements that evolution is factual and obsereved. Evolution, unless it has a descriptor in front should always be understood as MacroEvolution & Cosmogony.
MrB.
I gather there is no dispute in Mr. Gregory's use of MicroEvolution.

I am sure in posts to come, it will be clear that I gathered wrong.
PuckSR
want a response?

Fix your post

Or Gay Monkey Jesus is going to smite you
MisterBelfry
Posted by: MisterBelfry Today at 11:29 AM
Showtopic= 20744-PuckSr March 28 2008, 03:29 PM

Ahh, the above was yesterday not the 25th; sorry!


MrB.
PuckSR
can we have MisterBelfry banned for making unreadable or nonsensical posts?

This is getting very old.....
He obviously knows how to use the quote function, but apparently seems to lack the will to do it.
El_Machinae
Just don't read them!
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 29 2008, 04:56 PM)
Just don't read them!

Is there some way of filtering posts so you don't have to see them on your screen? I've seen a lot of insulting name calling and stuff that I'd rather not wade through to get to the good science.
TheDoc
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Mar 29 2008, 05:04 PM)
Is there some way of filtering posts so you don't have to see them on your screen? I've seen a lot of insulting name calling and stuff that I'd rather not wade through to get to the good science.

Are you kidding me? That's the only thing that keeps this site entertaining laugh.gif
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 29 2008, 05:30 PM)
Are you kidding me? That's the only thing that keeps this site entertaining laugh.gif

And here I thought discussion of the pertubative approach to string theory and the issues with supersymmetry did that.
Silly me tongue.gif
El_Machinae
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Mar 29 2008, 05:04 PM)
Is there some way of filtering posts so you don't have to see them on your screen? I've seen a lot of insulting name calling and stuff that I'd rather not wade through to get to the good science.

I don't think we have an ignore list. I just use the scoll function.
photojack
QUOTE
I just use the scoll (sic) function.
El_Machinae quote.

I usually us the sc®oll function to speed through the trolls! ((laugh.gif)) But I always check out thoroughly what you post. You're good, and rarely make mistakes or typos. Keep up the good work! biggrin.gif
MisterBelfry
MisterBelfry Posted on Mar 24 2008, 11:22 AM
Posted @ Showtopic= 20744 by:

MisterBelfry Today at 11:12 AM
MORE @

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20917&st=13


This link did not work like I wanted. It is clear, I wanted the thirteenth post to appear at a click. I guess I don't know how do that.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=20917 &st=13

Is DNA proof positive for Devolution\Evolution?

No. I do think increased DNA functional knowledge will eventually disentangle neo-Darwinism. This should take less than fifty years.

MrB.

El_Machinae
QUOTE (photojack+Mar 29 2008, 11:20 PM)
El_Machinae quote.

I usually us the sc®oll function to speed through the trolls! ((laugh.gif)) But I always check out thoroughly what you post. You're good, and rarely make mistakes or typos. Keep up the good work! biggrin.gif

My scrolling is SO efficient, I can even ignore the 'r'! biggrin.gif
MisterBelfry
In addition, the ctrl+f is handy.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.