To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Evolution?
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

physics pro
7th February 2008 - 01:28 AM
Evolution... how can u seriously believe it?

i mean micro evolution yeah okay.. my thumbs will get longer from messaging to much and my neck will get longer if i put 100 rings around it over 25 years.

But i evolved from nothing? dust? an explosion?

say there was a pond somewhere. and it DID grow a 'lifeform' in it where did this life come from?? the best answer ive got so far is 50 barzilian years in the right environment. i mean its pretty easy to say that isn't it, i mean 50 barzillian years is a long time alot can happen.

I was always taught evolution from a young age but every time its proven wrong its theory has adapted because it can, no other belief can do that.

now i dont come through these forums much, but most seem to be evolutionist pulling apart religions and gods. y? evolution is just as flimsy if not flimsier. just try and explain how a hunk of slim under a rock turned ultimately into me a living breathing being sitting at a computer asking a bunch of people that think there smarter than they are argue about religion how evolution works smile.gif without using the word billion or million.

the bits i want to know about is the beginning (big bang or whatever the new one is) how something can change and pass it onto its offspring, (and please re frame from using billions of years as the reason cause its not, its a time frame NOT A REASON)

thank you

now teach me smile.gif

franklin
7th February 2008 - 01:47 AM
there is no evolution....at least no common descent. ToE is a fairytale for adults.


NeoDevin
7th February 2008 - 02:38 AM
QUOTE (physics pro+Feb 6 2008, 06:28 PM)
...
now teach me smile.gif

Are you actually physically incapable of studying a subject on your own?
Here is an excellent Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
PuckSR
7th February 2008 - 02:40 AM
QUOTE
i mean micro evolution yeah okay.. my thumbs will get longer from messaging to much and my neck will get longer if i put 100 rings around it over 25 years.


Actually, they will not....
Well, your neck might get longer, but we disproved Lamarkian evolution a LONG time ago.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
i mean micro evolution yeah okay.. my thumbs will get longer from messaging to much and my neck will get longer if i put 100 rings around it over 25 years.


Actually, they will not....
Well, your neck might get longer, but we disproved Lamarkian evolution a LONG time ago.
I was always taught evolution from a young age but every time its proven wrong its theory has adapted because it can, no other belief can do that.

Nope, no belief, but science does it all the time...

What, Newton was wrong? Oh, wait, Einstein....

QUOTE
evolution is just as flimsy if not flimsier. just try and explain how a hunk of slim under a rock turned ultimately into me a living breathing being sitting at a computer asking a bunch of people that think there smarter than they are argue about religion how evolution works smile.gif without using the word billion or million.

Without using the word billions or millions? Why?
Heck, millions of people had sex so as to produce you. In fact, we could statistically argue that BILLIONS of human beings in the last 5000 years had sex to produce you.

Now, when we talk about that slime....forget millions or billions
We are at much higher numbers.
In fact, if bacteria had an infinite food source and infinite resources they could exponentially increase to a number greater than all of the atoms in the universe in a few thousand years.

So we are dealing with many orders of magnitude larger numbers than billions

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
evolution is just as flimsy if not flimsier. just try and explain how a hunk of slim under a rock turned ultimately into me a living breathing being sitting at a computer asking a bunch of people that think there smarter than they are argue about religion how evolution works smile.gif without using the word billion or million.

Without using the word billions or millions? Why?
Heck, millions of people had sex so as to produce you. In fact, we could statistically argue that BILLIONS of human beings in the last 5000 years had sex to produce you.

Now, when we talk about that slime....forget millions or billions
We are at much higher numbers.
In fact, if bacteria had an infinite food source and infinite resources they could exponentially increase to a number greater than all of the atoms in the universe in a few thousand years.

So we are dealing with many orders of magnitude larger numbers than billions

there is no evolution....at least no common descent. ToE is a fairytale for adults.

No, you are thinking of Jesus and Mohammed.
Steveo
7th February 2008 - 04:55 AM
physics pro, you have a terrible name. Your unintelligent ramblings give physics a bad name, and your lack of understanding of the theory you try to attack is.......well, very amateur.
Gorgeous
7th February 2008 - 10:05 AM
QUOTE
now teach me



Yes, Neodevin is correct. Someone who already presumes they 'know' leaves no room for new 'teachings'. Also, he neglects the fact that he must also play a part in the process, by being eager to actually learn, and not just pretend to for the sake of defending his own 'argument'.

'Defence' stops 'attack' from anything perceived to be 'attacking'...in this case 'new information', perceived to be 'attacking' the old comfy armchair!



Obvious puppetry, with its shadow, freewheelin' behind!




g.
AlphaNumeric
7th February 2008 - 02:02 PM
QUOTE (physics pro+Feb 7 2008, 02:28 AM)
i mean micro evolution yeah okay.. my thumbs will get longer from messaging to much and my neck will get longer if i put 100 rings around it over 25 years.

You don't even know what microevolution is. What you describe is not micro evolution, it's your body adapting to something, but it would not be passed onto your offspring. Your view was that of some people before Darwin. If a giraffe stretches it's neck to reach leaves, it'll grow a longer neck. Since this doesn't affect the sperm or eggs of the giraffe, it will not be present in the off spring.

Do the people in cultures which practice neck stretching have long necked children? Nope.

Micro evolution is a small change in the gene pool of a species. Things like moths going from white to black due to pollution. The white moths were easy to kill, the black moths survived. The moth population became black, their off spring inhereted the black gene over the white gene.

That is micro evolution. Unfortunately you display the usual problem nay-sayers about evolution (or indeed most mainstream science) have, you don't even bother to know what you're arguing against.
QUOTE (physics pro+Feb 7 2008, 02:28 AM)
I was always taught evolution from a young age but every time its proven wrong its theory has adapted because it can, no other belief can do that.
Evolution have never been 'proven wrong'. It has been shown to be incomplete or some mechanisms within it incorrect but evolution as a premise has never been proven wrong.

And you seem to think the ability of scientists to say "You know what, I was incorrect but now I know better" is a bad thing. It means our first attempt can be improved upon. Religion doesn't allow for that. If they aren't right first time, tough.
QUOTE (physics pro+Feb 7 2008, 02:28 AM)
without using the word billion or million.
Why not? We're a population of about 6.7 billion people. Between 45 and 110 billion 'homo sapiens' have lived, there's millions (if not billions) of different species in the world. The planet is 4.6 billion years old. The earliest (known) life is about 3.5 billion years old. We're made up of 100 trillion cells (90% of which is bacteria!). It's estimated for every human there's over a trillion insects! And many many trillions of times more bacteria. All of them growing, mating, producing offspring. We produce a new generation every 20~30 years. Bacteria can do it every 20~30 minutes, that's a rate 500,000 times faster than us.

So when you get down to it, nature is full of staggering numbers. To say "Explain nature's methods to me without using big numbers" is like saying "Count the stars for me, but don't go past 5".
franklin
7th February 2008 - 02:32 PM
Talk Origin's definition of evolution:

The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

So here's the problem for evolutionists:

The reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures had to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of genetic mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these) ------ but there is no scientific evidence to show that this is even possible. Mutations cannot add whole new parts and they cannot add new selectable novelty to onto existing parts.

Organisms' genes may indeed mutate, but if there is no such thing as a mutation that add new selectable structures, evolution from bacteria to man is impossible because there is nothing to select!...thus, there is no way today's organisms could be physically built up from a microscopic organism.


And by the way....please, don't misconstrue the word, "structures" as meaning changes in molecules or within cells. What I mean by "structures" are traits that are morphological in nature -- eyes, ears, beaks, paws, toes, feathers, noses, arms, gallbladders, muscles, etc..... There is certainly a differece between "structures" that are chemical and/or involve changes in molecules and "structures" which make a visual distinction/definition between organisms. My claim is that mutations cannot generate selectable "structures," as in the types of physical, outward, external, phenotypic structures that distinguish one animal from another and/or could give evidence of common descent

For me, I really have to wonder what the architects of this theory were thinking. For the life of me I simply cannot understand why in the world they would devise a "scientific" theory around a biological event that was nothing more than a figment of their imagination.
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 02:50 PM
Evolution is simply a word created by man to describe what is observed.

Omnipotence or magic or creation are words to describe the undescribed realities.

So just as species evolve so does knowledge.

The key is are you complacent with magic or are you wishing to evolve with knowledge to perfect Understanding for the future generations?

Basically, your beliefs are simply based on selfish ignorance versus the need for the truth.

When the truth is understood by the masses, religions and beliefs will become historical record versus the guide for human existence.

God is not a person, place or thing...... and once people begin to realize choice is ours, then in choice we either become honest with integrity or fade to extinction with the complacency of beliefs.......

Be honest, it is an individual choice each can accentuate ........the rest is easy!
NeoDevin
7th February 2008 - 03:00 PM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 7 2008, 07:32 AM)
The reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures had to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of genetic mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these) ------ but there is no scientific evidence to show that this is even possible. Mutations cannot add whole new parts and they cannot add new selectable novelty to onto existing parts.

Hypothetically speaking here (since I haven't actually studied this process in any depth), it doesn't seem such a stretch how something could change from being individual cells, to being a colony of cells, to being a cooperating colony of cells (eg. Choanoflagellate), to being primitive multi-cellular organisms (eg. Sea Sponge), to having specialized structures (say, harder bits for crushing the bigger pieces of `food' that floats by). (Note, as far as I know there is no evidence that sea sponges evolved into animals, I'm not trying to suggest they did, just proposing a hypothetical evolution pathway.)

Perhaps you could back up your claims with actual research?
franklin
7th February 2008 - 03:45 PM
research? How do I disprove a negative? I have challenged the neo-darwinian orthodoxy by claiming that common descent is impossible because mutations cannot provide the raw material for phenotypic evolution. Since this theory is supposedly "scientific," someone should be able to show me the science -- or more specifically, the mutation -- that disproves me.
buttershug
7th February 2008 - 03:51 PM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 7 2008, 03:45 PM)
research? How do I disprove a negative? I have challenged the neo-darwinian orthodoxy by claiming that common descent is impossible because mutations cannot provide the raw material for phenotypic evolution. Since this theory is supposedly "scientific," someone should be able to show me the science -- or more specifically, the mutation -- that disproves me.

There is an entire tribe of people with extra toes and fingers.
How do you explain that?


But more generally you are looking for one mutation when you should be looking at a series of thousands or more.

And why is it that only people who don't understand evolution put it down?
PuckSR
7th February 2008 - 03:58 PM
QUOTE
research? How do I disprove a negative? I have challenged the neo-darwinian orthodoxy by claiming that common descent is impossible because mutations cannot provide the raw material for phenotypic evolution. Since this theory is supposedly "scientific," someone should be able to show me the science -- or more specifically, the mutation -- that disproves me.


What exactly do you want proof of?

I can provide the following:
Proof of genetic mutations
Proof of increased genetic information
Proof of "new features"
Proof of new species evolving


BTW, there seem to be some common evolutionary misconceptions that I should clear up before we continue.
Evolution does not predict that a dog can evolve into a cat. Rather, evolutionary theory tells us that a dog could evolve into a "catlike" dog.
It also doesn't predict that a 4-legged cow could become a 6-legged cow. It can become a 4-legged cow that looks like a giraffe, but not a 6-legged cow.

Why?

Well, Evolution teaches us that genetics builds on itself.
You might be able to turn a bicycle into a moped by adding a motor, but you cannot turn a bicycle into a house.

So how do we get "houses"?
Well, the simpler the organism, the more range it has to evolve.
So, using my bicycle analogy. If you went back to the raw metal, it can be turned into a house or a bicycle or a frying pan.
Once the metal has become a house, you might want to add another story. You might want to do a lot of things, but everyone knows that you cannot put wheels on a house and call it a bicycle(you could however put wheels on a house and call it a mobile home).

This is not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it illustrates the concept. Evolution does not allow a dog to evolve into a cow...now sometimes a dog could evolve into something that looks like a cow, but it would still be related to a dog.(Genetics actually confirms this view, take a look at the thylacine for an example)
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 04:12 PM
QUOTE
research? How do I disprove a negative?
hey I feel your pain…. That is exactly why I personally chose to do it my self. They are looking up at stars and created dark matter. They are smashing ‘parts’ of mass, with energy, creating new parts, to smash into other parts… to describe a predicted ‘creation’ in accelerators…..
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
research? How do I disprove a negative?
hey I feel your pain…. That is exactly why I personally chose to do it my self. They are looking up at stars and created dark matter. They are smashing ‘parts’ of mass, with energy, creating new parts, to smash into other parts… to describe a predicted ‘creation’ in accelerators…..
  I have challenged the neo-darwinian orthodoxy by claiming that common descent is impossible because mutations cannot provide the raw material for phenotypic evolution.
Darwin shared a beautiful platform in which environment sets the tone for changes based on mutation that are a real as sickle cell anemia. Heck if one three legged child born, was proven to be better, you can bet, every one would be trying to make a baby with that person and so on. Not to mention the 2 toed people
QUOTE
   The Vadoma, also Wadoma (singular Mudoma) are a tribe living in the west of Zimbabwe, especially in the Urungwe and Sipolilo districts on the Zambezi river valley. They have few contacts with the Bantu majority.
A substantial majority of this tribe has a condition known as ectrodactyly in which the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned in, resulting in the tribe being known as the "two toed" or "ostrich footed" tribe. This is an autosomal dominant condition resulting from a single mutation on chromosome number seven. It is reported that those with the condition are not handicapped and well integrated into the tribe. Indeed it may help in tree climbing. The Kalanga of the Kalahari desert also have a number of members with ectrodactyly, and may be related.
These Vadoma, known as the "ostrich people" or the "two-toed tribe," are a popular example of the genetic effects of small population size on genetic defects and mutation. Due to the Vadoma tribe's isolation, they have developed and maintained ectrodactyly, and due to the comparatively small gene pool, the condition is much more frequent than elsewhere
Or culture…

some actually believe that magic is going to fix all the per se sins. That equates to undoing ‘helter skelter’ i.e… charles manson and everything Hitler did ….. nothing will undo what has been done… so that idea of a magical rapture is a false hope……

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
   The Vadoma, also Wadoma (singular Mudoma) are a tribe living in the west of Zimbabwe, especially in the Urungwe and Sipolilo districts on the Zambezi river valley. They have few contacts with the Bantu majority.
A substantial majority of this tribe has a condition known as ectrodactyly in which the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned in, resulting in the tribe being known as the "two toed" or "ostrich footed" tribe. This is an autosomal dominant condition resulting from a single mutation on chromosome number seven. It is reported that those with the condition are not handicapped and well integrated into the tribe. Indeed it may help in tree climbing. The Kalanga of the Kalahari desert also have a number of members with ectrodactyly, and may be related.
These Vadoma, known as the "ostrich people" or the "two-toed tribe," are a popular example of the genetic effects of small population size on genetic defects and mutation. Due to the Vadoma tribe's isolation, they have developed and maintained ectrodactyly, and due to the comparatively small gene pool, the condition is much more frequent than elsewhere
Or culture…

some actually believe that magic is going to fix all the per se sins. That equates to undoing ‘helter skelter’ i.e… charles manson and everything Hitler did ….. nothing will undo what has been done… so that idea of a magical rapture is a false hope……

  Since this theory is supposedly "scientific," someone should be able to show me the science -- or more specifically, the mutation -- that disproves me. 
A platypus! You! Do you represent all or your lineage from all of your father/mother’s since the beginning of time? Is a black, yellow, red or white man have different antibodies or funny hair or skin color but still each of the same species? Are we all brothers? Then why has any evolved with different beliefs?

Only one answer………….. environment!

Thank Darwin for publishing but his uncle Josiah was actually the one who gave the boy a chance based on integrity and the desire to nurture knowledge versus complacency.

QUOTE
The reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures had to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of genetic mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these) ------ but there is no scientific evidence to show that this is even possible. Mutations cannot add whole new parts and they cannot add new selectable novelty to onto existing parts
Because the rule in the sciences are all screwed up!

Like magic some believe the current model of sciences are correct but most of the scientist themselves knew they were unfinished.

Just as the religions all said the day would come when understanding would be upon the earth.

Neither have happened yet according to current community recognition.

But that the final evolution…….. the pinnacle of existence is when mass, knows how it works.

We are all in that period as it is this period that allowed knowledge to be known in honest truth. Just do your homework or take a seat and ask questions

Because when it’s known then ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Peace will reign!
MisterBelfry
7th February 2008 - 04:18 PM
What exactly do you want proof of?

Phyla crossover using a unifying principle akin to chemistry charts of the elements.
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 04:27 PM
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Feb 7 2008, 04:18 PM)
What exactly do you want proof of?

Phyla crossover using a unifying principle akin to chemistry charts of the elements.

Do you know why these kids have no belief in the descriptions of the sciences as clear proof that religious creations are incorrect?

Because of the soup issue.

It is the resonance of the energy upon the lipds that causes them to align (poles) and associate without peptide bonds.

This is your answer to the how phospholipid bilayers associate from the soup of elements.

Chemical description of hydrophilic and hydrophobic associations of chemical elements are a goof. Like describing the fire water earth air ... line of foolishness

Chemistry is a joke.... joules are for them who covet.. not to describe life or offer understanding to our children.



buttershug
7th February 2008 - 04:31 PM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 7 2008, 04:27 PM)
Chemistry is a joke.... joules are for them who covet.. not to describe life or offer understanding to our children.

Do you want spiritual explanations or do you want penicillin?
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 04:58 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 7 2008, 04:31 PM)
Do you want spiritual explanations or do you want penicillin?

'Spiritual' is the only argument to evolution.

And penicillin is a scientific contribution.

Science does marry religion in truth.

Only a sickness perpetuated by fools keeps anyone from knowing this.
buttershug
7th February 2008 - 05:20 PM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 7 2008, 04:58 PM)
'Spiritual' is the only argument to evolution.

And penicillin is a scientific contribution.

Science does marry religion in truth.

Only a sickness perpetuated by fools keeps anyone from knowing this.

Chemistry is a science.
Science is a methodology.
If you pick and choose it's answers for non-evidential reasons you are not following it.
With Science we don't have any say in the answers.
It's only with religion do we get to pick and choose.
franklin
7th February 2008 - 06:04 PM
the extra digits thing is simply mutations duplicating what's already there....I am looking for new selectable novelty added to the observable phenotype.
El_Machinae
7th February 2008 - 07:10 PM
That's how many new features pop up. They're originally a copy of what is already there (to make two of them), and then one of the copies is mutated indepedently and then selected upon.

Now that there's an extra digit, additional mutations will allow that digit to differentiate so that it becomes more different than the original additional digit. Mutation plus Natural Selection will keep on working on it, too, whenever there are mutations which give either a selective advantage or a survivable (not detrimental) change. That additional digit will change over time.

But even at the cellular level, a horrendous number of mutations (which add information) are due to gene copy number increasing in a beneficial manner. And after a gene copy number has increased, each gene can have mutations which change it away from the parent.
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE
Chemistry is a science.
is a descriptive paradigm as
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Chemistry is a science.
is a descriptive paradigm as
Science is a methodology.
that is supposed to have integrity as the Hippocratic oath suggests
QUOTE
If you pick and choose it's answers for non-evidential reasons you are not following it.
I agree….. just because one guy makes an experiment and we can reproduce it does not validate facts. The facts, math and interrelation must apply otherwise there is something wrong and integrity of science is first over and above complacency.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If you pick and choose it's answers for non-evidential reasons you are not following it.
I agree….. just because one guy makes an experiment and we can reproduce it does not validate facts. The facts, math and interrelation must apply otherwise there is something wrong and integrity of science is first over and above complacency.
With Science we don't have any say in the answers.
I agree. So no matter how much the whole of the scientific community suggest ‘heat’ is a property in chemistry… they are all wrong!

Just as entropy is not a law.

Just as an electron is not a separate entity but a portion of a unit (mass).

Integrity is what governs science, not complacency and until this fact is kept true, guys like you will continue to think chaos is a uniform nature of existence.

Which is blatantly ignorant in any frame that recognizes life.

QUOTE
It's only with religion do we get to pick and choose. 
And once the correct understanding is described in science (paradigm shift) then there will be no ideals in religion to govern mass (man).

Religions are like theories but in truth there is only one way it all works and it starts with describing energy....... correctly!
buttershug
7th February 2008 - 07:35 PM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 7 2008, 07:32 PM)
Just as an electron is not a separate entity but a portion of a unit (mass).

Then how do cathode ray tubes work?

And I don't believe in life as it was thought to be before urea was made artificially.

And religions are stories not theories.
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 07:46 PM
QUOTE
Then how do cathode ray tubes work?
Energy isolates and focuses the beam....

Was it created? Nope!

Was it isolated boxed up and then later sent through? Nope!


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Then how do cathode ray tubes work?
Energy isolates and focuses the beam....

Was it created? Nope!

Was it isolated boxed up and then later sent through? Nope!


And I don't believe in life as it was thought to be before urea was made artificially.
By whom martians?

QUOTE
And religions are stories not theories. 
Just because you define as such does not mean everyone else does. This is the problem.

Reality only works one way and when people are sent on a tangent like thinking an electron is an isolated form of matter, shows how stories improperly affects science.

Not even Einstein knew what an electron was! I suppose you are sharper than the Big E ....

This thread is about Creation/Evolution ...... fact is Evolution is a created word to describe a pattern existing but like 'truth' existence only works one way.

Steveo
7th February 2008 - 07:53 PM
QUOTE

Not even Einstein knew what an electron was! I suppose you are sharper than the Big E ....


Can you back this up? Electrons had been discovered before Einstein's miracle year, its properties were well studied and understood while he was still relatively young, and Quantum Mechanics (non relativistic) was complete long before he died. He didn't live long enough to understand QED (as far as I know), but he would have had a pretty good understanding of the electron I am sure.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Not even Einstein knew what an electron was! I suppose you are sharper than the Big E ....


Can you back this up? Electrons had been discovered before Einstein's miracle year, its properties were well studied and understood while he was still relatively young, and Quantum Mechanics (non relativistic) was complete long before he died. He didn't live long enough to understand QED (as far as I know), but he would have had a pretty good understanding of the electron I am sure.

Just as an electron is not a separate entity but a portion of a unit (mass).


Its strange how the model of an electron being its own separate entity with specific properties (which I assume you know) works so well in describing nature. That this model of the electron works for particle physics, and solid state physics, must just be a fluke. If it is not what we think it is, can your idea describe everything else so well? If not, until you can, your idea is worth absolutely nothing! Also, please explain where this model of the electron fails to describe nature.
buttershug
7th February 2008 - 08:01 PM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 7 2008, 07:46 PM)
Energy isolates and focuses the beam.... 

The beam of electrons.


Edit I use science definitions when talking science.

Do you use baseball definitions when talking football?
Or just use religious definitions when talking science.
(theory instead of story)
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 08:11 PM
QUOTE
Einstein was queried about the huge numbers of short-lived heavy particles found using
high-energy accelerators. Those physicists were seeking basic matter and wanted to know
Einstein’s thoughts. Einstein was a careful thinker not given to theatrics and was very
serious when he replied, I would just like to know what an electron is. Why did he say
this? His answer implied that the pedestrian electron, was more important to science than
billions of dollars spent on accelerators. Little attention was paid to his remark.
But Einstein saw the electron as the leading player in the universe, as could any
careful scientist because most activity of the Universe is e-m wave energy transfers
involving the electron. At the time, neither Einstein nor others understood the wavemechanisms
of the electron. Although the force between ‘electrons’ can be calculated
using rules of Physics I, the rules did not always match Nature. The electron did not
appear to be a discrete particle. Something was wrong and Einstein knew it.


http://www.quantummatter.com/_Media/Einste...astQuestion.pdf


That was your doubt card, from now on do your own homework......




QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Einstein was queried about the huge numbers of short-lived heavy particles found using
high-energy accelerators. Those physicists were seeking basic matter and wanted to know
Einstein’s thoughts. Einstein was a careful thinker not given to theatrics and was very
serious when he replied, I would just like to know what an electron is. Why did he say
this? His answer implied that the pedestrian electron, was more important to science than
billions of dollars spent on accelerators. Little attention was paid to his remark.
But Einstein saw the electron as the leading player in the universe, as could any
careful scientist because most activity of the Universe is e-m wave energy transfers
involving the electron. At the time, neither Einstein nor others understood the wavemechanisms
of the electron. Although the force between ‘electrons’ can be calculated
using rules of Physics I, the rules did not always match Nature. The electron did not
appear to be a discrete particle. Something was wrong and Einstein knew it.


http://www.quantummatter.com/_Media/Einste...astQuestion.pdf


That was your doubt card, from now on do your own homework......




Edit I use science definitions when talking science.

Do you use baseball definitions when talking football?
Or just use religious definitions when talking science.
(theory instead of story)
But I do not ask dumb questions when I can find the answer myself....

Sorry you are a little lost in your english lesson when on a physics forum
franklin
7th February 2008 - 08:40 PM
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Feb 7 2008, 07:10 PM)
That's how many new features pop up. They're originally a copy of what is already there (to make two of them), and then one of the copies is mutated indepedently and then selected upon.

Now that there's an extra digit, additional mutations will allow that digit to differentiate so that it becomes more different than the original additional digit. Mutation plus Natural Selection will keep on working on it, too, whenever there are mutations which give either a selective advantage or a survivable (not detrimental) change. That additional digit will change over time.

But even at the cellular level, a horrendous number of mutations (which add information) are due to gene copy number increasing in a beneficial manner. And after a gene copy number has increased, each gene can have mutations which change it away from the parent.

this gets you nowhere...you're still going to have to present a mutation that beneficially alters and adds to a duplicated part in a selectable way.
buttershug
7th February 2008 - 08:47 PM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 7 2008, 08:11 PM)

But I do not ask dumb questions when I can find the answer myself....

You asked who created artificial urea, you didn't look it up.
I just did, "it was synthesized in 1828 by Friedrich Wohler"
Before that life was thought of quite differently than by the science community today.

And I don't think the science oriented people on here will consider religious "theories" to be theories in a scientific sense. I'm sure the hardcore ones here will also call them stories.
PuckSR
7th February 2008 - 08:48 PM
franklin...that was gibberish
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 09:10 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 7 2008, 08:47 PM)
You asked who created artificial urea, you didn't look it up.
I just did, "it was synthesized in 1828 by Friedrich Wohler"
Before that life was thought of quite differently than by the science community today.

And I don't think the science oriented people on here will consider religious "theories" to be theories in a scientific sense. I'm sure the hardcore ones here will also call them stories.

QUOTE
Urea was discovered in 1773 by the French chemist Hillaire Rouelle. In 1828, just 55 years after its discovery, it became the first organic compound to be synthetically formulated, this time by a German chemist named Friedrich Wöhler


I thought is was a type O on your part and then if you really look into this... 'chemical' idea

it is based on the ionic states of mass or conserved charge of potential......

which is why Mary Shelly thought electricity would bring frankensteen to life!


But electricity is not what make us ALIVE!

It's a light thing!

buttershug
7th February 2008 - 09:14 PM
It's not "vitalism", that is the point.

But if you resort to science fiction for your knowledge of science then that explains your posts.
PuckSR
7th February 2008 - 09:20 PM
just a joke...but


electricity does "make you live". Your brain, your nervous system, and your muscles all rely on electricity.
Bishadi
7th February 2008 - 09:50 PM
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 7 2008, 09:20 PM)
just a joke...but


electricity does "make you live". Your brain, your nervous system, and your muscles all rely on electricity.

if your brain worked on electricy then an MRI would kill you.......

i.e... next time you go to the hospital and you see one of them big huge magnets please take you mobile phone in there....
photojack
7th February 2008 - 09:54 PM
QUOTE
Chemistry is a joke.... joules are for them who covet.. not to describe life or offer understanding to our children.
Bishadi quote. wacko.gif

Ignorant people who doubt the overwhelming evidence backing up evolutionary science are the ones HINDERING the understanding of this vital knowledge for our children. Letting blind faith in 1st century religious myths overtake the mountains of evidence from the varied disciplines of the sciences right into the 21st century is what is hurting the advancement of knowledge.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Chemistry is a joke.... joules are for them who covet.. not to describe life or offer understanding to our children.
Bishadi quote. wacko.gif

Ignorant people who doubt the overwhelming evidence backing up evolutionary science are the ones HINDERING the understanding of this vital knowledge for our children. Letting blind faith in 1st century religious myths overtake the mountains of evidence from the varied disciplines of the sciences right into the 21st century is what is hurting the advancement of knowledge.

this gets you nowhere...you're still going to have to present a mutation that beneficially alters and adds to a duplicated part in a selectable way.
franklin quote. huh.gif

What about Darwin's finches DON'T you understand? unsure.gif They SPECIATED based on differences in the STRUCTURE of hard body parts known as bills in birds. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

And while you're at it, all you "doubting Thomases" need to learn the background science, so you don't "open mouth, insert foot" any longer! Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Take some time, explore the countless links... your doubts will fade and you can then hold your heads high, knowing you have entered the 21st century world of the truly enlightened individuals who have tossed away unfounded doubts and LEARNED of man's proper place in nature. RELIGIONS are the fairy tales of adults, SCIENCE is the reality needed to view the world from a proper, grounded perspective. When people mature, they stop believing in the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and the pagan myths, and the religions built from them and realize that science holds the key to the understanding of and reverence for SCIENCE! wub.gif

For further enlightenment, see: http://www.edge.org

Enjoy your life on this evolutionarily derived planet! biggrin.gif
photojack
7th February 2008 - 09:58 PM
edit to remove duplicate post.
PuckSR
7th February 2008 - 10:04 PM
really?

magnetism is equivalent to electricity?

amazing....

I guess Ampere was wrong...
So lightening is actually a superpowerful magnet? According to you, it is voltage, not current, that is analagous to magnetism
photojack
7th February 2008 - 10:06 PM
QUOTE
if your brain worked on electricy (sic) then an MRI would kill you.......
Bishadi quote. blink.gif

The brain most assuredly works through electrical energy, yet MRI's don't kill people! Kind of shows YOUR lack of understanding, and not that of science, medical personnel or MRI operators! Learn and you will be enlightened, stagnate and your posts will show it! wacko.gif
franklin
7th February 2008 - 10:29 PM
QUOTE (photojack+Feb 7 2008, 10:06 PM)
Bishadi quote.  blink.gif

The brain most assuredly works through electrical energy, yet MRI's don't kill people!  Kind of shows YOUR lack of understanding, and not that of science, medical personnel or MRI operators!  Learn and you will be enlightened, stagnate and your posts will show it!  wacko.gif

hmmm...so where is the brain plugged in? Where is its never-ending source of electricity? (this is not a sarcastic question, I'm honestly curious)
photojack
7th February 2008 - 10:50 PM
Where were you in science class? unsure.gif The brain is "plugged in" through your blood supply. It uses a disproportionate amount in relation to its mass, partly because of the high electrical use. ohmy.gif

Tell me specifically why you seem to doubt evolution. blink.gif Have you linked to, and studied those wikipedia articles? Test at 11:00 A.M. on Friday! tongue.gif
Gorgeous
7th February 2008 - 10:52 PM
QUOTE
hmmm...so where is the brain plugged in?


I can think of one obvious place right now! blink.gif





g.
AlphaNumeric
7th February 2008 - 11:05 PM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 7 2008, 07:04 PM)
I am looking for new selectable novelty added to the observable phenotype.

The ability of a new bacteria to break down nylon, a man made chemical which didn't exist in nature pre 1940 and which was 'non-biodegradable' (ie no bacteria could break it down).

A new mutation allows a bacteria strain to produce an enzyme which breaks apart the chemical bonds of nylon. It obviously didn't have this ability before.
PuckSR
7th February 2008 - 11:17 PM
QUOTE
hmmm...so where is the brain plugged in? Where is its never-ending source of electricity? (this is not a sarcastic question, I'm honestly curious)


Well, if you really want to know....

It all starts when you eat. The food you eat is broken down in your stomach and then absorbed in your small intestine.

Carbohydrates are hydrolysed into simple sugars, such as glucose and fructose. Fats (triglycerides) are metabolised to give fatty acids and glycerol. ATP can be produced by redox reactions using simple and complex sugars (carbohydrates) or lipids as an energy source.

Adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) is a multifunctional nucleotide that is most important as a "molecular currency" of intracellular energy transfer. ATP consists of adenosine — itself composed of an adenine ring and a ribose sugar — and three phosphate groups (triphosphate). The phosphoryl groups, starting with the group closest to the ribose, are referred to as the alpha (α), beta (β), and gamma (γ) phosphates. ATP is highly soluble in water and is quite stable in solutions between pH 6.8–7.4, but is rapidly hydrolysed at extreme pH. Consequently, ATP is best stored as an anhydrous salt.
As ATP is an unstable molecule it tends to be hydrolysed in water, and if ATP and ADP are allowed to come to chemical equilibrium, almost all the ATP will be converted to ADP. Any system that is far from equilibrium contains potential energy, and is capable of doing work. The cell maintains the ratio of ATP to ADP at a point ten orders of magnitude from equilibrium, with ATP concentrations a thousandfold higher than the concentration of ADP. This displacement from equilibrium means that the hydrolysis of ATP in the cell releases a great deal of energy. ATP is commonly referred to as a "high energy molecule", however this is incorrect, as a mixture of ATP and ADP at equilibrium in water can do no useful work at all. In fact, ATP does not contain any special "high-energy bonds" and any other unstable molecule would serve equally well as a way of storing energy if the cell maintained its concentration far from equilibrium.

The amount of energy released can be calculated from the changes in energy under non-natural conditions. The net change in heat energy (enthalpy) at standard temperature and pressure of the decomposition of ATP into hydrated ADP and hydrated inorganic phosphate is −20.5 kJ/mol, with a change in free energy of 3.4 kJ/mol.

[Borrowed heavily from Wikipedia]

So, your brain is "plugged in" to ATP.
The sub-cellular components are all designed to use the potential energy stored in ATP. In neural cells, the ATP is also converted into Electric Potential(more commonly known as electrical voltage). The cells "signal" to each other using these electrical impulses.

The cell membrane in the axon and soma contain voltage-gated ion channels which allow the neuron to generate and propagate an electrical impulse (an action potential). Substantial early knowledge of neuron electrical activity came from experiments with squid giant axons. In 1937, John Zachary Young suggested that the giant squid axon can be used to study neuronal electrical properties. As they are much larger than human neurons, but similar in nature, it was easier to study them with the technology of that time. By inserting electrodes into the giant squid axons, accurate measurements could be made of the membrane potential.

Electrical activity can be produced in neurons by a number of stimuli. Pressure, stretch, chemical transmitters, and electrical current passing across the nerve membrane as a result of a difference in voltage can all initiate nerve activity.

The narrow cross-section of axons lessens the metabolic expense of carrying action potentials, but thicker axons convey impulses more rapidly. To minimize metabolic expense while maintaining rapid conduction, many neurons have insulating sheaths of myelin around their axons. The sheaths are formed by glial cells: oligodendrocytes in the central nervous system and Schwann cells in the peripheral nervous system. The sheath enables action potentials to travel faster than in unmyelinated axons of the same diameter, whilst using less energy. The myelin sheath in peripheral nerves normally runs along the axon in sections about 1 mm long, punctuated by unsheathed nodes of Ranvier which contain a high density of voltage-gated ion channels. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disorder that results from demyelination of axons in the central nervous system.

Some neurons do not generate action potentials, but instead generate a graded electrical signal, which in turn causes graded neurotransmitter release. Such nonspiking neurons tend to be sensory neurons or interneurons, because they cannot carry signals long distances.
From here

Hope that helps
franklin
7th February 2008 - 11:41 PM
QUOTE (photojack+Feb 7 2008, 10:50 PM)
Where were you in science class?  unsure.gif  The brain is "plugged in" through your blood supply.  It uses a disproportionate amount in relation to its mass, partly because of the high electrical use.  ohmy.gif 

Tell me specifically why you seem to doubt evolution.  blink.gif  Have you linked to, and studied those wikipedia articles?  Test at 11:00 A.M. on Friday!  tongue.gif

there are many reasons I don't believe in evolution....one of them is that mutations don't add new, selectable structures. I also happen to believe that each individual organism is intelligent and that evolution is internalized. ToE says only populations evolve, but the reality is each individual was created with the capability to evolve new, adaptive traits to a changing environment. This can happen as an embryo during development or even later in life. Many of these self-generated traits can be inherited by future offspring.
PuckSR
8th February 2008 - 12:41 AM
QUOTE
there are many reasons I don't believe in evolution....one of them is that mutations don't add new, selectable structures


Who told you that lie?
We have watched it happen....

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
there are many reasons I don't believe in evolution....one of them is that mutations don't add new, selectable structures


Who told you that lie?
We have watched it happen....

I also happen to believe that each individual organism is intelligent and that evolution is internalized

This known as Lamarkian evolution.
We tested it....it failed...

QUOTE
ToE says only populations evolve, but the reality is each individual was created with the capability to evolve new, adaptive traits to a changing environment.

Nope, they aren't...
Once again, we proved this about a century ago.
Genetics further confirmed it about 20 years ago...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
ToE says only populations evolve, but the reality is each individual was created with the capability to evolve new, adaptive traits to a changing environment.

Nope, they aren't...
Once again, we proved this about a century ago.
Genetics further confirmed it about 20 years ago...

This can happen as an embryo during development or even later in life. Many of these self-generated traits can be inherited by future offspring.

Well, I don't feel like repeating myself....
Besides intuition and your lack of education and training in biology....what leads you to this conclusion?
BigDumbWeirdo
8th February 2008 - 02:57 AM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 7 2008, 06:41 PM)
there are many reasons I don't believe in evolution....one of them is that mutations don't add new, selectable structures.

Prove it.

QUOTE
I also happen to believe that each individual organism is intelligent and that evolution is internalized.

Prove it. (not that you believe it, that it happens.)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I also happen to believe that each individual organism is intelligent and that evolution is internalized.

Prove it. (not that you believe it, that it happens.)

ToE says only populations evolve, but the reality is each individual was created with the capability to evolve new, adaptive traits to a changing environment.

Prove it. (either part of it, actually. That the Theory of Evolution says that or that individuals evolve. The first one is doable, so you might want to focus on that.)

QUOTE
This can happen as an embryo during development or even later in life.

Prove it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This can happen as an embryo during development or even later in life.

Prove it.

Many of these self-generated traits can be inherited by future offspring.

Prove it.



Or perhaps I should have said, "Prove it... Comrade."
Bishadi
8th February 2008 - 03:37 AM


QUOTE
really?

magnetism is equivalent to electricity?
Where did you get that?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
really?

magnetism is equivalent to electricity?
Where did you get that?

amazing....
That what I was thinking…. Do you read?
Do magnets assist with about ever amp of A/C this globe uses?
SO basically about every electron in motion per se was caused by magnets at the generation station.

Then why would not a 2 ton MRI magnet not harm a little electric current your ignorant butt thinks runs the nervous system?
QUOTE

I guess Ampere was wrong...
So lightening is actually a superpowerful magnet? According to you, it is voltage, not current, that is analagous to magnetism 
No he did well with the usage form but he did not try and describe why we are alive with it either.

My first paper was Photo Neuron Conduction (PNC Theory) in 1982…a paper sharing how the interactions between the synaptic junctions of the neural network, is light

I was 16 year old….. so I have over 25 years of pursuing knowledge and if there was anything over the course of that period that would have proven that light is not the energy between every exchange between mass, then I would not be here explaining how foolish you are debating in an area you are being punked over.

I don’t play games!

Every branch of the sciences apply…

Hence

Paradigm shift!
franklin
8th February 2008 - 03:50 AM


What about Darwin's finches DON'T you understand? unsure.gif They SPECIATED based on differences in the STRUCTURE of hard body parts known as bills in birds. See:
----------------------------

first of all, the finches are not different "species" as they can all interbreed. Second, the changes were not a result of mutation, but of developmental gene (Bmp4) re-expression in each bird. (evidently can't post lnks as of yet)

franklin
8th February 2008 - 03:53 AM
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 8 2008, 12:41 AM)

Who told you that lie?
We have watched it happen....


This known as Lamarkian evolution.
We tested it....it failed...


Nope, they aren't...
Once again, we proved this about a century ago.
Genetics further confirmed it about 20 years ago...


Well, I don't feel like repeating myself....
Besides intuition and your lack of education and training in biology....what leads you to this conclusion?

If I am lying prove me wrong. read real close:

The 6 words that falsify common descent are as follows:

Mutations don't add new, selectable structures.

The reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures have got to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these), and at the same time build up the genome ------ but there is no scientific evidence to show that this is even possible. Mutations cannot add whole new body parts such as whole organs, and they cannot add new, selectable structures onto pre-existing body parts. You and your theory and your site are simply sunk.

And by the way....please, I know you guys are desperate, but don't misconstrue the word, "structures" as changes in molecules or within cells...(as in the nylon bug thing) What I mean by "structures" are traits that are morphological in nature -- eyes, ears, beaks, paws, toes, feathers, noses, arms, gallbladders, muscles, etc..... There is certainly a differece between "structures" that are chemical and/or involve changes in molecules and "structures" which make a visual distinction/definition between organisms. The claim here is that mutations cannot generate selectable "structures," as in the types of physical, outward, external, phenotypic structures that distinguish one animal from another.

please prove me wrong with a link and an explanation.


by the way, Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) has never been proven wrong.
Bishadi
8th February 2008 - 04:12 AM
franklin...

i hope you are trying to learn because if you are trying to discredit evolution in any form then you are reducing yourself to a follower of faith versus a follower of truth.

We all know the sciences are screwed up, so I feel your pain but if you have faith in God.... the total .... all mass, all energy all time... One.....

then know time is the provider of truth and as each word is a part of god (the total) then be clear his prophecies will live just not within the magic of faith, but in the truth of knowledge....... it all applies, that is true but the descriptions did not have the words for the period.

do you remember what the final chapter is all about ...... 'knowledge is the revealing...'

It's the same in every religion as it is when knowledge is upon the heads (understanding) then the judgment will be by them who know the truth.... and the young will begin to teach the old......

What words do you need answered before you will know the truth is right in front of you?

franklin
8th February 2008 - 04:25 AM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 8 2008, 04:12 AM)


franklin...

i hope you are trying to learn because if you are trying to discredit evolution in any form then you are reducing yourself to a follower of faith versus a follower of truth.
----------------------

well if common descent is truth then proving it with science should be no problem. ToE says organisms mutate and that selection culls the population in adaptive directions. But if mutations cannot do as advertised then the whole thing is shot. There are billions of body parts in the world, and darwinism cannot account for the construction of even one of them.
PuckSR
8th February 2008 - 05:03 AM
PREFACE: *****I have been drinking*****

QUOTE
If I am lying prove me wrong. read real close:

The 6 words that falsify common descent are as follows:

Mutations don't add new, selectable structures.


What in the hell is a "selectable structure"??????????????????

Mutations DO add....
They ADD things such as features and unique new abilities...
But a selectable structure?

You just made that term up.
"drunk talk": You stupid *** ***, why would you make up a term that has no real meaning. Talk about stupidity....

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If I am lying prove me wrong. read real close:

The 6 words that falsify common descent are as follows:

Mutations don't add new, selectable structures.


What in the hell is a "selectable structure"??????????????????

Mutations DO add....
They ADD things such as features and unique new abilities...
But a selectable structure?

You just made that term up.
"drunk talk": You stupid *** ***, why would you make up a term that has no real meaning. Talk about stupidity....

The reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures have got to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these), and at the same time build up the genome

Actually, you forgot about the fact that bacteria co-opted some other single-cellular organisms.
Ever wondered about your mitochondria(hope I spelled that right).
The entire multi-cellular organism started when single-celled organisms started incorporating other single-celled features

QUOTE
Mutations cannot add whole new body parts such as whole organs, and they cannot add new, selectable structures onto pre-existing body parts. You and your theory and your site are simply sunk.

Right, and that is why they didn't.
They built upon proto-organs.
You really need to read up on this stuff.....

Are you mentally challenged, because if you are I will stop making fun of you....

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mutations cannot add whole new body parts such as whole organs, and they cannot add new, selectable structures onto pre-existing body parts. You and your theory and your site are simply sunk.

Right, and that is why they didn't.
They built upon proto-organs.
You really need to read up on this stuff.....

Are you mentally challenged, because if you are I will stop making fun of you....

please prove me wrong with a link and an explanation.

How about a few million papers?

QUOTE
by the way, Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) has never been proven wrong.

Are you really that dumb?
Genetics PROVED Lamarkism totally wrong......
BigDumbWeirdo
8th February 2008 - 05:22 AM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 7 2008, 10:53 PM)
please prove me wrong with a link and an explanation.

Wikipedia - Evidence of Common Descent


However, as biologists define macroevolution, both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed. Speciations, for example, have been directly observed many times, despite popular misconceptions to the contrary. Additionally, modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, considering the former to simply be the latter on a larger scale.

Additionally, past macroevolution can be inferred from historical traces. Transitional fossils, for example, provide plausible links between several different groups of organisms, such as Archaeopteryx linking birds and dinosaurs, or the recently-discovered Tiktaalik linking fish and amphibians. Creationists dispute such examples in a variety of ways, from asserting that such fossils are hoaxes or that they belong exclusively to one group or the other, to asserting that there should be far more evidence of obvious transitional species. Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory: "Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory." However, the number of clear transitional fossils has increased enormously since Darwin's day, and this problem has been largely resolved with the advent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which predicts a primarily stable fossil record broken up by occasional major speciations.
From Wikipedia - Objections to Evolution


Note that the entire article is fully compliant with Wikipedia's strict standards of accuracy and neutrality. This says a lot. Wikipedia is, according to all outside sources, one of the most reliable sources for encyclopedic information available.
Nature.com - Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Now Franklin, you should read that entire article. If you doubt the sources, you may feel free to verify them for yourself, as they are all properly cited. There is no misinformation to be found there! It is full of truths, verifiable facts, and is written from a neutral point of view.
Evolution is what happened. It is the simplest explanation that takes into account all of the available evidence. It is falsifiable, and it has not -in 150 years of scientists trying to do just that- been falsified.
Creationism, Intelligent Design, Irreducable Complexity are not falsifiable, nor is there any evidence to support them which is recognized as such by the scientific community.
Gorgeous
8th February 2008 - 09:20 AM
QUOTE
well if common descent is truth then proving it with science should be no problem.


So, at least you recognise that science proves truth.

What's the 'problem'? - Don't you like it?



g.
MisterBelfry
8th February 2008 - 01:09 PM
QUOTE (Franklin+)
ToE says organisms mutate and that selection culls the population in adaptive directions. But if mutations cannot do as advertised then the whole thing is shot. There are billions of body parts in the world, and darwinism cannot account for the construction of even one of them.


The whole thing should be shot but fanatasy takes over.

Here is an example of uneducated fanatasy:

"Micro evolution is a small change in the gene pool of a species. Things like moths going from white to black due to pollution. The white moths were easy to kill, the black moths survived. The moth population became black, their off spring inhereted the black gene over the white gene.

That is micro evolution. Unfortunately you display the usual problem nay-sayers about evolution (or indeed most mainstream science) have, you don't even bother to know what you're arguing against."

--------> Showtopic= 19913
And the kicker...

"We are entitled to ask for experimental confirmation of so marvelous a tale, and of course it won't be forthcoming. The standard examples of Darwinism-in-action involve only cyclical variations in fundamentally stable populations of peppered moths and finches."

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/fifthmiracle.htm

{four posts latter...}

I say insightful because it was written so damn close to the books

Grant, P. R., Ed. (1998). Evolution on islands. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press.

Hooper, J. (2002). Of Moths and Men. Norton; New York, W.W. Norton & Company.
PIATLAS
8th February 2008 - 01:14 PM
Moths biggest killers see in ulta-violet thus sew 2 your simple explanation.
AlphaNumeric
8th February 2008 - 01:43 PM
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 8 2008, 04:37 AM)
My first paper was Photo Neuron Conduction (PNC Theory) in 1982…a paper sharing how the interactions between the synaptic junctions of the neural network, is light

I was 16 year old….. so I have over 25 years of pursuing knowledge and if there was anything over the course of that period that would have proven that light is not the energy between every exchange between mass, then I would not be here explaining how foolish you are debating in an area you are being punked over.

I don’t play games!

Where was your 'paper' published? I bet it wasn't. Simply writing an essay doesn't mean you understand something. Every year millions of school children write essays on things, many of them are full of errors.

I've written essays, in the last year, on flux compactification, complex manifolds, Penrose diagrams, quantum field theory, renormalisation and black holes. I am published in none of them, they are just on my website for others to read.

See the difference? Obviously not or else you wouldn't be lying.
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Feb 8 2008, 02:14 PM)
Moths biggest killers see in ulta-violet thus sew 2 your simple explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tit

Do they?
BigDumbWeirdo
8th February 2008 - 01:58 PM
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Feb 8 2008, 08:09 AM)
"We are entitled to ask for experimental confirmation of so marvelous a tale, and of course it won't be forthcoming. The standard examples of Darwinism-in-action involve only cyclical variations in fundamentally stable populations of peppered moths and finches."

Ok, fine.

Where's the experimental, observational or geological evidence for ID or creationism?

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Where was your 'paper' published? I bet it wasn't. Simply writing an essay doesn't mean you understand something.

Hey, I wrote a poem once. I guess that gives me the right to tell a literature major that he doesn't know a thing about poetry.
franklin
8th February 2008 - 01:58 PM
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 8 2008, 05:03 AM)
PREFACE: *****I have been drinking*****



What in the hell is a "selectable structure"??????????????????

Mutations DO add....
They ADD things such as features and unique new abilities...
But a selectable structure?

You just made that term up.
"drunk talk": You stupid *** ***, why would you make up a term that has no real meaning. Talk about stupidity....


Actually, you forgot about the fact that bacteria co-opted some other single-cellular organisms.
Ever wondered about your mitochondria(hope I spelled that right).
The entire multi-cellular organism started when single-celled organisms started incorporating other single-celled features


Right, and that is why they didn't.
They built upon proto-organs.
You really need to read up on this stuff.....

Are you mentally challenged, because if you are I will stop making fun of you....


How about a few million papers?


Are you really that dumb?
Genetics PROVED Lamarkism totally wrong......

Puck, a selectable structure is ANY of the body parts you see around the world. Mutations cannot account for the construction of any of them. They may be able to remove traits or generate resistance in bacteria, for example, but when it comes to building wings, beaks, organs bones, teeth, antennas, sonar systems, gills, feathers, etc etc etc -- mutations can't and don't do it. They cannot even add beneficial morphology to these things.

please prove me wrong. Until then common descent is nothing but a fairtytale.
El_Machinae
8th February 2008 - 02:00 PM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 7 2008, 08:40 PM)
this gets you nowhere...you're still going to have to present a mutation that beneficially alters and adds to a duplicated part in a selectable way.

I think we're at completely different levels of understanding.

Please remember that there's no gene for 'an extra leg', at least not at the level of 'higher animals'. To regularly get an extra digit would require a compounding of many, many mutations. Now, I've never heard of this tribe with an extra toe, but if they exist, then we know that such stable mutations can happen.

I've seen extra structures more often at the level of the fruit-fly, where it's easier to find 'master switch'-type genes. So, we know that they exist and that there are many survivable mutations around these types of genes.

But once an extra structure is available in a population, how can Natural Selection NOT act upon it? There are thousands of potential mutations which will differentiate the additional toe from its ancestor, some with selective value. Over time, these mutations will happen (since mutations happen), and thus changes will happen.
franklin
8th February 2008 - 02:06 PM
Puck: Are you really that dumb?
Genetics PROVED Lamarkism totally wrong......

ok, puck.....so we've learned that changes in genes cannot add new, beneficial morphology. So what does? You say Lamarckism is wrong. So what's this:

(unable to post link...please google "DNA is Not Destiny" Discover Magazine)

To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations.

so in otherwords, a predator comes around these waterfleas, and somehow the waterfleas generate an adaptive spine (please note: no mutation) and then, somehow this new spine gets passed onto future genrerations. I don't know if you've ever heard of epigenetics before, but it's the study of how organisms interact with their environment and how genes get adaptively re-expressed according to this interaction. This field has been supressed for decades so people like you can stay dumbed down and ignorant.

Bishadi
8th February 2008 - 02:06 PM
franklin


QUOTE
well if common descent is truth then proving it with science should be no problem. 


And to use ms windows is not much of a problem but 30 years ago, it was not available.

Knowledge evolves just as you will have more available than your parents.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
well if common descent is truth then proving it with science should be no problem. 


And to use ms windows is not much of a problem but 30 years ago, it was not available.

Knowledge evolves just as you will have more available than your parents.


ToE says organisms mutate and that selection culls the population in adaptive directions.


Does a new male lion kill the cubs of the old king of the pack? Do the weak pups of most every litter in most every species often die? Does your immune system kill virus’ and remove damaged cells?

QUOTE

But if mutations cannot do as advertised then the whole thing is shot. 
Advertised?

That is like saying, if the Peace is not on the globe and all man do not know each other as brother, then Jesus was not the messiah and the whole book is shot.

Thus if we can show the earth is actually older than 7000 years, then all the rest of the material in the bible is shot.

Which we know is incorrect! Each period contributed for knowledge but in certain faiths additional information towards comprehension can and actually does contest the authority of the leaders of the faith.

No one ever said Jesus was a negative contributor to the people… jesus never wrote a book so none of the words thereof came from him. All of it is opinion since magic did not make the book and the nicean creed is what made Jesus a god…..

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

But if mutations cannot do as advertised then the whole thing is shot. 
Advertised?

That is like saying, if the Peace is not on the globe and all man do not know each other as brother, then Jesus was not the messiah and the whole book is shot.

Thus if we can show the earth is actually older than 7000 years, then all the rest of the material in the bible is shot.

Which we know is incorrect! Each period contributed for knowledge but in certain faiths additional information towards comprehension can and actually does contest the authority of the leaders of the faith.

No one ever said Jesus was a negative contributor to the people… jesus never wrote a book so none of the words thereof came from him. All of it is opinion since magic did not make the book and the nicean creed is what made Jesus a god…..

There are billions of body parts in the world, and darwinism cannot account for the construction of even one of them.
And Darwinism is only a model of process but since we all know the core determinations of the process are quality just like the bible…..

in the bible the core is the compassion between community offering a guide to all who participate a guide to association within a compassionate set of reasoning….

Darwinism is a guide describing a process called evolution. He never tried to describe every mutation of man.

But the bible cannot show how man was made from dust.

Nor did Darwin…. It was not the time or place in the evolutionary path towards comprehension

So each are not the last word as knowledge is still evolving. Not even the next chapter is finished … i.e… the chapter after revelations….. …..

Magic is not an option and the sciences coupled with common sense proves that. So all them ideas of miracles, angels, devils or even someone riding thru the clouds raising the dead and forgiving sins.. are all fibs. Nothing in all nature sustains these as being real…..

Now most real scientists, never wake up in the morning working on what they do are trying to keep everyone believing in Darwin and a path just to sustain the model.

In contract certain religions have burned books, killed, tortured and destroyed schools and libraries purposely to retain belief in the model their regime sustains.

They know that if the masses had the ability to know equality and know that miracles do not exist, then the power of the leadership is now reduced and control is lost. They have a clear intent to oppress and suppress for a selfish cause.

This is the reason these sects are the prime ones who fear the new beginning of knowledge…. As when the public are aware of ‘Understanding” these sect will be the most ridiculed and damaged of all the religions.

History has documented their torture and mayhem all based on controlling knowledge and retaining the power to create policy and politics … they will not fair well and know it.

That is why they think 2 guys are coming…… one with knowledge and one who flies thru the sky on clouds rapturing…. When all the rest know only one dude made the promise, and reveals the knowledge and then peace will come from that commitment……

The evil upon the world is what we are experiencing now, that the corruption of capitalism, a frame that makes sense to each of us, but built within is that ability to harm (loss to the common) for profit of the few.

That is the evil all men can know and not from a separate entity as each soul is capable of the atrocities.

What brings peace is when each can know understanding, equally and chose good and live forever based on what they do (thy works) by their choice….. if each person was born with the single model that allows pure understanding…. Then each can be equal, as brothers and know exactly how it works.
MisterBelfry
8th February 2008 - 02:27 PM
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Ok, fine.

Where's the experimental, observational or geological evidence for ID or creationism?


Where indeed! -----> Showtopic= 19407

In certain areas apologetic scientific creationism may have an advantage over neutral scientific creationism and non-theistic science in that it operates from a larger data base and may develop scientifically sound interpretive models that would not have been accessible by pure inductive logic. This advantage is illustrated by a comparison between a reconstruction of an event based on both the testimony of a reliable eyewitness and analysis of the consequences, and a reconstruction based on only analysis of the consequences. These two reconstructions may be evaluated on the basis of which one provides a better account of the available after-the-event data.

On the basis of the principle that truth is consistent, irrespective of the means by which it is apprehended, one can say that when rightly understood, natural science and authentic historical or religious source material agree, each complementing and supplementing the other. Accordingly, apologetic scientific creationism can be an instrument for arriving at a more correct understanding of specifications obtained from a religious source, as well as of data obtained from investigation in the natural sciences. --
http://www.grisda.org/origins/08020.htm
franklin
8th February 2008 - 02:30 PM
Bishadi: But the bible cannot show how man was made from dust.

Nor did Darwin…. It was not the time or place in the evolutionary path towards comprehension

But the Bible and the Creation is not taught as "Science" in the classroom.

Bishadi
8th February 2008 - 02:49 PM
QUOTE (franklin+Feb 8 2008, 02:30 PM)
Bishadi: But the bible cannot show how man was made from dust.

Nor did Darwin…. It was not the time or place in the evolutionary path towards comprehension

But the Bible and the Creation is not taught as "Science" in the classroom.

I know.... but they create people like you doubting additional knowledge such as evolution.

Which is sad!

As to continue that is why the globe is in the situation it is in now.

If christianity had not existed we would all probably be vacationing on mars by now.

Meaning that single sect has caused more atrocities towards the evolution of knowledge than any single cause/entity existing!

And is still doing it for that matter.....
photojack
8th February 2008 - 02:51 PM
franklin, Darwin and evolutionary theory ARE science and the body of knowledge and research backing them is overwhelming for those in the know. Darwinism IS the evolutionary path towards comprehension! biggrin.gif His theory explains man's origins to impeccable accuracy, and every new fossil discovery and every new species discovered since 1859 has fit in to the evolutionary milieu like missing jigsaw puzzle pieces. ohmy.gif Read up on it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

QUOTE
The evolutionary theory often referred to as Darwinism was first publicly put forward by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and discussed in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck's theory, Darwinism proposed common descent and a branching tree of life. It was based on the idea of natural selection, and it synthesized evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology. The debate over Origin raised serious questions about the place of humanity in nature, and was a key step in the process of methodological naturalism replacing natural theology in the sciences.

Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of evolution, but the actual mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted until the 1930s.  With the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics, and with T.H. Morgan's studies on mutation, scientists began to better understand the nature of inheritance and variation. This eventually led to the synthesis of natural selection with Mendelian genetics during the 1920s and 1930s, forming the new discipline of population genetics. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, population genetics became integrated with other branches of biology, finally resulting in a unified theory of evolution - the modern evolutionary synthesis, which restored natural selection to a central role in evolutionary theory.
From the above wikipedia article.

Come on, pull your heads out of the sand and read, learn and accept what the learned scientists have been proving all along! cool.gif They are not collectively pulling the wool over people's eyes, they are seeking the knowledge and background to man's true place in nature. Religion doesn't work that way. They DO pull the wool over people's eyes to perpetuate their myths! Wake up and see the difference! blink.gif
franklin
8th February 2008 - 03:04 PM
well you guys keep saying evolution is a fact, yet you cannot give me evidence that the given mechanism can operate as is claimed to make evolution happen! Do you not see the problem here? It could very well be that animals indeed change, but the way they change is not at all the way darwinists claim -- that individuals change by way of response to a changing environment instead of mutation/selection changing them.

Let me ask you, do you believe individuals can change their DNA during their lifetimes to adapt to their local internal/external environments?

Where's the evolution?

Gould: The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. (Organisms) appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

Darwin's argument (that the fossil record is incomplete) still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly...I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualsim . I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks. The Panda's Thumb.
Grumpy
8th February 2008 - 03:20 PM
franklin

QUOTE
Let me ask you, do you believe individuals can change their DNA during their lifetimes to adapt to their local internal/external environments?


Individuals cannot change their DNA. But environmental conditions can change which parts of the DNA they already have are expressed, as in the case of your fleas...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Let me ask you, do you believe individuals can change their DNA during their lifetimes to adapt to their local internal/external environments?


Individuals cannot change their DNA. But environmental conditions can change which parts of the DNA they already have are expressed, as in the case of your fleas...

To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations.


This is already a heritable effect, it is triggered by the presence of certain predators, once triggered it persists for several generations. It is not a new mutation every time it occurs, but a response to environmental effects on gene selection.

QUOTE
well you guys keep saying evolution is a fact, yet you cannot give me evidence that the given mechanism can operate as is claimed to make evolution happen!


Look up the Nylon Bug.

Grumpy cool.gif
franklin
8th February 2008 - 03:24 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 8 2008, 03:20 PM)
franklin



Individuals cannot change their DNA. But environmental conditions can change which parts of the DNA they already have are expressed, as in the case of your fleas...



This is already a heritable effect, it is triggered by the presence of certain predators, once triggered it persists for several generations. It is not a new mutation every time it occurs, but a response to environmental effects on gene selection.



Look up the Nylon Bug.

Grumpy cool.gif

Iwould like you to read these words from Dr. Frank Vertosick, Jr from a book called “The Genius Within”…

To compete on an equal footing with microbes, newly evolving vertebrates could not rely on large-scale evolution, acting on many generation, to solve their thorniest problems. Individual animals would have to shoulder more of the intellectual load and do a little evolving on their own, and do it in the course