To say that an airplane is a tautology is meaningless, nor does it stop the plane from flying. So too with NS; traits do lead to differential reproductive success. Of the two types of tautologies, rhetorical and logical, NS remains a rhetorical tautology in reference to its ability to explain genetic information. Just as the word "airplane" is not a tautology unless it is used as an explanation for why aircraft can fly, so NS is not a tautology unless used as an explanation for the origin of genetic information. A thing of itself is not a tautology. A thing used as an explanation for its own traits is a tautology. In fact, a thing used to explain its own traits results in a rhetorical tautology. Rhetorical and logical tautologies are different constructs that produce the same effect: circular reasoning. Circular reasoning results when one attempts to provide an explanation for one's axioms. What I am saying is that NS as an explanation for the origin of species is a statement of faith.
That some die explains not why others survive. That some survive does not explain genetic info. DNA causes replication and variation. The environment causes death. What causes genetic information? The very basis of evolution (reproduction and variation) is the outcome of genetic information. Yet what causes genetic information? The environment causes death, but the fact that some die does not explain why others survive. What causes genetic information? There is no natural selection without genetic information. Yet, what causes genetic information?
In summary, NS is a tautology when used as an explanation for the origin of genetic info, that is, when used to explain the origin of species, because genetic information causes the reproduction and variation from which nature can select.
QUOTE (psychological_nudity+)
traits do lead to differential reproductive success
And the 'traits' are the result of variations of DNA within the species..
Are you serious or just playing a game here?
-C2.
And the 'traits' are the result of variations of DNA within the species..
Are you serious or just playing a game here?
-C2.
DNA doesn't make DNA. RNA and protein and energy makes DNA. DNA helps make RNA and protein (which lead to energy-gathering behaviour).
If an RNA built a DNA code which replicated that specific (or similar) RNA, then the DNA becomes an opportunity for natural selection. RNA can build themselves or other things (in general, DNA builds nothing, it's only a storehouse of 'information').
You're probably talking about the earliest lifeforms here, though. Once there is an organism which can reproduce, Natural Selection is easy.
If an RNA built a DNA code which replicated that specific (or similar) RNA, then the DNA becomes an opportunity for natural selection. RNA can build themselves or other things (in general, DNA builds nothing, it's only a storehouse of 'information').
You're probably talking about the earliest lifeforms here, though. Once there is an organism which can reproduce, Natural Selection is easy.
Well, it is interesting that your "title" differs greatly from your argument.
You claim that NS is a tautology if it is used to explain genetic information. No one is claiming that NS is the source of genetic information. Chemical reactions of amino acids is the explanation for genetic information.
You claim that NS is a tautology if it is used to explain genetic information. No one is claiming that NS is the source of genetic information. Chemical reactions of amino acids is the explanation for genetic information.
In response to topic starter NS can't make DNA
Opinions would vary with respect to what NS aspects are involved.
An Billionaire Neanderthal with a 100,000 year reign won't become an Cromagnon man even if `he with his male descendants' naturally selected the most beautiful Cromagnon women.
With respect to evolution my speculation is such: The bones that anthropologists are discovering saying that that skull evolved into that skull into that skull sequentially one from the other is miss information. To give an analogy lets say a 5 million years ago humans were all mixed up something like an all species contained mutt that you might find in a dog pound. Then bread that mutt to sizable population. Then at some point you notice that some particular skull is no longer in the equation. That means that that particular line hasn't evolved, but got left out making the remaining have somewhat more intelligent looking skulls.
By the same token it's plausible that the human evolution system is very complex in that where genes incubated within the species geanpool independently within each individual surviving by being improvements eventually all coming together as an improved species.
Then again evolution can travel in both directions meaning that humans won't necessarily give birth to a bigger/ more intelligent human species every-time sequentially in an progressive way. Some group gene-pools could be unwittingly incubating the genes to give birth to a tougher cretin like the mob that allow Neanderthals to play dress-ups with the women of their group.
Every paleontology skull that you see arranged in an evolutionary line suggesting is just a long line of loser's sequentially no longer in the equation.
That isn't fact, that's just my opinion.
Opinions would vary with respect to what NS aspects are involved.
An Billionaire Neanderthal with a 100,000 year reign won't become an Cromagnon man even if `he with his male descendants' naturally selected the most beautiful Cromagnon women.
With respect to evolution my speculation is such: The bones that anthropologists are discovering saying that that skull evolved into that skull into that skull sequentially one from the other is miss information. To give an analogy lets say a 5 million years ago humans were all mixed up something like an all species contained mutt that you might find in a dog pound. Then bread that mutt to sizable population. Then at some point you notice that some particular skull is no longer in the equation. That means that that particular line hasn't evolved, but got left out making the remaining have somewhat more intelligent looking skulls.
By the same token it's plausible that the human evolution system is very complex in that where genes incubated within the species geanpool independently within each individual surviving by being improvements eventually all coming together as an improved species.
Then again evolution can travel in both directions meaning that humans won't necessarily give birth to a bigger/ more intelligent human species every-time sequentially in an progressive way. Some group gene-pools could be unwittingly incubating the genes to give birth to a tougher cretin like the mob that allow Neanderthals to play dress-ups with the women of their group.
Every paleontology skull that you see arranged in an evolutionary line suggesting is just a long line of loser's sequentially no longer in the equation.
That isn't fact, that's just my opinion.
c2: "...'traits' are the result of variations of DNA..."
Me: "DNA causes...variation[in traits].
As "Confused2" has repeated what I said in different words, I suppose he will have to remain too confused.
PuckSR: "No one is claiming that NS is the source of genetic information"
I'm glad to see you agree that natural selection does not produce genetic information. However, I must point out that we then disagree with the very claims of biological evolution that replication, variation, and selection is the origin of species, ie genetic info. "The Top 10 Myths about Evolution" p. 37 claims such, and the "The Nature of Selection" by Elliot Sober is a 350+ page book on how selection is the source of genetic information.
The hypothesis that DNA originated with RNA is an interesting one, but remains open to challenge, so it can't be used to end debate. Describing the physical components of a sequence is not enough to account for the information therein. The molecular structure of ink and paper does not suffice to explain the message it embodies. That the wind can at times lift heavy stone is not enough to account for the mystery of "Stone Hedge." The information in DNA (not the chemicals themselves) remains a mystery to which one possibility is intelligent design.
El_Machinae: "Once there is an organism which can reproduce, Natural Selection is easy." I tautologically agree; hence natural selection cannot produce DNA which is a prerequisite for replication and variation in phenotype. The trouble is, when you look at the literature, it claims that replication, variation, and selection(evolution) are the origin of species. So we end up with a tautological claim: "IF we have a chemical sequence(DNA) that results in replication, variation, and selection THEN replication, variation, and selection(evolution) will occur. So we see that the title of this post is apropos in that neither replication, variation, nor natural selection can produce genetic info, because all require it, and any such claim is circular because it is a tautology.
I'm not only saying that the first life could not have formed via evolution (evolutionists don't even claim that,) I'm saying that every claimed step upward is a tautology when we invoke selection as a cause for increases in genetic information. Simply put, there would be nothing from which to select of something hadn't produced it. So what produces genetic info?
The only remaining non-intelligent possibility is that DNA forms by accident, which is not a scientific claim. Citing "chance" as a cause is about as scientific as the all encompassing claims of an ancient Greek oracle. "IF a chemical sequence that leads to survival forms by accident, THEN the chemical sequence will survive." Such a statement begs us to look at the only other remaining possibility: that life is the result of intelligence.
Me: "DNA causes...variation[in traits].
As "Confused2" has repeated what I said in different words, I suppose he will have to remain too confused.
PuckSR: "No one is claiming that NS is the source of genetic information"
I'm glad to see you agree that natural selection does not produce genetic information. However, I must point out that we then disagree with the very claims of biological evolution that replication, variation, and selection is the origin of species, ie genetic info. "The Top 10 Myths about Evolution" p. 37 claims such, and the "The Nature of Selection" by Elliot Sober is a 350+ page book on how selection is the source of genetic information.
The hypothesis that DNA originated with RNA is an interesting one, but remains open to challenge, so it can't be used to end debate. Describing the physical components of a sequence is not enough to account for the information therein. The molecular structure of ink and paper does not suffice to explain the message it embodies. That the wind can at times lift heavy stone is not enough to account for the mystery of "Stone Hedge." The information in DNA (not the chemicals themselves) remains a mystery to which one possibility is intelligent design.
El_Machinae: "Once there is an organism which can reproduce, Natural Selection is easy." I tautologically agree; hence natural selection cannot produce DNA which is a prerequisite for replication and variation in phenotype. The trouble is, when you look at the literature, it claims that replication, variation, and selection(evolution) are the origin of species. So we end up with a tautological claim: "IF we have a chemical sequence(DNA) that results in replication, variation, and selection THEN replication, variation, and selection(evolution) will occur. So we see that the title of this post is apropos in that neither replication, variation, nor natural selection can produce genetic info, because all require it, and any such claim is circular because it is a tautology.
I'm not only saying that the first life could not have formed via evolution (evolutionists don't even claim that,) I'm saying that every claimed step upward is a tautology when we invoke selection as a cause for increases in genetic information. Simply put, there would be nothing from which to select of something hadn't produced it. So what produces genetic info?
The only remaining non-intelligent possibility is that DNA forms by accident, which is not a scientific claim. Citing "chance" as a cause is about as scientific as the all encompassing claims of an ancient Greek oracle. "IF a chemical sequence that leads to survival forms by accident, THEN the chemical sequence will survive." Such a statement begs us to look at the only other remaining possibility: that life is the result of intelligence.
psychological_nudity
DNA is not a prerequisite of replication, self replicating molecules exist in nature and in the lab. If you look at a crystal(in just one example) you see molecules arrainging themselves in patterns by the billions, in more sophisticated forms we call these arraingments "life". Break a crystal into small pieces and put one piece into the correct environment and it will grow into a large crystal, break that second crystal into small pieces and put a splinter into the correct environment and it too will grow into a large crystal...ad infinitum, and no DNA is involved.
In the prebiotic Earth there were many different environments and untold trillions of "attempts" to form a self replicating molecule(or pairs of molecules that each would produce the other, a sort of chemical sex you might say) until one(or a pair) succeeded in using the chemicals in it's environment("food") to create copies of itself(or it's partner chemical), we call this replication, and we call that chemical(or pair) "life". EVERYTHING ELSE ( cells, DNA, RNA, protiens, mitochondria...)DEVELOPED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION OF THE MUTATIONS OF THOSE CHEMICALS.
RNA and DNA, when they were stumbled upon, are actually mechanisms that LIMIT those mutations and allow a certain type of life to be able to reproduce better copies of itself. Those organisms that had DNA were soon able to vastly outcompete those without it and replaced them(except certain "hangers on" like prions and viruses), but DNA is also subject to a smaller rate of mutation and those mutations are still tested by NS, so evolution still continued.
Whether you think evolution is a tautology or not, it still is responsible for life as we know it and all of it's features including DNA. And, since chemistry is the same throughout the universe, I would bet that all life in the universe will develop DNA, no matter what external form that life takes, and I would further bet that we find that where life CAN exist, it DOES exist and it will fit it's environment because it evolved IN that environment. It is just the nature of the beast(evolution).
Grumpy
QUOTE
...hence natural selection cannot produce DNA which is a prerequisite for replication and variation in phenotype.
DNA is not a prerequisite of replication, self replicating molecules exist in nature and in the lab. If you look at a crystal(in just one example) you see molecules arrainging themselves in patterns by the billions, in more sophisticated forms we call these arraingments "life". Break a crystal into small pieces and put one piece into the correct environment and it will grow into a large crystal, break that second crystal into small pieces and put a splinter into the correct environment and it too will grow into a large crystal...ad infinitum, and no DNA is involved.
In the prebiotic Earth there were many different environments and untold trillions of "attempts" to form a self replicating molecule(or pairs of molecules that each would produce the other, a sort of chemical sex you might say) until one(or a pair) succeeded in using the chemicals in it's environment("food") to create copies of itself(or it's partner chemical), we call this replication, and we call that chemical(or pair) "life". EVERYTHING ELSE ( cells, DNA, RNA, protiens, mitochondria...)DEVELOPED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION OF THE MUTATIONS OF THOSE CHEMICALS.
RNA and DNA, when they were stumbled upon, are actually mechanisms that LIMIT those mutations and allow a certain type of life to be able to reproduce better copies of itself. Those organisms that had DNA were soon able to vastly outcompete those without it and replaced them(except certain "hangers on" like prions and viruses), but DNA is also subject to a smaller rate of mutation and those mutations are still tested by NS, so evolution still continued.
Whether you think evolution is a tautology or not, it still is responsible for life as we know it and all of it's features including DNA. And, since chemistry is the same throughout the universe, I would bet that all life in the universe will develop DNA, no matter what external form that life takes, and I would further bet that we find that where life CAN exist, it DOES exist and it will fit it's environment because it evolved IN that environment. It is just the nature of the beast(evolution).
Grumpy
psychological_nudity
Mutations cause a change in genetic information, testing by NS decides if that mutation is good or bad, eliminates the bad and propogates the good. NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change. Mutations are random(and mostly fatal), NS is not. Mutations of genetic info are the things NS chooses from in determining what is advantageous to the organism.
Mutations cause a change in genetic information, testing by NS decides if that mutation is good or bad, eliminates the bad and propogates the good. NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change. Mutations are random(and mostly fatal), NS is not. Mutations of genetic info are the things NS chooses from in determining what is advantageous to the organism.
The only remaining non-intelligent possibility is that DNA forms by accident, which is not a scientific claim. Citing "chance" as a cause is about as scientific as the all encompassing claims of an ancient Greek oracle. "IF a chemical sequence that leads to survival forms by accident, THEN the chemical sequence will survive." Such a statement begs us to look at the only other remaining possibility: that life is the result of intelligence.
Don't be ridiculous!!! DNA and all the other attributes of life are the result of random mutations tested against the real world(NS) over BILLIONS of years in uncountable ZILLIONS of experiments(individual organisms). WHEN an accidental chemical MUTATION leads to better survival, that survival insures that the mutation will become part of the organisms offspring. When it works, the organism passes it to the next generation, when it doesn't work the organism doesn't get the chance to pass it on. There is(and has never been) no need of intelligence and absolutely no evidence of it's existence. That is simply arguement from ignorance.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I'm not only saying that the first life could not have formed via evolution (evolutionists don't even claim that,) I'm saying that every claimed step upward is a tautology when we invoke selection as a cause for increases in genetic information. Simply put, there would be nothing from which to select of something hadn't produced it. So what produces genetic info?
Mutations cause a change in genetic information, testing by NS decides if that mutation is good or bad, eliminates the bad and propogates the good. NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change. Mutations are random(and mostly fatal), NS is not. Mutations of genetic info are the things NS chooses from in determining what is advantageous to the organism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not only saying that the first life could not have formed via evolution (evolutionists don't even claim that,) I'm saying that every claimed step upward is a tautology when we invoke selection as a cause for increases in genetic information. Simply put, there would be nothing from which to select of something hadn't produced it. So what produces genetic info? |
Mutations cause a change in genetic information, testing by NS decides if that mutation is good or bad, eliminates the bad and propogates the good. NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change. Mutations are random(and mostly fatal), NS is not. Mutations of genetic info are the things NS chooses from in determining what is advantageous to the organism.
The only remaining non-intelligent possibility is that DNA forms by accident, which is not a scientific claim. Citing "chance" as a cause is about as scientific as the all encompassing claims of an ancient Greek oracle. "IF a chemical sequence that leads to survival forms by accident, THEN the chemical sequence will survive." Such a statement begs us to look at the only other remaining possibility: that life is the result of intelligence.
Don't be ridiculous!!! DNA and all the other attributes of life are the result of random mutations tested against the real world(NS) over BILLIONS of years in uncountable ZILLIONS of experiments(individual organisms). WHEN an accidental chemical MUTATION leads to better survival, that survival insures that the mutation will become part of the organisms offspring. When it works, the organism passes it to the next generation, when it doesn't work the organism doesn't get the chance to pass it on. There is(and has never been) no need of intelligence and absolutely no evidence of it's existence. That is simply arguement from ignorance.
Grumpy
QUOTE (psychological_nudity+Jul 10 2007, 06:06 AM)
I'm glad to see you agree that natural selection does not produce genetic information.
Well, natural selection very much trims genetic information. That's what it does. It kills off most of the new genetic information created, allowing some new genetic information (partially based on merit) to slip through the cracks.
Good 'ol reproduction is what causes new genetic information to appear. The DNA of an offspring is unique, at least partially, and could not be generated by a clever combining of the parental DNA. There are always mutation events to notice.
Well, the exact specifics are unavailable for discovery. The best scientists can do is propose (and test) supposed initial conditions and assign a likelyhood to each.
It's similar to the question "what did Julius Caesara eat on his eleventh birthday"? There's not enough information to have an absolute answer, but we can arrange probabilities on what we knew. We can suspect wine, because the Romans liked wine. But we assign wine a higher likelihood than whale meat, because even though whale was available, we don't think Romans ate whale that often. And we can utterly rule out that he had a Big Mac ... because they weren't there yet.
Abiogenesis is a similar question. We have some information about the chemical environments of pre-life times, and we can look for prebiotic mechanisms in each of those environments that have a chance of making a replicating molecule.
Even if we find a self-replicating protein chain that works in one historical condition, we won't know if it's the actual beginning molecule since there're probably self-replicating RNA chains that could have worked in a slightly different (though likely) historical conditions.
Well, the exact specifics are unavailable for discovery. The best scientists can do is propose (and test) supposed initial conditions and assign a likelyhood to each.
It's similar to the question "what did Julius Caesara eat on his eleventh birthday"? There's not enough information to have an absolute answer, but we can arrange probabilities on what we knew. We can suspect wine, because the Romans liked wine. But we assign wine a higher likelihood than whale meat, because even though whale was available, we don't think Romans ate whale that often. And we can utterly rule out that he had a Big Mac ... because they weren't there yet.
Abiogenesis is a similar question. We have some information about the chemical environments of pre-life times, and we can look for prebiotic mechanisms in each of those environments that have a chance of making a replicating molecule.
Even if we find a self-replicating protein chain that works in one historical condition, we won't know if it's the actual beginning molecule since there're probably self-replicating RNA chains that could have worked in a slightly different (though likely) historical conditions.
The trouble is, when you look at the literature, it claims that replication, variation, and selection(evolution) are the origin of species.
It's the explanation of the current diversity of species. It's utterly clear that all modern species came from common ancestors that diversified due to changes in their offsprings' DNA. Regardless of the specific protolife molecule, we know that eventually the organisms became DNA based, because that's what we're surrounded by.
So we end up with a tautological claim: "IF we have a chemical sequence(DNA) that results in replication, variation, and selection THEN replication, variation, and selection(evolution) will occur. So we see that the title of this post is apropos in that neither replication, variation, nor natural selection can produce genetic info, because all require it, and any such claim is circular because it is a tautology.
No, natural selection cannot derive the first replicating molecule. Tautalogically, you need reproduction to get natural selection. What do you need to get a replicating molecule? Well, both luck and design work. We don't need to assume design, since we have an abundance of natural forces available as a culprit.
And evolution can very much produce new reproductive information, even though it requires it too. Each generation, we have new genetic information.
No, natural selection cannot derive the first replicating molecule. Tautalogically, you need reproduction to get natural selection. What do you need to get a replicating molecule? Well, both luck and design work. We don't need to assume design, since we have an abundance of natural forces available as a culprit.
And evolution can very much produce new reproductive information, even though it requires it too. Each generation, we have new genetic information.
The only remaining non-intelligent possibility is that DNA forms by accident, which is not a scientific claim.
"Accident" is not the correct word here, because a natural force cannot make an 'accident'. When I examine the path of a mountain stream as it winds down a slope, I know that the streambed was dug by successive snow-melts. However, we know that the streambed had an origin (it didn't always exist), and that this origin was determined by the first original trickles of water carving a path. Why did the steambed carve a particular pathway? Well, because of the luck of where the snow first fell and melted. But we know, additionally, that gravity (an utterly natural force) is what caused the entire process to proceed. But we needn't invoke a 'designer' when describing why a streambed is in its exact location.
But the streambed's exact location is not an accident. It just happened. And its specific happening can be described as a combination of "chance + natural forces". Put snow on a mountain, and you'll eventually get a streambed. Do we need to invoke a Designer to explain the specific pathway that the streambed forms? Not at all.
I may be wrong but you don't appear to know much of the science behind evolution. You are treating evolution as if it were an unknowable "black box". The answer is information - real scientific information - not axe grinding from creationists on the internet.
*********************
Yeah, when I got onto the internet I wanted to share some science that little ol me had come across. Being a little naive I wasn't ready for the kind of blind rebuffs that comes from both the so called religious and also some of the so called open-minded scientists. However, the first web site I ever came across was not a mainstream science one, but an alternative science one. I liked some of the things I read. And I still resonate with some of it. Give it a quick visit, and have a look at their take on cosmology:
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
"What has a man to contend with who undertakes to establish a new science? He has the opposition of all the former opinions of the world in regard to it, and all their influence. He will be misunderstood by fools and misrepresented by knaves, for his science will tear down their fortress or belief and they will use all their skill and deception to defeat their enemy. Their weapon is their tongue, and the tongue of a hypocrite is of all weapons the most deadly to truth: for it can assume the voice form of an angel while it is sapping your very life's blood from your soul. Its life and happiness are its own torment. Ever since the world began, science has had this enemy to contend with, and some very hard battles have been fought before error would leave the field." Dr. P. P. Quimby
Yes I think I have misjudged you. I assumed wrongly your views on evolution were derived from a literalist religious standpoint. Sorry about that.
***************************
Nom worries. I misjudged "Grumpy" a little earlier myself. No face to face contact is
always going to bring about misjudgements.
>>But IMHO you should forget about sites like:
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
and read some real science.
***********************
He he, well I did say I resonated with some of it. And that some of it happens to be the real science involved. It's common knowledge that sound creates harmonics, and that their ratios are very determinable. I think you'll find that the svp link I provided does indeed contain much provable data, regardless of the conclusions the author of the website wishes to draw. The overtone series is a well known phenomena that all objects contain, whose ratios are easily verifiable, for example. A grid called the Lambdoma of Pythagoras contains the ratios that apply to the overtone series. There are a lot more gems on that site, and yes most of it is regarding sound. Even Buckminster-Fuller's number system cannot be contested, or the talents that Cayce seemed to have. But if you don't resonate with that link, that's ok.
I have made a note of the books you recommend. Again, I have studied some aspects of the evolution theories. Great advances have indeed been made. The actual origin of life, from an inanimate thing to a living thing has yet to be discovered, with about four main theories being the front runners and foicus of research. Real solid evidence regarding macro-evolution has yet to be shown.
But I personally fully support any research regarding evolution, as I don't see what bad can come from it.
My own interest is now in nano-technology, string theory and genetics, as well as further knowledge regarding sound. I would like to learn how to build nano-resonators to specific numbers/frequencies, for example. Also I'd like to learn how to simulate a mirror universe environment using a computer.:-) This would be based on a mirror periodic table that I have drawn out. Please don't confuse the word mirror as something that hits a mirror and bounces back off. This led to an unnecessary conflict with another member of physorg. I am talking about a musical formula, or an overtone ratio, or a number sequence being mirrored.
<------------------/---------------->
C B A G F E D C /C D E F G A B C
This is not true mirroring of a scale formula, for example, but merely placing the same notes to a mirror.
<-----------------------/----------------->
C Db Eb F G Ab Bb C/C D E F G A B C
This is retrograde inversion. The formula that builds the right hand scale is mirrored, and produces a different set of pitches on the mirror side. Following this approach with a variety of grids has opened up some interesting data.
>>>>ID on the other hand is a complete fraud and incredibly stupid because it avoids discovering any mechanism - it simply states something was done by a designer. That explains nothing.
***********************
I only have to see who it is wishing to place this ID into the science room to know it is from the very same people I hardly relate to. I've only just come across the term personally, and I dunno how long it has been going around.
On the question of design, as long as it isn't anything to do with this 6000 year old universe, world flood and blah blah, I still remain open to the possibility called Creation. I think there is some far east philosophy that puts times scales in the thousands of millions of years, regarding the appearance of life (don't quote me until I find the source again!)
I think as long as honesty is a dominant part of any one's search, it at least warrents some respect. At least with honesty someone is prepared to see where they may have gone, or going wrong.
Well, natural selection very much trims genetic information. That's what it does. It kills off most of the new genetic information created, allowing some new genetic information (partially based on merit) to slip through the cracks.
Good 'ol reproduction is what causes new genetic information to appear. The DNA of an offspring is unique, at least partially, and could not be generated by a clever combining of the parental DNA. There are always mutation events to notice.
QUOTE
The hypothesis that DNA originated with RNA is an interesting one, but remains open to challenge, so it can't be used to end debate.
Well, the exact specifics are unavailable for discovery. The best scientists can do is propose (and test) supposed initial conditions and assign a likelyhood to each.
It's similar to the question "what did Julius Caesara eat on his eleventh birthday"? There's not enough information to have an absolute answer, but we can arrange probabilities on what we knew. We can suspect wine, because the Romans liked wine. But we assign wine a higher likelihood than whale meat, because even though whale was available, we don't think Romans ate whale that often. And we can utterly rule out that he had a Big Mac ... because they weren't there yet.
Abiogenesis is a similar question. We have some information about the chemical environments of pre-life times, and we can look for prebiotic mechanisms in each of those environments that have a chance of making a replicating molecule.
Even if we find a self-replicating protein chain that works in one historical condition, we won't know if it's the actual beginning molecule since there're probably self-replicating RNA chains that could have worked in a slightly different (though likely) historical conditions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The hypothesis that DNA originated with RNA is an interesting one, but remains open to challenge, so it can't be used to end debate. |
Well, the exact specifics are unavailable for discovery. The best scientists can do is propose (and test) supposed initial conditions and assign a likelyhood to each.
It's similar to the question "what did Julius Caesara eat on his eleventh birthday"? There's not enough information to have an absolute answer, but we can arrange probabilities on what we knew. We can suspect wine, because the Romans liked wine. But we assign wine a higher likelihood than whale meat, because even though whale was available, we don't think Romans ate whale that often. And we can utterly rule out that he had a Big Mac ... because they weren't there yet.
Abiogenesis is a similar question. We have some information about the chemical environments of pre-life times, and we can look for prebiotic mechanisms in each of those environments that have a chance of making a replicating molecule.
Even if we find a self-replicating protein chain that works in one historical condition, we won't know if it's the actual beginning molecule since there're probably self-replicating RNA chains that could have worked in a slightly different (though likely) historical conditions.
The trouble is, when you look at the literature, it claims that replication, variation, and selection(evolution) are the origin of species.
It's the explanation of the current diversity of species. It's utterly clear that all modern species came from common ancestors that diversified due to changes in their offsprings' DNA. Regardless of the specific protolife molecule, we know that eventually the organisms became DNA based, because that's what we're surrounded by.
QUOTE
So we end up with a tautological claim: "IF we have a chemical sequence(DNA) that results in replication, variation, and selection THEN replication, variation, and selection(evolution) will occur. So we see that the title of this post is apropos in that neither replication, variation, nor natural selection can produce genetic info, because all require it, and any such claim is circular because it is a tautology.
No, natural selection cannot derive the first replicating molecule. Tautalogically, you need reproduction to get natural selection. What do you need to get a replicating molecule? Well, both luck and design work. We don't need to assume design, since we have an abundance of natural forces available as a culprit.
And evolution can very much produce new reproductive information, even though it requires it too. Each generation, we have new genetic information.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So we end up with a tautological claim: "IF we have a chemical sequence(DNA) that results in replication, variation, and selection THEN replication, variation, and selection(evolution) will occur. So we see that the title of this post is apropos in that neither replication, variation, nor natural selection can produce genetic info, because all require it, and any such claim is circular because it is a tautology. |
No, natural selection cannot derive the first replicating molecule. Tautalogically, you need reproduction to get natural selection. What do you need to get a replicating molecule? Well, both luck and design work. We don't need to assume design, since we have an abundance of natural forces available as a culprit.
And evolution can very much produce new reproductive information, even though it requires it too. Each generation, we have new genetic information.
The only remaining non-intelligent possibility is that DNA forms by accident, which is not a scientific claim.
"Accident" is not the correct word here, because a natural force cannot make an 'accident'. When I examine the path of a mountain stream as it winds down a slope, I know that the streambed was dug by successive snow-melts. However, we know that the streambed had an origin (it didn't always exist), and that this origin was determined by the first original trickles of water carving a path. Why did the steambed carve a particular pathway? Well, because of the luck of where the snow first fell and melted. But we know, additionally, that gravity (an utterly natural force) is what caused the entire process to proceed. But we needn't invoke a 'designer' when describing why a streambed is in its exact location.
But the streambed's exact location is not an accident. It just happened. And its specific happening can be described as a combination of "chance + natural forces". Put snow on a mountain, and you'll eventually get a streambed. Do we need to invoke a Designer to explain the specific pathway that the streambed forms? Not at all.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 10 2007, 02:45 PM)
psychological_nudity
Mutations cause a change in genetic information, testing by NS decides if that mutation is good or bad, eliminates the bad and propogates the good. NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change. Mutations are random(and mostly fatal), NS is not. Mutations of genetic info are the things NS chooses from in determining what is advantageous to the organism.
Don't be ridiculous!!! DNA and all the other attributes of life are the result of random mutations tested against the real world(NS) over BILLIONS of years in uncountable ZILLIONS of experiments(individual organisms). WHEN an accidental chemical MUTATION leads to better survival, that survival insures that the mutation will become part of the organisms offspring. When it works, the organism passes it to the next generation, when it doesn't work the organism doesn't get the chance to pass it on. There is(and has never been) no need of intelligence and absolutely no evidence of it's existence. That is simply arguement from ignorance.
Grumpy
Well Grumpy, you've talked about nothing but an intelligence in this post. Things being "tested", very scienitfic too.:-) The process of elimination, as if for trillions of attempts the idea to build better and better was not even occuring to this accidental process, and then by accident it was clear to this accidental evolutionery process that it would be real cool to have things evolve a certian way. Bloody intelligent for an accident of accidents!
You use the term "NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change.". Accidents having determination, cool, and thank **** for that!
NS choose, and determines and has a sense of advantage, extra cool! But of course, it is just random right, but I'm just thankful it was geared to the creation of the guitar eventually!
Lui
Mutations cause a change in genetic information, testing by NS decides if that mutation is good or bad, eliminates the bad and propogates the good. NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change. Mutations are random(and mostly fatal), NS is not. Mutations of genetic info are the things NS chooses from in determining what is advantageous to the organism.
Don't be ridiculous!!! DNA and all the other attributes of life are the result of random mutations tested against the real world(NS) over BILLIONS of years in uncountable ZILLIONS of experiments(individual organisms). WHEN an accidental chemical MUTATION leads to better survival, that survival insures that the mutation will become part of the organisms offspring. When it works, the organism passes it to the next generation, when it doesn't work the organism doesn't get the chance to pass it on. There is(and has never been) no need of intelligence and absolutely no evidence of it's existence. That is simply arguement from ignorance.
Grumpy
Well Grumpy, you've talked about nothing but an intelligence in this post. Things being "tested", very scienitfic too.:-) The process of elimination, as if for trillions of attempts the idea to build better and better was not even occuring to this accidental process, and then by accident it was clear to this accidental evolutionery process that it would be real cool to have things evolve a certian way. Bloody intelligent for an accident of accidents!
You use the term "NS is a ratchet(though not a perfect one) that determines the direction of change.". Accidents having determination, cool, and thank **** for that!
NS choose, and determines and has a sense of advantage, extra cool! But of course, it is just random right, but I'm just thankful it was geared to the creation of the guitar eventually!
Lui
Mirrorman
Natural selection is not random, it is no accident that you fit your environment, if you didn't you would be dead. No intelligence needed, only survival to reproduce, nothing else!!! No direction, no goal, no perfection, just survival.
Grumpy
Natural selection is not random, it is no accident that you fit your environment, if you didn't you would be dead. No intelligence needed, only survival to reproduce, nothing else!!! No direction, no goal, no perfection, just survival.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 14 2007, 01:37 PM)
Mirrorman
Natural selection is not random, it is no accident that you fit your environment, if you didn't you would be dead. No intelligence needed, only survival to reproduce, nothing else!!! No direction, no goal, no perfection, just survival.
Grumpy
Thanks, but that really doesn't add up for me. Even though I cannot say I know something for sure, I suspect very much that intelligence is very much needed. Personally I can't accept that motivation to survive is based
only on the desire to reproduce and survie, and that those sort of qualities are not born from an act of awareness. And I don't believe you fully believe that either.
Lui
Natural selection is not random, it is no accident that you fit your environment, if you didn't you would be dead. No intelligence needed, only survival to reproduce, nothing else!!! No direction, no goal, no perfection, just survival.
Grumpy
Thanks, but that really doesn't add up for me. Even though I cannot say I know something for sure, I suspect very much that intelligence is very much needed. Personally I can't accept that motivation to survive is based
only on the desire to reproduce and survie, and that those sort of qualities are not born from an act of awareness. And I don't believe you fully believe that either.
Lui
I personally believe that with the proper breeding that you could create the most wonderful species on earth... I've often thought about having two twin boys that I could nuture and teach throughout their lives and help to become a very powerful force in this world. I have abandoned this goal as there is no way I could do it in enough time... Though the thought of it does still plague me some...
Gene pools are odd.
If you look at the Streets of Salem then you would find that they are three of them that are named after what I would consider close relationship to me. Clements, Schultz, Vogler... Now I am not saying I am blood lines of any but one and I have studied a bit in my life. I am a Strasser though and have always and will always be treated as such.
Gene pools are odd.
If you look at the Streets of Salem then you would find that they are three of them that are named after what I would consider close relationship to me. Clements, Schultz, Vogler... Now I am not saying I am blood lines of any but one and I have studied a bit in my life. I am a Strasser though and have always and will always be treated as such.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 14 2007, 04:00 PM)
Thanks, but that really doesn't add up for me. Even though I cannot say I know something for sure, I suspect very much that intelligence is very much needed. Personally I can't accept that motivation to survive is based
only on the desire to reproduce and survie, and that those sort of qualities are not born from an act of awareness. And I don't believe you fully believe that either.
Lui
We currently have bacteria invading our hospitals, because they're adapting to the chemicals we use to sanitize the hospitals. Migration of species into new environments is one of the mechanisms by which Evolution operates.
Mutation and Natural Selection are 100% to credit for the migration of these bacteria into a place where they were previously forbidden by our best efforts. You think there's a directing intelligence behind these mutations? Or would you say there's an entirely natural reason why we're finding bacteria surviving in places where there were no bacteria before?
only on the desire to reproduce and survie, and that those sort of qualities are not born from an act of awareness. And I don't believe you fully believe that either.
Lui
We currently have bacteria invading our hospitals, because they're adapting to the chemicals we use to sanitize the hospitals. Migration of species into new environments is one of the mechanisms by which Evolution operates.
Mutation and Natural Selection are 100% to credit for the migration of these bacteria into a place where they were previously forbidden by our best efforts. You think there's a directing intelligence behind these mutations? Or would you say there's an entirely natural reason why we're finding bacteria surviving in places where there were no bacteria before?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Jul 14 2007, 09:47 PM)
We currently have bacteria invading our hospitals, because they're adapting to the chemicals we use to sanitize the hospitals. Migration of species into new environments is one of the mechanisms by which Evolution operates.
Mutation and Natural Selection are 100% to credit for the migration of these bacteria into a place where they were previously forbidden by our best efforts. You think there's a directing intelligence behind these mutations? Or would you say there's an entirely natural reason why we're finding bacteria surviving in places where there were no bacteria before?
I think that "Evolution operates" and "directing intelligence" may well be the same thing. On the other hand I cannot say anything for certain. In some ways I reflect the idea that there is no perfection, especially of understanding, although it is something I think about and wish to understand. I really don't have the confidence to say "100%" about anything. One can stand on solid ground, but at most it will only be some 25,000 miles deep, before the emptiness of space is experienced, and the thought of inner surety and security cries out for a saving oxygen tank.
That there is functionality is obvious. Exactly what the nature of that directing intelligence or operations within evolution may be is certainly something I say is always open to debate, as myraids of differing opinions truly show. Many religious institutions try to suppress the free sharing of information and opinion, and I trust science and scientifically minded individuals do not fall for such a trait.
For the last few years I went along quite fine with the concept of what evolution is said to be. Until I came across a certain lobster, he he! I hope to type out something written in the introduction of a book I am reading. It will be nice to share, as there may be a counter-argument that will convince me otherwise about things in the theory of evolution not quite adding up.
So it doesn't quite add up for me at the moment. And I don't believe anyone that says it does. Time for an operation.
Lui
Mutation and Natural Selection are 100% to credit for the migration of these bacteria into a place where they were previously forbidden by our best efforts. You think there's a directing intelligence behind these mutations? Or would you say there's an entirely natural reason why we're finding bacteria surviving in places where there were no bacteria before?
I think that "Evolution operates" and "directing intelligence" may well be the same thing. On the other hand I cannot say anything for certain. In some ways I reflect the idea that there is no perfection, especially of understanding, although it is something I think about and wish to understand. I really don't have the confidence to say "100%" about anything. One can stand on solid ground, but at most it will only be some 25,000 miles deep, before the emptiness of space is experienced, and the thought of inner surety and security cries out for a saving oxygen tank.
That there is functionality is obvious. Exactly what the nature of that directing intelligence or operations within evolution may be is certainly something I say is always open to debate, as myraids of differing opinions truly show. Many religious institutions try to suppress the free sharing of information and opinion, and I trust science and scientifically minded individuals do not fall for such a trait.
For the last few years I went along quite fine with the concept of what evolution is said to be. Until I came across a certain lobster, he he! I hope to type out something written in the introduction of a book I am reading. It will be nice to share, as there may be a counter-argument that will convince me otherwise about things in the theory of evolution not quite adding up.
So it doesn't quite add up for me at the moment. And I don't believe anyone that says it does. Time for an operation.
Lui
Mirrorman
So this isn't about what actually is, but about your inability to accept that natural forces(not intelligence) is responsible for the evolution not only of life but the very structure of the universe.
You lack of acceptence of what is changes nothing, nor is your opinion on what others believe valid. To credit some invisible intelligence for something easily seen to be the result of natural forces is ignorance, not logic. We see no signs of intelligence, every sign of adaptation or death. Adapt or die is all the incentive needed, natural selection in a nutshell, no ROOM for intelligence.
Grumpy
So this isn't about what actually is, but about your inability to accept that natural forces(not intelligence) is responsible for the evolution not only of life but the very structure of the universe.
You lack of acceptence of what is changes nothing, nor is your opinion on what others believe valid. To credit some invisible intelligence for something easily seen to be the result of natural forces is ignorance, not logic. We see no signs of intelligence, every sign of adaptation or death. Adapt or die is all the incentive needed, natural selection in a nutshell, no ROOM for intelligence.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 15 2007, 02:58 PM)
Mirrorman
So this isn't about what actually is, but about your inability to accept that natural forces(not intelligence) is responsible for the evolution not only of life but the very structure of the universe.
You lack of acceptence of what is changes nothing, nor is your opinion on what others believe valid. To credit some invisible intelligence for something easily seen to be the result of natural forces is ignorance, not logic. We see no signs of intelligence, every sign of adaptation or death. Adapt or die is all the incentive needed, natural selection in a nutshell, no ROOM for intelligence.
Grumpy
Sure they are. There's a good little boy. Have a 'nanner.;-)
So this isn't about what actually is, but about your inability to accept that natural forces(not intelligence) is responsible for the evolution not only of life but the very structure of the universe.
You lack of acceptence of what is changes nothing, nor is your opinion on what others believe valid. To credit some invisible intelligence for something easily seen to be the result of natural forces is ignorance, not logic. We see no signs of intelligence, every sign of adaptation or death. Adapt or die is all the incentive needed, natural selection in a nutshell, no ROOM for intelligence.
Grumpy
Sure they are. There's a good little boy. Have a 'nanner.;-)
"Natural selection" only filters the information in the genes and the bodies.
Natural selection does not actually produce new information.
It is the prioritization of one code over and above another.
New information is the result of cooperation and invention between multiple parts.
In the same way that a group of scientists construct knowledge,
A group of cells inside of a body construct new DNA and reconstruct old DNA.
Everything needs to fit in, so the uniqueness of the new DNA is limited.
All forms of technological invention and knowledge-building throughout human history are examples of cellular bodies producing new information. This also happens internally and biologically, thus we have such a variety in races, personalities and characters.
Information is only produced by consciousness.
Consciousness is self-organizing and self-directing.
Reality and dimensions are also self-organizing, and self-directing.
Both planets and the organisms atop of them are sentient.
Mineral consciousness is slower than the macro-physical, organic sorts that we have become accustomed to.
[edit]
DNA makes DNA, as regards the Q in the OP.
Natural selection does not actually produce new information.
It is the prioritization of one code over and above another.
New information is the result of cooperation and invention between multiple parts.
In the same way that a group of scientists construct knowledge,
A group of cells inside of a body construct new DNA and reconstruct old DNA.
Everything needs to fit in, so the uniqueness of the new DNA is limited.
All forms of technological invention and knowledge-building throughout human history are examples of cellular bodies producing new information. This also happens internally and biologically, thus we have such a variety in races, personalities and characters.
QUOTE
So this isn't about what actually is, but about your inability to accept that natural forces(not intelligence) is responsible for the evolution not only of life but the very structure of the universe.
Information is only produced by consciousness.
Consciousness is self-organizing and self-directing.
Reality and dimensions are also self-organizing, and self-directing.
Both planets and the organisms atop of them are sentient.
Mineral consciousness is slower than the macro-physical, organic sorts that we have become accustomed to.
[edit]
DNA makes DNA, as regards the Q in the OP.
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Jul 16 2007, 12:00 PM)
"Natural selection" only filters the information in the genes and the bodies.
Natural selection does not actually produce new information.
It is the prioritization of one code over and above another.
New information is the result of cooperation and invention between multiple parts.
In the same way that a group of scientists construct knowledge,
A group of cells inside of a body construct new DNA and reconstruct old DNA.
Everything needs to fit in, so the uniqueness of the new DNA is limited.
All forms of technological invention and knowledge-building throughout human history are examples of cellular bodies producing new information. This also happens internally and biologically, thus we have such a variety in races, personalities and characters.
Information is only produced by consciousness.
Consciousness is self-organizing and self-directing.
Reality and dimensions are also self-organizing, and self-directing.
Both planets and the organisms atop of them are sentient.
Mineral consciousness is slower than the macro-physical, organic sorts that we have become accustomed to.
[edit]
DNA makes DNA, as regards the Q in the OP.
That's informative, thanks.
Natural selection does not actually produce new information.
It is the prioritization of one code over and above another.
New information is the result of cooperation and invention between multiple parts.
In the same way that a group of scientists construct knowledge,
A group of cells inside of a body construct new DNA and reconstruct old DNA.
Everything needs to fit in, so the uniqueness of the new DNA is limited.
All forms of technological invention and knowledge-building throughout human history are examples of cellular bodies producing new information. This also happens internally and biologically, thus we have such a variety in races, personalities and characters.
Information is only produced by consciousness.
Consciousness is self-organizing and self-directing.
Reality and dimensions are also self-organizing, and self-directing.
Both planets and the organisms atop of them are sentient.
Mineral consciousness is slower than the macro-physical, organic sorts that we have become accustomed to.
[edit]
DNA makes DNA, as regards the Q in the OP.
That's informative, thanks.
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 16 2007, 02:40 PM)
That's informative, thanks.
Do you really want to be informed or do you prefer to have your prejudices reinforced?
That's a question we should all ask ourselves - as often as possible. I try to but I know I often fail. After all - feeding a predjudice is so much more comforting than confronting it.
I may be wrong but you don't appear to know much of the science behind evolution. You are treating evolution as if it were an unknowable "black box". The answer is information - real scientific information - not axe grinding from creationists on the internet.
Can I recommend books by Steve Jones, Matt Ridley or Sean B Caroll. They'll give you a great insight into evolution and its development and mechanisms.
Remember - the pioneers of geology like Hutton that realised the earth was incredibly old, and the pioneers of astronomy like Kepler that realised the earth was a planet revolving around a sun, and the pioneers of evolution like Darwin that realised all creatures including humans were interrelated - all started out assuming the biblical version was correct. That was the received wisdom, it was even heretical to believe otherwise. But when these scientists examined the evidence in detail they realised the bible was wrong.
Do you really want to be informed or do you prefer to have your prejudices reinforced?
That's a question we should all ask ourselves - as often as possible. I try to but I know I often fail. After all - feeding a predjudice is so much more comforting than confronting it.
I may be wrong but you don't appear to know much of the science behind evolution. You are treating evolution as if it were an unknowable "black box". The answer is information - real scientific information - not axe grinding from creationists on the internet.
Can I recommend books by Steve Jones, Matt Ridley or Sean B Caroll. They'll give you a great insight into evolution and its development and mechanisms.
Remember - the pioneers of geology like Hutton that realised the earth was incredibly old, and the pioneers of astronomy like Kepler that realised the earth was a planet revolving around a sun, and the pioneers of evolution like Darwin that realised all creatures including humans were interrelated - all started out assuming the biblical version was correct. That was the received wisdom, it was even heretical to believe otherwise. But when these scientists examined the evidence in detail they realised the bible was wrong.
I may be wrong but you don't appear to know much of the science behind evolution.
***********************
Well you may be wrong, and I'd suggest you do not know me as yet, or what I know. I'm not an expert on the subject, that is very true. But I do see that the big debate raging is that of ID being kept out of the science classes. The thing is, from what I'm begining to see regarding what and who the proponents of ID are, I really have to agree with the scientific view on that. I don't want BS in the classes either. I'm always at loggerheads with so called religious fundamentalists, and I also regard aspects of the evolutionary theory as not quite adding up. I wish to remain a free thinker, leaning here and there toward my own reason. In doing so I can delve into any information I wish, be it an eastern philosophy, many of the books I have on science or anything else. The things that some use in order to believe there is no creation, happens to be the very same things used in order to believe in a creation. It will be a debate that won't be solved by people taking a solid stance, when there is no conclusive evidence either way. I would hate for some aspects of science to show the same spirit as the one they didn't like regarding religious attitudes. Some scientists already go around thinking they have the truth in certain fields of research, when it is only a belief they have. I do respect the work done in these fields. It is normally those that are mediocre in that field that have the the attitude that they are completely right.
I am not a believer that the earth and universe is 6000 years old, cheers. I've already stated that on a number of posts. I believe the flood story was probably a local flood , of which there have been many, when the people there believed the whole world must be flooded. That's two examples of what puts me out of step, and out of the churches. And I don't believe the bible to be the "word of God", even though I like some of the things written in it, and find other things very distasteful.
What I do sense is that you perhaps already have an image of what anyone who doesn't comply to so called "obvious truth in evolution" to being a misinformed christain perhaps? Sorry if I am assuming blindly here about you. But perhaps your own prejudices were being re-inforced by your assumption regarding my own stances.
***********************
Well you may be wrong, and I'd suggest you do not know me as yet, or what I know. I'm not an expert on the subject, that is very true. But I do see that the big debate raging is that of ID being kept out of the science classes. The thing is, from what I'm begining to see regarding what and who the proponents of ID are, I really have to agree with the scientific view on that. I don't want BS in the classes either. I'm always at loggerheads with so called religious fundamentalists, and I also regard aspects of the evolutionary theory as not quite adding up. I wish to remain a free thinker, leaning here and there toward my own reason. In doing so I can delve into any information I wish, be it an eastern philosophy, many of the books I have on science or anything else. The things that some use in order to believe there is no creation, happens to be the very same things used in order to believe in a creation. It will be a debate that won't be solved by people taking a solid stance, when there is no conclusive evidence either way. I would hate for some aspects of science to show the same spirit as the one they didn't like regarding religious attitudes. Some scientists already go around thinking they have the truth in certain fields of research, when it is only a belief they have. I do respect the work done in these fields. It is normally those that are mediocre in that field that have the the attitude that they are completely right.
I am not a believer that the earth and universe is 6000 years old, cheers. I've already stated that on a number of posts. I believe the flood story was probably a local flood , of which there have been many, when the people there believed the whole world must be flooded. That's two examples of what puts me out of step, and out of the churches. And I don't believe the bible to be the "word of God", even though I like some of the things written in it, and find other things very distasteful.
What I do sense is that you perhaps already have an image of what anyone who doesn't comply to so called "obvious truth in evolution" to being a misinformed christain perhaps? Sorry if I am assuming blindly here about you. But perhaps your own prejudices were being re-inforced by your assumption regarding my own stances.
QUOTE (swimmer+Jul 21 2007, 05:55 AM)
I may be wrong but you don't appear to know much of the science behind evolution. You are treating evolution as if it were an unknowable "black box". The answer is information - real scientific information - not axe grinding from creationists on the internet.
*********************
Yeah, when I got onto the internet I wanted to share some science that little ol me had come across. Being a little naive I wasn't ready for the kind of blind rebuffs that comes from both the so called religious and also some of the so called open-minded scientists. However, the first web site I ever came across was not a mainstream science one, but an alternative science one. I liked some of the things I read. And I still resonate with some of it. Give it a quick visit, and have a look at their take on cosmology:
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
"What has a man to contend with who undertakes to establish a new science? He has the opposition of all the former opinions of the world in regard to it, and all their influence. He will be misunderstood by fools and misrepresented by knaves, for his science will tear down their fortress or belief and they will use all their skill and deception to defeat their enemy. Their weapon is their tongue, and the tongue of a hypocrite is of all weapons the most deadly to truth: for it can assume the voice form of an angel while it is sapping your very life's blood from your soul. Its life and happiness are its own torment. Ever since the world began, science has had this enemy to contend with, and some very hard battles have been fought before error would leave the field." Dr. P. P. Quimby
QUOTE (Mirrorman+Jul 21 2007, 04:08 PM)
...Yeah, when I got onto the internet I wanted to share some science that little ol me had come across. Being a little naive I wasn't ready for the kind of blind rebuffs that comes from both the so called religious and also some of the so called open-minded scientists. However, the first web site I ever came across was not a mainstream science one, but an alternative science one. I liked some of the things I read. And I still resonate with some of it. Give it a quick visit, and have a look at their take on cosmology...
Yes I think I have misjudged you. I assumed wrongly your views on evolution were derived from a literalist religious standpoint. Sorry about that.
But IMHO you should forget about sites like:
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
and read some real science.
Scientists as individuals are often wrong and as flawed as anyone but science is a collaborative and competitive community enterprise or process where theories (which make predictions) are based on evidence and tested by looking at more evidence.
It's through that process that we arrive at something approaching "the truth".
Read some of the authors I suggested and you'll be amazed at the wealth of evidence we have for evolution.
ID on the other hand is a complete fraud and incredibly stupid because it avoids discovering any mechanism - it simply states something was done by a designer. That explains nothing.
Yes I think I have misjudged you. I assumed wrongly your views on evolution were derived from a literalist religious standpoint. Sorry about that.
But IMHO you should forget about sites like:
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
and read some real science.
Scientists as individuals are often wrong and as flawed as anyone but science is a collaborative and competitive community enterprise or process where theories (which make predictions) are based on evidence and tested by looking at more evidence.
It's through that process that we arrive at something approaching "the truth".
Read some of the authors I suggested and you'll be amazed at the wealth of evidence we have for evolution.
ID on the other hand is a complete fraud and incredibly stupid because it avoids discovering any mechanism - it simply states something was done by a designer. That explains nothing.
QUOTE (swimmer+Jul 21 2007, 07:38 PM)
Yes I think I have misjudged you. I assumed wrongly your views on evolution were derived from a literalist religious standpoint. Sorry about that.
***************************
Nom worries. I misjudged "Grumpy" a little earlier myself. No face to face contact is
always going to bring about misjudgements.
>>But IMHO you should forget about sites like:
http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunityTOC.html
and read some real science.
***********************
He he, well I did say I resonated with some of it. And that some of it happens to be the real science involved. It's common knowledge that sound creates harmonics, and that their ratios are very determinable. I think you'll find that the svp link I provided does indeed contain much provable data, regardless of the conclusions the author of the website wishes to draw. The overtone series is a well known phenomena that all objects contain, whose ratios are easily verifiable, for example. A grid called the Lambdoma of Pythagoras contains the ratios that apply to the overtone series. There are a lot more gems on that site, and yes most of it is regarding sound. Even Buckminster-Fuller's number system cannot be contested, or the talents that Cayce seemed to have. But if you don't resonate with that link, that's ok.
I have made a note of the books you recommend. Again, I have studied some aspects of the evolution theories. Great advances have indeed been made. The actual origin of life, from an inanimate thing to a living thing has yet to be discovered, with about four main theories being the front runners and foicus of research. Real solid evidence regarding macro-evolution has yet to be shown.
But I personally fully support any research regarding evolution, as I don't see what bad can come from it.
My own interest is now in nano-technology, string theory and genetics, as well as further knowledge regarding sound. I would like to learn how to build nano-resonators to specific numbers/frequencies, for example. Also I'd like to learn how to simulate a mirror universe environment using a computer.:-) This would be based on a mirror periodic table that I have drawn out. Please don't confuse the word mirror as something that hits a mirror and bounces back off. This led to an unnecessary conflict with another member of physorg. I am talking about a musical formula, or an overtone ratio, or a number sequence being mirrored.
<------------------/---------------->
C B A G F E D C /C D E F G A B C
This is not true mirroring of a scale formula, for example, but merely placing the same notes to a mirror.
<-----------------------/----------------->
C Db Eb F G Ab Bb C/C D E F G A B C
This is retrograde inversion. The formula that builds the right hand scale is mirrored, and produces a different set of pitches on the mirror side. Following this approach with a variety of grids has opened up some interesting data.
>>>>ID on the other hand is a complete fraud and incredibly stupid because it avoids discovering any mechanism - it simply states something was done by a designer. That explains nothing.
***********************
I only have to see who it is wishing to place this ID into the science room to know it is from the very same people I hardly relate to. I've only just come across the term personally, and I dunno how long it has been going around.
On the question of design, as long as it isn't anything to do with this 6000 year old universe, world flood and blah blah, I still remain open to the possibility called Creation. I think there is some far east philosophy that puts times scales in the thousands of millions of years, regarding the appearance of life (don't quote me until I find the source again!)
I think as long as honesty is a dominant part of any one's search, it at least warrents some respect. At least with honesty someone is prepared to see where they may have gone, or going wrong.
I believe that Darwin theory of evolution is right regarding plants and other species of life in this planet apart from man.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
QUOTE (ABSUM+Jul 26 2007, 04:07 PM)
I believe that Darwin theory of evolution is right regarding plants and other species of life in this planet apart from man.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
Definately go along with that. With the age of the universe those kinds of things are possible.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
Definately go along with that. With the age of the universe those kinds of things are possible.
QUOTE (ABSUM+Jul 26 2007, 10:07 AM)
I believe that Darwin theory of evolution is right regarding plants and other species of life in this planet apart from man.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
And how did this super intelligent species come about? Did they evolve or did another super intelligent species genetically alter a different species on a different planet in another galaxy far far away?
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
And how did this super intelligent species come about? Did they evolve or did another super intelligent species genetically alter a different species on a different planet in another galaxy far far away?
Genes adapts constantly my man, through natural evolution or man made. And its not gonna stop because of your 'vision'. And if I'm wrong let lighting strike me ;)
ZZZzzap.
................................... .......... .fooled you
ZZZzzap.
................................... .......... .fooled you
ABSUM
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Evolution is a fact, the theories which explain the process may be in doubt, but it is a fact that evolution has and continues to occur and has been shown to be responsible for the diversity of life we see here on Earth, of this there is no question.
Grumpy
QUOTE
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory.
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Evolution is a fact, the theories which explain the process may be in doubt, but it is a fact that evolution has and continues to occur and has been shown to be responsible for the diversity of life we see here on Earth, of this there is no question.
Grumpy
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists...............
***********************
Well, no one on my chair here is doubting that evolution is a factual process. As I asked before, it is the nature of evolution that hasn't been clarified. And until it is, my right to suggest it is a prodcut of consciouness is as valid as any other. It isn't as though there isn't studies going on in that field. It seems to be more, to me anyway, those that already simply say "the creationists and their agenda" have already dismissed it. And as I also said, I can understand that when one seems to think the only dilemma is between fundamental religion and evolotion. I haven't dismissed the idea I may be wrong, but I don't se ethe point in pretnedoing to believe something when I don't.
Why do I think consciouness is a factor? One can be forgiven to follow a thread like that, when consciousness is all around, from the tiniest of organism to the supposed highest specie here! Ok, so it is nothing like the fundamentalists wish to portray it as. Cool, that's sorted. Give 'em one for me.
***********************
Well, no one on my chair here is doubting that evolution is a factual process. As I asked before, it is the nature of evolution that hasn't been clarified. And until it is, my right to suggest it is a prodcut of consciouness is as valid as any other. It isn't as though there isn't studies going on in that field. It seems to be more, to me anyway, those that already simply say "the creationists and their agenda" have already dismissed it. And as I also said, I can understand that when one seems to think the only dilemma is between fundamental religion and evolotion. I haven't dismissed the idea I may be wrong, but I don't se ethe point in pretnedoing to believe something when I don't.
Why do I think consciouness is a factor? One can be forgiven to follow a thread like that, when consciousness is all around, from the tiniest of organism to the supposed highest specie here! Ok, so it is nothing like the fundamentalists wish to portray it as. Cool, that's sorted. Give 'em one for me.
QUOTE (ABSUM+Jul 26 2007, 04:07 PM)
I believe that Darwin theory of evolution is right regarding plants and other species of life in this planet apart from man.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
Ooooh, I bet this and him popular amongst scientists! Old article, but I thought I'd look around to see exactly what the plot was about regarding alien manipulation of genes.
Author Discusses a New History of Human Creation
By Matt Cappiello, Staff Writer
Published Monday, November 21, 2005
Issue 44 / Volume 86
Visitors to the Karpeles Manuscript Library last Saturday had a close encounter with an author who presented his theory that aliens are responsible for creating humans.
Marshall Klarfeld, independent researcher and author of Adam: The Missing Link, spoke in downtown Santa Barbara at the Karpeles Manuscript Library at 1:30 p.m. Approximately 100 people attended the event, where Klarfeld presented his theory that aliens, using genetic engineering, created the first human beings 250,000 years ago.
“We were the creation of advanced extraterrestrial beings called the Anunnaki,” Klarfeld said. “This is a new history of mankind’s creation … It needs to be examined by as many people as possible so we can know what the story really was.”
Klarfeld, who graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a degree in mechanical engineering, said evidence supporting his genetic engineering theory can be found in a collection of cuneiform tablets and “microscopically precise” cylinder seals found in modern-day Iraq. Cuneiform tablets are ancient tablets often found in the Middle East that are inscribed using a form of pictograph writing.
“Much of the information we’re talking about comes from information on cuneiform tablets,” Klarfeld said. “There is a tremendous amount of physical and written evidence that tells this story.”
During his lecture Klarfeld cited ancient stone tablets as evidence for his theory, including the Epic of Gilgamesh. He said the epic - an ancient Sumerian story written on cuneiform tablets about King Gilgamesh - contains references to the Anunnaki and the creation of humans.
“The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lesson to us about what happened,” Klarfeld said. “The epic suggests that, in need of a distraction from Gilgamesh, the Anunnaki created the first human being.”
Klarfeld also referenced pyramids in Giza, Egypt, and large stones in Baalbek, Lebanon, as evidence for his theory. He said researchers do not know how ancient societies could have built such large landmarks, which suggests that they could have had some help from sources such as aliens.
“I’m not sure we could do that today,” Klarfeld said. “I’m a mechanical engineer. It’s beyond my understanding how it can be done.”
Klarfeld said a cuneiform pictograph of Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess of love and war, shows an inscription on her helmet that translates as “goes far in the universe.” He said this could prove ancient civilizations had contact with space-travelers.
“This could be interpreted as a space helmet of some sort,” Klarfeld said.
Norman Cohan, director for the Karpeles Manuscript Library - which holds one of the nation’s largest collections of manuscripts and also houses several of the cuneiform tablets Klarfeld referenced - said he thinks the lecture was timely, given the current debate about whether or not schools should teach evolution or more religious-based theories about the creation of mankind. He said he thinks people rarely consider the possibility that mankind could have originate in some other way.
David Sampanis, who attended the lecture, said Klarfeld is just one of many scientists who think aliens are responsible for creating people.
“It’s not just his idea, he covered lots of common ground,” Sampanis said. “There are tons of scientists synthesizing the same information.”
Mike Rubcic, a Summerland resident, said he thought the speech was very informative because it gave him a new way of thinking about how mankind came into being.
“It was really an eye-opener,” Rubcic said. “There are things going on that people are investigating that may illuminate why we’re here and why we’ve come to be who we are.”
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=10512
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
Ooooh, I bet this and him popular amongst scientists! Old article, but I thought I'd look around to see exactly what the plot was about regarding alien manipulation of genes.
Author Discusses a New History of Human Creation
By Matt Cappiello, Staff Writer
Published Monday, November 21, 2005
Issue 44 / Volume 86
Visitors to the Karpeles Manuscript Library last Saturday had a close encounter with an author who presented his theory that aliens are responsible for creating humans.
Marshall Klarfeld, independent researcher and author of Adam: The Missing Link, spoke in downtown Santa Barbara at the Karpeles Manuscript Library at 1:30 p.m. Approximately 100 people attended the event, where Klarfeld presented his theory that aliens, using genetic engineering, created the first human beings 250,000 years ago.
“We were the creation of advanced extraterrestrial beings called the Anunnaki,” Klarfeld said. “This is a new history of mankind’s creation … It needs to be examined by as many people as possible so we can know what the story really was.”
Klarfeld, who graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a degree in mechanical engineering, said evidence supporting his genetic engineering theory can be found in a collection of cuneiform tablets and “microscopically precise” cylinder seals found in modern-day Iraq. Cuneiform tablets are ancient tablets often found in the Middle East that are inscribed using a form of pictograph writing.
“Much of the information we’re talking about comes from information on cuneiform tablets,” Klarfeld said. “There is a tremendous amount of physical and written evidence that tells this story.”
During his lecture Klarfeld cited ancient stone tablets as evidence for his theory, including the Epic of Gilgamesh. He said the epic - an ancient Sumerian story written on cuneiform tablets about King Gilgamesh - contains references to the Anunnaki and the creation of humans.
“The Epic of Gilgamesh is a lesson to us about what happened,” Klarfeld said. “The epic suggests that, in need of a distraction from Gilgamesh, the Anunnaki created the first human being.”
Klarfeld also referenced pyramids in Giza, Egypt, and large stones in Baalbek, Lebanon, as evidence for his theory. He said researchers do not know how ancient societies could have built such large landmarks, which suggests that they could have had some help from sources such as aliens.
“I’m not sure we could do that today,” Klarfeld said. “I’m a mechanical engineer. It’s beyond my understanding how it can be done.”
Klarfeld said a cuneiform pictograph of Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess of love and war, shows an inscription on her helmet that translates as “goes far in the universe.” He said this could prove ancient civilizations had contact with space-travelers.
“This could be interpreted as a space helmet of some sort,” Klarfeld said.
Norman Cohan, director for the Karpeles Manuscript Library - which holds one of the nation’s largest collections of manuscripts and also houses several of the cuneiform tablets Klarfeld referenced - said he thinks the lecture was timely, given the current debate about whether or not schools should teach evolution or more religious-based theories about the creation of mankind. He said he thinks people rarely consider the possibility that mankind could have originate in some other way.
David Sampanis, who attended the lecture, said Klarfeld is just one of many scientists who think aliens are responsible for creating people.
“It’s not just his idea, he covered lots of common ground,” Sampanis said. “There are tons of scientists synthesizing the same information.”
Mike Rubcic, a Summerland resident, said he thought the speech was very informative because it gave him a new way of thinking about how mankind came into being.
“It was really an eye-opener,” Rubcic said. “There are things going on that people are investigating that may illuminate why we’re here and why we’ve come to be who we are.”
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=10512
Give it a break. Possibly it may be a result of simple structures combined creating more complicated and as time? goes by reach a 'bifurcation' where self awareness are created. If you like, you can call that the 'proof' of a 'Creator'.................
But i wouldn't.
But i wouldn't.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 27 2007, 01:10 PM)
Give it a break. Possibly it may be a result of simple structures combined creating more complicated and as time? goes by reach a 'bifurcation' where self awareness are created. If you like, you can call that the 'proof' of a 'Creator'.................
But i wouldn't.
No, a long way from proof. I haven't really got a definate opinion on the story. It seems , though, that we have reached a similar stage where we can manipulate genetic information. I wonder if we did find any trace of life on Mars what we could do with that nowadays. Or maybe we can cross a couple of species and see what happens. Oh eyah, they do that, and it tends to come out sterile. So these "gods" must have worked out how to get a cross species to be able to reproduce. Clever stuff in that case, that is assuming it has happened in history. I bet some researchers would love to know how to do it if it is possible. Strange too that these supposed primitves would tell a tale about cross breeding of species. It certianly went top of the charts as a story, because it's survived till this day on some of the clay tablets.
Another story along the same lines also stated that science cannot account for the sudden dissappearance of the neanderthal man. So many mishteries.
But i wouldn't.
No, a long way from proof. I haven't really got a definate opinion on the story. It seems , though, that we have reached a similar stage where we can manipulate genetic information. I wonder if we did find any trace of life on Mars what we could do with that nowadays. Or maybe we can cross a couple of species and see what happens. Oh eyah, they do that, and it tends to come out sterile. So these "gods" must have worked out how to get a cross species to be able to reproduce. Clever stuff in that case, that is assuming it has happened in history. I bet some researchers would love to know how to do it if it is possible. Strange too that these supposed primitves would tell a tale about cross breeding of species. It certianly went top of the charts as a story, because it's survived till this day on some of the clay tablets.
Another story along the same lines also stated that science cannot account for the sudden dissappearance of the neanderthal man. So many mishteries.
QUOTE (ABSUM+Jul 26 2007, 04:07 PM)
I believe that Darwin theory of evolution is right regarding plants and other species of life in this planet apart from man.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
This is a science forum, right?
So you "believe" in evolution for all species except for humans, do you?
Let's examine your hypothesis scientifically. What's your evidence?
Have you studied the DNA sequences of various species and discovered that the differences between human and ape are so much larger than say between ape and some other primate? Have you??
Let me guess - no - you haven't.
It's so much easier isn't it to simply make a lazy pointless and ignorant assertion without doing any work or looking for evidence.
Change your moniker to ABSURDUM.
I believe in the possibility that man was selected among one specie of animal let's say (monkeys),
by a superior intelligence than genetically modified to reach the state of evolution in which we find ourselves now and I also believe that we are still in a process of continuous evolution far away from perfection.
However, Darwin's theory is just a theory. which leaves gap for discussions and I rather accept the theory of Possibilities instead.
This is a science forum, right?
So you "believe" in evolution for all species except for humans, do you?
Let's examine your hypothesis scientifically. What's your evidence?
Have you studied the DNA sequences of various species and discovered that the differences between human and ape are so much larger than say between ape and some other primate? Have you??
Let me guess - no - you haven't.
It's so much easier isn't it to simply make a lazy pointless and ignorant assertion without doing any work or looking for evidence.
Change your moniker to ABSURDUM.
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.