QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 11 2005, 02:35 AM)
QUOTE
You are the one lying about things you should understand. Biogenesis and evolution are two entirely seperate areas of study, Ihave explained this over and over but you continue to lie.
Grumpy:
You are wrong on this one, separated studies, yes, entirely, no.
There are two groups of of specialist but their work is interdependent, your argument is like saying chemistry and physics are not inter related - many of their aspects are dependent on each other.
End of argument!
One for Messenger!
.
.
Chemistry IS 'Physics Laws' at the inter-Atomic (valence Electrons) level.
Evolution is NOT 'Life-BEGINNINGS Laws' at ANY level (that would be like saying Chemistry deals with 'Physics-BEGINNINGS Laws').
I hope this helps.
RealityCheck.
.
S. Bilderback
Once again you are just wrong.
Biogenesis is a study of the Chemistry of the beginnings of life. No fossils, for the most part.
Evolution is more anthropology, geology,Ditch diggers(those of you who have spent a summer or two at a site know what I mean.)
The two disciplines are entirely seperate and involved with different sciences.
Would we like to know if the biogenics guys have major advances??? Sure we would,just like they would like to know about new fossil finds, but like the CIA and the FBI both are law enforcement but in different jurisdiction.
Glad I could steer you back up onto the road again.
Grumpy
Once again you are just wrong.
Biogenesis is a study of the Chemistry of the beginnings of life. No fossils, for the most part.
Evolution is more anthropology, geology,Ditch diggers(those of you who have spent a summer or two at a site know what I mean.)
The two disciplines are entirely seperate and involved with different sciences.
Would we like to know if the biogenics guys have major advances??? Sure we would,just like they would like to know about new fossil finds, but like the CIA and the FBI both are law enforcement but in different jurisdiction.
Glad I could steer you back up onto the road again.
Grumpy
Your (MXWORDNERD) manifesto was very insightful and well put! People tend to believe what ever invokes the most fear in them. This is the church’s most powerful weapon: Do as we say OR you’re going straight to hell! Right after we torture you and burn you alive in the name of god! But don’t forget: god is love!
Faith and Trust are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of FEAR, so when people inspire fear; they are actually suppressing FAITH! Does the idea of Hell inspire faith or fear? The concept of us being ‘fallen’ and the character of Satan; does it breed fear or trust? Who are the leading authorities on Satan? Don’t Christians dedicate so much of their study to the power and dangers of Satan? When you fear something, YOU GIVE IT POWER! Who gives Satan more power than the Christians?
How it is that someone can consider themselves a Christian and a true follower of Jesus, when the ONLY book they’ve read about him leaves out 18 years (more than HALF!) of his life? And out of the 12 disciples which their ‘lord’ CHOSE to spread his gospel, the church only acknowledged 4 (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and then went around the world BURNING the rest!
Even the whole part about the resurrection, he comes back for 40 days and 40 nights; shouldn’t this form the BULK of the Christian bible! Where are the interviews, the messages and answers to all our questions? And this is enough information to WORSHIP him instead of worshiping who HE worshiped!
The truth is that Jesus was taught to read and write (which was a privilege and very rare) by the Jewish priests who had high hopes for him; he was a Rabbi in the making! But he realized that organized religion was more about mass control and manipulation than educating the people about their creator! THEN HE TURNED HIS BACK ON ORGANIZED RELIGION!!!!
If Jesus was a curious seeker of wisdom; then he would have eventually found out that the book of Genesis was compiled in Babylon around 900BC based on Sumerian clay tablets (from3000BC) explaining the beginning of creation. Even the story of Adam & Eve completely left out LILITH (Adam’s FIRST wife) but included a tree with a snake in it!
There is NO doubt that Jesus’ biggest enemies were the PRIESTS! And today, his followers are a priest’s best friend and loyal servant. I HAVE read the bible (more than once) and I don’t remember the point of Jesus’ gospel being: WORSHIP ME BECAUSE I AM BETTER THAN YOU AND THEREFORE YOUR GOD! SO WORSHIP ME AND MAKE ME YOUR CREATOR!
Was this the message he tried so hard to share with his fellow human beings? I found the words LOVE and CHARITY on every single page of the bible but I guess it’s not THAT important!
He tried so hard to free people’s minds and all they learnt was: to worship the messenger!
It was prophesized that he would be killed, betrayed and become a martyr; so how was it his decision and not FATE or DESTINY? The bible says that Satan entered into the heart of Judas and so he betrayed Jesus, this would imply that Satan helped to save man. If it wasn’t for Satan, then Jesus could have died on a bed!
If it wasn’t for Judas listening to his conscience regardless of what he thought was right or wrong, he could have jeopardized all of man kind! Does this mean that sometimes when we do BAD things, we are actually doing GOOD things???
Could it be that the creator of good and bad cares more about BALANCE than popular opinion? Isn’t EVERY baby considered GOOD? How can something created as good become the complete opposite? In Genesis doesn’t it say that god saw all he created and IT WAS GOOD?
An excellent point was made about the ALL KNOWING reputation of the creator. Isn’t HE supposed to know what you want BEFORE you want it, what you need before you need it? Why would he need to TEST our ‘FREE-WILL’ if he already KNOWS exactly what we are going to do? And if he (the creator) has a will, then doesn’t that OUT-RANK all other wills (regardless of how FREE they THINK they are)? If the Creator has a will then free-will cannot co-exist! It would be in constant competition with the ALL KNOWING will of God!
Surely, an ALL knowing (Omni conscious) and ALL powerful (Omni potent) Creator would design a PERFECT creation capable of sustaining and maintaining itself without the need for any INTERVENTION? When ‘god’ created Satan, did he create the potential to rebel inside him too? How can anyone be ‘fallen’ without the space, opportunity and inclination to fall?
With all of this in mind, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge?
Faith and Trust are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of FEAR, so when people inspire fear; they are actually suppressing FAITH! Does the idea of Hell inspire faith or fear? The concept of us being ‘fallen’ and the character of Satan; does it breed fear or trust? Who are the leading authorities on Satan? Don’t Christians dedicate so much of their study to the power and dangers of Satan? When you fear something, YOU GIVE IT POWER! Who gives Satan more power than the Christians?
How it is that someone can consider themselves a Christian and a true follower of Jesus, when the ONLY book they’ve read about him leaves out 18 years (more than HALF!) of his life? And out of the 12 disciples which their ‘lord’ CHOSE to spread his gospel, the church only acknowledged 4 (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and then went around the world BURNING the rest!
Even the whole part about the resurrection, he comes back for 40 days and 40 nights; shouldn’t this form the BULK of the Christian bible! Where are the interviews, the messages and answers to all our questions? And this is enough information to WORSHIP him instead of worshiping who HE worshiped!
The truth is that Jesus was taught to read and write (which was a privilege and very rare) by the Jewish priests who had high hopes for him; he was a Rabbi in the making! But he realized that organized religion was more about mass control and manipulation than educating the people about their creator! THEN HE TURNED HIS BACK ON ORGANIZED RELIGION!!!!
If Jesus was a curious seeker of wisdom; then he would have eventually found out that the book of Genesis was compiled in Babylon around 900BC based on Sumerian clay tablets (from3000BC) explaining the beginning of creation. Even the story of Adam & Eve completely left out LILITH (Adam’s FIRST wife) but included a tree with a snake in it!
There is NO doubt that Jesus’ biggest enemies were the PRIESTS! And today, his followers are a priest’s best friend and loyal servant. I HAVE read the bible (more than once) and I don’t remember the point of Jesus’ gospel being: WORSHIP ME BECAUSE I AM BETTER THAN YOU AND THEREFORE YOUR GOD! SO WORSHIP ME AND MAKE ME YOUR CREATOR!
Was this the message he tried so hard to share with his fellow human beings? I found the words LOVE and CHARITY on every single page of the bible but I guess it’s not THAT important!
He tried so hard to free people’s minds and all they learnt was: to worship the messenger!
It was prophesized that he would be killed, betrayed and become a martyr; so how was it his decision and not FATE or DESTINY? The bible says that Satan entered into the heart of Judas and so he betrayed Jesus, this would imply that Satan helped to save man. If it wasn’t for Satan, then Jesus could have died on a bed!
If it wasn’t for Judas listening to his conscience regardless of what he thought was right or wrong, he could have jeopardized all of man kind! Does this mean that sometimes when we do BAD things, we are actually doing GOOD things???
Could it be that the creator of good and bad cares more about BALANCE than popular opinion? Isn’t EVERY baby considered GOOD? How can something created as good become the complete opposite? In Genesis doesn’t it say that god saw all he created and IT WAS GOOD?
An excellent point was made about the ALL KNOWING reputation of the creator. Isn’t HE supposed to know what you want BEFORE you want it, what you need before you need it? Why would he need to TEST our ‘FREE-WILL’ if he already KNOWS exactly what we are going to do? And if he (the creator) has a will, then doesn’t that OUT-RANK all other wills (regardless of how FREE they THINK they are)? If the Creator has a will then free-will cannot co-exist! It would be in constant competition with the ALL KNOWING will of God!
Surely, an ALL knowing (Omni conscious) and ALL powerful (Omni potent) Creator would design a PERFECT creation capable of sustaining and maintaining itself without the need for any INTERVENTION? When ‘god’ created Satan, did he create the potential to rebel inside him too? How can anyone be ‘fallen’ without the space, opportunity and inclination to fall?
With all of this in mind, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 11 2005, 03:37 AM)
S. Bilderback
Once again you are just wrong.
Biogenesis is a study of the Chemistry of the beginnings of life. No fossils, for the most part.
Evolution is more anthropology, geology,Ditch diggers(those of you who have spent a summer or two at a site know what I mean.)
The two disciplines are entirely seperate and involved with different sciences.
Would we like to know if the biogenics guys have major advances??? Sure we would,just like they would like to know about new fossil finds, but like the CIA and the FBI both are law enforcement but in different jurisdiction.
Glad I could steer you back up onto the road again.
Grumpy
I am aware of the difference, I have already posted:
The methodology how life first stared and the methodology of evolution are interdependent.
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B" being true is dependent on "A" being true
Your postulation of "A" is admittedly an assumption
"B" 's credibility cannot exceed the value of "A"
If then ID started life, "A' ", then "B' " would need to reflect the methodology of "A' " which would be a different data set than "B" The methodology of "B' " could be a pre-programmed set of events. "B" would be rendered completely irrelevant.
Without proving "A", "B' " is a valid postulation.
Once again you are just wrong.
Biogenesis is a study of the Chemistry of the beginnings of life. No fossils, for the most part.
Evolution is more anthropology, geology,Ditch diggers(those of you who have spent a summer or two at a site know what I mean.)
The two disciplines are entirely seperate and involved with different sciences.
Would we like to know if the biogenics guys have major advances??? Sure we would,just like they would like to know about new fossil finds, but like the CIA and the FBI both are law enforcement but in different jurisdiction.
Glad I could steer you back up onto the road again.
Grumpy
I am aware of the difference, I have already posted:
The methodology how life first stared and the methodology of evolution are interdependent.
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B" being true is dependent on "A" being true
Your postulation of "A" is admittedly an assumption
"B" 's credibility cannot exceed the value of "A"
If then ID started life, "A' ", then "B' " would need to reflect the methodology of "A' " which would be a different data set than "B" The methodology of "B' " could be a pre-programmed set of events. "B" would be rendered completely irrelevant.
Without proving "A", "B' " is a valid postulation.
S. Bilderback
Boy, somebody could make a lifes work just correcting you bungled logic.
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
Boy, somebody could make a lifes work just correcting you bungled logic.
QUOTE
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
All: Since 3ohm splattered his same CRAP on more than one wall of this forum, I am copying and pasting my same response to him from a different thread. I apologize to those of you who are forced to read it twice...maybe even more, if he splattered it elsewhere.
3ohm: Get a diaper, would you?
QUOTE (3ohm)
I HAVE read the bible (more than once)...
3ohm: So you've "read the Bible more than once", have you? Well, let's test your reading comprehension skills, shall we?
QUOTE (3ohm)
Faith and Trust are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of FEAR, so when people inspire fear; they are actually suppressing FAITH!
LIAR!!!
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
(Hebrews 11:7)
Guess you must have missed that one.
QUOTE (3ohm)
And out of the 12 disciples which their ‘lord’ CHOSE to spread his gospel, the church only acknowledged 4 (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and then went around the world BURNING the rest!
LIAR!!!
"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth..."(Matthew 10:2-5)
Do you see either Mark or Luke in that list of twelve? Didn't think so.
QUOTE (3ohm)
The truth is that Jesus was taught to read and write (which was a privilege and very rare) by the Jewish priests who had high hopes for him; he was a Rabbi in the making! But he realized that organized religion was more about mass control and manipulation than educating the people about their creator! THEN HE TURNED HIS BACK ON ORGANIZED RELIGION!!!!
LIAR!!!
"Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."(John 7:14-17)
Jesus was taught by His Father...NOT any Jewish priests.
STRIKE THREE!!! YOU'RE OUT!!!
Quite frankly, if I wasn't so busy at work, I would have spent more time refuting your post and I would have "struck out the side". You asked:
QUOTE (3ohm)
With all of this in mind, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge?
To which I respond:
Since you obviously have no reading comprehension skills, HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge? The answer is:
WE CAN NOT!!!
Good-bye.
3ohm: Get a diaper, would you?
QUOTE (3ohm)
I HAVE read the bible (more than once)...
3ohm: So you've "read the Bible more than once", have you? Well, let's test your reading comprehension skills, shall we?
QUOTE (3ohm)
Faith and Trust are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of FEAR, so when people inspire fear; they are actually suppressing FAITH!
LIAR!!!
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
(Hebrews 11:7)
Guess you must have missed that one.
QUOTE (3ohm)
And out of the 12 disciples which their ‘lord’ CHOSE to spread his gospel, the church only acknowledged 4 (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and then went around the world BURNING the rest!
LIAR!!!
"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth..."(Matthew 10:2-5)
Do you see either Mark or Luke in that list of twelve? Didn't think so.
QUOTE (3ohm)
The truth is that Jesus was taught to read and write (which was a privilege and very rare) by the Jewish priests who had high hopes for him; he was a Rabbi in the making! But he realized that organized religion was more about mass control and manipulation than educating the people about their creator! THEN HE TURNED HIS BACK ON ORGANIZED RELIGION!!!!
LIAR!!!
"Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."(John 7:14-17)
Jesus was taught by His Father...NOT any Jewish priests.
STRIKE THREE!!! YOU'RE OUT!!!
Quite frankly, if I wasn't so busy at work, I would have spent more time refuting your post and I would have "struck out the side". You asked:
QUOTE (3ohm)
With all of this in mind, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge?
To which I respond:
Since you obviously have no reading comprehension skills, HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge? The answer is:
WE CAN NOT!!!
Good-bye.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 11 2005, 06:12 PM)
S. Bilderback
Boy, somebody could make a lifes work just correcting you bungled logic.
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
S. Bilderback
QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".
When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.
QUOTE
If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.
I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.
This posting shows proof positive that you postulation "A" is based on an assumption.
Boy, somebody could make a lifes work just correcting you bungled logic.
QUOTE
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live. "B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A". |
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
S. Bilderback
QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".
When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.
QUOTE
If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.
I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.
This posting shows proof positive that you postulation "A" is based on an assumption.
S. Bilderback
You call the fact that life began on Earth an assumtion, I call it a fact, life began on Earth ~3.5 billion years ago(by dating of the oldest rocks containing fossils) whatever the source, thus evolution could proceed and be understood despite not knowing the source. That I cannot explain it does not mean it cannot be done. Either way we have the fossilized evidence of the fact that the first simple lifeforms were fossilized ~3.8 billion years ago and massive fossil evidence for the origins of species from other different species that cannot be honestly denied by those who have seen that evidence as I have. Your logic is simply fatally flawed, B in no way depends on understanding A.
Grumpy
You call the fact that life began on Earth an assumtion, I call it a fact, life began on Earth ~3.5 billion years ago(by dating of the oldest rocks containing fossils) whatever the source, thus evolution could proceed and be understood despite not knowing the source. That I cannot explain it does not mean it cannot be done. Either way we have the fossilized evidence of the fact that the first simple lifeforms were fossilized ~3.8 billion years ago and massive fossil evidence for the origins of species from other different species that cannot be honestly denied by those who have seen that evidence as I have. Your logic is simply fatally flawed, B in no way depends on understanding A.
Grumpy
Hi Folks!
I just logged on for the day, and what was the first thing I saw?....a fatally-Flawed "Logic Flowchart"!
I just logged on for the day, and what was the first thing I saw?....a fatally-Flawed "Logic Flowchart"!
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 11 2005, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 11 2005, 03:37 AM)
S. Bilderback
Once again you are just wrong.
Biogenesis is a study of the Chemistry of the beginnings of life. No fossils, for the most part.
Evolution is more anthropology, geology,Ditch diggers(those of you who have spent a summer or two at a site know what I mean.)
The two disciplines are entirely seperate and involved with different sciences.
Would we like to know if the biogenics guys have major advances??? Sure we would,just like they would like to know about new fossil finds, but like the CIA and the FBI both are law enforcement but in different jurisdiction.
Glad I could steer you back up onto the road again.
Grumpy
I am aware of the difference, I have already posted:
The methodology how life first stared and the methodology of evolution are interdependent.
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B" being true is dependent on "A" being true
Your postulation of "A" is admittedly an assumption
"B" 's credibility cannot exceed the value of "A"
If then ID started life, "A' ", then "B' " would need to reflect the methodology of "A' " which would be a different data set than "B" The methodology of "B' " could be a pre-programmed set of events. "B" would be rendered completely irrelevant.
Without proving "A", "B' " is a valid postulation.
.
.
The fatality occurs EVER BEFORE that "chart" begins!....in that, if "life" had NOT begun/arrived on this planet with 100% certainty (irrespective of provenance), then BOTH S. Bilderback and his "flowchart" would NOT BE here, and so both would be irrelevant! So this fatal flaw in the "logic" ( ie, DENYING, as a first unstated premise, that life HAS occurred on this planet, and therefore MAY be observed to evolve as shown by the evidence) kills any such "logical argument" EVEN BEFORE it is made!
And IF "life" DID start on this planet as observed, then, IRRESPECTIVE OF PROVENANCE, and since 'life' IS 'change' and 'replication', and Humans DO exist, THEN human OBSERVATION of said CHANGES/REPLICATIONS must AUTOMATICALLY occur if said humans are rational and intelligent observers (as opposed to superstitious idiots who make up fairey-stories about what they are looking at).
AND furthermore, even if that 'logic flowchart' WERE to be taken at face value, there is ANOTHER fatal flaw in the "logic"; ie, in the form of S. Bilderback's OWN unwarranted ASSUMPTION that:
Once again you are just wrong.
Biogenesis is a study of the Chemistry of the beginnings of life. No fossils, for the most part.
Evolution is more anthropology, geology,Ditch diggers(those of you who have spent a summer or two at a site know what I mean.)
The two disciplines are entirely seperate and involved with different sciences.
Would we like to know if the biogenics guys have major advances??? Sure we would,just like they would like to know about new fossil finds, but like the CIA and the FBI both are law enforcement but in different jurisdiction.
Glad I could steer you back up onto the road again.
Grumpy
I am aware of the difference, I have already posted:
The methodology how life first stared and the methodology of evolution are interdependent.
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B" being true is dependent on "A" being true
Your postulation of "A" is admittedly an assumption
"B" 's credibility cannot exceed the value of "A"
If then ID started life, "A' ", then "B' " would need to reflect the methodology of "A' " which would be a different data set than "B" The methodology of "B' " could be a pre-programmed set of events. "B" would be rendered completely irrelevant.
Without proving "A", "B' " is a valid postulation.
.
.
The fatality occurs EVER BEFORE that "chart" begins!....in that, if "life" had NOT begun/arrived on this planet with 100% certainty (irrespective of provenance), then BOTH S. Bilderback and his "flowchart" would NOT BE here, and so both would be irrelevant! So this fatal flaw in the "logic" ( ie, DENYING, as a first unstated premise, that life HAS occurred on this planet, and therefore MAY be observed to evolve as shown by the evidence) kills any such "logical argument" EVEN BEFORE it is made!
And IF "life" DID start on this planet as observed, then, IRRESPECTIVE OF PROVENANCE, and since 'life' IS 'change' and 'replication', and Humans DO exist, THEN human OBSERVATION of said CHANGES/REPLICATIONS must AUTOMATICALLY occur if said humans are rational and intelligent observers (as opposed to superstitious idiots who make up fairey-stories about what they are looking at).
AND furthermore, even if that 'logic flowchart' WERE to be taken at face value, there is ANOTHER fatal flaw in the "logic"; ie, in the form of S. Bilderback's OWN unwarranted ASSUMPTION that:
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+)
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
For as Grumpy has stated, he is not aware how life 'began' per se; all he knows is that the objective evidence indicates that it occurred on this planet approx. 3 billion yrs or so ago. So for S. Bilderback to assume ANYTHING about 'spontaneity' or other provenance for life is IRRELEVANT to the evolutional changes observed on THIS planet by intelligent observers who come WELL AFTER that 'life provenance' event and use 'methodology' that depends ONLY on objective evidence of CHANGE/REPLICATION 'since' that event.
Therefore, ALL ELEMENTS IN (and all premises for) this S. Bilderback "logic chart/argument" are 'false' from BEFORE beginning to end. QED.
I hope this helps.
RealityCheck.
PS: Hi Grumpy!....How's things? Has the hurricane season ended yet? RC.
For as Grumpy has stated, he is not aware how life 'began' per se; all he knows is that the objective evidence indicates that it occurred on this planet approx. 3 billion yrs or so ago. So for S. Bilderback to assume ANYTHING about 'spontaneity' or other provenance for life is IRRELEVANT to the evolutional changes observed on THIS planet by intelligent observers who come WELL AFTER that 'life provenance' event and use 'methodology' that depends ONLY on objective evidence of CHANGE/REPLICATION 'since' that event.
Therefore, ALL ELEMENTS IN (and all premises for) this S. Bilderback "logic chart/argument" are 'false' from BEFORE beginning to end. QED.
I hope this helps.
RealityCheck.
PS: Hi Grumpy!....How's things? Has the hurricane season ended yet? RC.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 11 2005, 06:25 PM)
3ohm: Get a diaper, would you?
QUOTE (3ohm)
I HAVE read the bible (more than once)...
3ohm: So you've "read the Bible more than once", have you? Well, let's test your reading comprehension skills, shall we?
QUOTE (3ohm)
Faith and Trust are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of FEAR, so when people inspire fear; they are actually suppressing FAITH!
LIAR!!!
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
(Hebrews 11:7)
Guess you must have missed that one.
QUOTE (3ohm)
And out of the 12 disciples which their ‘lord’ CHOSE to spread his gospel, the church only acknowledged 4 (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and then went around the world BURNING the rest!
LIAR!!!
"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth..."(Matthew 10:2-5)
Do you see either Mark or Luke in that list of twelve? Didn't think so.
QUOTE (3ohm)
The truth is that Jesus was taught to read and write (which was a privilege and very rare) by the Jewish priests who had high hopes for him; he was a Rabbi in the making! But he realized that organized religion was more about mass control and manipulation than educating the people about their creator! THEN HE TURNED HIS BACK ON ORGANIZED RELIGION!!!!
LIAR!!!
"Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."(John 7:14-17)
Jesus was taught by His Father...NOT any Jewish priests.
STRIKE THREE!!! YOU'RE OUT!!!
Quite frankly, if I wasn't so busy at work, I would have spent more time refuting your post and I would have "struck out the side". You asked:
QUOTE (3ohm)
With all of this in mind, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge?
To which I respond:
Since you obviously have no reading comprehension skills, HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge? The answer is:
WE CAN NOT!!!
Good-bye.
Newguy,
3ohm's not necessarily a liar....probably read one of those very old versions that also included Earth being at the centre of the Universe (Isn't that right 3ohm)... before all that editing business started in post renaissance times... i.e when enlightened minds were heard instead of slaughtered.
As previously stated I once begun to read this book.... before page 1 was completed I'd discovered it was moronic nonsense.
3ohm was only trying to humour you with a "little white" lie.... of course he hasn't read it numerous times!
How anyone can get past the first page without reaching out for a paper shredder is beyond me.... let alone reading the whole drivelsome thing twice!.... unless
perhaps it was an ancient attempt at comedy?
Maybe that's it Newguy....you actually think the bible is "serious".
QUOTE (3ohm)
I HAVE read the bible (more than once)...
3ohm: So you've "read the Bible more than once", have you? Well, let's test your reading comprehension skills, shall we?
QUOTE (3ohm)
Faith and Trust are the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of FEAR, so when people inspire fear; they are actually suppressing FAITH!
LIAR!!!
"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith."
(Hebrews 11:7)
Guess you must have missed that one.
QUOTE (3ohm)
And out of the 12 disciples which their ‘lord’ CHOSE to spread his gospel, the church only acknowledged 4 (Mathew, Mark, Luke & John) and then went around the world BURNING the rest!
LIAR!!!
"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth..."(Matthew 10:2-5)
Do you see either Mark or Luke in that list of twelve? Didn't think so.
QUOTE (3ohm)
The truth is that Jesus was taught to read and write (which was a privilege and very rare) by the Jewish priests who had high hopes for him; he was a Rabbi in the making! But he realized that organized religion was more about mass control and manipulation than educating the people about their creator! THEN HE TURNED HIS BACK ON ORGANIZED RELIGION!!!!
LIAR!!!
"Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."(John 7:14-17)
Jesus was taught by His Father...NOT any Jewish priests.
STRIKE THREE!!! YOU'RE OUT!!!
Quite frankly, if I wasn't so busy at work, I would have spent more time refuting your post and I would have "struck out the side". You asked:
QUOTE (3ohm)
With all of this in mind, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge?
To which I respond:
Since you obviously have no reading comprehension skills, HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU as a sincere source of wisdom and knowledge? The answer is:
WE CAN NOT!!!
Good-bye.
Newguy,
3ohm's not necessarily a liar....probably read one of those very old versions that also included Earth being at the centre of the Universe (Isn't that right 3ohm)... before all that editing business started in post renaissance times... i.e when enlightened minds were heard instead of slaughtered.
As previously stated I once begun to read this book.... before page 1 was completed I'd discovered it was moronic nonsense.
3ohm was only trying to humour you with a "little white" lie.... of course he hasn't read it numerous times!
How anyone can get past the first page without reaching out for a paper shredder is beyond me.... let alone reading the whole drivelsome thing twice!.... unless
perhaps it was an ancient attempt at comedy?
Maybe that's it Newguy....you actually think the bible is "serious".
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 11 2005, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 11 2005, 06:12 PM)
S. Bilderback
Boy, somebody could make a lifes work just correcting you bungled logic.
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
S. Bilderback
QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".
When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.
QUOTE
If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.
I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.
This posting shows proof positive that you postulation "A" is based on an assumption.
There is no flaw in the logic, in earlier posting it was agree upon the life exists.
Again:
There are two option for the beginning of life:
Life had to start spontaneously or
Life was created (ID)
If there is another option besides the two above please post it(them).
If you cannot prove "A", a spontaneous start, "A' " ID cannot be ruled out, and equally same is true for the reverse order.The only way to rule out ID is by providing evidence spontaneous start to life is 100% provable.
The evidence of both postulates needs to be weighed with scientific objectivity, no opinions, no assumptions, then the postulates need to be assessed for their credibility. If neither postulate can be ruled out, both deserve, (not necessarily equal) more research to either prove or disprove based on scientific studies.
To rule out one postulate as a sacrifice to make the other postulated more attractive based on bias and not facts is bad science.
Life (100%), minus the flaws in evaluational postulate (X%) = probability of ID postulate (Y%)
Now we need to see your proof of X%, to make Y% =0
This is a collage 101 basic logic chart.
Boy, somebody could make a lifes work just correcting you bungled logic.
QUOTE
"A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live.
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
"B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A".
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "A". You have already admitted that you do not know the origins of live. "B". Your postulation on evolution methodology is 100% dependent on life starting spontaneously, "A". |
A I said I (notice the personnal pronoun?) did not have the chemistry knowledge to describe the many different processes that lead to life, I DID NOT say that there were no scientists who could. As I said before, evolutionary science is something I have a bit of understanding about, the study of biogenesis requires a degree of chemical knowledge I do not possess. To understand this subject requires such a profound understanding of biochemical processes that the only people qualified to discuss it's details speak a language neither you or I will underestand for long.
B.Whereas the study of evolution involves the ability to operate a shovel and a screen(the ability to make good coffee on a campfire will make you popular). It is more elaborate than that, but you should be able to picture the difference between a laboritory an a cliffside somewhere in Montana.
Evolution gives us exactly the same evidence and story NO MATTER HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. we don't CARE whether life was planted by little green men leaving the contents of their interstellar RV's holding tanks behind, the last desperate gasp of the Martian space program to seed Earth and Marsform it before the last water evaporated or your favorite fantasy. It happened, about 3.8 billion years ago and we have an extensive though incomplete(we're working on it) fossil record showing us the things we say. They are true, there is no massive conspiracy to fool anyone about their evolutionary history nor do we care who you worship. THOSE are the true facts.
Grumpy
OK then, let's see your evidence "A" is true as you believe.
I posted a elementary logic flow chart, simple asserting, without justification is not a valid argument.
Your home work is to prove "A" is true.
Show the flaw(s) in the logic flow chart.
Try to stay on task and avoid the opinionated comments. To reference one your previous statement
S. Bilderback
QUOTE
I've never said "Because I say so" another false assumption".
When you make a claim(non-PO) and back that claim up with nothing, we are supposed to accept that garbage why???(Because you say so)
Any claim you make that is unsupported by evidence is "I say so" and is garbage.
QUOTE
If you are so sure your theory is the one and only solution to the mystery of how life Begin, you would answer my question.
I do not have a theory of how life began. I do know it did begin some 3.8 billion years ago(by direct dating of rock where fossil bacteria were found). Therefore I know that it is possible for it to do so, despite any bogus probability calculations done by anyone. And I can speculate on how it did happen. But I do not know the precise mechanism whereby life came about, I recognize the limits of my knowledge and I don't know enough chemistry to have a theory, talk to the biogenesis crowd if you want a theory, they know more than you do.
This posting shows proof positive that you postulation "A" is based on an assumption.
There is no flaw in the logic, in earlier posting it was agree upon the life exists.
Again:
There are two option for the beginning of life:
Life had to start spontaneously or
Life was created (ID)
If there is another option besides the two above please post it(them).
If you cannot prove "A", a spontaneous start, "A' " ID cannot be ruled out, and equally same is true for the reverse order.The only way to rule out ID is by providing evidence spontaneous start to life is 100% provable.
The evidence of both postulates needs to be weighed with scientific objectivity, no opinions, no assumptions, then the postulates need to be assessed for their credibility. If neither postulate can be ruled out, both deserve, (not necessarily equal) more research to either prove or disprove based on scientific studies.
To rule out one postulate as a sacrifice to make the other postulated more attractive based on bias and not facts is bad science.
Life (100%), minus the flaws in evaluational postulate (X%) = probability of ID postulate (Y%)
Now we need to see your proof of X%, to make Y% =0
This is a collage 101 basic logic chart.
SB.
Is it ALSO agreed that life changes/replicates and otherwise evolves? For if it isn't, then there is NO BASIS for any such 'collage' of logic....in fact, there is NO BASIS for this whole thread. QED.
RC
Is it ALSO agreed that life changes/replicates and otherwise evolves? For if it isn't, then there is NO BASIS for any such 'collage' of logic....in fact, there is NO BASIS for this whole thread. QED.
RC
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 12 2005, 02:01 AM)
SB.
Is it ALSO agreed that life changes/replicates and otherwise evolves? For if it isn't, then there is NO BASIS for any such 'collage' of logic....in fact, there is NO BASIS for this whole thread. QED.
RC
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years).
If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why.
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
Is it ALSO agreed that life changes/replicates and otherwise evolves? For if it isn't, then there is NO BASIS for any such 'collage' of logic....in fact, there is NO BASIS for this whole thread. QED.
RC
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years).
If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why.
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
S. Bilderback
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
Then you know nothing about the subject, you are wrong on both counts. Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria. This idea of yours is just idiotic and you have absolutely no evidence to support it.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
Unfortunately these questions are not susceptable to being solved by jawboning. It will take lots of hard work to answer them. If you want to work on biogenesis you will need several degrees in biochemistry and several years of hard research to determine the right questions you need to ask. Then you can start working on biogen.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why.
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why. |
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
Then you know nothing about the subject, you are wrong on both counts. Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria. This idea of yours is just idiotic and you have absolutely no evidence to support it.
QUOTE
By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years).
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years). |
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
Unfortunately these questions are not susceptable to being solved by jawboning. It will take lots of hard work to answer them. If you want to work on biogenesis you will need several degrees in biochemistry and several years of hard research to determine the right questions you need to ask. Then you can start working on biogen.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 12 2005, 02:49 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 12 2005, 02:01 AM)
SB.
Is it ALSO agreed that life changes/replicates and otherwise evolves? For if it isn't, then there is NO BASIS for any such 'collage' of logic....in fact, there is NO BASIS for this whole thread. QED.
RC
Is it ALSO agreed that life changes/replicates and otherwise evolves? For if it isn't, then there is NO BASIS for any such 'collage' of logic....in fact, there is NO BASIS for this whole thread. QED.
RC
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+)
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
And this was proven 'false' in the case of simplest life forms who (given sufficient time/permutations/selection-pressures) are merely naturally-produceable 'bags' of autonomous physio-chemical reactions and feed-back loops.
And this was proven 'false' in the case of simplest life forms who (given sufficient time/permutations/selection-pressures) are merely naturally-produceable 'bags' of autonomous physio-chemical reactions and feed-back loops.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+)
By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years).
If you knew anything about evolution and environmental-selection pressures (or in this case, NO pressures) to 'evolve'; you would have known that an organism that EARLY-ON has perfectly adapted to its 'niche' will thenceforth (barring a change to that environment) have NO overall pressures on it to 'adapt' to any OTHER conditions than CONTINUE TO apply in the 'niche' to which it is already perfectly adapted thank you very much.
If you knew anything about evolution and environmental-selection pressures (or in this case, NO pressures) to 'evolve'; you would have known that an organism that EARLY-ON has perfectly adapted to its 'niche' will thenceforth (barring a change to that environment) have NO overall pressures on it to 'adapt' to any OTHER conditions than CONTINUE TO apply in the 'niche' to which it is already perfectly adapted thank you very much.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+)
If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why.
The onus is upon YOU to show the basis for same. YOU are the one making all the either misplaced or erroneous premises/assumptions for such a 'thing'. What you assume/want is no concern of evolution theory and fact. It is YOU that is 'creating ' the 'argument'. So it is YOU who must support the 'validity' and/or 'relevance of the 'logics collage' you present...which has been shown to be fatally flawed both before and within it's compilation/execution.
The onus is upon YOU to show the basis for same. YOU are the one making all the either misplaced or erroneous premises/assumptions for such a 'thing'. What you assume/want is no concern of evolution theory and fact. It is YOU that is 'creating ' the 'argument'. So it is YOU who must support the 'validity' and/or 'relevance of the 'logics collage' you present...which has been shown to be fatally flawed both before and within it's compilation/execution.
QUOTE (S. BILDERBACK+)
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
And what might "...the answers to life's biggest question...." be? And what has that to do with the EVOLUTION sciences? Are you wanting 'religious' or 'biogenesis' type "answers"; or are you wanting to discuss "changes" in life forms/chemistry etc ONCE/SINCE LIFE OCCURRED ON PLANET EARTH? You see, that's what people here are discussing: EVOLUTION only. If you want other "answers/discussions" then please feel free to approach biogenesists and/or religionists etc. Good luck.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
PS: GRUMPY!...Sorry, by the time I 'posted', your own reply was up. If I repeated anything you've said, please don't accuse me of 'plagiarism'; it was just 'randomness' affected by 'self-selection' pressures applied by the questions asked by SB that 'produced' similar' natural/logical 'outcomes', hehehe. How are you, mate?
Where did the information come from to make something self aware?
Where did the information come from to make something self aware?
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
Similarly, where do the standards come from that say whether nature gets it right or not?
If the first organism (wherever it came from) was not self aware; where did the information come from that made it self aware?
If the first organism did not have eyes, fur, toes, tongues, ears, etc. .... Where did the information come from that made it happen?
There is no natural selection or adaptation possible. And here's why:
Each organism/animal/human is independent of another.
If organism 1 experiences distress and dies, then
organism 2 is not aware of the distress, it does not affect him.
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
I understand that before, you were trying to distinguish between biogenesis and evolution. I am starting at the point of the first organism for your benefit and the purposes of debate on just the subject of evolution.
So, what say you Mr Grumpy and company?
And if I didn't put this in scientifically correct terms, let me know, and I'll get my Thesaurus - or maybe SB can help?
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
And what might "...the answers to life's biggest question...." be? And what has that to do with the EVOLUTION sciences? Are you wanting 'religious' or 'biogenesis' type "answers"; or are you wanting to discuss "changes" in life forms/chemistry etc ONCE/SINCE LIFE OCCURRED ON PLANET EARTH? You see, that's what people here are discussing: EVOLUTION only. If you want other "answers/discussions" then please feel free to approach biogenesists and/or religionists etc. Good luck.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
PS: GRUMPY!...Sorry, by the time I 'posted', your own reply was up. If I repeated anything you've said, please don't accuse me of 'plagiarism'; it was just 'randomness' affected by 'self-selection' pressures applied by the questions asked by SB that 'produced' similar' natural/logical 'outcomes', hehehe. How are you, mate?
QUOTE
quote by grumpy,
Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria.
Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria.
Where did the information come from to make something self aware?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| quote by grumpy, Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria. |
Where did the information come from to make something self aware?
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
Similarly, where do the standards come from that say whether nature gets it right or not?
If the first organism (wherever it came from) was not self aware; where did the information come from that made it self aware?
If the first organism did not have eyes, fur, toes, tongues, ears, etc. .... Where did the information come from that made it happen?
There is no natural selection or adaptation possible. And here's why:
Each organism/animal/human is independent of another.
If organism 1 experiences distress and dies, then
organism 2 is not aware of the distress, it does not affect him.
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
I understand that before, you were trying to distinguish between biogenesis and evolution. I am starting at the point of the first organism for your benefit and the purposes of debate on just the subject of evolution.
So, what say you Mr Grumpy and company?
And if I didn't put this in scientifically correct terms, let me know, and I'll get my Thesaurus - or maybe SB can help?
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 11 2005, 10:59 PM)
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 12 2005, 03:21 AM)
S. Bilderback
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
Then you know nothing about the subject, you are wrong on both counts. Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria. This idea of yours is just idiotic and you have absolutely no evidence to support it.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
Unfortunately these questions are not susceptable to being solved by jawboning. It will take lots of hard work to answer them. If you want to work on biogenesis you will need several degrees in biochemistry and several years of hard research to determine the right questions you need to ask. Then you can start working on biogen.
Grumpy
If life stared spontaneously, evolution would be the product of random chance mutations.
If life started by ID, evolution could be the product of pre-programming
Those are to totally different data sets.
To rule out ID, prove positive needs to be established of a spontaneous start.
Its not that complicated
QUOTE
If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why.
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If there is no basis for a logical flow chart please explain why. |
Because your B postulate is in no way constrained by your A postulate.
A happened but I do not know the details. Feel free to make up your own story.
B occured on the product of A whatever the source of that product. Once A had happened(for whatever reason) B was inevitable.
I have never agreed that life needs to change or evolve (replicate yes), I stated that live needs to be self-aware.
Then you know nothing about the subject, you are wrong on both counts. Insects are rarely self aware, much less a bacteria. This idea of yours is just idiotic and you have absolutely no evidence to support it.
QUOTE
By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years).
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By fossil records some blue-green algae has not changed in 2.8 billion years, it hasn't evolved (that is based on provable data, some data suggests 3.2 billion years). |
Anyone who knows anything about evolution would know the answer to your moronic question.
Some things fit very well within their environment and have no evolutionary pressure to change. Two other examples of minimal change over long periods of time are sharks and crocs. Nature got them pretty well right and they did not need to change much anymore.
There is a reason for this thread, or discussion anyway, to find the answers to life's biggest question.
Not looking where a possible answer may lay is an injustice to mankind.
Unfortunately these questions are not susceptable to being solved by jawboning. It will take lots of hard work to answer them. If you want to work on biogenesis you will need several degrees in biochemistry and several years of hard research to determine the right questions you need to ask. Then you can start working on biogen.
Grumpy
If life stared spontaneously, evolution would be the product of random chance mutations.
If life started by ID, evolution could be the product of pre-programming
Those are to totally different data sets.
To rule out ID, prove positive needs to be established of a spontaneous start.
Its not that complicated
QUOTE (gmilam+Dec 12 2005, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 11 2005, 10:59 PM)
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
In a sense they are self-aware, the plant as a unit knows how to use turgidity
to turn it's self to the light, it knows when to stop and start root growth to get the H2O it needs without compromising the rest of the plant. It can make adjustment to itself to compensate to changes in the environment. I not saying it contains "thought", but without self-awareness, it would die.
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
In a sense they are self-aware, the plant as a unit knows how to use turgidity
to turn it's self to the light, it knows when to stop and start root growth to get the H2O it needs without compromising the rest of the plant. It can make adjustment to itself to compensate to changes in the environment. I not saying it contains "thought", but without self-awareness, it would die.
RC
Our simultainity and congruence are dictated by the truths of our various sciences and there can be no questions of plagarism when we both have only one answer to give.
Wind blow no more!!! Mother Nature did her best to destroy the puny works of man(with conciderable success,I might add) but we dodged a bullet here in NC!!!
Messenger
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Sharks may evolve slowly because it's hard for them to become isolated in small populations from others of their own species, a requisite of punk-eek, which may be a major factor in all large evolutionary changes. And they have already evolved into nearly perfect killing machines!!!
Evolution does not dictate that an organism MUST change, it is simply a mechanism whereby organisms CAN change if the environment requires change for survival.
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
If the first organism (wherever it came from) was not self aware; where did the information come from that made it self aware?
What's with this erronious obcession with self awareness??? The first chemical life(whatever it's origin) certainly had no mechanism for thinking!!! Brain cells did not come along for over 3 billion years!!! And it took 3/4 of another billion for the first animals with excess brain capacity(mammals mostly) for them to have any concept of I. Before that every living thing was instinct and reflex driven(I mean, have you ever seen the brain size of even the smartest dinosaur???(T-Rex maybe? Or Raptors[birds in transit])
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
There is no natural selection or adaptation possible. And here's why:
Each organism/animal/human is independent of another.
If organism 1 experiences distress and dies, then
organism 2 is not aware of the distress, it does not affect him.
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
We have explained this to you over and over again.
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
Bacteria sense food chemically, those bacteria who then react by moving in the direction of what they sense will get more food. Those bacteria without this instinct are soon extinct. No thought process involved.(duh, no brain cell with which to think). Bacteria in contact with food eat, it's what they do. when the cell gets too large to handle mitosis occurs(triggered chemically). No thought processes required.
When you eat something you digestive system goes about the digestive process by instinct, no thought processes required(you can thank the "reptilion" parts of your brain for handling the details WITHOUT YOUR SELF AWARENESS of the process). Your reptilion brain will also make sure you breath without having to think about it, though your conscious brain can override that control, a thing many animal cannot do. Even sex is not totally within our control, as many embarrased teenage boys will tell you. Self awareness is a very complicated process only partially acheived by the most developed organisms, most of life gets along fairly well without it.
Grumpy
Our simultainity and congruence are dictated by the truths of our various sciences and there can be no questions of plagarism when we both have only one answer to give.
Wind blow no more!!! Mother Nature did her best to destroy the puny works of man(with conciderable success,I might add) but we dodged a bullet here in NC!!!
Messenger
QUOTE
Where did the information come from to make something self aware?
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where did the information come from to make something self aware? |
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Sharks may evolve slowly because it's hard for them to become isolated in small populations from others of their own species, a requisite of punk-eek, which may be a major factor in all large evolutionary changes. And they have already evolved into nearly perfect killing machines!!!
Evolution does not dictate that an organism MUST change, it is simply a mechanism whereby organisms CAN change if the environment requires change for survival.
QUOTE
Similarly, where do the standards come from that say whether nature gets it right or not?
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Similarly, where do the standards come from that say whether nature gets it right or not? |
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
If the first organism (wherever it came from) was not self aware; where did the information come from that made it self aware?
What's with this erronious obcession with self awareness??? The first chemical life(whatever it's origin) certainly had no mechanism for thinking!!! Brain cells did not come along for over 3 billion years!!! And it took 3/4 of another billion for the first animals with excess brain capacity(mammals mostly) for them to have any concept of I. Before that every living thing was instinct and reflex driven(I mean, have you ever seen the brain size of even the smartest dinosaur???(T-Rex maybe? Or Raptors[birds in transit])
QUOTE
If the first organism did not have eyes, fur, toes, tongues, ears, etc. .... Where did the information come from that made it happen?
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the first organism did not have eyes, fur, toes, tongues, ears, etc. .... Where did the information come from that made it happen? |
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
There is no natural selection or adaptation possible. And here's why:
Each organism/animal/human is independent of another.
If organism 1 experiences distress and dies, then
organism 2 is not aware of the distress, it does not affect him.
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
We have explained this to you over and over again.
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
Bacteria sense food chemically, those bacteria who then react by moving in the direction of what they sense will get more food. Those bacteria without this instinct are soon extinct. No thought process involved.(duh, no brain cell with which to think). Bacteria in contact with food eat, it's what they do. when the cell gets too large to handle mitosis occurs(triggered chemically). No thought processes required.
When you eat something you digestive system goes about the digestive process by instinct, no thought processes required(you can thank the "reptilion" parts of your brain for handling the details WITHOUT YOUR SELF AWARENESS of the process). Your reptilion brain will also make sure you breath without having to think about it, though your conscious brain can override that control, a thing many animal cannot do. Even sex is not totally within our control, as many embarrased teenage boys will tell you. Self awareness is a very complicated process only partially acheived by the most developed organisms, most of life gets along fairly well without it.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 12 2005, 08:40 AM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Dec 12 2005, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 11 2005, 10:59 PM)
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
In a sense they are self-aware, the plant as a unit knows how to use turgidity
to turn it's self to the light, it knows when to stop and start root growth to get the H2O it needs without compromising the rest of the plant. It can make adjustment to itself to compensate to changes in the environment. I not saying it contains "thought", but without self-awareness, it would die.
Hmmmm... you sound like one of my Wiccan friends. She can tell you all about the soul of the tree and the spirit of the river. Maybe you should talk to her.
Then again she believes the universe is alive and self-aware, so your question of life spontaneously arising out of non-life is a moot point.
(Just trying to keep the conversation lively...
)
Grumpy,
I'll have to look at your post later, - but I just wanted to get this out.
No you have not explained this to me before - because I only learned of it yesterday. I have not presented this information here before now.
Thanks,
We are not ready for this part of the debate yet, not until you give me a scientific response to proving a spontaneous start to life. Or concede via lack of proof (I'm a graceful winner).
You don't need to respond this next question, its a tease to what will be coming next:
If selection of the fittest is the dominate drive behind evolution, why aren't all life forms extending their life spans? The older an organism becomes the more chances to procreate it will have, so a longer living gene set would be refined and overtake a shorter living gene set. One example of many where natural selection fails to prove the theory.
If selection of the fittest is the dominate drive behind evolution, why aren't all life forms extending their life spans? The older an organism becomes the more chances to procreate it will have, so a longer living gene set would be refined and overtake a shorter living gene set. One example of many where natural selection fails to prove the theory.
Once again, Bilder-dunce defies all logical conclusions!
To be "fit" for survival, organisms have evolved finite life spans, allowing them to generate and sustain potentially "fitter" mutations for "adaptation" to ever changing environmental (planetary) conditions.
Bilder-dunce...if there's only so much food, and so much potential change, you must realise evolution has "by trial and error" solved this problem (not consciously though, you femto-wit)
What is it about people like you?......this is purely common sense stuff!
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
In a sense they are self-aware, the plant as a unit knows how to use turgidity
to turn it's self to the light, it knows when to stop and start root growth to get the H2O it needs without compromising the rest of the plant. It can make adjustment to itself to compensate to changes in the environment. I not saying it contains "thought", but without self-awareness, it would die.
Hmmmm... you sound like one of my Wiccan friends. She can tell you all about the soul of the tree and the spirit of the river. Maybe you should talk to her.
Then again she believes the universe is alive and self-aware, so your question of life spontaneously arising out of non-life is a moot point.
(Just trying to keep the conversation lively...
)
QUOTE
We have explained this to you over and over again
Grumpy,
I'll have to look at your post later, - but I just wanted to get this out.
No you have not explained this to me before - because I only learned of it yesterday. I have not presented this information here before now.
Thanks,
QUOTE
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
We are not ready for this part of the debate yet, not until you give me a scientific response to proving a spontaneous start to life. Or concede via lack of proof (I'm a graceful winner).
You don't need to respond this next question, its a tease to what will be coming next:
If selection of the fittest is the dominate drive behind evolution, why aren't all life forms extending their life spans? The older an organism becomes the more chances to procreate it will have, so a longer living gene set would be refined and overtake a shorter living gene set. One example of many where natural selection fails to prove the theory.
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 12 2005, 11:10 PM)
If selection of the fittest is the dominate drive behind evolution, why aren't all life forms extending their life spans? The older an organism becomes the more chances to procreate it will have, so a longer living gene set would be refined and overtake a shorter living gene set. One example of many where natural selection fails to prove the theory.
Once again, Bilder-dunce defies all logical conclusions!
To be "fit" for survival, organisms have evolved finite life spans, allowing them to generate and sustain potentially "fitter" mutations for "adaptation" to ever changing environmental (planetary) conditions.
Bilder-dunce...if there's only so much food, and so much potential change, you must realise evolution has "by trial and error" solved this problem (not consciously though, you femto-wit)
What is it about people like you?......this is purely common sense stuff!
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
S. Bilderback
You want me to go to school for you?? I've already told you that I don't understand enough chemistry to even be able to understand what these people talk about. Here is a list of different disiplines of cell biology and chemistry and here's an excellent site which will answer your questions. Be prepared to study for a couple of days before you even know enough about these subjects to know what questions you want to ask and not look like a doofus. Personnaly I don't care enough about educating you if you are not really interested in educating yourself.
http://www.biochemweb.org/
Subject Pages:
Angiogenesis (Blood Vessel Formation)
Apoptosis (Programmed Cell Death)
Carbohydrates & Glycosylation (Carbohydrate Structure & Function, Protein Glycosylation)
Cell Adhesion & Extracellular Matrix (Cell-Substratum & Cell-Cell Adhesion, Matrix of Animal Tissues, Bacterial, Fungal & Plant Cell Walls)
Cell Cycle & Cytokinesis (Cell Cycle Regulation, Cell Growth, Division & Proliferation, Mitosis, Meiosis, Cancer Resources)
Cell Senescence (Cell Aging)
Chemical Biology (Chemical & Pharmacological Tools in Biology, Synthesis & Screening, Bioactive Compounds, Drug Discovery)
Cytoskeleton, Cell Motility & Motors (Cytoskeletal Structure, Function & Dynamics, Cell Migration, Tumor Cell Invasion & Metastasis, Wound Healing, Molecular Motors)
Development, Molecular & Cell Biology of (Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Embryonic, Tissue & Organ Development, Stem Cells, Cell Differentiation, Tissue Morphogenesis, Regeneration & Engineering)
Enzymes (Enzyme Catalysis, Kinetics, Inhibition & Reaction Mechanisms)
Genes & Gene Expression (DNA Replication & Repair, Chromatin, Gene Regulation & Transcription, RNA Splicing & Transport, Translation)
Lipids, Membranes & Vesicle Trafficking (Lipid & Membrane Structure, Function, Dynamics & Transport, Endocytosis & Exocytosis)
Metabolism, Cellular Respiration & Photosynthesis (Carbohydrate, Lipid, Amino Acid & Nucleotide Metabolism, Glycolysis, Citric Acid Cycle, Oxidative Phosphorylation, Photosynthesis)
Microscopy (Applications in Cell Biology, Cellular Ultrastructure, Microscope Image Galleries)
Organelles (Organelle Origins, Biogenesis, Structure & Function)
Proteins: Biogenesis to Degradation (Protein Chemistry, Folding, Modification, Cleavage, Sorting, Secretion, Destruction)
Signal Transduction (Signaling Molecules & Pathways, Growth Factors, Hormones, Neurotransmitters, Receptors, Second Messengers)
Structural Biology (Molecular Biophysics, Structure & Function of Biological Macromolecules, Structure Prediction & Comparison, X-Ray Crystallography, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance)
Systems Biology (Integrative, Theoretical & Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, Post-Genomics)
But I have read the synopsises of the various diciplines concerned with the first life questions and most say that life was likely to start given the right conditions.
Good luck with your quest for knowledge, give it a couple of weeks of brain sweat and you will know the answer to your question.
or
Make up your own explanation, it still won't change the fact that evolution immediately began acting to improve the species through the "mechanical logic" of natural selection. No intellect required.
Grumpy
You want me to go to school for you?? I've already told you that I don't understand enough chemistry to even be able to understand what these people talk about. Here is a list of different disiplines of cell biology and chemistry and here's an excellent site which will answer your questions. Be prepared to study for a couple of days before you even know enough about these subjects to know what questions you want to ask and not look like a doofus. Personnaly I don't care enough about educating you if you are not really interested in educating yourself.
http://www.biochemweb.org/
Subject Pages:
Angiogenesis (Blood Vessel Formation)
Apoptosis (Programmed Cell Death)
Carbohydrates & Glycosylation (Carbohydrate Structure & Function, Protein Glycosylation)
Cell Adhesion & Extracellular Matrix (Cell-Substratum & Cell-Cell Adhesion, Matrix of Animal Tissues, Bacterial, Fungal & Plant Cell Walls)
Cell Cycle & Cytokinesis (Cell Cycle Regulation, Cell Growth, Division & Proliferation, Mitosis, Meiosis, Cancer Resources)
Cell Senescence (Cell Aging)
Chemical Biology (Chemical & Pharmacological Tools in Biology, Synthesis & Screening, Bioactive Compounds, Drug Discovery)
Cytoskeleton, Cell Motility & Motors (Cytoskeletal Structure, Function & Dynamics, Cell Migration, Tumor Cell Invasion & Metastasis, Wound Healing, Molecular Motors)
Development, Molecular & Cell Biology of (Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Embryonic, Tissue & Organ Development, Stem Cells, Cell Differentiation, Tissue Morphogenesis, Regeneration & Engineering)
Enzymes (Enzyme Catalysis, Kinetics, Inhibition & Reaction Mechanisms)
Genes & Gene Expression (DNA Replication & Repair, Chromatin, Gene Regulation & Transcription, RNA Splicing & Transport, Translation)
Lipids, Membranes & Vesicle Trafficking (Lipid & Membrane Structure, Function, Dynamics & Transport, Endocytosis & Exocytosis)
Metabolism, Cellular Respiration & Photosynthesis (Carbohydrate, Lipid, Amino Acid & Nucleotide Metabolism, Glycolysis, Citric Acid Cycle, Oxidative Phosphorylation, Photosynthesis)
Microscopy (Applications in Cell Biology, Cellular Ultrastructure, Microscope Image Galleries)
Organelles (Organelle Origins, Biogenesis, Structure & Function)
Proteins: Biogenesis to Degradation (Protein Chemistry, Folding, Modification, Cleavage, Sorting, Secretion, Destruction)
Signal Transduction (Signaling Molecules & Pathways, Growth Factors, Hormones, Neurotransmitters, Receptors, Second Messengers)
Structural Biology (Molecular Biophysics, Structure & Function of Biological Macromolecules, Structure Prediction & Comparison, X-Ray Crystallography, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance)
Systems Biology (Integrative, Theoretical & Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, Post-Genomics)
But I have read the synopsises of the various diciplines concerned with the first life questions and most say that life was likely to start given the right conditions.
Good luck with your quest for knowledge, give it a couple of weeks of brain sweat and you will know the answer to your question.
or
Make up your own explanation, it still won't change the fact that evolution immediately began acting to improve the species through the "mechanical logic" of natural selection. No intellect required.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 13 2005, 01:13 AM)
S. Bilderback
You want me to go to school for you?? I've already told you that I don't understand enough chemistry to even be able to understand what these people talk about. Here is a list of different disiplines of cell biology and chemistry and here's an excellent site which will answer your questions. Be prepared to study for a couple of days before you even know enough about these subjects to know what questions you want to ask and not look like a doofus. Personnaly I don't care enough about educating you if you are not really interested in educating yourself.
http://www.biochemweb.org/
Subject Pages:
Angiogenesis (Blood Vessel Formation)
Apoptosis (Programmed Cell Death)
Carbohydrates & Glycosylation (Carbohydrate Structure & Function, Protein Glycosylation)
Cell Adhesion & Extracellular Matrix (Cell-Substratum & Cell-Cell Adhesion, Matrix of Animal Tissues, Bacterial, Fungal & Plant Cell Walls)
Cell Cycle & Cytokinesis (Cell Cycle Regulation, Cell Growth, Division & Proliferation, Mitosis, Meiosis, Cancer Resources)
Cell Senescence (Cell Aging)
Chemical Biology (Chemical & Pharmacological Tools in Biology, Synthesis & Screening, Bioactive Compounds, Drug Discovery)
Cytoskeleton, Cell Motility & Motors (Cytoskeletal Structure, Function & Dynamics, Cell Migration, Tumor Cell Invasion & Metastasis, Wound Healing, Molecular Motors)
Development, Molecular & Cell Biology of (Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Embryonic, Tissue & Organ Development, Stem Cells, Cell Differentiation, Tissue Morphogenesis, Regeneration & Engineering)
Enzymes (Enzyme Catalysis, Kinetics, Inhibition & Reaction Mechanisms)
Genes & Gene Expression (DNA Replication & Repair, Chromatin, Gene Regulation & Transcription, RNA Splicing & Transport, Translation)
Lipids, Membranes & Vesicle Trafficking (Lipid & Membrane Structure, Function, Dynamics & Transport, Endocytosis & Exocytosis)
Metabolism, Cellular Respiration & Photosynthesis (Carbohydrate, Lipid, Amino Acid & Nucleotide Metabolism, Glycolysis, Citric Acid Cycle, Oxidative Phosphorylation, Photosynthesis)
Microscopy (Applications in Cell Biology, Cellular Ultrastructure, Microscope Image Galleries)
Organelles (Organelle Origins, Biogenesis, Structure & Function)
Proteins: Biogenesis to Degradation (Protein Chemistry, Folding, Modification, Cleavage, Sorting, Secretion, Destruction)
Signal Transduction (Signaling Molecules & Pathways, Growth Factors, Hormones, Neurotransmitters, Receptors, Second Messengers)
Structural Biology (Molecular Biophysics, Structure & Function of Biological Macromolecules, Structure Prediction & Comparison, X-Ray Crystallography, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance)
Systems Biology (Integrative, Theoretical & Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, Post-Genomics)
But I have read the synopsises of the various diciplines concerned with the first life questions and most say that life was likely to start given the right conditions.
Good luck with your quest for knowledge, give it a couple of weeks of brain sweat and you will know the answer to your question.
or
Make up your own explanation, it still won't change the fact that evolution immediately began acting to improve the species through the "mechanical logic" of natural selection. No intellect required.
Grumpy
The information sources you posted are not new information to me, I've done my reading. They support an incomplete chain of events, based on assumption and fail to objectively reference facts and observation that are contrary the preconceived biased conclusion.
P.S. The Internet is not an "All Knowing Bible"
Once again, logical deduction tells me you do not have enough information to draw a conclusion of your own, you insist on staying with your biased opinion, that's OK because it is all opinion, I have away to refute what evidence you pose, and the same is true about you to me (except I think I do it better).
There is no magic bullet, no one has the final answer, it is a non-provable topic unless:
- Mankind creates a time machine and looks for himself first hand, or
- ID shows Him/Her/Their selves to us
After saying that, why must you so strongly appose ID without the ability to prove your own theory?
An opinion is an opinion You can no more prove a spontaneous start to life than I of ID. It is an argument that's only outcome can be a draw.
Neither am I saying that the persuit of knowledge should be exclude one or the other postulations, ID or spontaneous , we still need to know how life works and it is important to objectively look at all the data.
Now what points do you want to cover from here?
You want me to go to school for you?? I've already told you that I don't understand enough chemistry to even be able to understand what these people talk about. Here is a list of different disiplines of cell biology and chemistry and here's an excellent site which will answer your questions. Be prepared to study for a couple of days before you even know enough about these subjects to know what questions you want to ask and not look like a doofus. Personnaly I don't care enough about educating you if you are not really interested in educating yourself.
http://www.biochemweb.org/
Subject Pages:
Angiogenesis (Blood Vessel Formation)
Apoptosis (Programmed Cell Death)
Carbohydrates & Glycosylation (Carbohydrate Structure & Function, Protein Glycosylation)
Cell Adhesion & Extracellular Matrix (Cell-Substratum & Cell-Cell Adhesion, Matrix of Animal Tissues, Bacterial, Fungal & Plant Cell Walls)
Cell Cycle & Cytokinesis (Cell Cycle Regulation, Cell Growth, Division & Proliferation, Mitosis, Meiosis, Cancer Resources)
Cell Senescence (Cell Aging)
Chemical Biology (Chemical & Pharmacological Tools in Biology, Synthesis & Screening, Bioactive Compounds, Drug Discovery)
Cytoskeleton, Cell Motility & Motors (Cytoskeletal Structure, Function & Dynamics, Cell Migration, Tumor Cell Invasion & Metastasis, Wound Healing, Molecular Motors)
Development, Molecular & Cell Biology of (Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Embryonic, Tissue & Organ Development, Stem Cells, Cell Differentiation, Tissue Morphogenesis, Regeneration & Engineering)
Enzymes (Enzyme Catalysis, Kinetics, Inhibition & Reaction Mechanisms)
Genes & Gene Expression (DNA Replication & Repair, Chromatin, Gene Regulation & Transcription, RNA Splicing & Transport, Translation)
Lipids, Membranes & Vesicle Trafficking (Lipid & Membrane Structure, Function, Dynamics & Transport, Endocytosis & Exocytosis)
Metabolism, Cellular Respiration & Photosynthesis (Carbohydrate, Lipid, Amino Acid & Nucleotide Metabolism, Glycolysis, Citric Acid Cycle, Oxidative Phosphorylation, Photosynthesis)
Microscopy (Applications in Cell Biology, Cellular Ultrastructure, Microscope Image Galleries)
Organelles (Organelle Origins, Biogenesis, Structure & Function)
Proteins: Biogenesis to Degradation (Protein Chemistry, Folding, Modification, Cleavage, Sorting, Secretion, Destruction)
Signal Transduction (Signaling Molecules & Pathways, Growth Factors, Hormones, Neurotransmitters, Receptors, Second Messengers)
Structural Biology (Molecular Biophysics, Structure & Function of Biological Macromolecules, Structure Prediction & Comparison, X-Ray Crystallography, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance)
Systems Biology (Integrative, Theoretical & Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, Post-Genomics)
But I have read the synopsises of the various diciplines concerned with the first life questions and most say that life was likely to start given the right conditions.
Good luck with your quest for knowledge, give it a couple of weeks of brain sweat and you will know the answer to your question.
or
Make up your own explanation, it still won't change the fact that evolution immediately began acting to improve the species through the "mechanical logic" of natural selection. No intellect required.
Grumpy
The information sources you posted are not new information to me, I've done my reading. They support an incomplete chain of events, based on assumption and fail to objectively reference facts and observation that are contrary the preconceived biased conclusion.
P.S. The Internet is not an "All Knowing Bible"
Once again, logical deduction tells me you do not have enough information to draw a conclusion of your own, you insist on staying with your biased opinion, that's OK because it is all opinion, I have away to refute what evidence you pose, and the same is true about you to me (except I think I do it better).
There is no magic bullet, no one has the final answer, it is a non-provable topic unless:
- Mankind creates a time machine and looks for himself first hand, or
- ID shows Him/Her/Their selves to us
After saying that, why must you so strongly appose ID without the ability to prove your own theory?
An opinion is an opinion You can no more prove a spontaneous start to life than I of ID. It is an argument that's only outcome can be a draw.
Neither am I saying that the persuit of knowledge should be exclude one or the other postulations, ID or spontaneous , we still need to know how life works and it is important to objectively look at all the data.
Now what points do you want to cover from here?
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 12 2005, 09:04 AM)
Messenger
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Sharks may evolve slowly because it's hard for them to become isolated in small populations from others of their own species, a requisite of punk-eek, which may be a major factor in all large evolutionary changes. And they have already evolved into nearly perfect killing machines!!!
Evolution does not dictate that an organism MUST change, it is simply a mechanism whereby organisms CAN change if the environment requires change for survival.
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
If the first organism (wherever it came from) was not self aware; where did the information come from that made it self aware?
What's with this erronious obcession with self awareness??? The first chemical life(whatever it's origin) certainly had no mechanism for thinking!!! Brain cells did not come along for over 3 billion years!!! And it took 3/4 of another billion for the first animals with excess brain capacity(mammals mostly) for them to have any concept of I. Before that every living thing was instinct and reflex driven(I mean, have you ever seen the brain size of even the smartest dinosaur???(T-Rex maybe? Or Raptors[birds in transit])
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
There is no natural selection or adaptation possible. And here's why:
Each organism/animal/human is independent of another.
If organism 1 experiences distress and dies, then
organism 2 is not aware of the distress, it does not affect him.
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
We have explained this to you over and over again.
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
Bacteria sense food chemically, those bacteria who then react by moving in the direction of what they sense will get more food. Those bacteria without this instinct are soon extinct. No thought process involved.(duh, no brain cell with which to think). Bacteria in contact with food eat, it's what they do. when the cell gets too large to handle mitosis occurs(triggered chemically). No thought processes required.
When you eat something you digestive system goes about the digestive process by instinct, no thought processes required(you can thank the "reptilion" parts of your brain for handling the details WITHOUT YOUR SELF AWARENESS of the process). Your reptilion brain will also make sure you breath without having to think about it, though your conscious brain can override that control, a thing many animal cannot do. Even sex is not totally within our control, as many embarrased teenage boys will tell you. Self awareness is a very complicated process only partially acheived by the most developed organisms, most of life gets along fairly well without it.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
Since you were so doggone nice in your post I want to be sure I give it due consideration. Too tired to think right now - so I moved your quote up to keep it in the forefront. I have several books I've been reading lately on the subject of my post/your reply - so I'll get back to you soon.
By the way, what does sex have to do with anything - are you trying to increase your ratings? (just kidding)
Thanks,
QUOTE
Where did the information come from to make something self aware?
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where did the information come from to make something self aware? |
Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for.
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Sharks may evolve slowly because it's hard for them to become isolated in small populations from others of their own species, a requisite of punk-eek, which may be a major factor in all large evolutionary changes. And they have already evolved into nearly perfect killing machines!!!
Evolution does not dictate that an organism MUST change, it is simply a mechanism whereby organisms CAN change if the environment requires change for survival.
QUOTE
Similarly, where do the standards come from that say whether nature gets it right or not?
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Similarly, where do the standards come from that say whether nature gets it right or not? |
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
If the first organism (wherever it came from) was not self aware; where did the information come from that made it self aware?
What's with this erronious obcession with self awareness??? The first chemical life(whatever it's origin) certainly had no mechanism for thinking!!! Brain cells did not come along for over 3 billion years!!! And it took 3/4 of another billion for the first animals with excess brain capacity(mammals mostly) for them to have any concept of I. Before that every living thing was instinct and reflex driven(I mean, have you ever seen the brain size of even the smartest dinosaur???(T-Rex maybe? Or Raptors[birds in transit])
QUOTE
If the first organism did not have eyes, fur, toes, tongues, ears, etc. .... Where did the information come from that made it happen?
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If the first organism did not have eyes, fur, toes, tongues, ears, etc. .... Where did the information come from that made it happen? |
If it was a reproductive advantage a mutation was selected and passed down. Cumalative changes brought about new traits. The "information" contained in those traits were stored in the genes, as traits accumulate, so does "information".
There is no natural selection or adaptation possible. And here's why:
Each organism/animal/human is independent of another.
If organism 1 experiences distress and dies, then
organism 2 is not aware of the distress, it does not affect him.
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
We have explained this to you over and over again.
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
Bacteria sense food chemically, those bacteria who then react by moving in the direction of what they sense will get more food. Those bacteria without this instinct are soon extinct. No thought process involved.(duh, no brain cell with which to think). Bacteria in contact with food eat, it's what they do. when the cell gets too large to handle mitosis occurs(triggered chemically). No thought processes required.
When you eat something you digestive system goes about the digestive process by instinct, no thought processes required(you can thank the "reptilion" parts of your brain for handling the details WITHOUT YOUR SELF AWARENESS of the process). Your reptilion brain will also make sure you breath without having to think about it, though your conscious brain can override that control, a thing many animal cannot do. Even sex is not totally within our control, as many embarrased teenage boys will tell you. Self awareness is a very complicated process only partially acheived by the most developed organisms, most of life gets along fairly well without it.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
Since you were so doggone nice in your post I want to be sure I give it due consideration. Too tired to think right now - so I moved your quote up to keep it in the forefront. I have several books I've been reading lately on the subject of my post/your reply - so I'll get back to you soon.
By the way, what does sex have to do with anything - are you trying to increase your ratings? (just kidding)
Thanks,
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 12 2005, 02:40 PM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Dec 12 2005, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Dec 11 2005, 10:59 PM)
If organism 1 is not 'self aware', he cannot know that he needs anything, he cannot even know that he needs to move from here to there, he cannot know that he even needs to eat. He cannot know that he needs to become self-aware in order to improve himself or his species.
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
In a sense they are self-aware, the plant as a unit knows how to use turgidity
to turn it's self to the light, it knows when to stop and start root growth to get the H2O it needs without compromising the rest of the plant. It can make adjustment to itself to compensate to changes in the environment. I not saying it contains "thought", but without self-awareness, it would die.
This guy is still going?
This guy thinks plants have brains.
(Well, maybe, compared to him.)
Why is anyone bothering with him?
Are my tomato plants self-aware? Do they know they need to eat? Do they purposely try to scatter their seeds to an area more suited to their needs? Do they secretly wish that they were oak trees?
In a sense they are self-aware, the plant as a unit knows how to use turgidity
to turn it's self to the light, it knows when to stop and start root growth to get the H2O it needs without compromising the rest of the plant. It can make adjustment to itself to compensate to changes in the environment. I not saying it contains "thought", but without self-awareness, it would die.
This guy is still going?
This guy thinks plants have brains.
(Well, maybe, compared to him.)
Why is anyone bothering with him?
MX.
Someone has to water the shrubbery...they obviously can't do it for themselves.
RC
Someone has to water the shrubbery...they obviously can't do it for themselves.
RC
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 08:18 AM)
MX.
Someone has to water the shrubbery...they obviously can't do it for themselves.
RC
If you don't water the shrubs, they turn into tumbleweeds and roll away in the wind...
Someone has to water the shrubbery...they obviously can't do it for themselves.
RC
If you don't water the shrubs, they turn into tumbleweeds and roll away in the wind...
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 13 2005, 08:19 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 08:18 AM)
MX.
Someone has to water the shrubbery...they obviously can't do it for themselves.
RC
If you don't water the shrubs, they turn into tumbleweeds and roll away in the wind...
.
.
hehehe...good one! I'll bear that in mind when I tire of his particular brand of 'woefully "educated" stupidity'. Thanks for the new perspective, mate!
.
Someone has to water the shrubbery...they obviously can't do it for themselves.
RC
If you don't water the shrubs, they turn into tumbleweeds and roll away in the wind...
.
.
hehehe...good one! I'll bear that in mind when I tire of his particular brand of 'woefully "educated" stupidity'. Thanks for the new perspective, mate!
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:57 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:57 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
I'm scratching my head on this one, I see no logical correlation to you response and to what I posted.
Reading and not understanding something you read on a website, posting it because it refers to technical data with "cool words" with no relevance to the topic, no explanation why it should be relevant and plain wrong information.
Telomeres lengths have absolutely with the evolutionary longevity of an organism, telomeres aids in the replication process, turn genes on and off, over the billions of years they should have mutated to a much higher level of variance, but no, it seems the were "designed that way.
You keep forgetting, "cells work that way because they were "designed" to work that way".
Your rebuttal helps my evidence.,
There are tens of thousands different types of cancer cell, one blanket statement would not cover any one anomaly. I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
I'm scratching my head on this one, I see no logical correlation to you response and to what I posted.
Reading and not understanding something you read on a website, posting it because it refers to technical data with "cool words" with no relevance to the topic, no explanation why it should be relevant and plain wrong information.
Telomeres lengths have absolutely with the evolutionary longevity of an organism, telomeres aids in the replication process, turn genes on and off, over the billions of years they should have mutated to a much higher level of variance, but no, it seems the were "designed that way.
You keep forgetting, "cells work that way because they were "designed" to work that way".
Your rebuttal helps my evidence.,
There are tens of thousands different types of cancer cell, one blanket statement would not cover any one anomaly. I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
QUOTE
I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 14 2005, 12:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:57 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
I'm scratching my head on this one, I see no logical correlation to you response and to what I posted.
Reading and not understanding something you read on a website, posting it because it refers to technical data with "cool words" with no relevance to the topic, no explanation why it should be relevant and plain wrong information.
Telomeres lengths have absolutely with the evolutionary longevity of an organism, telomeres aids in the replication process, turn genes on and off, over the billions of years they should have mutated to a much higher level of variance, but no, it seems the were "designed that way.
You keep forgetting, "cells work that way because they were "designed" to work that way".
Your rebuttal helps my evidence.,
There are tens of thousands different types of cancer cell, one blanket statement would not cover any one anomaly. I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Quit watering the shrub and it will blow away.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
I'm scratching my head on this one, I see no logical correlation to you response and to what I posted.
Reading and not understanding something you read on a website, posting it because it refers to technical data with "cool words" with no relevance to the topic, no explanation why it should be relevant and plain wrong information.
Telomeres lengths have absolutely with the evolutionary longevity of an organism, telomeres aids in the replication process, turn genes on and off, over the billions of years they should have mutated to a much higher level of variance, but no, it seems the were "designed that way.
You keep forgetting, "cells work that way because they were "designed" to work that way".
Your rebuttal helps my evidence.,
There are tens of thousands different types of cancer cell, one blanket statement would not cover any one anomaly. I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
QUOTE
I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Quit watering the shrub and it will blow away.
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 14 2005, 12:17 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 14 2005, 12:14 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:57 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 13 2005, 04:35 AM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 13 2005, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 12 2005, 11:57 PM)
Abiogenesis If your interested in the start of life theories
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
I'm scratching my head on this one, I see no logical correlation to you response and to what I posted.
Reading and not understanding something you read on a website, posting it because it refers to technical data with "cool words" with no relevance to the topic, no explanation why it should be relevant and plain wrong information.
Telomeres lengths have absolutely with the evolutionary longevity of an organism, telomeres aids in the replication process, turn genes on and off, over the billions of years they should have mutated to a much higher level of variance, but no, it seems the were "designed that way.
You keep forgetting, "cells work that way because they were "designed" to work that way".
Your rebuttal helps my evidence.,
There are tens of thousands different types of cancer cell, one blanket statement would not cover any one anomaly. I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Quit watering the shrub and it will blow away.
.
.
Hi MX, everyone!
You are of course right, MX. This particular 'shrub' is knowledge/logic starved but isn't 'self-aware' (hehehe) of it yet.
SB has PROVED this by his total ignorance about 'telomeres'. These 'caps' at the end of chromosomes are the 'cell-division' CLOCK-GENE segment which get 'shorter' with each cell division, until when they are no longer there, when the cell-division is no longer successful because there is nothing there to stabilise and protect the 'life-functional' gene segments near the ends of these chromosomes from damage/misfolding etc. hence faulty division, which usually triggers apoptosis (automatic cell suicide). He knows nothing of that which he speaks...some "teacher", heh?
And immediately after his complete idiocy regarding telomeres SB FURTHER PROVES his idiocy with his comments about things being "designed that way". How can anyone learn ANYTHING with such PERFECT BLINKERS as that mind-set? And when SB says...
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Quit watering the shrub and it will blow away.
.
.
Hi MX, everyone!
You are of course right, MX. This particular 'shrub' is knowledge/logic starved but isn't 'self-aware' (hehehe) of it yet.
SB has PROVED this by his total ignorance about 'telomeres'. These 'caps' at the end of chromosomes are the 'cell-division' CLOCK-GENE segment which get 'shorter' with each cell division, until when they are no longer there, when the cell-division is no longer successful because there is nothing there to stabilise and protect the 'life-functional' gene segments near the ends of these chromosomes from damage/misfolding etc. hence faulty division, which usually triggers apoptosis (automatic cell suicide). He knows nothing of that which he speaks...some "teacher", heh?
And immediately after his complete idiocy regarding telomeres SB FURTHER PROVES his idiocy with his comments about things being "designed that way". How can anyone learn ANYTHING with such PERFECT BLINKERS as that mind-set? And when SB says...
"...I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
...SB draws unwarranted conclusions from what I said earlier. Moreover, it obviously never occurred to him that such a tumour must inhabit a niche that EXISTS FOR AS LONG AS THAT TUMOUR in order to be 'immortal'. And if by definition, a tumour is 'unregulated/unending' growth, then that tumour will 'collapse' its niche (host human etc) and DIE...which is why there are no such 'immortal' tumours...only immortal cells (whose telomeres are constantly being repaired/replaced) if given unlimited time and resources...which any PARTICULAR NICHE cannot provide because that niche 'collapses' and no transmigration to other hosts occurs to REALISE THAT POTENTIAL FOR IMMORTALITY. I tell you what, though, MX, such WILFUL IGNORANCE as displayed by such as SB seems to be unending and 'immortal'...nothing penetrates!...and there's one born every minute!
But his WORST MISTAKE is assuming that my posts (like his own, obviously) are mere regurgitations of information I get from websites. It has apparently not yet sunk into this moron that I HAVE SPENT 45 YEARS on ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION AND COMPREHENSION across numerous fields of knowledge...all the way from ditch-digging to space-propulsion systems; from computer programming to metallurgy/materials-technology; from life sciences to astro/cosmo-physics; from Number Theory to Chemistry (Organic/In-organic) and much more. And so I would probably BE the type of person who would contribute ORIGINAL knowledge TO such websites IN THE FIRST PLACE (had I the time/HEALTH/FINANCIAL-RESOURCES to allow me to do so). As it is, I have only done it all to help family and friends and others in need of original insights to serious problems of all sorts.... BUT THERE I AM, spending some of what's left of my precious life trying (futilely, obviously) to edify (or 'water) some knowledge-dessicated 'plant' like SB! How ironic!
I'll take your advice, MX; and ignore such 'educated' ignoramuses. Life's too short...especially for me, I think. The phrase: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" could have been coined for such as this so-called "teacher". The perils are demonstrated by SB for all here to see; and I must say that it is become almost painful to watch the 'pratfalls' he is so easy prey to in his ignorant blundering around the corridors of knowledge. MX; if I am tempted to try again to get through the moronic haze that pervades such as these, I give you licence to give me a swift kick in the pants! Ciao.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BY HIS COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTION OF TELOMERES AND 'MILLION-YEAR OLD' TUMOURS ETC., SB HAS PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT HE DOES NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HE READS. Thus I shall waste no more of my life on such a pretender. You are welcome to the 'shrub'...it is all yours!
RealityCheck.
.
It is not a trick question it is not a flawed question - it's call logic. If there is a flaw in the logic please post the flaw.
Once again, asserting without justification.
By the way, ridiculous is not a scientific term, it’s a qualitative not quantitative value.
Come on answer it, my colleges have found your responses . . . ah, entertaining(?). You keep insisting I do not know what I’m talking about, here’s your chance to put me in my place, answer the question or show the flaws in the logic.
Or, you can always concede.
Your confusing evolution with intelligent design, IE you see a goal and think of the best way to get to that goal. Truly living longer is handy, but evolution cannot see ahead, it has no intelligence to do that.
Of course I'm just repeating the obvious arnt I Bilderback? you already know this and your last statement was testing us. Couldn't been you have absolute no idea what your going on about.
Try rereading the question and try again.
It is true evolution cannot see ahead, that is not the question posed in the posting.
Fossil records show the age plants and animals via growth rings of stalks, mollusks shells, dino bones etc.... Over billions of years, why aren't individuals of a species with more changes to procreate, extending the species life duration by selection of the fittest?
.
.
SB,
If I point you to the obvious, will you stop asking such silly questions while posing as some "teacher" quizzing his "students"?
The answer is, if everything DID live TOO LONG for the situation, then ALMOST IMMEDIATE OVERPOPULATION TO THE MAX would cause the 'food/space' resources to 'collapse'...and lead to sudden mass extinction due to extended starvation and pollution etc. of the niche-habitat.
There is a 'maximal' life-span for each organism species and the environmental 'place' into which they evolved...and that changes back and forth according to changes in the species and environment as a 'web' of interconnected feedback-loop eco-system processes living and non-living.
OK? Will you quit the posturing and pretence to knowledge now? Fess up...you are totally uneducated in what you are pursuing here and now. Get educated, and go where your 'questions' are relevant.
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
Your sense of logic is being filter through your biased preconceived outcome.
The food/predator cycle has nothing to do with the genetic derivative of a life span. For it to be a valid argument it would require all member es of the species to either reach their demise by starvation or fall to a predator and not living out a complete life span.
FYI.
With next to no exceptions, a cell can only replicate asexually 120 times before going into death mode, this has repeatedly been proved by observations of cell communities and cloning an older cell nucleus into a younger cell, yeast cells work great for this. If the older nucleus came from a cell that has already replicated 40 times the host cell will die after 80 more replications (give or take 10%) this is a know fact from yeast cells to human cell. They all have the same the same maximum amount of asexual cell divisions. I know it gets more complicated with adult stem cells and so on, the the basic principle remains constant.
Please do at least a little research before claiming I'm wrong, its not good for you credibility.
.
.
Dear S. Bilderback.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn something...like 'logic' aforethought, maybe. That would help a lot in avoiding these embarrassing posts of yours.
You make three fatal errors (at least):
- You fail to recognise WHY the existing 'chromosome end-caps' (telomeres) are the 'lengths' they are, as opposed to being longer or shorter (or even 'repairable'...which in some cases they are); and THEN....
- You fail to see the import of the difference between the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cell-divisions and the RATE at which said divisions occur. The rate is MUCH MUCH FASTER for microbes, insects and lower animals; so, while they experience roughly the same NUMBER of cell divisions, they transpire MORE QUICKLY and so get to the END of their QUOTA sooner (and die) than, for example, humans. If this were not so, the planet would be one seething mass (to a height of some miles) of extremely long-living microbial and insect life (if such a state could be sustainable, that is); and also
- You fail to mention that CANCER CELLS do NOT 'die' of their own accord (apoptosis)...which usually leads to the DEATH of the HOST (ie, so their 'niche' environment 'collapses' and the cancer-cell 'population' becomes 'extinct' along with that 'collapsed' environmental food/space 'resources'). The same goes for overly virulent and deadly disease organisms whose replication is so uncontrolled and so rapidly 'overpopulates' the host 'environment' that that host 'niche' collapses (dies) before that host can pass on the infection onto another 'niche' host.
Such 'patterns' of environmental/population stresses serve to 'refine' localised 'populations' within the global populations of various species in various 'niches'; and it is those populations that best suit their 'lifespan-to-procreation-rate' balancing act (as a whole population over a whole timeline of changes in environment and 'population-pressures) that is NOW ALIVE to be 'observed'...since those local populations that did NOT strike the right 'balance' (via automatic/unthinking trial and error) ARE NOW EXTINCT in the conditions currently applying in that 'niche'.
These are but a FEW of the glaringly obvious drawbacks when someone tries to pretend to knowledge and techniques-of-thought that they either do not possess or have not yet mastered. In this case it is obvious that you are THE case in point. Again, and for the last time, because (since I am not a 'saint') my patience with 'blinker-educated' "learned" idiot "teachers" is wearing mighty thin, please do everyone here the courtesy of at least learning something that will prevent such timewasting occasioned whenever someone here has to repeatedly point out what is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to all except the 'pretend' educated.
And please stop being a hypocrite by telling ME to do some research or risk my credibility. I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine let alone accomplish with that self-demonstrated 'stupidity-blinkered' so-called 'mind' of YOURS. Again, it is embarrassing to watch your 'pretence-to-logic-and-knowledge' antics here. Go and learn THOROUGHLY before putting these half-baked 'challenges' to your self-evident betters here. If you are going to 'patronise' others, it would be a good idea, don't you think, if you had SOME solid basis from which to proceed?
Sincerely,
RealityCheck.
.
I'm scratching my head on this one, I see no logical correlation to you response and to what I posted.
Reading and not understanding something you read on a website, posting it because it refers to technical data with "cool words" with no relevance to the topic, no explanation why it should be relevant and plain wrong information.
Telomeres lengths have absolutely with the evolutionary longevity of an organism, telomeres aids in the replication process, turn genes on and off, over the billions of years they should have mutated to a much higher level of variance, but no, it seems the were "designed that way.
You keep forgetting, "cells work that way because they were "designed" to work that way".
Your rebuttal helps my evidence.,
There are tens of thousands different types of cancer cell, one blanket statement would not cover any one anomaly. I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
QUOTE
I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Quit watering the shrub and it will blow away.
.
.
Hi MX, everyone!
You are of course right, MX. This particular 'shrub' is knowledge/logic starved but isn't 'self-aware' (hehehe) of it yet.
SB has PROVED this by his total ignorance about 'telomeres'. These 'caps' at the end of chromosomes are the 'cell-division' CLOCK-GENE segment which get 'shorter' with each cell division, until when they are no longer there, when the cell-division is no longer successful because there is nothing there to stabilise and protect the 'life-functional' gene segments near the ends of these chromosomes from damage/misfolding etc. hence faulty division, which usually triggers apoptosis (automatic cell suicide). He knows nothing of that which he speaks...some "teacher", heh?
And immediately after his complete idiocy regarding telomeres SB FURTHER PROVES his idiocy with his comments about things being "designed that way". How can anyone learn ANYTHING with such PERFECT BLINKERS as that mind-set? And when SB says...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have researched more things in more fields of endeavour more deeply than you could even imagine |
Maybe while doing your "research" you should take notes, I've had to repost proof-positive rebuttals to your theory over and over. I think we need to take a step back so you can answer my previous question"
(100%) Life = Spontaneous (X%) minus ID (Y%)
If I am wrong you need to show how X=100%
I will be expecting your answer.
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Quit watering the shrub and it will blow away.
.
.
Hi MX, everyone!
You are of course right, MX. This particular 'shrub' is knowledge/logic starved but isn't 'self-aware' (hehehe) of it yet.
SB has PROVED this by his total ignorance about 'telomeres'. These 'caps' at the end of chromosomes are the 'cell-division' CLOCK-GENE segment which get 'shorter' with each cell division, until when they are no longer there, when the cell-division is no longer successful because there is nothing there to stabilise and protect the 'life-functional' gene segments near the ends of these chromosomes from damage/misfolding etc. hence faulty division, which usually triggers apoptosis (automatic cell suicide). He knows nothing of that which he speaks...some "teacher", heh?
And immediately after his complete idiocy regarding telomeres SB FURTHER PROVES his idiocy with his comments about things being "designed that way". How can anyone learn ANYTHING with such PERFECT BLINKERS as that mind-set? And when SB says...
"...I also do not see one hundred or one million year old self-sufficient tumors anywhere on the planet, by your theory there should be some somewhere.
...SB draws unwarranted conclusions from what I said earlier. Moreover, it obviously never occurred to him that such a tumour must inhabit a niche that EXISTS FOR AS LONG AS THAT TUMOUR in order to be 'immortal'. And if by definition, a tumour is 'unregulated/unending' growth, then that tumour will 'collapse' its niche (host human etc) and DIE...which is why there are no such 'immortal' tumours...only immortal cells (whose telomeres are constantly being repaired/replaced) if given unlimited time and resources...which any PARTICULAR NICHE cannot provide because that niche 'collapses' and no transmigration to other hosts occurs to REALISE THAT POTENTIAL FOR IMMORTALITY. I tell you what, though, MX, such WILFUL IGNORANCE as displayed by such as SB seems to be unending and 'immortal'...nothing penetrates!...and there's one born every minute!
But his WORST MISTAKE is assuming that my posts (like his own, obviously) are mere regurgitations of information I get from websites. It has apparently not yet sunk into this moron that I HAVE SPENT 45 YEARS on ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION AND COMPREHENSION across numerous fields of knowledge...all the way from ditch-digging to space-propulsion systems; from computer programming to metallurgy/materials-technology; from life sciences to astro/cosmo-physics; from Number Theory to Chemistry (Organic/In-organic) and much more. And so I would probably BE the type of person who would contribute ORIGINAL knowledge TO such websites IN THE FIRST PLACE (had I the time/HEALTH/FINANCIAL-RESOURCES to allow me to do so). As it is, I have only done it all to help family and friends and others in need of original insights to serious problems of all sorts.... BUT THERE I AM, spending some of what's left of my precious life trying (futilely, obviously) to edify (or 'water) some knowledge-dessicated 'plant' like SB! How ironic!
I'll take your advice, MX; and ignore such 'educated' ignoramuses. Life's too short...especially for me, I think. The phrase: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" could have been coined for such as this so-called "teacher". The perils are demonstrated by SB for all here to see; and I must say that it is become almost painful to watch the 'pratfalls' he is so easy prey to in his ignorant blundering around the corridors of knowledge. MX; if I am tempted to try again to get through the moronic haze that pervades such as these, I give you licence to give me a swift kick in the pants! Ciao.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BY HIS COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTION OF TELOMERES AND 'MILLION-YEAR OLD' TUMOURS ETC., SB HAS PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT HE DOES NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HE READS. Thus I shall waste no more of my life on such a pretender. You are welcome to the 'shrub'...it is all yours!
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE
This is one of those things where they give you a flawed question, and flawed answers to pick from.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
Then, when you point it out, they say, "See! You can't answer the question!"
Ridiculous.
It is not a trick question it is not a flawed question - it's call logic. If there is a flaw in the logic please post the flaw.
Once again, asserting without justification.
By the way, ridiculous is not a scientific term, it’s a qualitative not quantitative value.
Come on answer it, my colleges have found your responses . . . ah, entertaining(?). You keep insisting I do not know what I’m talking about, here’s your chance to put me in my place, answer the question or show the flaws in the logic.
Or, you can always concede.
Skipping over most of the posts (probably to my error, but never mind) it seems that Bilderback is confused why we dont live for a good portion of forever. My idea of it was that there is no pressure to evolve very long living organisms, its good enough for the genes (only the genes need to survive) to just stay in existence. They dont need to stay in the same individual but in the gene pool.
Hence by my (obviously infallible ) argument you only need an individual to survive 'long enough' to pass its genes on, and from just thinking about it there are many factors why you dont need to keep on passing on your genes (IE, stay alive longer) which I leave others to think of their favorite ones and post nice reasons why they are reasons etc.
Hence by my (obviously infallible
) argument you only need an individual to survive 'long enough' to pass its genes on, and from just thinking about it there are many factors why you dont need to keep on passing on your genes (IE, stay alive longer) which I leave others to think of their favorite ones and post nice reasons why they are reasons etc.
QUOTE
question by Messenger
Hi Grumpy,
So the information theorists have their own ideas about evolution, heh?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that information comes and goes - easy come, easy go?
My question to you was where did the information come from in the first place? It's one thing to 'reuse' an old trait again - but it's an entirely different thing to produce a NEW trait.
OK, fine, organisms are not self aware. Then one year a cortex comes along ---------uh-hum------where did this come from? I'm just picturing this tomato plant everyone has been talking about, beginning to notice how sometimes he's green and sometimes he's red and whenever he's red somebody comes along and takes him....no wait....there aren't any people or animals yet to take them - so who moved my cheese? Well, it must be Christmas if he's red and green, no?
Sorry, but this is what happens when I try to take this seriously - I can't. There would be no need for plants to develop into other types of plants to survive -tomato plants never become transvestites, (I'm trying to increase my ratings), I don't know if I've ever heard of a tomato plant changing into any other type of plant. There just is no proof anywhere - that would agree with your position. It's only a hypothesis. There are too many mathematical variables for even one plant to come into existence, much less thousands? Don't you see that, at all?
OK, fine, organisms are not self aware. Then one year a cortex comes along ---------uh-hum------where did this come from? I'm just picturing this tomato plant everyone has been talking about, beginning to notice how sometimes he's green and sometimes he's red and whenever he's red somebody comes along and takes him....no wait....there aren't any people or animals yet to take them - so who moved my cheese? Well, it must be Christmas if he's red and green, no?
Sorry, but this is what happens when I try to take this seriously - I can't. There would be no need for plants to develop into other types of plants to survive -tomato plants never become transvestites, (I'm trying to increase my ratings), I don't know if I've ever heard of a tomato plant changing into any other type of plant. There just is no proof anywhere - that would agree with your position. It's only a hypothesis. There are too many mathematical variables for even one plant to come into existence, much less thousands? Don't you see that, at all?
quote by Grumpy,
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Why would a tomato plant, or any plant need to change in order to survive?
Where does the information come from that makes it change?
And why don't we get dumber? Why don't we go backwards? Why not a better lion? Lions are cool. Why the rapidity of human evolution? You say 13 billion years of evolution - but rapid human development. It just doesn't add up.
Let me try to explain this again:
If you have a problem with weak bones - you will go to your grave with this problem. Your offspring will not have improved bone structure so that they could survive better or develop stronger bones. They may or may not inherit the trait of weak bones - but new information transferred from your body to theirs will ot occur - because the body is already 'perfectly' designed for the natural world we live in.
If a camel has a hard time surviving in a partcular part of the country - his offspring will never, even in a million years, evolve into anything other than a camel. They may travel to a different location and find better food, etc. Their new and improved diet will even play a big part in their survival - but their bodies are only capable of becoming stronger or weaker, depending on their environment.
You see, there is no connection between the camel and his offspring.
quote by Grumpy,
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Why would a tomato plant, or any plant need to change in order to survive?
Where does the information come from that makes it change?
And why don't we get dumber? Why don't we go backwards? Why not a better lion? Lions are cool. Why the rapidity of human evolution? You say 13 billion years of evolution - but rapid human development. It just doesn't add up.
Let me try to explain this again:
If you have a problem with weak bones - you will go to your grave with this problem. Your offspring will not have improved bone structure so that they could survive better or develop stronger bones. They may or may not inherit the trait of weak bones - but new information transferred from your body to theirs will ot occur - because the body is already 'perfectly' designed for the natural world we live in.
If a camel has a hard time surviving in a partcular part of the country - his offspring will never, even in a million years, evolve into anything other than a camel. They may travel to a different location and find better food, etc. Their new and improved diet will even play a big part in their survival - but their bodies are only capable of becoming stronger or weaker, depending on their environment.
You see, there is no connection between the camel and his offspring.
Sharks may evolve slowly because it's hard for them to become isolated in small populations from others of their own species, a requisite of punk-eek, which may be a major factor in all large evolutionary changes. And they have already evolved into nearly perfect killing machines!!!
And primates are perfect ooo-ooo'ers and banana eating machines that would have no need to evolve further.
No, sharks are yet another interesting creature of the Creator.
You know, part of me thinks that the angels, or some other spirit beings, took part in the creation. I think that in heaven we will take part in certain creative activities that were made for. Use your time here wisely - perhaps it's wise to persue your dreams now - so you can have a taste of heaven. God gave each of us a few 'talents' - will we bear fruit - or will we bury it in the ground so no one takes it away from us, or laughs at us? Use it or lose it? This is just my messed up crazy heretic opinion.
Right. The only dictator around here is God, right?
You are not describing the 'mechanism'. You are simply stating that it is your opinion that organisms can change. You have yet to describe the mechanism, or where the new information comes from.
Something else to think about.......
Imagine a little tiny organism, instinctively seeking new information to add to itself.
This is your beginning.
Where does the different information come from?
I can see that there may be millions of tiny organisms floating around.
But what is the mechanism that gives the organism more information?
Right. The only dictator around here is God, right?
You are not describing the 'mechanism'. You are simply stating that it is your opinion that organisms can change. You have yet to describe the mechanism, or where the new information comes from.
Something else to think about.......
Imagine a little tiny organism, instinctively seeking new information to add to itself.
This is your beginning.
Where does the different information come from?
I can see that there may be millions of tiny organisms floating around.
But what is the mechanism that gives the organism more information?
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
This might be OK for an animal, but I don't see how this works in an organism.
What makes the organism self aware enough to desire to reproduce?
It has to be somewhat aware - in order to have a desire to do anything.
Well, I'm not obsessed with it. I just think that in order for an organism to do anything - it has to have something, instinct, self-awareness, sex drive, something.
Mathematically speaking, if we were to allow for evolution, there would not have been enough time for all of what you see to have occurred.
Well, I'm not obsessed with it. I just think that in order for an organism to do anything - it has to have something, instinct, self-awareness, sex drive, something.
Mathematically speaking, if we were to allow for evolution, there would not have been enough time for all of what you see to have occurred.
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
B cannot get a favorable or unfavorable mutation to pass on in less than many millions or thousands of years, according to evolution, correct?
A gets a bad mutation and dies - no passing on the the offspring there.
B gets a good mutation and lives - providing he has kids - he passes it on to his kids - and this eventually becomes permanent.
OK, I repeated what you said in my own messy terms.
Where does this new mutation come from and how do we know it's beneficial? What mechanism in your genes, that could be passed on, would change your offspring, even ever so slightly? Where does the new info come from?
I can understand how people can breed and tinker with various species. But this doesn't prove evolution - because you would have to show a mechanism that would make natural selections without human tampering.
OK, back to first organism.............what food? There is nothing but organisms around - no tomato plants yet.
There is nothing within the tiny organism that will ever tell the tomato plant how to become a tomato plant. There is no connection between the organism and the plant.
You just disproved evolution when you said the bacteria without this instinct become extinct. Exactly. That's why evolution won't work.
OK, back to first organism.............what food? There is nothing but organisms around - no tomato plants yet.
There is nothing within the tiny organism that will ever tell the tomato plant how to become a tomato plant. There is no connection between the organism and the plant.
You just disproved evolution when you said the bacteria without this instinct become extinct. Exactly. That's why evolution won't work.
When you eat something you digestive system goes about the digestive process by instinct, no thought processes required(you can thank the "reptilion" parts of your brain for handling the details WITHOUT YOUR SELF AWARENESS of the process). Your reptilion brain will also make sure you breath without having to think about it, though your conscious brain can override that control, a thing many animal cannot do. Even sex is not totally within our control, as many embarrased teenage boys will tell you. Self awareness is a very complicated process only partially acheived by the most developed organisms, most of life gets along fairly well without it.
You're talking about a lean mean digesting machine - an intelligent design, if ever there was one. With all the technology we have - we still cannot design something as wonderful as the human body.
Sex while you are fully awake and conscious of your actions - IS under our control.
Right - self awareness is a very complicated process - intelligently designed.
Most of life? Give me an example of the multitudes of the unawares, please.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| question by Messenger Where did the information come from to make something self aware? quote by Grumpy, Despite the writings of information "theorists", evolution is not a language or a math problem. Some evolutionary changes involve the gain in total information, some a loss and some are neutral, perhaps reusing an old trait again. Whatever change(and the information involved) endows an organism with an advantage in reproduction success over it's unmodified kin will be selected for. |
Hi Grumpy,
So the information theorists have their own ideas about evolution, heh?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that information comes and goes - easy come, easy go?
My question to you was where did the information come from in the first place? It's one thing to 'reuse' an old trait again - but it's an entirely different thing to produce a NEW trait.
QUOTE
Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain.
OK, fine, organisms are not self aware. Then one year a cortex comes along ---------uh-hum------where did this come from? I'm just picturing this tomato plant everyone has been talking about, beginning to notice how sometimes he's green and sometimes he's red and whenever he's red somebody comes along and takes him....no wait....there aren't any people or animals yet to take them - so who moved my cheese? Well, it must be Christmas if he's red and green, no?
Sorry, but this is what happens when I try to take this seriously - I can't. There would be no need for plants to develop into other types of plants to survive -tomato plants never become transvestites, (I'm trying to increase my ratings), I don't know if I've ever heard of a tomato plant changing into any other type of plant. There just is no proof anywhere - that would agree with your position. It's only a hypothesis. There are too many mathematical variables for even one plant to come into existence, much less thousands? Don't you see that, at all?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Basicly all creatures on this Earth have had little or no "selfawareness" until the mammals, with our prefrontal cortex came along, this is where the "I" resides in our brains. Until the development of the PFC animals were basically instinct and reflex driven meat machines. "I think therefore I am" only became possible with the excess brain capacity of the mammalian brain. |
OK, fine, organisms are not self aware. Then one year a cortex comes along ---------uh-hum------where did this come from? I'm just picturing this tomato plant everyone has been talking about, beginning to notice how sometimes he's green and sometimes he's red and whenever he's red somebody comes along and takes him....no wait....there aren't any people or animals yet to take them - so who moved my cheese? Well, it must be Christmas if he's red and green, no?
Sorry, but this is what happens when I try to take this seriously - I can't. There would be no need for plants to develop into other types of plants to survive -tomato plants never become transvestites, (I'm trying to increase my ratings), I don't know if I've ever heard of a tomato plant changing into any other type of plant. There just is no proof anywhere - that would agree with your position. It's only a hypothesis. There are too many mathematical variables for even one plant to come into existence, much less thousands? Don't you see that, at all?
QUOTE
question by Messenger,
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'?
quote by Grumpy,
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Why would a tomato plant, or any plant need to change in order to survive?
Where does the information come from that makes it change?
And why don't we get dumber? Why don't we go backwards? Why not a better lion? Lions are cool. Why the rapidity of human evolution? You say 13 billion years of evolution - but rapid human development. It just doesn't add up.
Let me try to explain this again:
If you have a problem with weak bones - you will go to your grave with this problem. Your offspring will not have improved bone structure so that they could survive better or develop stronger bones. They may or may not inherit the trait of weak bones - but new information transferred from your body to theirs will ot occur - because the body is already 'perfectly' designed for the natural world we live in.
If a camel has a hard time surviving in a partcular part of the country - his offspring will never, even in a million years, evolve into anything other than a camel. They may travel to a different location and find better food, etc. Their new and improved diet will even play a big part in their survival - but their bodies are only capable of becoming stronger or weaker, depending on their environment.
You see, there is no connection between the camel and his offspring.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| question by Messenger, By what standards are you assuming that 'some things fit very well'? |
quote by Grumpy,
When a creature(or plant or bacteria) is able to function in it's environment in a way so that it easily is able to reproduce and genetic mutations DO NOT confer an advantage in survival and reproduction there is no "pressure" exerted by natural selection for that organism to change, so for millions of years we see very little change in sharks, rays,crocs, e-coli bacteria, blue-green algae,monitor lizzards and plankton, just to name a few.
Why would a tomato plant, or any plant need to change in order to survive?
Where does the information come from that makes it change?
And why don't we get dumber? Why don't we go backwards? Why not a better lion? Lions are cool. Why the rapidity of human evolution? You say 13 billion years of evolution - but rapid human development. It just doesn't add up.
Let me try to explain this again:
If you have a problem with weak bones - you will go to your grave with this problem. Your offspring will not have improved bone structure so that they could survive better or develop stronger bones. They may or may not inherit the trait of weak bones - but new information transferred from your body to theirs will ot occur - because the body is already 'perfectly' designed for the natural world we live in.
If a camel has a hard time surviving in a partcular part of the country - his offspring will never, even in a million years, evolve into anything other than a camel. They may travel to a different location and find better food, etc. Their new and improved diet will even play a big part in their survival - but their bodies are only capable of becoming stronger or weaker, depending on their environment.
You see, there is no connection between the camel and his offspring.
Sharks may evolve slowly because it's hard for them to become isolated in small populations from others of their own species, a requisite of punk-eek, which may be a major factor in all large evolutionary changes. And they have already evolved into nearly perfect killing machines!!!
And primates are perfect ooo-ooo'ers and banana eating machines that would have no need to evolve further.
No, sharks are yet another interesting creature of the Creator.
You know, part of me thinks that the angels, or some other spirit beings, took part in the creation. I think that in heaven we will take part in certain creative activities that were made for. Use your time here wisely - perhaps it's wise to persue your dreams now - so you can have a taste of heaven. God gave each of us a few 'talents' - will we bear fruit - or will we bury it in the ground so no one takes it away from us, or laughs at us? Use it or lose it? This is just my messed up crazy heretic opinion.
QUOTE
Evolution does not dictate that an organism MUST change, it is simply a mechanism whereby organisms CAN change if the environment requires change for survival.
Right. The only dictator around here is God, right?
You are not describing the 'mechanism'. You are simply stating that it is your opinion that organisms can change. You have yet to describe the mechanism, or where the new information comes from.
Something else to think about.......
Imagine a little tiny organism, instinctively seeking new information to add to itself.
This is your beginning.
Where does the different information come from?
I can see that there may be millions of tiny organisms floating around.
But what is the mechanism that gives the organism more information?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolution does not dictate that an organism MUST change, it is simply a mechanism whereby organisms CAN change if the environment requires change for survival. |
Right. The only dictator around here is God, right?
You are not describing the 'mechanism'. You are simply stating that it is your opinion that organisms can change. You have yet to describe the mechanism, or where the new information comes from.
Something else to think about.......
Imagine a little tiny organism, instinctively seeking new information to add to itself.
This is your beginning.
Where does the different information come from?
I can see that there may be millions of tiny organisms floating around.
But what is the mechanism that gives the organism more information?
The only standard is"did the organism survive and reproduce", that's all.
This might be OK for an animal, but I don't see how this works in an organism.
What makes the organism self aware enough to desire to reproduce?
It has to be somewhat aware - in order to have a desire to do anything.
QUOTE
What's with this erronious obcession with self awareness??? The first chemical life(whatever it's origin) certainly had no mechanism for thinking!!! Brain cells did not come along for over 3 billion years!!! And it took 3/4 of another billion for the first animals with excess brain capacity(mammals mostly) for them to have any concept of I. Before that every living thing was instinct and reflex driven(I mean, have you ever seen the brain size of even the smartest dinosaur???(T-Rex maybe? Or Raptors[birds in transit])
Well, I'm not obsessed with it. I just think that in order for an organism to do anything - it has to have something, instinct, self-awareness, sex drive, something.
Mathematically speaking, if we were to allow for evolution, there would not have been enough time for all of what you see to have occurred.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What's with this erronious obcession with self awareness??? The first chemical life(whatever it's origin) certainly had no mechanism for thinking!!! Brain cells did not come along for over 3 billion years!!! And it took 3/4 of another billion for the first animals with excess brain capacity(mammals mostly) for them to have any concept of I. Before that every living thing was instinct and reflex driven(I mean, have you ever seen the brain size of even the smartest dinosaur???(T-Rex maybe? Or Raptors[birds in transit]) |
Well, I'm not obsessed with it. I just think that in order for an organism to do anything - it has to have something, instinct, self-awareness, sex drive, something.
Mathematically speaking, if we were to allow for evolution, there would not have been enough time for all of what you see to have occurred.
Each organism, while seperate in themselves, is a part of it's species. If one(A) gets a fatal mutation it dies before it can pass that fatal mutation to it's offspring. If B gets an advantageous mutation which allows it to live and reproduce many times it will not be too many generations until it's entire species is made up of Bs with no As to be found anywhere. Thus, a mutation spreads throughout the species and that species is one "step" different from the one you began with. No thought process required.
B cannot get a favorable or unfavorable mutation to pass on in less than many millions or thousands of years, according to evolution, correct?
A gets a bad mutation and dies - no passing on the the offspring there.
B gets a good mutation and lives - providing he has kids - he passes it on to his kids - and this eventually becomes permanent.
OK, I repeated what you said in my own messy terms.
Where does this new mutation come from and how do we know it's beneficial? What mechanism in your genes, that could be passed on, would change your offspring, even ever so slightly? Where does the new info come from?
I can understand how people can breed and tinker with various species. But this doesn't prove evolution - because you would have to show a mechanism that would make natural selections without human tampering.
QUOTE
Bacteria sense food chemically, those bacteria who then react by moving in the direction of what they sense will get more food. Those bacteria without this instinct are soon extinct. No thought process involved.(duh, no brain cell with which to think). Bacteria in contact with food eat, it's what they do. when the cell gets too large to handle mitosis occurs(triggered chemically). No thought processes required.
OK, back to first organism.............what food? There is nothing but organisms around - no tomato plants yet.
There is nothing within the tiny organism that will ever tell the tomato plant how to become a tomato plant. There is no connection between the organism and the plant.
You just disproved evolution when you said the bacteria without this instinct become extinct. Exactly. That's why evolution won't work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bacteria sense food chemically, those bacteria who then react by moving in the direction of what they sense will get more food. Those bacteria without this instinct are soon extinct. No thought process involved.(duh, no brain cell with which to think). Bacteria in contact with food eat, it's what they do. when the cell gets too large to handle mitosis occurs(triggered chemically). No thought processes required. |
OK, back to first organism.............what food? There is nothing but organisms around - no tomato plants yet.
There is nothing within the tiny organism that will ever tell the tomato plant how to become a tomato plant. There is no connection between the organism and the plant.
You just disproved evolution when you said the bacteria without this instinct become extinct. Exactly. That's why evolution won't work.
When you eat something you digestive system goes about the digestive process by instinct, no thought processes required(you can thank the "reptilion" parts of your brain for handling the details WITHOUT YOUR SELF AWARENESS of the process). Your reptilion brain will also make sure you breath without having to think about it, though your conscious brain can override that control, a thing many animal cannot do. Even sex is not totally within our control, as many embarrased teenage boys will tell you. Self awareness is a very complicated process only partially acheived by the most developed organisms, most of life gets along fairly well without it.
You're talking about a lean mean digesting machine - an intelligent design, if ever there was one. With all the technology we have - we still cannot design something as wonderful as the human body.
Sex while you are fully awake and conscious of your actions - IS under our control.
Right - self awareness is a very complicated process - intelligently designed.
Most of life? Give me an example of the multitudes of the unawares, please.
QUOTE (Mess+)
Give me an example of the multitudes of the unawares, please.
Careful what you wish for Mess! hehehe.
Regards, RC.
Careful what you wish for Mess! hehehe.
Regards, RC.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 14 2005, 01:27 AM)
[QUOTE=RealityCheck,Dec 13 2005, 09:14 PM]I'll take your advice, MX; and ignore such 'educated' ignoramuses. Life's too short...especially for me, I think. The phrase: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" could have been coined for such as this so-called "teacher". The perils are demonstrated by SB for all here to see; and I must say that it is become almost painful to watch the 'pratfalls' he is so easy prey to in his ignorant blundering around the corridors of knowledge. MX; if I am tempted to try again to get through the moronic haze that pervades such as these, I give you licence to give me a swift kick in the pants! Ciao.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BY HIS COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTION OF TELOMERES AND 'MILLION-YEAR OLD' TUMOURS ETC., SB HAS PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT HE DOES NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HE READS. Thus I shall waste no more of my life on such a pretender. You are welcome to the 'shrub'...it is all yours!
RealityCheck.
.
Good man.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BY HIS COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTION OF TELOMERES AND 'MILLION-YEAR OLD' TUMOURS ETC., SB HAS PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT HE DOES NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HE READS. Thus I shall waste no more of my life on such a pretender. You are welcome to the 'shrub'...it is all yours!
RealityCheck.
.
Good man.
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 14 2005, 08:08 AM)
[QUOTE=RealityCheck,Dec 14 2005, 01:27 AM] [QUOTE=RealityCheck,Dec 13 2005, 09:14 PM]I'll take your advice, MX; and ignore such 'educated' ignoramuses. Life's too short...especially for me, I think. The phrase: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" could have been coined for such as this so-called "teacher". The perils are demonstrated by SB for all here to see; and I must say that it is become almost painful to watch the 'pratfalls' he is so easy prey to in his ignorant blundering around the corridors of knowledge. MX; if I am tempted to try again to get through the moronic haze that pervades such as these, I give you licence to give me a swift kick in the pants! Ciao.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BY HIS COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTION OF TELOMERES AND 'MILLION-YEAR OLD' TUMOURS ETC., SB HAS PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT HE DOES NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HE READS. Thus I shall waste no more of my life on such a pretender. You are welcome to the 'shrub'...it is all yours!
RealityCheck.
. [/QUOTE]
Good man.
RC:
That sounds like a undignified, back-door concession to me.
Messenger:
Good job on that last posting!
Is there any one else out there that wants to show what they don't know?
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: BY HIS COMMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTION OF TELOMERES AND 'MILLION-YEAR OLD' TUMOURS ETC., SB HAS PROVED BEYOND SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT HE DOES NOT COMPREHEND WHAT HE READS. Thus I shall waste no more of my life on such a pretender. You are welcome to the 'shrub'...it is all yours!
RealityCheck.
. [/QUOTE]
Good man.
RC:
That sounds like a undignified, back-door concession to me.
Messenger:
Good job on that last posting!
Is there any one else out there that wants to show what they don't know?
Explain to me the reason I have an appendix, as I was designed to be a perfect organism, why do I have this little sack of nothing that has no other purpose than to occasionally get infected. While you're at it, explain to me the reason I have all this extra DNA information, since I only need like maybe an eighth of it to reproduce perfectly. Then there are my sinuses, the muscles by my ears, the "goosebump" reflex, wisdom teeth...
For a perfectly designed organism why do I seem to be made out of monkey spare parts?
Was the creator just not that creative?
I await your answer with baited breath...
For a perfectly designed organism why do I seem to be made out of monkey spare parts?
Was the creator just not that creative?
I await your answer with baited breath...
QUOTE (Capn Caveman+Dec 14 2005, 03:20 PM)
Explain to me the reason I have an appendix, as I was designed to be a perfect organism, why do I have this little sack of nothing that has no other purpose than to occasionally get infected. While you're at it, explain to me the reason I have all this extra DNA information, since I only need like maybe an eighth of it to reproduce perfectly. Then there are my sinuses, the muscles by my ears, the "goosebump" reflex, wisdom teeth...
For a perfectly designed organism why do I seem to be made out of monkey spare parts?
Was the creator just not that creative?
I await your answer with baited breath...
Assumption number 1, where has it been posted that the human body need to be perfect?
Assumption 2, that newer species cannot include characteristics of older older species.
I have not said that evolution did not happen, I stated that life and evolution are not a product of a random, spontaneous chain of event. Evolution may have been pre-programmed as part of all that "extra" DNA.
For a perfectly designed organism why do I seem to be made out of monkey spare parts?
Was the creator just not that creative?
I await your answer with baited breath...
Assumption number 1, where has it been posted that the human body need to be perfect?
Assumption 2, that newer species cannot include characteristics of older older species.
I have not said that evolution did not happen, I stated that life and evolution are not a product of a random, spontaneous chain of event. Evolution may have been pre-programmed as part of all that "extra" DNA.
Messenger and Bilderback
No, Information theory has falsly been applied to evolutionary subjects where the people making the original postulates DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT and so Garbage In Garbage Out GIGO.
No, Information theory has falsly been applied to evolutionary subjects where the people making the original postulates DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT and so Garbage In Garbage Out GIGO.
My question to you was where did the information come from in the first place? It's one thing to 'reuse' an old trait again - but it's an entirely different thing to produce a NEW trait.
Mutations(by several causes)
Describe the difference a Brussell sprout, Califlower and a Broccolli plant. Then describe the simularity and heritage of these three distinct vegies, please.
(hint, they are all the same)
There are too many facts in the fossill record supporting my position for your bogus mathimatical calculations or your straw men arguements to convince any one who has examined that record. It happened, learn to deal with reality or be doomed to the ash bin of history(Oh, he based his religious beliefs on falshoods and was too stuborn to change.)
Describe the difference a Brussell sprout, Califlower and a Broccolli plant. Then describe the simularity and heritage of these three distinct vegies, please.
(hint, they are all the same)
There are too many facts in the fossill record supporting my position for your bogus mathimatical calculations or your straw men arguements to convince any one who has examined that record. It happened, learn to deal with reality or be doomed to the ash bin of history(Oh, he based his religious beliefs on falshoods and was too stuborn to change.)
Why would a tomato plant, or any plant need to change in order to survive?
Where does the information come from that makes it change?
And why don't we get dumber? Why don't we go backwards? Why not a better lion? Lions are cool. Why the rapidity of human evolution? You say 13 billion years of evolution - but rapid human development. It just doesn't add up.
Let me try to explain this again:
If you have a problem with weak bones - you will go to your grave with this problem. Your offspring will not have improved bone structure so that they could survive better or develop stronger bones. They may or may not inherit the trait of weak bones - but new information transferred from your body to theirs will ot occur - because the body is already 'perfectly' designed for the natural world we live in.
If a camel has a hard time surviving in a partcular part of the country - his offspring will never, even in a million years, evolve into anything other than a camel. They may travel to a different location and find better food, etc. Their new and improved diet will even play a big part in their survival - but their bodies are only capable of becoming stronger or weaker, depending on their environment.
You see, there is no connection between the camel and his offspring.
Once again you expose your ignorance of what descent with modification with natural selection is and how it works and we have to start over with the attempt to educate those who refuse to be educated. Personally, I would leave you in your abject poverty(of knowledge) of your own choosing, but the part of me who spent a good part of my life teaching, I can't help myself.
Let's start with the things science has proven. Instead of listing them seperately I will put them in a time line format.
According to the evidence of our expanding universe(Astronomy) it became evident that if we travel back in time to see what happened(Cosmology) by looking far away in the universe(Deep Field), which is exactly the same because light travels 1 ly every year so if you look 13 billion ly away we are looking at what happened 13 billion years ago. And space was a much more crowded place back then(I've studied the pictures). Therefore, if we project back ~1 billion years everything in the universe was at one point, the so called Big Bang because scientists like catchy names.
Thats where the particle phyicists come in, if your Interested look it up.
So ~13.7 billion years ago a bunch of energy burst fourth (did God say "Let there be light..."?) I don't know nor is it relevant to the things that happened next, Which I will have to continue later.
Oh ,by the way, this is likely to take a while. If you have a relevant question post it and I will clear up your misunderstandings in my next post before going to the next part of the true timeline of the universe as we have found it to be. Science is a step by step process of understanding natural laws and applying them to different processes.
Grumpy
That sounds like a undignified, back-door concession to me.
Messenger:
Good job on that last posting!
Is there any one else out there that wants to show what they don't know?
Hahaha! Sounds like the 'self-aware' tomato plants need 'watering'!
.
QUOTE
So the information theorists have their own ideas about evolution, heh?
No, Information theory has falsly been applied to evolutionary subjects where the people making the original postulates DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT and so Garbage In Garbage Out GIGO.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So the information theorists have their own ideas about evolution, heh? |
No, Information theory has falsly been applied to evolutionary subjects where the people making the original postulates DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT and so Garbage In Garbage Out GIGO.
My question to you was where did the information come from in the first place? It's one thing to 'reuse' an old trait again - but it's an entirely different thing to produce a NEW trait.
Mutations(by several causes)
QUOTE
Sorry, but this is what happens when I try to take this seriously - I can't. There would be no need for plants to develop into other types of plants to survive -tomato plants never become transvestites, (I'm trying to increase my ratings), I don't know if I've ever heard of a tomato plant changing into any other type of plant. There just is no proof anywhere - that would agree with your position. It's only a hypothesis. There are too many mathematical variables for even one plant to come into existence, much less thousands? Don't you see that, at all?
Describe the difference a Brussell sprout, Califlower and a Broccolli plant. Then describe the simularity and heritage of these three distinct vegies, please.
(hint, they are all the same)
There are too many facts in the fossill record supporting my position for your bogus mathimatical calculations or your straw men arguements to convince any one who has examined that record. It happened, learn to deal with reality or be doomed to the ash bin of history(Oh, he based his religious beliefs on falshoods and was too stuborn to change.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sorry, but this is what happens when I try to take this seriously - I can't. There would be no need for plants to develop into other types of plants to survive -tomato plants never become transvestites, (I'm trying to increase my ratings), I don't know if I've ever heard of a tomato plant changing into any other type of plant. There just is no proof anywhere - that would agree with your position. It's only a hypothesis. There are too many mathematical variables for even one plant to come into existence, much less thousands? Don't you see that, at all? |
Describe the difference a Brussell sprout, Califlower and a Broccolli plant. Then describe the simularity and heritage of these three distinct vegies, please.
(hint, they are all the same)
There are too many facts in the fossill record supporting my position for your bogus mathimatical calculations or your straw men arguements to convince any one who has examined that record. It happened, learn to deal with reality or be doomed to the ash bin of history(Oh, he based his religious beliefs on falshoods and was too stuborn to change.)
Why would a tomato plant, or any plant need to change in order to survive?
Where does the information come from that makes it change?
And why don't we get dumber? Why don't we go backwards? Why not a better lion? Lions are cool. Why the rapidity of human evolution? You say 13 billion years of evolution - but rapid human development. It just doesn't add up.
Let me try to explain this again:
If you have a problem with weak bones - you will go to your grave with this problem. Your offspring will not have improved bone structure so that they could survive better or develop stronger bones. They may or may not inherit the trait of weak bones - but new information transferred from your body to theirs will ot occur - because the body is already 'perfectly' designed for the natural world we live in.
If a camel has a hard time surviving in a partcular part of the country - his offspring will never, even in a million years, evolve into anything other than a camel. They may travel to a different location and find better food, etc. Their new and improved diet will even play a big part in their survival - but their bodies are only capable of becoming stronger or weaker, depending on their environment.
You see, there is no connection between the camel and his offspring.
Once again you expose your ignorance of what descent with modification with natural selection is and how it works and we have to start over with the attempt to educate those who refuse to be educated. Personally, I would leave you in your abject poverty(of knowledge) of your own choosing, but the part of me who spent a good part of my life teaching, I can't help myself.
Let's start with the things science has proven. Instead of listing them seperately I will put them in a time line format.
According to the evidence of our expanding universe(Astronomy) it became evident that if we travel back in time to see what happened(Cosmology) by looking far away in the universe(Deep Field), which is exactly the same because light travels 1 ly every year so if you look 13 billion ly away we are looking at what happened 13 billion years ago. And space was a much more crowded place back then(I've studied the pictures). Therefore, if we project back ~1 billion years everything in the universe was at one point, the so called Big Bang because scientists like catchy names.
Thats where the particle phyicists come in, if your Interested look it up.
So ~13.7 billion years ago a bunch of energy burst fourth (did God say "Let there be light..."?) I don't know nor is it relevant to the things that happened next, Which I will have to continue later.
Oh ,by the way, this is likely to take a while. If you have a relevant question post it and I will clear up your misunderstandings in my next post before going to the next part of the true timeline of the universe as we have found it to be. Science is a step by step process of understanding natural laws and applying them to different processes.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 14 2005, 12:44 PM)
That sounds like a undignified, back-door concession to me.
Messenger:
Good job on that last posting!
Is there any one else out there that wants to show what they don't know?
Hahaha! Sounds like the 'self-aware' tomato plants need 'watering'!
.
Messenger and Bilderback
The energy which erupted from the event quickly converted to mass(mostly hydrogen, about 4% helium and trace amounts of lithium. In the dense opaque gas clouds clumps formed and evolved to the first generation of stars. Due to the density these first star were very massive and short lived, burning their fuel at prodigious rates, cooking up all the chemicals heavier than hydrogen until they hypernovaed creating all of the rest of the heavier chemicals. After two or three cycles of these supermassive stars the resulting gas clouds seeded more conventional stars such as our sun, born about 4.5 billion years ago and the planets, including Earth.
If we take that 4.5 billion year history of Earth and make it 24 hours(midnight to midnight) the first life appears at ~9:00am.
The first multi cellular life did not appear until 9:00 pm.
The last dinosaur(except the birds) died about 11:30 pm.
The entire history of mammals is covered in the last 40 minutes or so.
The first hominid evidence in the last 3 minutes, modern humans the last 10 seconds, recorded history the last second.
These are the things we know, we've shown you the evidence, now it's up to you to prove us wrong,
Grumpy
The energy which erupted from the event quickly converted to mass(mostly hydrogen, about 4% helium and trace amounts of lithium. In the dense opaque gas clouds clumps formed and evolved to the first generation of stars. Due to the density these first star were very massive and short lived, burning their fuel at prodigious rates, cooking up all the chemicals heavier than hydrogen until they hypernovaed creating all of the rest of the heavier chemicals. After two or three cycles of these supermassive stars the resulting gas clouds seeded more conventional stars such as our sun, born about 4.5 billion years ago and the planets, including Earth.
If we take that 4.5 billion year history of Earth and make it 24 hours(midnight to midnight) the first life appears at ~9:00am.
The first multi cellular life did not appear until 9:00 pm.
The last dinosaur(except the birds) died about 11:30 pm.
The entire history of mammals is covered in the last 40 minutes or so.
The first hominid evidence in the last 3 minutes, modern humans the last 10 seconds, recorded history the last second.
These are the things we know, we've shown you the evidence, now it's up to you to prove us wrong,
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 14 2005, 04:37 PM)
Assumption number 1, where has it been posted that the human body need to be perfect?
Assumption 2, that newer species cannot include characteristics of older older species.
I have not said that evolution did not happen, I stated that life and evolution are not a product of a random, spontaneous chain of event. Evolution may have been pre-programmed as part of all that "extra" DNA.
1) The entire ID debate is about "everything is made so perfectly it HAS to have a creator".
2) Also, part of the ID debate.
And the rest, if that's true, doesn't matter. Evolution is still true, which means ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
Assumption 2, that newer species cannot include characteristics of older older species.
I have not said that evolution did not happen, I stated that life and evolution are not a product of a random, spontaneous chain of event. Evolution may have been pre-programmed as part of all that "extra" DNA.
1) The entire ID debate is about "everything is made so perfectly it HAS to have a creator".
2) Also, part of the ID debate.
And the rest, if that's true, doesn't matter. Evolution is still true, which means ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
Thanks for the back up RC, but I got my answer, it's amazing how flimsy and flexible God's Divine Plan is, isn't it?
QUOTE (Capn Caveman+Dec 14 2005, 09:57 PM)
Thanks for the back up RC, but I got my answer, it's amazing how flimsy and flexible God's Divine Plan is, isn't it?
.
.
CC.
What 'plan', mate? Seems more like disastrous mistake heaped on disastrous mistake...especially with all these religious 'self-aware' tomato plants roaming the planet masquerading as 'intelligent' "teachers" and whatnot! Frightening incompetence on a biblical scale, I calls it. The god responsible for such monstrosities oughtta have his/her 'creation' licence revoked!
RC
.
.
CC.
What 'plan', mate? Seems more like disastrous mistake heaped on disastrous mistake...especially with all these religious 'self-aware' tomato plants roaming the planet masquerading as 'intelligent' "teachers" and whatnot! Frightening incompetence on a biblical scale, I calls it. The god responsible for such monstrosities oughtta have his/her 'creation' licence revoked!
RC
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 14 2005, 10:29 PM)
QUOTE (Capn Caveman+Dec 14 2005, 09:57 PM)
Thanks for the back up RC, but I got my answer, it's amazing how flimsy and flexible God's Divine Plan is, isn't it?
.
.
CC.
What 'plan', mate? Seems more like disastrous mistake heaped on disastrous mistake...especially with all these religious 'self-aware' tomato plants roaming the planet masquerading as 'intelligent' "teachers" and whatnot! Frightening incompetence on a biblical scale, I calls it. The god responsible for such monstrosities oughtta have his/her 'creation' licence revoked!
RC
"In any decently run universe he would've been out on his all-powerful *** a long time ago." -- George Carlin
.
.
CC.
What 'plan', mate? Seems more like disastrous mistake heaped on disastrous mistake...especially with all these religious 'self-aware' tomato plants roaming the planet masquerading as 'intelligent' "teachers" and whatnot! Frightening incompetence on a biblical scale, I calls it. The god responsible for such monstrosities oughtta have his/her 'creation' licence revoked!
RC
"In any decently run universe he would've been out on his all-powerful *** a long time ago." -- George Carlin
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 14 2005, 09:15 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 14 2005, 04:37 PM)
Assumption number 1, where has it been posted that the human body need to be perfect?
Assumption 2, that newer species cannot include characteristics of older older species.
I have not said that evolution did not happen, I stated that life and evolution are not a product of a random, spontaneous chain of event. Evolution may have been pre-programmed as part of all that "extra" DNA.
1) The entire ID debate is about "everything is made so perfectly it HAS to have a creator".
2) Also, part of the ID debate.
And the rest, if that's true, doesn't matter. Evolution is still true, which means ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
If you keep trying to rewrite the question we'll never get anywhere, I have not posted a reference to anything being perfect. Not only do you have a biased, preconceived opinion of the outcome, you also have the same bias that stops you from understanding the fundamentals of the question. And please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
This argument has nothing to do with perfection . . . your assumption was wrong again! Do you ever get sick of hearing that?
Here's a reminder:
Fact - a provable, repeatable, observable event that did happen.
Opinion - a view taken that is based solely on personal judgment of evidence.
Because you may have had the discussion before with others that try to "prove" Theology, you are wrong to assume that my points have any theological basis, I'm using the same science and logic that you (should be) using.
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
If you keep trying to rewrite the question we'll never get anywhere, I have not posted a reference to anything being perfect. Not only do you have a biased, preconceived opinion of the outcome, you also have the same bias that stops you from understanding the fundamentals of the question. And please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
This argument has nothing to do with perfection . . . your assumption was wrong again! Do you ever get sick of hearing that?
Here's a reminder:
Fact - a provable, repeatable, observable event that did happen.
Opinion - a view taken that is based solely on personal judgment of evidence.
Because you may have had the discussion before with others that try to "prove" Theology, you are wrong to assume that my points have any theological basis, I'm using the same science and logic that you (should be) using.
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
to have a creator".
2) Also, part of the ID debate.
And the rest, if that's true, doesn't matter. Evolution is still true, which means ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
If you remember reading posting before, ID evolution and spontaneous evolution have two different methodologies, they have similarities but they are not the same.
You are under the misconception that ID would replace the standard model of evolution in schools, another wrong assumption. The way the Federal laws are written as of now, we could not have this debate in the public school without the threat of loosing government funding, ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
ID is not Christianity and Christianity is not ID, there are plenty of Jewish and Moslem people also that prefer the concept of ID to spontaneous evolution. Because it is now politically correct to perform "Christian Bashing" (now becoming as big of a problem as racism is/was), It is not a scientific stance against ID ,its political.
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
Assumption 2, that newer species cannot include characteristics of older older species.
I have not said that evolution did not happen, I stated that life and evolution are not a product of a random, spontaneous chain of event. Evolution may have been pre-programmed as part of all that "extra" DNA.
1) The entire ID debate is about "everything is made so perfectly it HAS to have a creator".
2) Also, part of the ID debate.
And the rest, if that's true, doesn't matter. Evolution is still true, which means ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
QUOTE
1) The entire ID debate is about "everything is made so perfectly it HAS to have a creator".
If you keep trying to rewrite the question we'll never get anywhere, I have not posted a reference to anything being perfect. Not only do you have a biased, preconceived opinion of the outcome, you also have the same bias that stops you from understanding the fundamentals of the question. And please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
This argument has nothing to do with perfection . . . your assumption was wrong again! Do you ever get sick of hearing that?
Here's a reminder:
Fact - a provable, repeatable, observable event that did happen.
Opinion - a view taken that is based solely on personal judgment of evidence.
Because you may have had the discussion before with others that try to "prove" Theology, you are wrong to assume that my points have any theological basis, I'm using the same science and logic that you (should be) using.
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) The entire ID debate is about "everything is made so perfectly it HAS to have a creator". |
If you keep trying to rewrite the question we'll never get anywhere, I have not posted a reference to anything being perfect. Not only do you have a biased, preconceived opinion of the outcome, you also have the same bias that stops you from understanding the fundamentals of the question. And please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
This argument has nothing to do with perfection . . . your assumption was wrong again! Do you ever get sick of hearing that?
Here's a reminder:
Fact - a provable, repeatable, observable event that did happen.
Opinion - a view taken that is based solely on personal judgment of evidence.
Because you may have had the discussion before with others that try to "prove" Theology, you are wrong to assume that my points have any theological basis, I'm using the same science and logic that you (should be) using.
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
to have a creator".
2) Also, part of the ID debate.
And the rest, if that's true, doesn't matter. Evolution is still true, which means ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
If you remember reading posting before, ID evolution and spontaneous evolution have two different methodologies, they have similarities but they are not the same.
You are under the misconception that ID would replace the standard model of evolution in schools, another wrong assumption. The way the Federal laws are written as of now, we could not have this debate in the public school without the threat of loosing government funding, ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
ID is not Christianity and Christianity is not ID, there are plenty of Jewish and Moslem people also that prefer the concept of ID to spontaneous evolution. Because it is now politically correct to perform "Christian Bashing" (now becoming as big of a problem as racism is/was), It is not a scientific stance against ID ,its political.
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
QUOTE (S.Bilderback+)
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
Huh??? What does that mean? Please explain.
Huh??? What does that mean? Please explain.
QUOTE (newguy+Dec 15 2005, 02:14 AM)
QUOTE (S.Bilderback+)
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
Huh??? What does that mean? Please explain.
It is an exaggeration pertaining to the fear the liberals have that Christians will take over the country if don't keep them and their ideas totally suppressed.
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
If you remember reading posting before, ID evolution and spontaneous evolution have two different methodologies, they have similarities but they are not the same.
You are under the misconception that ID would replace the standard model of evolution in schools, another wrong assumption. The way the Federal laws are written as of now, we could not have this debate in the public school without the threat of loosing government funding, ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
ID is not Christianity and Christianity is not ID, there are plenty of Jewish and Moslem people also that prefer the concept of ID to spontaneous evolution. Because it is now politically correct to perform "Christian Bashing" (now becoming as big of a problem as racism is/was), It is not a scientific stance against ID ,its political.
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
ID is not science. That's why it's not in science classes and doesn't belong there. And it's not SPECIFICALLY christianity, but it IS religion in general because it involves god. That belongs in a theology course. Not a science course.
Also, evolution is not a chance act. Not by any means. You need to get past that thought before you try and discredit it.
If you want your children to learn ID, teach them at home, or send them to private school.
Please define the word "science" in your own words.
Huh??? What does that mean? Please explain. It is an exaggeration pertaining to the fear the liberals have that Christians will take over the country if don't keep them and their ideas totally suppressed.
QUOTE
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not. Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory. |
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
If you remember reading posting before, ID evolution and spontaneous evolution have two different methodologies, they have similarities but they are not the same.
You are under the misconception that ID would replace the standard model of evolution in schools, another wrong assumption. The way the Federal laws are written as of now, we could not have this debate in the public school without the threat of loosing government funding, ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
ID is not Christianity and Christianity is not ID, there are plenty of Jewish and Moslem people also that prefer the concept of ID to spontaneous evolution. Because it is now politically correct to perform "Christian Bashing" (now becoming as big of a problem as racism is/was), It is not a scientific stance against ID ,its political.
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
ID is not science. That's why it's not in science classes and doesn't belong there. And it's not SPECIFICALLY christianity, but it IS religion in general because it involves god. That belongs in a theology course. Not a science course.
Also, evolution is not a chance act. Not by any means. You need to get past that thought before you try and discredit it.
If you want your children to learn ID, teach them at home, or send them to private school.
Please define the word "science" in your own words.
SB,
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 14 2005, 06:44 AM)
Messenger:
Good job on that last posting!
Thank you very much.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grumpy,
Serious question:
Do you think animals sin? I don't. Sure, they can get mean once in a while - but that's just a defense mechanism. Why do yo think they don't 'sin'?
Awwww. Does it get any better than this? We're trying to adopt a Golden Retriever. We used to have both a Black Lab and a Golden Retriever - but that was over 10 years ago, and now we think it's time to get another dog.
DoG (God spelled backwards - there has to be something to this)
Funny Joke:
A Dog is pondering life one day, and considers that the people he lives with are really nice, they feed him, play with him, and they give him a roof over his head.
He thinks to himself, they must be God.
(see the rest of the story below)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very funny. So you do have a sense of humor.
Funny Joke Conclusion:
A Cat is pondering life one day and considers that the people he lives with are really nice, they feed him, play with him, and give him a roof over his head.
He thinks to himself, I must be God
-------------------------------------------
Just an FYI - I'm working way too much lately, and I don't have too much time to post.
All together now: Awwwwww, that's too bad.
When I'm not near a computer, I always have a book nearby - I am currently studying various aspects of Christianity/religion, and even science. I have a handful (like 12) books on the two topics. I read all the time - I have about 6 books in my car and I read at stop lights (while I'm stopped of course), and anywhere else I can. So I'll be even smarter the next time I post.
And I always have time to laugh. And I'll bet you just did.
Later,
I have an agnostic friend who suffers from dyslexia.
He is also an insomniac.
So he lies awake at night wondering if there really is a Dog.
Arthur
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
If you remember reading posting before, ID evolution and spontaneous evolution have two different methodologies, they have similarities but they are not the same.
You are under the misconception that ID would replace the standard model of evolution in schools, another wrong assumption. The way the Federal laws are written as of now, we could not have this debate in the public school without the threat of loosing government funding, ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
ID is not Christianity and Christianity is not ID, there are plenty of Jewish and Moslem people also that prefer the concept of ID to spontaneous evolution. Because it is now politically correct to perform "Christian Bashing" (now becoming as big of a problem as racism is/was), It is not a scientific stance against ID ,its political.
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
ID is not science. That's why it's not in science classes and doesn't belong there. And it's not SPECIFICALLY christianity, but it IS religion in general because it involves god. That belongs in a theology course. Not a science course.
Also, evolution is not a chance act. Not by any means. You need to get past that thought before you try and discredit it.
If you want your children to learn ID, teach them at home, or send them to private school.
Please define the word "science" in your own words.
[Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Where have you seen it posted where the origin of life started from un-natural means? Yet another false assumption! Your minds need to become more open and aware of what you don't know, you don't know. Once again you are trying to rewrite the question to fit you preconceived outcome. ALL the data , facts, observations in every field of the sciences need to examined as the "Big Picture".
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
Good job on that last posting!
Thank you very much.-----------------------------------------------------------
Grumpy,
Serious question:
Do you think animals sin? I don't. Sure, they can get mean once in a while - but that's just a defense mechanism. Why do yo think they don't 'sin'?
Awwww. Does it get any better than this? We're trying to adopt a Golden Retriever. We used to have both a Black Lab and a Golden Retriever - but that was over 10 years ago, and now we think it's time to get another dog.
DoG (God spelled backwards - there has to be something to this)
Funny Joke:
A Dog is pondering life one day, and considers that the people he lives with are really nice, they feed him, play with him, and they give him a roof over his head.
He thinks to himself, they must be God.
(see the rest of the story below)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Mess) Give me an example of the multitudes of the unawares, please. Careful what you wish for Mess! hehehe. Regards, RC. |
Very funny. So you do have a sense of humor.
Funny Joke Conclusion:
A Cat is pondering life one day and considers that the people he lives with are really nice, they feed him, play with him, and give him a roof over his head.
He thinks to himself, I must be God
-------------------------------------------
Just an FYI - I'm working way too much lately, and I don't have too much time to post.
All together now: Awwwwww, that's too bad.
When I'm not near a computer, I always have a book nearby - I am currently studying various aspects of Christianity/religion, and even science. I have a handful (like 12) books on the two topics. I read all the time - I have about 6 books in my car and I read at stop lights (while I'm stopped of course), and anywhere else I can. So I'll be even smarter the next time I post.
And I always have time to laugh. And I'll bet you just did.
Later,
QUOTE
A Cat is pondering life one day and considers that the people he lives with are really nice, they feed him, play with him, and give him a roof over his head.
He thinks to himself, I must be God
He thinks to himself, I must be God
I have an agnostic friend who suffers from dyslexia.
He is also an insomniac.
So he lies awake at night wondering if there really is a Dog.
Arthur
.
hehehe
hehehe
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 15 2005, 03:27 AM)
QUOTE
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not. Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory. |
You seem to either forget (or not know about) the several mass extinctions that have taken place on this planet. You're not too knowledgeable for a teacher. Every time a mass extinction has taken place, a small minority of animals survive. Then it is those that perpetuate life on the planet and evolve into other animals.
To be basic for your simple mind, it significantly narrows the variety of animals on the planet.
So, go fish.
If you remember reading posting before, ID evolution and spontaneous evolution have two different methodologies, they have similarities but they are not the same.
You are under the misconception that ID would replace the standard model of evolution in schools, another wrong assumption. The way the Federal laws are written as of now, we could not have this debate in the public school without the threat of loosing government funding, ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
ID is not Christianity and Christianity is not ID, there are plenty of Jewish and Moslem people also that prefer the concept of ID to spontaneous evolution. Because it is now politically correct to perform "Christian Bashing" (now becoming as big of a problem as racism is/was), It is not a scientific stance against ID ,its political.
P.S. If ID is mentioned in public schools, the Pope doesn't automatically get to become King.
ID is not science. That's why it's not in science classes and doesn't belong there. And it's not SPECIFICALLY christianity, but it IS religion in general because it involves god. That belongs in a theology course. Not a science course.
Also, evolution is not a chance act. Not by any means. You need to get past that thought before you try and discredit it.
If you want your children to learn ID, teach them at home, or send them to private school.
Please define the word "science" in your own words.
[Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
QUOTE
ID is not science. That's why it's not in science classes and doesn't belong there. And it's not SPECIFICALLY Christianity, but it IS religion in general because it involves god. That belongs in a theology course. Not a science course.
Where have you seen it posted where the origin of life started from un-natural means? Yet another false assumption! Your minds need to become more open and aware of what you don't know, you don't know. Once again you are trying to rewrite the question to fit you preconceived outcome. ALL the data , facts, observations in every field of the sciences need to examined as the "Big Picture".
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
Hi all,
Just a quick note to pass on a very intersting article about the human brain.
Written by 'them' - but it's just as easy to put an 'us' (Intelligent Design) slant on it.
"A gene known to be important for brain development is more active in humans than in apes,
a discovery that might have played a key role in human evolution.
The gene is used by cells to make an opiatelike protein found in apes and humans called "prodynorphin," or PDYN.
In humans, PDYN is believed to be important for perception, memory and susceptibility to drug dependence.
People who don’t make enough of the protein are vulnerable to drug addiction, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder
and a form of epilepsy, studies have found."
From this MSNBC article:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10466677/
Source:
Ancient and Recent Positive Selection Transformed Opioid cis-Regulation in Humans
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?...al.pbio.0030387
If I were to tell you what was running through my brain right now - you would be convinced that I've gone off the deep end. So I'll just keep it to myself, and see if it surfaces from anyone else. Hint: It has to do with the Path of Knowledge.
Have a good day,
Just a quick note to pass on a very intersting article about the human brain.
Written by 'them' - but it's just as easy to put an 'us' (Intelligent Design) slant on it.
"A gene known to be important for brain development is more active in humans than in apes,
a discovery that might have played a key role in human evolution.
The gene is used by cells to make an opiatelike protein found in apes and humans called "prodynorphin," or PDYN.
In humans, PDYN is believed to be important for perception, memory and susceptibility to drug dependence.
People who don’t make enough of the protein are vulnerable to drug addiction, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder
and a form of epilepsy, studies have found."
From this MSNBC article:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10466677/
Source:
Ancient and Recent Positive Selection Transformed Opioid cis-Regulation in Humans
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?...al.pbio.0030387
If I were to tell you what was running through my brain right now - you would be convinced that I've gone off the deep end. So I'll just keep it to myself, and see if it surfaces from anyone else. Hint: It has to do with the Path of Knowledge.
Have a good day,
S. Bilderback
Once again showing your incredible lack of knowledge of what science is.
Unbiased and based on the evidence.
Unbiased and based on the evidence.
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the sientific method.
You make a prediction of what will happen based on erronius math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
Yes, it is an opinion, one that real science shows to be WRONG and therefore not worth wasting any more time discussing.
Yes, it is an opinion, one that real science shows to be WRONG and therefore not worth wasting any more time discussing.
ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
Let's see, the Americans of African descent were finally given their right to have equal treatment under the law by the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Bill of Rights and then that same court, using the same Bill of Rights throws Creationism out of those same public schools because it is religion masked as science and ID is Creationism light("No God in here,wink wink, nudge,nudge, know what I mean?"). Neither is science. And they are somehow equivelant??????
THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES IN EVOLUTION THAT CREATIONISM CAN ADDRESS.
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory
Wrong, the real Astronomers make observations and determine spectra, distance, life cycles etc.,Cosmologists use their data to form and test theories, most of them(if not all) think the Big Bang theory is a pretty good model of the early universe.
No one who actually knew the fossil record could say something that stupid.
Early life(Chemical then one celled 3.8 billion to present)
Muticelled life (800 million to present)
Chordate(backboned) life is 540 million years ago to present.
The first land dwelling animal sometime in the Cambrian expansion which lasted 30 million years. 540-510 million.(probably insects and arachnids)
Everything else 510 million to present.
Grumpy
Once again showing your incredible lack of knowledge of what science is.
QUOTE
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Unbiased and based on the evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena. |
Unbiased and based on the evidence.
If life was to evolve by random chance, there should be a higher amount of diversity from organisms that speciate and diversified 3+ billion years ago, such as the 120 asexual reproductions. The two levels of diversity should mathematically be proportional. They are not.
Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the sientific method.
You make a prediction of what will happen based on erronius math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
QUOTE
Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory.
Yes, it is an opinion, one that real science shows to be WRONG and therefore not worth wasting any more time discussing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, that is an opinion - a science based opinion, and an anomaly to a flow of logic that any unbiased scientist would note as a discrepancy to the theory. |
Yes, it is an opinion, one that real science shows to be WRONG and therefore not worth wasting any more time discussing.
ID is a relevant argument that addresses the flaws in the theory of evolution, I cannot think of a better way to resolve those discrepancies than to bring them to light and debate them; not push them under a rug and pretend that they don't exist. Your statement is as barbaric as the segregation of schools - "Those colored folk have no business being in them schools with our children, because . . . ".
Let's see, the Americans of African descent were finally given their right to have equal treatment under the law by the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Bill of Rights and then that same court, using the same Bill of Rights throws Creationism out of those same public schools because it is religion masked as science and ID is Creationism light("No God in here,wink wink, nudge,nudge, know what I mean?"). Neither is science. And they are somehow equivelant??????
THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES IN EVOLUTION THAT CREATIONISM CAN ADDRESS.
QUOTE
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Question 1). Did the big bang happen? (Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing. Question 2). How? (You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent) |
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory
Wrong, the real Astronomers make observations and determine spectra, distance, life cycles etc.,Cosmologists use their data to form and test theories, most of them(if not all) think the Big Bang theory is a pretty good model of the early universe.
QUOTE
Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years.
No one who actually knew the fossil record could say something that stupid.
Early life(Chemical then one celled 3.8 billion to present)
Muticelled life (800 million to present)
Chordate(backboned) life is 540 million years ago to present.
The first land dwelling animal sometime in the Cambrian expansion which lasted 30 million years. 540-510 million.(probably insects and arachnids)
Everything else 510 million to present.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
Where have you seen it posted where the origin of life started from un-natural means? Yet another false assumption! Your minds need to become more open and aware of what you don't know, you don't know. Once again you are trying to rewrite the question to fit you preconceived outcome. ALL the data , facts, observations in every field of the sciences need to examined as the "Big Picture".
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today, so I'll go with it.
I bolded my favorite part. You don't have any sort of qualifications, yet you know everything (nothing).
As I said before, I long for the days when arrogance combined with ignorance would've gotten people eaten. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Others of us would be discussing how weird it was to watch Bilderback carried off by a large cat and eaten.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today, so I'll go with it.
I bolded my favorite part. You don't have any sort of qualifications, yet you know everything (nothing).
As I said before, I long for the days when arrogance combined with ignorance would've gotten people eaten. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Others of us would be discussing how weird it was to watch Bilderback carried off by a large cat and eaten.
QUOTE
[Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 15 2005, 05:06 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
Where have you seen it posted where the origin of life started from un-natural means? Yet another false assumption! Your minds need to become more open and aware of what you don't know, you don't know. Once again you are trying to rewrite the question to fit you preconceived outcome. ALL the data , facts, observations in every field of the sciences need to examined as the "Big Picture".
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today, so I'll go with it.
I bolded my favorite part. You don't have any sort of qualifications, yet you know everything (nothing).
As I said before, I long for the days when arrogance combined with ignorance would've gotten people eaten. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Others of us would be discussing how weird it was to watch Bilderback carried off by a large cat and eaten.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today
You do not know the needed science to prove anything wrong! You are faith based!
It's like you know how to paint window trim so you think you know how to erect an entire city - and you don't!
Then there is the theories how something like the BB could have happened; something does not emanate from nothing. Haven't you ever pondered or researched these questions or are you still running on faith?
I apologize for not clearly stating my statement on constant presents of organisms, I did not intend to mean ALL organisms have been present all the time, I meant that once vertebrae appeared they never disappeared.
Grumpy:
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
This is not logic but a presumption used by the likes of “Dr” Hovind in order to cloud the issue.
If life originated here or was deposited here on the back of a piece of space debris, it makes no impact upon evolution of that life on this planet. The reality of the science of evolution is that it seeks only to understand the mechanisms of change, not the origin, of life. You may not like this fact, but reality rarely yields to the will of one individual.
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today, so I'll go with it.
I bolded my favorite part. You don't have any sort of qualifications, yet you know everything (nothing).
As I said before, I long for the days when arrogance combined with ignorance would've gotten people eaten. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Others of us would be discussing how weird it was to watch Bilderback carried off by a large cat and eaten.
QUOTE
[Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering. Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena. |
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today
You do not know the needed science to prove anything wrong! You are faith based!
It's like you know how to paint window trim so you think you know how to erect an entire city - and you don't!
Then there is the theories how something like the BB could have happened; something does not emanate from nothing. Haven't you ever pondered or researched these questions or are you still running on faith?
I apologize for not clearly stating my statement on constant presents of organisms, I did not intend to mean ALL organisms have been present all the time, I meant that once vertebrae appeared they never disappeared.
Grumpy:
QUOTE
Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
If the shoe fits . . . (especially that last line)You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the scientific method. You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.) Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen) Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING. |
If the shoe fits . . . (especially that last line)
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
QUOTE
I understand but I do not accept them.
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
The BB to right now has all been one event, the basis for one event is the basis for the others that followed. Ignoring the methodology to support a preconceived outcome is not science. It is a religion.
Is this some thing you understand or do I need to elaborate further?
These questions and rebuttals are the same worn out, reheated, blossa' hash that is at least 20 years old, let' s hear some new, cutting edge evidence.
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
QUOTE
I understand but I do not accept them.
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
The BB to right now has all been one event, the basis for one event is the basis for the others that followed. Ignoring the methodology to support a preconceived outcome is not science. It is a religion.
Is this some thing you understand or do I need to elaborate further?
These questions and rebuttals are the same worn out, reheated, blossa' hash that is at least 20 years old, let' s hear some new, cutting edge evidence.
QUOTE
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
This is not logic but a presumption used by the likes of “Dr” Hovind in order to cloud the issue.
If life originated here or was deposited here on the back of a piece of space debris, it makes no impact upon evolution of that life on this planet. The reality of the science of evolution is that it seeks only to understand the mechanisms of change, not the origin, of life. You may not like this fact, but reality rarely yields to the will of one individual.
Actually the "something from nothing" arguement does stand up it's called a "vacuum fluctuation" it happens all the time in Quantum Mechanics, tiny virtual particles popping up and disappearing all the time.
Your field of vision seems to be stuck only on the refutation of long-held scientific theory, have you even explored the alternative to the BB?
It's call "steady-state" or "oscillating stready-state" which leaves no room for even an initial creator at all.
You're like a monkey playing in a toolshed! (Don't worry, your kids (perish the thought) still have a chance, they could evolve...
Your field of vision seems to be stuck only on the refutation of long-held scientific theory, have you even explored the alternative to the BB?
It's call "steady-state" or "oscillating stready-state" which leaves no room for even an initial creator at all.
You're like a monkey playing in a toolshed! (Don't worry, your kids (perish the thought) still have a chance, they could evolve...
Bilderback
In what reality??? You have no evidence to support your statements while I have provided copious evidence supporting mine(of which you have failed to falsify any of it). Your "I say so" means that we can believe the negative of everything you say and be right most of the time. Without evidence your CSBS/ID(Creationist Light) house of cards folds up under the truth about the reality science shows us.
Don't make me start with the remedial basic science class again, enough with your false witness, already!
In what reality??? You have no evidence to support your statements while I have provided copious evidence supporting mine(of which you have failed to falsify any of it). Your "I say so" means that we can believe the negative of everything you say and be right most of the time. Without evidence your CSBS/ID(Creationist Light) house of cards folds up under the truth about the reality science shows us.
Don't make me start with the remedial basic science class again, enough with your false witness, already!
Grumpy:
QUOTE
Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
If the shoe fits . . . (especially that last line)
Your darn right the shoe fits, my quote above describes the steps necessary to refine any hypothesis.
1.You make the prediction that biogenesis could not occur due to it being "mathematically" impossible.
2. The fossil record shows that it did happen(we have fossils in rock more than 3.7 billion years old).
3. Your prediction was wrong, as shown by those fossils.
4. The scientific thing to do is to rework your predictions to reflect reality, because you missed something in your initial assumptions for your probability calculations.
4a. You insist your origional calculations were correct and that reality is in error yet you show no proof of your assertion.
Only someone with an extensive education in cellular chemistry would be able to make accurate assumptions of the probability of certain chemical reactions forming a self replicating molecule. Those with those types of degrees say life, given the right conditions and enough time(millions, not billions) is almost inevitable.
And that, my friend, is science.
Grumpy
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
I would be interested to know the source of the above statements. First, every point in space is the "center of expansion", since space itself has been expanding since the BB. All galaxies are moving away from ours, and if I were in another galaxy I'd see the same thing. Second, what is the source of the CBR if not the BB? Third, the temperature of the CBR is a few degrees above 0 Kelvin (as predicted based on the BB theory, before its temperature was measured) precisely because of the expansion of the universe since the BB - expansion causes a loss of heat, remember?
QUOTE
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
In what reality??? You have no evidence to support your statements while I have provided copious evidence supporting mine(of which you have failed to falsify any of it). Your "I say so" means that we can believe the negative of everything you say and be right most of the time. Without evidence your CSBS/ID(Creationist Light) house of cards folds up under the truth about the reality science shows us.
Don't make me start with the remedial basic science class again, enough with your false witness, already!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there. |
In what reality??? You have no evidence to support your statements while I have provided copious evidence supporting mine(of which you have failed to falsify any of it). Your "I say so" means that we can believe the negative of everything you say and be right most of the time. Without evidence your CSBS/ID(Creationist Light) house of cards folds up under the truth about the reality science shows us.
Don't make me start with the remedial basic science class again, enough with your false witness, already!
Grumpy:
QUOTE
Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
If the shoe fits . . . (especially that last line)
Your darn right the shoe fits, my quote above describes the steps necessary to refine any hypothesis.
1.You make the prediction that biogenesis could not occur due to it being "mathematically" impossible.
2. The fossil record shows that it did happen(we have fossils in rock more than 3.7 billion years old).
3. Your prediction was wrong, as shown by those fossils.
4. The scientific thing to do is to rework your predictions to reflect reality, because you missed something in your initial assumptions for your probability calculations.
4a. You insist your origional calculations were correct and that reality is in error yet you show no proof of your assertion.
Only someone with an extensive education in cellular chemistry would be able to make accurate assumptions of the probability of certain chemical reactions forming a self replicating molecule. Those with those types of degrees say life, given the right conditions and enough time(millions, not billions) is almost inevitable.
And that, my friend, is science.
Grumpy
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
I would be interested to know the source of the above statements. First, every point in space is the "center of expansion", since space itself has been expanding since the BB. All galaxies are moving away from ours, and if I were in another galaxy I'd see the same thing. Second, what is the source of the CBR if not the BB? Third, the temperature of the CBR is a few degrees above 0 Kelvin (as predicted based on the BB theory, before its temperature was measured) precisely because of the expansion of the universe since the BB - expansion causes a loss of heat, remember?
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
Again, source? Does this take into account errors in measurement, which in the case of red shift calculations can be significant?
Then there is the theories how something like the BB could have happened; something does not emanate from nothing. Haven't you ever pondered or researched these questions or are you still running on faith?
I'm not aware of any strong theories of what things were prior to the big bang. Some hypotheses regarding quantum vacuum fluctuations, but so what? Since it's hard to imagine any physical evidence existing prior to the big bang, it's quite possible this will always be speculation. The BB theory does not address anything before it, but it agrees with the evidence in those areas it does address.
Again, source? Does this take into account errors in measurement, which in the case of red shift calculations can be significant?
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
Then there is the theories how something like the BB could have happened; something does not emanate from nothing. Haven't you ever pondered or researched these questions or are you still running on faith?
I'm not aware of any strong theories of what things were prior to the big bang. Some hypotheses regarding quantum vacuum fluctuations, but so what? Since it's hard to imagine any physical evidence existing prior to the big bang, it's quite possible this will always be speculation. The BB theory does not address anything before it, but it agrees with the evidence in those areas it does address.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
Science does not address non-quantitative (qualitative) values. Science does not address beauty, art, morality, or preferences either. So what? Auto motive engineering doesn't address furniture making, so therefore those are both faulty? By your reasoning, since the bible doesn't address quantum mechanics, it too is flawed, faulty, incorrect, bogus.
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
The BB to right now has all been one event, the basis for one event is the basis for the others that followed. Ignoring the methodology to support a preconceived outcome is not science. It is a religion.
A statement of opinion on your part. Again by your reasoning, if science cannot explain everything, everything it does explain is therefore faulty. And again by your reasoning, if a religion does not explain everything (which would include all of science as a subset) it must also be faulty.
Science does not address non-quantitative (qualitative) values. Science does not address beauty, art, morality, or preferences either. So what? Auto motive engineering doesn't address furniture making, so therefore those are both faulty? By your reasoning, since the bible doesn't address quantum mechanics, it too is flawed, faulty, incorrect, bogus.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
The BB to right now has all been one event, the basis for one event is the basis for the others that followed. Ignoring the methodology to support a preconceived outcome is not science. It is a religion.
A statement of opinion on your part. Again by your reasoning, if science cannot explain everything, everything it does explain is therefore faulty. And again by your reasoning, if a religion does not explain everything (which would include all of science as a subset) it must also be faulty.
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 16 2005, 01:48 PM)
QUOTE (MXWordNerd+Dec 15 2005, 05:06 PM)
QUOTE (S. Bilderback+Dec 15 2005, 02:46 PM)
Where have you seen it posted where the origin of life started from un-natural means? Yet another false assumption! Your minds need to become more open and aware of what you don't know, you don't know. Once again you are trying to rewrite the question to fit you preconceived outcome. ALL the data , facts, observations in every field of the sciences need to examined as the "Big Picture".
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today, so I'll go with it.
I bolded my favorite part. You don't have any sort of qualifications, yet you know everything (nothing).
As I said before, I long for the days when arrogance combined with ignorance would've gotten people eaten. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Others of us would be discussing how weird it was to watch Bilderback carried off by a large cat and eaten.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today
You do not know the needed science to prove anything wrong! You are faith based!
It's like you know how to paint window trim so you think you know how to erect an entire city - and you don't!
Then there is the theories how something like the BB could have happened; something does not emanate from nothing. Haven't you ever pondered or researched these questions or are you still running on faith?
I apologize for not clearly stating my statement on constant presents of organisms, I did not intend to mean ALL organisms have been present all the time, I meant that once vertebrae appeared they never disappeared.
Grumpy:
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
Defining the workings of the universe based on your knowledge base is the best way to be assured of being wrong! I'm beginning to believe that we need to step back the beginning of everything just so you can see how many non-provable assumption you base your faith on.
Question 1). Did the big bang happen?
(Top astronomers argue observations both proving and disproving the theory) Your theory of evolution is highly dependent on the "universe" spontaneously starting from nothing.
Question 2). How?
(You better read up on the latest theories - these theories are all interdependent)
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today, so I'll go with it.
I bolded my favorite part. You don't have any sort of qualifications, yet you know everything (nothing).
As I said before, I long for the days when arrogance combined with ignorance would've gotten people eaten. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Others of us would be discussing how weird it was to watch Bilderback carried off by a large cat and eaten.
QUOTE
[Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena.
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| [Yes there have been mass extinction, for your logic to work, all life would have had to restart from a single source after the mass extinction(s) to to account for the lack of diversity on the cellular level. Fossil records show that, algae, plankton and even vertebrates have had continuous presence over the last 3.5 billion years. The mass extinction supports my theory better than it does yours. I find you sense of logic bewildering. Science = the study and methodology of observations, identification, description, experimental investigation, and an unbiased theoretical explanation of the workings of phenomena. |
Nothing you said there is true. I want to see your factual data that shows any of that to be true, including the lack of diversity "on a cellular level" and the thought that vertebrates have been around for 3.5 billion years according to the fossil record.
You simply don't understand evolution. The lack of diversity, if you want to call it that, is evidence that we're even related to algae on some level. It's evolution.
You're completely off your rocker.
Also, your definition of science isn't "in your own words". Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I don't know where to begin, almost every statements in these last to postings is based on opinion, bad science and ignorance of latest scientific findings.
1. The the big bang theory does not stand up to all known science today - once again you're wrong!
CBR (cosmic background radiation) by the BB theory the CBR should be seen highest in the center of expansion, it is not. The CBR is uniform in every direction which has lead to some top astronomers to look for possible other theories.
There are galaxies with ages measured by "heat and color" (to keep it simple for you), that appear to be 7 to 8 billion years old, but by their red shift and proximity to other datable object, but they should not exceed 2 billion years old. Concluding that some object in the universe appear to predate the BB by 5 billion years.
I don't know if the big bang happened. But it stands up to all known science today
You do not know the needed science to prove anything wrong! You are faith based!
It's like you know how to paint window trim so you think you know how to erect an entire city - and you don't!
Then there is the theories how something like the BB could have happened; something does not emanate from nothing. Haven't you ever pondered or researched these questions or are you still running on faith?
I apologize for not clearly stating my statement on constant presents of organisms, I did not intend to mean ALL organisms have been present all the time, I meant that once vertebrae appeared they never disappeared.
Grumpy:
QUOTE
Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
If the shoe fits . . . (especially that last line)You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.)
Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen)
Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING.
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again with your misuse of math AND your misunderstanding of the scientific method. You make a prediction of what will happen based on erroneous math and evidence.(Should be... Can't be... Is impossible...Is too complex...Doesn't make mathimatical sense...Says you.) Your prediction does not match with reality(what DID happen) Your prediction is WRONG. Start over with your calculations, YOU MISSED SOMETHING. |
If the shoe fits . . . (especially that last line)
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
QUOTE
I understand but I do not accept them.
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
The BB to right now has all been one event, the basis for one event is the basis for the others that followed. Ignoring the methodology to support a preconceived outcome is not science. It is a religion.
Is this some thing you understand or do I need to elaborate further?
These questions and rebuttals are the same worn out, reheated, blossa' hash that is at least 20 years old, let' s hear some new, cutting edge evidence.
I'm still waiting for your fossil record of 3.5 billion year-old vertebrates.
My predictions do match what really did happened, yours do not. The object is not to keep rewriting the question until it fits you data you choose to use, it is using all data objectively and working from there.
Self-awareness is not a quantitative value yet it exists, your theory cannot explain it, not addressing the flaw in the theory or falsely stating is of no consequence is not the path to the truth. Or maybe you can explain what controls the little electrons zipping around in all living things keeping them alive, and why they would want to do that anyway.
Evolution on Earth began after the first life form appeared on this world.
How, if or what source that life came from makes no difference.
How, when, if this world got here by UPS or by FEDEX matters not in the least to evolutionary science.
So evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on if,when or how the Big Bang occurred.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS THREE SENTENCES???
QUOTE
I understand but I do not accept them.
As I have stated numerous times the methodology of life's evolution is dependent on the methodology of life began. Logic 101.
The BB to right now has all been one event, the basis for one event is the basis for the others that followed. Ignoring the methodology to support a preconceived outcome is not science. It is a religion.
Is this some thing you understand or do I need to elaborate further?
These questions and rebuttals are the same worn out, reheated, blossa' hash that is at least 20 years old, let' s hear some new, cutting edge evidence.
I'm still waiting for your fossil record of 3.5 billion year-old vertebrates.
QUOTE (Capn Caveman+Dec 16 2005, 03:46 PM)
Actually the "something from nothing" arguement does stand up it's called a "vacuum fluctuation" it happens all the time in Quantum Mechanics, tiny virtual particles popping up and disappearing all the time.