The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2020, 12:48:52 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Cool Comic Booklets.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20 Print
Author Topic: Cool Comic Booklets.  (Read 67615 times)
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #150 on: July 21, 2006, 09:31:59 am »

This is what is puzzling about life to me. It fills every niche possible. If there is a way for it to "make a living", it does. Without exception. Wether it's volcanic vents deep in the ocean, deep underground,high in the tallest mountains, or high in the atmosphere near the stratosphere.. It's there, everywhere.

Yes. The difference, it would appear, is that I believe it fills every niche because it can adapt, while you seem to feel that every one of these niches were designed and planned.

Quote
I think life is endowed with the ability to change to meet enviornmental challenges not just cosmetic changes. These changes are limited and, imo, transponson  genes / introns are 99.9% responsible.

http://healthfully.org/medicalscience/id10.html

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050615_jumping_genes.html

Transposable genes are why we each have unique features, even unique brains. These genes gently scramble the genetic information in a true darwinian sense but never in a harmful way. Scientists are baffled by this. Chance and nessescity can't account for these convieniences any more than it can account for chemical coded life in the first place.

So bacteria, who lack introns (except in their plasmids) should have no unique features?

Quote
I don't think a creator is constantly making new animals and new paths. I think life was thouroughly thought out ahead of time. Perhaps the earth was terraformed by life. Every animal we see may have been previously figured out at the beginning and allowed enough limited diversity to fullfill every niche imaginable. How new body plans come about is a mystery, perhaps it is indeed evolution, just that the scientific evidence doesn't seem to point there. At least not in the darwinian, blind, trial and error sense.

I must be misunderstanding you somewhere along the way, because at the moment your position does not make a lot of sense to me. Basically, you believe that life was designed by someone/something. You don't believe that the designer remains and creates new creatures. You don't believe that one species can change into another through evolution. Does this not imply that all species alive today must have been present throughout history all the way back towards creation? However, as an point against eviolution, you clai mthat an absence of fossils prove that there are no transitional species. Where are then all the fossils of modern day humans and animals that should be found right alongside the dinosaurs? If we were all designed with an ability to adapt to the enviroment, but without the ability to become somethign completely new, shouldn't we then have existed in a fairly similar form back then?

Or are you implying that someone designed a few microorganisms, that somehow contained the information necessary for these to become new creatures? That if we look at any bacteria, somewhere in their genome would be the code for "evolve into a multicellular being"?

Quote
Well plants and animals have a certain symbiont relationship. Oxygen breathing animals exhale CO2 which plants asorb and utilize. If CO2 ever gets out of control you have a greenhouse effect like that found on venus. Likewise, plants and plankton are responsible for keeping oxygen plentiful. Without oxygen, no air breathing life and no ozone to protect us from harmful radiation. Kinda funny how it works this way, coincidence? Perhaps the symbiont relationship is why plants and animals are so successful in the first place. In every geologic strata where there is fossilized flora, there is fossilized fauna and vice versa.. Without exception.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Plants and animals have a symbiotic relationship? Welcome to the ecological system, an irreducibly complex system? I honestly don't know what your itnent is here. Yes, plants consume CO2 (although all CO2 isn't produced by animals), and animals consume O2. That means animals are dependent on plants, but not necessarily vice versa.

Quote
Very true but those microbes are plankton that live within the top meter of the ocean's surface and use photosynthsis to break oxygen from water. If earth was like say mars, with no or a very tenius amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and plankton started the production of oxygen (producing the majority of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere), that means no ozone to protect them from the sun's radiation in the early years. Plankton fossils are found unchanged (no evolution) throughout the fossil record in every strata. The top 1 meter of ocean water would thus be saturated with harmful radiation and the planet would remain sterile of life.

Yes, if you assume that the atmosphere back then was exactly as now, minust the oxygen. I notice that this is a recurring trend i nyour thinking. Any protein functions must have always been as complex as now. Any system must have been as complicated as it is now, because without one part, it would not work.  In fact, the appearance of al lthese complex systems from nothing indicates design. The point being made at several places i nthis thread is that evolution means tha things change. Not everythign must have been exatly as now 3 million years ago. Not RNA, not organs, and definetly not the atmosphere. For example, here you can find this:

Quote

6.      Early (reducing) atmosphere

         1. The early atmosphere was likely dominated by carbon dioxide.
         2. Other gasses:

i.         Nitrogen was present in more than just trace amounts as was water vapor.

ii.       Trace gasses included methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid.

         3. Little molecular oxygen was present (i.e., approaching 0%).
         4. It is within this early reducing atmosphere that life first evolved.

An atomspehre without oxygen could be much thicker, thus protecting us in other ways.
Logged

What's up doc?
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #151 on: July 21, 2006, 05:30:46 pm »

I don't really want to get involved again... But I have a couple of things to mention:

Quote
Transposable genes are why we each have unique features, even unique brains. These genes gently scramble the genetic information in a true darwinian sense but never in a harmful way. Scientists are baffled by this.

False and false. Scientists are not baffled by transposons in the least; it is a well known fact that one of the requirements of a transposon is that part of its sequence codes for the enzyme "transposase," which is responsible for clipping the transposon out of its current location and transplanting it to a new one. When this segment of the DNA is missing or mutated, the transposon is no longer mobile.

In addition, transposons can be extremely harmful to their host organism. If a transposon is integrated in the middle of an essential gene, or worse yet, inserts itself into a location that prevents an essential gene from being transcribed (eg. disruptins a start codon), the results are often lethal for the host. This happens frequently enough, but it's not easily detectable in nature since the organism dies (and a unicellular corpse is pretty hard to find).

In relatively recent years (read: the last 10 years or so, because I learned about this in college), transposons have become an essential tool for scientists in the modification of plasmid DNA in bacteria. The desired insertion sequence is attached to the transposon after the transposase gene (but before the cleavage point that marks the end of the transposon), and the transposon is allowed to integrate itself into a bacterial plasmid. This plasmid is inserted into a host, and the activity of transposase is repressed, creating a stable host that carries the desired sequence on a plasmid.

If you would like to read more, I suggest this:

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

On a somewhat related note, I've been reading a fascinating book of late. It has lent some insight into this debate (specifically, debunking the argument that the only natural carriers of useful information are nucleic acids and their byproducts). It makes it very difficult (even moreso than before) to believe that life is anything other than a product of the natural order. It's entitled Decoding the Universe, written by Charles Seife. Check it out, if you're so inclined:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003441X/sr=8-1/qid=1153495192/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9116444-7597621?ie=UTF8
Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #152 on: July 21, 2006, 06:13:25 pm »

Re: transitional fossils, here's my personal hypothesis. Transitions can be a one time shot that is possible because there's no competition. With no competition you can be poor at something but still the best in your class. Once competition eventually tightens due to specialization, you're mediocre and go extinct. Now it's also much more difficult for beginners to break into that class. For example, rats living near an unpopulated lake might be in great competition for food on land, but none in water. Anyone taking advantage of the water food source will get quite an advantage over the land rats and produce lots of offspring (ideally 15k rats in 3 years, or so I've heard). Eventually there'll be much better (stable/optimized) water-rats and it's no longer feasable for the land rats to begin the transition into water rats (and keep doing it long enough to leave transitional fossils).

Everything is transitional to something though, the whole term is kind of silly. Maybe 'unstable', 'unoptimized' or 'currently lacking competition' is a better word than transitional?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2006, 06:21:50 pm by Arne » Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #153 on: July 22, 2006, 04:57:26 pm »

Quote
Yes. The difference, it would appear, is that I believe it fills every niche because it can adapt, while you seem to feel that every one of these niches were designed and planned.

No, we are in agreement here. I think life is designed to adapt.

Quote
So bacteria, who lack introns (except in their plasmids) should have no unique features?

Hunh? Introns are regulatory genes. They regulate the expression of other genes which produce protiens. It's easy to change the complexity of a protien but difficult to change the complexity of protiens and the introns that control them in a complementry, useful fashion.


Quote
I must be misunderstanding you somewhere along the way, because at the moment your position does not make a lot of sense to me. Basically, you believe that life was designed by someone/something. You don't believe that the designer remains and creates new creatures. You don't believe that one species can change into another through evolution.

I'm just saying the geologic and genetic evidence doesn't support neo darwinist macro evolution, not that it's impossible.

Quote
Does this not imply that all species alive today must have been present throughout history all the way back towards creation?

No it does not imply this. For example, If horses or a close realitive of horses was present from the beginning we should expect to find them in the cambrian strata. We do not. I believe different animals lived at different times just as darwinists do. The problem is we do not see a steady progression of complexity predicted by neo darwinism. The trilobites of cambrian times are just as complex as anything living today, just different. How these macro changes come about remains a mystery and cannot be accounted for by random mutation.

Quote
However, as an point against eviolution, you clai mthat an absence of fossils prove that there are no transitional species. Where are then all the fossils of modern day humans and animals that should be found right alongside the dinosaurs?

If darwin was right and macro evolution happend through small baby steps (one or very few mutations at a time) we should expect to see a staggering number of transitional species. In fact the evidence should be so overwhelming as to be unrefutable. From the fossil record we do not have a single conclusive progression of fossils showing these transitions from one species to the next. Not one.

Quote
If we were all designed with an ability to adapt to the enviroment, but without the ability to become somethign completely new, shouldn't we then have existed in a fairly similar form back then?

That's why it's still a mystery. We may be designed to become somthing completely new just not through a series of random genetic accidents as suggested by darwin.

Quote
Or are you implying that someone designed a few microorganisms, that somehow contained the information necessary for these to become new creatures? That if we look at any bacteria, somewhere in their genome would be the code for "evolve into a multicellular being"?

That is a possibility. I use Visual Basic. VB has a toolbox of objects in generic form. Text boxes,buttons, picture boxes, timer controls etc. I drag the tools I want to use to the forms I'm programming. I then progam specific codes to make these generic tools unique and behave in certain ways with specific uses within the overall program.

Life seems very similar to this in some regards. All life is comprised of the same basic building blocks (micro cellular machines, protiens, genetic codes, introns and jumping genes). Further, the earliest cambrian animals have eyes, gills, bone,blood vessels, hearts etc. that is in use by animals today. They are  just different. Amazingly these basics have remained the same throughout the history of life. They are just expressed differently.

Quote
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Plants and animals have a symbiotic relationship? Welcome to the ecological system, an irreducibly complex system? I honestly don't know what your itnent is here. Yes, plants consume CO2 (although all CO2 isn't produced by animals), and animals consume O2. That means animals are dependent on plants, but not necessarily vice versa.

Well no matter how Co2 is produced, too much CO2 in the atmosphere is presumed to be a bad thing. It would cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Likewise too little Co2 would cause freezing tempertures. My thought is that if only plants existed, eventually the Co2 levels would drop to the point where the world's tempeture would be too cold to support most plants. Thus plants and animals are complimentry to eachother in this regard. I'll admit I need to study this further.

Quote
Yes, if you assume that the atmosphere back then was exactly as now, minust the oxygen. I notice that this is a recurring trend i nyour thinking. Any protein functions must have always been as complex as now. Any system must have been as complicated as it is now, because without one part, it would not work.  In fact, the appearance of al lthese complex systems from nothing indicates design. The point being made at several places i nthis thread is that evolution means tha things change. Not everythign must have been exatly as now 3 million years ago. Not RNA, not organs, and definetly not the atmosphere. For example, here you can find this:

If evolution simply means change over time, that is fine. The problem is macro evolution and what supposidly drives it. There is no evidence that complexity has increased. The RNA, DNA, protien relationship is presumed to be exactly the same as millions of years ago. The complex organs may have changed but the basic, generic function remains the same.

Quote

6.      Early (reducing) atmosphere

         1. The early atmosphere was likely dominated by carbon dioxide.
         2. Other gasses:

i.         Nitrogen was present in more than just trace amounts as was water vapor.

ii.       Trace gasses included methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid.

         3. Little molecular oxygen was present (i.e., approaching 0%).
         4. It is within this early reducing atmosphere that life first evolved.

This is all theory and it's theory based on evolutionary premesis. Scientists really do not know what the early atmousphere was like.

Quote
An atomspehre without oxygen could be much thicker, thus protecting us in other ways.

Could be, unfortunately we do not have a time machine...
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #154 on: July 22, 2006, 05:17:57 pm »


Quote
False and false. Scientists are not baffled by transposons in the least; it is a well known fact that one of the requirements of a transposon is that part of its sequence codes for the enzyme "transposase," which is responsible for clipping the transposon out of its current location and transplanting it to a new one. When this segment of the DNA is missing or mutated, the transposon is no longer mobile.

It is one thing to say they know how somthing works and completely different to say why somthing works. What selection pressures put these intricate processes into play in the first place?

Quote
In addition, transposons can be extremely harmful to their host organism. If a transposon is integrated in the middle of an essential gene, or worse yet, inserts itself into a location that prevents an essential gene from being transcribed (eg. disruptins a start codon), the results are often lethal for the host. This happens frequently enough, but it's not easily detectable in nature since the organism dies (and a unicellular corpse is pretty hard to find).

Accidents happen, this is known. These occurances are bad and thankfully, realitively rare. I disagree with you assertion that it happens "frequently enough". This is supposidly how Evo Devo works. The jumping genes in the sex cells make a mistake and slighlty miss their target. *Poof* a new species. Roll Eyes

Quote
In relatively recent years (read: the last 10 years or so, because I learned about this in college), transposons have become an essential tool for scientists in the modification of plasmid DNA in bacteria. The desired insertion sequence is attached to the transposon after the transposase gene (but before the cleavage point that marks the end of the transposon), and the transposon is allowed to integrate itself into a bacterial plasmid. This plasmid is inserted into a host, and the activity of transposase is repressed, creating a stable host that carries the desired sequence on a plasmid.

Fascinating..Now how did natural selection evolve this ability?


Quote
It's entitled Decoding the Universe, written by Charles Seife. Check it out, if you're so inclined:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003441X/sr=8-1/qid=1153495192/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9116444-7597621?ie=UTF8

OK. I will... Unlike others (creationists and darwinists in particular), I read pretty much everything, not just material that supports "their side".
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #155 on: July 24, 2006, 07:49:45 am »

No, we are in agreement here. I think life is designed to adapt.

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, the only real difference between you and a darwinist is that you believe there is a purpose behind mutations, rather than them being random? While this is a perfectly fine belief to hold, I still don't see how you can claim that it is a scientific theory. You might just as well claim that you believe everything astronomy teach, except that you think there is a purpose behind the forming of solar systems. Or that you agree completely with scientists on how electrons work, but think that they are being held together by a purpose. Tying back to the original topic FTW.


Quote
Hunh? Introns are regulatory genes. They regulate the expression of other genes which produce protiens. It's easy to change the complexity of a protien but difficult to change the complexity of protiens and the introns that control them in a complementry, useful fashion.

Er, what now? To repeat, you said:

Quote
I think life is endowed with the ability to change to meet enviornmental challenges not just cosmetic changes. These changes are limited and, imo, transponson  genes / introns are 99.9% responsible.

To which I replied that bacteria don't have introns, and asking you if that means they are much less likely to change. As a rebuttal, you tell me how introns work. I do know how introns work. Please refrain from replying to questions that have not been asked, and limit yourself to answering the comments that are being made.

Quote
No it does not imply this. For example, If horses or a close realitive of horses was present from the beginning we should expect to find them in the cambrian strata. We do not. I believe different animals lived at different times just as darwinists do. The problem is we do not see a steady progression of complexity predicted by neo darwinism. The trilobites of cambrian times are just as complex as anything living today, just different. How these macro changes come about remains a mystery and cannot be accounted for by random mutation.

Alright, so you believe new species are created, but you believe that all these species are hidden away somewhere in the genetic code of every creature from the cambrian era? Also, fossils were covered previously. I'll adress them again further down.

Quote
If darwin was right and macro evolution happend through small baby steps (one or very few mutations at a time) we should expect to see a staggering number of transitional species. In fact the evidence should be so overwhelming as to be unrefutable. From the fossil record we do not have a single conclusive progression of fossils showing these transitions from one species to the next. Not one.

It is amazing to me how you at some points apparently receive dispensation from somewhere to not read the thread you are participating in. Please go back and reread what has been said about fossils earlier, as it will greatly save time if you do not bring up the same argument several times. If you disagree with the rebuttals that were placed after you originally made this claim, the prudent thing would be to respond to them first, not restate your belief and act as if it is a universal indisputable truth.

Quote
That's why it's still a mystery. We may be designed to become somthing completely new just not through a series of random genetic accidents as suggested by darwin.

Interesting. So your actual alternative to evolution is "Evolution is wrong, because: It's a mystery". Might I suggest that before claiming the status of scientific theory, you come up with slightly more than that? On a more religious note, the idea that we are predestined to evolve into somethign completely different, regardless of our wishes sits ratehr badly with the idea of free will. Not syaing this is what you believe, but it certainly clashes with my beliefs.

Quote
That is a possibility. I use Visual Basic. VB has a toolbox of objects in generic form. Text boxes,buttons, picture boxes, timer controls etc. I drag the tools I want to use to the forms I'm programming. I then progam specific codes to make these generic tools unique and behave in certain ways with specific uses within the overall program.

Fascinating. I use Genetic Algorithms in some of my work. By mating different parts of code, I get new mutants, some better and some worse. Chosing a few random mutants and the best from the previous generation, I eventually receive a much better result than by doing it by hand.  Using simple analogies, you can draw parallels between pretty much anything.

Life seems very similar to this in some regards. All life is comprised of the same basic building blocks genes. Further, the earliest cambrian animals have genes that is in use by animals today. They are  just different. Amazingly these basics have remained the same throughout the history of life. They are just expressed differently.

Quote
Well no matter how Co2 is produced, too much CO2 in the atmosphere is presumed to be a bad thing. It would cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Likewise too little Co2 would cause freezing tempertures. My thought is that if only plants existed, eventually the Co2 levels would drop to the point where the world's tempeture would be too cold to support most plants. Thus plants and animals are complimentry to eachother in this regard. I'll admit I need to study this further.

Unless some alternative way of binding it exists. Ancient history is hard to study, even though it is easy to make theories. Perhaps one day we will know.

Quote
If evolution simply means change over time, that is fine. The problem is macro evolution and what supposidly drives it. There is no evidence that complexity has increased. The RNA, DNA, protien relationship is presumed to be exactly the same as millions of years ago. The complex organs may have changed but the basic, generic function remains the same.

Please provide evidence that it doesn't then. Or evidence for how things really happened. One of the fundamentals of a theory, is that it isn't completely proven. For all we know, macro evolution could be completely right, or completly faulty. However, until another theory, that explains this in a better and more provable way emerges (preferably more than "Because it was designed to, even though we don't have any evidence for it") it remains the current leading theory. And as I have previously stated in this thread, lack of evidence for evolution i nno wau makes ID more correct, or more of a scinetific theory.

Quote
This is all theory and it's theory based on evolutionary premesis. Scientists really do not know what the early atmousphere was like.

I note with some dismay that when you make large scale assumptions about the state of the original atmosphere you do not find it necessary to explicitly state that it is a theory. However, if someone else do the same, you feel that it is necessary to point out that it is not an absolute truth. I assumed that we did not need to state as fact that we don't know what the original atomsphere looked like, seeing as you hadn't. But apparently, what is acceptable for you is not acceptable for others?

Quote
Could be, unfortunately we do not have a time machine...

Which would have been excellent  point to include when you were making assumptions on earths atomsphere earlier on, and then using them to argue points presented.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 09:09:30 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #156 on: July 24, 2006, 09:22:02 am »

It is one thing to say they know how somthing works and completely different to say why somthing works. What selection pressures put these intricate processes into play in the first place?

We also know how gravity works, but do we know why? That doesn't necessarily mean it was designed by another intellect. (We might know why gravity works, but I sure don't. Mayhap someone could fill me in?)

More seriously, not everything has to be based on selection pressures. Any random mutation that is not directly harmful can remain, even though it gives no advantages whatsoever. As long as it doesn't give you disadvantages in comparison to the competition, you will still breed and these genes will be carried on.

Quote
In addition, transposons can be extremely harmful to their host organism. If a transposon is integrated in the middle of an essential gene, or worse yet, inserts itself into a location that prevents an essential gene from being transcribed (eg. disruptins a start codon), the results are often lethal for the host. This happens frequently enough, but it's not easily detectable in nature since the organism dies (and a unicellular corpse is pretty hard to find).

Quote
Accidents happen, this is known. These occurances are bad and thankfully, realitively rare. I disagree with you assertion that it happens "frequently enough". This is supposidly how Evo Devo works. The jumping genes in the sex cells make a mistake and slighlty miss their target. *Poof* a new species. Roll Eyes

Has there been any research as to how often this happens that either one of you could link to?

Quote
Fascinating..Now how did natural selection evolve this ability?

How did natural selcection evolve the ability to be taken a part and reassmebled for new purposes in a lab by scientists? Probably the same way that solar energy evolved the ability to be absorbed by plants.

Quote
OK. I will... Unlike others (creationists and darwinists in particular), I read pretty much everything, not just material that supports "their side".

Unfortunately, while you read such things that might not support your side, your reaction seems to be mostly "LoL, that's not true".  Also, I'm not sure for what reason you keep bringing up that you are a fair and just person who listens to both sides and then decides what to believe. I would think that that would be the default for everyone participating here, or in the debate in general, if they aren't zealots of one kind or another. Are you trying to boost your ego? Are you implying that those debating with you aren't? Or for what purpose do you keep bringing up how totally unbiased you are?
Logged

What's up doc?
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #157 on: July 24, 2006, 04:43:07 pm »

Pratt: Point refuted a thousand times

List of Pratts > Transitional Fossils

Moving the goal posts: Never admit defeat! Simply ignore a refutation and hope for better luck on another subject.


"Debating with [anti-evolutionists] is like playing chess with a pigeon: they knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and then fly back to their flock to declare victory."


« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 04:52:49 pm by Arne » Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #158 on: July 24, 2006, 09:03:54 pm »

Quote
False and false. Scientists are not baffled by transposons in the least; it is a well known fact that one of the requirements of a transposon is that part of its sequence codes for the enzyme "transposase," which is responsible for clipping the transposon out of its current location and transplanting it to a new one. When this segment of the DNA is missing or mutated, the transposon is no longer mobile.

It is one thing to say they know how somthing works and completely different to say why somthing works. What selection pressures put these intricate processes into play in the first place?

You want to know why? Prevailing theory is that transposons are the ancient remnants of virii that have been pared down over the ages to the point where they are simply a motile strip of DNA. Much of their activity resembles that of modern virii with regards to how their DNA moves about.

Now, I suppose I'm going to get a "LOL, silly theory no proof" response to this one. Roll Eyes

Quote
My thought is that if only plants existed, eventually the Co2 levels would drop to the point where the world's tempeture would be too cold to support most plants. Thus plants and animals are complimentry to eachother in this regard. I'll admit I need to study this further.

Ludicrous. While plants and animals are indeed complementary as you say, you seem to forget that plants have the ability to regulate their photosynthetic activity, as well as require oxygen for respiration in the same way as animals. In the absence of light, plants stop all photosynthetic activity (which is why a plant grown from a seed in a darkroom will remain a ghostly shade of white until it is exposed to light) and only perform respiration. As such, they have the ability to regulate their atmosphere without the influence of animals at all; no such runaway greenhouse effect would actually occur. Besides, excess CO2 makes things WARMER, not cooler; that's why the effect is called Global Warming.

Quote
Has there been any research as to how often this happens that either one of you could link to?

Sadly, I don't have any journal links, nor the means to search for them. However, what I have read in "non-scientific" publications (mostly on the 'net, so take it with as much salt as you like), this sort of thing happens all the time, especially in bacteria and plants. Bacteria are frequently found with transposable elements that integrate genes for antibiotic resistance, which is why it spreads like wildfire through populations; these transposons jump into a plasmid, which is then shared via binary conjugation (or at least, I think that's the term for it) among individuals. Plant transposon activity is mostly exploited as a means of conducting spot mutations by experimenters, and they can use these to disrupt function in a gene to see which plant systems are affected.

I'm pretty sure both of these items were mentioned in that wiki article, so I'm probably just repeating known information at this point.

Quote
How did natural selcection evolve the ability to be taken a part and reassmebled for new purposes in a lab by scientists? Probably the same way that solar energy evolved the ability to be absorbed by plants.

Funny you should mention that... It also ties into my plant photosynthesis / respiration point from before. It deals with those suspicious little organelles inside every eukaryotic cell, doubly so with plants since they have two different types.

How does the "grand design" manage to explain the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in a cell? Both of these structures are very different from the other cellular organelles, and are essential to life as we know it since they carry out cellular respiration (or photosynthesis). Both of these organelles resemble prokaryotes, especially when you consider their unique membrane structures that are very similar to cellular membranes, as well as the fact that they both carry prokaryote-style DNA (a loop, rather than the open-ended strands seen in eukaryotic cells). They seem very much like prokaryotic invaders that developed a symbiotic relationship with their host, and have since become so essential to life that they are now inseparable. It seems like a pretty piss-poor design to have to rely on a chance occurance like that one in order to get to where we are (or even where we were billions of years ago)...

Quote
"Debating with [anti-evolutionists] is like playing chess with a pigeon: they knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and then fly back to their flock to declare victory."

Greatest quote ever. Who's the source?
Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #159 on: July 24, 2006, 09:16:29 pm »

Greatest quote ever. Who's the source?

I'm not sure, I've seen a couple of variants of it. My (wild) guess would be that it's from the talk.origins newsgroup.
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #160 on: July 24, 2006, 11:42:48 pm »

Pratt: Point refuted a thousand times

List of Pratts > Transitional Fossils
Don't show him the list! Now he'll have to think of some new arguments. Wink

Quote
Moving the goal posts: Never admit defeat! Simply ignore a refutation and hope for better luck on another subject.

"Debating with [anti-evolutionists] is like playing chess with a pigeon: they knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and then fly back to their flock to declare victory."
Harsh, but not entirely irrelevant to this thread.

Quote from: Draxas
[...] transposons are the ancient remnants of virii [...]
You aren't sounding as scholarly as you think.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #161 on: July 25, 2006, 12:47:10 am »

Quote
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, the only real difference between you and a darwinist is that you believe there is a purpose behind mutations, rather than them being random?

Correct.
Quote
While this is a perfectly fine belief to hold, I still don't see how you can claim that it is a scientific theory. You might just as well claim that you believe everything astronomy teach, except that you think there is a purpose behind the forming of solar systems.

There may be.

Quote
Or that you agree completely with scientists on how electrons work, but think that they are being held together by a purpose. Tying back to the original topic FTW.

Cute link. Design is a theory because it makes predictions. Predictions that can be scientificly tested. Irreducible complexity and  Purpose in biological structures are two examples. Design also fits scientific observations such as the Cambrian explosion and the seemingly emergance of fully functioning unique animals throught the strata. It also fits the observation of irreduciably complex biological structures where every part is nessicary for the overall function.

Quote
To which I replied that bacteria don't have introns, and asking you if that means they are much less likely to change. As a rebuttal, you tell me how introns work. I do know how introns work. Please refrain from replying to questions that have not been asked, and limit yourself to answering the comments that are being made.

Are you sure bacteria don't have introns (regulatory genes)? I beg to differ...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/19/10806
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/424

"During the past several years, they have been uncovered in surprising numbers in bacteria due to the genome sequencing projects; however, most of the newly sequenced introns are not correctly identified."

Quote
Alright, so you believe new species are created, but you believe that all these species are hidden away somewhere in the genetic code of every creature from the cambrian era?

No. I do not know where the new genetic codes come from only the high improbability of random genetic changes building novel new codes.

 
Quote
It is amazing to me how you at some points apparently receive dispensation from somewhere to not read the thread you are participating in. Please go back and reread what has been said about fossils earlier, as it will greatly save time if you do not bring up the same argument several times.

If anybody needs to re-read anything it might be you. I responded to the fossil claims in length. Platypus ring a bell? Unfortunately basing hereditary on superficial bone similarities, cladistics, proves nothing. I'm not going to go through the talk origins link and discuss every single ancesteral claim.

Quote
If you disagree with the rebuttals that were placed after you originally made this claim, the prudent thing would be to respond to them first, not restate your belief and act as if it is a universal indisputable truth.

I have adressed the rebuttals. Several times now..Do I really need to do it yet again? Post what you want me to address if I missed somthing you feel is an important point.


Quote
Interesting. So your actual alternative to evolution is "Evolution is wrong, because: It's a mystery".

If you had read what I said previously instead of trying to put words into my posts, my only gripe with evolution is the lack of concrete evidence. I'm not posing an alternative. Im my opinin, evolution, if true shouldn't be so elusive.

We understand passing of genetic traits through breeding in exsquisit detail. We understand jumping genes role in building a unique individual. We understand dominant and recessive genes. But why has macro evolution remained so elusive to scientists? Not only does evolution have to change specific useful DNA sequences but it has to regulate them and express them in a meaningful way. A elephant trunk has to actually exist before natural selection can act. It's difficult for me to accept the concept of truely amazing organs and body parts built through a series of accidental mutations. And IMO the fossil record should be filled with an astounding number of "didn't quite make the grade" animals, should it not?. Even Darwin himself addressed this problem in the origin of species.

Quote
Might I suggest that before claiming the status of scientific theory, you come up with slightly more than that? On a more religious note, the idea that we are predestined to evolve into somethign completely different, regardless of our wishes sits ratehr badly with the idea of free will. Not syaing this is what you believe, but it certainly clashes with my beliefs.

Wether somthing clashes with your or my beliefs is irrelevant. The big bang theory clashed with many scientists beliefs but is now accepted theory based on evidence. Many rejected it out of hand because it played into the creationists theology. So what? So what if somthing doesn't "sit well" with any one of us? We go where the evidence leads.

When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution he had no idea what was deep inside the nucleous of a cell. He thought it was a simple glob of protoplasam with simple chemical properties. Like a caveman seeing an automobile who has no idea what makes it run. Once the hood is popped the caveman clearly sees it's not a naturalistic force that makes it move such as wind or a hidden antelope. Likewise scientists have popped the hood of the cell and it is not simple chemical reactions as once thought. We opened up a universe of micro cellular machines associated with chemical coded assembly instructions. We found deliberate purpose and function that until these findings was only associated with  human intelligently made machines.

Quote
Fascinating. I use Genetic Algorithms in some of my work. By mating different parts of code, I get new mutants, some better and some worse. Chosing a few random mutants and the best from the previous generation, I eventually receive a much better result than by doing it by hand.  Using simple analogies, you can draw parallels between pretty much anything.

True. I was just throwing in a bit of my own philosophy. I'm willing to bet those "different parts of code" where built by an intelligent source before you mutated them?.. Wink

Quote
Please provide evidence that it doesn't then. Or evidence for how things really happened. One of the fundamentals of a theory, is that it isn't completely proven. For all we know, macro evolution could be completely right, or completly faulty. However, until another theory, that explains this in a better and more provable way emerges (preferably more than "Because it was designed to, even though we don't have any evidence for it") it remains the current leading theory. And as I have previously stated in this thread, lack of evidence for evolution i nno wau makes ID more correct, or more of a scinetific theory.

The only way design seems more likely is because of our understanding of what must occur to build novel, useful new code in a genome. We are realizing the many levels of complexity that must be traversed and the unlikelyhood of random genetic mutations producing anything useful by themselves. Probability boundries are being theorized and much of information theory is being applied to the problem. Also we are basing this on science's inability to macro evolve anything in the lab. You may see this as a crap argument or illogical but I do not. So to me, intelligence is a theory just as random mutaion is a theory, both cannot be shown in the lab so we must rely on logic.

Quote
I note with some dismay that when you make large scale assumptions about the state of the original atmosphere you do not find it necessary to explicitly state that it is a theory. However, if someone else do the same, you feel that it is necessary to point out that it is not an absolute truth.

Other than pointing out that cambrain animals had gills and thus they most likely breathed oxygen from what we know about gills today, and how ozone and CO2 seems to be important to life in general by what we know today, I don't believe I've done what you accuse. At least my logic follows what we know instead of making up a cocktail list based on the evolution of the first dividng cell that "must have happened".


« Last Edit: July 25, 2006, 01:08:39 am by RTyp06 » Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #162 on: July 25, 2006, 02:22:33 am »

Quote
You want to know why? Prevailing theory is that transposons are the ancient remnants of virii that have been pared down over the ages to the point where they are simply a motile strip of DNA. Much of their activity resembles that of modern virii with regards to how their DNA moves about.

Now, I suppose I'm going to get a "LOL, silly theory no proof" response to this one. Roll Eyes

No but that is a just-so story based on zero evidence is it not? If you disagree, please explain why.. bet you wont..


Quote
Ludicrous. While plants and animals are indeed complementary as you say, you seem to forget that plants have the ability to regulate their photosynthetic activity, as well as require oxygen for respiration in the same way as animals. In the absence of light, plants stop all photosynthetic activity (which is why a plant grown from a seed in a darkroom will remain a ghostly shade of white until it is exposed to light) and only perform respiration.

This is just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet you know alot about growing plants in your "darkroom".. Wink Seriously, this should be a simple expiriment to find out which plants can grow and thrive in proposed early reducing atmospheres..

 
Quote
As such, they have the ability to regulate their atmosphere without the influence of animals at all; no such runaway greenhouse effect would actually occur. Besides, excess CO2 makes things WARMER, not cooler; that's why the effect is called Global Warming.

..and that is why I said: "eventually the Co2 levels would drop to the point where the world's tempeture would be too cold to support most plants". (since plants asorb and use CO2)

Quote

Quote
How did natural selcection evolve the ability to be taken a part and reassmebled for new purposes in a lab by scientists? Probably the same way that solar energy evolved the ability to be absorbed by plants.

Funny you should mention that... It also ties into my plant photosynthesis / respiration point from before. It deals with those suspicious little organelles inside every eukaryotic cell, doubly so with plants since they have two different types.

How does the "grand design" manage to explain the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in a cell? Both of these structures are very different from the other cellular organelles, and are essential to life as we know it since they carry out cellular respiration (or photosynthesis). Both of these organelles resemble prokaryotes, especially when you consider their unique membrane structures that are very similar to cellular membranes, as well as the fact that they both carry prokaryote-style DNA (a loop, rather than the open-ended strands seen in eukaryotic cells). They seem very much like prokaryotic invaders that developed a symbiotic relationship with their host, and have since become so essential to life that they are now inseparable. It seems like a pretty piss-poor design to have to rely on a chance occurance like that one in order to get to where we are (or even where we were billions of years ago)...
[/quote]

How can you be sure it was a "chance" occurance? How can you be sure they are "prokaryotic invaders "? Oh becuse the DNA is in loops.. got it..  Roll Eyes How about explaining the chance occurance of chemical coded life in the first place?

Quote
"Debating with [anti-evolutionists] is like playing chess with a pigeon: they knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and then fly back to their flock to declare victory."

Greatest quote ever. Who's the source?
[/quote]

Ahh, here comes the name calling and ridiculous analogies..Arne, why not try refuting my arguments on scientific grounds rather than dropping a talkorigins link as "irrefutable proof "and a one liner insult? Funny, you guys respond as religious defenders do when I question their bible stories..You are truly decans of the evolutionary church. Prophet Darwin would be pleased!
Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #163 on: July 25, 2006, 07:21:11 am »

Sorry about that, I wasn't refering specifially to you, I've had some other debates which involved the 'shrinking sun' argument (yes, it's still circulating).

This was what I responded to, nothing else:
Quote
From the fossil record we do not have a single conclusive progression of fossils showing these transitions from one species to the next. Not one.
...
Unfortunately basing hereditary on superficial bone similarities, cladistics, proves nothing.

So, the reason why they're not transitional is because you're completely dismissing physical and chronological similarity as any sort of indicator of evolutionary relation? They could just look similar, but really be unrelated? Do you mean the fossil record doesn't store what cause the changes?

Also, define macroevolution a bit further. It seems, judging from your earlier posts, that by micro evolution you mean for example different kind of frogs or cats. By macro evolution, you seem to be refering to the branching (crutch) area. Is this correct? You're not refering to say the difference between an european wild cat and a tiger, or the bizarre concept of a Jellyfish turning into a... newt?

Now, this is why I reacted:
Quote from: wikipedia
According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.
From Wikipedia

Are you saying that evolution can only happen naturally within certain tolerances, and there's a threshold of some sort preventing the 'transition' from a cat intto a ... 'fnork'? Such a transition would require a designed plan or poke? Is it the elusive cat-fnork that you want proof of? Would you take fossil proof of this, if it was really analog (gradual)?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2006, 07:32:20 am by Arne » Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #164 on: July 25, 2006, 08:45:16 am »

Correct.

So basically, what you are saying is you believe in fate? That every organism has a predetermined future, that every species has a certain pathway that they will evolve through? And that all of these have been predetermined at some point in the past.

Quote
There may be.

Yes, but most people who believe the solar system was created by an intellifent designer do not claim this to be a scientific theory, which is really where the problem lies here. I'm fine with intelligent design. It may well be the way things happened. But it's not a scientific theory, it is a best a philospopical or theological idea.

Quote
Cute link. Design is a theory because it makes predictions. Predictions that can be scientificly tested.

I predict that all atoms will continue to be held together by Gods will. I also predict that because of his infinite mercy, gravity will continue it's good work. Both predictions will come true, but that doesn't necesssarily make my theory true (or false). Making predictions based on what you already know is quite worhtless. Has ID ever made an prediction of things that will be found, that has later been proven? If so, any link would be appreciated.

Quote
Irreducible complexity

Quote
Thus, Behe's reasoning leads us to the point where our dialogue mirrors that of Behe and his supporters versus his critics; for Behe's idea to be credible he must show that it is impossible (or, at least, extremely unlikely) for some observed part of an organism to occur as a product of evolution; basically, that the intermediate steps are so bad that an organism exhibiting those has almost no chance of survival and reproduction. Again, our interpretations differ: you see potential proofs of Behe's ideas in the form of apparently irreducibly complex organs where I see a lack of imagination in finding explanations and a general lack of hard data either way.

When using questionable evidence, that depends on your point of view, you really cannot blame people for not taking you seriously. Of course, the same is true in the opposite direction. Please understand, that unless Behe actually manages to prove his theory by showing us indisputable proof of this (say, a mother without an organ and a child with it), you cannot claim that this is evidence for ID. You can claim that this idea supports it though.

Quote
and  Purpose in biological structures

Which has been established to be exactly the same. You interpret their function as purpose, that doesn't make it a fact.

Quote
are two examples. Design also fits scientific observations such as the Cambrian explosion and the seemingly emergance of fully functioning unique animals throught the strata. It also fits the observation of irreduciably complex biological structures where every part is nessicary for the overall function.

Well, scientific observations of the cambrian strata also supports the idea that all those creatures were brought down from space the day before. In fact, I could theorize that every time a new animal appears on earth, it is because a giagantic vessel equipped with teleporters beamed them down at that stage, genetically modifying them aboard the ship to fit the conditions, but neutering their genes to prevent new species. The masters of this ship however, were a product of pure evolution. Of course none of this can be proven, but the theory fits scientific observations, and you can't disprove it. It might have happened. The point being that you can engineer pretty much anything to fit what observations we have, but that too complicated solutions are less likely.

Now this is a much better rebuttal, as you are actually answering the question.

Quote

Quote
Both bacteria are intracellular parasites and might have acquired introns from eukaryotic hosts.

Two parasites copying something from another branch of the tree of life seem to prove evolution rather than ID. After all they were'nt designed with it, they aquired it through other means.

Quote

That is interesting, and I'll freely admit, new to me. However, taken from the site your article links to,

Quote
Group II introns are a novel class of RNAs best known for their self-splicing reaction. Under certain  in vitro conditions, the introns can excise themselves from precursor mRNAs and ligate together their flanking exons, without the aid of protein. The splicing mechanism is essentially identical to splicing of nuclear pre-mRNA introns, and this similarity has led to the widespread belief that group II introns were the ancestors of spliceosomal introns, which make up 25% of the human genome.

Which would seem to be making a case for evolution once more. These primitive introns could be the ancestors of the ones we use. Still, I appreciate the new information.

Quote
No. I do not know where the new genetic codes come from only the high improbability of random genetic changes building novel new codes.

So once again, your idea of a scientific theory is "I don't know, but i don't think it was evolution". While this is again fine and dandy for a personal opinion, the practice (I beleive) is to use one theory, until another theory comes along that explains things better, is more provable, and fits prediction better. The "I dunno" argument would not seem to qualify.

Quote
If anybody needs to re-read anything it might be you. I responded to the fossil claims in length. Platypus ring a bell? Unfortunately basing hereditary on superficial bone similarities, cladistics, proves nothing. I'm not going to go through the talk origins link and discuss every single ancesteral claim.

I have adressed the rebuttals. Several times now..Do I really need to do it yet again? Post what you want me to address if I missed somthing you feel is an important point.

The very last thing said on fossils was

Quote
Please read up on fossil records. There are a lot of things needed to make a fossil. Not every creature that dies automatically becomes one. In fact, if any one of the factors needed is missing, the fossile doesn't exist. Irreducibly complex eh Smiley More seriously though, fossils aren't actually that common, or that representative. They are rarities, and as such, cannot provide a good extrapolation of what animals have existed. For all we know, 2.3 billion years ago a small race of intelligent  3 legged crabs may have ruled the seas and land. But no fossil records remain, so we've never seen them.

Pointing out that entire species (in fact, most species) will not show up in the fossil records.  As such, any fossils found can be studied, anlayzed and used in theories. But you cannot use the absence of a certain fossil to prove anything.

Also, if we are going to pick on points neglected, how about

Quote
Meaning that you don't necessarily need to fulfill every criteria, but the more the better. ID fullfills none, and Evolution lacks two. Even though one could argue that evolution thefore might be called a "almost Theory", or protoTheory, that isn't really what this whole debate was about. If you recall, this pretty much started, because it was calmed that ID is not a scientific theory.

Basically, it comes down to that your approach is flawed. You present a few snippets (deductive reasoning and thinking outside the box  come to mind) of motivation for your theory. When they are challenged, you reply with "LoL". You then progress to point out flaws in evolution, which has absolutely nothing to do with wether ID is a scientific theory or not. Even if evolution was completly disproven, this would not automatically make ID true.

Quote
If you had read what I said previously instead of trying to put words into my posts, my only gripe with evolution is the lack of concrete evidence. I'm not posing an alternative. Im my opinin, evolution, if true shouldn't be so elusive.

It's called paraphrasing. And actually, I have read all your posts and this is the image you are currently presenting. You do not know how things happen, you have no idea what sort of mechanics were involved. You don't know where new species come from, nor can you even give us an inkling of what would trigger the appearance of these species. Basically, you're saying that you don't believe in macro evolution, but that you have no better idea to put in its place. Again, until you have something more credible to use, you can't really replace macro evolution. Also, see the posts above mine for more information on macro evolution.

Quote
Wether somthing clashes with your or my beliefs is irrelevant.

In deed, which is why I phrased it "On a religious note". It was not an argument, but rather a opinion.

Quote
So what if somthing doesn't "sit well" with any one of us? We go where the evidence leads.

And yet you claim that you are biased against evolution, for reasons ranging from personal beliefas to a love of underdogs.

Quote
We found deliberate purpose

No, you did.

Quote
True. I was just throwing in a bit of my own philosophy. I'm willing to bet those "different parts of code" where built by an intelligent source before you mutated them?.. Wink

Touche.

Quote
The only way design seems more likely is because of our understanding of what must occur to build novel, useful new code in a genome. We are realizing the many levels of complexity that must be traversed and the unlikelyhood of random genetic mutations producing anything useful by themselves.

Again, you are speaking for yourself. some viruses have very high mutational capabilities. Once in a body, they not only multiply like crazy, but mutate like crazy. this gives them an edge, as their antigens then change, hindering the antibody immune defense. Of course, this is a very simple example of a uncomplicated thing, much liek that of a factory and a cell being alike.

Quote
Also we are basing this on science's inability to macro evolve anything in the lab. You may see this as a crap argument or illogical but I do not. So to me, intelligence is a theory just as random mutaion is a theory, both cannot be shown in the lab so we must rely on logic.

I'll leave the macro to people who have already posted about it above me.

Quote
Other than pointing out that cambrain animals had gills and thus they most likely breathed oxygen from what we know about gills today, and how ozone and CO2 seems to be important to life in general by what we know today, I don't believe I've done what you accuse. At least my logic follows what we know instead of making up a cocktail list based on the evolution of the first dividng cell that "must have happened".

Actually, the only thing you pointed out was that

Quote
Very true but those microbes are plankton that live within the top meter of the ocean's surface and use photosynthsis to break oxygen from water. If earth was like say mars, with no or a very tenius amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and plankton started the production of oxygen (producing the majority of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere), that means no ozone to protect them from the sun's radiation in the early years. Plankton fossils are found unchanged (no evolution) throughout the fossil record in every strata. The top 1 meter of ocean water would thus be saturated with harmful radiation and the planet would remain sterile of life.

Here you assume that Earth's atomsphere without oxygen would be incapable of sustaining life.

Quote
Yes, if you assume that the atmosphere back then was exactly as now, minust the oxygen.

Here I point out that you are assuming things. I then follow up with

Quote
Not everythign must have been exatly as now 3 million years ago. Not RNA, not organs, and definetly not the atmosphere. For example, here you can find this:


An atomspehre without oxygen could be much thicker, thus protecting us in other ways.

So when I point out your assumption, and reply with "It must not have been exactly the same, it could be like this as well". Basically, you're making assumptions on the atmosphere, and arguing based on those assumptions, but when I do the same and clearly state it, it is not the same.

Also, using gills and breathing oxygen in water does not necessarily mean that there is large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Other than that, I was talking precambrian, when life came into being (in whichever way), not after they had evolved(or morphed) into the beings of the cambrian era. I apologize if you misunderstood me. If you do not believe in life before the cambrian era, I apologize and my point is moot.

Quote
How can you be sure it was a "chance" occurance? How can you be sure they are "prokaryotic invaders "? Oh becuse the DNA is in loops.. got it..  Roll Eyes How about explaining the chance occurance of chemical coded life in the first place?

How can you be sure they were not? How can you be sure that they were preprogammed to enter another cell and bond with it? How can you be sure they were built in "tools" And if looped DNA otherwise never appears in eukaryotic cells, except in organelles, while it does appear in prokaryotic cells, does that not mean that by using your logical deduction, we could deduce that organelles were once bacteria? It seems no more of a logic leap than "cells look like factories so they are designed".

I find it highly ironic, that the person who has been responding to points with with "LoL, about as deep as a mud puddle" now complains that people are calling him names, and immediately follows up by calling people deacons of the evolutionary church. Especially since it is the same person who earlier was implying that he is fair and balanced, unlike all those other people. And calling other on ridiculous analogies when you yourself have been making points like "factory=cell" seems just a tad over the top.

EDIT: Also, an interested question. Seeing as you believe life was indeed designed by someone/something, would you care to elaborate on that? Was it a deity? A cosmic force? Extraterrestrials? I'm genuinely interested in what/who you feel did the groundbreaking work here before they left. Also, what are your thoughts on this creator? Is there any scientific way (in your opinion) of deducing his/it's/her identity, and should that be taught in science class as well?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2006, 02:56:12 pm by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 20 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!