The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2020, 01:28:12 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 20 Print
Author Topic: Cool Comic Booklets.  (Read 67622 times)
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #165 on: July 25, 2006, 06:04:01 pm »

Sorry if this bumps it to a new page. Anyways, I asked my questions because I wanted to nail down the goal posts and make sure we're using the same ball.

As for churches and faith/belief, would you guys agree with the following analogy? Someone who believe what people (priests or scientists) say is inside a back box has faith. Someone who opens the black box and takes a look can say he knows. The Black box with Gods is locked and we don't have the key. It can contain an infinite amount of arbitrarily defined things. Atleast the science box we can glimpse into, and the general idea is to come up with a model that is useful for predicting future observations. I suppose faith is an analog thing, depending on how much you have peeked into the box yourself.

Did I get it right that Rtyp06 is saying that the stuff inside the locked box has something to do with the things going on inside the science box, or is that just the traditional creationist view? Or, is he saying that the designer/poker is actually in the science box, hiding? Wouldn't linking the locked box the the science box hamper the ability to make useful predictions? Does the locked box have to be involved, because what's in the science box "doesn't seem to make any sense"?

Anyways, as for Lukipelas little program, doesn't it just mean he was responsible (as a designer) for abiogenesis and not mutation, selection and speciation which is done automatically by the program?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2006, 06:16:34 pm by Arne » Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #166 on: July 25, 2006, 08:22:47 pm »

Quote
You aren't sounding as scholarly as you think.

And for that, I apologize. The "virii" thing was drilled into me in college. Guess the professor didn't know any better either. You learn something new every day, I guess.

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..

How much evidence is "good enough" for you? It's an extrapolation based on the information we have; this is our best guess. That's why it's a scientific theory!

What, do I need to get the DNA to jump out of a cell and give a dissertation on its family tree for you to be satisfied? Because I suspect that all the evidence in the world short of that isn't going to cut it.

Quote
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..

Crap's sake, it was simple experiment in a class. Culture two plants, put one petri dish on the benchtop by the window (control) and one inside a desk drawer in the room used to develop the lab photos (experimental). Let them grow for a month on the cultrue media, and see how they develop. Surprise: the one grown in darkness was white.

On the other hand, growing modern plants in ancient atmospheres is far from simple, nor will it be conclusive in the least. I suspect that very few modern lifeforms would do well in a reducing atmosphere.

Quote
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)

But they also take in oxygen and give off CO2 when undergoing respiration. As I said, plants can regulate their own atmosphere without the help of animals. I guess you missed that (whole point) part of my statement.

It's also important to note that we're not really sure if there's an opposite "Global Cooling" effect like you're talking about, since it's not exactly something we need to deal with every day like its opposite. Besides, plants in nature don't get all the nutrients they need from the soil alone like they do in our lab's culture media; that's why they undergo photosynthesis in the first place. It would be more likely that the lack of CO2 needed for phototsynthesis would kill those plants off far before any kind of global cooling had a significant impact.

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?

Once again, how much evidence is enough to satisfy you? It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me, and I'd hazard a guess, the rest of the folks reading this thread. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., isn't it fair to say it's a duck?

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!

Wah wah wah. Cry me a freaking river. I thought the quote was pretty funny, so sue me.

You can't tell me you've been debating this topic on purely scientific grounds, nor can you claim that you haven't gone around name-calling (in fact, you just did it again right there). All in all, I think we've shown you a remarkable amount of civility; I can think of many other folks that would have just shown you the door with your rear end on fire. Lighten up.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #167 on: July 26, 2006, 12:24:12 am »

Quote
How much evidence is "good enough" for you? It's an extrapolation based on the information we have; this is our best guess. That's why it's a scientific theory!

What, do I need to get the DNA to jump out of a cell and give a dissertation on its family tree for you to be satisfied? Because I suspect that all the evidence in the world short of that isn't going to cut it.

Well that would probably do it...

Quote
Crap's sake, it was simple experiment in a class. Culture two plants, put one petri dish on the benchtop by the window (control) and one inside a desk drawer in the room used to develop the lab photos (experimental). Let them grow for a month on the cultrue media, and see how they develop. Surprise: the one grown in darkness was white.

It was just a joke man..Apologies if I offended you.

Quote
But they also take in oxygen and give off CO2 when undergoing respiration. As I said, plants can regulate their own atmosphere without the help of animals. I guess you missed that (whole point) part of my statement.

Ok so plants could have thrived without animals... That was a nice tangent. Now back to random mutation evolving new body parts and organs...

Quote
Once again, how much evidence is enough to satisfy you? It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me, and I'd hazard a guess, the rest of the folks reading this thread. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., isn't it fair to say it's a duck?

Well even if it is cut and dry as you say, different organisims working together is nothing new in the animal kingdom.  Please explain to me how two symbiontly linked animals or cells represent evolution? In nature, animals of different species work togther all the time. Ant's that milk aphids comes to mind. Bacteria in the intestines that break down cellulose is another.. It is possible two life forms can become interdependent over time. So where is the new novel information to the genetic code that provides evidence of complex organs and body parts evolving?

I'm interested in how lungs evolved, how the heart evolved, how eyes evolved, how sex organs evolved, how the stomach evolved, hands and feet. One would think the organ or part had to exist in the first place before genetic mutations could alter it and natural selection could select it.

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., isn't it fair to say it's a duck?"

If it looks like intelligent design, acts like an intelligently designed machine etc. isn't it fair to say it is design?

Quote
Wah wah wah. Cry me a freaking river. I thought the quote was pretty funny, so sue me.

I wasn't referring to you but Arne in particular. Also I wouldn't categorize myself as an "antievolutionist" more of an "anti random mutation and naturalselecionist". Random mutations are fact. Natural selection is fact. The driving force behind amazing new organs and body plans, I do not see it.

Quote
You can't tell me you've been debating this topic on purely scientific grounds, nor can you claim that you haven't gone around name-calling (in fact, you just did it again right there). All in all, I think we've shown you a remarkable amount of civility; I can think of many other folks that would have just shown you the door with your rear end on fire. Lighten up.

I think a distinction needs to be made here. This discussion started (for me) with Halleck dismissing ID as "Crap". My intention was to show that ID has some good arguments for DNA and the micro cellular machines deep within every living cell being of a designed nature.

My intention wasn't to discuss evolution at all. Well it came about and I simply remarked on my own doubts about macro evolution occuring and explained why I felt that way. My opinins do not refelect every ID person's view.

 I also added a bit of my own philosophy and tried to point out that this is a friendly discussion not a science lab. I'm not trying to disprove evolution or offer a "better" competing theory. I'm just expressing my doubts and why I doubt them in the first place. I see the fossil record differently than you guys do. I see the "evidence" for evolution as severly lacking and flimsy. And of course I'm talking strictly about macro evolution which is new body plans, new novel organs and new body parts. (or any combination of the former).

Common ancestery is very plausible and even demonstratable. Extrapolating these known breeding properties into every animal following a linage from a single celled organism to modern animals is a hard pill to swallow.

And if anybody is interested, here is a link to a debate by real scientists who actually have PHDs and know far more about these subjects than I do (or probably ever will).

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3456

...more later
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 12:56:07 am by RTyp06 » Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #168 on: July 26, 2006, 01:27:17 am »

I won't shoot the messenger, merely point out that Discovery Institute is the ID lobby organization behind the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. Stephen C. Meyer is a Creationist and Co founder of the institute. Peter Ward wrote "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe", and argued against Meyer (apparently badly since the debate is on an ID site).

You can go to Google Groups and search for ward meyer debate (there'll be some talk.origins results). A regular Google yields quite a bit of ID sites commenting on the debate (confirming that Ward was indeed terrible).
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 01:58:48 am by Arne » Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #169 on: July 26, 2006, 01:48:31 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?


I'm not completely dismissing physical or chronological similarity I just believe most of these similarities are due to breeding alone. But you have the general synopsis of  what I think fairly close. So If you will be so kind, please choose from your talk origins list what you feel is the best, most compelling example of evolution. I'd like to study it further and perhaps we can discuss it in more detail...

BTW I'm also assuming that, to you, the fossil record is the single most compelling evidence that evolution has occured? Is that a fair assesment?

*Addition: Arne..nobody "won" that debate. Just because it is linked to discovery institute is irrelevant. And so what if Meyer is a christian, christians are uncapable of scientific debate? Ward is an agnostic, so what? it's funny how any ID person is charged with motive and it never goes the other way. Meyers arguments are strictly on a scientific basis and since he is a Discovery institue member, why wouldn't he link it to his website?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 01:54:39 am by RTyp06 » Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #170 on: July 26, 2006, 03:06:00 am »

I was merely trying to give some information of who arranged the debate and who the participants were. The site gives the appearance of "we're just after the truth, whatever it might be". Yes, "other sites" might be doing that aswell, but it's a bit of bad tact to unfairly in favor of an idea under that banner regardless. 

In the eyes of audience a debate can certainly be won. Rethoric skills matters greatly in a debate, if you can't formulate a retort elegantly and quickly, you will come off as losing the debate or having weaker arguments (as you simply fail to express them).

Postulate that Meyer had been just awful in the debate, really awful (although possibly correct), and Ward had just wiped the floor with him with clever, witty and charmy rethorics. Then do you think DI would have presented it as "The Great [fair] Debate on Intelligent Design!", or would it get a less prominent placement on DI and ID sites in general?

(I think it would be all over Talk.Origins instead, under the topic "Creationists owned in their own turf! Rating: *****" Wink )


I really just popped in the thread to make a remark on transitional fossils, but as it turned out, your position on fossils would require me to wander into other topics aswell, and I might not have time for that. I appoint Lukipela as my representative, he seems eager to type. My last questions were just an inquiry out of honest curiosity (goalposts, balls etc. It appears that you have been playing Frungy all along *drops his SpeedBall and whistles*).

(Aside from drawing panties, I'm currently busy debating art topics (it's more my area of expertice (God I love nesting parentheses!)), such as why Digital art is or will be Traditional, and why Egon Schiele=Suck (he does, he really does).)
Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #171 on: July 26, 2006, 03:50:03 am »

Ttyp06> Oh, yes, I nearly forgot to answer your question about what makes me subscribe to the evolution theory. It's the general mass of many small things I've picked up, fossil record included, aswell as the personal experience of living on a geologically interesting island. However, the single most appealing aspect of evolution is the whole emerging complexity deal. The idea that a simple ruleset and a playground can give rise to many surprisingly complex things intrigues me, and it is an area where I have gotten a chance to personally peek into the 'black box' (by being a (very) amateur coder with an intrest in such programs).

My experiences from that has convinced me that emerging complexity is more powerful than I initially had thought, so I don't feel there is a need for a designer because things are complex. Also, since I'm pretty lousy at coding, and it just baffles me when I have thosands of lines of working [I wish it was faultless] code making ships fly around and cause all sorts of unexpected and complex stuff to happen. I'm like "I wrote this???" and it reminds me of those monkeys and Shakespeare. It makes me think; if there was a designer, maybe he doesn't need to be intelligent...
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 03:53:13 am by Arne » Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #172 on: July 26, 2006, 10:35:03 pm »

Well even if it is cut and dry as you say, different organisims working together is nothing new in the animal kingdom.  Please explain to me how two symbiontly linked animals or cells represent evolution? In nature, animals of different species work togther all the time. Ant's that milk aphids comes to mind. Bacteria in the intestines that break down cellulose is another.. It is possible two life forms can become interdependent over time. So where is the new novel information to the genetic code that provides evidence of complex organs and body parts evolving?

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are quite different than a simple case of symbiosis. Both of these organelles were presumably once independent lifeforms from their hosts. Currently, they are so inextricably integrated into the cellular machinery that it is impossible for them to exist independantly; their genes contain only the sequences essential to their function, and anything extraneous to this was apparently excised for the sake of efficiency. They replicate as a part of the cell, and have no independent control over that process as well, which is a striking differentiation to all other cases of symbiosis as well. Interdependent simply doesn't express how deep the relationship between these organelles and the cell hosting them runs, since they are entirely incapable of existing without one another.

At the same time, this IS the evidence of the cell evolving new, novel functions. Mitochondria are responsible for conducting the vast majority of the chemical processes involved in respiration; cells that lack them simply carry out fermentation, which is a great deal less efficient. Without the cell having developed this ability, it is likely that life as we know it would never have progressed past the unicellular stage. If that's not a huge leap forward in the evolution of life, I don't know what is.

Quote
I'm interested in how lungs evolved, how the heart evolved, how eyes evolved, how sex organs evolved, how the stomach evolved, hands and feet. One would think the organ or part had to exist in the first place before genetic mutations could alter it and natural selection could select it.

It is interesting to note the progression of these major organs through the branches of the animal kingdom. For example: Fish have hearts with only 2 chambers, and deoxygenated blood is pumped from the heart to the gills, and then to the rest of the body before returning to the heart. Reptiles and amphibians have 3 chambered hearts, composed of 2 atria and a shared ventricle; there is a special valve to keep oxygenated and deoxygenated blood separate. Bird and mammals (as well, according to the wiki entry, as the crocodile, which I was unaware of) have the 4 chambered heart that we're all familiar with, composed of two atria and two ventricles, and having a physical barrier inside to prevent the oxygenated and deoxygenated blood from mixing. Or course, if you go farther back down the evolutionary ladder to invertebrates, many of them don't even have hearts at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart#The_hearts_of_other_animals

Now, this begs the question: If the Great Designer had such a Great Design, why did he/she/it decide to go with so many different blueprints for this organ? Why not just give all of these creatures a 4 chambered heart (the most efficient design) and be done with it? If you ask me (and most others, I imagine), it certainly looks like the heart evolved into its current state from progressively simpler constructs. I daresay that if we had never progressed past a 2 chambered heart, mammalian and avian life probably never would have existed.

Similar progressions can be noted when taking a detailed look at the eyes and brain, at the very least. Then again, someone mentioned this evolution of the eyes several pages ago; you seem to have disregarded them without comment.

Quote
"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., isn't it fair to say it's a duck?"

If it looks like intelligent design, acts like an intelligently designed machine etc. isn't it fair to say it is design?

No, no it's not. There is far too much evidence to the contrary, and really very little concrete to support it. If you ask me, ID is the theory built on "just-so" scenarios, much moreso than evolution.

Quote
I think a distinction needs to be made here. This discussion started (for me) with Halleck dismissing ID as "Crap". My intention was to show that ID has some good arguments for DNA and the micro cellular machines deep within every living cell being of a designed nature.

My intention wasn't to discuss evolution at all. Well it came about and I simply remarked on my own doubts about macro evolution occuring and explained why I felt that way. My opinins do not refelect every ID person's view.

You expected to discuss ID and somehow avoid the topic of evolution? That seems like a very silly thing to say, unless you simply expected everyone to ignore you.
Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #173 on: July 27, 2006, 01:46:14 am »

it's funny how any ID person is charged with motive and it never goes the other way.

Well the best humor does have an element of truth to it Grin

ID is blatantly agenda driven.  How can you not look at the movement and see it for what it is: a political and social phenomenon masquerading as a scientific one.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #174 on: July 27, 2006, 03:59:00 am »

Quote
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.

No, not exactly. I think life is endowed with the ability to micro evolve to combat environmental pressures and protect itself from harmful pathogens. I think these individualistic abilities differ by varying degree from animal to animal and the complexity of the animal plays a role as well. With higher complexity comes more specific living conditions and habitats.

Bacteria may be able to survie a much wider range of selection pressures than a higher order animal such as say, a polar bear. I don't believe this happens by chance or chance alone. Transposable genes seem to play a high role in individualistic mutation of immune systems of all animals. The reason I may have certain allergic reactions to certian things where you may not. Or a virus that may kill me might not kill you. This isn't evolution to me because (like it or not Wink )we are the same species with the same 23 chromosomes.

I also think that animals under different selection pressures will change differently. Look how different a buffalo and a domestic cow are.. A buffalo is adapted to the cold winds of the central american plains. A buffalo is much more likely to survive the cold winters in this area than domestic cows (without shelter of course).  I do believe they both had a common ancestor and split from one another many thousands of years ago.

Quote
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.

To me you are describing Evolutionary Therory to a tee. At least the macro evolutionary, one celled organisim to modern animals aspect. Since there isn't a repeatable, testable lab expiriment that can demonstate macro evolution (the creation of unique, novel new code) through any of the mechanisims described within the theory, it thus is no better than a philosophy imo. We can still use macro evolutionary principles to try and link certain animals and  groups of animals.

Design on the other hand, although there is currently no way to set up a repeatable, testable lab expiriment to demonstrate an intelligent cause in action, is approached in much the same manner as archeologists detecting design patterns in ancient archelogical digs or the same principles SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence uses to detect design in signals. Further we can test Behe's hypothisis of irreducible complexity by removing certain parts of biological structures thought to be irreducable and see if they have any possible uses.

Do you feel that archeology or SETI is not science?

Quote
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.

I don't appeal to supernatural causes. You are simply stereotyping me in this regard. Since I've tried to point this out to you many times now and the fact that you keep indicating that I am implying a supernatural being means you keep trying to erect a straw man. Appeal to the supernatural does not belong in science imo.

One prediction that ID has made is that Junk DNA, so called because evolutionists predict left over, unused DNA code during the random evolutionary
processes, has purpose. Much of this so called "Junk DNA" is being shown to have latent effects and regulatory function. So Darwinists have long ignored this "junk" as useless where purpose and function is being found almost daily despite evolutionary predictions.

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.

Imaginations are fantastic. Unfortunately, Imaginations are not always good science. Irreducibly complex systems are in existance and are fact. The internal combustion engine may be considered an example. The engine block, the pistons, the timing chain, the spark plugs, the distributor cap (or electronic ignition), the carbureator (or fuel injection) etc. Take out any one part and the engine doesn't run, not even a little bit.

many (perhaps most) human made machines can be considered irreducibly complex and is in fact the only known source of irreducibly complex systems. Assuming humans are intelligent engineers, thus they are considered intelligently designed machines.

Behe has a hypothisis that these sort of systems exist in nature and Behe et al is currently testing this hypothsis. There are evolutionary scientists that have responded (and rather harshly in some instances) but I still maintain that they have never successfully refuted Behe's claims. Yes, they've applied imagination in abundace and have come up with the co-option argument. Unfortunately co-option of any biological system has never been demonstrated in a lab. Even co-option of protiens is purely theroretical.

The talkorigins site provided a list of  "co-option evidence" but never once provided a link or explanation of the so called evidence. What good does it do to state that there is evidence yet not provide any. The links Novus provided all dead ended in nowhere. Sure they implied evidence, but didn't deliver when it counted.

Further, the miller argument against Behe's mousetrap example contained an imaginitive step by step individual, useful account of every part of a mouse trap in an evolutionary outline, but an active imagination could do that with anything if so desired. The engine block, the carbureator, sparkplug etc. in my example could all be used as a paper weight! There I've demonstrated co-option.... Puhlease...

Quote
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.

Any evidence is questionable. In especially controversial evidence we must turn to the most logical choice. Is evolution with a natural unguided cause for the first dividing cell filled with microcellular machines and chemical codes the most logical choice? Perhaps.. It's not for me, but it may be for you.
Anyway, I expect great things from the Behe camp in the future. Only time will tell.

Quote
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.

Very true, it does not. But that sword cuts both ways...


Quote
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.

Evolution is unfalsifyable in the same way. It might have happend that way, then again it might not have.

Quote
]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.

Shrug.. I dunno, but "prove" evolution?, doubtful...


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.

Ancesteral orign is not a problem for me. Change over time is not a problem for me. Change into somthing completely different.. There's my problem.

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.

..cont.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #175 on: July 27, 2006, 03:59:16 am »

 have no problem with the fossil record being incomplete. In fact it is irrelevant my anti fossil-record-supporting-darwin arguments. Fact, cambrian record shows sudden explosion of fully formed animals. Fact, cambrian shows 20 more new phyla of animals that are now extinct. This indicates a broad base of original animals and narrows to the realitivly few we have today. The exact opposite of the darwinian prediction and tree of life. Fact, cambrian animals exhibit many or most of the complex organs we assumed to have evolved over long periods of time, thus a progression of uncomplex to complex is called into question. Fact, precambrian era shows maybe a few microbes and some "worm trails", virtually nothing of a conclusive, evolutionary nature. Fact, fossil record shows that most animals lived for millions of years without change. "Living fossils" have been found alive and well with nill change in millions upon millions of years.

Darwin predicted a vast amount of transitional species in an ongoing evolutionary tree that has never truly panned out. The connecting animals between phyla is sparse and severly lacking in particular.



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.

You and I simply disagree here. I covered this previously in this very post and other various places within this thread. Although I'm sure I haven't covered it to your satisfaction,and never will, so I don't intend to try anymore..

Quote
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.
I posted LoL to one specific statement because it was ridiculous. I did it one time and now "every time I'm challenged" I post LoL? C'mon man, give me a break. That's crap and you know it...

Quote
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.

As I stated before, I'm simply stating MY doubts about macro evolution and why
Quote
I
doubt them. According to your logic I HAVE to find somthing to replace evolutionary macro evolution and if I cannot that I am required to accept the current evolutionary theory becuse somthing is better than nothing? And why pray tell do I? That approach may work for you but it does not for me. Thats like saying since I don't have a theory on say how black holes are formed I need to come up with one (make one up) or accept the current theory no matter how flawed it is..

I have an idea that some sort of previous intelligence has endowed life to produce these macro changes. How it manifests is unclear. I have a reasoning for this line of thought and that is because coded chemical life needs to be re-coded (re programmed) for these changes. This coupled with the fact that thus far undirected mutation has failed to achieve anything close to macro evolution in the labratory and the many levels of complexity that needs to be traversed, thus I feel current, unguided mutaion theory is flawed.

If that line of reasoning isn't to your liking that's fine, nobody's asking you to change your views. That IS my line of reasoning and even though you may find flaw with it, I do not..

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

First and foremost I have scientific reservations about a steady evolutionary tree from single celled animals to present day animals. I never said I love underdogs. People trying to turn urine into gold may be considered "underdogs" yet I'm not on their band wagon. If evolutionary theory could actually fit the scientifc observations better and be demonstrated in the lab fairly conclusively, I'd accept it, hook, line and sinker.

like it or not there is an ID movement that is gaining momentum. It is backed by prominent, well educated scientists throughout the world. It's not a bunch of hokey, back-wood fundamentalists or overzealous religious zealots. These people have serious doubts about the creative power of random mutation and natural selection that darwinists bestow upon these mechanisims.


Quote
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.

Viruses act by hijacking the micro cellular machines within an existing cell and force it to reproduce it's own genetic instructions. So what if they mutate? So what if they reproduce? This is NOT an uncomplicated process..

Further, I am not just speaking for myself, alot of my material comes from reading bokks and websites of people with PHDs and years of scientifc background..

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

Yeah you do that because the "macro people" who "posted about it" above you are a figment of your imagination.. Macro evolution HAS never been demonstrated in a lab or anywhere else. I stand by my assertion.

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

Of course I'm assuming, based on what we know of plankton living today. Are there other possibilities? Sure. Are we aware of any other possible gasses providing a similar ozone protection? I'm not aware of any but perhaps there is.. I haven't studied this much.


Quote
Also, using gills and breathing oxygen in water does not necessarily mean that there is large amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

True, but assuming gills work today the way they worked hundreds of millions of years ago, there must have been SOME oxygen in the atmosphere.. YES ASSUMPTIONS.. I freely admit it. So sue me! Wink


Quote
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.

I do believe there may have been life in the precambrian and I go by what palentologists say they have found there.. Microbe fossils and worm trails petrified in sediment layers.


Quote
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?

Yes that can be interpreted in several ways. And you do have a point, but to say it once was bacteria may be overstepping scientific observation imo. The same protiens exists amongst different species such as humans and bananas. That doesn't nessicarily conclude that we were once bananas. I use protiens because they have specific amino acid sequences and fold into similar shapes. DNA is a folded protien. Similar shaped DNA could be considered flimsy evidence and perhaps superficial.

Quote
It seems no more of a logic leap than "cells look like factories so they are designed".

Because two DNA protiens have the same shape thus one MUST have been a bacteria?

Quote
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.

Look up the definition of the word factory.. Cross examine it with the processes inside a cell.. I rest my case..

Quote
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?

Those are philisophical questions. I dunno who or why. I think life did not originate here on earth. This is called Panspermia. This is also what Francis Crick, co discoverer of the DNA double helix concluded. He spent the better part of his career unlocking the mysteries of the DNA chemical coding system and realized the unlikelyhood of earth evolving these processes.

Right now I'm interested in "is it design". I think religious people might have the right general idea but their doctrines are simply made up. Right now I'm fairly agnostic but am open to new possibilities.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2006, 04:11:41 am by RTyp06 » Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3847


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #176 on: August 02, 2006, 07:51:47 pm »

Quote
Fact, cambrian record shows sudden explosion of fully formed animals.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully formed'. Do you mean they were alive? In that case, DUH.

Quote
Fact, cambrian shows 20 more new phyla of animals that are now extinct. This indicates a broad base of original animals and narrows to the realitivly few we have today.

If the fact you list is literally correct (and I am willing to suppose that it is for the purpose of this discussion), that only indicates something about how animals take on form.
Once you've begun shaping yourself one way, it's not hard to add new things on the end, but it's hard to change the beginning. Thus, you would expect that in the very beginning of the formation of complex shapes, the variety would be enormous, as they tried every shape. Many of these shapes would not work out, for whatever reason. Those that worked were locked into their early choice, but were free to modify later choices. The early choices determine the phylum.

Also, the Cambrian explosion may have had many many creatures, but it is still a tiny number compared to the number we have today. Check out how few creatures were IN those lost phyla.


Quote
Fact, cambrian animals exhibit many or most of the complex organs we assumed to have evolved over long periods of time, thus a progression of uncomplex to complex is called into question.

Hold on for a moment. These animals have skeletal remains which indicate the existence of complex organs. What was added, in the cambrian explosion? Not the organs, but the skeletons! Skeleton-bearing animals had enormous numbers of niches they could get into that other creatures could not, so it was an evolutionary field day. Rapid growth, rapid change. That they had complex organs already is not a problem (non-skeleton-bearing creatures have these same organs!)

Quote
Fact, precambrian era shows maybe a few microbes and some "worm trails", virtually nothing of a conclusive, evolutionary nature.

because only skeletons fossilize well, and they hadn't evolved yet.

Quote
Fact, fossil record shows that most animals lived for millions of years without change. "Living fossils" have been found alive and well with nill change in millions upon millions of years.

Many situations favor remaining the same. In these cases, evolution forces the species to... remain... the... same.


Given how the first paragraph went, I'm not inclined to go further.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #177 on: August 04, 2006, 09:13:33 am »

I apologize for the tardiness of my reply, I recently came down with a rather uncomfortable sickness, and have thus bben unable to reply. Now, hoever, I'm back to semi-good health.

Quote
No, not exactly. I think life is endowed with the ability to micro evolve to combat environmental pressures and protect itself from harmful pathogens. I think these individualistic abilities differ by varying degree from animal to animal and the complexity of the animal plays a role as well. With higher complexity comes more specific living conditions and habitats.

Bacteria may be able to survie a much wider range of selection pressures than a higher order animal such as say, a polar bear. I don't believe this happens by chance or chance alone. Transposable genes seem to play a high role in individualistic mutation of immune systems of all animals. The reason I may have certain allergic reactions to certian things where you may not. Or a virus that may kill me might not kill you. This isn't evolution to me because (like it or not Wink )we are the same species with the same 23 chromosomes.

I also think that animals under different selection pressures will change differently. Look how different a buffalo and a domestic cow are.. A buffalo is adapted to the cold winds of the central american plains. A buffalo is much more likely to survive the cold winters in this area than domestic cows (without shelter of course).  I do believe they both had a common ancestor and split from one another many thousands of years ago.

You're not actually answering the question here though. I think we've alreadfy established (and correct me if I've misunderstood) that you believe micro evolution is possible, but that macro evolution isn't. So for macro evolution, rather than just random mutations woirking with selcetion pressure, you believe there is a purpose, a design behind the whole thing. Thefore, what I wanted to know was, does this mean that all living creatures have a predetermined path to macro evolve? That somehwere in the genetic code lies some sort of activation code that after a certain amount of time will split away and create a new species no matter what? Or do you believe that the genetic code is designed so that at optimal intervals and during optimal circumstances, the code is capable of creating a new species independently? This is obviously not part of the ID/evolution debate. I'm just curious to know how you explain the arrival of new species to yourself, if they are not the product of macro evolution.

Quote
To me you are describing Evolutionary Therory to a tee. At least the macro evolutionary, one celled organisim to modern animals aspect. Since there isn't a repeatable, testable lab expiriment that can demonstate macro evolution (the creation of unique, novel new code) through any of the mechanisims described within the theory, it thus is no better than a philosophy imo. We can still use macro evolutionary principles to try and link certain animals and  groups of animals.

Design on the other hand, although there is currently no way to set up a repeatable, testable lab expiriment to demonstrate an intelligent cause in action, is approached in much the same manner as archeologists detecting design patterns in ancient archelogical digs or the same principles SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence uses to detect design in signals. Further we can test Behe's hypothisis of irreducible complexity by removing certain parts of biological structures thought to be irreducable and see if they have any possible uses.

As was mentioned in several posts in this thread, evolution actually fulfills most of the criteria for a scientific theory. As I said earlier, feel free to call it a prototheory if you like. Noone here has so far been arguing (to my knowledge) that evolution is an absolute truth. Only that it fulfills more scientific criteria than ID. I'm curious though. Seeing as you've repeatedly stated throughout the thread that ID is a respectable scientific theory, unlike evolution, how do you then explain the fact that ID cannot be tested in a lab? It seems slightly off kilter to me that evolution can be disqulified fro mbieng a thoeyr for soemthign that is equally true for ID, yet ID remains a scientific theory. Your quote seems to indicate, that despite not being able to fulfill this absolute criteria for a scientifc theory (for evolution anyway), ID is alright because it works like archaeology and SETI? This makes little to no sense to me.  I mean, both archaeoloy and the SETI project are specifically sciences that deal in proven intelligent life. Your statement pretty much means that any theory I come up with that predicts intelligence in something, no matter how warped, can be justified with "Well archeology andSETI do it so it must be proper science".

For a simple example, look a bit further down in the post.

Quote
Do you feel that archeology or SETI is not science?

Well, I do. But since it isn't science if it isn't testable in a repetable experiment, I suppose they really aren't if we follow your guideline. If anything, the fact that some branches of science are acceptable without this criteria should alert you that it is not an absolute criteria in all cases.

Quote
I don't appeal to supernatural causes. You are simply stereotyping me in this regard. Since I've tried to point this out to you many times now and the fact that you keep indicating that I am implying a supernatural being means you keep trying to erect a straw man. Appeal to the supernatural does not belong in science imo.

In fact I do not. You yourself have repeatedly stated that the scientific credibility of the theory of ID has nothing to do with the designer, just with the fact that there is design. Therefore, if the designer is irrelevant, it is by no means discrediting you to pick an arbitary designer. I might just as well have written "extradimensional beings" or "Plan 9 from outer Space". However, the scientific theory of ID is limited to only the mechanisms of design, not the mecahnisms of the designer. The argument you seem to be making now is "Your saying the designer is supernatural which makes the theory less credible!". It does not, under the stipulations and rules you've pointed out. But, if it makes you happier, I will rephrase my theory.

Quote from: Theory Of designed universe
I predict that all atoms will continue to be held together by the designers will. I also predict that because of his continuing interest, gravity will continue it's  work. Both predictions will come true, but that doesn't necesssarily make my theory true (or false).

Now, as I said earlier, I'll get back to archeology and SETI. As you can see, now that my theory have the offending parts removed, it predicts actual events that can be credibly proven to happen. Also, I would like to postulate that since the removal of a single part of the atom renders it useless as an atom, it is a irreducibly complex design, and must thus have been designed by someone as proven by Behe. Furthermore, looking at it with the help of sciences such as archeology and SETI, it is quite evident that it is of intelligent design, even though I can perform no test on it. Looking on it with the science of psychology, it also makes perfect sense to me, making it a true scientific theory based on my definition of a scientific theory (must be like archeology, SETI and psychology). However! Seeing as ID does not fulfill the last requirment (it does not make sense), I can therfore refute it as a scientific theory.

I'm sure this all seems rather silly to you. it seems silly to me as well. But this is exactly the thing you were doing further up. First, you discredit evolution on something your own theory does not fulfill. Then you go, well that's alright because my theory is like X and Y, which means it doesn't need to fulfill that requirment. Bit of  adouble standard there.

Quote
One prediction that ID has made is that Junk DNA, so called because evolutionists predict left over, unused DNA code during the random evolutionary
processes, has purpose. Much of this so called "Junk DNA" is being shown to have latent effects and regulatory function. So Darwinists have long ignored this "junk" as useless where purpose and function is being found almost daily despite evolutionary predictions.

This is interesting, and I would love to see some links to these predictions. I know that most of the articles I've gone through considering junk DNA refer to the term as antiquated (despite not being ID articles), but if this happened some time ago that would be understandable.

Quote
Imaginations are fantastic. Unfortunately, Imaginations are not always good science. Irreducibly complex systems are in existance and are fact. The internal combustion engine may be considered an example. The engine block, the pistons, the timing chain, the spark plugs, the distributor cap (or electronic ignition), the carbureator (or fuel injection) etc. Take out any one part and the engine doesn't run, not even a little bit.

many (perhaps most) human made machines can be considered irreducibly complex and is in fact the only known source of irreducibly complex systems. Assuming humans are intelligent engineers, thus they are considered intelligently designed machines.

This is not questioned by anyone. Well except for the last sentence which unfortunately makes no sense to me. If we are intelligent engineers, we must be designed machines?

Quote
Behe has a hypothisis that these sort of systems exist in nature and Behe et al is currently testing this hypothsis. There are evolutionary scientists that have responded (and rather harshly in some instances) but I still maintain that they have never successfully refuted Behe's claims. Yes, they've applied imagination in abundace and have come up with the co-option argument. Unfortunately co-option of any biological system has never been demonstrated in a lab. Even co-option of protiens is purely theroretical.

Wait, so Behe's hypothesis has never actually been proven (but neither refuted in your opinion) so it is alright to use? However, any argument that the evolutionary side provides must be proven in a lab to have credibility? This again seems like a double standard.

Quote
Further, the miller argument against Behe's mousetrap example contained an imaginitive step by step individual, useful account of every part of a mouse trap in an evolutionary outline, but an active imagination could do that with anything if so desired. The engine block, the carbureator, sparkplug etc. in my example could all be used as a paper weight! There I've demonstrated co-option.... Puhlease...

So, to recap. Using your imagination as a evolutionary scientist is bad, because then you can prove anything. But if you are rooting for ID, constructing an hypothesis that can in no way be proven is not using your imagination, but rather thinking logically?

Quote
Any evidence is questionable.

Well, this at least is new. Earlier on, your detective had absloute evidence.

Quote
In especially controversial evidence we must turn to the most logical choice. Is evolution with a natural unguided cause for the first dividing cell filled with microcellular machines and chemical codes the most logical choice? Perhaps.. It's not for me, but it may be for you.
Anyway, I expect great things from the Behe camp in the future. Only time will tell.

And for you, it would seem that a designer that is somehow untouched by the rules fo your theory makes more sense. The problem for me there is that the theory does not explain, or even attempt to explain anything. Was the designer designed? Did he evolve? It just seems like a way of pushing back any question we may have about the beginning of life. Still, as you said. Only time wil ltell.

Quote
Evolution is unfalsifyable in the same way. It might have happend that way, then again it might not have.

Again, which is why it is the theory of evolution.

Quote
Shrug.. I dunno, but "prove" evolution?, doubtful...

My apologies, I should have used a weaker word, such as indicate., or point towards.

Quote
Ancesteral orign is not a problem for me. Change over time is not a problem for me. Change into somthing completely different.. There's my problem.

This confuses me abit. We're in agreement that you have primitive introns in bacteria, right? And more advanced ones in eukaryotes. Are we also in agreement that prokaryotes and eukaryotes are very different, and cannot change into eachother? If so, how then do you imply that the primitive introns in prokaryotes transferred themselves to eukaryotes? If one didn't evolve into the other and organelles aren't bacteria why do eukaryotes have a more adnvanced version of the prokaryotes introns?

Death_999 replied quite well to your points on the cambrian explosion. What interest me though is how you

Quote
have no problem with the fossil record being incomplete. In fact it is irrelevant my anti fossil-record-supporting-darwin arguments.

, when one of the major arguments you've made over and over again is that "there is no proof of macro evolution in the fossil record thus it is untrue".

Quote
You and I simply disagree here. I covered this previously in this very post and other various places within this thread. Although I'm sure I haven't covered it to your satisfaction,and never will, so I don't intend to try anymore..

Feel free to disagree. You have covered it in this post, although I must say I've not seen it come up as clearly in any of your other posts.

Quote
I posted LoL to one specific statement because it was ridiculous. I did it one time and now "every time I'm challenged" I post LoL? C'mon man, give me a break. That's crap and you know it...

Also, when someone makes a post, you tend to reply only to a small part of it, and leave the rest uncommented.  I count you using LoL at least twice i nthis thread. I'll grant you that this isn't a huge number of times, but it is the attitude that counts here. To me at least, this gives you an air of indifference to the other sides arguments, a a sheen of arrogance. I may of course be completely wrong, but that is how I perceive it.

Quote
According to your logic I HAVE to find somthing to replace evolutionary macro evolution and if I cannot that I am required to accept the current evolutionary theory becuse somthing is better than nothing? And why pray tell do I? That approach may work for you but it does not for me. Thats like saying since I don't have a theory on say how black holes are formed I need to come up with one (make one up) or accept the current theory no matter how flawed it is..

Indeed. If you would have walked up to Nils Bohr the day after he released his model of the atom and told him "Hey Nils, your model is incorrect. I don't know how or why, but it is. Atoms don't look like miniature solarsystems, that's ridiculous", what do you think his reply would have been? Still, it turns out he was wrong. But before that was known, his model was used because it was the best available one. Even though it is incorrect on a fundamental level, we still use it today because it predicts the behaviour of atoms so well. Same with any theory you'd care to name. You use the best fit until something betetr comes along. perhaps one day ID will have so much more evidence and be able to predict so much more than evolution that the scientific community will adapt it. Perhaps something else will supercede both theories. All I know is, by simply tearing down you aren't furthering our knowledge.

Your theory is fine, as a theory. It might be comepletly correct. If you manage to straighten out the wrinkles, and prove it in a lab, then you could well supercede evolution.

Quote
People trying to turn urine into gold may be considered "underdogs" yet I'm not on their band wagon.

You might want to reconsider that. If I recall correctly, they incidentally discovered phosphor, which for a time was more expensive than gold.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 09:21:47 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 #178 on: August 04, 2006, 09:13:56 am »

Quote
If evolutionary theory could actually fit the scientifc observations better and be demonstrated in the lab fairly conclusively, I'd accept it, hook, line and sinker.

Yet this isn't necessary for ID?

Quote
like it or not there is an ID movement that is gaining momentum. It is backed by prominent, well educated scientists throughout the world. It's not a bunch of hokey, back-wood fundamentalists or overzealous religious zealots. These people have serious doubts about the creative power of random mutation and natural selection that darwinists bestow upon these mechanisims.

I don't really care that much. Evolution is a best fit theory, just as any other. It's not a glorious eternal truth. It will change, or be superceded as outr understanding of the universe grows.

Quote
Viruses act by hijacking the micro cellular machines within an existing cell and force it to reproduce it's own genetic instructions. So what if they mutate? So what if they reproduce? This is NOT an uncomplicated process..

Well, if all random mutations are bad, shouldn't they just be killing themselves?

Quote
Further, I am not just speaking for myself, alot of my material comes from reading bokks and websites of people with PHDs and years of scientifc background..

That's good to know. I write all my material myself you know. Every single notion I've posted, is entirley thought out by me and noone else. I rarely read books, and I make it  a point ot avoid anything written by a PhD. In fact, when my boss comes in, I hide so that he wont tell me something that is not based on my own firmly entrenched beliefs.

Quote
Yeah you do that because the "macro people" who "posted about it" above you are a figment of your imagination.. Macro evolution HAS never been demonstrated in a lab or anywhere else. I stand by my assertion.

It's nice to know we share hallucinations, as you've actually replied to the posts I've mentioned.

Quote
Of course I'm assuming, based on what we know of plankton living today. Are there other possibilities? Sure. Are we aware of any other possible gasses providing a similar ozone protection? I'm not aware of any but perhaps there is.. I haven't studied this much.

It's nice to see that you are still holding up your side of the argument by ignoring parts of my post. For someone who likes to talk about strawmen, you sure seem fond of using them. The point I was making, and illustrating with quotes was your double standard of making assumptions but complaining when others do the same. And you counter with defending your  right to assumptions, which I have not even questioned.

Quote
The same protiens exists amongst different species such as humans and bananas. That doesn't nessicarily conclude that we were once bananas. I use protiens because they have specific amino acid sequences and fold into similar shapes. DNA is a folded protien. Similar shaped DNA could be considered flimsy evidence and perhaps superficial.

But it does imply that we stem from a very similar background. That's the idea of evolution. On what grounds are you now considering it? I mean, it seems to me that deduction is only acceptable evidence if you use it in the "Hey this looks designed" way rather than the "Hey these two organize their most basic structure the same way maybe they are related!" way.

Quote
Look up the definition of the word factory.. Cross examine it with the processes inside a cell.. I rest my case..

Quote from: wiki
A factory (previously manufactory) is a large industrial building where workers manufacture goods or products. Most modern factories have large warehouse-like facilities that contain heavy equipment used for assembly line production. Archetypally, factories gather and concentrate resources -- workers, capital and plant.

Quote from: wiki
he cell is the structural and functional unit of all living organisms, sometimes called the "building blocks of life." Some organisms, such as bacteria, are unicellular, consisting of a single cell. Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular

Yes, I see the likeness immediately.

Quote
Right now I'm interested in "is it design". I think religious people might have the right general idea but their doctrines are simply made up. Right now I'm fairly agnostic but am open to new possibilities.

Seems a bit shortsighted to me. Surely you should be lookign for the designer. If nothing else, that would prove your theory striaght away.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 09:23:42 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Cronos
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


Shofixti Scoutmaster


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #179 on: August 06, 2006, 07:47:09 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

^^ Watch it. Watch it all. Now. End of Argument Cheesy
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 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!