No time for Evolution?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Add in the song which never ends, and the Smurf theme tune, and my work here is done. All hail the great eye! Mahook mahook

a reply to: Noinden
Thereeeee's a flea on the dog....

a reply to: Phage

Takes a bit more than that to get the brain worm started, and I've some antidote on spotify just in case ....

a reply to: Noinden

The biggest mistake I've seen with information theory is that people see the letters designated to DNA and RNA (A, C, G, T, U) as some form of proof of intelligent design.

What they FAIL to understand is those letter designations were only given to each nucleotide base because they represent the necleobase name (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Uracil).

a reply to: Noinden
Not bad.
And if I say that about anything post 1980, that's something.
Now on my primary playlist.

a reply to: TerryDon79

What they also forget is there is a fifth letter U (Uracil). There are actually two "languages" which are closely related going on. Just like Irish and say Persian are the same language family, it does not mean they are the same. Then there is the third language of amino acids that you get to navigate.

As for intelligent design, anyone who has looked at how living creatures actually work, can tell you, if God/Odin/The Morrigan had made all life (last two don't claim that), they suck at making things

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
It's the evolutionary philosophers promoting evolutonary philosophies that are labeling everything as evolution:

cosmic evolution
chemical evolution
molecular evolution
biological evolution
stellar evolution
etc.

According to their terminology, it's all evolution (otherwise you shouldn't be calling it evolution, the terms listed above are also all based on the same core philosophy, 'Mother Nature did it' and philosophical naturalism).

I think the unreasonable behaviour of the adherents of these evolutionary philosophies is weakening their claims considerably. How long can people stick their head in the sand regarding how the word "evolution" is actually used by the promoters of evolutionary philosophers? Their gurus.

I feel bad for you. You still have no idea how to distinguish "genetic mutations and natural selection" from the idea of "change or increase in complexity over time". You are STILL equivocating 2 different definitions of the word "evolution" as the same. I still can't figure out if it's a language barrier or you are just doing it on purpose. They are clearly 2 different things, even as shown in your examples above. The only person adhering to any philosophy of vagueness is you. This argument is Kent Hovind in a nutshell.

cosmic evolution - change and increase in complexity of the cosmos over time
chemical evolution - change and increase in complexity of chemicals over time, or the origin of life
molecular evolution - change and increase in complexity of molecules over time
biological evolution - genetic mutations sorted by natural selection causing increase in alleles in a population over time
stellar evolution - change and increase in complexity of stars

Use the terminology properly or stop arguing, it's not helping your case to commit fallacies.

originally posted by: Barcs
Origin of life= chemistry. Evolution = biology.

And I remember your comment accusing me of making up definitions for the word "design" when I used a shortened version of a definition found in the Oxford dictionary and 2 or 3 dictionaries I found when googling "design dictionary".

I marvel at your creativity and thinkig so far outside the box, I can't even see La La Land anymore if I try to follow.

I shudder to think at any dictionary actually defining biology as evolution and chemistry as the origin of life.

This is a serious post? I wasn't defining the terms, I was telling you what field of science they belonged to.

a reply to: Noinden

I now need a Hemispherectomy.

I hope you're pleased with yourself?

a reply to: Noinden

I added U and RNA. Guess who momentarily forgot about them?

This guy lol

a reply to: Phage

You've not seen the Darkness? They are a certain throw back, but Bowie and whats left of Queen said they were "good", so I tried them. They are my go too "happy music" when I am writitng reports. Try Fozzy too, especially if you like Chris Jericho ( ; ) ) .

See even Music evolution is not all bad

a reply to: TerryDon79

Click in the link in my to Phage, see how your brain deals with that Its dissonance on a different level. But it is evolved.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Scientist don't know why life evolves the way it does. They can only understand the process but they can't know why without the Origin of Life.

All you did was repeat the lie. I just explained to you exactly why life evolves. Abiogenesis is the assembly of life, not how it replicates and changes over time. Hilarious that you still can't comprehend this very basic point.

Look at your example of gravity. Yes, we can understand gravity but we can't know why gravity exists without knowing the Origins. This is why you have theories of quantum gravity or theories that say gravity is an emergent property. So we can have an understanding of gravity but we don't know why it exists because we don't know the Origins.

But nobody is saying that gravity is wrong because we don't know the origin. You ARE saying that evolution is wrong, because we don't know the origin of life. Sorry, but that's a fail. Keep trying to convince us, though. It will be comical watching you repeat yourself over and over again with unconvincing arguments and then get annoyed that nobody buys it.

a reply to: Noinden

I haven't heard a The Darkness song in months!

I just played "I believe in a thing called love". It's on repeat for a while because I keep thinking of other songs lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

See all the people who see a "language" are missing the point. Languages don't self replicate, languages do not have a potential to create physical things. This is not a Gygax influenced world where an intellectual can utter a few arcane phrases, wiggle their fingers, roll some bat guano and sulphur together, (shout Run) and something happens. The Chemicals in DNA do something. That is not a language, the language we see is another ...analogy.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ahh you've increased in my estimation even more They had another Xmas song last year (thats the last thing they released I think, hopefully a new album in a year or so).

a reply to: Barcs

I am urging him to test gravity if he's so certain we need to understand it, for it to hold true

Seriously the only asinine thing is his argument, based on well nothing.

a reply to: Noinden

That's all they have though. Analogy after analogy. If they took as much time looking at the scientific papers that explained it and took the time to understand them, they would see how flawed their analogies are.

I must admit, I do use analogies to try and explain things to a layman. I also believe that's partly where the problem comes into play.

Maybe we should just explain it the way it is and let them figure it out for themselves? Maybe it would just be ignored or be shot down as "sciency" or "Mumbo jumbo".

a reply to: Noinden

Thanks My music likes and dislikes are varied and without any pattern lol. I like what I like

I wouldn't be surprised if they release a new album or single in the next couple of months for this coming xmas. They do have a habit of doing it out of nowhere lol.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Analogy is fine, but it is limited. You can explain science to a certain degree, however its not as good as an explanation using the correct terms

For example. I once had a reaction go pear shaped on me on a 12L scale. It rose 200 degrees Celsius in 30 seconds. An analogy would be "it was like a kettle getting to boiling and then turning into a pressure cooker in half a minute". Except the 12L vessel was glass, it was ejecting corrosive gasses, and I had to spend an hour feeding it dry ice, to get it to where I could stop the reaction.

Is that like a pressure cooker? Does it reflect the danger? Does it reflect I was more than a little nervous, but morally obliged to keep it going out of control?

So with talking about DNA/RNA and proteins in terms of language, it causes people to think "hey there is a higher being involved here". You and I can read a book on how evolution works, we can't read it out aloud and have the next generation of monkies grow wings now can we?

a reply to: TerryDon79

I just like posting the videos, they tend to cause cognitive dissonance in certain types of people (not Phage or you )