Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: Xtrozero

If evolution can't expand beyond its narrow scope then maybe discussing the diversity of life is donning the wrong robes being all up in the metaphysical realm of origin and creation.

The methods of science can be invoked to discuss metaphysics, but can't conclude the dialogue. In the same vein, no expert in any field or discipline can truly conclude that dialogue.

originally posted by: Peeple

It's fascinating to think about. We have a tendency to look at the macro when searching for 'superiority' but I mean there are micro-entities almost as old as the universe and all basically (clones of) the same being. The possibilities If they can maintain a sort of QE-communication are just mindblowing.

I sometimes wonder if we drew the short stick to life that is based on how earth and interactions within this environment drove evolution. What if there are many places where life is 10,000s of years old., maybe millions, such as your micro-entities example, but on a much more advance level. Star Trek does touch on it over and over.

We on earth are stuck in this species cycle where they do not hang around for very long and 30 years is seen as a very long time for the vast majority of them since we can not perfectly reproduce our cells over and over, but what if we could?

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's not Earth's fault

Turritopsis dohrnii, also known as the immortal jellyfish, is a species of small, biologically immortal jellyfish[2][3] found worldwide in temperate to tropic waters. It is one of the few known cases of animals capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary individual. Others include the jellyfish Laodicea undulata[4] and species of the genus Aurelia.[5]

wiki

originally posted by: Peeple

It's not Earth's fault

I would say its the sun radiation and that damn O2 we have. Even though O2 is life to us did you know it is like one of the most caustic elements we have?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Oxidation is a bitch.
But what can you do?

The sun for organic tissue mostly. Which is also weird since for some it's food.

Those after us will have to deal with even more of both.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Xtrozero

...

3. Science tells us "matter and energy can never be created or destroyed." Yet the Big Bang states creation came out of nothing, aka Creatio Ex Nihilo.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

...

3. Not evolution.

One could count It as falling under the topic of cosmic evolution (although one could also argue cosmic evolution follows the Big Bang, seperating it as 2 different topics). But the so-called Big Bang theory won't actually get into what came before or what caused the Big Bang. It's people like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins that promote the idea of "a universe from nothing" (as per the title of Krauss' book).

So it's not actually the Big Bang theory that states that as ElectricUniverse described it. But it's still fans or promoters of evolutionary philosophies that promote it because of being adherents of philosophical naturalism.

You will tend to find the same people supporting both the big bang theory and evolution because they are scientifically literate.

Bet you could teach this guy a thing or two.

mobile.twitter.com...

“This is a side of Dr. Warner Von Braun few have ever seen. This film was approved by NASA in 1961.“

Paper Clip.

a reply to: Peeple

Well, two people who are, or were as in the case of Einstein, more intelligent than you will ever be, Einstein and Michu Kaku, say the opposite to what you claim.

Yet all you keep doing is imposing your opinion instead of actually using reason, and yes reason can be used to prove there is a God that created everything and has shaped the entire multi-verses as well as every living organism.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... The probability that humans would happen is 100% since we did.

Interesting math and circular reasoning there. Let me paraphrase or rephrase that into what you're actually arguing there (what that statement boils down to concerning the context of your argument and what you are responding to), so that the circular reasoning becomes a bit more obvious (primarily for your benefit, even though you may not want to hear it):
...

It is what he does. When I used scientific laws to prove my argument "Xtrozero" just pulled an absurd claim by stating among other things...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
I'll sit back and wait for the 747 theory that you guys will put forth any post now too.

To these people real science does not matter if it debunks their claims. So they will use absurd arguments when they can't use logical arguments when is obvious they lack any logical arguments at all.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The methods of science can be invoked to discuss metaphysics, but can't conclude the dialogue. In the same vein, no expert in any field or discipline can truly conclude that dialogue.

Here we go, putting words in people's mouths like always.

Here is a good explanation on the concept of God/Elohim which was/is shared by intellectuals like Einstein and Professor Michu Kaku. To them, Spinoza's God is real. A being that created everything and is part of everything.

One of Spinoza's quotes about God is this:

"Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God."



Then again, their interpretation of God, and their claim that God does not suffer or responds to humans praying to him, aka religious God, does not exist in their view, and these are personal opinions shared by these two and many other intellectuals. However, there are also many intellectuals who do believe in religious God.

The point is, that their scientific knowledge led them to believe there is a God, an infinite being that created and shaped everything that exists and is eternal.

Again, I posted various scientific laws which do prove that God does exist. As for "religious God" that is a more personal belief based on our own personal experiences and knowledge.

The point is, God does exist and we can see his hands in everything that exists throughout the entire multi-verses.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's hip to be square...

“To Charles Darwin from a true admirer, from Karl Marx.”

Social Darwinism

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No they don't.
All you got is one quote of Einstein saying God doesn't play dice. And I said that too, there's no true randomness. But that's really far from your claim: science proves the existence of God. Which is just false.

My opinion has a lot more reason in it than 'xy says so, the bible says so' which is all you have and that has just zero to do with reasoning.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

To these people real science does not matter if it debunks their claims. So they will use absurd arguments when they can't use logical arguments when is obvious they lack any logical arguments at all.

I think both sides need to accept some parts of the other. I never have understood why something like evolution is not seen to work just as well with intelligent design since it is just the how things evolve. If the other side has a better how then say it, but it is just a rehash of trying to fight evolution which is a never ending field of growth and understanding, but I never hear the other side's replacement of it to get all these advance lifeforms.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Again, I posted various scientific laws which do prove that God does exist.

There is nothing that proves or disproves God exists. Everything you provide is a human thought that says xyz says he exists, but there is nothing outside of human thought as proof.

Humans are really good at that. We live in the abstract world 24/7 very comfortably. You can't even make your breakfast without abstractly creating it first and no other creature on earth can do the same even with something simple as your breakfast. The side effect to all that is we can pull things out of nothing and make it real just like the computer you are using right now as everything in there was an abstract thought first.

The other side of it all is we can make things seem real what actually isn't, like the Star Wars universe that looks so damn real to us, but we know it is not. Religion is also in that category of something we made real, want it to be real, but have no way to prove it, but boy we think we can...hell we can invent breakfast every damn day of the week something no other lifeform on our planet can do, so we can make religion real just like we did with your computer even when we know we have made religion false for 10,000s of years. We just say this time it is different, IT'S REAL THIS TIME!!!

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

Amino acids were found in a comets tail.

originally posted by: whereislogic

From your link:

Glycine, the simplest amino acid, its amine precursor methylamine, and other organic compounds were recently detected in the coma of comets such as Wild 2 by NASA’s Stardust mission and 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by ESA’s Rosetta mission.

So you go from "the simplest amino acid", to "amino acids" (which may give some people the impression that you're talking about more than 1 type), presumably both left- and right-handed, to "confirmed panspermia"? OK. I however am thinking about the issues concerning homochirality and the origin of life (since you jumped from "the simplest amino acid" to "confirmed panspermia", a rather big leap of faith):

Some scientists draw conclusions from the evidence that simple organic molecules are fairly common in space. But is that really evidence for the chance formation of life? Is a hardware store evidence that a car must accidentally build itself there?

Glycine is actually a little different than the other amino acids found in lifeforms when it comes to the subject of mirror images ("left- and right-handed"):

Rocío Picado Herrero: A Chemistry Teacher Explains Her Faith (video)

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

If we plopped out of the flask of some creator we wouldn't share anything at all.
But while what you say is true we have to consider hundreds of millions of years seperating us. So from the parts we share, 40 % are identical.
That is good enough to prove evolution.

Maybe good enough for you, but I found it even less impressive than Darwin and those who followed him pointing to finches with different beakshapes and sizes on the Galápagos Islands and claiming that's evidence of Darwin's evolutionary ideas involving the common descent of all different lifeforms. It was so underwhelming and silly to think of as "good enough to prove evolution", that all I could think of initially was that I was allergic to bananas. (silly arguments attract silly responses)

Any code consisting of only 4 types of characters (or 'letters') that is billions of characters in length is going to have a certain % of similarity with another code that is billions of characters in length that uses only the same 4 types of characters. Coming up with questionable numbers as to what that % exactly is, does not tell us that either code was not actually encoded but emerged by chance and natural mindless processes from a mysteriously unspecified common ancestor. A storyline that is untestable because besides being too vague, it would take too long to be replicated under experimental conditions (as in a laboratory), how convenient.

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

Organisms are classified into increasingly inclusive groups, from specific species to kingdoms. A "higher category" than species is genus, then comes family. In case you didn't understand Goldschmidt's reference to "higher categories".

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
No I just went to school.

Get a refund...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
I just wish we could come together on all this and just say that there could be intelligent design, or not, and life would still follow some natural process with or without intelligent design, but we can't. lol

That's pretty much where I've been for well over 2 decades now, although I lean toward the intelligent design side,

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
No I just went to school.

Get a refund...

Difficult since
1. State school not public (in UK terms)
2 Actually passed my exams so not much case for it.
3. Despite not having done biology in almost 30 years still know enough to point out your posts are completely inaccurate.

People who attend /pay attention at school also tend to know that childish insults are poor substitute for actual knowledge of the topic.

Now unless you can provide a source for your claims about simultaneous changes then we can confirm that all you have done is debunk a strawman of your own creation.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Now unless you can provide a source for your claims about simultaneous changes then we can confirm that all you have done is debunk a strawman of your own creation.

Given the interdependence of many aspects of our body, there would theoretically be many occasions where a vast symphony of mutations would have to occur simultaneously. Especially biochemical cascades which involve many proteins to orchestrate a biological response. For these cascades to work they must have all of the proteins in play. The best example I can think of is the electron transport chain, which is present in all living organisms.





All of these components need to be in play for a living organism to generate energy. It is "irreducibly complex", meaning it will not work if one of these pieces are missing. So yeah this would have needed to be created in one fell swoop because these pieces alone are insufficient to create energy. ATP synthase alone is over 15,000 DNA monomers long, and thats about 1/4th of the entire electron transport chain. So tanstaafl was correct in saying you need a vast symphony of simultaneous mutations. billions of simultaneous mutations? No. Tens of thousands of simultaneous mutations? yes.

Given the theoretical difficulty of even having one beneficial mutation, it is patently impossible to have tens of thousands of synchronous beneficial mutations occur at the same time.

Especially without an intelligent Force guiding it.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's a good book, one may be able to find a hardcopy locally or it can be ordered online.

The term Eugenics, which literally means “well born,” was coined in England by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin.

Whoa cousin of Charles Darwin, an English man coined that term? They must leave that little factoid out of State education in the UK.

Them original Master Race people again obviously...

Nazi ideology may have in fact been invented in England, we'll never really know but it is a little strange.