I just read a very interresting article about evolution's tree of life falling apart as more evidence comes forward. For those of you who are not familiar with the concept, evolution's tree of life is the belief that all living things on earth comes from a common ancestor. As organisms evolve over time through mutation and natural selection, the species branch. This creates a tree like structure which darwinists call the tree of life. I believe this is a good read no matter which side of the debate you may be on:
-- Different protiens give different evolutionary paths. RNA shows a different parth than DNA. -- Morphology (from fossils and living organisms) is contradicted by protein descent from DNA, RNA and other protiens.
IP: Logged
12:23 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
I have never bought into a common ancestor I like the evolution theory - BUT - I think there are MANY starting points, and they are happeneing ALL the time. even now - new life is emerging. of course, being a "full" environment - it wont likely go far. which is why every mass extinction was NOT the end of life on Earth.
IP: Logged
12:38 PM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12400 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
I know where Cheever is coming from, but the question is closer than that;
Why aren't new "building block life forms" being created every day? Every year? Every century? Every millennium?
If we came from several strains of life, then the "powers" that created them should still be at work. Yet, something much simpler than a single cell, say, a wristwatch, does not get spontaneously assembled, either.
IP: Logged
01:03 PM
blakeinspace Member
Posts: 5923 From: Fort Worth, Texas Registered: Dec 2001
I know where Cheever is coming from, but the question is closer than that:
Why aren't new "building block life forms" being created every day? Every year? Every century? Every millennium?
If we came from several strains of life, then the "powers" that created them should still be at work. Yet, something much simpler than a single cell, say, a wristwatch, does not get spontaneously assembled, either.
Well, and not to attempt at siding with either belief, but the easy answer to this is that we simply have not been around long enough when considering "evolution" to have witnessed a whole lot of change or "new building blocks." That's just an objective viewpoint. NO judgement or anything implied.
Everything should be revised, as new info comes to light... Science isn't perfect, but it is evolving/changing as more and more things are understood*
*up to a certain point, anyway...
Only 'God' knows everything...so some humans will try to figure out his plan, others will deny he exists, others will believe in some other god/gods/speghetti monsters/pipe-weilding smiley guy...and no matter what, the planet will keep right on spinning, for awhile...
I'd be surprised if any grand theory such as evolution would nail it in one shot...
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: I know where Cheever is coming from, but the question is closer than that;
Why aren't new "building block life forms" being created every day? Every year? Every century? Every millennium?
If we came from several strains of life, then the "powers" that created them should still be at work. Yet, something much simpler than a single cell, say, a wristwatch, does not get spontaneously assembled, either.
they are every day the universe is LITTERED with them what happens to them here on earth? they are eatin' by the existing life.
IP: Logged
01:48 PM
PFF
System Bot
FieroFanatic13 Member
Posts: 3521 From: Big Rapids, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2006
It's really pointless for me to post in an evolution thread, since I kick myself every time, but I'm glutton for punishment...
If everything came from a Big Bang, then all that exists came from one bit of matter. That means we humans are related to rocks. I'm not buyin' that.
Why not? we are all made from the same cosmic strings.. ( ok, if you don't believe string theory and want something less abstract: we are all made up of the same elementary particles )
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Cheever3000: It's really pointless for me to post in an evolution thread, since I kick myself every time, but I'm glutton for punishment...
If everything came from a Big Bang, then all that exists came from one bit of matter. That means we humans are related to rocks. I'm not buyin' that.
well, I myself find the "Big Bang" to be a product of limited thinking. every time humanity finds "the edge" of his universe, eventually he is shown just how wrong & how small he was thinking. why not mutliple Big Bangs? being an infinite universe, it would be kinda silly to think there would be only one.
and, "stuff" of the "big bang" was not "matter". matter could not have existed until AFTER the explosion of the Big Bang slowed down to under the speed of light. in fact - much of "the stuff of life" could not exist until after stars had formed, died & exploded. were the phrase "we are stardust" comes from.
IP: Logged
03:27 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by User00013170: Why not? we are all made from the same cosmic strings.. ( ok, if you don't believe string theory and want something less abstract: we are all made up of the same elementary particles )
the string theory...the song of God.
IP: Logged
03:28 PM
FieroFanatic13 Member
Posts: 3521 From: Big Rapids, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2006
well, I myself find the "Big Bang" to be a product of limited thinking. every time humanity finds "the edge" of his universe, eventually he is shown just how wrong & how small he was thinking. why not mutliple Big Bangs? being an infinite universe, it would be kinda silly to think there would be only one.
and, "stuff" of the "big bang" was not "matter". matter could not have existed until AFTER the explosion of the Big Bang slowed down to under the speed of light. in fact - much of "the stuff of life" could not exist until after stars had formed, died & exploded. were the phrase "we are stardust" comes from.
I believe that the single big bang theory is rooted in the fact that the universe is expanding in a consistant measurable manner and from an apparent center point, thus leading to the single big bang theory. Multiple bangs as it were would suredly interfere with this observed consistant expansion...Overarching point being that the universe is finite (has boundaries) and is actually expanding as we type here. What is outside the universe that it is expanding into I can't tell you though, lol.
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 06-04-2009).]
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE ?????? known hard core nut creationist group they love to spin BS
we are getting near to understanding DNA but are not near there yet it is not a simple or eazy X+y = z task but someday soon once they get it right then DNA will be able to show clearly what evolved into what when we are not there yet wait a while it is comming and the nut anti darwin kooks will be proven WRONG
in the mean time expect every little dispute to be spun by people like this so call discovery institute who really have and will discover NOTHING but thats all they have spin smoke and mirrors to back fairy tales science will win in the end
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
04:16 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: I believe that the single big bang theory is rooted in the fact that the universe is expanding in a consistant measurable manner and from an apparent center point, thus leading to the single big bang theory. Multiple bangs as it were would suredly interfere with this observed consistant expansion...
yes - the key statement being: "observed" prior to being able to "observe" past the milky way - the milky way was "the universe" the universe has been growing for quite sometime. we used to live on a flat earth, with an edge we could fall off. just as we delve into smaller & smaller particles everything is made of, the universe keeps growing & growing. remember the keyword: infinite
IP: Logged
04:26 PM
FieroFanatic13 Member
Posts: 3521 From: Big Rapids, MI, USA Registered: Jul 2006
yes - the key statement being: "observed" prior to being able to "observe" past the milky way - the milky way was "the universe" the universe has been growing for quite sometime. we used to live on a flat earth, with an edge we could fall off. just as we delve into smaller & smaller particles everything is made of, the universe keeps growing & growing. remember the keyword: infinite
They're not looking at just the milky way anymore, lol. That being said, the laws of physics play into extrapolations like this. Knowing how our own and nearby galaxies are moving, and knowing how physics works, leads to conclusions about what may have occured when you consider all of the data.
I didn't say I collected it or made the conclusions though.
IP: Logged
04:36 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: They're not looking at just the milky way anymore, lol. That being said, the laws of physics play into extrapolations like this. Knowing how our own and nearby galaxies are moving, and knowing how physics works, leads to conclusions about what may have occured when you consider all of the data.
I didn't say I collected it or made the conclusions though.
yup. and just keep expanding on the known data, and extrapolate with history, and a reasonable conclusion would be: the universe is bigger than what we have observed. in fact, the very definition of "infinite" demands that. I am not in one bit saying all the observable universe did NOT come from a single Big Bang. I am just saying - there is no reason whatsoever, that in an infinite universe, there can, and mostly likely are - more than one. and, one day, our expanding "observable universe" will run into another expanding ramains of a big bang. This at least gives the universe a chance of not falling into the "Big Darkness" when all energy has been expended.
I really find having and "edge" or a "Side" when dealing with "infinite" to show that there is an error. and, defining the observable universe as the complete universe is shortsighted.
IP: Logged
04:51 PM
PFF
System Bot
USFiero Member
Posts: 4879 From: Everywhere and Middle of Nowhere Registered: Mar 2002
You got a source ? Some say my dog does not have a soul. They are wrong too.
You got a source that proves they are real? The burden of proof lay at those who claim positive not negative. But its not like religious people are know for using intelligence when it shows how ridiculous their dogma is. Their brainwashing wont allow it.
IP: Logged
12:02 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Phranc: You got a source that proves they are real? The burden of proof lay at those who claim positive not negative. But its not like religious people are know for using intelligence when it shows how ridiculous their dogma is. Their brainwashing wont allow it.
nope. burden of proof lies on those who claim contrary to popular opinion. so, make with it. or are you lieing?
IP: Logged
12:07 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Scientists are not quite as honest as might be hoped http://www.economist.com/sc...source=hptextfeature THAT people, from politicians to priests, cheat and lie is taken for granted by many. But scientists, surely, are above that sort of thing? In the past decade the cases of Hwang Woo-Suk, who falsely reported making human embryonic stem cells by cloning, and Jan Schön, a physicist who claimed astonishing (and fabricated) results in the fields of semiconductors and superconductors, have shown that they certainly are not. However, on these occasions the claims made were so spectacular that they were bound to attract close scrutiny, and thus be exposed eventually. In the cases of Dr Hwang and ex-Dr Schön, the real question for science was not whether it harbours a few megalomaniac fantasists, but why the frauds were not exposed earlier when the papers that made the claims were being reviewed by peers.
Lower-level fraud, however, is much harder to detect: the data point invented or erased to make a graph look better, or to make a result that was not quite statistically significant into that scientific desideratum, the “minimum publishable unit”; the results “mined” retrospectively for interesting correlations, rather than used to test pre-existing hypotheses; the photograph that has been “enhanced” to bring out what the researcher regards as the salient features. How often this sort of thing happens is hard to say. But Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh thought he would try to find out. His results, published in the Public Library of Science, suggest it is commoner than scientists would like the rest of the world to believe.
Dr Fanelli’s own laboratory was the internet. He hunted down past surveys of scientific honesty and subjected them to what is known as a meta-analysis. This is a technique that allows the results of entire studies, which may not have used the same methods, to be pooled in a statistically meaningful way. Dr Fanelli found 18 surveys that met the criteria for his meta-analysis, and a few others that he also included in a general review.
Admissions of outright fraud (ie, having fabricated, falsified or modified data to improve the outcome at least once during a scientific career) were low. According to the meta-analysis, 2% of researchers questioned were willing to confess to this. But lower-level fraud was rife. About 10% confessed to questionable practices, such as “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” or “failing to present data that contradict one’s previous research”—though this figure was just a straight average of the underlying studies, since the relevant parts of the underlying studies were too disparate to run through the meta-analysis.
Moreover, when it came to airing suspicions about colleagues, the numbers went up. The meta-analysis suggested that 14% of researchers in the underlying studies had seen their colleagues fabricate, falsify, alter or modify data. If the question was posed in more general terms, such as running experiments with deficient methods, failing to report deficiencies or misrepresenting data, the straight average suggested that 46% of researchers had seen others get up to such shenanigans. In only half of the cases, though, had the respondent to a survey tried to do anything about the misconduct he said he had witnessed.
How much this actually matters is moot. Fabricating data is a heinous scientific sin. It steers people down paths that do not lead anywhere and discourages them from following those that do. But cleaning data up has a long tradition. Robert Millikan, the physicist who first measured the charge on the electron, discarded results that did not match his expectations, yet he won a Nobel prize—because he was right. The results of Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, are also suspiciously over-accurate by the tenets of modern statistics. When such practices shade into dishonesty is itself a shady area. Just as everyone thinks himself a better-than-average driver, these results (assuming that they are honest) suggest people are more willing to see sin in others than in themselves. And that, at least, proves something that is sometimes forgotten. Scientists are as human as everyone else. ----------- Add something else into the mix, like motivation, and you have a system as reliable as our economy.
nope. burden of proof lies on those who claim contrary to popular opinion. so, make with it. or are you lieing?
Leave up to you get it wrong. Not surprising since you are one of the dumbest people. The list of things you don't understand just gets longer every day. Go and get high again so you can feel smart despite all evidence against it.
IP: Logged
12:29 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Phranc: Leave up to you get it wrong. Not surprising since you are one of the dumbest people. The list of things you don't understand just gets longer every day. Go and get high again so you can feel smart despite all evidence against it.
so you are lieing, eh? got nothing, eh? c'mon - make with the proof of your assertion.
