Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 168

Thread: evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

  1. #121
    Valued Senior Member river-wind's Avatar
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Enmos View Post
    No, all species are linked eventually.
    just to be a pain in the ass, I disagree. I favor the idea that abiogenesis is a natural occurrence, and has happened multiple times. I'd say that the chances are good that all cellular life is connected to a single ancestor eventually, though archaea/archaebacteria may be an outlier. Hard to say.

    As to Darwin's wife, H.R.hit the nail on the head. See the Logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" as to why Darwin's wife plays no part in this debate, unless she can offer some evidence to contradict the theory. Her opinion is of equal importance on the matter as anyone else's, and is thus not very helpful in determining truth.
    Last edited by river-wind; 07-19-07 at 10:08 AM.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Enmos View Post
    No, all species are linked eventually.
    Quote Originally Posted by river-wind View Post
    just to be a pain in the ass, I disagree. I favor the idea that abiogenesis is a natural occurrence, and has happened multiple times. I'd say that the chances are good that all cellular life is connected to a single ancestor eventually, though archaea/archaebacteria may be an outlier.
    I don't understand how you're disagreeing with him. You appear to be saying the same thing, although your language is much clearer because it's more scientific.

    Didn't they discover some weird critters a few years ago living in sulphur vents two miles underground (or something like that) that seem to have a different biology than ours?

    If it turns out that life arose independently twice on one planet, it will greatly change our expectations of finding it elsewhere.

  3. #123
    We've been so bombarded by the god did argument for so long that it has made us blind to the possibilities and sheer tenacity of 'life'and its ability to 'generate' in the most inhospitable conditions (extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme darkness, etc). I suspect the changing climate and the other challenges faced by all current life on earth will see a few high speed evolutionary changes occuring and therefore observable within our lifetimes. Indeed I think there is a book recently out on the subject but I can't for the life of me remember the name or its author!! Help someone please!

  4. #124
    paradox generator
    Posts
    4,089
    Given the title of the thread, it should probably be in philosophy rather than here.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
    Because you havenít a clue as to how the scientific method operates, thatís why.

    Scientific evidence speaks for itself. A personís religion, their hair colour, their wifeís opinions, their place of birth, their place of burial, their brand of tobacco, their hat size or any other biographical info that you are fixated on is all utterly irrelevant to the scientific validity of the ToE. The ToE would be no less valid if Jack The Ripper had been the original proponent.
    Because you havenít a clue as to how the scientific method operates, thatís why.
    I have studied marine biology extensively, perhaps you are not willing to consider evidence pragmatically.

    Your assessment of scientific evidence may be optimistic, i never said anything about hat size or hair color, if all you want to do is discredit a person then make stuff up.

    You may think it is a joke to consider that no lineage exists between species, would you then consider all evolution discussions obsolete? Forget about experiments in labs with bacteria etc. because there is the real chance that these observations have absolutely NO bearing on Darwin's vision of evolution.

  6. #126
    Valued Senior Member river-wind's Avatar
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker View Post
    I don't understand how you're disagreeing with him. You appear to be saying the same thing, although your language is much clearer because it's more scientific.

    Didn't they discover some weird critters a few years ago living in sulphur vents two miles underground (or something like that) that seem to have a different biology than ours?

    If it turns out that life arose independently twice on one planet, it will greatly change our expectations of finding it elsewhere.
    The sea floor vent ecosystems have a different source of energy and chemicals for the basic organic compounds needed, but they still seemed to be similar on a cellular level to other eukaryote and prokaryote life. Many people were talking about the possiblity of life having started there, and then evolving to use sun-based energy only as they spread farther out from the vents.

    I'd say that viruses are a better example of live having started out (at least partially) independently - no cell membrane, different reproductive molecule, no real sense of metabolism as we would currently consider it. IMO, viruses are a kind of life that formed independently from cellular life, *after* cellular life had already existed for a while and taken over the planet (and thus common enough for a parasitic relationship to form as viruses were "becoming" for lack of a better word). This would explain their differences as well as their pure reliance on cellular life for reproduction.
    Last edited by river-wind; 07-19-07 at 02:12 PM.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    Your assessment of scientific evidence may be optimistic, i never said anything about hat size or hair color, if all you want to do is discredit a person then make stuff up.
    H.Rockefeller's remarks are addressed to your introduction of Darwin's possible conversion to Christianity, as evidenced by the behaviour of his wife and changes in burial plans. He rightly points out, as I did earlier, that those observations are wholly irrelevant to the theory. Just as irrelevant as Darwin's hat size, or his wife's hair colour.
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    You may think it is a joke to consider that no lineage exists between species, would you then consider all evolution discussions obsolete?
    I do not think it is a joke to consider the possibility that no lineage exists between species. However, I know it is anachronistic. This possibility has been fully explored. The evidence - the overwhelming evidence - is in. The fields of palaeontology, comparative anatomy, genetics and developmental biology all confirm that species are linked through common ancestors. Unless some very substantial new observations arise, then it is a waste of time to consider this. We might as well consider the possibility that water is actually purple and always flows uphill.

  8. #128
    Valued Senior Member river-wind's Avatar
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    I have studied marine biology extensively, perhaps you are not willing to consider evidence pragmatically.

    Your assessment of scientific evidence may be optimistic, i never said anything about hat size or hair color, if all you want to do is discredit a person then make stuff up.

    You may think it is a joke to consider that no lineage exists between species, would you then consider all evolution discussions obsolete? Forget about experiments in labs with bacteria etc. because there is the real chance that these observations have absolutely NO bearing on Darwin's vision of evolution.
    What you are asking is a question asked in high school biology all over the country.

    "If A looks like B, does that mean that A is related to B?" Often, the answer is no.

    However, we are not just looking at the morphology of specimens to determine relationships. Certainly, there is guesswork involved in drawing a heredity timeline, and the tree will change as new information come to light. (edit: educated guesswork, though)

    But if you don't know why neanderthals are currently considered *not* a part of the Homo sapiens sapiens ancestry, then of course it will look like a childish "well these seem similar" sort of ordering. Once you've read the reasoning behind why the tree is currently shaped how it is, you might have a better idea as to why it has some weight behind it.
    Last edited by river-wind; 07-19-07 at 02:13 PM. Reason: educated, not purple water cause we feel like talking philosophy

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by guthrie View Post
    Given the title of the thread, it should probably be in philosophy rather than here.
    It looks like the moderator changed the original title to address that issue. So far the argument has stayed within the parameters of science so I don't see anything wrong with leaving it here. I probably wouldn't want it in Biology because that is not the place to argue against fundamental principles when everyone else is just trying to find out how photosynthesis works. But this is the place to hold that argument as long as it remains scholarly.
    Quote Originally Posted by river-wind View Post
    The sea floor vent ecosystems have a different source of energy and chemicals for the basic organic compounds needed, but they still seemed to be similar on a cellular level to other eukaryote and prokaryote life. Many people were talking about the possiblity of life having started there, and then evolving to use sun-based energy only as they spread farther out from the vents.
    I see, thanks.
    I'd say that viruses are a better example of life having started out (at least partially) independently - no cell membrane, different reproductive molecule, no real sense of metabolism as we would currently consider it. IMO, viruses are a kind of life that formed independently from cellular life, and only after cellular life had already existed for a while, and largely taken over. This would explain their differences as well as their pure reliance on cellular life for reproduction.
    So viruses are in essence a strange little kind of parasite--or perhaps a symbiote from their point of view--and they thrive because they found an ecological niche. But still, aren't they built from DNA? If life originated in two separate iterations, wouldn't you expect them to be more different than that? Carbon-based like the rest of us, sure. Earth isn't the right environment for silicon-based life or many other types that have been imagined. But DNA???

  10. #130
    Valued Senior Member river-wind's Avatar
    Posts
    2,671
    I should have been more specific, I was thinking of RNA-based viruses, not the Group I and Group II's which have DNA.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus DNA is much more complicated, and we don't fully understand how it came about, especially given how easy it is to destroy in most environments.

    If life is an expected result from the basic functions of the grey area between physics and chemistry, then would independent life actually be fairly similar?

    If lipids form bi-layer spheres just based on their chemical properties (which they do), then they might form cell membranes multiple times. If RNA self-replicates based purely on its bonding properties (which it does), then it could be expected to form a genetic code molecule multiple times.

    Or not. I'm no longer in the field, so my knowledge is outdated. Maybe this has been shown unlikely, and just haven't seen the studies. Again, this is my own personnaly held belief based on what evidence I have seen; not a commonly accepted scientific theory. It was pointed out in another thread that some papers have been published on the subject, but not many.


    edit: given the presence of DNA-based viruses, either
    1) viruses are somehow related to VERY early cellular life, and went a different route
    2) viruses are related somewhere to cellular life, and shed un-needed features over the years (like the 'cell' aspect)
    3) viruses arose independently from cellular life.

    if 3 is correct, then the presense of both DNA and RNA versions would suggest either:
    1) the two types of viruses arose independently
    2) they are related, both used RNA initially, but one group evolved from RNA->DNA at one point

    I'd say that 2 is more likely, given that 1 would most likely require a RNA->DNA evolutionary stage anyway. Item 2 would suggest that either:
    1) RNA->DNA happens spontaneously once the proper environment has been created - that it is a natural chemical step in the process, for cellular and non-cellular life
    2) that some viruses, in infecting host cellular life, managed to "pickup" DNA strands along the way, and eventually adapted to use it for their own needs.
    Last edited by river-wind; 07-19-07 at 03:02 PM.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by river-wind View Post
    I truely do not understand this. And there is TONS of evidence for evolution, what exactly are you looking for here? What do you feel is missing?

    No biochemical mechanism for what? Heredity?[/
    There is no evidence to suggest that heredity has ever altered a life form across the scientific classifications. Is that what you don't understand? If you don't think this is true perhaps you be so good as to illistrate.

    Animals change but there is no evidence that tells us that those changes are nothing more than the allowed for genetic variation inherient in every life form.

    You are suggesting that you can change your windows XP to Vista by altering you profile prefrences. Apparently all that is needed is time.

    No matter how much time passes your XP will never become Vista, unless you buy the new OP system. Likewise with animals. We dealing with the most complex information and programing in the known universe. It was designed to maintain it's form yet allow for variation.

  12. #132
    Valued Senior Member river-wind's Avatar
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    There is no evidence to suggest that heredity has ever altered a life form across the scientific classifications.
    Except for all the times that have been pointed out to you over the past year. chiclid fish, fruit flies, a few butterfly species.

    You seemed to be accepting of the idea that species diverged. No longer?

    The classification system is a human construct. Why would nature limit itself to fit those artificial boundaries?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Animals change but there is no evidence that tells us that those changes are nothing more than the allowed for genetic variation inherient in every life form.
    EXACTLY! and change a little here, a little there, a little more here, some more over here, a bit on the top, some more of the left, and a tiny tweak to this part....and you're a new species.

    It like you're saying that once Windows XP has been created, the programmers can't take the code, modify it a little bit everywhere, and sell it as Vista.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    It was designed to maintain it's form yet allow for variation.
    And you base this claim on what evidence other than your supposed lack of evidence?

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by river-wind View Post
    Except for all the times that have been pointed out to you over the past year. chiclid fish, fruit flies, a few butterfly specie
    A change of spiecies of the same animal. Not evolution. That is were your understanding has been lacking. Perhaps I've failed to illistrate that animals don't change Phylums, Classes and Orders.

    You seemed to be accepting of the idea that species diverged. No longer?

    The classification system is a human construct. Why would nature limit itself to fit those artificial boundaries?
    And yet it has. Why. to maintain the programing of the original creature. That is a proven ability of DNA. 99% accuracy of replication. There is no allowance of augmentation only variables change.


    EXACTLY! and change a little here, a little there, a little more here, some more over here, a bit on the top, some more of the left, and a tiny tweak to this part....and you're a new species.
    I'm sorry, but DNA simply does not allow.

    It like you're saying that once Windows XP has been created, the programmers can't take the code, modify it a little bit everywhere, and rename it to Vista.

    No that' what you're saying to make your point. But that's exactly what I'm saying. It can't be done by chance. And it certainly cain't be done without the propper tools, thus the need for that biochemical mechanism.

    QAnd you base this claim on what evidence other than your supposed lack of evidence?
    No other evidence is required to prove that evolution is an assumption and not a fact. The DNA it'self is the nail in the coffin of the evolutionary hypothesis and the probability stats merely confirm what we already know. Evolution is impossible. Infact according to the stats there is nothing more impossibly improbable than evolution iteself.

  14. #134
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    A change of spiecies of the same animal. Not evolution. That is were your understanding has been lacking. Perhaps I've failed to illistrate that animals don't change Phylums, Classes and Orders.
    You are joking right ? Ofcourse (!) species dont jump phylums, classes and orders... what school did you ever go to (if any) ?
    This just tells me you dont understand the process of evolution AT ALL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    And yet it has. Why. to maintain the programing of the original creature. That is a proven ability of DNA. 99% accuracy of replication. There is no allowance of augmentation only variables change.
    99% still allows for change.. no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    I'm sorry, but DNA simply does not allow.
    So what you are saying is that somehow the "beginning-state" of the DNA is stored somewhere to maintain the boundaries within which variaty can occur ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    No that' what you're saying to make your point. But that's exactly what I'm saying. It can't be done by chance. And it certainly cain't be done without the propper tools, thus the need for that biochemical mechanism.

    And you base this claim on what evidence other than your supposed lack of evidence?

  15. #135
    paradox generator
    Posts
    4,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post

    A change of spiecies of the same animal. Not evolution. That is were your understanding has been lacking. Perhaps I've failed to illistrate that animals don't change Phylums, Classes and Orders.
    You can't illustrate it. How would you even try?


    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    No other evidence is required to prove that evolution is an assumption and not a fact. The DNA it'self is the nail in the coffin of the evolutionary hypothesis and the probability stats merely confirm what we already know. Evolution is impossible. Infact according to the stats there is nothing more impossibly improbable than evolution iteself.
    That'll be the DNA, mathematical examination of which has shown to follow rules which fit perfectly with the evolutionary theory. In fact, the DNA in which mutations occur with such regularity that they can be used to estimate dates.

  16. #136
    Valued Senior Member river-wind's Avatar
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    I'm sorry, but DNA simply does not allow.
    Unless you can get DNA itself to explain to me why it has chosen to not allow this sort of change to itself, I'm going to doubt that this claim.

    What makes you so sure that DNA simply doesn't 'allow' for too much variation from it's origination point? How can others verify this hypothesis?

    US federal law doesn't allow for the use of marijuana, but it still happens.

  17. #137
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,562
    I'll ask again, Saquist. How does DNA, according to you, maintain a memory of its origin point ?

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by guthrie View Post
    That'll be the DNA, mathematical examination of which has shown to follow rules which fit perfectly with the evolutionary theory. In fact, the DNA in which mutations occur with such regularity that they can be used to estimate dates.

    And they are also limited. The predictability is a stop sign.
    Mutation of any creature has a reoccurance of variation. There are not endless variations of mutations. This is proven. Without that endless variation that 1% of chanageable DNA is decidedly isolated. Once again proving DNA's purpose is replicate exactly, not to allow for endless variations.

  19. #139
    Moderating your thoughts.. Enmos's Avatar
    Posts
    42,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    Once again proving DNA's purpose is replicate exactly, not to allow for endless variations.
    Youre acting as if evolution would have a purpose, it has not.

  20. #140
    Encephaloid Martini (Q)'s Avatar
    Posts
    19,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
    And they are also limited. The predictability is a stop sign.
    Mutation of any creature has a reoccurance of variation. There are not endless variations of mutations.
    And the flu doesn't exist, either. Especially that of it's various mutations.

    Once again proving DNA's purpose is replicate exactly, not to allow for endless variations.
    So, when male/female breed, which set of DNA is replicated?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •