Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
Can you give three or four examples of this from textbooks, or research papers?
Facts of evolution cannot be denied.
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Huh??? Every biologist, almost all scientists in other branches of science, and probably the majority of scholars in other fields of study, know that the first chordates (the most primitive cartilaginous fish) evolved in water.
The more advanced "true" fish (with skeletons of bone) evolved from the cartilaginous fish--again in water. The amphibians evolved from the fish--again in water. It wasn't until the first primitive reptiles evolved from the amphibians that any vertebrates originated on land.
Of course other types of animals had already colonized the land, notably arthropods. But I'm not going to speculate about how many non-biologists know that, or for that matter, have even thought about it.
Anyway, nobody in the field of science that deals with evolution--biology--denies the role of water in evolution. I can't imagine where you ever picked up such a ridiculous idea! Every respectable biologist, with a degree from a reputable university (not one of the unaccredited institutions that teach creation "science"), knows enough about evolution to understand that for hundreds of millions of years: it took place exclusively in water.
So if I were to ask a biologist at random "Is water at all important to life on Earth?", then I suppose he or she would say "Water? No way, man! Forget about it."
My car tyres each have a neat torus of air inside, without which they wouldn't work. I think the role of air in car tyres is being systematically denied by car manufacturers everywhere. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
Whenever I see an advertisement for tyres, none of them ever mentions the air torus that is essential for the tyre to function. Why not? It is crucial to the operation of the tyre, and we can't understand the tyre fully without it. So why is it being ignored. Why? WHY?
It must be a liberal conspiracy, I think. There's no other possible explanation.
Air is never shown in the diagrams I see showing cut-aways of tyres, either. It's the same damn conspiracy at work. We should both fight this together. What do you say?
Whose goal?
I agree. Down with those who don't know the difference between chemistry and religion! Down with those who ignore the role of the beautiful and essential air torus! Those people should stop saying I'm crazy and start realising that they are ALL in denial. They are AFRAID OF AIR! Well, I've had enough and I'm not going to take it any more. These people can't defend their anti-air position with science. One day they'll reap the fruits of their falsehoods. One day I will be vindicated. One day all those liberal air-deniers will have to bow and scrape and say "Oh, Great One, you were right all along about the tyres and the air toruses. If only we had listened!"
Rubber is very heavy, and the suspension couldn't handle it. Also less cushion. Might be fine for smaller wheels at lower speeds.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
While you can make a case for adding a lot of other elements to that mix, you absolutely have to include nitrogen, or you have no DNA.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The first bicycle tires in the 19th century were indeed made of solid rubber. Obviously one advantage of wrapping steel wheels in rubber tires is that they give the rider a less bouncy ride, because the rubber can expand and contract vertically. But the key advantage is that it can bend horizontally. This allows for better traction, resulting in more accurate steering and a safer ride.
Pneumatic tires, which were invented in 1888, simply augment this property. Air is much more expandable, compressible and bendable than rubber.
Tires without the proper air pressure lack performance, just like life without water gets low mileage and poor performance around the corners of evolution. One can't ignore either variable; tire or air, and call the design proper.
Life, like fish and coral, did evolve in water. But the water I am talking about is the water inside cells. This water is common to all life. Evolution requires chemical reactions so change can occur. These chemical reactions do not occur without water, with no other solvent, even substituted, allowing enough functionality for life to appear, so life can evolve.
It is also true that certain atoms are important to life; O,C,N, H, P, etc., and can't be substituted. However, the dynamics of life occurs because of the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures of the biomaterials. The backbone of atoms and amino acids along a proteins are important. This would not change no matter which solvent you use. The material is sturdy and will stay stable in alcohol, ammonia, water or methane. What will change, based on solvent, is how this common backbone comes together into a 3-D shape, with only a minimal energy shape, bio-active. This is where water plays a unique role in allowing things to stack in a very precise low energy way. The other solvents, leave too many high energy areas, as well as entrain themselves to much, rendering the final 3-D protein, inactive. If we start with a protein that had folded in water, so it is good to go, and then remove the water and add another solvent, the surface energy will now change, also rendering the protein inactive.
The current model of evolution does not have the same level of predictive power, seen in many other areas of science. The analogy, I used for the state of the art, is like saying it will rain (evolve) in the future, but we are unable to pin point when or where. We have plenty of data of past rain (evolution), personal experience of rain (evolution) but we are only able to say it does rain and it will rain, but we are still sure exactly when or where. Imagine sending humans to Mars with this level of predictive power. We know the rocket works and have reach the target but this time we don't know when or where it will end up, just hat it will get there at some time in the future.
It is not much different from the predictive strategy of an ancient tribesman, who has heard about rain from the elders and has seen seeing rain in his own life, to know rain does indeed exist. But he is unable to know when or where the rain will come next, with any accuracy. He will know it when it sees it, but after the fact. He too will consult the oracle; statistical 8-ball, to help him make a guess. Ask the gods to give rain and if they do, he has a prediction.
This explains why evolution always keeps the fight alive with creationism. In all due respect to everyone, evolution is the first grader comparing itself to the kinder gardener. Adding water to the blend, is the high school student who can't be made part of the fight, since evolution will not look like the big boy. The debate has to stay juvenile.
.
Life, like fish and coral, did evolve in water. But the water I am talking about is the water inside cells. This water is common to all life. Evolution requires chemical reactions so change can occur. These chemical reactions do not occur without water, with no other solvent, even substituted, allowing enough functionality for life to appear, so life can evolve.
It is also true that certain atoms are important to life; O,C,N, H, P, etc., and can't be substituted. However, the dynamics of life occurs because of the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures of the biomaterials. The backbone of atoms and amino acids along a proteins are important. This would not change no matter which solvent you use. The material is sturdy and will stay stable in alcohol, ammonia, water or methane. What will change, based on solvent, is how this common backbone comes together into a 3-D shape, with only a minimal energy shape, bio-active. This is where water plays a unique role in allowing things to stack in a very precise low energy way. The other solvents, leave too many high energy areas, as well as entrain themselves to much, rendering the final 3-D protein, inactive. If we start with a protein that had folded in water, so it is good to go, and then remove the water and add another solvent, the surface energy will now change, also rendering the protein inactive.
The current model of evolution does not have the same level of predictive power, seen in many other areas of science. The analogy, I used for the state of the art, is like saying it will rain (evolve) in the future, but we are unable to pin point when or where. We have plenty of data of past rain (evolution), personal experience of rain (evolution) but we are only able to say it does rain and it will rain, but we are still sure exactly when or where. Imagine sending humans to Mars with this level of predictive power. We know the rocket works and have reach the target but this time we don't know when or where it will end up, just hat it will get there at some time in the future.
It is not much different from the predictive strategy of an ancient tribesman, who has heard about rain from the elders and has seen seeing rain in his own life, to know rain does indeed exist. But he is unable to know when or where the rain will come next, with any accuracy. He will know it when it sees it, but after the fact. He too will consult the oracle; statistical 8-ball, to help him make a guess. Ask the gods to give rain and if they do, he has a prediction.
This explains why evolution always keeps the fight alive with creationism. In all due respect to everyone, evolution is the first grader comparing itself to the kinder gardener. Adding water to the blend, is the high school student who can't be made part of the fight, since evolution will not look like the big boy. The debate has to stay juvenile.
.
Tires without the proper air pressure lack performance, just like life without water gets low mileage and poor performance around the corners of evolution. One can't ignore either variable; tire or air, and call the design proper.
Life, like fish and coral, did evolve in water. But the water I am talking about is the water inside cells. This water is common to all life. Evolution requires chemical reactions so change can occur. These chemical reactions do not occur without water, with no other solvent, even substituted, allowing enough functionality for life to appear, so life can evolve.
It is also true that certain atoms are important to life; O,C,N, H, P, etc., and can't be substituted. However, the dynamics of life occurs because of the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures of the biomaterials. The backbone of atoms and amino acids along a proteins are important. This would not change no matter which solvent you use. The material is sturdy and will stay stable in alcohol, ammonia, water or methane. What will change, based on solvent, is how this common backbone comes together into a 3-D shape, with only a minimal energy shape, bio-active. This is where water plays a unique role in allowing things to stack in a very precise low energy way. The other solvents, leave too many high energy areas, as well as entrain themselves to much, rendering the final 3-D protein, inactive. If we start with a protein that had folded in water, so it is good to go, and then remove the water and add another solvent, the surface energy will now change, also rendering the protein inactive.
The current model of evolution does not have the same level of predictive power, seen in many other areas of science. The analogy, I used for the state of the art, is like saying it will rain (evolve) in the future, but we are unable to pin point when or where. We have plenty of data of past rain (evolution), personal experience of rain (evolution) but we are only able to say it does rain and it will rain, but we are still sure exactly when or where. Imagine sending humans to Mars with this level of predictive power. We know the rocket works and have reach the target but this time we don't know when or where it will end up, just hat it will get there at some time in the future.
It is not much different from the predictive strategy of an ancient tribesman, who has heard about rain from the elders and has seen rain in his own life, to know rain does indeed exist. But he is unable to know when or where the rain will come next, with any accuracy. He will know it when it sees it, but after the fact. He too will consult the oracle; statistical 8-ball, to help him make a guess. Ask the gods to give rain and if they do, he has a prediction.
This explains why evolution always keeps the fight alive with creationism. In all due respect to everyone, evolution is the first grader comparing itself to the kinder gardener. Adding water to the blend, is the high school student who can't be made part of the fight, since evolution will not look like the big boy. The debate has to stay juvenile.
.
Life, like fish and coral, did evolve in water. But the water I am talking about is the water inside cells. This water is common to all life. Evolution requires chemical reactions so change can occur. These chemical reactions do not occur without water, with no other solvent, even substituted, allowing enough functionality for life to appear, so life can evolve.
It is also true that certain atoms are important to life; O,C,N, H, P, etc., and can't be substituted. However, the dynamics of life occurs because of the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures of the biomaterials. The backbone of atoms and amino acids along a proteins are important. This would not change no matter which solvent you use. The material is sturdy and will stay stable in alcohol, ammonia, water or methane. What will change, based on solvent, is how this common backbone comes together into a 3-D shape, with only a minimal energy shape, bio-active. This is where water plays a unique role in allowing things to stack in a very precise low energy way. The other solvents, leave too many high energy areas, as well as entrain themselves to much, rendering the final 3-D protein, inactive. If we start with a protein that had folded in water, so it is good to go, and then remove the water and add another solvent, the surface energy will now change, also rendering the protein inactive.
The current model of evolution does not have the same level of predictive power, seen in many other areas of science. The analogy, I used for the state of the art, is like saying it will rain (evolve) in the future, but we are unable to pin point when or where. We have plenty of data of past rain (evolution), personal experience of rain (evolution) but we are only able to say it does rain and it will rain, but we are still sure exactly when or where. Imagine sending humans to Mars with this level of predictive power. We know the rocket works and have reach the target but this time we don't know when or where it will end up, just hat it will get there at some time in the future.
It is not much different from the predictive strategy of an ancient tribesman, who has heard about rain from the elders and has seen rain in his own life, to know rain does indeed exist. But he is unable to know when or where the rain will come next, with any accuracy. He will know it when it sees it, but after the fact. He too will consult the oracle; statistical 8-ball, to help him make a guess. Ask the gods to give rain and if they do, he has a prediction.
This explains why evolution always keeps the fight alive with creationism. In all due respect to everyone, evolution is the first grader comparing itself to the kinder gardener. Adding water to the blend, is the high school student who can't be made part of the fight, since evolution will not look like the big boy. The debate has to stay juvenile.
.
Speaking of juvenile, you said there is a fudge factor evolution. I asked if you were lying about this fudge factor to support your position. You have not responded, so am I to conclude that you are in fact a liar that will use dishonesty to support their claim or have you just not had time to respond?
edit to add: The 3rd possibility is of course could have just been mistaken about this fudge factor you are talking about.
Last edited:
They can work (look at cart or forklift wheels) but they are not an issue to righteous people. Only lazy liberals who deny all that is good and right in life would use them. And they're probably gay or something.
LOL. Or even worse they could be liberal women!!
Does he ever respond?
He shits on threads by making claims generally mixed up in word salad like ranting, then ignores any and all efforts that others make to clear it up.
Agreed.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
Wellwisher, perhaps you missed my post #81. For your convenience I'll repeat my question here.
"Can you give three or four examples of this [the fact that is being denied is, water played a significant role throughout evolution] from textbooks, or research papers?"
I am sure paddaboy is incorrect that you just ignore questions. I am confident you will give a comprehensive and early reply.
"Can you give three or four examples of this [the fact that is being denied is, water played a significant role throughout evolution] from textbooks, or research papers?"
I am sure paddaboy is incorrect that you just ignore questions. I am confident you will give a comprehensive and early reply.
No, he's worthless.
wellwisher:
Previously, you were banned from posting in the Science subforums because you kept posting pseudoscientific nonsense. Just to let you know: that ban can be reinstated without any more warnings. If that becomes necessary, the ban will be longer than 1 month. I think a year might be appropriate.
Previously, you were banned from posting in the Science subforums because you kept posting pseudoscientific nonsense. Just to let you know: that ban can be reinstated without any more warnings. If that becomes necessary, the ban will be longer than 1 month. I think a year might be appropriate.