Why flat earth?

5e29c27005beb008189c03ea8f370609--clever-packaging-food-packaging-design.jpg
 
exchemist said:
Don't fall into the same trap as our dropout electronics student. Showing instances that are consistent with a theory does not logically preclude the possibility of a future instance that contradicts it.
Click to expand...
I understand, but if a theory has been tested a million times, and the probability factor reaches 99.9999% , can we not say something is true.
If we can show something is universally true (gravity) we call it a constant. Why should the evolution (the gradual change from one state into another) of living things work be any different than universal constants. IMO, evolution of living things is just as constant, even as natural selection introduces a variable, the function remains the same as for universal evolution, which also incorporates variables.
Can we not consider evolution a universal constant? A settled matter. The word itself is neutral and all encompassing, it includes all possible forms of change from one state to another. What other possible word can be substituted, except creationism.?

I would even include natural selection as a variable constant.
 
Last edited:
Tralay
On a serious note. You did qualify that your friends were posters on Facebook, which allows for a free-for-all posting of any nonsensical topic or assertion.

This forum is designed for serious discussions. Humor while staying in context is certainly appreciated, but is not the purpose of Sciforums. It allows for various topics if posted in the appropriately identified sections.
This section of Earth sciences deals with serious discussions of Earth sciences, such as Global warming and Atmospheric conditions.

Obviously your OP was not appropriate in this specific section, and does not really deal with real science but should have been started in Pseudo Science or even in the Free Thought section.

Trust me you'll get plenty of responses there also, but the posters will know that it is not a serious effort to follow scientific disciplines or accepted scientific knowledge and treat it as such.

OTOH, if you post in the pure science section, it is expected that he poster is seriously interested in science, not random BS spouted by everyTom Dick and Harry on Facebook, which does not fall in the area of serious attempts to make sense of known and consensus scientific knowledge.

From some of your other post you have demonstrated the ability for critical analysis. Don't spoil it by posting nonsense, your other post you have clearly demonstrated that you are capable of logic argument, but please don't mix the two the two and then make a claim that it is knowledge. It is and always will bet just ill-considered assertions.

Please do not corrupt serious discussions with random statement, from tweets on Facebook which do not in any way contribute to serious discussion designed for acquiring scientific knowledge. Even putting them forward as alternative solutions to real science will certertainly result in being placed on ignore and you will most assuredly be dismissed as a crank or troll.
.
You made the statement that all information is a form of knowledge and that is true , but knowledge of useless information does not make for understanding.
 
Write4U said:
I understand, but if a theory has been tested a million times, and the probability factor reaches 99.9999% , can we not say something is true.
If we can show something is universally true (gravity) we call it a constant. Why should the evolution (the gradual change from one state into another) of living things work be any different than universal constants. IMO, evolution of living things is just as constant, even as natural selection introduces a variable, the function remains the same as for universal evolution, which also incorporates variables.
Can we not consider evolution a universal constant? A settled matter. The word itself is neutral and all encompassing, it includes all possible forms of change from one state to another. What other possible word can be substituted, except creationism.?

I would even include natural selection as a variable constant.
Click to expand...
No that is not what a constant is. A constant is a number in an algebraic expression whose value does not change as a function of the variables in the expression.

And people are constantly finding new features and mechanisms operating in the natural world that affect our understanding of how evolution takes place. So it seems to me that how it happens is a far from settled matter, though certainly the simple observation that it takes place is, as Dave says, a matter of observed fact (in populations of micro-organisms or cancer cells, for example).
 
speaking of evolution
Could evolution be driven by the lack of repair mechanisms and proofreading capabilities of mitochondrial DNA which make it susceptible to base substitutions, leading to high mutation rates.
 
exchemist said:
No that is not what a constant is. A constant is a number in an algebraic expression whose value does not change as a function of the variables in the expression.

And people are constantly finding new features and mechanisms operating in the natural world that affect our understanding of how evolution takes place. So it seems to me that how it happens is a far from settled matter, though certainly the simple observation that it takes place is, as Dave says, a matter of observed fact (in populations of micro-organisms or cancer cells, for example).
Click to expand...
Did Hazen not say that Darwinian evolution (natural selection) already begins in the formation of chemical structures? When a self replicating chain of bio-chemicals picks up an accidental compatible (but different) chemical, it might possibly offer an advantage over the original chain and that chain will begin to dominate. He seems to think that is a first sign of Darwinian evolution and natural selection, even at that fundamental level.
 
sculptor said:
speaking of evolution
Could evolution be driven by the lack of repair mechanisms and proofreading capabilities of mitochondrial DNA which make it susceptible to base substitutions, leading to high mutation rates.
Click to expand...
Well, yes.
Anything that differentiates between a survival advantage and a survival liability is a potential driver for evolution.
 
Write4U said:
Did Hazen not say that Darwinian evolution (natural selection) already begins in the formation of chemical structures? When a self replicating chain of bio-chemicals picks up an accidental compatible (but different) chemical, it might possibly offer an advantage over the original chain and that chain will begin to dominate. He seems to think that is a first sign of Darwinian evolution and natural selection, even at that fundamental level.
Click to expand...
I don't know Hazen and he or she may well have said this. Obviously, as soon as you have self-replication, you have the feedback loop that enables natural selection. This presumably was at some point a process in abiogenesis. But nobody yet knows how self-replication first arose, of course - one major issue being how a stable enough environment (i.e. cell cytoplasm or something like it, enclosed by a protective membrane or something like it) was first created, that could enable complex chemical structures to arise.

Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are separate things. Evolution by natural selection only works once self-replicating structures are already established.
 
exchemist said:
I don't know Hazen and he or she may well have said this.
Click to expand...
You saw the presentation of Robert Hazen at Carnegie Institute . He is a knowledgeable scientist.
(start viewing @ 25:10)


@ Dave,
You might also find this interesting.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
speaking of evolution
Could evolution be driven by the lack of repair mechanisms and proofreading capabilities of mitochondrial DNA which make it susceptible to base substitutions, leading to high mutation rates.
Click to expand...
It all factors into the selection process for the animal's enviroment. Why would the genetic DNA responsible for something ,say, part of a biological repair process be immune from damage itself? For good or bad so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
You saw the presentation of Robert Hazen at Carnegie Institute . He is a knowledgeable scientist.
(start viewing @ 25:10)
.
Click to expand...
chance vs necessity-----------all is a grey scale and combinations of chance and necessity seem more/most likely.
Hazenite happens:wink:

...............
great fun
thanx
 
sculptor said:
chance vs necessity-----------all is a grey scale and combinations of chance and necessity seem more/most likely.
Hazenite happens:wink:

...............
great fun
thanx
Click to expand...
Bio-chemical potential for Life in the universe = Probability of expression over large space and time scales, given the right conditions.
Seems to have worked well on earth. On other worlds, we don't know, yet.
But if life can exist in the deep earth's crust (miles), it seems that the probability for life elsewhere may well be high.
 
Last edited:
Tralay said:
There has been an influx of people with little to no real understanding of our earth's properties claiming that this is a flat earth. It seems that trying to display a certain logic has no real effect on them. What is the reason in your opinion this phenomenon exists?
Click to expand...

They have not sailed the Earth .

Sail the Earth , they will find that they have not dropped into either pole , instantly .
 
sweetpea said:
It all factors into the selection process for the animal's enviroment. Why would the genetic DNA responsible for something ,say, part of a biological repair process be immune from damage itself? For good or bad so to speak.
Click to expand...

That has been the previous problem. The exact location and placement of a proper DNA code.
To my knowledge the duplication process itself is truly remarkable and almost perfectly exact. But things sometimes things go wrong for a variety of reasons, mostly external.
Here is a visual illustration of the duplication process.
 
sweetpea said:
It all factors into the selection process for the animal's enviroment. Why would the genetic DNA responsible for something ,say, part of a biological repair process be immune from damage itself? For good or bad so to speak.
Click to expand...

The repair process , can always be damaged .

In cancer the new theory is that , the mitochondra is damaged , hence the communication between the RNA and the Mitochondra is broken . Hence replication becomes mutated .
 
Considering there are people who don't think dinosaurs existed I'm not to surprise to hear some still think the Earth is flat.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top