Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
'This is not intelligent design'
07-18-2010, 03:22 PM,
#61
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Since you did not object to the fact that Genome Duplication is a common occurrence between related species, I will assume that nothing further will be discussed concerning it.

(07-17-2010, 05:47 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: What DOES matter is that even if the ratio of non-beneficial to beneficial function is 10,000:1, the beneficial function will enter the gene pool and natural selection will select it.

Well, if one is given an infinite amount of time, then you statement would have validity, but unfortunately for you, the there are recorded historical limits of the time periods between the different stages of the evolution of life forms.
Reply
07-18-2010, 04:15 PM,
#62
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
this topic is not over by a long stretch Smile
Reply
07-19-2010, 03:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2010, 03:27 PM by ---.)
#63
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Days later in the self inflicted internet crash course on human genomics and still I can't find adequate answer for the over 110,000 unique base types in Homo Sapien Sapien Chromosome 2 nor satisfactory explanation to the clearly incongruous nature of this fusing event. Afaics all other analogues thus far found are not at all sufficiently comparable.

But before we get all tangled up in that, I'd like to ask - why is human bone density so much more fragile than any of our primate antecedents? It surely isn't going to be because of vitamin B.

It just doesn't make sense in terms of the successful surviving if one subscribes to his-story.
Reply
07-19-2010, 03:39 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2010, 04:20 PM by JazzRoc.)
#64
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-18-2010, 03:22 PM)joeblow Wrote: Since you did not object to the fact that Genome Duplication is a common occurrence between related species, I will assume that nothing further will be discussed concerning it.
We would end up debating the use of the word "common". You could argue the same about ERV insertion events.
On a DAILY basis, BOTH events are REMARKABLY UNCOMMON, compared with "normal" cell reproduction.

What DOES matter is that even if the ratio of non-beneficial to beneficial function is 10,000:1, the beneficial function will enter the gene pool and natural selection will select it.

Quote:Well, if one is given an infinite amount of time, then you statement would have validity, but unfortunately for you, [the] there are recorded historical limits of the time periods between the different stages of the evolution of life forms.
You seem to be considering one event in one individual. It is known that each human individual has hundreds of slight mutations compared with the material he or she received from his/her parents. I don't know, but shall assume that that's typical for most all organisms.
The movement of such genetic variations throughout the gene pool requires a similar statistical treatment to the one we accord the weather. That is, there are many events to it, and individual studies may show much or little variation, and so may not enable you to see general trends at all. Yet from space we can SEE the weather...
"Recorded historical limits of the time periods between the different stages of the evolution of life forms" reflects a failure to appreciate the relative "smoothness" of evolution, and attempting to divide it into "steps" and "stages" - you'll soon end up talking about "kinds", I can see.
A "species" is a distinction we humans apply to a particular group of related beings.
That, or any, group can only breed within its gene pool, because outside a certain variability the reproduction system fails due to some genetic instruction mismatch, and that is the only true distinction that exists. That is the only event. It's well demonstrated by circular migration.
But if you looked at that very same group a million years into the future, that same rule will still apply, but intervening events may well have in the meanwhile rendered them into some different animal - maybe semi-aquatic, for instance. A million years isn't a long time in geological terms. A four-thousandth of Earth's age. It seems that forty times as much was required to turn something a bit like a GNU into a BLUE WHALE. That gnu-like thing was unable to re-evolve GILLS... it had to evolve to be able to hold its breath for an hour instead. (Whereas a chimp cannot hold its breath at all.)
I don't know if you will get this, but I'll say it anyway: it isn't the ORGANISM that "evolves", it's the GENE POOL of that organism that "evolves".
Evolution happens inside each and every cell of each and every living being on Earth. That's a force powerful enough to have "geoengineered" the Earth from its Hadean phase (somewhat similar to Venus) into this fair blue planet.
It just took a long time... Amen. Smile
Reply
07-19-2010, 04:08 PM,
#65
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Evolution happens inside each cell of each living being. That's a force powerful enough to have "geoengineered" the Earth from its Hadean phase (somewhat similar to Venus) into this fair blue planet.
It just took a long time... Smile

Venus is a write off as it was where the engineered human began in this system, Venus is what a planet looks like when were done with it!
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
07-19-2010, 04:10 PM,
#66
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 04:08 PM)Deathanyl Wrote:
(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Evolution happens inside each cell of each living being. That's a force powerful enough to have "geoengineered" the Earth from its Hadean phase (somewhat similar to Venus) into this fair blue planet.
It just took a long time... Smile

Venus is a write off as it was where the engineered human began in this system, Venus is what a planet looks like when were done with it!

Sounds like Synarchist claptrap to me.
Reply
07-19-2010, 04:45 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2010, 04:50 PM by JazzRoc.)
#67
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 04:08 PM)Deathanyl Wrote: Venus is a write off as it was where the engineered human began in this system, Venus is what a planet looks like when were done with it!
It isn't within the Goldilocks zone.
It's fair to assume that ALL the planets were variously-sized "gas giants" when they coalesced, and the solar wind of an ever-brightening Sun heated and boiled off their gases and liquids.
Now, these gases are probably to be found on or near the heliopause. They will include the atmospheres and oceans of Mercury and Venus.
Venus's present atmosphere is volcanic. So, I believe, is Earth's, but it held on to its water, and life had time to emerge and evolve, and help retain it. Time was too short to produce Venusians, if the general rule for the abiogenesis is "hot springs"...
Mars is cold, and yet its gravitational field is too weak to retain liquid water. Maybe there was too little activity for life to emerge there in the first place, or maybe in the warm sub-martian rocks there ARE hot springs and a whole bunch of wrigglies.
Reply
07-19-2010, 06:31 PM,
#68
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 04:45 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(07-19-2010, 04:08 PM)Deathanyl Wrote: Venus is a write off as it was where the engineered human began in this system, Venus is what a planet looks like when were done with it!
It isn't within the Goldilocks zone.
It's fair to assume that ALL the planets were variously-sized "gas giants" when they coalesced, and the solar wind of an ever-brightening Sun heated and boiled off their gases and liquids.
Now, these gases are probably to be found on or near the heliopause. They will include the atmospheres and oceans of Mercury and Venus.
Venus's present atmosphere is volcanic. So, I believe, is Earth's, but it held on to its water, and life had time to emerge and evolve, and help retain it. Time was too short to produce Venusians, if the general rule for the abiogenesis is "hot springs"...
Mars is cold, and yet its gravitational field is too weak to retain liquid water. Maybe there was too little activity for life to emerge there in the first place, or maybe in the warm sub-martian rocks there ARE hot springs and a whole bunch of wrigglies.
a Text book answer! very MS of you?
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
07-19-2010, 09:19 PM,
#69
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 06:31 PM)Deathanyl Wrote: a Text book answer! very MS of you?
It involved more effort than yours did. I was forced to drop biology for mathematics at fourteen.
What do you mean by MS? Multiple sclerosis?
Reply
07-19-2010, 09:45 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-19-2010, 10:04 PM by joeblow.)
#70
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: We would end up debating the use of the word "common". You could argue the same about ERV insertion events.
On a DAILY basis, BOTH events are REMARKABLY UNCOMMON, compared with "normal" cell reproduction.

I know you are trying to play semantical games but those statements make absolutely no sense in regards to the proven scientific fact of Genome Duplication (rearrangement of common genes) between closely related species. This is not an argument to be won by the one with better rhetorical skills, if you do not feel comfortable discussing genetics, then do not reply to me any longer.

(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
Quote:[the] there are recorded historical limits

For whatever reason, you attempted to correct my grammar by placing the definitive article in front of an impersonal pronoun, why, I do not know. I should mention that I am also an amateur linguist.

(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: You seem to be considering one event in one individual. It is known that each human individual has hundreds of slight mutations compared with the material he or she received from his/her parents. I don't know, but shall assume that that's typical for most all organisms.

According to the general accepted theory of evolution, most mutations are single base changes in DNA, because any greater amount would increase the likelihood that, in the event of an negative mutation, the organism would die.

(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: The movement of such genetic variations throughout the gene pool requires a similar statistical treatment to the one we accord the weather. That is, there are many events to it, and individual studies may show much or little variation, and so may not enable you to see general trends at all. Yet from space we can SEE the weather...
"Recorded historical limits of the time periods between the different stages of the evolution of life forms" reflects a failure to appreciate the relative "smoothness" of evolution, and attempting to divide it into "steps" and "stages" - you'll soon end up talking about "kinds", I can see.

That is funny, because viewing evolution as a series of steps divided into definite time periods is exactly how evolution was discussed at the universities that I attended. This concept of smoothness intrigues me, please, please, give me more information, I want to see how many papers on evolution measured the smoothness of it.

(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: A "species" is a distinction we humans apply to a particular group of related beings.
That, or any, group can only breed within its gene pool, because outside a certain variability the reproduction system fails due to some genetic instruction mismatch, and that is the only true distinction that exists. That is the only event. It's well demonstrated by circular migration.
But if you looked at that very same group a million years into the future, that same rule will still apply, but intervening events may well have in the meanwhile rendered them into some different animal - maybe semi-aquatic, for instance. A million years isn't a long time in geological terms. A four-thousandth of Earth's age. It seems that forty times as much was required to turn something a bit like a GNU into a BLUE WHALE. That gnu-like thing was unable to re-evolve GILLS... it had to evolve to be able to hold its breath for an hour instead. (Whereas a chimp cannot hold its breath at all.)

You defined the word species (when its definition was not in doubt), stated that a million years is a short amount of geological time units (according to the general accepted theory of evolution, organisms would hardly evolved in only a million years, and that whales evolved from a gnu-like "thing" (actually it was an organism similar to the hippopotamus, they both belong to the same order) and was unable to evolve gills (which defeats your position that evolution makes all possible). What exactly was the point of this paragraph?

(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: I don't know if you will get this, but I'll say it anyway: it isn't the ORGANISM that "evolves", it's the GENE POOL of that organism that "evolves".

No, you are incorrect, according to the general accepted theory of evolution, a large gene pool (many different alleles) only indicates extensive genetic diversity, there is nothing specifically inherent within a diversified gene pool that forces positive changes to outnumber negative changes and which such directs the overall species towards a higher (very subjective term) form. If you truly believe it does, then you should write up a scientific paper and submit it to a journal.

(07-19-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Evolution happens inside each and every cell of each and every living being on Earth. That's a force powerful enough to have "geoengineered" the Earth from its Hadean phase (somewhat similar to Venus) into this fair blue planet.
It just took a long time... Amen. Smile

Please do not careless throw around term evolution, it makes you look silly, one would get the impression that you worship evolution as a religion. Mutations in somatic cells (not within the sex organs) do not get passed to descendants and are, for want of a better phrase, can be considered as cancer. Only the very lower part of the atmosphere and the very thin top of the land were influenced by metabolism. It is generally accepted scientific fact that had the Earth been a few percentage of distance closer or farther from the Sun, not had some form of atmosphere sufficient enough to protect it from stellar radiation, lacked large amounts of elements from the carbon group, not been hit with meteorites made of complex organic molecules, then within the lifetime of the universe, life would not have occurred on Earth, no matter how long the rocks would be allowed to evolve into ConCen members.
Reply
07-19-2010, 11:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-20-2010, 10:05 AM by JazzRoc.)
#71
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-19-2010, 09:45 PM)joeblow Wrote: I know you are trying to play semantical games but those statements make absolutely no sense in regards to the proven scientific fact of Genome Duplication (rearrangement of common genes) between closely related species. This is not an argument to be won by the one with better rhetorical skills, if you do not feel comfortable discussing genetics, then do not reply to me any longer.
Is genome duplication as common as reproduction? No. Pomposity overkill, jeez.

Quote:For whatever reason, you attempted to correct my grammar by placing the definitive article in front of an impersonal pronoun, why, I do not know. I should mention that I am also an amateur linguist.
We can thank our lucky stars you're not professional, than. Read what you first wrote.

Quote:According to the general accepted theory of evolution, most mutations are single base changes in DNA, because any greater amount would increase the likelihood that, in the event of an negative mutation, the organism would die.
No connection. No dispute.

Quote:That is funny, because viewing evolution as a series of steps divided into definite time periods is exactly how evolution was discussed at the universities that I attended. This concept of smoothness intrigues me, please, please, give me more information, I want to see how many papers on evolution measured the smoothness of it.
Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is" is what I'm trying to recall here, and yes, it's not my specialty. I tried to make the point that the process is essentially SMOOTH. And I gave you the analogy of trying to gauge the weather from a single point of view within it: it's very hard to see. But if you were in the ISS and looking from above, the weather in any spot is very easy to see. Or another example. You can measure the pressure and temperature of a gas - but actually it's made of individual molecules each with an unique position and velocity. It isn't "smooth", yet it IS. Try and see a gene pool the same way. The individuals don't matter. Get it? Sighs...

Quote:(actually it was an organism similar to the hippopotamus, they both belong to the same order) and was unable to evolve gills (which defeats your position that evolution makes all possible). What exactly was the point of this paragraph?
My point was that evolution CANNOT "make all possible". You appear keen to see something else, I see.

Quote:there is nothing specifically inherent within a diversified gene pool that forces positive changes to outnumber negative changes and which such directs the overall species towards a higher (very subjective term) form.
I never said there was. But there IS something outside it which does: natural selection. "Higher form" is bullshit. "Towards having a better reproductive success and/or survival rate" seems to be a better way of putting that.

Quote:Please do not careless throw around term evolution, it makes you look silly, one would get the impression that you worship evolution as a religion.
I was pulling your leg in advance of what I expected you to say, kinda hoping for a bit of pomposity, but received it in spades. I shan't do it again.

Quote:Mutations in somatic cells (not within the sex organs) do not get passed to descendants and [are], for want of a better phrase, can be considered as cancer.
Indeed. But I never really meant otherwise. (Notice the surplus "are". I inserted the [] to suggest a certain redundancy.)
Mutation needs only natural selection to BECOME evolution. The mutation which is FUNCTIONAL in this process is that which presents in the sex cells, which THEN may be reproduced, which THEN may be selected. I always cheer and toast the winners of the Darwin Awards, don't you?

Quote:Only the very lower part of the atmosphere and the very thin top of the land were influenced by metabolism.
Wrong. Earth began with a reducing atmosphere. The ocean shores had a "sand" not of silicon dioxide, but IRON SULFIDE. Life has affected, and still DOES affect, the atmosphere, the oceans, and the geology of Earth.

Quote:It is generally accepted scientific fact that had the Earth been a few percentage of distance closer or farther from the Sun
Goldilocks, accepted. Tell it to Deathanyl.

Quote:not had some form of atmosphere sufficient enough to protect it from stellar radiation
Stellar processes produce "atmosphere" and "ocean" and stellar radiation on those materials produce organics and even some amino acids, still in space. Solar systems are born from these materials as discs of matter comprising gases and dusts and ices and organic compounds. In darkness. It wasn't by chance the Earth was obscured, but by necessity. Life didn't require the solar radiation that blew away the interplanetary atmosphere until photosynthetic organisms evolved. And these latter were possibly the first pioneering lifeforms which migrated upwards to the ocean surface from their ancestors' settlements around volcanic vents in the deep. Theoretically. Do you see my point here? Your phrase "sufficient enough to protect it from stellar radiation" doesn't make any sense here. If radiation WERE really heavy (the Sun was cooler then, but MORE radiation reached the ocean surface), then these photosynthetic pioneers just needed to STOP RISING, and level off at a level where the filtered radiation was tolerable. Then over time (3.3 billion years!), the liberated oxygen did its job as OZONE in the high stratosphere - and bingo.

Quote:lacked large amounts of elements from the carbon group
I don't know what you mean, here. What is a "carbon group"? What elements?

Quote:not been hit with meteorites made of complex organic molecules
By necessity.

Quote:then within the lifetime of the universe, life would not have occurred on Earth, no matter how long the rocks would be allowed to evolve into ConCen members.
I thought it was "lightning striking mud". LOL.

Now go and check who typed what!
Reply
07-20-2010, 02:53 AM,
#72
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
MS as in Main stream, as in what were taught right or wrong the "propaganda"

As for location location location!!! Well depends on the tolerances, and such of the life forms in relation to the planets development, we can see there is no atmosphere on mars and too much on Venus, but both show different pasts. Also when large asteroids, planets pass through our system they do affect planets they r closes to's place in the orbit. so Venus was not always so close to the sun and earth was not always here, in fact most of what makes up earth was once past mars and only got dragged or knocked closer to the sun when it was shattered, the other half we call the asteroid belt! we cooled life was seeded, and then humans were placed. All basic, much more plausible then we formed from moneys through selective breeding, or were formed from soup! As for what science says today... I'd be skeptical as for eons we were told the earth was flat, and that tomatoes could kill from eating them. I mean science for the most part when it comes to such things as this is all just theories, educated guesses based on what we r taught now as truth...
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
07-20-2010, 10:48 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-20-2010, 11:06 AM by h3rm35.)
#73
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
Quote:why is human bone density so much more fragile than any of our primate antecedents? It surely isn't going to be because of vitamin B.

my hypothesis is that because of our dependence as a species on milk-based calcium (due to agriculture and husbandry,) and as yet, a not completely developed ability to totally assimilate lactose, as well as our transition from a tropical species, (dependent on sunlight for our development of solar synthesis of vitamin D,) to one that necessitates a lack of sunscreen, (in our hypochondriac society in fear of skin cancer,) to create the vitamin in order to create proper bone-density, we have developed a plague of osteoporosis in mostly post-menopausal women, who, in a traditional primate culture, would not exist.

Basically, as our melanin dropped, and we moved farther from the equator and tropics, we needed another way to assimilate vitamin d, (which is one of the main factors in bone density,) and we haven't found a form, (other than fish body oils,) to provide us with a decent source of it, as well as omega 3 fatty acids...

We keep killing the oceans, and we keep drinking milk, and unless us white folk have a better way to create or assimilate vitamin D, (even if we get rid of the sunscreen,) we're all going to die of degenerating bones or skin cancer.

Take that, eugenicists!
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
07-20-2010, 11:49 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-20-2010, 12:04 PM by JazzRoc.)
#74
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
deathanyl:

depends on the tolerances, and such of the life forms in relation to the planets development
Abiogenesis is totally intolerant to the ABSENCE of liquid water.

we can see there is no atmosphere on mars and too much on Venus, but both show different pasts.
Possessing an atmosphere is ALL to do with how young a planet is, how heavy a planet is, and how close it is to a sun, and how large that sun is.

when large asteroids, planets pass through our system they do affect planets the nearest to them in the orbit
Large planets and asteroids do NOT "pass through our system" unless they have a speed totally untypical to the speeds of the surrounding solar systems. They WILL get trapped by the Sun and incorporated into its system. That is WHY suns are suns. They are the BULK of the interstellar material that had coalesced into the primary solar system disk.

Venus was not always so close to the sun
It has several interesting features: a most circular orbit and a retrograde rotation, I think. I fear you've read Velikovsky.

earth was not always here, in fact most of what makes up earth was once past mars and only got dragged or knocked closer to the sun
when it was shattered, the other half we call the asteroid belt!

It certainly collided with a planetoid and got itself a very close and large moon.

we cooled, life was seeded
For life to be seeded, then SOMEWHERE in the past and in some other place, it had HAD to have developed abiogenetically. So why not here?

then humans were placed.
Yeah, yeah. Same objection.

more plausible than we formed from monkeys through selective breeding
Evolution and natural selection. Why do monkeys and man have identical ERV remnants on identical positions in their DNA?

or we were formed from soup! As for what science says today...
You can't go back and back in time, forever saying life was "seeded". There still HAD to be a "soup" phase originally. I think you're using a fallacy to avoid considering this.

I'd be skeptical as for eons we were told the earth was flat
To all normal intents and purposes it still is. You don't have to consider the curvature of the earth when you get up to make a cup of tea. A Greek philosopher and mathematician was the first to calculate that the earth was a sphere (and what size it was) by comparing noontime shadow lengths at two different latitudes. No "them" told you THAT.

tomatoes could kill from eating them.
Boil them in an aluminum saucepan before eating them all your life and see what happens.

I mean science for the most part when it comes to such things as this is all just theories, educated guesses based on what we r taught now as truth...
No it isn't.
It is followed by TESTS, makes PREDICTIONS, requires DUPLICATION and PEER REVIEW before authentication. That's quite another matter.
The media we use here is SCIENCE at your fingertips. It did not arrive by "theory", or "educated guess".
Reply
07-20-2010, 12:01 PM,
#75
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
I can't hear you, ignored one...
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Brain scanners to be used to 'design' political candidates TriWooOx 11 3,113 05-14-2010, 10:09 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  'doomsday' Vault Design Unveiled TriWooOx 6 1,923 02-26-2008, 05:29 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass o hardboiled11 13 2,792 10-30-2007, 03:12 PM
Last Post: beyond
  New Nuclear Warhead Design For Us TriWooOx 0 584 03-05-2007, 12:37 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)