Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 4 of 12
such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time
who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe
i now bow to man, god of his own conscience
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter
Organic matter from inorganic matter although not understood is /partially/ understood. I remember reading an article in that someone figured out one of the steps. It probably made its way onto /., so check there and you'll probably find a link to the original article. That or someone far more knowledgable than I should be along shortly.
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time
who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe
i now bow to man, god of his own conscience
Point of fact, one CAN be religous AND still believe in evolution. The problem with fundamentalists (and people like you) is that they (you) don't understand this concept. Hell, in the 50's we understood this. And you should know better than to say such things as I cited an article showing such in a thread just a little while ago that you participated in. The thread:
http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24365
with my post with an exert from the article:
http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24365#388048
Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists. We also don't deny when contradictions occur, but instead seek to resolve the conflict and/or find a new better solution. I've shown this mentality above and you would do well to do the same.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My favorite specious argument in all of this is the assertion that a lack of transitional form fossils disproves evolution. Anyone who postulates this obviously has no idea how rare the conditions are that create a fossil. There are at least three unlikely requirements:
1. The life form needs to die under such conditions that its body will be buried, or otherwise encased, such as in amber.
2. Its internment needs to be under such conditions that it will not deteriorate by normal biological functions, such as decay.
3. The resultant proto-fossil needs to remain undisturbed by geologic action (such as erosion) or catastrophic destruction (volcanic/earthquake activity, etc.) for several million years.
Add to this the additional condition that it must be discovered by someone who is capable of recognizing it as a fossil and we have what might be considered a minor miracle of unlikeliness. That few transitional forms are caught in this web of improbabilities is hardly surprising.
In fact, using the Intelligent Design Theory postulate that high odds against something equal proof of a guiding intellect, we must logicaly conclude that someone (God?) wants us to find fossils!
Proof positive that God wants us to believe in Evolution!
(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic...)
"So Satan buried fossils to mislead mankind? So what? No God worthy of worship would condemn someone for losing in a fixed game." -- Solomon Short
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The size of KANEMAN's arse is proof positive on it's own that there is no god.
God would not have made such a horrible mistake.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti- I'm not an expert in the field, but there ARE self-replicating bits of DNA, RNA, or just plain simple protein that are borderline "life": viruses, reverse transcriptase viruses, and prion proteins. Altho I can't spell out in detail how "life" could have evolved from non-life, I can imagine how simple molecules can self-assemble into more complex forms. We're taking advantage of that concept in the self-assembly of nanoparticles. (Personally I think that's a very dangerous field of study, since nano-particles can penetrate cells and cause damage.) In any case, the current focus on the "cradle of life" is submarine volcanic vents.
Quote:
Self-assembly is a branch of nanotechnology in which objects, devices, and systems form structures without external prodding. Nanotechnology is a field of engineering that deals with design, manufacture, and control on a scale of a few nanometers (nm) or less, where 1 nm = 10-9 meters. In self-assembly, the individual components contain in themselves enough information to build a template for a structure composed of multiple units. An example is the construction of a monolayer, in which a single layer of closely-packed molecules sticks to a surface in an orderly and closely-packed fashion.... Also see dendrimer, exponential assembly, positional assembly, and self-replication.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
To the non-believers in evolution, You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe.
Hello. Perhaps some of the folks in here have missed the thread on Smoot ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24550)?
If evolution is one of the "key fundamental prinicipals of the universe", then why has the man who just won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics endorsed (and written the foreward) for a book by Fred Heeren which claims that evolution never could have happened? Apparently this Nobel Prize winner in Physics disagrees with some of the people in here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sigmanunki:
Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists.
Would "default(ing) to a greater authority when one exists" include the current Nobel Prize winner for physics, George Smoot (who, clearly doesn't believe that the universe evolved)?
Granted, many can accuse myself and others who believe that evolution is a load of bunk (including Fred Heeren) of being "idiots", but until someone in here produces their Nobel Prize in physics, I doubt they can summarily dismiss someone who actually has one in a like manner.
Am I proposing that Nobel laureates cannot be mistaken? Obviously not. Many of them disagree with each other (not just on evolution, but on many things). What I am saying is that they cannot be readily dismissed as "idiots" by people with a far lesser knowledge in their field of expertise -- as I imagine would be a description applicable to every single person in this forum.
And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Carton,
That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The trouble is that if you bring in a Nobel prize winner and say "Look, here's an expert, he believes in creationism", we can produce a dozen who don't. Pure faith overwrites basic sense. In much the same way as when you fall in love, you ignore the warning signs that your girlfriend is a lying, cheating, coniving bitch, people who believe absolutely in the literal word of the Bible will layer God wherever they can.
It doesn't mean they're stupid or ignorant. It just means that when they see a rainbow, they think "That's God's promise to us that he won't send a flood again". All the stuff about how it's defraction of light and how there is plenty of proof that no flood covered the Earth as described in the Bible: that gets shoved to one side as irrelevant.
No-one said scientists had to be perfect.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The guys a Evangalist lunatic, it would be more worthy of your time to speak to a troll. He believes that all non-Christians should be killed and sent to hell, and he has nothing of worth to say on any subject, including Christianity.
Originally posted by rue:
Carton,
That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.
Best to ignore him.
Oh and I don't have a Nobel Prize but this fella does:
“Let us not beat about the bush—the common assumption that evolution through natural selection is a ‘theory’ in the same way as string theory is a theory is wrong. Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro’s law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation.”—James D. Watson, Nobel Laureate
Now why are we giving Cartoon this moron of the lowest calibre even the time of day, let alone attempting to converse on a level above basic grunts, which he is woefully unable to understand?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.
Quote:
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable'' foundation of biology.
The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry.''
The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.
That increasingly popular idea argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.
Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.
"I don't think anything should be taught as dogma,'' Abrams told the Lawrence Journal-World.
The standards, used in developing tests for students, came up for update under state law.
Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.
In their letter, they lauded evolution, saying "its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.''
The group said intelligent design can't be tested scientifically "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.''
So you have one physicists who's comments you are probably lying about, here's 38 against your one.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME