|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 6:11:53 PM |
Partial jaw and a tricuspid found in a wadi....and cook up a WHOLE new theory...of "evolution". Carbon dating cross refrenced with other finds...oops...but only 10000 years off...oh well...
The 'Lucy' skeleton is about 40% complete - with the fact that hominids are bilaterally symmetrical, that goes up to 70% using a mirror image.
Nobody dates Australopithecus with carbon dating - C14 dating is only good out to maybe 100,000 years or so, and that with current gear.
'Lucy' was dated to 3.2 million years ago. Of course there are error bars on that but that's to be expected.
Could you perhaps be more clear in what you're trying to claim? Your 'stream of consciousness' prose comes across rather muddled, sadly.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 7:19:23 PM |
Pretty CLEAR, in any stream the margin for error is extreme. Not to mention, Bias.
Who is biased? How are they biased? Again, you're being utterly unclear in what you say.
Error margins on dating methods are inherent in the methods - but one thing's certain is that the Earth is *vastly* older than 10,000 years. That's been clear to science for a couple of centuries now. (Prior to 1900 or so the estimates varied a lot as science didn't know about radioactivity, of course, as a heat source keeping the Earth warm.)
If some YEC wants to claim that God made the Earth some 10000 years ago to *look* 4.5 billion years old, I can't argue with that, but nobody's bought Omphalos since Gosse (AFAIR) brought it up, so it's got zero scientific *or* theological provenance.
Again, if you have issues with science, explain them more clearly please.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 7:46:49 PM |
Many of those eddies being the Inherent Error Margins.
Why are they Inherent?
Because our measuring instruments aren't perfect. Because we don't know exactly how much radiactive material was originally present in a sample. Fortunately we can put some error bars on our measurements.
With regards to the fossil record there's always going to be questions because most remains aren't fossilized. Fortunately there's more than enough to make evolution obvious.It's very difficult to believe that there was no evolution but that we just happen to be digging them up in a fashion that makes it look like evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 11:15:02 PM | "-) Well actually Tsur --- more than rocks were found. Big rocks, stacked, with the oddest thing - - straight lines in those stacked rocks. You'll have to read more than just that National Geographic article and the few media reports. The big money wants to go down there, but politics (Cuba, Nat. Geo., Discovery) are mucking things up. anyway A year later an unmaned sub with video went and took pictures. You'll have to take it on my word until I dig up the web page. Of course we have to take it on your word that there are only "some rocks" down there. It's kinda like that here on POF
. If this is really true, all the little science and religious fanatics will be in a tizzy. kinda like they are with that little "hobbit guy" they found recently. Can't remember his latin name, florensis, or something, but similar to lucy, but only 18,000 years old. hmmmm gotta love that carbon dating. (wow! would you look at those run-on sentences)
Conscious intent. Well lets see. The brain controls the body, right? If you think about something that makes you angry. (like reading a post where someone contradicts you, I might add that I'm not immune to this phenomenum). Your body reacts to the way you think. If a person has a sexual fantasy the body reacts accordingly. So the brain does have something to do with the body. Could the brain not affect the DNA?
I'd like to add that Jean Baptiste (Lamark) although refuted at the time and still today, wasn't far off. His theory, 200 years late, didn't have Quantum physics to help substantiate his views. Briefly, but in context, an energy wave is only a wave until it becomes a particle. What causes it to become a particle? Conscious intent? The observer. Perhaps. So in short the way we think affects our body. Brain waves have been physically recorded, which means there is a form of a pseudo mass (energy reading) So what happens when the brain contemplates - say for instance, change. The brain is more than a chemical manufacturer running our emotional body. Within the carbueles in the neurons of the brain lies the quantum realm that our thoughts (conscious intent) may have an effect upon.
I'll have to wait for winter break to dig up the research, but I'm sure with all the bright minds running around here, someone will whip out some emperical proof based on more emperical proof, based on even more emperical proof, to refute everything up there. Kinda like watching the dawg chase his tail, after a while you can't tell his head from his a*s*. There is a world of new science out there, Quantum physics being only a part of it. that will change the way we think. We just need new paradigms of thought, instead of adhering to outdated scientific dogma. Before someone gets their knickers in a twist, our current science is still the best we got, but a little slow to change.
nite all.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/10/2005 11:33:53 PM | | dryad and quietjohn2 always have good ideas to share, and think about, here. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:24:07 AM | Thanks! I do NOT want religion taught in public school. I am weary (to say least) of ID. Altough I believe there is a G-d who did 'design' and still does, I do NOT want RELIGION taught in pubic school.... church and state are different, FOR VERY GOOD REASON.
I tend to err on the side of caution (scientists do, too). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:32:14 AM | Dharma,
-I agree somewhat,but please tell me that you don't want a young childs views of creation to be ridiculed by popular scientific opinion? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:39:42 AM | | I have a young child, about to enter school. I want to have my child learn facts, and ways of understanding facts. I want 'stories,' about facts, to be filled (and/or changed) by me, my to my child, or the future facts will fill in. I tell my kid what we know about science (others tell what they thinK about religion), what we think based upon what we know (I tend to tell my child facts, now)... and let that kid go with that!... That's how we get NEW AND AMAZING THEORIES, by the way. And also very 'heretical' (but not against G-d) thought :) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 2:56:34 AM | Dharma,
-Yes,I agree with you.
-I'm to sleepy to express my real intentions.(however mild,and not sensationable)
-Or,perhaps I like the articulational skills.
-No worries,I intuitevly(spelling) feel that you are a good mother,and are cognisant about how best to raise a child in this modern world of ours. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 6:32:22 AM | You have to remember that there is a difrence between POPULAR science and other science. Popular science latches on to the tiniest detail said by one person and runs with it to its furthest conclusion.
kinda like they are with that little "hobbit guy" they found recently. Can't remember his latin name, florensis, or something, but similar to lucy,
I'm not sure which little hobbit people you are talking about here? Are you talking about Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus or Mungo Man?
If you are talking about Homo floresiensis, the media have hyped this story beyond recognition. For example, they are saying that it throws out the Out of Africa theory because Homo floresiensis is a perfectly formed sentient being, microcephaly, the disease that causes a shrunken brain, can not explain this.
However, microcephaly is not the acepted explantion, and was only suggested as one posability by someone with little foundng in Medical Science as the first thing that came to mind, he did not state it WAS the only posability, and went on to state that a serious medical examination would have to be performed by an expert before anything could be said for sure.
But of course the media clung to his five second guess and ran with it, confusing the issue.
It is now known that they were infact closser to Homo_Erectus than any other soecies and indead were likley a sub species, such as is the Pigmi people of the congo, or the Amul(sp) people of India, both of whoum have difrent genetic disorders that cause perfectly formed minature humans.
only 18,000 years old. hmmmm gotta love that carbon dating. .
Archaeologists NEVER use carbon dating on its own, we use many difrent types of topilogocal, radiological, typographical, stratiographical and dendochronoligical dating. (if you dont know what these mean, do some research, I dont have time to explain them.) Ranging from C14 Radiocarbon Dating, Stratigraphy, Cross Dating, Artifacts of Known Age, Dendrochronology, Potassium Argon Dating, Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic and Archaeomagnetic Dating, Luminescence, Argon 40/Argon 39 K-feldspar Dating, Uranium/Thorium/Pb Dating, Uranium Series Dating, Lead/Uranium Dating, Ect Ect.
Any Element that decays can be used for Dating methods, Nitrogen, Chlorine 36,Beryllium 10, Cesium 137, Oxygen 16/Oxygen 18, Rubidium/Strontium, Ect Ect.
C14 is mentioned in so many places but is only used to give a range in most cases, other methods are then used to narrow down that range. You could theoreticaly use Every type of dating method to give you an extreamly narow age range, but there is little point as long as you know where it fits in series with other dates the precise year of pre-history is pretty much unimportant.
So could we please get OFF the dating subject and stop trying to throw up poorly thought out exusses for obstacles. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 9:43:56 AM |
"-) Well actually Tsur --- more than rocks were found. Big rocks, stacked, with the oddest thing - - straight lines in those stacked rocks. You'll have to read more than just that National Geographic article and the few media reports. The big money wants to go down there, but politics (Cuba, Nat. Geo., Discovery) are mucking things up. anyway A year later an unmaned sub with video went and took pictures. You'll have to take it on my word until I dig up the web page. Of course we have to take it on your word that there are only "some rocks" down there. It's kinda like that here on POF
When I look up in the night sky, I see a face on the moon. Other people claimed to see pyramids on Mars. The human ability to see patterns where none exist isn't exactly unusual - look at clouds sometime. But seeing the face on the moon doesn't mean that aliens went there and made it look that way.
When you combine the fact the 'city' is 600m underwater, and that there is no record in the geological strata of a 600m sea level change in the last few million years... 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Either the local land subsided some 600m in the last 10 to 20 thousand years (which there would be some obvious evidence of in the local geology) or you're seriously claiming that the locals were capable of building large stone structures some 600m underwater.
Conscious intent. Well lets see. The brain controls the body, right? If you think about something that makes you angry. (like reading a post where someone contradicts you, I might add that I'm not immune to this phenomenum). Your body reacts to the way you think. If a person has a sexual fantasy the body reacts accordingly. So the brain does have something to do with the body. Could the brain not affect the DNA?
Sure, the mind affects the body - depression can certainly influence the immune system, via the corrosive effects of stress hormones, for example. I have no doubt that various hormonal signalling pathways affect expression of genes (I don't know of any, but I'm sure you could find some). But mental states affecting meiosis/mitosis, or causing point mutations in DNA? You need to remember the only DNA in you that matters for evolution is that in your sperm or eggs (which is segregated before birth, never mind before cognition arises in the young) - somatic DNA is evolutionarily 'dead' as it can't be passed on. So if you want to claim that you can somehow affect your offspring by being in a good mood, please propose a mechanism whereby mental states can make your sperm undergo mutation.... of course you can resort to technological means, but that's different.
I'd like to add that Jean Baptiste (Lamark) although refuted at the time and still today, wasn't far off. His theory, 200 years late, didn't have Quantum physics to help substantiate his views. Briefly, but in context, an energy wave is only a wave until it becomes a particle. What causes it to become a particle? Conscious intent? The observer. Perhaps. So in short the way we think affects our body. Brain waves have been physically recorded, which means there is a form of a pseudo mass (energy reading) So what happens when the brain contemplates - say for instance, change. The brain is more than a chemical manufacturer running our emotional body. Within the carbueles in the neurons of the brain lies the quantum realm that our thoughts (conscious intent) may have an effect upon.
By 'energy wave' I assume you mean a photon? Wave-particle duality isn't a 'conscious' phenomenon - it's inherent in the photon's nature. The photon is both a particle and a wave - how it behaves in a given situation is affected by the method of interaction since any attempt to measure a property of a photon alters the state. If you force it to act like a particle, it does. This is second-year physics, de Broglie figured it out in the 1920s. You don't change the particle, you just change the way it behaves. You can use mechanical detectors, and leave the room, and the lack of 'consciousness' doesn't alter the double-slit experiment.
As to mystical handwaving about the brain being something imbued with quantum magic, I leave that for the future to find out.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 9:49:13 AM |
-I agree somewhat,but please tell me that you don't want a young childs views of creation to be ridiculed by popular scientific opinion?
No, that's just mean. It's on par with telling them there is no Santa Claus.
To some extent, children should be permitted their illusions.
But any student who seriously claimed in a high-school science class that the world is a few thousand years old or that there was a world-wide Deluge doesn't get that 'out'. If I set a science test saying 'how old is the Earth' and a student wrote '10000 years', he/she just flunked.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 9:50:30 AM | Darwin knew himself that if he could not find in the fossil records of how plants, ferns and trees "evolved" into flowering plants, fruits and vegatables, that his theory was bunk. He never found his proof in the bone beds and to this day it is yet to be found anywhere. Things DO evolve, Im not disputing that however there have been creation elements along the way. There is no other way to explain it. Weather it be God or weather were an expirment of a highly advanced alien race, who really knows, but creation exists here on Terra Firma IMO.
K | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 9:59:42 AM | Thank-you Dharma , though I've enjoyed what many other people have to say too.
a young childs views of creation to be ridiculed by popular scientific opinion Does this happen? I haven't seen many examples of science ridiculing creation. It usually seems to be the other way around, but perhaps I'm biased.
A court case began at the end of September against the Dover, PA school district for adopting a policy that requires students to be informed about the theory of intelligent design. The ACLU is supporting the case in opposition to the policy. The Discovery Institute www.discovery.org has a lot of information about the case and also about ID. They look to be one of the major proponents of ID. The petition I received opposing ID had over 11,000 signatures and claimed the Discovery Institute had amassed an impressive 400 signatures over 4 years in support of their position. I wasn't able to substantiate the rumors, but the information seemed relevant to this thread.
At this point, the biggest question I have with ID is how you distinguish between the position that the laws of Nature have ALWAYS existed and the position where some THING had to create the laws of Nature? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 10:56:34 AM | Uh Oh, Tsur, I have to disagree with you a little here:
So if you want to claim that you can somehow affect your offspring by being in a good mood, please propose a mechanism whereby mental states can make your sperm undergo mutation That's just about on a par with the way that creationists ridicule the ideas they don't like. Then you soften a little but still manage a little contempt:
As to mystical handwaving about the brain being something imbued with quantum magic, I leave that for the future to find out.
Science always has to be caution about dismissing unlikely ideas, or we'd probably still be living on a flat planet! Reputable scientists/philosophers recognize possible roles for quantum effects in biology, including the potential for neo-Lamarckian mechanisms which I commented on earlier in this thread. Cellular biology seems to operate at a quantum level and astonishingly seems to keep control of particles such as ions and protons which are subject to the strangeness of quantum physics. McFadden, in his book 'Quantum Evolution' suggest that DNA tautomers must arise from quantum tunneling of protons, though I don't have the background to really understand the physics behind that. (I'm not sure McFadden really does either, though he is a very reputable molecular geneticist). Another proposed piece of 'quantum magic' is the idea that memory may be a quantum reconstruction from the present to the past, proposing a completely different mechanism for memory than the widely accepted 'engram' that has been the 'holy grail' of memory researchers for decades. I read a reference to this in 'Quantum Philosophy' by Roland Omnes but couldn't find detailed citations - sorry!. However, I found some thought provoking articles by Googling 'brain quantum'. One relatively academic view is http://www.quantumconsciousness.org by Stuart Hameroff - one of the participants in the 'What the bleep' movie, but also a collaborator with Fellow of the Royal Society, Roger Penrose. They co-authored articles on the subject of quantum events in biology (published in Proceedings of the Royal Society) and I'm sure you are aware of Penrose's work on the collapse of giant stars. It seems that the consequences of quantum mechanics on biology are receiving serious consideration.
Sili - what on earth are carbueles? | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 11:16:13 AM |
Briefly, but in context, an energy wave is only a wave until it becomes a particle. What causes it to become a particle? Conscious intent?
This is Psedo-Scientific nonsense. Energy is both a wave and a particle. They are functions of the energy and not states of being. Please try to grasp this concept as it is realy important to understanding quanta.
Brain waves have been physically recorded, which means there is a form of a pseudo mass (energy reading)
Yes brain waves have been phiscaly recorded, but not because there is a pseudo-mass to them (not even entirely sure what that is ment to be?). They have been recorded because chemical changes require the loss or gane of electrons, the flow of electrons from one atom of a chemical to another, creates a Electro Magnetic field. Electro Magnetic fields are easily mesured. But the brain is still a bag of chemicals, it is the chemical interactions that make up our thoughts and not the electrical impulses.
Within the carbueles in the neurons of the brain lies the quantum realm that our thoughts (conscious intent) may have an effect upon.
What are carbueles? Is that a spelling mistake? (if so please exuse my pointing it out)
Our thoughts are chemical in nature and do not have any effect on the quanta. The quanta facilitates our thinking, in that it provides the proces by which chemical interactions in the brain may ocour, but it is not in turn effected itself.
Our thoughts do have an effect on our phisical body though. Placebo. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 11:19:06 AM | Ah, Trewq, you know I agree with you but I'm also puzzled at what the big deal is about. Does ID need anything more than the statement that some people believe that the laws of Nature that we study in science were invented by something that existed before there were any laws of Nature? Interested students could then be directed to religion or philosophy classes of their choosing. What more is there to say about ID?
I suspect that the real issue is that the Discovery Institute has come up with the 'Wedge Project' which is the notion of finding the weakest point and driving a wedge in to create a break at that point. It sounds sinister and maybe people are overreacting to discourage further exploration for the weak point.
Personally, I think it sets an interesting precedent. If we follow it, our schools may end up required to offer kids all sorts of philosophical options for kids to choose from. Probably mostly arising from the differences of opinion between vocal minorities. Abortion rights, contraception, political philosophies. Tons of issues in addition to science that some argue brainwash our kids. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 11:26:37 AM | Thank you for that post Bright1raziel. I was going to post the same points. I get so weary of these loose interpretations of quantum physics. I really appreciate books like the Tau of Physics, The Dancing Wu Li Masters and others of that ilk, but I am concerned that people run away with the metaphors and miss the science. Quantum physics is very diverse when it comes to philosophical extrapolations, but we have to keep in mind that these extrapolations are not the science. In fact some physicists believe that anything beyond the pure math is meaningless. I wouldn't take that strict of a stance, but, often, people venture to far to the other extreme too. I would even say that quanta are not both a particle and a wave, but, really, neither. Particle and wave are macrocosmic concepts we use as models to help us make sense of abstract data. It is more accurate to say they behave like a particle or a wave depending on observation.
"Our thoughts are chemical in nature and do not have any effect on the quanta. The quanta facilitates our thinking, in that it provides the proces by which chemical interactions in the brain may ocour, but it is not in turn effected itself."
Very well said. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 12:05:52 PM | Raziel - you really seem to tread a wandering path between the credible and the incredible - sorry to call you on it, but your posts would carry more weight if you stuck with what you really know.
I'm not sure what brain waves are being talked about. EEGs record potential differences in different locations over the scalp and sometimes within the 3-dimensional structure of the brain. Electromagnetic fields can also be recorded which isn't surprising since the EEG data shows that there are potential differences between locations on the scalp, thus currents flowing to create magnetic fields.
You must be way ahead of everyone else if you 'know' that thoughts are a product of chemical interactons rather than electrical impulses. First of all, the human brain has about ONE billion neurons, not the 'billions' that you described in earlier posts. There are in fact about one million billion cells in the brain (10^12) only a millionth of which are neurons. The functions of the majority of cells in the brain are poorly understood, although they are known to participate in the nutrition of neurons, electrical insulation, relocation of some of the chemicals you mention and repair after damage to mention just a few.
Electrical impulses in neurons are accomplished by the movement of ions, not electrons - predominantly sodium, potassium and chloride, controlled by ion channels in the cell membranes which may also require small amounts of calcium ions to function properly. Hypocalcaemia (low calcium levels) results in random nerve discharges - a little reminiscent of low (quantal) light levels altering the outcome of double slit experiments.
Axons are not wires conducting electricity by electron movement. They are tubes formed of membranes which communicate by changing the local concentration of ions between the inside and the outside of the membrane. Changes in the transmembrane potential trigger permeability changes of ion channels further along the membrane, resulting in a travelling wave of ionic movements known as saltatory conduction from one end of the axon to the other. The output end of the axon (which commonly branches to several locations) is called a synapse. Some contain chemical neurotransmitters, others connect directly with other nerve cells and transmit their signals electrically. The chemical synapses release their neurotransmitters continuously and in tiny 'doses' called 'quanta'. The arrival of an electrical impulse (action potential) increases the rate of release of the neurotransmitter quanta. Calcium is again critical to the process, however in this case low levels of calcium prevent he release of quanta. The neurotransmitters diffuse across a synaptic cleft and a molecule of transmitter connects with a receptor molecule on another neuron. The receptor molecule triggers a ionic permeability changes in ionic channels in the 'postsynaptic membrane' which may or may not trigger the ionic transmission of electrical impulses once more. The ionic channels are specific for single ions species. The electrical changes in the postsynaptic membrane trigger release and sometimes enzymic splitting of the neurotransmitter molecules which are then taken up by the synapses or local non-neuronal cells and if necessary resynthesized into neurotransmitter. Any chemical reaction involving neurotransmitters are at best minor splitting and reforming of the molecules. I don't know of any rational papers demonstrating a scientific basis to suggest that thought resides in such chemical processes. It is a possibility, but far from factually based. What fascinates me most about the process is how the entire process seems to be based on materials that are known to be influenced by quantum events, yet the process seems so predictable. And this is but a small part of the molecular and even ionic basis of life. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 12:18:47 PM |
Conscious intent?
I still do not see what the "Cat in a Box" thing has to do with any of this?
we have to keep in mind that these extrapolations are not the science
I can relate. When I first studied Einstien I was amazed that some one so bright could come up with such a lame idea as time travel. Later I read Einstein for myself and found he never did mention any thing about time travel. It was all the people who never understood what he was talking about who extrapolated the time travel stuff. Geee! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 12:46:48 PM |
Science always has to be caution about dismissing unlikely ideas, or we'd probably still be living on a flat planet!
It was scientists who discovered the Earth was round, when various religions claimed it was flat. I seem to recall it was also scientists who figured out the Earth went around the Sun, in the face of vigorous religious opposition.
Perhaps you might want to rethink your metaphor there?
I have no issue with the effects of quantum chemistry in biochemical processes, but again, stop handwaving about unknown mystical quantum effects somehow involving 'consciousness', and propose a mechanism linking the two realms. Evolution requires genetic changes in a population. (One way to link human evolution and 'consciousness' is to nip out and shoot all the non-redheads in the world, of course, but I don't think you mean this way, and the effect isn't at the quantum level.) I agree that a cursory review of McFadden's QM indicates he should focus on microbial genetics. (see also: http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/qevrev.pdf for a review of his work)
Again: How does my 'consciousness' affect the DNA in my gametes, please?
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 12:53:15 PM |
Darwin knew himself that if he could not find in the fossil records of how plants, ferns and trees "evolved" into flowering plants, fruits and vegatables, that his theory was bunk. He never found his proof in the bone beds and to this day it is yet to be found anywhere.
Avoid natural history museums, do you?
I mean, apart from the obvious truth that plants don't have bones (your 'bone beds' comment above), how hard is it to Google 'evolution of flowering plants'? 
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/11/2005 1:00:15 PM | Okay, first off, I apologise for being gone so long, and thus needing to post long and hard such that no one will want to read. Trewq, how am I doing on the questions? Little of it is my own belief (I might get into that later), but it's an interesting thought exercise. Now, for the posts (Mwa-ha-ha!).
The problem being that the fossil record shows that organisms have arisen from 'unlike' ancestors. It's a long way from Pikaia, a primitive chordate in the Burgess Fauna to humans, but we have a fossil record that covers quite a bit of it.
Technically, Tsur, your argument makes sense. But I've never seen any reference to/evidence of a dog giving birth to a cat or, more to the point, lizards being hatched from amphibian eggs. Evolution tends to be gradual (that whole "frequency of alleles" thing), so that yes, in a way, like giving birth to like, could have culminated in the eventual apparent disparity between pikaia and man.
The Theory of ID is the same as the Theory of Creationism - 'Goddidit'. It wasn't science before the name change, and it isn't science afterwards.
I won't argue that. I'm mostly just interested in whether or not it could be scientific.
We call DNA a code, but that doesn't mean that it is a "code" in the linguistic sense. It is more of a natural pattern that is stored in cells that is basically the blue print of what an organism will become. There is no proof that it was designed that way.
"Code," "pattern," "blueprint," call it what you will. But, just in the effort of trying to label it, we seek words that encapsulate what we see. Is it not ironic that we choose such words as seem to connote design?
People being tortured for being heretics. You can predict that based on the "theory" of Creation.
No more than you can predict ethnic cleansing based on evolution.
Approximately 97% of DNA is classsed as "Junk" , that is, that the DNA is redundant, how dose this clash with Desighn? It seems to be a very poorly desighned blueprint if it has so much junk in it.
And, in an amazing 180, I defer to Majestic. We only _call_ it junk. Is not redundancy a help, in case something goes wrong?
Are we a coincidence of cosmological constants or a consequence of an intelligent choice of cosmological constants? How would we distinguish the two?
QuietJohn, you freakin' rock! Beautiful!
Okay, multiple people posted on this one, and I'm going to concisify the package. Lamarck, yeah? Do those things that affect us throughout our lives have a bearing on the genetic inheritance of our offspring? I'd say yes. Matt Ridley's Genome points out that there is a genetic basis/predisposition for allergic reaction. And there is an increased heritability to allergies passed on in a male's sperm once allergies have manifested. Say, you get hay fever when you're in your 30's. Children you have afterward will have a higher predisposition toward such than any you had before. It's because there are hormonal factors at work on the physiology that get incorporated into the sperm subsequently produced. And, yes, he does a much better job of pointing out exactly where and how the genetics of it work. That's all biochemical, without having to go into the quantum effects. BTW, Raziel, I give you a lot of credit for knowing a pile o' stuff, but:
But the brain is still a bag of chemicals, it is the chemical interactions that make up our thoughts and not the electrical impulses.
I disagree. I've never run across anything that pointed out how thoughts/memories/anything mental was a product of either chemistry or electromagnetism. Maybe I'm just not reading the right info, but I know there's a correlation between brain activity and mental action, it's just never been shown exactly what the connection is.
As for the "blocks" beneath the Caribbean, nobody knows. I, for one, find it unlikely that seemingly well-constructed blocks of stone in an apparent pattern suggesting a building plan could spontaneously appear. But, then, I don't have many of the facts, and I do support evolution, so... Well, you can probably see where that would go.
The human ability to see patterns where none exist isn't exactly unusual - look at clouds sometime.
And the ability of some folks to refuse to accept the possibility of pattern where there is evidence of one...
Actually, Tsur, you've got some good ones, but this is one where we differ. Like I said, I have no proof and am not doing any research or investigation, but I'm not making any summary judgements either way. | |
|
|
| Page 25 of 156
|
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 |
|
Home
login 
