Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 585
view profile
History
Evolution.Page 24 of 64    (10, 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)
just opinions, frogo.

you have them too I see.

thats ok.

but there are things going on that we don't have a clue about, detectable by humans or not, but that still have an effect on us, past, present or future.

or is there nothing going on that we can't detect, that could effect us in some way?

ok man, thats a new one for me.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 586
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:48:11 PM
cool,

forget it, just want to know what the consensus in the scientific world was on if there was always something here, or not, eg. energy.

because if not, than we are here by magic, no?

but if something was here for ever, then it makes sense, to me, anyway.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 587
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 2:55:58 PM
but there are things going on that we don't have a clue about, detectable by humans or not, but that still have an effect on us, past, present or future

That's purely an assumption, and one which by definition is entirely devoid of supporting evidence. It's not within the purview of science to evaluate concepts for which there is neither evidence of existence, nor influence.


or is there nothing going on that we can't detect, that could effect us in some way?

Unimportant. If we can't detect any influence, does it matter? Do we care?

Do you avoid smacking a mosquito because her great grand-daughter might one day fly into the eye of a would-be assassin, ruining his aim? Doubtful. You have no reasonable way of measuring or predicting that event, even though the objects and effects involved are very real. Why give MORE consideration to things which aren't even demonstrably real?


forget it, just want to know what the consensus in the scientific world was on if there was always something here, or not, eg. energy.

because if not, than we are here by magic, no?

but if something was here for ever, then it makes sense, to me, anyway.

Well, none of that actually has any bearing on evolution. The origins of the universe are another matter. We can trace back to tiny fractions of a second after "creation", but we simply lack any means to go back further other than conjecture. One is free to throw deities into the equation of course, but that really doesn't provide and meaningful answers, since one is then left with an overly complex, undefined, unexplainable entity with no predictable influences. If we work back through predictable definable mechanisms, why would we suddenly through the opposite into the mix as an "answer"?

It does make a certain sense that existence is "forever", but when it comes to origins of the universe, there are many things which are logical but still don't make much sense from our relatively limited perspectives.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 588
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 3:10:58 PM
relatively limited perspectives, you hit the nail on the head!
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 589
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 5:57:28 AM
Frogo - I have always been wondering how mutations caused limbs to get here and I was thinking about it today. I wanted to ask you a question that actually makes sense more than growing arms out of a torso.
So what I was thinking about is that, were the legs connected to each other completely and were the arms originaly connected to the torso *along with the hands* So that when the mutation happens, it simply splits the arm off instead of growing a new one. Now that the new limbs are not connected in this way, they can build various bones such as the elbow or the knees.

Im not a biologist myself.. but this makes sense.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 590
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:21:12 AM
Verzen:

http://homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/limb-evolution/LimbEvolution.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323212021.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0401_040401_tetrapodfossil.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4638587/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Short answer: No, not really that way at all. Kind of the reverse of what you suggest, in fact. The underlying structures evolved first, as part of the gill structures, then were duplicated and co-opted as fins and eventually limbs.

 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 591
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:34:47 AM
Well, that's what I meant is that since we were all some sort of fish at the start, fins broke off from the torso of the beast. But legs would of had to split down and break off as well.
An example of what I mean and a reverse condition that reverse this is what is known as "mermaid syndrome"

I just suck at explaining things lol =P
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 592
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 7:13:44 AM
fish - saying god created everything gives us as much answers about the universe as saying a giant pink elephant farted the universe into existence. Same amount of evidence too.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 593
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 12:50:15 PM
Yup, John, that pretty much does it. Well done, sir.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 594
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 1:09:19 PM
And please don't forget that EVERY ONE of those options is equally "predictable" by inclusion of a deity.

God did it - instantly.
God did it - slowly.
God did it - with a guiding hand.
God did it - by setting the rules, starting the engine, and leaving.

In other words, what explainability or predictability do deities bring to the table? None - all answers are equal, and thus no supernatural "explanations" actually explain anything. In all cases, we're back to square one, with science providing the only answers which ARE consistent and predictable, with or without deities.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 595
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:34:51 PM
Twister - Has anyone told you that your picture makes you look like a bond villain?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 596
Evolution.
Posted: 2/19/2010 12:38:07 PM
Well, this might go a long way to answering the question "where does 'new' information come from for genes."

http://ow.ly/19bZa


Study shows how viruses changed human evolution
LONDON
Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:19am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Italian scientists said on Friday they had found evidence of how viruses helped change the course of human evolution and said their discovery could help in the design of better drugs and vaccines.

They found more than 400 different mutations in 139 genes that play a role in people's risk of catching viruses -- a finding that may also help explain why some people sail through flu season unscathed while others seem to catch every bug around.

Researchers from the Scientific Institute IRCCS, Milan University and the Politecnico di Milano analysed the genomes of 52 populations from different parts of the world with exposure to a wide range of viruses over 200,000 years of human evolution.

The researchers, whose work was published in the Public Library of Science PLoS Genetics journal, looked at places where the climate has provided friendly conditions for viruses -- such as warm, wet regions of Africa.

It is no secret that viruses have affected the human gene map -- studies have shown that 8 percent of the genome is made up of so-called endogenous retroviruses, which incorporate their genetic code into ours.

The Italian scientists searched through the genome for evidence of infection and linked it to genetic variation -- a method they thought would be a good way to find genes linked with viruses. They found more gene mutations where populations had been infected by many different viruses.

"We found that these genes had been selected -- and from this concept we can extrapolate that many of these genes might make you more or less susceptible to viruses," Manuela Sironi, who led the work, said in a telephone interview.

Sironi stressed that the work was "very preliminary" and would need to be replicated by others and tested in the lab.

She also said a similar method to the one her team used could be used to find genes that boost or cut the risk of infections from other bugs such as bacteria.

The study is available here:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000849

(Reporting by Kate Kelland, editing by Alison Williams)


The implications seem clear...if your genes are encoded be more resistant to disease, say through your ancestors increased exposure to disease, then you're more apt to survive in the face of newer diseases.

Evolution in action! So cool!
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 597
Evolution.
Posted: 2/20/2010 8:33:56 AM

And please don't forget that EVERY ONE of those options is equally "predictable" by inclusion of a deity.


Said inclusion automatically raising the question "who created the deity?" .
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 598
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 2/20/2010 9:14:35 AM
A better question is "why include a deity at all, since it never actually explains anything?" No matter where a deity is placed in the equation, there's no evidence and no predictable mechanism of action. No matter where a deity is placed in the equation, there IS evidence and mechanisms for natural forces.

Uninformative, unexplanatory, unnecessary.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 599
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 2/20/2010 7:05:33 PM
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/03/ultimate-coincidence.html




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The extent of the universe's fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God. It's not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer. [Ross, H.N., "Why I Believe in Divine Creation," in Geisler, N.L. & Hoffman, P., eds., "Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2001] We've already identified five of them. Here are ten more: 1. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. 2. If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. 3. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth. 4. If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life. 5. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth. 6. If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible. 7. If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great. 8. The 23-degree axil [sic] tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. 9. If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil. 10. If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (Yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it!) Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants-122 in all-would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138-that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it! There are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all." (Geisler, N.L. & Turek; F., "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, 2004, pp.104-106. Emphasis original)

got to be something to think about in there.


this one is interesting and easy to read too;

http://groups.google.com/group/nl.filosofie/browse_thread/thread/212ea7f24f867d1b

read this in there somewhere;

I don't have enough faith to be an athiest.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 600
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 2/20/2010 7:23:23 PM
There's nothing to think about there. It's all post hoc fallacies. It's only the fact that all these things coincide which allows us to even consider them. In any universe in which they do not, no-one gets the chance to ponder it. Anthropomorphizing is also a fallacy. Two for one sale - 20 fallacies in one post!

No...21. Add to that argumentum ad numerum.

I have no faith. I side with logic and empiricism. That's WHY I'm an atheist.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 601
Evolution.
Posted: 2/20/2010 8:50:35 PM

No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer.... etc etc etc.


Guess we can add another:

If god ( let's call him god- A to avoid confusion) hadn't been created by an older god ( god-B) then god-A couldn't have created our universe.

Oh, and add another:

If god-B hadn't been created by an older god ( god-C) then god-B couldn't have created god-A who couldn't have created our universe.

OH!! OH!!! Another one!! :

If god-C hadn't been created by an older god (god-D) then god-C couldn't have created god-B who couldn't have created god-A who couldn't have created our universe.

etc etc etc etc

So I guess all these people who claim to have proof/evidence of god's existence don't have any faith ( belief that is not based on proof).
 tuktuk55
Joined: 9/18/2008
Msg: 602
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 2/23/2010 8:42:23 PM
dunno, but the 4 horsemen (dawkins, hitchens etc) are pretty damn funny if you ask me. should play their CDs in schools
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 603
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 2/24/2010 10:54:09 AM

one chance in 10138-that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it!
Wow that number is so big and impressive! Obviously nothing could overcome odds like that! For example - if I look at a tree and calculate the odds of its particular arrangement of atoms coming together by chance, those odds might be about 1 in 10^138 - that's why trees don't exist! Neither do plants, rocks, or anything else in the universe - because the odds of anything happening in just that way are too remote.
Except God. The odds of a magic being casting magic spells - its gotta be 100% for sure.

The probability argument is stupid for a variety of reasons:

First, if 'X' occurred then regardless of what the odds of it happening were, they were beaten. It happened, therefore the probability is 100%.

Second, these odds are typically contrived by someone who sits in an armchair, picks his nose, and makes crap up instead of an actual mathematical calculation.

Third, nearly everything is extremely unlikely. I had an impossibly remote chance of turning out precisely the way I did - that does not mean that I do not exist.

Fourth, odds usually assume a predetermined outcome. For example, if I shuffle a deck of cards, the odds of getting ANY resulting arrangement of cards is 100%, and the odds of any particular outcome is 1 in 8x10^67. Those who are swayed by such an impressive number must think that it is impossible to shuffle cards.
Had you calculated odds at the outset of life's beginnings, the odds of our particular evolutionary outcome thus far is impossibly remote, and the odds of any outcome is 100%.

Fifth, odds assume that all forces are random. This is rarely (perhaps never) the case. The theory of evolution, for example, requires natural selection, a non-random process. Even if every other evolutionary variable was random (and they aren't), the ToE would not be random, therefore random probability calculations would be meaningless. Its like dropping a rock and 'randomly' calculating the odds of it dropping straight down and ignoring the fact that gravity (like evolution) is not a random process.

If you think evolution is random then you do not understand Biology, Biochemistry or Genetics. The position of cells is not random, it is coded by the genes and controlled by chemical concentrations in the cells. In biochemistry, things attract, repel, combine, break apart, and interact in all kinds of non-random ways. It only seems impossible if you mistakenly atribute it to random factors.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 604
Evolution.
Posted: 2/26/2010 12:06:05 PM

who cares. drink some beer. you are all going to die anyway there is no god.


Gonna die or the master programmer is gonna re-boot.

We're all just characters in a super sophisticated version of the SIMS; the person playing us was called to supper by his/her mom about an hour ago ( 2oo,ooo years ago our time, give or take a couple thousand) and left the game running ( which explains how everything got so screwed up ).

When they get back from supper they're gonna see the state of the SIMulation , say "screw it" push reset and start over.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 605
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/3/2010 1:53:51 AM
If you think evolution is random then you do not understand Biology, Biochemistry or Genetics. The position of cells is not random, it is coded by the genes and controlled by chemical concentrations in the cells. In biochemistry, things attract, repel, combine, break apart, and interact in all kinds of non-random ways. It only seems impossible if you mistakenly atribute it to random factors.

bingo! rock, I would change the word evolution to creation though.

but, no mater which system I believed in, your right about non of those behaviours being random

except for the coding, in evolution, it had to come about randomly somehow, no?

once the coding was there, no more random.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 606
Evolution.
Posted: 3/3/2010 5:29:26 AM

bingo! rock, I would change the word evolution to creation though.


And you would be wrong. rockondon wasn't saying that "God" did it. Evolution is ruled by the laws of chemistry. From that standpoint, we can't say any random event influenced evolution.
 Ron429
Joined: 2/26/2009
Msg: 607
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/3/2010 9:55:24 AM
It doesnt have much merit if you believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 608
Evolution.
Posted: 3/3/2010 10:02:44 AM

If you want more evidence to refute those who wallow in absurd slop such as the idea that "nothing exploded and created everything", then go to a Bible bookstore. They have dozens of books demonstrating the fallacy of evolution.


Or go to your local book store kids section. They've got lots of fairytale books there too.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 609
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 3/3/2010 10:57:22 AM
ron429
It doesnt have much merit if you believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You would realize this statement doesn't have merit if you understood the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Paul K
No proof for God, no proof for how the coding was "encoded", only conjecture for both.
"Coding" is kind of a vague term in this case but one might say that it was "encoded" by evolutionary process and/or basic laws of biochemistry. In any case, refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution because you don't have clear evidence about some arbitrary piece of data about it is like refusing to accept that calculus works because you don't know what Isaac Newton had for breakfast one morning. If you were true to yourself you would reach a reasoned conclusion about the evidence that is there; since your beliefs are wrong and you know it, you focus instead on the evidence that isn't there.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >