6
   

Which is hoax: UFO or Darwinism?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2011 02:28 pm
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Fuzzy= confused and not coherent; not clearly thought out; "a vague and fuzzy idea of the world"

Logically speaking, if everyone else seems "fuzzy" to you, but they all think each other are coherent, then it could be your viewpoint which is fuzzy. Right?
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 02:52 am
@rosborne979,
Yes, but not always. God knows all men are fuzzy in mind.
fobvius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 03:52 am
@bewildered,
Thank you bewildered for your ebullient expose.

I think that I may have an answer.

None here can disagree that there must be life on other planets given 400 billion stars in our galaxy of 100 billion galaxies (the accepted more stars in the sky than grains of sand on every beach in the world rule) . Or that the esteemed Hawking expects aliens to advise us how to travel at speeds close to light. Or that if something can happen it will (under the law of large numbers). Or that Boolean logic predicates that if one and only one is a hoax and then one is shown to be true then the other is a hoax.

Ergo, the UFO can't be a hoax so Darwinism must be.

Please keep us informed of any other discoveries.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 06:12 am
@fobvius,
Let me say explicitly that some UFO WERE real phenomenon ( not as generally thought), and that Darwinism and the evolution of human beings are total hoaxes.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 06:44 am
@bewildered,
I can see where you would get that. After all, we have just evidence in favor of evolution, but we have unidentified in favor of UFO. Persuasive.
0 Replies
 
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 06:45 am
@bewildered,
We are like minded.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 07:03 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:

Yes, but not always. God knows all men are fuzzy in mind.

Which God are you talking about exactly. Men have believed in thousands of different Gods over the years.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 07:04 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Let me say explicitly that some UFO WERE real phenomenon ( not as generally thought), and that Darwinism and the evolution of human beings are total hoaxes.

How do you know that?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 08:00 pm
@rosborne979,
I can hear him thinking
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2011 09:07 pm
1 - On this matter the only thing I cannot comprehend in Darwinism is the notion of random mutation as I cannot comprehend randomness in any possible way...now from there to Intelligent Design goes a great deal of distance as I see no need for any designer at all, nor the design would be complete even if the mutation were not to be random, reason why natural selection would still apply...meaning that certain patterns of possible mutations which were certain to emerge would still be dependent on the environment to shape or edit which ones would group with others and witch would go extinct by not fitting the contextual habitat...
...so, even considering the hypothesis that there is any type of algorithm associated with the mutations, that is, accepting that there are parameters establishing a certain set of organized mutations coming up for the purpose of natural selection with any kind of complex pattern in it, that in itself does not imply in any sense any other designer then the rules of nature...or should I more correctly point, the rules in Nature.

2 - As for Unidentified Flying Objects, aside the strong statistical probability previously mentioned, one needs only to have a poor vision to "get them" in the sky, or should I say to not get them, which seams more appropriated to suit the case given by definition they are unidentified...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 11:07 am
Quote:
Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained

ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2006) — Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.

The research was led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and will be published in the April 7 issue of SCIENCE.

How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems -- those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.

"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."

The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity -- the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone. They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene -- which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.

Thornton's group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapated" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans.

"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."

The study's other researchers include Jamie T. Bridgham, postdoctorate research associate in evolutionary biology and Sean M. Carroll, graduate research fellow in biology. The work was funded by National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health grants and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship recently awarded to Thornton.


Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231032.htm
0 Replies
 
-Ramen Lord-
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 12:23 pm
@rosborne979,
Classic photoshop of an octopus and a pine tree.
-Ramen Lord-
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 12:25 pm
@Old Goat,
Tell him I find the evolution of finches extremely interesting.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 02:53 pm
@-Ramen Lord-,
-Ramen Lord- wrote:

Classic photoshop of an octopus and a pine tree.

What? You're not convinced? It's an arboreal cephalopod I tell you. These are the firs evolutionary stage of the flying spaghetti monster.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.79 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:55:29