65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 11:48 am
rl-

I apologise. I always thought you were male but this-

Quote:
We're somehow construed as being 'in the way', and our environmental impact is somehow unnatural instead of being just part of the natural order.


in relation to the abortion of Indian females led me to think I might be mistaken. The use of "We're" there did it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 12:53 pm
If evolutionists were painters of pictures they would still be producing works like those of Constable and Gainsborough rather than those of Picasso and Braque or even Cezanne and Turner in which matter has dissolved as it has in modern physics.

Evolution theory can be compared to trick camera work in cinema where photographs taken at different times and in different places can be run together to give the appearance of things moving in the Euclidian space in the direction the makers have chosen to arrange.

The things that have happened in the 3.5 billion years of the history of life on earth each happened in discreet moments of space-time. The evolutionist then selects an exceedingly small percentage of these events and links them together as having a superficial similarity enough for him to group them together as a unity and give them a label--evolution.

With such a vast range of events to choose from, infinite to all intents and purposes, and the evolutionist only looking for those events which fit the pattern he, and his party, wish to demonstrate, anything else, such as intermediates, can easily be discarded to the cutting room waste-bin and he can make his movie in which, to everyone's astonishment, he is the star, takes his bow and the money and sits back looking like the cat that got the cream.

He takes advantage to achieve this of the ordinary person's scientific limitations in respect of his inability, which he probably shares, to conceive of the world in any other way than imagining that movement must involve something moving and matter having not been dissolved by modern physics.

When we listen to a melody we are hearing it as it goes by moment by moment, theoretically infinitessimal moment by infinitessimal moment. We do not imagine that the melody, the movement, exists complete in those moments.

Evolutionists have imagined that this complete entity which they label evolution is a single unified "thing" in each of the moments the process was taking place as if a minute fraction of an audio frequency in a melody is the melody itself. They confuse experience, what one observes, with prejudice, what one imagines one observes.

This would be all very well if the uses to which their theory could be applied had some advantages, some wished for social consequences, to the wider society which is providing the economic resources, including their own possibilities, which are being used to grow the theory and develop it and to get its feet under the table and which could be applied to other uses such as free beer for the troops in Iraq.

And everytime they are asked to provide an explanation of the utility of their theory to those who pay their wages they dodge off into some esoteric arcana which nobody really understands, possibly including themselves, or has any practical connection to it.

Quote:
proto cells, once the reaction mechanism is established, are"immortal". Pertide linkage, like rust, only needs a small host of chemicals Since the base pairs are the small molecules, the replicant is the arrangement of the family of Oxyribonuclease You dont seem to catch what Shapiro is saying RL.
Obviously hes not postulated an evolutionary dead end, maybe dead ends for thousands of nucleoties that DIDNT WORK, (and does the L/R rotatory aminos acids have anything important to say)


Anybody fancy putting that in language we can understand.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 01:14 pm
Quote:
Actually Darwin was a Christian.


Darwin started out as a Christian but became an agnostic when his daughter died. Annie died in 1851. The Origin of Species was published in 1859.

Quote:
Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[117] His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[118] He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[119] When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[120]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Quote:
Darwin wrote in two places in his book "Life and Letters" about his personal faith:

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

"I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect."


http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

There's more than one meaning for bustle. In reference to the appendage to the woman's behind the origin is unknown.

Quote:
Main Entry: 3bustle
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
: a pad or framework expanding and supporting the fullness and drapery of the back of a woman's skirt or dress; also : the drapery so supported

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

If you recall from one of my previous posts the thingy at the woman's posterior was called a Crinoline before the bustle was invented.

Quote:
Crinoline --A circular age-like frame made of flexible steel wire hoops, worn underneath a ladies skirt to give it a full shape. Before the crinoline was introduced in 1856, women had to wear as many as 6 full petticoats to make their skirts stick out in the fashionable bell shape!


Quote:
Bustle --A Padded frame used to bulk out the back of a ladies skirt. The bustle look replaced the Crinoline in the 1870's. In the 1880's a metal bustle was invented so that when the wearer sat down, the frame would bunch, and automatically spring back into shape when she stood up!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 02:37 pm
spendius wrote:


Evolution theory can be compared to trick camera work in cinema where photographs taken at different times and in different places can be run together to give the appearance of things moving in the Euclidian space in the direction the makers have chosen to arrange.
Meanwhile, spendi would have us believe that 60 frame per second pictures of a horse running can in no way prove that horses run or have ever run.
Quote:

The things that have happened in the 3.5 billion years of the history of life on earth each happened in discreet moments of space-time. The evolutionist then selects an exceedingly small percentage of these events and links them together as having a superficial similarity enough for him to group them together as a unity and give them a label--evolution.
Please feel free to point out the evidence that isn't included in the evolutionary theory. It is quite easy to accuse the other side of not looking at all the evidence but specifics of which evidence isn't included does seem to have been painfully bereft in your ramblings.
Quote:

With such a vast range of events to choose from, infinite to all intents and purposes, and the evolutionist only looking for those events which fit the pattern he, and his party, wish to demonstrate, anything else, such as intermediates, can easily be discarded to the cutting room waste-bin and he can make his movie in which, to everyone's astonishment, he is the star, takes his bow and the money and sits back looking like the cat that got the cream.
Yet this thread shows it is those opposed to evolution that only look at what fits their desired outcome. Take your bow and don't trip all over yourself as you exit the pub with slobber dribbling down your chin.
Quote:

He takes advantage to achieve this of the ordinary person's scientific limitations in respect of his inability, which he probably shares, to conceive of the world in any other way than imagining that movement must involve something moving and matter having not been dissolved by modern physics.
It might be much more interesting to listen to the ale sodden sot wandering about in the storm who rages he knows best how the world works, but I wouldn't trust him to tell me which side of the biscuit was buttered let alone how the building blocks of life are salted.

Quote:

When we listen to a melody we are hearing it as it goes by moment by moment, theoretically infinitessimal moment by infinitessimal moment. We do not imagine that the melody, the movement, exists complete in those moments.

Evolutionists have imagined that this complete entity which they label evolution is a single unified "thing" in each of the moments the process was taking place as if a minute fraction of an audio frequency in a melody is the melody itself. They confuse experience, what one observes, with prejudice, what one imagines one observes.
Meanwhile the drunken sot declares there are no string instruments in the orchestra because he can only hear the horns over his own yelling.
Quote:

This would be all very well if the uses to which their theory could be applied had some advantages, some wished for social consequences, to the wider society which is providing the economic resources, including their own possibilities, which are being used to grow the theory and develop it and to get its feet under the table and which could be applied to other uses such as free beer for the troops in Iraq.
Sooner or later the rambling had to lead to the request for free beer.
Quote:

And everytime they are asked to provide an explanation of the utility of their theory to those who pay their wages they dodge off into some esoteric arcana which nobody really understands, possibly including themselves, or has any practical connection to it.
Esoteric arcana? You mean like bringing up melodies and moving pictures? Certainly there must be some secret meaning you wished to convey and this wasn't just railing against those that have thrown you out.
Quote:

Quote:
proto cells, once the reaction mechanism is established, are"immortal". Pertide linkage, like rust, only needs a small host of chemicals Since the base pairs are the small molecules, the replicant is the arrangement of the family of Oxyribonuclease You dont seem to catch what Shapiro is saying RL.
Obviously hes not postulated an evolutionary dead end, maybe dead ends for thousands of nucleoties that DIDNT WORK, (and does the L/R rotatory aminos acids have anything important to say)


Anybody fancy putting that in language we can understand.
Once fermentation is started in a cask of ale it sustains itself because all of the necessary ingredients are there.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 03:17 pm
real life wrote:
His chemical network is essentially a 'proto-cell'.

I prefer to let the man speak for himself. He called it a Chemical Network. And I find his name for the process more accurate to what he is describing, than 'proto-cell'.

real life wrote:
And we seem to agree that he proposes no replicative mechanism. So it is essentially a dead end. Even if his proto-cell is successful in generating itself, there is no future beyond this one member.

The carbon cycle on this planet doesn't seem to be a 'dead end' as you say. And the water cycle continues to make the rivers flow eon after eon. What makes you think that the chemical cycles he's proposing are 'dead ends'?

Maybe if you would stop thinking of it as a 'proto-cell' and think of it as a chemical cycle (as the author describes) you wouldn't be so confused.

real life wrote:
Unless you want to propose that this 'proto-cell' has an extraordinarily long life span (long enough for it to self generate an xNA molecule that is successful in not only replicating itself but also in encoding the information necessary to reproduce the environment , i.e . the proto-cell, which produced it. And how does it successfully encode the information necessary to reproduce the proto-cell itself? Why, it's a lucky guesser, that's how)[/i][/b] then it is a dead end.

Any 'proto-replicator' in a 'metabolism first' scenario (such as Shapiro proposes) will actually have 2 tasks that it must successfully perform on the first go (or the family line is toast).

Are you now challenging his theory, or your mis-representation of his theory?

Maybe if you just stuck with what he's saying and stopped trying to say, "in other words, this is what he means", you wouldn't get so lost.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:11 pm
paradope wrote-

Quote:
Meanwhile, spendi would have us believe that 60 frame per second pictures of a horse running can in no way prove that horses run or have ever run.


Quite correct. The pictures would not prove that horses run or have ever run. They quite often prove that horses run faster than horses run or have ever run. Maybe you haven't noticed as a result of never having seen horses run. Which I have. Most of them too slowly for my taste.

I saw a movie once of a train going from London to Brighton I think it was in four minutes. I was glad I wasn't the driver.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 06:29 pm
Quote:
Please feel free to point out the evidence that isn't included in the evolutionary theory


How about the one that had a fin half way to a wing and could neither swim straight nor flap properly and was shunned by all the ladies and didn't make it into the sedimentary rock that fm's research project looked into due to having been eaten. There must have been untold myriads of them.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 06:34 pm
They all lie underneath your empty pints of John Smiths Extra Smooth.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:00 pm
spendius wrote:
Quote:
Please feel free to point out the evidence that isn't included in the evolutionary theory


How about the one that had a fin half way to a wing and could neither swim straight nor flap properly and was shunned by all the ladies and didn't make it into the sedimentary rock that fm's research project looked into due to having been eaten. There must have been untold myriads of them.


Yes, and? How is this not included in the theory of evolution?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 07:18 pm
spendius wrote:
paradope
One would think one of your great intellect could come up with something a little more witty. You are right up there with okie and cjhsa.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 07:56 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
His chemical network is essentially a 'proto-cell'.

I prefer to let the man speak for himself. He called it a Chemical Network. And I find his name for the process more accurate to what he is describing, than 'proto-cell'.

real life wrote:
And we seem to agree that he proposes no replicative mechanism. So it is essentially a dead end. Even if his proto-cell is successful in generating itself, there is no future beyond this one member.

The carbon cycle on this planet doesn't seem to be a 'dead end' as you say. And the water cycle continues to make the rivers flow eon after eon. What makes you think that the chemical cycles he's proposing are 'dead ends'?

Maybe if you would stop thinking of it as a 'proto-cell' and think of it as a chemical cycle (as the author describes) you wouldn't be so confused.

real life wrote:
Unless you want to propose that this 'proto-cell' has an extraordinarily long life span (long enough for it to self generate an xNA molecule that is successful in not only replicating itself but also in encoding the information necessary to reproduce the environment , i.e . the proto-cell, which produced it. And how does it successfully encode the information necessary to reproduce the proto-cell itself? Why, it's a lucky guesser, that's how)[/i][/b] then it is a dead end.

Any 'proto-replicator' in a 'metabolism first' scenario (such as Shapiro proposes) will actually have 2 tasks that it must successfully perform on the first go (or the family line is toast).

Are you now challenging his theory, or your mis-representation of his theory?

Maybe if you just stuck with what he's saying and stopped trying to say, "in other words, this is what he means", you wouldn't get so lost.


The 'chemical network' he is referring to is inside of a compartment (his word) of some sort, such as a lipid membrane. It is essentially a 'proto-cell'.

But your extreme avoidance of the obvious, along with fm's contention that

farmerman wrote:
proto cells, once the reaction mechanism is established, are"immortal".


(remember: NO means of replication. how are they going to be 'immortal' ? )

are both providing good humor.

The reason Shapiro's proposed entity is a dead end is that it cannot replicate. Trying to compare it to Earth's carbon cycle or water cycle is to miss the point entirely.

He is talking about what would essentially be the first living organism. He's not talking about the water cycle.

The reason that the first living organism would not continue on for eons as the water cycle does , is that living organisms DIE.

And if they can't replicate, the 'family line' dies along with them.

A simple organism such as this proposed by Shapiro would be very UNlikely to have a long lifespan (much less be 'immortal').

Instead, like one-celled organisms today, it would be much more likely to have an extremely SHORT lifespan.

The article proposes that the first living organism arose, not as a 'replicator first' , but rather as a 'metabolism first' entity.

It's a dead end.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 07:07 am
parados wrote:
spendius wrote:
Quote:
Please feel free to point out the evidence that isn't included in the evolutionary theory


How about the one that had a fin half way to a wing and could neither swim straight nor flap properly and was shunned by all the ladies and didn't make it into the sedimentary rock that fm's research project looked into due to having been eaten. There must have been untold myriads of them.


Yes, and? How is this not included in the theory of evolution?


Interesting point that spendius raises.

And since no one seems interested in defending the concept of how life arose from dead chemicals ( do you think it was 'metabolism first' as Shapiro proposes, or 'replicator first' which the good chemist tells us is nigh to impossible? ) we'll go there briefly with him.

Evolution is full of such tales as spendi mentioned.

My favorite is the jawbone-to-ear story.

The poor critter who over many generations suffered the loss of his jawbone as it shrunk to become a tiny inner ear bone is a fixture in the evolutionary story.

But can anyone explain how the LOSS of a jawbone, and the presumed limits it would put on one's ability to eat (and therefore survive and thrive) is supposed to be a 'survival advantage'?

Why was this supposedly 'selected for' when it is obvious that it would put the critter at a distinct DISadvantage llllllooooooooonnnnngggggg before the bone got tiny enough and properly placed to be useful as an ear bone?

We could go on.

Land mammals who lost their legs to become sea mammals, etc.

A survival advantage? C'mon. Laughing
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 07:58 am
This thread has always been entertaining. I'm glad it is busy again.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 10:39 am
real life wrote:

We could go on.

Land mammals who lost their legs to become sea mammals, etc.

A survival advantage? C'mon. Laughing


Are you now arguing there was NOT a world wide flood?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 12:02 pm
I didn't mention a flood.

I had been talking about evolution and also about the origin of life from non-life.

Did you read the Shapiro article on the origin of life?

Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University wrote:
A Simpler Origin for Life
The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. Energy-driven networks of small molecules afford better odds as the initiators of life.
By Robert Shapiro


.............Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself." When Dawkins wrote these words 30 years ago, DNA was the most likely candidate for this role. As we shall see, several other replicators have now been suggested.

When RNA Ruled the World

Unfortunately, complications soon set in. DNA replication cannot proceed without the assistance of a number of proteins--members of a family of large molecules that are chemically very different from DNA. Proteins, like DNA, are constructed by linking subunits, amino acids in this case, together to form a long chain. Cells employ twenty of these building blocks in the proteins that they make, affording a variety of products capable of performing many different tasks--proteins are the handymen of the living cell. Their most famous subclass, the enzymes, act as expeditors, speeding up chemical processes that would otherwise take place too slowly to be of use to life.

The above account brings to mind the old riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? DNA holds the recipe for protein construction. Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins. Which large molecule, then, appeared first in getting life started--proteins (the chicken) or DNA (the egg)?................


from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7

He postulates the first living organisms as 'metabolism first' without a mechanism for replication.

What do you think about that?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:03 pm
What do I think of that?

I think that science admits it doesn't know how life started. They are throwing out different ideas and to see how they wash. They know there's a lot they don't know yet but they keep trying and they get a better understanding as more new discoveries are made. I have no doubt that someday they will know how life started.

Be patient RL and science will, in time, give you the knowledge you seek.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 01:28 pm
xingu wrote:
. . . Be patient RL and science will, in time, give you the knowledge you seek.
Perhaps such knowledge will be surprising.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 02:05 pm
real life wrote:
I didn't mention a flood.

I had been talking about evolution and also about the origin of life from non-life.
Evolution says nothing about the origins of life.

Attempting to bring in the origins of life is a red herring in a discussion about evolution.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 02:08 pm
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
. . . Be patient RL and science will, in time, give you the knowledge you seek.
Perhaps such knowledge will be surprising.

One thing is for sure, it won't be believed by those that refuse to accept science in its present form.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2007 02:53 pm
parados wrote:
neologist wrote:
xingu wrote:
. . . Be patient RL and science will, in time, give you the knowledge you seek.
Perhaps such knowledge will be surprising.

One thing is for sure, it won't be believed by those that refuse to accept science in its present form.


Unless it says that the Christian creation story, as opposed to the hundreds of other religious creation stories, is the way it all happened.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 04:14:49