Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
27 Nov 16
01:54
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
https://www.newscientist.com/issue/2692/
oops. so sorry.
oops. so sorry.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 67
|
By:
Have you read the article? Or is this just another inane thread trying to debunk science with mumbo jumbo that you clearly know nothing about.
|
|
By:
zorro still thinks we live in the 16th century
|
|
By:
In fairness since we started burning witches, none were seen afterwards.
|
|
By:
if anyone's actually interested, the point is that the tree of life proposed by darwin with its clearly demarcated branches,is probably too simple, rather it's far more likely that it's a complicated entangled mess, or "The Impenetrable Thicket of Life".
It's more complicated than darwin thought due to horizontal gene transfer, something which largely happens in bacteria and viruses, which he could never have really understood at the time. full article here: https://www.sott.net/article/173647-Why-Darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life |
|
By:
A good article...when I have a few hours I may try to digest it
It does challenge Darwins Tree of Life or perhaps tries to supplant it with a Web of Life This is because of something known as Horizonatal Gene Transfer...where genes seem to have been swapped between species, on different branches. Science advances one step at a time, so I would be happy to accept this. But this does NOT take us back to Genesis or Adam and Eve, discredited now for nearly 150 years. Still may people believe it if they wish, there is absolutely no support for it in this article. It is just showing Darwin's Tree of Life is far more complicated than we first though. So it may have to be superseded by another analogy |
|
By:
Largely as Dstyle said in the post previous to mine
 |
|
By:
The tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. "The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on."
From the above article Note Move on, not go backwards |
|
By:
recap - the foundations are rotten ... but let's keep building the house anyway.
|
|
By:
The foundations are not rotten...science progresses one step at a time Zorro.
All of todays scientific theories will probably be replaced by something better in time.. Darwin or Mendel did not have the technology of today, and they were starting a new science from scratch, evolution. One thing I can say about creation theory is it never progresses  |
|
By:
Coincidentally was reading this blog article the other day -
"Human Chromosome 2 – Evidence of Common Descent." . https://aperimentis.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/human-chromosome-2/ interesting stuff! |
|
By:
I think zorrostrikes is a very intelligent ChitChatter.He could hold his own with Einstein
|
|
By:
why do evolutionists do that?
Throw in Mendel with Darwin? they've claimed all medical breakthroughs are due to Darwinism? Pasteur wrote extensively about Darwinism being BS. 99 percent of all biology is done without any evolutionary input. Where are the children? what do we now have in our lives that came from Darwinism. Chemistry gave us magic bullet medicines. Plastics, fibres, composite materials, modern paints, etc etc. Physics have us universal laws, structural understanding of materials. Nuclear power stations. Electricity etc. Biology gave us vaccines(Edward Jenner)1790, micro biology from Pasteur, etc. I don't wake in the morning thinking what new marvel will evolution bring me today? because it all fits in a shoebox. All the other scientific disciplines have it covered already. It's like the appendix at the end of the book, giving credit. The evolutionists claim everything in creation. Einstein was a product of evolution, ergo thank Evolution for everything Einstein did? It's insane. You cannot claim everybody's work as your own. Read Pasteur, Read Boris Chain the nobel prize winning biologist. It's a philosophy tacked onto science. It does not explain the beginning of life in any way. They admit that. The expand micro evolution into Macro? without a shred of proof. They actively ban other academics from publishing papers that might impinge on their reinforcement of a godless society. Intelligent design is banned. It's a closed shop. Any reason but God. Aliens are okay? lightning is okay? multiverses are okay. But GOD is forbidden. Says it all. |
|
By:
zorrostrikes • November 30, 2016 8:25 AM GMT
why do evolutionists do that? Throw in Mendel with Darwin? That is because that although Darwin had shown mutations in a species do take place, he had no idea of the mechanism. Critics claimed mutations could not survive because they would be bred out by the majority of a species who had not mutated. Ergo similar to putting a drop of white paint into a bucket of red paint. What Gregor Mendel showed was that mutations are never lost, they are held in what we now know as DNA in a system of dominant and recessive genomes. If the mutations do well they will prosper in a species and may become the default dominant genome. If they do not prosper they will always be recessive. You attack Darwinism in little details Zorro. The Tree of life may not be the final answer. But what has creationism got going for it, nothing! Other than the Bible and blind faith Of the two I prefer to stick to Darwinism, Mendel believed in Darwinism of course. |
|
By:
Mendel was a Franciscan Friar, but was in a very forward looking Monastery, which encourages a search for knowledge, the truth.
Mendel was a very intelligent man, but he came from a poor family, who could not afford to fund his further education or studies. He entered the St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno to allow him to continue his studies. Sadly he was not recognised in his own lifetime but he was rediscovered 3 decades later and his experiments with peas successfully repeated. He was right. |
|
By:
Darwin did not claim to have found how life started.
As of this moment nobody has any idea |
|
By:
If animals/creatures adapt to their environment,then why are there so many different types of fish?
Surely they should all evolve and actually start to converge to best suit their environment. Especially those living in the same area/waters. |
|
By:
Blind Faith? It doesn't exist.
Except in masonic rites. I read the bible and it has historic figures in it - Caesar, Pontius Pilot. etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources I test it daily. It stands up to scrutiny. Unless you are getting your bible from Hollywood and tv second hand. |
|
By:
maleuk01. • November 30, 2016 9:28 PM GMT
If animals/creatures adapt to their environment,then why are there so many different types of fish? Surely they should all evolve and actually start to converge to best suit their environment. Especially those living in the same area/waters. Because there would only be limited resources for one type of fish. To take advantage of all resources the fish need to be different. In fact this has happened in Lake Victoria in Africa. Cichlids span a wide range of body sizes, from species as small as 2.5 centimeters (0.98 in) in length (e.g., female Neolamprologus multifasciatus) to much larger species approaching 1 meter (3.3 ft) in length (e.g. Boulengerochromis and Cichla). As a group, cichlids exhibit a similar diversity of body shapes, ranging from strongly laterally compressed species (such as Altolamprologus, Pterophyllum, and Symphysodon) to species that are cylindrical and highly elongate (such as Julidochromis, Teleogramma, Teleocichla, Crenicichla, and Gobiocichla). Cichlids differ not only in size and shape, but also in range, habitat, reproduction, and feeding. Just within Africa’s Lake Victoria, the “two hundred species “differ among themselves in food habits as much as do tigers and cows”, explains Cambridge physiologist Jared Diamond in The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. “Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others crush nails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish.” Diamond further notes: “Yet all those Lake Victoria cichlids differ from each other on the average by about 0.4% of their DNA studied.” This both proves and disproves Darwin. Species adapt to their environment, but there is not a lot of difference in their DNA. So Zorro may be right, Darwinism may be challenged. However whatever we replace Darwinism with is not going to be Adam and Eve as Zorro believes. Still we are all entitled to our own beliefs |
|
By:
Free will is a precious gift from God, for it lets us love him with our “whole heart”—because we want to.
—Matthew 22:37. |
|
By:
That's not right ebul, many different types of fish compete over the same resources, and have the same bigger fish after them.
Your explanation may explain handful of species, not thousands. also, if life evolves from say bacteria, then surely all strands of bacteria etc should be relatively new, but we see bacteria that has existed for millions of years. Why hasn't it all evolved? Why has only 1 species (humans) developed into a far superior animal as in developing science, language, art etc etc. Nothing else even comes anywhere near as evolved as the human species. |
|
By:
I cannot guarantee I am right maleuk01
if life evolves from say bacteria, then surely all strands of bacteria etc should be relatively new, but we see bacteria that has existed for millions of years. Why hasn't it all evolved? Because they have reached a state of balance, they have no need to evolve. It is a change in the environment which drives evolution where existing resources may no longer be available, they must adapt to something else or die. This may be common in islands when a species become cut off from the rest of the their species, it is quite common. Humans evolved form Chimpanzee or a common ancestor. There were forests covering large area of the Earth. These reduced so some chimpanzee where forced down from the trees to survive. Once this happened, these chimpanzee had to raise their head, to keep an eye out for predators, Gradually they developed straight necks which chimpanzee do not have....they became australopithecines Australopithecines were perfect intermediate forms between African apes and modern humans," Our straight necks enabled us to vocalise more different sounds, from this developed from which developed language. The development of language drove our brains made them bigger, so our intelligence increased. It is astonishing I think the difference in the intelligence of humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. I still wonder myself. I think this is where we stand at the moment, but things may change if we learn more. |
|
By:
You say bacteria do not change maleuk01, in fact our modern anti biotics are creating super bugs.
The viruses are having to adapt to the attack by anit biotics, it is a change in their environment. At some point they may become immune to all anti biotics, the medical profession is worried. |
|
By:
The whole success of life is down to the fact we do not always reproduce perfectly. Slight mutations sometimes creep in.
It is these slight mutations which have enabled life to survive and develop in all its incredible variety. Lake Victoria in Africa was originally inhabited by Cichlid fish in one common form, they were all the same. But the lake could not support them being all the same and there was no escape. So mutations flourished, it is incredible to believe all the different fish in that lake are still Cichlids. But we have created another puzzle, only 0.4% deference in their genetic structures? |
|
By:
yes ebul that's what I mean, some bacteria evolve, some into superbugs, others tree of life argues will develop into animals given enough time. Other strains never change. Why do they all not evolve?
All seems odd to me. |
|
By:
If a species is perfectly adapted to it's environment it will not evolve.
|
|
By:
yes
|
|
By:
Dr Richard Lenski of Michigan University has been breeding e-coli for thirty years. Every day he takes the next generation and seeds them into a new environment. He destroys the old generation. He's an evolutionary biologist. The experiment was designed to observe mutations and possible evolution in action. in that thirty year experiment . over 66,000 generations of e-coli have passed and none have changed into a more advanced bacteria, they are still e-coli. Yes they are stronger e-coli as they have been bred to be strong. But they also have weaknesses that ordinary e-coli don't have. Hothouse flowers come to mind. Animal husbandry is about taking the fittest and selective breeding into the next generation.
Antibiotics are specially designed not to kill all bacteria, as your gut bacteria are very important in the process of nutrition absorption. They are targetted medicines. " the trick is to kill the pathological bacteria and leave only the beneficial bacteria alive. This cannot always be accomplished, and when it is not accomplished -- that is, when some of the bacteria left alive are pathological and not beneficial -- this is the development of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance in pathological bacteria is the undesirable consequence of the treatment of bacterial infections. It is not natural selection. " |
|
By:
Not sure what your point is there tbh
I guess you are talking about 'micro evolution/macro evolution' , i notice creationists do bang on about that as if species changing but remaining the species proves they cannot become different species . If it changes enough then it will no longer be able to interbreed and so will be different species. |
|
By:
Over 5 billion species are extinct which is 99 percent of all species.
The stratification of the fossil record shows how evolution has progressed over billions of years. How does all that fit in with your creationist myth Zorro? Noah's Ark wasn't big enough? |
|
By:
As it was in the past, it's not accessible, Noah and his ancestors lived an average of 1000 years. It's possible that they were not country bumpkins but had an advanced society's knowledge. I'm fifty and have picked up a few skills, Living to 1000 means i'd pick up a few more.
secondly they don't take every animal in existence only the clean animals. The farm animals. God can create a million tigers in a a day if he wants to? he's god. The idea was to destroy the product of mankind that was evil. Not to kill the animals. Have you seen the seed ark project - The Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. They took every tree in existence and stored them in a cave? sounds ridiculous. the bible is not literal, it simplifies for every generation to come. The man in the first century has to understand it as well as the advanced people of the 21st century? please remember that modern science has only been around a few centuries. Noah was 950 when he died. he was jewish, and all the nobel prize winners worth their salt are jewish. As god is also a higher dimensional being - who's to say he didn't do a tardis job in the inside? I'm a crazzy man. Let's now wait and see who was right. Time is up. it's voting time. 2017 - 70 years in the land. Israel is here and it's the last jubilee. |
|
By:
Not a credible explanation at all.
You say the bible is not literal but you choose to believe, literally, that a man described in the bible lived for 950 years. That's not being consistent, is it? I choose to believe that the bible is hogwash, that's being consistent. Why would God create 5 billion species only to destroy them? Why does the fossil record extend over billions of years? Why doesn't the bible provide an explanation for the above? I think we know why but you are unlikely to admit it. Yes, I know about the seed vault. I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Once a species is gone, it's gone forever. The preserved genes may help mankind in the future to restore or improve the food supply, or make new medicines or have uses we haven't yet considered. |
|
By:
oh Mr Foinavon, we'll miss you sir, up in heaven.
I'm sorry sir that you can't see that mr Jesus was the messiah. It just won't be the same sir. Not without you. Hawkins the mega mind says the big bang and the creationist viewpoint of the age of the universe are both equally valid theories. (a brief history of time) So in my universe, you in woefully wrong. |
|
By:
Creationism can't explain any of our observations, the only game in town is evolution.
Sorry you will miss me in heaven Zorro, we would have had some lovely conversations and painted some stunning landscapes together. Oh and by the way, if Noah only saved the "clean" animals, why do we have the pig? |
|
By:
If you can tell me how to live for 950 years, I will believe you Zorro
 |
|
By:
just eat pot noodles - the preservatives will make you last longer.
|
|
By:
Thought you might like this spoof, Zorro. It satirises some of Professor Dawkins's strange beliefs.
. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/richard-dawkins-to-star-in-70s-style-sitcom-about-god-2013050167300?utm_content=buffer28071&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk
more ridiculous numbers... to overcome. watch it and deny away. starring Dawkins. Nova - the fabric of the cosmos. Dawkins talks about Aliens, multiverses, fairies, chocolate pots, leprecauns, maybe evolution(going off topic). a vengeful wrathful god that is willing to pull mankind up to his level? (that sacrifices his son?) the year is 5777. Denial leads to barbeque. |
|
By:
You are telling me Zorro, Noah lived 950 years because he ate pot noodles
 I shall have to give them a try |
|
By:
Nice try Zorro but it's still the good old "God of the Gaps". The comments, captions and dramatic music are the viewpoints of the person or organisation which compiled the video clip and which want to push you in a certain direction. There are lots of things we can't yet model mathematically, no-one denies that but it's no reason to add a quantum leap level of complexity by postulating a divine creator which neither you nor anyone else is able to prove.
|