Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
> >>>   So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
> >>>
> >>>   (I hope you get the point.)
> >
> >> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
> >
> >> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know it
> >> is really orbiting the sun?
> >
> >   Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.
>
> No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a
> new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't
> easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few
> million.

Variations within species can be caused by those capable of interbreeding.
Existing animal types of cat and fish would seem to have no path to evolve
between species. Throwing the cat in the pond will make it mad or drown it,
throwing the fish in the litter box will most certainly kill it.

>All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood,

Are they now? Where can I pick up a copy of "Cat to fish evolution for dummies"?
Breeders can interbreed animals of a species and have done so for several
centuries. But the result is up to chance based on the variations the two
'parent' animals bring to the equation.

> and
> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
> non-living environments.

Man writes a computer program and you equate that to biological evolution, why?

>
> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
> TB is evolved from earlier TB?

Yes, it is know to exist, but how? Did the TB colony hear "humans have developed
drugs, we must mutate to save ourselves?" Or perhaps the natural variation of
the TB allowed some of it to survive?

> Do you believe that seedless grapes evolved from grapes with seeds?

Not as a normal course, this would have sealed their fate.
What is the offspring of a seedless grape?

> Do you believe that dogs evolved from
> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.

Dogs and wolves are of the same species, evolved - no; they are variatons within
the species. Man has found the traits desired and prevented the natural
varibility from being expressed in the domesticated dog.

>
> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence,

Early holders of the theory have promoted it by falsifying drawings. Others now
still tend to obfuscate the issues by saying that observed variation within the
species is somehow proof of variation between species. Others note the gene
similarity between humans and chimps. Some theorize that part of the human gene
split to make the chimp, others think the chimp choromosome merged to make
human.

Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of life".
Yet the amino acids created are short-lived under the conditions that
theoretically existed when life began. Beyond the stable creation of amino
acids are the hurdles of organizing them into anything more complex, and then
forming that into cells. Then there is the making of multicelled life.
The issues for more and more complexity seem insurmountable even for millions of
years of experimentation.

> have no alternate
> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence,

An alternate theory is that no species is a decendant from another.
All coexisted at one time but some (obviously) died out. Perhaps each animal has
its own number of chromosomes, neither merged nor split from anothers.

All these increasing complexities must be supported on the life of the amino
acids. But our science suggests that things tend to become less complex, that
is, break down with time. But still some say "That isn't how it happened, that
can't be right."

It sounds crazy that someone would accept naturally occurring increase in
complexity as the conclusion; when the exact opposite is readily observed.

But that would be OK, until they say "The debate is over."

Leef_me


> and still say "I
> don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.
>
> But that's OK.
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Leef_me wrote:
> Variations within species can be caused by those capable of interbreeding.
> Existing animal types of cat and fish would seem to have no path to evolve
> between species. 

No, but that's because they're existing. Before they were separate 
species, they interbred. Then they stopped interbreeding, and changed 
more and more over time.

Kind of like how horses and donkeys can breed now, but often make mules. 
Give them a few thousand years more, and they'll be separate species.

> Are they now? Where can I pick up a copy of "Cat to fish evolution for dummies"?

Univeristy of California.

Cats don't evolve into fish. Fish evolved into cats. It took a while.

> Breeders can interbreed animals of a species and have done so for several
> centuries. But the result is up to chance

Not so much as you'd think, no.

>> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
>> non-living environments.
> 
> Man writes a computer program and you equate that to biological evolution, why?

Not only that technology. I equate the computer program to biological 
evolution because it's a simulation of evolution.

>> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
>> TB is evolved from earlier TB?
> 
> Yes, it is know to exist, but how? Did the TB colony hear "humans have developed
> drugs, we must mutate to save ourselves?" Or perhaps the natural variation of
> the TB allowed some of it to survive?

The natural variation of TB allowed some of them to survive. Then they 
bred like mad, because the competition was wiped out, so there were now 
enough with that resistance to that particular drug to make a viable 
collection for other people to get infected.

That's why it's important to finish all your antibiotics when the doctor 
prescribes them, even if you feel better before you're done.

>> Do you believe that seedless grapes evolved from grapes with seeds?
> 
> Not as a normal course, this would have sealed their fate.
> What is the offspring of a seedless grape?

More seedless grapes. Seeds aren't the only way plants propagate.

But so what if it was influenced by humans? That doesn't mean seedless 
grapes didn't evolve from seeded grapes. Humans just provided a 
different form of natural selection, a different environment if you 
will, than they would have had without humans.

>> Do you believe that dogs evolved from
>> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.
> 
> Dogs and wolves are of the same species,evolved - no; they are variatons within
> the species. Man has found the traits desired and prevented the natural
> varibility from being expressed in the domesticated dog.

I think dogs have much more variability than wolves do.

>> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
>> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence,
> 
> Early holders of the theory have promoted it by falsifying drawings. 

Not sure I'd say "falsifying", but yeah, I know what you're talking 
about. So?

> Others now
> still tend to obfuscate the issues by saying that observed variation within the
> species is somehow proof of variation between species. 

Not "somehow". Very clearly how.

 > Some theorize that part of the human gene
> split to make the chimp, others think the chimp choromosome merged to make
> human.

I don't think anyone well-informed any longer disagrees about which 
direction it went - you can see the duct-tape on the human chromosomes.

> Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of life".

And this has what to do with evolution?

>> have no alternate
>> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence,
> 
> An alternate theory is that no species is a decendant from another.
> All coexisted at one time but some (obviously) died out. Perhaps each animal has
> its own number of chromosomes, neither merged nor split from anothers.

And where'd they come from? I mean, you're the one that brought up the 
forming of amino acids.  So what's your reason for thinking all these 
similar beings are completely unrelated, all appeared at the same time?

And if rabbits were around at the time of dinosaurs, why don't people 
find dinosaur fossils next to rabbit fossils?

> All these increasing complexities must be supported on the life of the amino
> acids. But our science suggests that things tend to become less complex, that
> is, break down with time.

Err, no they don't. And that's only in a closed environment anyway, 
which isn't where evolution happens. Entropy isn't about things becoming 
less complex. It's about things becoming less ordered. Less ordered is 
often *more* complex.

> It sounds crazy that someone would accept naturally occurring increase in
> complexity as the conclusion; when the exact opposite is readily observed.

The exact opposite of naturally occurring increase of complexity?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Leef_me wrote:
> And yet, the animal that results is still a rat. 

You can do it with flies, and get creatures who aren't flies, because 
the flies breed fast enough.

(Yes, they're still flies, but they're a different species of fly, and 
can no longer interbreed with the flies you started from.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4784dcd7@news.povray.org...
> Here's another alternative: using the Z Machine based on Heim's quantum 
> theory...!  ;op
>
http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2739585


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2739585

  "the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of
light is faster"

  Either the article didn't mean that, or it's based on pseudoscience.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:478603bd@news.povray.org...
> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2739585
>
>  "the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of
> light is faster"
>
>  Either the article didn't mean that, or it's based on pseudoscience.
>

I wouldn't know, but it sounds more like science fiction to me...  :o)


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

In article <47858023$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Leef_me wrote:
> > Variations within species can be caused by those capable of interbreedi
ng.
> > Existing animal types of cat and fish would seem to have no path to evo
lve
> > between species. 
> 
> No, but that's because they're existing. Before they were separate 
> species, they interbred. Then they stopped interbreeding, and changed 
> more and more over time.
> 
> Kind of like how horses and donkeys can breed now, but often make mules.
 
> Give them a few thousand years more, and they'll be separate species.
> 
> > Are they now? Where can I pick up a copy of "Cat to fish evolution for 
dummies"?
> 
> Univeristy of California.
> 
> Cats don't evolve into fish. Fish evolved into cats. It took a while.
> 
> > Breeders can interbreed animals of a species and have done so for sever
al
> > centuries. But the result is up to chance
> 
> Not so much as you'd think, no.
> 
> >> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
> >> non-living environments.
> > 
> > Man writes a computer program and you equate that to biological evoluti
on, why?
> 
> Not only that technology. I equate the computer program to biological 
> evolution because it's a simulation of evolution.
> 
> >> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
> >> TB is evolved from earlier TB?
> > 
> > Yes, it is know to exist, but how? Did the TB colony hear "humans have 
developed
> > drugs, we must mutate to save ourselves?" Or perhaps the natural variat
ion of
> > the TB allowed some of it to survive?
> 
> The natural variation of TB allowed some of them to survive. Then they 
> bred like mad, because the competition was wiped out, so there were now
 
> enough with that resistance to that particular drug to make a viable 
> collection for other people to get infected.
> 
> That's why it's important to finish all your antibiotics when the doctor
 
> prescribes them, even if you feel better before you're done.
> 
> >> Do you believe that seedless grapes evolved from grapes with seeds?
> > 
> > Not as a normal course, this would have sealed their fate.
> > What is the offspring of a seedless grape?
> 
> More seedless grapes. Seeds aren't the only way plants propagate.
> 
> But so what if it was influenced by humans? That doesn't mean seedless 
> grapes didn't evolve from seeded grapes. Humans just provided a 
> different form of natural selection, a different environment if you 
> will, than they would have had without humans.
> 
> >> Do you believe that dogs evolved from
> >> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)?  Just curious.
> > 
> > Dogs and wolves are of the same species,evolved - no; they are variaton
s within
> > the species. Man has found the traits desired and prevented the natural
> > varibility from being expressed in the domesticated dog.
> 
> I think dogs have much more variability than wolves do.
> 
> >> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
> >> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence,
> > 
> > Early holders of the theory have promoted it by falsifying drawings. 
> 
> Not sure I'd say "falsifying", but yeah, I know what you're talking 
> about. So?
> 
Actually, if he is talking about the drawings I *think* he is, then he 
is wrong. Heckle's drawings where known, even in his own time, to be 
inaccurate, but sort of provided an example of something that *does* 
happen. Its the equivalent of showing a lot of pictures of seedlings, 
all of which are "sort of" similar, at a specific stage, but may be 
different prior to, and after, that stage. And even while similar, they 
are not *quite* a similar as Heckle implied. The got used in text books, 
for a while, by people that thought evolution was a real important thing 
to know, but who themselves didn't know a damn thing about it. That is 
kind of the point, which gets glossed over by deniers, its not 
biologists, scientists or evo-devo people that **write** those text 
books. They might advise about what goes into them, but that won't stop 
a lot of morons, who do write them, from writing them in ways that are 
inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete or just plain ignorant. That said, if 
one reads 90% of the text books that contain the drawings in them, its 
pretty obvious that the pictures have, for the most part, been displayed 
as, "Here is an example of what **some** people thought about how it 
worked, at one time. We now know they where wrong." This, in the mind of 
those apposed to evolution constitutes, "They are still using them and 
misleading people!" Sure, and, to use their own silly BS against them, 
allowing the Bible to still include passages about golden cows means 
their must still huge numbers of Christians with cow idols sitting in 
their closets... lol

The only reason these drawings are even and issue any more is that the 
reading comprehension of the average person using the argument is about 
on the same level as their understanding of what they are trying to 
dispute, which is to say, if they where my car mechanic, I would hire a 
6 year old to work on my car instead. At least the 8 year old wouldn't 
be confused by discovering the car had tires, and didn't work by 
sticking your feet through the floor, and running really fast.

> > Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of 
life".
> 
> And this has what to do with evolution?
> 
Umm. Might as well ask what spontaneous formation of transistors would 
have to do with silicon lifeforms, should such a thing ever be found. 
Put simply, amino acids where *not supposed to be* possible without life 
producing them. If you have to have a living cell to produce and amino 
acid, you have a serious problem. If you get them *without* cells, then 
the question is, "Could those combine in some way to produce something 
like a cell?" It was a major "oops!" moment for early evolution 
denialists. And, we know, from things like runaway prions. There is even 
on article I read a while back saying that there are *detectable* sub-
virus type cells, which have little more than a weak shell, and a tiny 
fragment of code in them, which a) can't infect a host to case 
replication, and b) can't replicate themselves, yet **somehow** manage 
to exist, despite the fact that they lack the most basic two mechanisms 
to reproduce themselves, and their internal code can often be so simple 
that it barely creates the "shell" they use to shield themselves from 
the environment around them. The going theory is that some sets of these 
things do contain "partial" replication code, and that when they come in 
contact with code from another partial replicator, which has the missing 
fragments, they can combine and generate replicants of "both" pseudo 
organisms. It isn't hard to imagine one of those suffering a coding 
error during replication, which produced a "combined" code, in one 
stronger cell, which had "all" of the code needed to self replicate.

Problem is, I wouldn't even have a clue where to look for the article on 
them. I think it was in Discovery Magazine, but not sure, or even what 
year that the article was in. Its also one of those fields that a) 
doesn't interest most biologists (who cares about something that 
**can't** infect you?), and b) is kind of laughed off, more or less the 
way they did black holes, until someone discovered one. Oh, and it may 
have just been absorbed into the current pursuits of the main theory, 
without anyone taking much notice, kind of a, "Well, this is 
interesting, but what can it tell me about how viruses *became* viruses 
and how their DNA works?"

> >> have no alternate
> >> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence,
> > 
> > An alternate theory is that no species is a decendant from another.
> > All coexisted at one time but some (obviously) died out. Perhaps each a
nimal has
> > its own number of chromosomes, neither merged nor split from anothers.
> 
> And where'd they come from? I mean, you're the one that brought up the 
> forming of amino acids.  So what's your reason for thinking all these 
> similar beings are completely unrelated, all appeared at the same time?
> 
> And if rabbits were around at the time of dinosaurs, why don't people 
> find dinosaur fossils next to rabbit fossils?
> 
Damn, and here I left my Jurassic Rabbit fossil in my other pants. lol

> > All these increasing complexities must be supported on the life of the 
amino
> > acids. But our science suggests that things tend to become less complex
, that
> > is, break down with time.
> 
> Err, no they don't. And that's only in a closed environment anyway, 
> which isn't where evolution happens. Entropy isn't about things becoming
 
> less complex. It's about things becoming less ordered. Less ordered is 
> often *more* complex.
> 
Precisely. Entropy doesn't care "how" it gets to a state where 
everything balanced to 0. If in the short (or even long) run, that means 
it has to make a sequence like 1,-1,1,1,1,-1,-1,1,-1,-1 instead of 
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, the universe doesn't care, as long as the end 
result **approaches** 0 for the *entire* system. Or, Leef can look at it 
this way. If you have a scale, do you make it balance by adding random 
sized weights to only *one* side, until it centers, or to both? The 
universe is a balance with a near infinite number of "plates", and the 
earth, but comparison, might as well be one with trillions of plates. 
Its impossible, in such a system, to create entropy, unless you either 
a) allow for complexity, or b) reduce the complexity of the **system** 
itself to one plate (i.e. make the earth a perfect sphere, made from 
only one nonreactive material). So long as the *system* contains any 
kind of complexity at all, the entropy within that system can, and maybe 
must, create a level of complexity **at least** N-1 as complex as the 
system itself, where N is the number of variables in the system. In this 
case, that would be everything from the motion of ever subatomic 
particle on the planets surface **not** including other materials, 
energies, etc., introduced by the sun, passing meteors, comets, 
gravitational shift, energy from exploding stars, and too many things 
for me to list (or possibly imagine).

Leef_me is staring at a mold made of a hole in the ground, and asking, 
"Why does it look like the hole? Shouldn't it be perfectly flat?" Now, 
he may not *believe* that is what he is doing, but it is exactly what 
you have to do to ignore complexity via entropy, and claim that things 
get "less" complex instead. Not only is it wrong, even if its not, its 
describing the result of entropy in a system so simple we can ***see*** 
how complex the result is, compared to the environment. We can't even 
accurately **see** the complexity, in precise detail of a pail of sand, 
except in the most gross sense that it fits the shape of the bucket, 
yet, some people presume to be able to claim that the bucket proves that 
things got "less" complex. But, that is only true from the perspective 
of *that* bucket, and our *assumption* about what we actually see 
happening. We don't really see what the sand is actually doing "in" the 
bucket, what the sand is doing "to" the bucket, nor can we say, with any 
real certainty, that if we came back a billion years later, or even a 
hundred, that we could know "precisely" what the sand, the bucket, or 
*both* where going to look like. If we can't even get that right, what 
the @!#@!##$ business do we have talking about what the terms "more 
complex" or "less complex" mean to an entire planet, on a time scale of 
tens of billions of years?

Still, as with my -1/1 example, we can say its going to be as complex as 
the "system allows", while still allowing the system to achieve a value 
of 0.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <MPG.21f1d739192db57d98a0de@news.povray.org>, 
sel### [at] rraznet says...
> 6 year old to work on my car instead. At least the 8 year old wouldn't 

Hmm. Always a good idea, when revising numbers, to make sure they both 
match. lol 

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/11 21:44:

> Actually, if he is talking about the drawings I *think* he is, then he 
> is wrong. Heckle's drawings where known, even in his own time, to be 
> inaccurate, but sort of provided an example of something that *does* 
> happen. Its the equivalent of showing a lot of pictures of seedlings, 
> all of which are "sort of" similar, at a specific stage, but may be 
> different prior to, and after, that stage. And even while similar, they 
> are not *quite* a similar as Heckle implied. The got used in text books, 
> for a while, by people that thought evolution was a real important thing 
> to know, but who themselves didn't know a damn thing about it. That is 
> kind of the point, which gets glossed over by deniers, its not 
> biologists, scientists or evo-devo people that **write** those text 
> books. They might advise about what goes into them, but that won't stop 
> a lot of morons, who do write them, from writing them in ways that are 
> inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete or just plain ignorant. That said, if 
> one reads 90% of the text books that contain the drawings in them, its 
> pretty obvious that the pictures have, for the most part, been displayed 
> as, "Here is an example of what **some** people thought about how it 
> worked, at one time. We now know they where wrong." This, in the mind of 
> those apposed to evolution constitutes, "They are still using them and 
> misleading people!" Sure, and, to use their own silly BS against them, 
> allowing the Bible to still include passages about golden cows means 
> their must still huge numbers of Christians with cow idols sitting in 
> their closets... lol
> 
> The only reason these drawings are even and issue any more is that the 
> reading comprehension of the average person using the argument is about 
> on the same level as their understanding of what they are trying to 
> dispute, which is to say, if they where my car mechanic, I would hire a 
> 6 year old to work on my car instead. At least the 8 year old wouldn't 
> be confused by discovering the car had tires, and didn't work by 
> sticking your feet through the floor, and running really fast.
> 
>>> Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks of life".
>> And this has what to do with evolution?
>>
> Umm. Might as well ask what spontaneous formation of transistors would 
> have to do with silicon lifeforms, should such a thing ever be found. 
> Put simply, amino acids where *not supposed to be* possible without life 
> producing them. If you have to have a living cell to produce and amino 
> acid, you have a serious problem. If you get them *without* cells, then 
> the question is, "Could those combine in some way to produce something 
> like a cell?" It was a major "oops!" moment for early evolution 
> denialists. And, we know, from things like runaway prions. There is even 
> on article I read a while back saying that there are *detectable* sub-
> virus type cells, which have little more than a weak shell, and a tiny 
> fragment of code in them, which a) can't infect a host to case 
> replication, and b) can't replicate themselves, yet **somehow** manage 
> to exist, despite the fact that they lack the most basic two mechanisms 
> to reproduce themselves, and their internal code can often be so simple 
> that it barely creates the "shell" they use to shield themselves from 
> the environment around them. The going theory is that some sets of these 
> things do contain "partial" replication code, and that when they come in 
> contact with code from another partial replicator, which has the missing 
> fragments, they can combine and generate replicants of "both" pseudo 
> organisms. It isn't hard to imagine one of those suffering a coding 
> error during replication, which produced a "combined" code, in one 
> stronger cell, which had "all" of the code needed to self replicate.
> 
> Problem is, I wouldn't even have a clue where to look for the article on 
> them. I think it was in Discovery Magazine, but not sure, or even what 
> year that the article was in. Its also one of those fields that a) 
> doesn't interest most biologists (who cares about something that 
> **can't** infect you?), and b) is kind of laughed off, more or less the 
> way they did black holes, until someone discovered one. Oh, and it may 
> have just been absorbed into the current pursuits of the main theory, 
> without anyone taking much notice, kind of a, "Well, this is 
> interesting, but what can it tell me about how viruses *became* viruses 
> and how their DNA works?"
> 
There are DNA less "cells" that do reproduce. Start with an aminoacids wich 
solution. Add a little heat. Have some clay added in the mix. Wait a few hours 
and you get cell sized spherules that have enclosed cellular shells. Wait a few 
more days and you start finding some things looking like internal cellular 
elements, but no nucleus and no DNA nor RNA. After some time, you'll notice that 
the protocells are more numerous. Look closely and, with a little luck, you can 
spot one or some of those actualy dividing.
Similar organisms have actualy been found in nature. They don't have any genetic 
code at all, but they do reproduce, never grow older and any individual can 
literaly "live" for millenias. Those who discovered them even wondered why those 
never completely chocked the caverns where they where discovered.

A theory say that DNA actualy apeared outside any cell, then got inside some 
archaic cells, causing the apearence of the cells as we know them today. In a 
way, DNA would be a kind of cellular parasit, at least originaly.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when 
you are not.

Post a reply to this message

In article <478906e4$1@news.povray.org>, ele### [at] netscapenet 
says...
> Patrick Elliott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/11 21:44:
> 
> > Actually, if he is talking about the drawings I *think* he is, then he
 
> > is wrong. Heckle's drawings where known, even in his own time, to be 
> > inaccurate, but sort of provided an example of something that *does* 
> > happen. Its the equivalent of showing a lot of pictures of seedlings,
 
> > all of which are "sort of" similar, at a specific stage, but may be 
> > different prior to, and after, that stage. And even while similar, they
 
> > are not *quite* a similar as Heckle implied. The got used in text books
, 
> > for a while, by people that thought evolution was a real important thin
g 
> > to know, but who themselves didn't know a damn thing about it. That is
 
> > kind of the point, which gets glossed over by deniers, its not 
> > biologists, scientists or evo-devo people that **write** those text 
> > books. They might advise about what goes into them, but that won't stop
 
> > a lot of morons, who do write them, from writing them in ways that are
 
> > inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete or just plain ignorant. That said, i
f 
> > one reads 90% of the text books that contain the drawings in them, its
 
> > pretty obvious that the pictures have, for the most part, been displaye
d 
> > as, "Here is an example of what **some** people thought about how it 
> > worked, at one time. We now know they where wrong." This, in the mind o
f 
> > those apposed to evolution constitutes, "They are still using them and
 
> > misleading people!" Sure, and, to use their own silly BS against them,
 
> > allowing the Bible to still include passages about golden cows means 
> > their must still huge numbers of Christians with cow idols sitting in
 
> > their closets... lol
> > 
> > The only reason these drawings are even and issue any more is that the
 
> > reading comprehension of the average person using the argument is about
 
> > on the same level as their understanding of what they are trying to 
> > dispute, which is to say, if they where my car mechanic, I would hire a
 
> > 6 year old to work on my car instead. At least the 8 year old wouldn't
 
> > be confused by discovering the car had tires, and didn't work by 
> > sticking your feet through the floor, and running really fast.
> > 
> >>> Experiments have done that create amino acids, "the building blocks o
f life".
> >> And this has what to do with evolution?
> >>
> > Umm. Might as well ask what spontaneous formation of transistors would
 
> > have to do with silicon lifeforms, should such a thing ever be found.
 
> > Put simply, amino acids where *not supposed to be* possible without lif
e 
> > producing them. If you have to have a living cell to produce and amino
 
> > acid, you have a serious problem. If you get them *without* cells, then
 
> > the question is, "Could those combine in some way to produce something
 
> > like a cell?" It was a major "oops!" moment for early evolution 
> > denialists. And, we know, from things like runaway prions. There is eve
n 
> > on article I read a while back saying that there are *detectable* sub-
> > virus type cells, which have little more than a weak shell, and a tiny
 
> > fragment of code in them, which a) can't infect a host to case 
> > replication, and b) can't replicate themselves, yet **somehow** manage
 
> > to exist, despite the fact that they lack the most basic two mechanisms
 
> > to reproduce themselves, and their internal code can often be so simple
 
> > that it barely creates the "shell" they use to shield themselves from
 
> > the environment around them. The going theory is that some sets of thes
e 
> > things do contain "partial" replication code, and that when they come i
n 
> > contact with code from another partial replicator, which has the missin
g 
> > fragments, they can combine and generate replicants of "both" pseudo 
> > organisms. It isn't hard to imagine one of those suffering a coding 
> > error during replication, which produced a "combined" code, in one 
> > stronger cell, which had "all" of the code needed to self replicate.
> > 
> > Problem is, I wouldn't even have a clue where to look for the article o
n 
> > them. I think it was in Discovery Magazine, but not sure, or even what
 
> > year that the article was in. Its also one of those fields that a) 
> > doesn't interest most biologists (who cares about something that 
> > **can't** infect you?), and b) is kind of laughed off, more or less the
 
> > way they did black holes, until someone discovered one. Oh, and it may
 
> > have just been absorbed into the current pursuits of the main theory,
 
> > without anyone taking much notice, kind of a, "Well, this is 
> > interesting, but what can it tell me about how viruses *became* viruses
 
> > and how their DNA works?"
> > 
> There are DNA less "cells" that do reproduce. Start with an aminoacids wi
ch 
> solution. Add a little heat. Have some clay added in the mix. Wait a few 
hours 
> and you get cell sized spherules that have enclosed cellular shells. Wait
 a few 
> more days and you start finding some things looking like internal cellula
r 
> elements, but no nucleus and no DNA nor RNA. After some time, you'll noti
ce that 
> the protocells are more numerous. Look closely and, with a little luck, y
ou can 
> spot one or some of those actualy dividing.
> Similar organisms have actualy been found in nature. They don't have any 
genetic 
> code at all, but they do reproduce, never grow older and any individual c
an 
> literaly "live" for millenias. Those who discovered them even wondered wh
y those 
> never completely chocked the caverns where they where discovered.
> 
> A theory say that DNA actualy apeared outside any cell, then got inside s
ome 
> archaic cells, causing the apearence of the cells as we know them today. 
In a 
> way, DNA would be a kind of cellular parasit, at least originaly.
> 
Ah, see. You have more details than I did. Those are precisely what I 
was talking about, though, at the time the article I read talked about 
them, it wasn't clear how/if they reproduced on their own. And that is 
kind of the point. ID/Creationists want to insist you can't get "life" 
from non-life, but you "can" find stuff that *acts* alive in the most 
critical aspect, it copies itself. The next argument falls into the 
whole, "You can't get new information from random results.", which is a) 
bullshit, and b) irrelevant, because without *new information* you can't 
get *random* either. The random event *is* new information, so 
complaining that new information can't produce new information is... 
just stupid. ;)

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message