|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|