 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Abiogenesis has been accomplished in the lab now. Macroevolution is easy
> to observe in the lab as well.
>
I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and how?
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Halbert wrote:
> I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and how?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
The number of species created in labs are too numerous to list. It takes
about three or four weeks to make a new species of fruit flies, IIRC, just
by taking a group and subjecting half two one set of environments and half
to the other.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-2-2009 17:29, Darren New wrote:
> The direct supporting evidence for abiogenesis is "life is here now,
> life wasn't here 1 second after the big bang." :-)
How do you know, where you there?
;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> How do you know, where you there?
If you think you can make life out of unassociated quarks and photons, then
I think that pretty clearly puts to rest the question of whether
macroevolution works. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-2-2009 19:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> How do you know, where you there?
>
> If you think you can make life out of unassociated quarks and photons,
> then I think that pretty clearly puts to rest the question of whether
> macroevolution works. :-)
>
We know that God did survive, so why not another form of life?
Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life
must have started sometime after the universe was created to either that
or macroevolution must exist? That leaves the field open for anyone to
seem to admit one in order to keep the other card. You'd be in trouble
with more that one opponent. They won't play the same card to you so
have to split and do two discussions at the same time. Unless you have
perfect memory and totally accurate predict their next moves, you'll end
up contradicting yourself, when taken sufficiently out of context. In
short, this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> We know that God did survive,
Do we?
> so why not another form of life?
Because God isn't a form of life?
> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life
> must have started sometime after the universe was created to either that
> or macroevolution must exist?
Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth
actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the universe was
literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then macroevolution must
have occurred if God created all life at the start of the universe.
> this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.
Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is sufficiently
overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that evolution occurs
isn't going to be swayed by mere scientific evidence. There are already too
many people trying to show scientific evidence of their faith-based beliefs
that it's senseless to actually argue it with the intent of winning.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> We know that God did survive,
>
> Do we?
well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies
that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived.
(All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
>
>> so why not another form of life?
>
> Because God isn't a form of life?
That is an interesting position.
>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life
>> must have started sometime after the universe was created to either
>> that or macroevolution must exist?
>
> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth
> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the universe
> was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then
> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start
> of the universe.
I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life
always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and
we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not
because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your
POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very
clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.
>> this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.
>
> Only to clueless people. It seems to me that the evidence is
> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that
> evolution occurs isn't going to be swayed by mere scientific evidence.
> There are already too many people trying to show scientific evidence of
> their faith-based beliefs that it's senseless to actually argue it with
> the intent of winning.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some examples of speciation occuring in nature include plants in the genera
Spartina and Tragopogon. Plants are kind of cool in that new species can
arise through polyploidy (instant speciation).
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:498874cc$1@news.povray.org...
> Halbert wrote:
>> I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and
>> how?
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
>
> The number of species created in labs are too numerous to list. It takes
> about three or four weeks to make a new species of fruit flies, IIRC, just
> by taking a group and subjecting half two one set of environments and half
> to the other.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Ouch ouch ouch!"
> "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
> "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> We know that God did survive,
>>
>> Do we?
> well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies
> that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived.
> (All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
Interestingly, as someone pointed out, there is never any mention of God
"making" the sea, just breathing on one that was already there, as a
means of "starting" the whole mess... So, not much of a "all powerful"
god, if he had to start with something that was already there...
>>
>>> so why not another form of life?
>>
>> Because God isn't a form of life?
>
> That is an interesting position.
>
Technically true though. Life implies certain properties. With the
possible exception of "reproduction", which even crystals can manage..,
its a bit unclear what "life processes" he has, which qualifies him as a
"life form". But, maybe that is being a bit too nit picky. We are
talking about something you can't provide non-self referencing evidence
for "reproducing" either.
>>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that
>>> life must have started sometime after the universe was created to
>>> either that or macroevolution must exist?
>>
>> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth
>> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the
>> universe was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then
>> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start
>> of the universe.
>
> I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life
> always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and
> we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not
> because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your
> POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very
> clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.
>
How about this rule. Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term
"entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid, present a "plausible"
reason why so called micro-evolution "cannot" lead to the former, which
isn't based on, "Well, I just don't believe it!" So far, the best anyone
can come up with is the embarrassment of "Irreducible Complexity", which
has been disproved by both "explanations" for earlier transitions,
numerous examples of transitions, and even ridiculously simple computer
programs, which show that its not just possible, but under some
conditions, inevitable that such "irreducible" results come about. Its
really simple, really. You have something that does something 2+2=4, you
copy it, 2+2=42+2=4, you "tweak" it, 2+2=42+2=5, which still works,
because there are two copies. You have a deletion 2+2=4+2=5, it still
"works", since the original is still there. Then you have a "mutation",
2+2=4+1=5, now you have a whole "new" function, which partly does what
the prior one did, but also now does something completely different
(presuming here that any "valid" = is a "function". Yet, its now
"irreducible", since any "change" to any part will either kill the
"original" function, or the "new" function. In the program I saw, which
was insanely simple, irreducibility could happen within as "little" as
five changes, where no individual "change" was detrimental to the
"survival" of the artificial animal, based on the criteria given.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> According to his book, all the species that now exist were
>>> "programmed into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer
>>> first built them. Over time, these species came and went, according
>>> to the Designer's original plan.
>>
>> Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for
>> however-many aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things,
>> couldn't you say that, in a way, they were "programmed into" the first
>> things?
>
> He made it sound as if all the species that would ever exist, and the
> exact time that they would arrise and die out was pre-ordined in the DNA
> of the first lifeforms. In particular, that the "unused" parts of the
> DNA are actually the encodings for later lifeforms.
>
> All of which is *highly* implausible. How is the supposed Designer
> supposed to know how the climate of the planet is going to evolve over
> the next thousand millennia? Or, for that matter, how do you encode
> several hundred billion genomes into just one (deterministically)?
>
> Of course, he could be right... but it's not falsifiable.
Snort. Yeah, got to love the logic of these people. One babbles about
"front loading", claiming that it contains all the "patterns" for all
future animals (never mind the fundamental contradictions with actual
facts of what "is" in the code), but you can find similar fools babbling
about how "impossible" it is for humans to be "formed" purely via the
active genes in the human genome, in that, "Its just not enough of them!!!"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
