Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However Macroeveolution at the bio-chemical level doesn't always work there are situations that i can't explain away... and infact science proves that it can't evolve in simple steps....However when you go into the relm of bio-chemistry there are holes in the theory..so it needs like a quantum-evolution theory to go with the classical one"
I'm still confused to what he is saying. He's saying that natural selection is insufficient to explain speciation? But hes examining this on the biochemicla level?
Snag him and have him post lol.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
if you change just 1 amino acid (for those of us who don't know that's apparently just 1 base on the DNA)
Originally posted by Ordo
I'm still confused to what he is saying. He's saying that natural selection is insufficient to explain speciation? But hes examining this on the biochemicla level?Snag him and have him post lol.
I'm assuming he meant base on the DNA, not Amino Acid. Just correcting for validity 😛
I shall bring him to the forum!
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Man made. 😉 But you get my point. 😛
It wouldn't really count anyway...still a dog and not new life. HAHA
On the subject of manmade life I am still interested in the question that if humans created true AI- as in conscioncess- would those AI things be endowed with a soul..even though they are man made?
I support rights for the AI from the off! Why? because I have read Asimov.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It wouldn't really count anyway...still a dog and not new life. HAHAOn the subject of manmade life I am still interested in the question that if humans created true AI- as in conscioncess- would those AI things be endowed with a soul..even though they are man made?
I support rights for the AI from the off! Why? because I have read Asimov.
Ya, are the rovers on Mars alive? 😉
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Are they conscious?Don't mock the idea, I recall you saying that the Universe might well reincarnate people as robots because they are just vassals like everything else...
In a way, they are conscious. However, they do not meet our definition of life. However, we don't make the rules, we try to understand the rules.
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”
(extracted from Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778)
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”(extracted from [b]Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314,
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778) [/B]
You are posting the same thing in more then one thread at a time. 😱
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”(extracted from [b]Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314,
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778) [/B]
Science on Verge of Creating Life
A common objection to evolution is that scientists have proven unable to create life from scratch - therefore, they don't understand enough about it in order to say that it could have developed naturally. Creationists seem to believe that their god can somehow be preserved so long as scientists cannot create life - but if that is the case, then their god may not exist much longer.
😛 🤣 😆 😂 😱
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/30/science-on-verge-of-creating-life.htm
Let me shed light on the discussion over micro and macro-evolution, please.
Micro-evolution states that organisms undergo variations, but such variations are limited in scope, thanks to DNA.
For example, over 100 species of dog exist today. And, perhaps, more will in the future; but these dogs will not one day evolve into dolphins regardless of time and mutation. For starters, if the original DNA code is compromised -- a genetic mutation (which is another word for "error"😉 -- the organism, itself, is compromised! And it yields no benefit. We've all seen pictures of human babies attached at the head, frogs with 5 legs or organisms without reproductive organs. But the underlying problem is greater than that even: regardless of any mutation, brand new DNA information is not introduced in the process. Mutations are merely errors within the "present" code.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that organisms, given millions, perhaps, billions of years, evolve into brand new organisms, thanks to genetic mutation.
We all know that genetic mutations occur, but again, for macro-evolution to be remotely possible, "new" information would have to be introduced into the organism's genome; but this never happens! Instead, genetic mutations are errors within the "present" code. Try building a house without nails in place of Twizzlers or No. 2 pencils (and you'll get my point). The organism -- or house in this example -- will fail and die, without medication or intelligent intervention. The cell or organism as a whole, cannot call customer services and ask for an extension to live. In nature, outside of the laboratory, the organisms dies. And in life, people get fired, ha ha!
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
Science on Verge of Creating LifeA common objection to evolution is that scientists have proven unable to create life from scratch - therefore, they don't understand enough about it in order to say that it could have developed naturally. Creationists seem to believe that their god can somehow be preserved so long as scientists cannot create life - but if that is the case, then their god may not exist much longer.
😛 🤣 😆 😂 😱
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/30/science-on-verge-of-creating-life.htm
No, the point is that if scientists with all they have at their disposal
(click on http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778) cannot (or should I say have not) created a living cell then it is foolish (imo) to conclude that it just happened naturally in the primordial past.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, the point is that if scientists with all they have at their disposal
(click on http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778) cannot (or should I say have not) created a living cell then it is foolish (imo) to conclude that it just happened naturally in the primordial past.
It is a matter of time.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I shall bring him to the forum!
I'd say keep the conversation in PMs or start a new and appropriate thread.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Let me shed light on the discussion over micro and macro-evolution, please.Micro-evolution states that organisms undergo variations, but such variations are limited in scope, thanks to DNA.
For example, over 100 species of dog exist today. And, perhaps, more will in the future; but these dogs will not one day evolve into dolphins regardless of time and mutation. For starters, if the original DNA code is compromised -- a genetic mutation (which is another word for "error"😉 -- the organism, itself, is compromised! And it yields no benefit. We've all seen pictures of human babies attached at the head, frogs with 5 legs or organisms without reproductive organs. But the underlying problem is greater than that even: regardless of any mutation, brand new DNA information is not introduced in the process. Mutations are merely errors within the "present" code.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that organisms, given millions, perhaps, billions of years, evolve into brand new organisms, thanks to genetic mutation.
We all know that genetic mutations occur, but again, for macro-evolution to be remotely possible, "new" information would have to be introduced into the organism's genome; but this never happens! Instead, genetic mutations are errors within the "present" code. Try building a house without nails in place of Twizzlers or No. 2 pencils (and you'll get my point). The organism -- or house in this example -- will fail and die, without medication or intelligent intervention. The cell or organism as a whole, cannot call customer services and ask for an extension to live. In nature, outside of the laboratory, the organisms dies. And in life, people get fired, ha ha!
This is laughable.
1. Microevolution adn Macorevolution dont exist, thus you shed zero light on them
2. As to your latter argument, new DNA is continuously being produced. If you knew anythign about DNA replication, you'd know why (DNA is esesential for survival). Mutations such as trisomy and duplications create new fragments of DNA, transposition can move them around, and all sort of muctions can activate dormant genes and creat new splicing patterns to create an infinate abmount of new combinations. Combine this with sexual reproduction, reverse trascriptions, viral infection and you just look like a dumbass for saying such shit.
I dont mean to attack you personally, but you act all "I'm going to shed light on 100 year old irrelevant terms" and then claim the equivilent of "you can't write more than a paragraph because there are only 26 letters on the keyboard."
Originally posted by Ordo
1. Microevolution adn Macorevolution dont exist, thus you shed zero light on them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Here is a quote from the Wiki page concerning what Macroevolution is:
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"😉, but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"😉.[1]These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[6][7] The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[8][9]
Interestingly here on the Dawkins site they debate macroevolution:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=65326
Here someone mentions how Prof. Dawkins doesn't use the terms:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20080313134356AAS3Ili