Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the beginning
Val
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (1402)
12-31-2001 2:17 PM


If the first cell that appeared here on earth had one form how did all the animals form from this one cell?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 01-04-2002 11:15 AM Val has not replied
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 11:33 AM Val has not replied
 Message 5 by keenanvin, posted 01-09-2002 12:19 AM Val has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 11 (1552)
01-04-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Val
12-31-2001 2:17 PM


If this is true I reply that that would be by torque-invariant- groups. Too cryptic and answer? ask a specific follow up. Like the idea that people mistake the death of a virus for the life of a fossil. The alternative is a specific notion of geometry that uses modern ideas which may not be mutually exclusive of the first(e.g. Banach-Tarski Paradox).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Val, posted 12-31-2001 2:17 PM Val has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 11 (1554)
01-04-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Val
12-31-2001 2:17 PM


I think Val might be asking about the origin of genetic variation, though I'm not sure.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Val, posted 12-31-2001 2:17 PM Val has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 01-06-2002 2:01 PM Percy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 11 (1606)
01-06-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-04-2002 11:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I think Val might be asking about the origin of genetic variation, though I'm not sure.
--Percy

P, that may well be true but she could have been knowingly or not refering to a historical claim about Antonine Lavoisier- which judged word "route" that Antoine revisioned as chemistry not geometry. It seems possible contra some of that history as wrti by F.L. Holmes out of Princeton University Press otherwise (to me) in which cased responding to this Canadian's question need not in the first instance be refering to actually known statistical reasoning On population genetic/evolution etc. If this was her intent then an intelligently designed response can be constructed WITHOUT evolution thinking ( the response).
I did not want to seconf guess this (information content in variation genetically ground truthable) because I would prefer to engage HM Morris' differentiation of Providential and Creative MIRACLES (as in The DEFENDERS Study Bible) instead than what you said and work on tHaT to--> Presbyterian documents on eco-justice by way of to be possibly funded national ecological observatory network ("budgetary constraints" prevented 2001 NEON appropriations) data to be that eventially will bear on whatever this "genetic" variation is which I would quid pro quo sensu lato think is sufficient to generate mult-cellular funtioning the functionality sensu stricto and so on and Hope the clarity helps others. Thanks.
From Antoninie Lavoiser The Next Crucial Year by Frederic Lawrence Holmes below is how I read the first 5 sentences of Chapter Two p 12 (Holmes in lower case me upper) {when lavoisier described his first experiments on OPERATIONS NATURAL VS FORCED MOTION AS IF NATURAL VS ARTIFICIAL SELECTION the combustion of phosphorus in a closed vessel, in a memoir he drafted on October 20, 1772, he was uncertain about how much weight the substance had gained. "this augmentation of weight, of which it is not easy to confirm exactly the quantity [proportion]," he wrote, derives from combination of the air which is fixed in that operation." perrin has pointed out that the uncertainty GALELIO DE MOTU 254 THAT NATURAL MOTION IS CASUED BY HEAVINESS OR LIGHTNESS arose from the rapidity DE MOTU GALILEO G. 261-262 THE CAUSE OF SPEED AND SLOWNESS OF NATURAL MOTION with which the phosphoric acid absorbs water. lavoisier could not tell how much the gain to ascribe to the water GALELIO'S DE MOTU 251 THAT HEAVY SUBSTANCES ARE BY NATURE LOCATED IN A LOWER PLACE AND LIGHT SUBSTANCES IN A HIGHER PLACE AND WHY and how much to the air. he could not even be sure that all of the increae was not due to the humdity of the atmosphere DE MOTU OF GAL GALILEO 255 IN IN WHICH IT IS PROVED THAT BODIES OF THE SAME HEAVIENESS AS THE MEDIUM MOVE NEITHER UPWARD OR DOWNWARD
Next finally, now from the Clerk Maxwell of Einstein's time out The Scientific Papers of James Clerck Maxwell essay titled "ATOM", Max points out "we should thus be able to seperate a gas, ... different combining weights ... and not merely their mean mass is a statistical constant of great stability" and later in next paragraph "From this it appears that if we call this distance of the centres the diameter of a molecule, and the volume of sphere having this diameter the volume of a molecule, and the sum of the volumes of all the molecules the molecular volume of the gas, then the diameter of a molecule is a certain multiple of the quantity obtained by diminihing the free path in the ratio of the molecular volume of the gas to the whole volume of the gas. I STILL SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT MY IDEA THAT ADAPTATIONS ARE DECREASING THIS free path length for with NEON it seems the arc is available to further the hypothesis in this strech of historical cut and pastes using that equipment htat may in fact support this position ( if funded and I get a job there etc etc) of which the Canadian poster may have referred because note I have yet to speak specifically on colonization, limitation of sympatry concepts in isolation of information needed to better understand place of location in a guild, inbreeding which if the ecolocial alternative to evolution heritbility find shape evolution thought variance my have vanished from the calculation as per above and conceptually neutered the group actually subject to bio change updated and leverage able (lever vs balance). Brad.
This could be revealed by tension-pressure frameworks drawable by isolation by distance tests (Sewall Wright) of modified vs "reversible" circumnutation inheritance or other geometrically equivalent behavoirs motionally conspiring or not by group selection because Pickard(MIT)'s explaination of thinking about Jensen and Paal observations amounting to a stimulus "not able" to pass metal, mica,. or cocoa butter but barriers gelatin wise did not give a negative result (of the power in reproductive to vegatative transit of plants latent or not) only indicates the affirmation if that much of Faraday's electrotonic state oR Pasteur's Biology but nothing particularly beyond grand assymetries that would be still providential but not creative miracles if I have the logic of heat properly (luke warm etc) (D'Arcy Thompson Transformations etc) about cell physiology let along the pyramid of genetics what ever that congruence be and not even embryology for Twitty confused a lot of geography for surgical operations and not mental treatment by electricity because allometry which is often used against creationists with "genes for horns" is not standard wise referenced to pervertable rotational entropy quatities (hence my reference to torque) but morpholoigcally identified discriminations that would be a collection if also true and not my opinion solely. In peace and less Lornez fish obervations for an amplitude the osciloscope gave of mormyrid discharge while swimiing along what appear to be field lines. Incidence geometry is not stictly the difference of Descriptive Geometry and graphics of space as some information systems use but is not all the entity-relationship model some may have thought for the word strecke priced. Computer transparency advances often for economic rather than more proper ecologic useage. But a GUI is not the Visulazation only another difference between the microscope and telescope that Feyman lectured 2nd of the lens at. Have a good day.
I know that people expect a little better writing and proof reading but until I am employed I do not see how I can afford to extend that courtisey. I do like this web site. B. McFall(Herp)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 11:33 AM Percy has not replied

  
keenanvin
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (1727)
01-09-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Val
12-31-2001 2:17 PM


Well, take a self replicating cell, let it divide a few million times and group together with other cells to form clusters of cells that eventually develop to preform specialized tasks; eventually into multicellular organisms, which then in turn become different species of fish, bugs, frogs, and all those other 'critters'...... It may be a long shot but have you read "On the origins of species" by Charles Darwin? It is a long and somewhat boring book, but it does detail some fine points of evolution. If this is not adequate, try http://www.talkorigins.org. They have an excellent library of resources for Creationists and Evolutionists alike!
I must be off, it seems I have classes tomorrow... Hope this helped ~Kv

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Val, posted 12-31-2001 2:17 PM Val has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Val, posted 01-09-2002 6:31 PM keenanvin has not replied

  
Val
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 11 (1789)
01-09-2002 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by keenanvin
01-09-2002 12:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by keenanvin:
Well, take a self replicating cell, let it divide a few million times and group together with other cells to form clusters of cells that eventually develop to preform specialized tasks; eventually into multicellular organisms, which then in turn become different species of fish, bugs, frogs, and all those other 'critters'...... It may be a long shot but have you read "On the origins of species" by Charles Darwin? It is a long and somewhat boring book, but it does detail some fine points of evolution. If this is not adequate, try http://www.talkorigins.org. They have an excellent library of resources for Creationists and Evolutionists alike!
I must be off, it seems I have classes tomorrow... Hope this helped ~Kv

Thanks for the info,your the only one who answered the question I was asking.I will look into the info further.Can you answer me how you think that these combination of cells can form into animals then so called nature can be balanced the way it is if the combination of cells that formed these animals was random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by keenanvin, posted 01-09-2002 12:19 AM keenanvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 8:41 AM Val has not replied
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 01-14-2002 11:51 AM Val has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 11 (2005)
01-13-2002 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Val
01-09-2002 6:31 PM


[QUOTE]Can you answer me how you think that these combination of cells can form into animals then so called nature can be balanced the way it is if the combination of cells that formed these animals was random.[/B][/QUOTE]
Evolution isn't entirely random.
Mutations are random, but natural selection is not.
From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Val, posted 01-09-2002 6:31 PM Val has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 11 (2075)
01-14-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Val
01-09-2002 6:31 PM


schrafinator is correct VAL on
this point
that evolution is not random only. I am beginning to critique Stuart Kaufmann's random walk model on adaptive landscapes and the below is rather dense beginning as this may take weeks but I at least enjoy the opurtunity to be a third party to your question that I may have not answered it in all the metabolic species that Stu may to you later Brad.MONDAY#1
"Invovled Sentences" such as , "It is certainly not the case that Cleopatra was alive in 1938 and was not married to Hitler and not to Mussolini" though of no constructive problem to the clicking mouse fingered, the Cornell Method of Note Taking FAILED to supply the student under competition (not jumping off bridges)with other undergraduates the sound in the Bell Tower toLLed the Glas LLENROC had chaged in the Carrige House begins the farm over art and building style as to how involved the Sentence BEGINS begining to end my first sentence after, what 20? yers?? without gin begun to gain in pain.
Question inserted in parathesis added"where those of Solomon," Cardinal Bellarmino wrote,
who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in
human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisom was from God. Thus it
is not likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already
demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only
according to the appearences, and that it seems to us that the Sun goes qround when actually it is
the Earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the shore moves away from the ship, I
shall answer that (DO SEEDS FALLING ON R O C KY GROUND, FALL TO THE EARTH OR
SUN OR NEITHER?) though it may appear to a voyager as if the shore were receding from the vessel on which he stands rather than the vessel from the shore, yet he knows this to be an illusion and is able to correct it because he sees clearly that it is the ship and not the shore that is in movement. But as the Sun and the Earth a wise man has no need to correct his judgement, for his experience tells him plainly the Earth is standing still and that his eyes are not decieved when they report that the Sun, Moon, and stars are in moton. (to continue Croizat's Panbiogeography and Catholicism (Chapter) between special and general revelation)From Galileo's Daughter Penguin Press by Dava Sorbel
TERMINOLOGICAL PANBIOGEOGRAPHY or The Beginning of a Deductive Biogeography
Undefined Terms (in the sense that 'term' is wider than the word 'object')
point = collection locality x
line = individual track
plane = generalized track
The undefined terms- collection locality, individual track and generalized track will be subjected to three axioms, the first of which is the same as Euclid's first postulate to incidentally give points, lines and planes an order independent of metrical condsiderations. Either points, lines and planes incident or otherwise have no bearing on reconsidering metrical geometry and quantity is independentj of metrical practicaliltes or since independence is not used in a mathematical meaning - sense, yet, how to give points lines and planes an order independent of metrical considerations ( and of quantity a la Hume) is not a mathematical progression nor a regression but a Russelian compact series and Cantorian insichdict condensed in itself though this may also superviene.
AXIOMATIC PANBIOGEOGRAPHY
INCIDENCE AXIOM#1. For every point P and for every poring Q not equal to P there exists a unique line l that passes through P and Q.
A collection locality is considered not equal to another when it is not part of the same main massing, pracitcally what are considered the most local level places of endemism asserted (therefore) In a main massing there is no unique line that connects two localities outside the main massing - through- its main massing.
INCIDENCE AXIOM#2. For every line there exists at least two distinct points incident with l, one point or which may be in the mathematical neighborhood of a main massing if present, one point being the original collection locality(,) and the other point derivable from the topology of the ancestral higher order pin pionts with the parameter the specific data point of original collection locality.
INCIDENCE AXIOM#3. There exists three distinct points with the property that no line ...missing page..
attributing...and since the volume of water to be raised by the large piece of wood is equal to that of the wood itself, and similarly with the small piece, those two quantities of water, which are raised by the respective pieces of wood, have the same ratio to each other in their weights as do their volumes (for portions of the same substance are to each other in weidht as they are in volume:
==>onto igneous vs sedimentary vs metamorphic (other correlations evolution thinking needs more restraint in the use of) rather than water in the landbridge composition quesiton flexibility vs pliability of this mild body presently water maintianing (not lead nor wood as per Kripke) Maxwell's Anaxagorus vs other??sp? opposed conceptually not necessarily true.
But as to whether the "seeds" (same medium) either lighter or heavier maintain (Croizat plants need space to grow in but don't they also need space to move in?) directums (up or down) since the heavier moves downward more swiftly and the lighter upward more swiftly (Do seeds fall to the Earth of Sun of Moon or Asteroid Belt or Oort cloud or without respect to Newton's Center of the Solar System etc?)
Does the Earth's motion generally over the time (evolution time) considered above South to North as continents formatted go in that physically (even if one does not follow everything Maxwell said about Faraday) to the Sun or Inertially on as in the below morphogney by Lavosier balance sheet applied to Darwin artifical vs natural selection using not the center of solar system as coordinate reference (when refering to the Darwininzation of Gladyshve macrothermodynaics) of absolute and relative but contirbution due to aposteriori due to empirircla math given calculations of centers of mass, inertia and gravity see ciricles not necessarily anthema to Galelio thinking that may not form Darwin's ellipse shpaes this space.
Do different forms of the medium (taxa vs clades) make a significant altelration in the process of answering the utility of the moments in opatterns visualized by D' Arcy Thompson Transfroms even if without negligbity (morphonmetircis) giveing a different ratio between medium and reference Form (and working also with the dynamics beyond Macrothermodynamics as to motion of common centric mass , interitam and gravity displayed from a GUI given a physcio-chemciql kinematic produced a variance topolotgically invariant or under catastgro, are also equal in weight. Thus, if we take two pieces of lead which are equal in volume and equal also in weight, we shall have to say that they are equally heavy. For a piece of wood which weighs the same as a piece of lead will far exceed the piece of lead in volume.
Again, one substance should be called heavier than a second substance, if a pieve of the first, equal in volume to a piece of the second, is found to weigh more than the second. For example, if we take a piece of lead and a piece of wood equal in volume to each other, and a piece of lead is heaveir than a piece wood, then we shall certainly be right in asserting that lead is heavier than wood. Therefore, if we find a piece of wood equal in weight to a piece of lead, surely we must not conclude that wood and lead are equally heavy. For we shall find that IN KRIPKES NATURAL KINDS in such a case the volume of the lead is far exceeded by the volume of the wood.
And, finally, we must define, in converse fashion, that which is lighter. That is, one substance is to be considered ligheter than a second substance, if a portion of the first, equal in volume to a second portion of the second, is found to weigh less than the second. Thus, if we take two pieces, one of wood and one of lead, equal to each other in volume, and the piece of wood weighs less than the piece of lead, then we shall properly conclude that wood is lighet than lead." WORD CAPS NOT GALILEO Gamow drew sun spots confusing into Gould's deck chairs (that is the "pathology" )below and as Henri Poincare wrote:
"CANTORISM I have spoken above of the need we have of returning continually to the first principles of out science, and of the adavantage of this process to the study of the human mind. It is this need which has inspired two attempts which have held as very great place in the most recent history of mathmatics. The first is Cantorism, and the services it has rendered to the science well known. Cantor introduced into the science a new method of considering mathematical infinity ... One of the characteristic features of Cantorism is that, instead of rising to the general by erectubg more and more complicated constructions, and defining by construction, it starts with the GENUS SUPREMUM and only defines, as the scholastics would have said, PER GENUS PROXIMUM ET DIFFERENTIAM SPECIFICAM. Hence the horror he has sometimes inspired in certain minds, such as Hermite's, whose favorite idea was to compare the mathematical with the natural sciences. For the greater number of us these prejudices had been dissipated, but it has come about that we have run against certain paradozes and apparent contradictions, which would have rejoiced the heart of Zeno of Elea and the school of Megara. The began the business of searching for a remedy, each man his own way. For my part I think, and I am not alone in so thinkinjg, that the improtant thing is never to introduce any entities but such as can be completely defined in a finite number of words. Whatever be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves (is is not alone) the joy of the doctor called in to follow a fine pathological case." [is is not alone added thanks to President Bill Clinton not other guy on tape]
The claim of mental to me BSM was due to claims made about Croizat and Cantor NOT Brad McFall. The Federal Gov'thas this burden of 10-12 ammendemnt interpretaion to remove this judge from sitting the station of an age citixen. normal. Please stop saying my "loose" illegetimacy is gounds in the university for denying what I support of ICR AS GALELIO said to Protestants abroad or not. Legally involved senetences are not as involved as the same in academia. Construct description command. Monday1. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Val, posted 01-09-2002 6:31 PM Val has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2002 12:25 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 9 of 11 (2078)
01-14-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brad McFall
01-14-2002 11:51 AM


Brad:
Your e-mail name is listed as "bsmcfall".
Why do I get the feeling that this is some variation on BS McFull?
Your ramblings make the Unibomber manifesto look coherent.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 01-14-2002 11:51 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 01-15-2002 3:53 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 11 (2205)
01-15-2002 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Minnemooseus
01-14-2002 12:25 PM


Moose, Read that manifesto and got it printed out if it was Ted's. His only problem was a small thing in Kant which would have prevented him from hurting people. I guess that means you do not want to see Tuesday's post here then so rather than get an even more full rep I'll wait to tile this one (thread) is for Val in Canada.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2002 12:25 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024