|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin- would he have changed his theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We know that for about 3 billion years, life didn't evolve past the single-celled. Life hasn't ever, really. The vast, vast majority of life on Earth, by individual or by mass, is single-celled. There's no evolutionary trend towards complexity - only a few, isolated, rare examples of life more complex than single-cells. What's happened in billions of years has not been any kind of trend towards complexity, but rather, an expansion of variety.
The next 500 million years only produced jelly fish and sponges and the like.........then, KAPOW, suddenly, all at once, there was more evolutionary variation occuring all at once than had occured over the last 3.5 billion years..... Mm, not really. There's considerably more variation represented within single-celled organisms than within anything else. What's happening is a kind of selection bias in your mind - because you're one of the rare complex organisms, the only organisms of significance to you are the complex ones.
doesn't make sense You're right, it doesn't make sense, because it's all in your head, in your biases. There's been no evolutionary trend towards complexity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He didn't say taking myth at face value......he said that there was not benefit to applying myth to science at all, if I recall correctly. And he's wrong, as I demonstrated. But you got it backwards. You didn't supply examples of applying myth to science; you supplied examples of applying science to mythology. Big, big difference. In no case has myth been used to substantiate scientific endeavor; rather, scientific evidence has been used to substantiate the origin of mythology.
The ancient, venerated documents have NEVER been proven to be conclusively incorrect in any fashion What, like the Bible? Wrong about the flood? To the contrary, ancient documents aren't any more accurate, generally, than modern documents. Which makes sense - people sometimes get things wrong, now and then; ancient peoples weren't idiots, they were just ancient. Poorly informed, if you will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't have any idea what this means, to be honest........please put this into laymen's terms. Well, that was layman's terms, but ok... It means that you can go from one functional protein to another, changing only one amino acid each time, and have functional proteins at every step.
But one thing that does jump out at me is that 10 to the power of 11, while not as bad as 10 to the hundreth power, isn't exactly good odds either...... No, it's the chance of a randomly-generated sequence of amino acids having a certain functionality - in this case, binding ATP, the energy storage molecule in cells. And one in 10^11 is great odds. At that rate, we would expect one or two new functional proteins in every single generation of a moderate population of vertebrates - one or two proteins every ten years, or so. More than fast enough.
I agree.........but I think this fact hurts spontaneous generation theorists, as it shows that there weren't a plethora of of microbes spontaneously generating on early Earth. It doesn't really show that. A plethora of living things probably did arise, spontaneously and individually - but only one group of them survived. Competition, you see. The fact that only one sprinter wins the race is not evidence that he was the only one who ran. I'm surprised you couldn't think of that yourself. You seem fairly insightful. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-22-2004 11:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
SirPimpsalot writes:
Just so you know, the way it works around here is the burden of proof, or at least show some evidence, always falls on the side that claims the positive. Otherwise, the side the claims the negative is presumed to be right. Unproven? After an exhaustive 5 minutes, two man internet search, yes.......... Sorry I missed you when you first started posting. Welcome He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6375 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
But, hey, you might wanna try searhing for "Alto Plano" or "orichalcon"........or maybe a combination of one of those with "Atlantis".
Yeah, and if you try enough permutations you eventually try "orichalcon america" (without quotes) and find that you've got it wrong. The referance by Plato is in Critias and is to orichalcum. You will then be able to go somewhere like the version maintained by MIT. If you read it or any of the commentaries on it you can look up you will see that all Plato says is that it is mined (specifically 'dug out of the earth'), it is second in value only to gold and some descriptions of where it was used. Nowhere does he say what it is actually composed of - that is all speculation by later readers. The only reference I can find to orichalcum and modern mining terminology was here to it being "An ancient copper alloy resembling gold in color.". This figures as the Romans minted two coins of this alloy. So it looks Plato never said what it was and no material of that name is currently mined anywhere. I guess you weren't terribly close after all. 23rd. Oct. - Edited to fix punctuation. This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 10-22-2004 08:24 PM Confused ? You will be...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
HHmm make it a two man one woman search...
One of your claims from this show was that Plato called it an alloy of gold and copper? I'd like to see something from the dialogues that actually say this. This is what I found... Critiasby Plato translated by Benjamin Jowett quote: quote: quote: quote: I don't see where a definitive gold/copper alloy is mentioned. Ancient History and CultureAtlantisquest.com (ok..running off after yet another OT post ) Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SEBASTES Inactive Member |
(1)According to the Geological Society of America,
they seem to believe that gold is nearly always alloyed naturally with up to 40% silver, and a few other metals. (2)Not trying to be a smart ass, just revealing fact! (3)Gold:compositional variations of naturally occurring AlloysGraig,J.R; Rimstidt, J.D. 1985 JAN 01 report number CONF-8510489
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thank you sebastes. I think that settles that little side question nicely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
well. actually he did. but not based on the complexity of anything, but on the simple fact that his theory led people away from god... see. darwin was a christian, too. just like many evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
but once the multicellular level is reached the process is quite accelerated and this does make sense. How does this make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
An ID proponent would say it's analogous to one of those 80s anti-drug ads........"This is our world before design (meaning the pre-Cambrian). This is our world after. Any questions?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
And one in 10^11 is great odds. At that rate, we would expect one or two new functional proteins in every single generation of a moderate population of vertebrates - one or two proteins every ten years, or so. Thing is, there weren't any vertebrates 4 billion years ago......
It means that you can go from one functional protein to another, changing only one amino acid each time, and have functional proteins at every step. I'm still not getting it......you're saying that one type of functional protein can become another type of functional protein very easily? How does this increase the odds of functional proteins forming in the first place?
It doesn't really show that. A plethora of living things probably did arise, spontaneously and individually - but only one group of them survived. Competition, you see. Why would there be competition? They had a whole world to share.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
good point that last one. competition only exists between species that share the exact same niche.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-23-2004 01:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
Sho nuff.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
BTW, how do I get signatures to work on these boards?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024