Author
|
Topic: Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Charles, if you want to create a seperate thread, I'll participate in it.........didn't want to leave an impression to the contrary. Even aside from Atlantis, there's still the Trojans and the Hittites.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 96 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:37 AM | | SirPimpsalot has not replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 99 of 195 (151917)
10-22-2004 8:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by sidelined 10-22-2004 8:26 AM
|
|
Re: Nothing to do with evolutionary theory
Four billion years is enough time for evolution to occur But not for first life to form, by itself..........and perhaps not to reach the level of sentient life forms. We know that for about 3 billion years, life didn't evolve past the single-celled. 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......and so, it took 3.5 billion years to get from cell to jelly fish........a geological INSTANT to get from jelly fish to AT LEAST 20 of the 30 phila in existance......and only 500 million to get from there to us..........doesn't make sense, and PE can't explain it. This message has been edited by SirPimpsalot, 10-22-2004 07:50 AM
This message is a reply to: | | Message 93 by sidelined, posted 10-22-2004 8:26 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 100 of 195 (151918)
10-22-2004 8:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by CK 10-22-2004 8:40 AM
|
|
Charles, it's all a matter of whether you believe me or not........because, if you can't find anything about it on the web, I can't tell ya anything else........all I know is that the documentary stated, as fact, that a natural alloy of gold and copper is mined in the Andes, and even showed a bunch of it.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 98 by CK, posted 10-22-2004 8:40 AM | | CK has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 101 by CK, posted 10-22-2004 8:50 AM | | SirPimpsalot has replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 102 of 195 (151920)
10-22-2004 8:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by CK 10-22-2004 8:50 AM
|
|
Unproven? After an exhaustive 5 minutes, two man internet search, yes..........
This message is a reply to: | | Message 101 by CK, posted 10-22-2004 8:50 AM | | CK has not replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Re: Nothing to do with evolutionary theory
but once the multicellular level is reached the process is quite accelerated and this does make sense. How does this make sense?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 103 by sidelined, posted 10-22-2004 8:56 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Re: Nothing to do with evolutionary theory
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
|
|
Message 117 of 195 (152297)
10-23-2004 2:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog 10-22-2004 12:40 PM
|
|
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.......
This message is a reply to: | | Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 10-22-2004 12:40 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Sho nuff.....
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
BTW, how do I get signatures to work on these boards?
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Testing....
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Ok, gotcha.......thanks. This message has been edited by SirPimpsalot, 10-23-2004 02:37 PM "Behold My signifigance!" said SirPimpsalot, and all was right. "I am the Lambda and the Kappa, the Second and the Runner-Up."
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
A thought has just occured to me........if we know the exact process by which chemicals supposedly became life.......and we know exactly which chemicals to use, why don't scientists just engineer abiogenisis, and prove it's possible?
Replies to this message: | | Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 3:57 PM | | SirPimpsalot has replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Shouldn't the exact process be easy to figure out? I mean, we have our own genetic make up to let us know which amino acids to use......which way to combine them.......etc. "Behold My signifigance!" said SirPimpsalot, and all was right. "I am the Lambda and the Kappa, the Second and the Runner-Up."
This message is a reply to: | | Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 3:57 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:03 PM | | SirPimpsalot has replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Well, "which amino acids to use" is all of them, at least, all of the left-handed ones. But here's the problem - all living things are made of the same amino acids. Unfortunately, our genetic code doesn't have that many instructions. The genetic code is not, as is commonly believed, a "blueprint of life", in the sense that a blueprint is an abstraction of the physical shape of something. All our genetic code does is make proteins. It doesn't describe structure, or anything like that. There's not enough genes in the genome to do that. So, what you're saying is, we haven't decoded the genetic language yet.......right? Well, doesn't this go back to my book analogy? That first life assembling itself would be like a book writing itself, because of the inherant amount of information that would have to be present in the little bugger in order for it to be life? It's not just a matter of viable amino acids and protein molecules assembling itself.......it would have to assemble itself into a kind of language in which was present the info the organism would need to find food, metabolize the food and replicate, right?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:03 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member
|
Even if an organic compound that's as complex as a cell could assemble itself naturalistically, where does all that info it needs come from?
Replies to this message: | | Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:30 PM | | SirPimpsalot has replied |
|