Author
|
Topic: Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 3 of 65 (38319)
04-29-2003 11:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Brian 04-29-2003 7:53 AM
|
|
Re: Dissolvable Best Evidence
It would be appropriate to pick the individual issues and summarize DrDino's refutation. Also point to the specific page where there is more indepth discussion. This will help organize the debate a bit. (also I'm afraid you've picked a very poor partner in your debate )
This message is a reply to: | | Message 2 by Brian, posted 04-29-2003 7:53 AM | | Brian has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 04-29-2003 11:46 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 5 of 65 (38325)
04-29-2003 12:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Quetzal 04-29-2003 11:46 AM
|
|
Re: Dissolvable Best Evidence
Oh, forgive me. My sense of humour failed for a minute.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 04-29-2003 11:46 AM | | Quetzal has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 7 of 65 (38349)
04-29-2003 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog 04-29-2003 3:00 PM
|
|
The process
What I've come to because of thinking and reading about this is this fascinating picture of life on earth. The physical enviroment is in a constant state of flux. Both over short time scales and long. Both gradually and rapidly. In this context is a stew of astronoimical numbers of living things. Each one a little experiment. Over and over life bounces around in a chaotic fashion. And like the somewhat chaotic dance of a prize fighter it allows it to respond to the changes as they arise. There is this fizzing stew of things. No species or any other groups. Just trillions of individuals each different from the next, maybe a lot different maybe almost indistinguishably different but different. It's an amazing picture. But, you know, even with that. I can understand why individuals find it incredulous that life could have reached into all the nooks and crannies and 'found' all the ways to live it has. It is an awesome picture. One hard to wrap your head around even if you're not impared by a restricted world view to begin with.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2003 3:00 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 9 by truthlover, posted 04-29-2003 5:31 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 10 of 65 (38363)
04-29-2003 5:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by truthlover 04-29-2003 5:31 PM
|
|
Re: The process
quote: I just wanted to agree with this. Evolution is extremely hard to believe until someone explains the process, and even then it takes a lot of explaining.
I think it's difficult because explaining the process isn't enough. I'm not sure that his qualifies but it seems to me that the diversity of life is an emergent property of the evolutionary process. If you didn't have the example outcome before you but understood the process in great detail you would still be astonished at the outcome. It isn't the intellectual understanding that is needed. You need some gut idea of what can arise out of simple processes. Then you're more ready to internalize what can come from a more complex process. Conways game of "Life" helps, I think, prepare one for what is possible. http://www.radicaleye.com/lifepage/
This message is a reply to: | | Message 9 by truthlover, posted 04-29-2003 5:31 PM | | truthlover has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Re: The process
Darwin worked from the "problem", what had to be explained. That appears backwards but you may have a very good point. That might be an excellent method for introducing the topic in a classroom. It is amazing that he managed to come up with ToE given that he worked without knowledge of genetics, the genome etc. I think I didn't express my points very well. One is that really understanding something this complex requires more than intellectualizing it. It requires getting a feel for complexity and emergent properties. A "gut" feel and feel more than just knowing the facts. PS (added by edit) I once had a math prof who after working through a proof and getting to QED asked where we thought the originator of the proof started. The answer was, of course, the QED. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-29-2003]
This message is a reply to: | | Message 11 by truthlover, posted 04-29-2003 6:03 PM | | truthlover has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Dating
You're caught in a misconception about dating with index fossils.
quote: Also, I didn't get the idea you knew this already (though I may be misunderstanding your first comment) but they DO NOT date fossils by radiometric decay--fossils are dated based on what layer of rock they are found in
That's true but misleading. The fossils are part of the characteristics of rocks which were recognized centuries ago. They helped to sort out the layering. Some fossils are very restricted to what layers they are found it and make this easier but other characteristics of rocks help. This produced the geologic column with relative ages. Only relative. A long time after that various methods became available to date the layers directly. This put absolute dates on the layers. Now since the geologic column had already been sorted out and the fossils which could be used as index fossils for a layer already been determined it is easy to date a layer by looking the fossils. In any case where there is doubt about a date a direct dating can be done. The fossils help tell what layer you are looking at. The index fossils anyway. These layers are dated separately. Any other non-index fossils in the same layer can then be assigned the same date. Got that?
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Re: Dating
No problem. I don't see you as being rude. But you're going to have to supply the Mt St Helen's sources. It seems we are on a lot of rather detailed individual discussions. I think they should all be spun off as separate topics under specific fora, don't you think? I'm not an expert on anything but read in some areas more than others. I'll dig out some specific sources for you. How about we hold off and organize the topics first? I'll create ones for Mt St Helen (if no appropriate one exits), for protein comparisons, and I think there is one for polystrate fossils already. Will you start trying to organize topics too?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 17 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 2:00 AM | | booboocruise has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
enzymes
BBC, meanwhile if you could go to For Booboocruise - digestive enzymes and finish that up. You could repost some of what you have posted other places. It appears from what is there that you assumption that the stanford site would mention chimps and humans was wrong. However, I'm still not sure we know what proteins or what ever are being talked about.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 17 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 2:00 AM | | booboocruise has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Geologic Column
I'll start a topic in geology for this if that's ok?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 17 by booboocruise, posted 05-01-2003 2:00 AM | | booboocruise has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 53 of 65 (39884)
05-12-2003 11:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by lpetrich 05-11-2003 1:44 AM
|
|
If we are intended to be able to eat every kind of plant, You didn't reply to a specific message. Where did you think that we are intended to be able to eat every kind of plant? Why would this be the case under any body's idea of how we came to be the way we are?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 51 by lpetrich, posted 05-11-2003 1:44 AM | | lpetrich has not replied |
|