Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
150 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 149 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,082 Year: 6,194/6,534 Month: 387/650 Week: 157/278 Day: 25/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 782 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 195 (151978)
10-22-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 8:45 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:45 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 782 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 107 of 195 (151983)
10-22-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 8:30 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:30 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 782 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 195 (151986)
10-22-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 7:20 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:20 AM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 2:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 109 of 195 (151996)
10-22-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 8:52 AM


SirPimpsalot writes:

Unproven? After an exhaustive 5 minutes, two man internet search, yes..........


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.

Sorry I missed you when you first started posting. Welcome


He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:52 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 5668 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 110 of 195 (152042)
10-22-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 7:32 AM


Close but no cigar
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 7:32 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 1617 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 111 of 195 (152107)
10-22-2004 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by SirPimpsalot
10-22-2004 8:52 AM


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...

Critias
by Plato
translated by Benjamin Jowett

quote:
Now Atlas had a fair posterity, and great treasures derived from mines--among them that precious metal orichalcum; and there was abundance of wood, and herds of elephants, and pastures for animals of all kinds, and fragrant herbs, and grasses, and trees bearing fruit

quote:
The outermost of the walls was coated with brass, the second with tin, and the third, which was the wall of the citadel, flashed with the red light of orichalcum

quote:
The roof was of ivory, adorned with gold and silver and orichalcum, and the rest of the interior was lined with orichalcum

quote:
The relations of the different governments to one another were determined by the injunctions of Poseidon, which had been inscribed by the first kings on a column of orichalcum in the temple of Poseidon, at which the kings and princes gathered together and held a festival every fifth and every sixth year alternately.

I don't see where a definitive gold/copper alloy is mentioned.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_plato_critias_intro.htm
http://www.atlantisquest.com/Plato.html

(ok..running off after yet another OT post )


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-22-2004 8:52 AM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SEBASTES
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 195 (152150)
10-22-2004 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by CK
10-22-2004 8:14 AM


ALL ALLOYS MAN MADE?
(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 Alloys
Graig,J.R; Rimstidt, J.D. 1985 JAN 01 report number CONF-8510489


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by CK, posted 10-22-2004 8:14 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AdminNosy, posted 10-22-2004 11:09 PM SEBASTES has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 113 of 195 (152161)
10-22-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by SEBASTES
10-22-2004 10:18 PM


Re: ALL ALLOYS MAN MADE?
Thank you sebastes. I think that settles that little side question nicely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by SEBASTES, posted 10-22-2004 10:18 PM SEBASTES has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 114 of 195 (152192)
10-23-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
06-24-2004 1:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 06-24-2004 1:55 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 115 of 195 (152295)
10-23-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by sidelined
10-22-2004 8:56 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 1:59 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 185 by sidelined, posted 10-23-2004 6:41 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 116 of 195 (152296)
10-23-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 1:57 PM


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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 1:57 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-23-2004 2:28 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3243 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 118 of 195 (152299)
10-23-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 2:17 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 2:17 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 2:52 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 119 of 195 (152302)
10-23-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by macaroniandcheese
10-23-2004 2:28 PM


Sho nuff.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-23-2004 2:28 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 2:54 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 120 of 195 (152303)
10-23-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 2:52 PM


BTW, how do I get signatures to work on these boards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 2:52 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 3:08 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022