- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Tiny worms survive shuttle crash, Fascinating Thought! and reality! …NASA won't be needing another seven worms
Miniscule research worms kept in special aluminum canisters aboard the doomed space shuttle Columbia survived after plunging from the spacecraft and hitting the ground with an impact 2,295 times the force of Earth's gravity, according to a research paper in December's issue of the journal Astrobiology
Planing for the future!
Heres an Idea for those land owners; threaten with the predidted rising sea levels within the next 20 years.this may only require a few renovation plans; or others may decide to buy the neighbours out!
Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg concluded, “What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
When Columbus arrived in the New World, he had a theory that he was in Asia and proceeded to perceive the New World as such.
Cinnamon was a valuable Asian spice, and the first New World shrub that smelled like cinnamon was declared to be it.
When he encountered the aromatic gumbo-limbo tree of the West Indies, Columbus concluded it was an Asian species similar to the mastic tree of the Mediterranean.
A New World nut was matched with Marco Polo's description of a coconut. Columbus's surgeon even declared, based on some Caribbean roots his men uncovered, that he had found Chinese rhubarb.
A theory of Asia produced observations of Asia, even though Columbus was half a world away.The theory of evolution has produced similar results. People see several species of horses and try to string them together. The human mind looks for patterns, as I believe stu once said.
Our perceptions of reality are influenced by the theories framing our examination of it.
Stu, I'm wondering what your answer would be for this:
“If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different.”
So, yes, it's advantageous for us humans to fly. So, one of us (a mutant) grows little knobs on their back. These little knobs are an advantage, so they are passed on and eventually, walla: wings.
But at the same time, someone else is working on flippers and someone else is working on telekenisis.
So, why do we have species at all.
(It's possible there is a perfectly good answer for this. Actually, I'msure you have one. i just have no idea what it is. Could you enlighten me.)
I guess your answer is probably that these things are rare and that we see the evidence of it in the many species we do have.
Quote (david @ Oct. 14 2007,19:31) Our perceptions of reality are influenced by the theories framing our examination of it.
Hi DavidYou are right, our models of the universe are only as good as our ability to make models. Some of our models are pretty good, and most models of those who oppose evolutionary theory are pretty bad.
Thanks for the stuff about Columbus. I had no idea this had happened. And yes, it does show that humans will look for patterns, even when they are entirely wrong. Evolution is counter-intuitive to humans because we are designers looking for patterns, and natural selection is only a retrospective designer:- look, I've made this bump thing – I wonder if it's any use for anything…
Stuart
Hi again David
++””If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change.
They are in a state of ongoing change. The rates of change will vary enormously between species and between individual loci on genomes.
++”No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different.”
I don’t get this. What does it mean? Evolution is very slow. You could occupy any position of all the possible ways of being that there are, but it is important to remember that there are very many imaginable ways that are not survivable. There are close to an infinite number of forms of DNA-based life that have not yet been tried, and probably will not be. The space “between” species has been tried and gone extinct or has never been tried or is unsurviable. Hence gaps between species.
++”So, yes, it's advantageous for us humans to fly. So, one of us (a mutant) grows little knobs on their back. These little knobs are an advantage, so they are passed on and eventually, walla: wings.
So we evolve flight by wings. But what advantage were the knobs? Certainly they were no good for flying. This is the great failing of Intelligent Design (a fabulous oxymoron if ever there was one). Most things in the human body have a well-defined purpose. Many have developed from a system that was previously doing a different job. Our lungs likely used to be buoyancy air sacs in our marine-dwelling far ancestor species. What were the knobs good for? Did the female of the species find them irresistible? Did they provide extra protection? Were they selected neutrally, being nether a particular advantage nor a particular disadvantage? Evolutionary theory would not forecast the development of flight in humans because it would seem to have no survival advantage.
++”But at the same time, someone else is working on flippers and someone else is working on telekenisis.
Here we go again – “working on” things. That is not how it is. We are simply managing not to die, and somehow able to reproduce because we have features that allow it. They have been selected from the random variation that went before, they have not been invented.
Stuart
Yes, but my question was more this:
“If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different.”
Is the answer that the humans with wings would kill off the humans with flippers, and so there would only be one species?
Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2007,04:03) Yes, but my question was more this: “If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different.”
Is the answer that the humans with wings would kill off the humans with flippers, and so there would only be one species?
Hi DavidI think you might be the only one here who understands your question.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 15 2007,06:11) Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2007,04:03) Yes, but my question was more this: “If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different.”
Is the answer that the humans with wings would kill off the humans with flippers, and so there would only be one species?
Hi DavidI think you might be the only one here who understands your question.
Stuart
If david gives you a banana, would you then attempt an answer?Quote (t8 @ Oct. 31 2007,20:16) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 15 2007,06:11) Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2007,04:03) Yes, but my question was more this: “If evolution were true all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical because there would not be separate species. There would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing and every animal, insect and plant would be different.”
Is the answer that the humans with wings would kill off the humans with flippers, and so there would only be one species?
Hi DavidI think you might be the only one here who understands your question.
Stuart
If david gives you a banana, would you then attempt an answer?
There are some questions here awaiting your scholarly consideration:For the price of a banana, I will.
Not just any banana, but one that you have created.
How hard can it be? I mean, nobody created the original ones according to you, so I would think that you should have a much better shot given that you are suppose to have intelligence and therefore can stack conditions to your favour and not have to wait a gazillion years for all favourable conditions to come out in the right sequence.
For the price of a banana, I will.
Not just any banana, but one that you have created.
How hard can it be? I mean, nobody created the original ones according to you, so I would think that you should have a much better shot given that you are suppose to have intelligence and therefore can stack conditions to your favour and not have to wait a gazillion years for all favourable conditions to come out in the right sequence.
Just thought I'd see if it looked different me repeating your material instead of you doing it…
Quote (A4J @ July 31 2007,09:09) Nope!! i only need facts, proof, and logic
or… lack of facts, proof and logic… hence i don't believe in a god
You only need facts, proof, and logic, do you? I guess what your saying is that you don't have FAITH in those facts, proofs, and logics, do you?
Quote (acertainchap @ Nov. 02 2007,05:27) Quote (A4J @ July 31 2007,09:09) Nope!! i only need facts, proof, and logic
or… lack of facts, proof and logic… hence i don't believe in a god
You only need facts, proof, and logic, do you? I guess what your saying is that you don't have FAITH in those facts, proofs, and logics, do you?
Hi acertainchapFaith was discussed many pages back. The definition of faith relevant here is the one about believing in the absence of evidence. I require evidence and I asserted that everyone else did too for all things they do, except maybe tarot reading, astrology and religious beliefs.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2007,18:56) Just thought I'd see if it looked different me repeating your material instead of you doing it…
Seriously Stu.No one created a banana, and you cannot create one.
I can only conclude that you are more useless than no one.
Sorry, I really am not here to insult you, but logic dictates that you are less able than nothing according to your belief.
So you have a choice.
- You are wrong in your assumption that there is no God.
- Or you are more useless than nothing.
I would like to hear which one you think you are?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
