Newsreader And Presenter 5,5. Meivrecliy
Crosswords10 mins ago
Creation / Evolution.
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Answers
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
15:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
Theland //I tried my best to follow your post, but I am as yet unconvinced as it too makes assumptions.//
Point out these purported assumptions. Like I said, no vague hand waving.
There is no need for a "top scientist" to back my case. Scientific facts stand on their merits, not by who says them. The facts are there as plain as day. You need to dispute specific claims.
Point out these purported assumptions. Like I said, no vague hand waving.
There is no need for a "top scientist" to back my case. Scientific facts stand on their merits, not by who says them. The facts are there as plain as day. You need to dispute specific claims.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
blimey best post from Beso !
well put - a bit maffy(*) for AB
depressing typical 'answer' from AB - so what you are saying is: (insert howling non sequitur which can be summed up as - no that is NOT what I am saying)
and so it goes on
Seventy percent of human genes are found in Acorn worms. - and that is because around 70% I thought it was ninety percent of the DNA is required to run a cell. - actually I would have thought is the death knell for intelligent design - it is intelligent one design, and something that intelligent would have lots of designs.
[o and one assumption Beso makes is - that one can draw conclusions from (previous) facts. and this is unproven. This is also the basis of Hume's (*) refutation of induction (1780) which kinda kicked off the Scottish Enlightenment 1790-1850] apolz very very technical for AB]
(*) sink for AB one liners - hume who he den?
Hume and is he ever ( at home) etc etc
Scots enlightenment - dat when electricity hit Glasgow den?
well put - a bit maffy(*) for AB
depressing typical 'answer' from AB - so what you are saying is: (insert howling non sequitur which can be summed up as - no that is NOT what I am saying)
and so it goes on
Seventy percent of human genes are found in Acorn worms. - and that is because around 70% I thought it was ninety percent of the DNA is required to run a cell. - actually I would have thought is the death knell for intelligent design - it is intelligent one design, and something that intelligent would have lots of designs.
[o and one assumption Beso makes is - that one can draw conclusions from (previous) facts. and this is unproven. This is also the basis of Hume's (*) refutation of induction (1780) which kinda kicked off the Scottish Enlightenment 1790-1850] apolz very very technical for AB]
(*) sink for AB one liners - hume who he den?
Hume and is he ever ( at home) etc etc
Scots enlightenment - dat when electricity hit Glasgow den?
// Scientific facts stand on their merits, not by who says them. // eheu if only that were true !
the fella (*)who accounted for aurora borealis 1910 was ignored for fifty years - but of course the aurora is the fact and his explantion is a theory
Raymond Dart (*) knew australopithecus co existed with homo species and was asked why he hadnt printed it ( 1930) and said - oh we thought no one would believe it
Einstein (*)said to the belgian priest theoretical physicist: = "zat eez ( einstein spoke accented english) beautiful mathemateeks but your physeeks is offul!" that was about the Beeg Bang I think and Einstein was wrong and the Father was rignt
Linus Pauling(*)carried the day that proteins carried genetic information until Crick and Watson showed it was DNA
a few counter examples to fill an otherwise tedious sunday morning
(*) wot all day den?
the fella (*)who accounted for aurora borealis 1910 was ignored for fifty years - but of course the aurora is the fact and his explantion is a theory
Raymond Dart (*) knew australopithecus co existed with homo species and was asked why he hadnt printed it ( 1930) and said - oh we thought no one would believe it
Einstein (*)said to the belgian priest theoretical physicist: = "zat eez ( einstein spoke accented english) beautiful mathemateeks but your physeeks is offul!" that was about the Beeg Bang I think and Einstein was wrong and the Father was rignt
Linus Pauling(*)carried the day that proteins carried genetic information until Crick and Watson showed it was DNA
a few counter examples to fill an otherwise tedious sunday morning
(*) wot all day den?
'The bird’s Egg', a short essay by Dr James le Fanu once in The Oldie, does make me wonder about irreducible complexity
......... there is certainly perfection in how the yolk contains all these nutrients in precisely the right amounts and proportions, but more perfect still, is how the egg acquires through its seemingly impermeable shell the only vital requirement from the outside world for the embryo’s development – oxygen. The egg’s ability to ‘breathe’ is determined by the shell’s method of construction. The arrival of the yolk and enfolding ‘white’ in the uterus activates dozens of tiny aerosol sprays that squirt a concentrated solution of calcium carbonate. The solution hardens to form columns of calcite packed against each other ‘like a stack of fence posts’ and separated by tiny vertical spaces – or microscopic pores. This method of construction might
seem a bit haphazard but the ‘total pore area’ – their number multiplied by their diameter – must be precisely calibrated to ensure the correct flow of gases in and out of the shell: too high and the oxygendependent metabolism goes into overdrive, too low and the embryo within will suffocate through lack of oxygen or be poisoned by the accumulation of carbon dioxide. Thus the ‘total pore area’ of the ten thousand pores in the shell of a 60g chick’s egg is determined by its requirement, over the 21 days of its incubation, to take up six litres of oxygen and expel as waste products 4.5 litres of carbon dioxide and 11 litres of water vapour. The volume of gases exchanged are, biologist Hermann Rahn discovered in the 1970s, perfectly ‘attuned’ to the size of the embryo with a direct correlation between the total pore area and the mass of the egg ..........
......... there is certainly perfection in how the yolk contains all these nutrients in precisely the right amounts and proportions, but more perfect still, is how the egg acquires through its seemingly impermeable shell the only vital requirement from the outside world for the embryo’s development – oxygen. The egg’s ability to ‘breathe’ is determined by the shell’s method of construction. The arrival of the yolk and enfolding ‘white’ in the uterus activates dozens of tiny aerosol sprays that squirt a concentrated solution of calcium carbonate. The solution hardens to form columns of calcite packed against each other ‘like a stack of fence posts’ and separated by tiny vertical spaces – or microscopic pores. This method of construction might
seem a bit haphazard but the ‘total pore area’ – their number multiplied by their diameter – must be precisely calibrated to ensure the correct flow of gases in and out of the shell: too high and the oxygendependent metabolism goes into overdrive, too low and the embryo within will suffocate through lack of oxygen or be poisoned by the accumulation of carbon dioxide. Thus the ‘total pore area’ of the ten thousand pores in the shell of a 60g chick’s egg is determined by its requirement, over the 21 days of its incubation, to take up six litres of oxygen and expel as waste products 4.5 litres of carbon dioxide and 11 litres of water vapour. The volume of gases exchanged are, biologist Hermann Rahn discovered in the 1970s, perfectly ‘attuned’ to the size of the embryo with a direct correlation between the total pore area and the mass of the egg ..........
Peter Pedant //Seventy percent of human genes are found in Acorn worms. - and that is because around 70% I thought it was ninety percent of the DNA is required to run a cell.//
No. They are on the same Deuterostome branch of the tree as Chordates and Echinoderms. We are much more distantly related to the Protostomes (Annelids, Arthropods, Molluscs).
Cellular mechanisms only account for about a quarter of genes. We have these in common with microbes.
No. They are on the same Deuterostome branch of the tree as Chordates and Echinoderms. We are much more distantly related to the Protostomes (Annelids, Arthropods, Molluscs).
Cellular mechanisms only account for about a quarter of genes. We have these in common with microbes.
Khandro //'The bird’s Egg', a short essay by Dr James le Fanu once in The Oldie, does make me wonder about irreducible complexity//
The avian egg is the culmination of half a billion years of evolution from very simple eggs in basic creatures like starfish, through fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds. There were many far less complex eggs before birds came along. The steps along the way can be seen in the morphology of the eggs as extra layers were added.
Irreducible Complexity is a very weak argument for Creation. Every one I have encountered has been easily reducible.
The avian egg is the culmination of half a billion years of evolution from very simple eggs in basic creatures like starfish, through fish, amphibians, reptiles and finally birds. There were many far less complex eggs before birds came along. The steps along the way can be seen in the morphology of the eggs as extra layers were added.
Irreducible Complexity is a very weak argument for Creation. Every one I have encountered has been easily reducible.
Beso - There are a lot of points for me to address and I'm never going to be able to cover them all.
I am at present listening to lectures by an evolutionary biologist named Prothero, regarding the fossil record, and others offering a rebuttal.
But back to this thread, baby steps for me.
I dispute your claim that organic material is nothing more than complex crystals.
If that were the case you would have solved the mystery of abiogenesis.
I need to read up on this for a more comprehensive reply.
But that is my first point.
I am at present listening to lectures by an evolutionary biologist named Prothero, regarding the fossil record, and others offering a rebuttal.
But back to this thread, baby steps for me.
I dispute your claim that organic material is nothing more than complex crystals.
If that were the case you would have solved the mystery of abiogenesis.
I need to read up on this for a more comprehensive reply.
But that is my first point.
Latest Posts
Crosswords21 mins ago
Film, Media & TV33 mins ago
Morgan Freeman Speaks His Mind!
History41 mins ago
Please Help Me Find More Of These.....
Jokes49 mins ago
Body & Soul55 mins ago
