-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let there be Life! Scientists create RNA from base elements.
- Thread starter "God's Beard!"
- Start date
- Status
Nocebo said:
I believe that through DNA the many blueprints of all living organisms were drafted, and the only "evolution" that happens, is evolution within humans (skin colors), evolution within dogs (sizes,etc), evolution within finches (beak sizes, etc), and this is all genetic variance. Tracing these differences to an ancestor human, an ancestor dog, an ancestor finch has no real significance other than to satisfy historical curiosity.
DNA and organisms are magnificent things, that are genetically flexible enough to adapt to different environments, but have protections built in against chronic degeneration of the original blueprint (mutations in the DNA) hence experiments show barriers to how much a species changes.
What I don't know is what came first... the chicken or the egg...
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bulla564 said:
only according to your inability to understand exactly what they mean.
Bulla564 said:
curious. what do you think about the study of world history?
by the way, macroevolution theories and experiments led to microevolution theories and experiments.. how has that been useless to human progress?
KHarvey16 said:
furthermore, where is his proof of this? experiments? research? etc.
Count Dookkake
Member
Bulla564 said:
Egg.
quadriplegicjon said:
It's a difference in INTERPRETATION of results. Evolutionists see two species of mice as evidence of possible common ancestry between all species, and I disagree. I see as speciation not leading to anything else but two mice.
It's essential, due to its cultural and social ramifications. The same can't be said about the history of dinosaurs and birds.
Sorry... the discovery of DNA led to microevolution experiments.
I like this logic. If I hadn't heard or read about the past 70 years I could declare that humans can never step foot on the moon, and science continues to confirm this! Claims to the contrary are untestable but politically popular fantasies. After all, if it was possible it would have already happened by now.Bulla564 said:
Skittleguy
Ring a Bell for me
I find it funny when people claim that evolution doesn't happen because they don't see it happening around them.
It hasn't been dropped yet because new relevant discoveries continue to be made. You seem to not understand that science evolves. Things we're discovering now couldn't have been discovered 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology to do it. What makes you think we won't have new technology in the future which will lead to new relevant discoveries? This is the nature of science, constantly discovering new things which lead to other discoveries (sometimes not directly relevant to each other). Are you against this process?Bulla564 said:
Hitokage said:
I can build a rocket and "test" your hypothesis. Maybe you are right... maybe one day they will build a time machine to go taste some of that primordial soup, and watch how fishes crawl into the land. We won't have to rely on baseless assumptions anymore.
I guess evolution IS falsifiable then... oops.
Nocebo said:
I'm all for progress, but I'm against ad hoc explanations that try to make up for the last failed explanation. I don't see how this is getting us closer to the truth. It's beating a dead horse.
Why wait?Bulla564 said:
Which brings me to another point, people who advocate intelligent design rarely have even a basic grasp on what kinds of plants and animals there are in the world outside of what you might find in a zoo or an A to Z book. It's a belief that thrives in ignorance.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bulla564 said:
and your background is? i'm assuming you have a college degree.. but, do you even have a master's degree in any scientific field?
Bulla564 said:
All history? how so? prove it.
Bulla564 said:
uh.. nope. 'microevolution' experiments started with Mendel.. way before DNAs role in heredity was discovered.
speaking of DNA.. DNA sequencing has proven evolution to be correct, and has shown how several different species have derived from a common ancestor..
its a bit foolish to say that the study of microevolution and genetics is important, and then just decide to ignore some of the conclusions from those studies.
its damn straight laughable that you try to present yourself as this intellectual that knows better than the greatest geniuses of our time..
What's also funny is that they don't actually see God around them either but still choose to believe in that concept. I think it's because it's a bit size easier to swallow and dumbed down version of evolution. Evolution comes backed with a plethora of facts and intricacies that require understanding on a higher level.Skittleguy said:
It's a simple psychology thing really.
And therein lies the problem. You clearly see no progress being made. The Evolution science is not the same as it was 1000 years ago is it? You may seem them as "ad hoc" explanations but they are based on facts. The facts will change, the explanations will change, this is what we call progress. Progress is movement required to getting closer to a point, the truth.Bulla564 said:
Hitokage said:Why wait?
Which brings me to another point, people who advocate intelligent design rarely have even a basic grasp on what kinds of plants and animals there are in the world outside of what you might find in a zoo or an A to Z book.
Cute fish... if found dead and fossilized, that'd be an awesome ancestor to lizards... except it's not.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bulla564 said:
hi. DNA is now used to prove evolutionary linkages, not just shape and form.
k.thanx.by!
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Bulla564 said:
Well how about the opposite direction?
Macroevolution is important to human progress. Its study has been for a century. Antibiotic resistance is acquired through horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer is macro evolution.Bulla564 said:
Here is a link for a 1960's article on HGT in bacteria. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13681921 Don't be upset if you don't see the words 'macro evolution.'
HGT has been studied using fungi and yeast as well. The principles learned from early studies of bacteria are still being used today. They are studying HGT and using these principles in humans to this day.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
devilhawk said:
micro and macro evolution are terms mainly used by creationists... the truth is that it is so intertwined, it really shouldn't even be separated into those two terms. we should really stop using this fools terms.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
No doubt. The term macro evolution was hijacked by creationists because of their concession of micro evolution. Like I said before, the only difference is scale.quadriplegicjon said:micro and macro evolution are terms mainly used by creationists... the truth is that it is so intertwined, it really shouldn't even be separated into those two terms. we should really stop using this fools terms.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm
quadriplegicjon said:
Just like people that get these degrees, I READ and LEARN. Not much different.
Prove what?
Microevolution experiments are done through DNA manipulation, and genetics. Inheritance of traits has nothing to do with the effects of random mutations on the genotype.
All this time my argument has been that similar DNA sequences ARE NOT the result of common ancestry. Your argument is that DNA proves evolution because "related" species share similar DNA. "Related" species share similar DNA because they evolved from a common ancestor. I'm getting dizzy from the circular logic.
Dragona Akehi said:Well how about the opposite direction?
Whales? In case you didn't know, now they are being linked to hippos... I guess similar fossils don't mean much these days...
Wrong. Horizontal gene transfer is simply one of the mechanisms through which evolutionists claim major changes can happen that would lead to macroevolution. Once again, it has only shown to lead to small microchanges in function of currently present genes.
Basically people like Bulla564 are only concerned with facts that are directly tangible and understandable. Their psyche fills the void (the part they don't know about) linking those together with a personification of the yet unexplained/unknown(to them) phenomena, God. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, but fully explainable through psychology.
Science fills the blanks with a framework supported by various fields of science and facts. Facts are ever changing, though. It takes effort to keep up with science.
Theists choose to fill the blanks with something that can't be understood, which reassures their mind that they understand. Because they understand that it can't be understood, get it? God never changes and is always the same coat hanger everything can be hung up on, so it's much simpler.
It's like that chick on the view saying she doesn't have an opinion on wether the world is round or flat. It isn't relevant to her world and she just isn't concerned with it so when asked her mind will fill that void with an opinion based on things she knows. The less you know about how the world works the more you need to fill in by twisting things you do know, things you can directly observe. The directly observable earth is flat for instance.
Science fills the blanks with a framework supported by various fields of science and facts. Facts are ever changing, though. It takes effort to keep up with science.
Theists choose to fill the blanks with something that can't be understood, which reassures their mind that they understand. Because they understand that it can't be understood, get it? God never changes and is always the same coat hanger everything can be hung up on, so it's much simpler.
It's like that chick on the view saying she doesn't have an opinion on wether the world is round or flat. It isn't relevant to her world and she just isn't concerned with it so when asked her mind will fill that void with an opinion based on things she knows. The less you know about how the world works the more you need to fill in by twisting things you do know, things you can directly observe. The directly observable earth is flat for instance.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bulla564 said:
:lol no, that not all they do..
Bulla564 said:
prove to me that the study of ALL history is essential due to its cultural and social ramifications. .. as you claim.
Bulla564 said:
uh... evolutionary theory is based on the works of darwin AND mendel (among others).. its all intertwined.
Bulla564 said:
what proof do you have?
Bulla564 said:
:lol
okay. how do you explain mitochondria and the fact that it has its own (circular) DNA ?
if we didnt evolve from anything.. we just came to be.. why is it that mitochondria so closely resembles a prokaryotic cell? why is it that it has its own self replicating DNA? why the hell does it have a double membrane?
there is so much evidence proving evolution, yet you dismiss it so simply by saying.. you disagree. you offer no valuable insight whatsoever..
Nocebo said:
True. There is enough tangible facts to refute common ancestry, and the ones filling the void are the evolutionists with their own set of beliefs and psychological dispositions.
I have to STRONGLY disagree with you there. Truthful facts NEVER change. The problem is that many evolutionary tales are not and have NEVER been "facts" but rather interpretations/inferences (a.k.a OPINIONS). In science, this is ok. However, evolutionists interpret evidence based on the "fact" that macroevolution is true. This is in it of itself only an OPINION/ASSUMPTION, and not a fact.
When you assume things based on other assumptions, you are not really getting closer to the truth.
Where should we start? the earliest societies of hunters and gatherers and the social ramifications?
Yet genetics and molecular biology are NOT dependent on assumptions of common ancestry, like some claim here.
The burden of proof is on you on that one. Why is similar DNA the result of common ancestry?
It's a difference in interpretation. You have NO EVIDENCE that a bacteria just squeezed in our cells and evolved into our mini power plant, and I can show you the intricate design of a self-sufficient vital structure within our cells, that COULD NOT have arisen by random mutations. Again, you have to assume evolution is true, in order to consider the mitochondria as evidence for evolution.
If we are both looking at a ball in the ground, and you say the ball was kicked from across the street, then bounced in the wall, then it hit a lady that was passing by, to ultimately land at a certain spot, while I say that someone came in and placed the ball there... we both have opinions, but yours is less plausible than mine due to natural laws.
Now you are changing the subject. My contention was the study of macro evolution through HGT's was integral to human progress. The principles we learned through HGT (whether it even happened or not, where it happened or not) will help us develop some of the most intriguing science in the coming future. This, solidifies the fact that the study of macro evolution was/is worthwhile to human progress.Bulla564 said:
Buttchin said:
The more we learn, the more we know of their actual functions. SEE!! there IS progress in science!!
Nobody does.
devilhawk said:
That is not macroevolution. It's a hypothetical step to macroevolution. HGT's can be studied without the extrapolations of humans evolving into different creatures.
Hitokage said:
The stories of fish to reptiles, of apes to human, of dinosaurs to birds, etc, have NO significance in understanding the current structures and roles within an ecosystem of different species.
There is no "looking to the past, to understand the future" in evolution. Ecologists are not helped by knowing that "... durr yeah this COULD HAVE evolved from this.... DERP DERP this probably evolved from that... HURRR"
A waste of resources.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
He really has no idea how any of this actually works. It's both fascinating and depressing.
It very much is macro evolution. It is studied under its pretense regardless. It is important in the endosymbiotic theory which is a crucial step in the evolution of humans.Bulla564 said:
I still want you to tell me that the studying of endosymbiosis and HGT's is not integral to human progress.
But you're opposed to getting more facts? You realize noone has all the facts yet you claim you already know the truth. Now you're undermining yourself. You can't know the truth without all the facts.Bulla564 said:
And yes facts are not set in stone. I think that's what makes the idea of a world that changes constantly so hard for you to come to terms with. It used to be a fact that the world was flat relative to our understanding. Everything we discover is relative to our understanding, we're unable to know what the truth is unless we have all the facts. We shouldn't stop the persuit of the truth just because you have found a truth you find easy to swallow.
One field of science can give birth to many other fields. You can't say what is being discovered is useless, because you can't know.
Boozeroony
Member
Wow, there are no words...
Will read again!
Will read again!
Naked Snake
Member
Hitokage said:
I swear I come into many threads only to read your posts. It blows my mind how you know so much about every damn subject.
Looks like he still clings to irreducible complexity too.Dragona Akehi said:
- Status