TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Biochemistry chart of a single human cell
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Saka Ok.

What "ok"? Read the damn book lol!

quote:

Originally posted by Saka So you're saying that at no time in evolution there pinned something happening on chance? A chance that a certain chemical was produced at a certain time to mean something progressed. No being can determine the next stage of itself on such a complex biomechanical level simply by selection. Any cell that evolved is by far more complex than a watch, so I dare any TA here to grab all the components of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them for millions of years til a working watch forms. Or even better, a watch that can then better itself to be more accurate Especially a watch that is more complex to the point of life.

That argument is self defeating, as organized complexity is what we are trying to explain. By definition, any god (assuming you posit a god) would be far more complex than a single cell, so therefore your argument can be turned against you.

As for this 'random chance' argument you evolution deniers like to bring up, you need to realise that the Universe is vast beyond measure, and there are an estimated 100 billion billion planets in the universe. When you multiply that with the amount of time available, the chances of the conditions being just right to allow simple life to form start to improve...we know it has happenned at least once, because we are here. That's abiogenesis anyway, but seriously, you need to read more about evolution, because the arguments you are presenting have been debunked years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN What "ok"? Read the damn book lol!

Awesome book, I have it beside me . Chapter 6 in particular is brilliant, 'Of Origins and miracles'.

There is no "forethought" in evolution. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Over a long enough time, "chance" is able to give you the incredible variation and complexity you see today. Life has been around for about 3.8 billion years. Humans have only been around for the last 200,000 of those, or 1/19000 of the time since life has existed. Small, random changes that gave added fitness over 3.8 billion years is why we're so complex. Or else the super being that made us sure as hell took his time.

quote:

Originally posted by Saka So you're saying that at no time in evolution there pinned something happening on chance?

Not at all. Mutations are largely due to chance factors. But the selection for or against them is not "random."

It would be sort of like composing a poem by picking random combinations of letters and only keeping the ones that spelled meaningful words. Would take a long time, but it could be done...

quote:

Any cell that evolved is by far more complex than a watch, so I dare any TA here to grab all the components of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them for millions of years til a working watch forms.

You're assuming that cells have always been the same, and that there weren't even simpler types of "cells" that were eventually outcompeted by the ancestors of the ones we see today. Those are not valid assumptions. No evolutionary biologist would say that life began with today's prokaryotes jumping straight out of the ooze.

By the way, there are actual laboratory-observed examples of animals evolving new biochemical mechanisms, such as E. Coli bacteria which have evolved the ability to metabolize citrate:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...in-the-lab.html

evolution is a fact its not a theory..

actually let me repharse. The theory of evoultion is similar to the theory of gravity.


do some reading before you make some ignorant comments like this Saka.

Evolution can be demonstrated on bacteria. genes have been mapped. Mutations have been forced. Now throw the environment and nature into play and you just have added a randomness to it.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Yeah, but most of our genes evolved long before that, especially the ones involved in all the chemical processes outlined on that page. We share 90% of our genes with mice, and about 96% with chimps.

Endoplasmic Reticulum are the microscopic swirly slid vaginas. But for RNA cawks.

Endoplasmic Reticulum own face.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit actually let me repharse. The theory of evoultion is similar to the theory of gravity.

That's a load of bullshit.

Gravity is far too complex to 'just exist' by coincidence. There must be an intelligent being pushing things downward.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine That's a load of bullshit. Gravity is far too complex to 'just exist' by coincidence. There must be an intelligent being pushing things downward.

I'm pretty sure the borders of the universe are patrolled by sandworms.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine There must be an intelligent being pushing things downward.

Curses, they're on to me!

I believe in evolution, but I also believe Dawkins has the idiot gene.

Anyway, I don't think someone needs to be labeled an "evolution denier" if the person raises legitimate questions about the Darwinian theory of evolution. His theory was both intensely embraced as well as intensely scrutinized by many of the great scientists of the time. I remember a prominent botanist raised some interesting points, it's a shame I cant remember his name, I'll try and look it up.

I think that evolution needs to be developed more (that play on words wasn't intentional) and I think it's rather silly to simply paint legitimate criticism with the creationist or "denier" brush. Evolution is a matter of science and should be treated as such. Lots of criticism and less blind acknowledgment like naturalists love to label people who don't share their opinions.

I also think the issue of evolution, and science in general, should remain an agnostic one to keep the bull shit opinions of both parties (super-naturalists and naturalists) and all the nonsensical meta-physics separate from the real scientific work. Obviously that wont happen though, a Baptists will say dinosaurs were on the ark and Dawkins will say that evolution explains everything ever. C'est la vie.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I think that evolution needs to be developed more (that play on words wasn't intentional) and I think it's rather silly to simply paint legitimate criticism with the creationist or "denier" brush.

when they stop being a creationist or denier then we'll stop calling them such. i dont think anyone mistakes legitimate criticism and scientific scrutiny with the obvious bollocks of the ID brigade. being ridiculed is what they deserve.

Well, do you mean intelligent designers as the ones that just re-made creationism and called it intelligent design?

Or do you mean the people like the head of the human genome project that claim "intelligent design" as counterpart to evolution?

I agree that if someone wants to re-brand Creationism as intelligent design just for the sake of not being laughed at, they still deserve the humiliation.

Its obvious that humans and dinosaurs were living at the same time. hell they still are. KFD anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Its obvious that humans and dinosaurs were living at the same time. hell they still are. KFD anyone?

You think it's funny. I don't.

Some of the people I've grown up with are Baptists and truly believe that not only were dinosaurs on the ark but that they also still exist. I used to laugh, but now I realize that they are truly serious and I've had to go through the process of using both Darwin's theories as well as those of other prominent evolutionary thinkers. Huxley is actually one of the best to use, he was Darwin's attack dog more or less and was an agnostic. In fact I think he invented the term agnostic, anyway some of the points he used in his debates really resonate and sink in with die hard creationists, so I tend to reference back to him whenever I'm talking with someone who outright denies evolution as completely false.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Well, do you mean intelligent designers as the ones that just re-made creationism and called it intelligent design? Or do you mean the people like the head of the human genome project that claim "intelligent design" as counterpart to evolution? I agree that if someone wants to re-brand Creationism as intelligent design just for the sake of not being laughed at, they still deserve the humiliation.

i mean anyone that believes there is a place for god when discussing biological and ecological diversity. anyone who tries to poke holes in evolution because of their assumed premise (god exists), and also because they are unable to present their own competing idea that doesn't stink of fecal matter.

engaging in polite debate is nice and all (or so i hear! ) but some ideas gain legitimacy that way. i'll stick to mockery, simply because im no biologist

lol Dawkins. No bigger tool exists.

I don't find a belief in a god and evolution incompatible.

quote:

Originally posted by Renzo lol Dawkins. No bigger tool exists.

Well... Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but he made the school boy error of poking his nose into meta-physics, philosophy and religion.

Three things he knows absolutely nothing about and demonstrates on a frequent basis.

The guy did win a nobel prize, so props to him for being a brilliant man of science, but many of the "debunking" he does in his books isn't based on science and I think people need to be made aware of that and then make up their own minds.

Not to mention he's an arrogant prick .

** The above in bold is a scientific statement, 9 out of 10 dentists recommend it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Three things he knows absolutely nothing about and demonstrates on a frequent basis.

unlike say, priests of course who are real experts on the unknowable

They certainly are!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.