So i was talking of darwin to some friend
-
Said someone who never bothers to actually study the evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
All species (all living things with DNA, actually) CAN gain DNA 'structures' beyond what it has. DNA mutates all the time. I reckon you yourself have maybe 100 new mutations in your DNA.
Science IS observation (of facts) and assumption (creation of theories). What do you think it is if it's not those two?
There is nothing in the article you posted that says that because there is no proof of any macroevolution and its not likely to be one. I would be very skeptical about any science that Darwanist bring you, its is a religious ideology as much as it is a science.
-
There is nothing in the article you posted that says that because there is no proof of any macroevolution and its not likely to be one. I would be very skeptical about any science that Darwanist bring you, its is a religious ideology as much as it is a science.
What can I say? Your mind's already made up. It would be futile for me to offer you evidence. brickwall
-
What can I say? Your mind's already made up. It would be futile for me to offer you evidence. brickwall
I am not stubborn as people think, this is one of the problems with non face to face communication. '(
I am just going to tell you be carefull when you are dealing with evolutionary science, the scientist are mostly atheist and have very strong attachments with evolution science. They will tell you amny things without explaining it or misleading you. All the experiments they have done is micro evolution especially with the fruit fly, all the experiments produced deformed non functional variations and not one was beneficial. And all the fruit fly polulation recovered their normal genes in future generations. There is no evidence ever of any macro evolution and no evidence ever of any mutation that has benefits to an organism, mutations are mal functions and not benefits. Most scientist in biology are atheist, so I am just saying they know evolution is their meal ticket and have a dogmatic attachment to it. Like Sunnis with hadiths, I am not stubborn, I used to believe in it till I started seeing debates and counter arguments and detected that the scientist hide stuff and use deception.
You know about the famous Richard Dawkins 14 seconds of silence when asked this specific question, notice his answer, time, time can make the impossible happen. Is this science, that time can make anything happen?
We know that plates are moving around the Earth as we speak, we know that activity is taking place in the mountain ranges and height, we know that plates are overlapping and goiing in some cases underneath eact other as we speak. We know stars are born, galaxies are forming, stars are bursting and other activities as we speak. Yet when it comes to evolution, we have nothing. Thats why I am skeptical because the evidence does not match the theory yet its presented by scientist as if it does.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMoQf5CG93c
-
I am just going to tell you be carefull when you are dealing with evolutionary science, the scientist are mostly atheist and have very strong attachments with evolution science. They will tell you amny things without explaining it or misleading you. All the experiments they have done is micro evolution especially with the fruit fly, all the experiments produced deformed non functional variations and not one was beneficial. And all the fruit fly polulation recovered their normal genes in future generations. There is no evidence ever of any macro evolution and no evidence ever of any mutation that has benefits to an organism, mutations are mal functions and not benefits. Most scientist in biology are atheist, so I am just saying they know evolution is their meal ticket and have a dogmatic attachment to it. Like Sunnis with hadiths, I am not stubborn, I used to believe in it till I started seeing debates and counter arguments and detected that the scientist hide stuff and use deception.
Like I said, you didn't look like you'd even bother to look at the evidence from that FAQ I gave you. Fruit flies? I could show you some breeding experiments that gave them beneficial features, but chances are you're gonna say 'they're still flies'. Microevolution repeated countless times becomes macroevolution. This kind of extrapolation is standard practice in science; even 'direct evidence' of the Big Bang is similar to 'microevolution' because it consists of small remnants of the primordial explosion.
You know about the famous Richard Dawkins 14 seconds of silence when asked this specific question, notice his answer, time, time can make the impossible happen. Is this science, that time can make anything happen?
Yes I know, and it's explained here http//www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
He wasn't trying to say that given time, what can happen is not the impossible, but events with small probability. The two are different things. Impossible things can never happen. Improbable things can happen, very rarely.
We know that plates are moving around the Earth as we speak, we know that activity is taking place in the mountain ranges and height, we know that plates are overlapping and goiing in some cases underneath eact other as we speak. We know stars are born, galaxies are forming, stars are bursting and other activities as we speak. Yet when it comes to evolution, we have nothing. Thats why I am skeptical because the evidence does not match the theory yet its presented by scientist as if it does.
Wow, what double standard! Evidence for all things that you mentioned is of the 'microevolution' type--we don't see the actual separation of America and the Old World, we see mid-Atlantic seafloor spreading by centimeters per year and then extrapolate to say that once the Americas were joined with Africa and Europe millions of years ago. Same goes to evolution we observe examples of natural selection causing changes in organisms' traits and we extrapolate that this process adds up to large-scale evolution taking place in millions of years. But somehow you don't want to extrapolate when it comes to evolution. I'm not surprised.
And about atheist scientists... funny when they say something religious people like, the religious forget that the scientists are still atheists and embraced the scientists' ideas.
-
Like I said, you didn't look like you'd even bother to look at the evidence from that FAQ I gave you. Fruit flies? I could show you some breeding experiments that gave them beneficial features, but chances are you're gonna say 'they're still flies'. Microevolution repeated countless times becomes macroevolution. This kind of extrapolation is standard practice in science; even 'direct evidence' of the Big Bang is similar to 'microevolution' because it consists of small remnants of the primordial explosion.
Yes I know, and it's explained here http//www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
He wasn't trying to say that given time, what can happen is not the impossible, but events with small probability. The two are different things. Impossible things can never happen. Improbable things can happen, very rarely.
Wow, what double standard! Evidence for all things that you mentioned is of the 'microevolution' type--we don't see the actual separation of America and the Old World, we see mid-Atlantic seafloor spreading by centimeters per year and then extrapolate to say that once the Americas were joined with Africa and Europe millions of years ago. Same goes to evolution we observe examples of natural selection causing changes in organisms' traits and we extrapolate that this process adds up to large-scale evolution taking place in millions of years. But somehow you don't want to extrapolate when it comes to evolution. I'm not surprised.
And about atheist scientists... funny when they say something religious people like, the religious forget that the scientists are still atheists and embraced the scientists' ideas.
I know about Stephen Jay, he is one of the reasons I began to see Darwanism as a dogma. Like Sunni Islam they will tell us what they think we should know, never presenting the facts. When cornered as we know they are forced to downplay themselves. Otherwise they will run their mouth like everything is all gravy and cream.
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."?*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."?Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual?would still not produce a new species!
"In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a species in nature."?*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.
The obstinate, stubborn little creatures!
"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."?*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MUTATED FRUIT FLIES?
We have had opportunity to clearly learn what mutations do to a physical organism.Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.
"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."?*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.
"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.
The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them.
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."?*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.
No new-species fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world?flies which produce a new generation every eleven days?they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."?*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.
Pitman says the experiments have only produced geneticists' monsters.
"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."?*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.
SUMMARY
Once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly.http//www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
I love the ending ;D
I am not saying that evolution is proven to be true or false, I am just saying I like to be careful about the science behind it, its very shaky and its inflated and often the science thats discovered questions the theory. Or so it seems. But many scientist never clarify them due to their dogma except when they are cornered . There is no observation that has EVER been found to show how any type of evolution is occuring in any of the millions of life form on Earth. While we see it in plate tectonics and star formation, we have never seen it in life form. Why should organizm evolution just stop.
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
And why all this, because for an atheist this is the problem
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
They have to believe in it, thats why.
-
See, I told you. You're not being fair with the evidence.
Microevolution is just like seafloor spreading or Big Bang radiation remnants. Small-scale evidence that can validly be extrapolated to larger events (Evolution, Big Bang, continental drift). We know there is observational evidence of evolution at a small scale. You just don't want to extrapolate it because you're already committed to see evolution as false.
And I know you didn't even bother to read the link from stephenjaygould.org because it wasn't SJG talking, it was someone else analysing creationist tactics to make Dawkins look foolish. Instead you try to shift the argument by selectively quoting SJG as if he's a creationist... I could use your tactic quoting the same person saying that transitional forms had been found, or evolution is the best theory ever.
And your sources are old. Cut-n-paste from creationist sites, I guess.
-
See, I told you. You're not being fair with the evidence.
Microevolution is just like seafloor spreading or Big Bang radiation remnants. Small-scale evidence that can validly be extrapolated to larger events (Evolution, Big Bang, continental drift). We know there is observational evidence of evolution at a small scale. You just don't want to extrapolate it because you're already committed to see evolution as false.
And I know you didn't even bother to read the link from stephenjaygould.org because it wasn't SJG talking, it was someone else analysing creationist tactics to make Dawkins look foolish. Instead you try to shift the argument by selectively quoting SJG as if he's a creationist... I could use your tactic quoting the same person saying that transitional forms had been found, or evolution is the best theory ever.
And your sources are old. Cut-n-paste from creationist sites, I guess.
If there was small scale evolution then by now some organism would have gone somewhere in their evolutionary path. Yet we see nothing, all species are exactly the way they are.
I don't know maybe I am the stubborn one but I think the evidence is too weak to be science and remains scientifically unattainable. There are volcanoes that erupt every now and then all across our solar system and we know stars burst and some are just forming yet we have never seen any evolutionary changes in species, most who have been around for millions and millions of years. By now these small scale evolutions should have manifested itself and there should be literally millions of transitional species but i see nothing, nobody has seen nothing so know its faith and not science. giveup
-
If there was small scale evolution then by now some organism would have gone somewhere in their evolutionary path. Yet we see nothing, all species are exactly the way they are.
I don't know maybe I am the stubborn one but I think the evidence is too weak to be science and remains scientifically unattainable. There are volcanoes that erupt every now and then all across our solar system and we know stars burst and some are just forming yet we have never seen any evolutionary changes in species, most who have been around for millions and millions of years. By now these small scale evolutions should have manifested itself and there should be literally millions of transitional species but i see nothing, nobody has seen nothing so know its faith and not science. giveup
We have been civilised at most for 4000-6000 years. I don't think, even if your great-great-great-*100-grandfather were alive, he would even observe macroevolution. That sort of thing takes hundreds of millions of years, billions even.
-
If there was small scale evolution then by now some organism would have gone somewhere in their evolutionary path. Yet we see nothing, all species are exactly the way they are.
I don't know maybe I am the stubborn one but I think the evidence is too weak to be science and remains scientifically unattainable. There are volcanoes that erupt every now and then all across our solar system and we know stars burst and some are just forming yet we have never seen any evolutionary changes in species, most who have been around for millions and millions of years. By now these small scale evolutions should have manifested itself and there should be literally millions of transitional species but i see nothing, nobody has seen nothing so know its faith and not science. giveup
Well, check back the fossil record of, say, one million years ago. The humans are different. A lot of the animals are different.
Go back further, say 5 million years ago. You won't see humans but you might see ancient apes. Also the beasts get less familiar. The elephants, horses would be different.
Go back even further and you'll see life getting less and less similar to what we see today.
Of course by now these small scale evolutions have manifested itself. All life forms today are the product of those millions of years of evolution!
Btw, you accept both Big Bang and plate tectonics right? Those two also imply extrapolations of a similar scale. If you trace back into an initial state based on the current movement rate of galaxies, you get one spot (the Big Bang) after some billions of years. That's an extrapolation far longer than all evolution. Same goes with plate tectonics. If we trace back the formation time of the Atlantic Ocean based on current seafloor spreading rates, we find that it started to form (which is similar with saying America and the old world began to separate) some 150 million years ago. Back then dinosaurs were still around!
So there should be no obstacles against extrapolating the small changes of microevolution into large-scale evolution.
-
Well, check back the fossil record of, say, one million years ago. The humans are different. A lot of the animals are different.
Go back further, say 5 million years ago. You won't see humans but you might see ancient apes. Also the beasts get less familiar. The elephants, horses would be different.
Go back even further and you'll see life getting less and less similar to what we see today.
Of course by now these small scale evolutions have manifested itself. All life forms today are the product of those millions of years of evolution!
Btw, you accept both Big Bang and plate tectonics right? Those two also imply extrapolations of a similar scale. If you trace back into an initial state based on the current movement rate of galaxies, you get one spot (the Big Bang) after some billions of years. That's an extrapolation far longer than all evolution. Same goes with plate tectonics. If we trace back the formation time of the Atlantic Ocean based on current seafloor spreading rates, we find that it started to form (which is similar with saying America and the old world began to separate) some 150 million years ago. Back then dinosaurs were still around!
So there should be no obstacles against extrapolating the small changes of microevolution into large-scale evolution.
Plate tectonics and star formulation are not one events that started then formulatd all at once. There are stars that are being formed right now, there are plates that are being formed right now and they are emerging from the depth of the Ocean. Its a cycle, but with evolution we have no known events NOW where we can see some form of evolution taking place within certain species. We see no living cell coming to be, we see no reptiles slowly in the process of transforming of reptiles, we see no primates slowly transforming to humans. All species are exactly as they are, but all plates or stars are not exactly as they are.
The only thing the scientist have is species appear in fossil records in stages, but they appear suddenly without any hint of them having been transformed. As far as human fossils are concerned, I have seen many documentaries, its all subjective reasoning. Many of these fossils could have been just extinct primates, but then they will tell us well these were our ancestors. So how can you argue that? But how can you prove that, one way is to see the transition occuring in fossil records but as always they do not have any and many of their evidence of ancestory are all subjective and even they interpret it differently. But they never show us developing species. We know thats impossible since no species can aquire a new DNA info to slowly transform to a different species. These transitions need thousands of year to take place and there should be ample fossil evidence. Plus species should be evolving at different rates depending on their environment. Ask yourself, with all these species on Earth why can't we see any transition taking place? Even if its small scale, it should be available for us to see and observe. Scientist can even tell us how the first living cell came to be, let alone they evolving. They can't even tell us how scientifically it could have taken place since as I said there is no scientific way new information can enter a DNA. They can't even tell us where and how that DNA came from in the first place. These observation they rely on could be a Divine trick that God created species in stages according to their complexity, if you think about it thats all they really have. Maybe God created a slow emerging food chain or maybe God wanted to test Humans with these stages. But this is not science. They immediately assumed that they evolved from earlier species since fossil records show stages of complexity. Thats all they really have, everything think is desperately looking for that smoking gun. Their logic is why would there be stages unless they evolved from each other, and then they make HUGE assumptions and interpret evidence based on these assumption even if the science can not support it.
Its very shaky.
-
Bigmo, I've already predicted that you're using a double standard.
Your posts so far only repeat the point 'I don't want to extrapolate because I don't want to consider evolution true'.
-
Bigmo, I've already predicted that you're using a double standard.
Your posts so far only repeat the point 'I don't want to extrapolate because I don't want to consider evolution true'.
Didn't I tell you its like having a hadith debate, just like some Muslims will tell you
"So you are telling me all those Ulema were wrong all these centuries?", now you are also saying "So what are you telling me, all these scientist are wrong?".
Its true, just watch the scientist debating, tell will make of fun of intelligent design, just yesterday one of them i heard say he could have been a better designer. Watch how they make fun of intelligent design and watch how they always conspire against IDers. One of them even made fun of "One nation under God to one nation under dog!".
How can you trust people who think this creation is silly and deficient and they could have done a better job and think people who believe in a Creator are stupid. 95% of the top biologist are atheist, you still do not know that its a religion but their god is chance and the be and it is is 4.5 billion yeras.
Just watch a debate between the two, and you will see how many of these scientist really think and why they continue to hold on to chance and its getting pretty obvious that its a miracle beyond science. One scientist cracked a joke once in a science forum that if God is a designer than He is an under achiever. They all laughed. I knew then they are speaking from kufr and not science.
They interpret science from a kufr standpoint and they have found in science a way to make dawa' for kufr. When in fact science teaches the exact opposite which is what ID is trying to do. One of the creators of the brilliant documentary " the priveleged planet" , Guillermo Gonzalez, has been denied tenure at Iowa State even though he was the best academic there because he talked about the miracle of planet Earth in a documentary. There was even no mention of God in that documentary. You can get it at youtube, these scientist are a mafia of atheists and they want to kick out anyone who is not one even if he is a better scientist than them.
Watch their arrogance and mockery of God and His creation and their mockery of IDers. Even the pagan Arabs gave better argument than them. Notice how he in the end he said" we should not ask ourselves why most scientist do not believe in a Creator but why all of them don't."
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRXxxu-t2kA
-
now you are also saying "So what are you telling me, all these scientist are wrong?".
No, what I'm asking is why you don't want to learn about the evidence for evolution, and refuse to extrapolate on evolution while you're okay with the same thing for plate tectonics and cosmology.
That's why I say your mind's already made up. You want to see that evolution is wrong so you can't be bothered to learn.
-
No, what I'm asking is why you don't want to learn about the evidence for evolution, and refuse to extrapolate on evolution while you're okay with the same thing for plate tectonics and cosmology.
That's why I say your mind's already made up. You want to see that evolution is wrong so you can't be bothered to learn.
I told you I spent hours and hours about evolution. I have in my hard disk two documentaries about the origins of man, about how scientist went about finding the discoveries of human origins including the story of the neanderthals and Lucy. I have a 6 series documentary about the Earth. I have watched many debates between the two. If you mean did I read a PHD seminary about evolution, then No i didn't. But I have read and watched enough. I have many documentaries(12) about the universe. Just yesterday I watched Filipenko talk about the anti gravity in princeton. Incredible stuff.
Evolution Darwainst is a dogma, its not like any other science. Most scientist can explain to you were the evidence came from and how, but evolutionist bring impossible things with caricatures and pictures and paintings to fool you. Its all story telling like hadiths. The rely on presumbed assumptions and when you see them talk especially against intelligent design you see the kufr. Its a dogma, nobody can ever go to a geaologist and debate with him about plate tectonics. First of all they are not involved in dogma, and they can show you why they reached the conclusions they reach and most of all HOW it could have happened scientifically. They maybe not able to prove to you whether thats what happened, but they can tell you HOW it could have happened and its not based on chance or luck but on a science theory. This science theory is missing when you deal with evolution, at least the Darwinian one. This is because they rely on RANDOM mutation and NATURAL selection for that. Think about that. You watch the other scienec discipline and you can see where they are going, but evolution of species its a lot of story telling and pictures and art and imaginations. Its an atheist adventure through the supposed past.
-
Peace all,
How about EVOLUTION BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN ? (Crevolution)
http//www.mostmerciful.com/creations-eternally-evolved-by-intellegent-design.htm
-
Peace all,
How about EVOLUTION BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN ? (Crevolution)
http//www.mostmerciful.com/creations-eternally-evolved-by-intellegent-design.htm
But thats not science, there is no evidence yet that evolution is scientifically possible. Let me explain it.
You need to show how
Nature alone could have helped create the first living cell.
Through random mutation species can gain advantageous traits and physical properties.
They can regain and pass down these advantageous random mutations to subsequent generation.
Further random mutation can then lead to traits and properties beyond whats contained in the initial DNA structure thus providing new information to its DNA structure.
The species can maintain that new DNA information and pass it down to subsequent generations.
The process can continue and in time a new species can evolve all through slow gradual random mutation adding slowly new information to its DNA structure
Once you can show all this scientifically possible, then you can try to find fossil records to prove this is what happened.
Meanwhile how are you going to explain that all scientific evidence has shown this is NOT possible and indeed random mutation almost always is fatal or destructive and new DNA is not possible and has never occured.
If you can do that and the IDers can do that then I hail you and them.
Meanwhile I wouldn't hold my breath.
Using intelligent design is not science. ID is a way to EXPLAIN how evolution COULD HAVE happened by invoking a Divine touch to make what otherwise is not possible scientifically.
-
peace Bigmo,
Scientists have recreated the birth of amino acids in a lab by creating the same conditions as on earth a few billion years ago.
And the fact that bacteria become immune to antibiotics is proof that nature can indeed give species advantageous traits and they can be passed down to the offsprings. -
Peace Lobster,
Scientists have recreated the birth of amino acids in a lab by creating the same conditions as on earth a few billion years ago.
And the fact that bacteria become immune to antibiotics is proof that nature can indeed give species advantageous traits and they can be passed down to the offsprings.I believe bacteria do NOT become immune rather the already immune ones survive and replicate.
They created amino acids in a test-tube which were also detected in meteorites. Odds are astronomical going from amino acids to cells which reproduce. Experiment also produced other products which would kill the process.
http//www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/mols/aastructure.gif
This is like saying silicon molecules will evolve into super computers which are nothing more than 0?s and 1?s or combinations of simple yes/no logic with no mention of the meticulous construct and millions lines of code involved in the programming.
They assume gases, clay, and water hit by lighting created a bacterium creature with DNA code and it somehow was able to start to eat, shit, and replicate until a rift happened between ancestors of trees and people who decided to stop being tree-huggers?lol
No explanation for initial origin of life or its decay/death programmed in DNA.
Once again, experiment did NOT produce life only amino acids (wrong type are detrimental to life) which is analogous to growing Silicon Germanium in a lab, leaving it alone for a billion years expecting it will evolve into a trillion supercomputers each with billion lines of "intelligent program code" able to replicate itself (make backup copies), produce it's own children (create newer advanced computers), and age/die/delete it?s own account (nun de plume# rm -rf / ) at appropriate time.
Even oldest species on earth "cyanobacteria" has been unchanged for 3-4 billion years is more complex than today?s fastest supercomputers being built...
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5322704.stm
As a side note; I was at Lawrence Livermore Labs meeting with the folks running BlueGene (world?s fastest super compute cluster) which has over 28 PetaBytes of data mostly for simulations to ensure nuclear stockpiles are ?ready? and reason US signed the non proliferation treaty; no need for real tests when you can safely simulate.
With all of today?s knowledge and using world?s fastest computers doing experiments in ?controlled? environments can not succeed ? they produce a few proteins by spiking the bioreactor with genes?
http//pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-lib...ells_8460.html
Less than a year ago, Libchaber and Vincent Noireaux, a postdoc in his lab, created a vesicle bioreactor, where a phospholipid membrane surrounds an essential-nutrient containing liquid. Into this sphere, they placed a small strand of DNA containing three genes. They showed that this cell-like structure could produce proteins and sustain itself for up to four days as long as the environment remained stable. Since then, Libchaber and Noireaux, along with three other colleagues, have tackled other basic problems that cells have to face every day.
Take away the vesicle bioreactor, computers, people, and leave only rocks and gases, then let?s see what gets created. Nothing!
They?d do better making yogurt and pickled tomatoes?LOL
-
Peace Lobster,
I believe bacteria do NOT become immune rather the already immune ones survive and replicate.
They created amino acids in a test-tube which were also detected in meteorites. Odds are astronomical going from amino acids to cells which reproduce. Experiment also produced other products which would kill the process.
http//www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/mols/aastructure.gif
This is like saying silicon molecules will evolve into super computers which are nothing more than 0?s and 1?s or combinations of simple yes/no logic with no mention of the meticulous construct and millions lines of code involved in the programming.
They assume gases, clay, and water hit by lighting created a bacterium creature with DNA code and it somehow was able to start to eat, s***, and replicate until a rift happened between ancestors of trees and people who decided to stop being tree-huggers?lol
No explanation for initial origin of life or its decay/death programmed in DNA.
Once again, experiment did NOT produce life only amino acids (wrong type are detrimental to life) which is analogous to growing Silicon Germanium in a lab, leaving it alone for a billion years expecting it will evolve into a trillion supercomputers each with billion lines of "intelligent program code" able to replicate itself (make backup copies), produce it's own children (create newer advanced computers), and age/die/delete it?s own account (nun de plume# rm -rf / ) at appropriate time.
Even oldest species on earth "cyanobacteria" has been unchanged for 3-4 billion years is more complex than today?s fastest supercomputers being built...
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5322704.stm
As a side note; I was at Lawrence Livermore Labs meeting with the folks running BlueGene (world?s fastest super compute cluster) which has over 28 PetaBytes of data mostly for simulations to ensure nuclear stockpiles are ?ready? and reason US signed the non proliferation treaty; no need for real tests when you can safely simulate.
With all of today?s knowledge and using world?s fastest computers doing experiments in ?controlled? environments can not succeed ? they produce a few proteins by spiking the bioreactor with genes?
http//pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-lib...ells_8460.html
Take away the vesicle bioreactor, computers, people, and leave only rocks and gases, then let?s see what gets created. Nothing!
They?d do better making yogurt and pickled tomatoes?LOL
DAMN!!!