Originally posted by sonhouseI went back to the beginning and realized I missed this one too.
kelly: The light from the star that left one billion years ago only gives how far away it is, one billion light years by definition, the distance light travels in one year: 5.8 trillion miles times one billion means the star is 5.8 E12 plus 1 E 9 = 5.8 E 21 miles away. Thats all you can say without further analysis of the light, but you gave that as a given ...[text shortened]... egrate thousands of photons together to get a reliable reading of its spectrum. Does that help?
I did not say that the star light left the star one billion years
ago, you assumed that.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by nickybuttWhy do you think this is true? That what you don't need you do not
One of the cornerstomes of the TOE is this: What you don't need you don't have. Plants don't need eyes therefor they don't have eyes. Just like our common ancestors didn't need to see in the dark therefor we and other Primates don't have night vision.
get? I thought all the changes in DNA were random, you seem to
suggest design of some kind, even the words natural selection seems
to suggest a plan of sorts as somethings are truly being selected. It
would seem to me that we would see things that really have little or
no value if all changes were random. Had not thought of this before,
but why do people believe this? It isn't like the DNA strands are
watching to see if we require eyes to see in the dark or light, or gills,
or winds, or whatever.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayGets my rec, KJ.
Why do you think this is true? That what you don't need you do not
get? I thought all the changes in DNA were random, you seem to
suggest design of some kind, even the words natural selection seems
to suggest a plan of sorts as something are truly being selected. It
would seem to me that we would see things that really have little or
no value if all c ...[text shortened]... o see if we require eyes to see in the dark or light, or gills,
or winds, or whatever.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe do see all sorts of traits in the natural world that serve no purpose, or are postively harmful to theit bearer (the appendix, for instance). Don't get hung up on the term 'selection' in natural selection. Evolution is a blind process.
Why do you think this is true? That what you don't need you do not
get? I thought all the changes in DNA were random, you seem to
suggest design of some kind, even the words natural selection seems
to suggest a plan of sorts as something are truly being selected. It
would seem to me that we would see things that really have little or
no value if all c ...[text shortened]... o see if we require eyes to see in the dark or light, or gills,
or winds, or whatever.
Kelly
Originally posted by bbarr
We do see all sorts of traits in the natural world that serve no purpose, or are postively harmful to theit bearer (the appendix, for instance). Don't get hung up on the term 'selection' in natural selection. Evolution is a blind process.
.... until of course the eye came into the picture 😛
Originally posted by KellyJayAs far as I know, changes in DNA are random, but given enough time a pattern begins to form. This is what natural selection is all about.
Why do you think this is true? That what you don't need you do not
get? I thought all the changes in DNA were random, you seem to
suggest design of some kind, even the words natural selection seems
to suggest a plan of sorts as somethings are truly being selected. It
would seem to me that we would see things that really have little or
no value if all ...[text shortened]... o see if we require eyes to see in the dark or light, or gills,
or winds, or whatever.
Kelly
Do you know what natural selection is?
There are of course exceptions, like male nipples, but in general the body is a fine tuned machine with no extra features.
Originally posted by nickybuttI know it isn't about patterns, where are you getting that?
As far as I know, changes in DNA are random, but given enough time a pattern begins to form. This is what [b]natural selection is all about.
Do you know what natural selection is?
There are of course exceptions, like male nipples, but in general the body is a fine tuned machine with no extra features.
[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by bbarrI understand it is blind, but selection implies something doesn't it?
We do see all sorts of traits in the natural world that serve no purpose, or are postively harmful to theit bearer (the appendix, for instance). Don't get hung up on the term 'selection' in natural selection. Evolution is a blind process.
I believe that natural selection is coined to say that those changes
that are helpful survive and give advantage to those that get them.
This would work like gravidity in my opinion as it simply forces the
good changes to work within DNA and allow only the stronger,
faster, smarter and so on to survive; like gravidity forces everything
to fall back to the earth it simply is the way it is.
.
Nothing about these changes to acquire these types of mutations
seem natural to me when most changes within DNA seem to cause
death or weakness than strength and speed and so on. Let alone
getting various body parts to cooperate simultaneously in a highly
precise manner in many of the systems, and within living creatures
all the way down to cells for that matter.
With gravity it is on display at all times, we see the affects, with
natural selection it seems to hide itself well in the world of genetic
changes, why is that? A force that supposedly caused all the millions
of diverse life to spring up once life came from non-life I’d think
would be easy to identify like gravity, but instead most mutations
seem to do something completely different that what is advertised by
the evolutionary theory crowd, death, weakness, and so on.
Kelly