1 edit
Originally posted by micarrValvi ad satanam in computatrum meum ivocandum🙂
Quote from punchline/takehome message of abstract on mimivirus paper in Science (a very respected US journal) I mentioned "The size and complexity of the Mimivirus genome challenge the established frontier between viruses and parasitic cellular organisms. This new sequence data might help shed a new light on the origin of DNA viruses and their role in the ear gnorant of the 90% at least of it but really incredible and inspirational work by these teams.
Hey, howcome a nice Irish lad such as yourself spouts latin when you could be fascinating us with garlic?
OK KISS I hear ya! We are starting to get a handle albeit a glimpse (work, work) of what the early "building blocks" of life was like before the major eukaryotic bauplan was laid down dare I say 2.2 BYo and maybe bafore. Viruses are tiny pesky critters in the traditonal story however a Kuhnian paradigm shift is occuriing where we are forced in light of clear data i.e. a new gigantic virus that things aint so simple. Please see giantvirus.org.
Originally posted by sonhouseHaha are you following me or me you! Ba mhaith liom mo leaba ach ta tinnis cinn orm! (literally I want my bed but I have a headache!).
Valvi ad satanam in computatrum meum ivocandum🙂
Hey, howcome a nice Irish lad such as yourself spouts latin when you could be fascinating us with garlic?
Originally posted by amannionHave you witnessed in the lab or wild, small changes/mutations
Okay that's progress.
So evolution has things that can't be proven. I disagree and would be keen for you to explain what these are.
But I concede that it might be possible for an hypothesis to have features that are unprovable at particular times (eg. now). If the hypothesis still fits all current observations and evidence, and if there are no competing ...[text shortened]... e reconciled with the current theory. Nothing like that occurs at the moment with evolution.
that has added up to “morph” or whatever word you want to
use to make a new organ where there wasn't one before?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayone might say that giving a bacterium a resistance to antibiotics would be a posisitve change (for the bacteria) on the scale that you suggest has never been seen.
Hundreds of small changes in a bridge can result in it collapsing,
simply seeing hundreds of changes does not mean they are adding
up to something positive, let alone something more functionally
complex as say a liver, or a circuitry system. Now, it has never been
seen where the small mutations have done what people here have
claimed, which is put toge ...[text shortened]... umptions that rule the day in the human psyche, such is the
faith of the true believers.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course not. No one has.
Have you witnessed in the lab or wild, small changes/mutations
that has added up to “morph” or whatever word you want to
use to make a new organ where there wasn't one before?
Kelly
But then Francis Dalton never saw an atom either - didn't stop him from proposing an atomic theory which became accepted after it had demonstrated its usefulness in describing and explaining. In fact we had to wait almost 200 hundred years to get any vision of atoms and these are computer enhanced and grainy to say the least.
A theory doesn't fold simply on not being able to see every single aspect of it. You call this connecting the dots.
I call it common bloody sense.
If it works, use it until something better comes along.
Unfortunately you don't seem to understand this - you criticise without fully understanding the ideas you're criticising, and you hack into a theory without proposing a viable alternative.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeDid you or others witness those changes take one life form from
Is fossil evidence allowed or are you continuing to disallow it
one type to another, or are you assuming that they occurred the
way people say/claim they did? If the evidence is the way people
connect the dots on what they see, we are back to no one knows
for sure, it is faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have never said that possistive changes do not occur, I said that
one might say that giving a bacterium a resistance to antibiotics would be a posisitve change (for the bacteria) on the scale that you suggest has never been seen.
they do not add up to a new heart, a new brain where there wasn't
a heart or brain before, or they add up to take a worm to a whale.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI'm not arguing against 'it makes sense' I'm saying that the
Of course not. No one has.
But then Francis Dalton never saw an atom either - didn't stop him from proposing an atomic theory which became accepted after it had demonstrated its usefulness in describing and explaining. In fact we had to wait almost 200 hundred years to get any vision of atoms and these are computer enhanced and grainy to say the least.
A ideas you're criticising, and you hack into a theory without proposing a viable alternative.
foundation isn't as factual as people seem to think it is. If
for example fossils are the evidence that people use for
evolution there is no doubt we have fossils, the doubt is that
the fossils are of creatures that changed into another type of
modern living creature we see today. This doesn’t have anything
to do with time, as much as it does, do the changes that we see
in DNA really add up to being able to create a brain stem, a
brain, eyes, ears, and so on where these things did not exist
before?
When people say there is no reason to not think it does, is only
a statement of faith on their part, which doesn’t address the
possibility that the small mutations may not add up to
something new like a heart or brain and all the parts that go
along with them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, I see your point, and in one sense you're right.
I'm not arguing against 'it makes sense' I'm saying that the
foundation isn't as factual as people seem to think it is. If
for example fossils are [b]the evidence that people use for
evolution there is no doubt we have fossils, the doubt is that
the fossils are of creatures that changed into another type of
modern living creature we see today. Thi ...[text shortened]... to
something new like a heart or brain and all the parts that go
along with them.
Kelly[/b]
ALL of science is a faith, but it's a faith of a different kind to a religious faith. It's a faith built on experience. We see the efficacy of scientific theories and models in explaining and predicting the way the world works over and over again and in time we come to accept that the scientific process of developing models and theories works.
Does this particular theory work?
I think it does.
I guess you might call that a faith on my part, but it's not a religious faith.
I think the theory works because it explains a particular aspect of the natural world, and enables predictions to be made and tested. I have 'faith' in the theory, since it works as have other scientific theories.
I'm still keen to know your alternative, or do you accept no scientific theories, since they are based on this 'faith'?
Originally posted by KellyJayI witness the changes through the evidence that the creatures left behind.
Did you or others witness those changes take one life form from
one type to another, or are you assuming that they occurred the
way people say/claim they did? If the evidence is the way people
connect the dots on what they see, we are back to no one knows
for sure, it is faith.
Kelly
Just like the ancient Romans, I never met one or even saw one in the distance but in the face of overwhelming evidence from archaeology and history I know they existed. It is not a matter of faith. The evidence is such that ancient Rome was an undeniable reality.
I'm sure you see the analogy (but will deny its reality)
Originally posted by amannionThe main thing about this kind of 'faith' is conditionality.
Okay, I see your point, and in one sense you're right.
ALL of science is a faith, but it's a faith of a different kind to a religious faith. It's a faith built on experience. We see the efficacy of scientific theories and models in explaining and predicting the way the world works over and over again and in time we come to accept that the scientific proces ...[text shortened]... rnative, or do you accept no scientific theories, since they are based on this 'faith'?
Its a fickle faith, unlike religion, which demands unconditional faith.
Scientific faith can change, religion can't. Science can improve, religion can't, it by definition, HAS to stay static or die. Religion has no room for innovation, for fear of losing that which made a religion what it is.
Science can make EVERYTHING better. Religion can make NOTHING better only static.