Originally posted by amannionI'm obessed with it being called a fact by more than a few people
You misunderstand. I'm not putting all of this on evolution - as far as I'm concerned it's just one more scientific theory. It's you who seem obsessed with it's demise.
And I'm still not sure why ...
when it isn't. I don't like that much of its foundation is really between
the ears of people, and no where else. I like things being called what
they are, if it is a fact, call it a fact, if it is faith, don't deny it, things
are not always what people want them to be, or what they call them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes. by comaring the protein sequences of enzymes invovled in simple cell precesses across organisms. functional domains within the protein will be highly conserved, the rest of the sequence will be more variable. The similarity / divergence between sequences will give a measure of relatedness between species and an indication of their eveolutionary history
[b]Worms are Phylum Nematoda and whales are Phlyum vertebrata so that question is meaningless.
[/b]Do you have a test that can give us that answer, maybe an
observation, or a prediction, what can be said with certainty,
besides whales didn't come from worms?
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayYou step into the middle of the road. You look behind you every second or so. Each time you look you see a 22 wheeler truck. Every time you look it seems closer and larger. You keep standing in the road checking out the truck every now and then because to conclude that it is about to run you down would be connecting the dots and oh what faith that would require!
You are dot connecting and calling it facts, what faith
you have!
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionI want to say I'm glad I misunderstood your point too, I thought you
You misunderstand. I'm not putting all of this on evolution - as far as I'm concerned it's just one more scientific theory. It's you who seem obsessed with it's demise.
And I'm still not sure why ...
were putting to much on the importance of evolution. It is nice to
know your more grounded than that!
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe difference between that reality check and the one I'm talking
You step into the middle of the road. You look behind you every second or so. Each time you look you see a 22 wheeler truck. Every time you look it seems closer and larger. You keep standing in the road checking out the truck every now and then because to conclude that it is about to run you down would be connecting the dots and oh what faith that would require!
about, is one is looking at what is coming, and the other what was,
which has completely different set of factors when it comes to the
unknown and the unknowable.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeMy error, my bad!
Yes. by comaring the protein sequences of enzymes invovled in simple cell precesses across organisms. functional domains within the protein will be highly conserved, the rest of the sequence will be more variable. The similarity / divergence between sequences will give a measure of relatedness between species and an indication of their eveolutionary history
When I was speaking of worm to whale if you read my posts I was
speaking about a life form that had to have been a 1 to 3 inchs
long. At some point in time if evolution started with life when it was
no larger than a single cell, it would have had to get to the size of
a worm over time. All the changes that then would have had to take
place to go from that being into a whale would be rather large.
I stand corrected on worm to whale, I choose my names badly.
I should have said, worm size to whale or something along those
lines.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe difference between single cell and a worm is probably gtreater than the difference between worm and whale (or similar)
My error, my bad!
When I was speaking of worm to whale if you read my posts I was
speaking about a life form that had to have been a 1 to 3 inchs
long. At some point in time if evolution started with life when it was
no larger than a single cell, it would have had to get to the size of
a worm over time. All the changes that then would have had to take ...[text shortened]... my names badly.
I should have said, worm size to whale or something along those
lines.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeAs I said, I was wrong to use specific modern day creatures when
The difference between single cell and a worm is probably gtreater than the difference between worm and whale (or similar)
talking about where one came from the other the way I did. As far as
the differences between a worm, whale, and a single cell go, I would
tend to skeptical about that, you'd have to show me of how you came
to that conclusion. Since both the worm and the whale are comprised
of more than a few different type of cells, and the fact that these cells
will be arranged in such a way to form various functionally complex
systems within each.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaysure, no problems. Provided that we're allowed to keep all the bits they got right, and modify on every attempt the bits they got nearly right.
Sure, you can have the next hundred million. 🙂
Better yet, get a bunch of monkeys to type out 'Gone with the Wind'
without error by random chance, how many years do you think that
would take, would a hundred million be enough?
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, you need to over come odds for getting the book written.
sure, no problems. Provided that we're allowed to keep all the bits they got right, and modify on every attempt the bits they got nearly right.
I'll allow you all the energy you need, all the paper or disk
drive space if you want to save the trees, monkeys that never
tire, get hungry leave for bathroom breaks, and so on. You
have to get the book written, I doubt you'll get the first page
with a hundred billion years, but that is me.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayTwo reasons why single cell creatures (prokaryotes) are very different to multicellular creatures(eukaryote)
As I said, I was wrong to use specific modern day creatures when
talking about where one came from the other the way I did. As far as
the differences between a worm, whale, and a single cell go, I would
tend to skeptical about that, you'd have to show me of how you came
to that conclusion. Since both the worm and the whale are comprised
of more than a ...[text shortened]... ill be arranged in such a way to form various functionally complex
systems within each.
Kelly
1 genome organisation (just so totally different)
2 specialisation of cell function and the organisation thereof.
There's some very easy reading published on life science. Please read some
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI understand there are differences, what I don't see are the
Two reasons why single cell creatures (prokaryotes) are very different to multicellular creatures(eukaryote)
1 genome organisation (just so totally different)
2 specialisation of cell function and the organisation thereof.
There's some very easy reading published on life science. Please read some
total amount of differences in shear volume of new
information being anything but overwhelming when it
comes to what is required for the make up of a whale and
that of a worm. The shear volume of information between
a worm and a single cell creature would be incredible too,
I’m not sure how you’d measure either to tell you the truth.
Since every part of a single cell is so very different from a
multi-cellular creature, where do you find any evidence
that it could drastically get altered through time so that we
do see multi-cellular creatures? I want to say up front that
I know there are small changes within DNA, but there are
small changes of watts passing through your computer
too, the design of your computer takes the changes in watts
and works with them, it doesn’t mean that it will all of
a sudden start behaving like a 30 million dollar mainframe
over time. If those small changes get to big, your system
could short out, point being small changes or fluctuations
don’t necessary mean they are adding up to something new.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayC'mon surely you're aware that this fact/theory things has been debated for centuries. What is a fact? How do you describe something is a fact? That it's true. Okay, so what's true? How can you be certain it's true?
I'm obessed with it being called a fact by more than a few people
when it isn't. I don't like that much of its foundation is really between
the ears of people, and no where else. I like things being called what
they are, if it is a fact, call it a fact, if it is faith, don't deny it, things
are not always what people want them to be, or what they call them.
Kelly
Here's an example.
I would call the orbiting of the Earth around the Sun a fact. But is it? How do I know this is a fact? I've never actually observed the Earth travelling around the Sun. So, it's faith on my part then. But a very different kind of faith to a religious belief in a god.
How about this one?
It's a fact that I rode my bike to work today.
But is it? My bike's sitting in my office right now. My legs feel a bit sore from the ride. But could you prove that I rode to work today. Okay, so a photo of me riding my bike would prove the fact right? But all it would prove is that I was on my bike at a particular place and time - and given image manipulation probably wouldn't even prove that.
My point here is that you are demanding a level of truth that is not possible. You also seem to be demanding it for only one small aspect of the world - ie. evolution - while ignoring everything else.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly you have a big misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
No, you need to over come odds for getting the book written.
I'll allow you all the energy you need, all the paper or disk
drive space if you want to save the trees, monkeys that never
tire, get hungry leave for bathroom breaks, and so on. You
have to get the book written, I doubt you'll get the first page
with a hundred billion years, but that is me.
Kelly
As Scottish tried to explain to your post about Gone with the Wind (although why you'd want anyone to come up with that one astounds me), evolution doesn't work from scratch, rather it builds up from what already exists.
It's random, but that doesn't mean that for every new species it has to start all over again. Since each species evolves from some earlier existing species, it uses the stuff from that earlier species upon which to build.
To give the analogy of Gone with the Wind, it'd be like writing the complete book from a crappy draft of the book, which in turn would've come from an even crappier draft and so on. (Be careful though, there are flaws in this analogy, and remember too, this says nothing about where the original book came from - evolution doesn't explain the origin, just what happens after it.)
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're right and it's possible that in many, perhaps even most, situations of the early evolution of life on Earth that species did 'short out'. Remember what we see now are only the success stories - there may have been many stuff ups.
I understand there are differences, what I don't see are the
total amount of differences in shear volume of new
information being anything but overwhelming when it
comes to what is required for the make up of a whale and
that of a worm. The shear volume of information between
a worm and a single cell creature would be incredible too,
I’m not sure how ...[text shortened]... small changes or fluctuations
don’t necessary mean they are adding up to something new.
Kelly
Single celled organisms don't just suddenly become worms or any other complex multicelled organism. The process leading one cell to many, like all evolutionary stages, would've been agonisingly slow.