| Author |
Thread |
|
Torpex
Advanced Member
Poland
824 posts
Joined: Nov, 2005
|
 Posted - 2008/06/19 : 16:07:10
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
a) random chemicals managed to group favourably to form amino acids? bugger all
Just one hypothesis:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hIY-VxNFi2k
Remember, we're talking about mind-boggling timespans and even more mind-boggling amounts of chemicals.
quote:
b) those amino acids grouped themselves together favourably to form complex organisms through random mutation?
They grouped together to form proto-cells, which, over millions of generations, evolved into more complex structures. Also, mutations are random, but natural selection is not.
quote:
even less - particularly as mutations usually a)recessive or b) lead to infertility.
Wrong. Most mutations are neutral (source).
quote:
c) this is for sure - as mutations come from genetic screw ups, they would all be different and at random times. It wouldnt be one particular mutation that suddenly becomes epidemic through a whole species. while one mutation may be strong enough to become dominant in reproduction, the spawn would usually be a mule.
This is news to me. Why would a beneficial mutation necessarily prevent an organism from reproducing? Care to cite source(s)?
quote:
not to sure about this, havnt done enough research. but. while scientists think they have specimens of beginning and end species (end specimens definately) and maybe some of the intermediate stages, im fairly sure they have never managed to find any halfway examples between one stage and the next, which there should be because these things dont suddenly happen over one generation.
Firstly, all species are "intermediate". Not a single one is "finished" and/or excluded from further evolution.
Secondly, it's impossible to find all "intermediate stages". Fossilization is rare and requires very favourable conditions. However, scientists use proven tools of logic to draw conclusions from what we DO have.
Thirdly, some of the cooler transitional forms are listed here. Great fairly recent examples include Tiktaalik and early walking "whales".
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Torpex:
Sadly, most of the goddidit dumbass crew prefer to cover their ears and go LALALALALALACANTHEARYOUGODDIDIT. Pathetic.
yes i do find this quite annoying. if they are going to make a stand for creationism they really should base it on their own scientific inferences.
The can't. They don't have any.
Alert moderator 
|
Ken Masters
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,447 posts
Joined: Feb, 2007
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 16:42:53
DINOSAURS ARE STILL ALIVE! WE JUST CALL THEM BIRDS!!
Think about it, in the ICEAGE only certian Dinosaurs could survive the harsh climate. The ones that could head for the water & the ones who could fly. The flying dinosaurs had to come up with a solution so that they wouldn't freeze to death & so feathers can around. Why do u think that bird migrate during the winter & follow the milder climates. IT'S BUILT INTO THEM FROM THE ICEAGES.
Take a look at certain Big birds. The size & shape of thier feet & necks are a dead give away. Emu's ect. The way they move & act, it's exactly like a dinosaur. If you dont beleve me then the next time you get a frozen chicken in for your dinner, have a look at thier wings & you will see 2 FINGERS!!!!! that's the proof that they once had movable fingers like any other animal.
TRUST ME, DINOSAURS ARE ALL OVER THE WORLD WERE JUST TO DUMB TOO SEE IT.
WHAT CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? HOW ABOUT THE DINOSAUR OR THE EGG! THINK ABOUT IT!!! great topic acid lol
__________________________________
Future State Music
Alert moderator
|
Project-Industrial
Advanced Member
Netherlands
2,481 posts
Joined: Nov, 2005
33 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 17:26:35
quote:
Originally posted by djkenmasters:
DINOSAURS ARE STILL ALIVE! WE JUST CALL THEM BIRDS!!
Think about it, in the ICEAGE only certian Dinosaurs could survive the harsh climate. The ones that could head for the water & the ones who could fly. The flying dinosaurs had to come up with a solution so that they wouldn't freeze to death & so feathers can around. Why do u think that bird migrate during the winter & follow the milder climates. IT'S BUILT INTO THEM FROM THE ICEAGES.
Take a look at certain Big birds. The size & shape of thier feet & necks are a dead give away. Emu's ect. The way they move & act, it's exactly like a dinosaur. If you dont beleve me then the next time you get a frozen chicken in for your dinner, have a look at thier wings & you will see 2 FINGERS!!!!! that's the proof that they once had movable fingers like any other animal.
TRUST ME, DINOSAURS ARE ALL OVER THE WORLD WERE JUST TO DUMB TOO SEE IT.
WHAT CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? HOW ABOUT THE DINOSAUR OR THE EGG! THINK ABOUT IT!!! great topic acid lol
true true.. the birds are considers dinosaurs... explains a lil why im scared of em huh :)
__________________________________
Alias:
- Project Industrial
- Disease
http://www.project-industrial.com
http://www.discogs.com/label/Furious+Monkey+Records
http://www.furiousmonkeyrecords.com/
Alert moderator
|
SixFeet
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
2,285 posts
Joined: Jan, 2005
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 17:52:58
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
c) this is for sure - as mutations come from genetic screw ups, they would all be different and at random times. It wouldnt be one particular mutation that suddenly becomes epidemic through a whole species. while one mutation may be strong enough to become dominant in reproduction, the spawn would usually be a mule.
If you don't know how natural selection works don't comment. Natural selection is when a mutant offspring from the gene pool of a species has an advantage in survival and occurs over hundreds of thousands of years. They also occured alor faster before the appearance of humans due to no hunting and our affect on habitats. An example is say an area is overpopulated with giraffes and a mutant is born with a longer neck that can reach previously unreachable leaves on the trees. Due to this mutation it's chances of survival are greatly increased over the other 'normal' giraffes thus it has a better chance of survival and passing on this new strain of DNA to an offspring.
As these 'mutants' are passing along there genes and have the ability to survive the older unmutated animals die out due to their inability to feed until the mutants become the only ones left alive and are the norm. This natural selection or survival of the fittest occurs of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. It does not just spread like an epidemic like you said. If you think the first stage of human evolution was the first mutation that occured to chimpanzee's thenyou're naive, many, many mutantions would have occured that were a hinderance to survival before a beneficial mutation occured that had the chance to become dominant. They certainly aren't sterile either. Also not all mule's are sterile, a tiny proportion are also able to produce offspring.
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
c) not to sure about this, havnt done enough research. but. while scientists think they have specimens of beginning and end species (end specimens definately) and maybe some of the intermediate stages, im fairly sure they have never managed to find any halfway examples between one stage and the next, which there should be because these things dont suddenly happen over one generation.
There is no such thing as an 'end species'. Life will keep on evolving and changing until the the world is ungulfed by the sun. However at the moment the human race won't be evolving further at the moment because evolution occurs due to an increased chance of survival to then pass on your genetics to your offspring, but at current time we're not really competing for survival and with the hostility towards someone looking different certainly if someone was born with something beneficial they'd struggle to find some bird to reproduce with! That's more to do with society than evolution though =P
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
about Carbon Dating: please people! its only (relatively) accurate to 50000 years. the half life of carbon is just too short for any real outputs above this time period. in fact my history teacher is trained in archeology. in Unias a demonstration of carbon dating they killed a fly and then dated it the next day. the fly was 6000 years old apparently.
The half life of C-14 (the most common Carbon isotope on earth) is 5730 years. So it is accurate to 5730 years. Now 5730 years when dating something millions of years old is an insanely small proportion to their age. It's like being 5 minutes out in remembering what time an event occured a decade ago.
Oh and alot of things to do with science is theory. Theory doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means there is currently no way to prove it. Gravity is just a theory yet it's accepted where as others aren't that are just as viable.
__________________________________
No single raindrop ever blames themselves for the flood...
Alert moderator
|
Hurlzter
Junior Member
Denmark
116 posts
Joined: May, 2008
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 21:32:01
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
because no one saw them they couldnt have been around...
 http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/7/1/B/loch_ness_2_lg.jpgimgrefurlhttp://paranormal.about.com/od/othercreatures/ig/Gallery-of-Monsters/Loch-Ness-Monster--1977.htmh500w406sz22hlenstart1um1tbnidGc1qnfrIAnWK7M:tbnh130tbnw106prev/images%3Fq%3DLOCH%2BNESS%2BMONSTER%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN" border="0">
YOU MUPPET!!!!
oh yes, did you know that st. culumbus met the loch ness monster in A.D 565, (or in your case, the dark ages!!!)
http://bp0.blogger.com/_jeik2x7Zlys/SA9tlSTe1TI/AAAAAAAAAVo/7uCTt9SXLKI/s320/PlesioLg.jpgimgrefurlhttp://hodgepodgeemporium.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/defaulth320w296sz28hlenstart120um1tbnidneQh1C533u1NqM:tbnh118tbnw109prev/images%3Fq%3DLOCH%2BNESS%2BMONSTER%26start%3D100%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN" border="0">
http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/0/q/Q/1/nessie-flipper.jpgimgrefurlhttp://paranormal.about.com/od/othercreatures/ig/Gallery-of-Monsters/Nessie-s-flipper.htmh340w500sz20hlenstart1um1tbnid2wZc8OCkWew_vM:tbnh88tbnw130prev/images%3Fq%3Dnessies%2Bflipper%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den" border="0">
you make me LOL!!!
HA HA HA!!!! OH, I AM HAVING SOO-OO MANY LAUGH'S!!!!!
oh OLLY!!!! you get everywhere!!!!!
__________________________________
Go ye not by Gallowa
Come bide a while, my frein
I'll tell ye o the dangers there –
Beware o Sawney Bean.
Alert moderator
Edited by - Hurlzter on 2008/06/19 21:44:39 |
DJ Acidix
Average Member
United States
173 posts
Joined: May, 2008
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 21:56:40
quote:
Originally posted by Rayovac:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Acidix:
quote:
Originally posted by Meph751:
i sincerely hope this thread is a joke
A T-Rex stomping down my bedroom wall and touching my privates is no joke sir.
You know, I thought 4chan had a rule that it's illegal for anyone under 18 to view the contents of the site? Or are you just looking at encyclopedia dramatica or something (then again that site is just plain disgusting).
I say this becuase you're posting 4chan memes everywheree. :x
ermmm.... what is this 4chan you are speaking of?
oh, ED is pretty lulz, but easy to corrupt and mess with newfa... i mean oblivious web users on the topic
Alert moderator
|
Ionosphere
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,750 posts
Joined: Dec, 2004
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 22:07:44
quote:
Originally posted by Hurlzter:
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
because no one saw them they couldnt have been around...
Of course Dinosaurs existed and some are still with us.
Ionosphere have been around since the dawn of time and if you enhance the above photo you'll see.
We told Brett not to tag that 'pile of rocks' on the shore but would he listen! ....b*astard lucky he weren't eaten alive.
Mind you we were a lot younger then.
__________________________________
This- http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ionosphere
THIS - http://soundcloud.com/ionosphere
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nYWkHCkaho
Alert moderator
Edited by - Ionosphere on 2008/06/19 22:30:23 |
Hurlzter
Junior Member
Denmark
116 posts
Joined: May, 2008
|
Posted - 2008/06/19 : 22:47:28
WHOA!!!! you tagged a dinosaur???
__________________________________
Go ye not by Gallowa
Come bide a while, my frein
I'll tell ye o the dangers there –
Beware o Sawney Bean.
Alert moderator
|
charlieee
Advanced Member
Australia
1,422 posts
Joined: Dec, 2005
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 01:00:58
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
Michelson and morley expt was quite interesting actually. almost an ingenious design, practically holeproof.
umm 50000
not 5000
where the hell did you get 5730 from?
and just a quick check... hmmm, 60000 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
oh shitballs that was it's half-life...i hope i wrote that in the exam :s
__________________________________
iv got a purple monkey dishwasher do u?
Alert moderator
|
Ken Masters
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,447 posts
Joined: Feb, 2007
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 01:47:00
I'm from Scotland & I can tell u that the loch ness monster is a personal friend of mine & if there's any dig's or disses towards him i'll send him knocking @ your door!
P.S I can officially tell everyone that the pictures u are looking @, are elephants. Sorry to ruin all the fun;-)
__________________________________
Future State Music
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 09:24:54
no time to reply to everything, il try to get aorund to it, but il do this one.
quote:
The half life of C-14 (the most common Carbon isotope on earth) is 5730 years. So it is accurate to 5730 years. Now 5730 years when dating something millions of years old is an insanely small proportion to their age. It's like being 5 minutes out in remembering what time an event occured a decade ago.
Look it up mate.
carbon dating is only accurate to 60000 years tops, any result larger than that isnt worth the paper its written on
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
Edited by - Lilley on 2008/06/20 09:26:15 |
Hurlzter
Junior Member
Denmark
116 posts
Joined: May, 2008
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 10:40:36
__________________________________
Go ye not by Gallowa
Come bide a while, my frein
I'll tell ye o the dangers there –
Beware o Sawney Bean.
Alert moderator
|
charlieee
Advanced Member
Australia
1,422 posts
Joined: Dec, 2005
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 10:53:26
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
no time to reply to everything, il try to get aorund to it, but il do this one.
quote:
The half life of C-14 (the most common Carbon isotope on earth) is 5730 years. So it is accurate to 5730 years. Now 5730 years when dating something millions of years old is an insanely small proportion to their age. It's like being 5 minutes out in remembering what time an event occured a decade ago.
Look it up mate.
carbon dating is only accurate to 60000 years tops, any result larger than that isnt worth the paper its written on
haha yeh i know lol did u read wat i said? lol
__________________________________
iv got a purple monkey dishwasher do u?
Alert moderator
|
Hurlzter
Junior Member
Denmark
116 posts
Joined: May, 2008
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 10:56:40
__________________________________
Go ye not by Gallowa
Come bide a while, my frein
I'll tell ye o the dangers there –
Beware o Sawney Bean.
Alert moderator
|
Underloop
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,895 posts
Joined: Mar, 2002
91 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2008/06/20 : 12:41:07
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
no time to reply to everything, il try to get aorund to it, but il do this one.
quote:
The half life of C-14 (the most common Carbon isotope on earth) is 5730 years. So it is accurate to 5730 years. Now 5730 years when dating something millions of years old is an insanely small proportion to their age. It's like being 5 minutes out in remembering what time an event occured a decade ago.
Look it up mate.
carbon dating is only accurate to 60000 years tops, any result larger than that isnt worth the paper its written on
That could be taken one of 2 ways. The accuracy of carbon dating is (depending on who you talk to) accurate to a few thousand years. However, you cannot measure to any degree of accuracy any specimen older than ~60,000 years - I take it that is what you meant?
__________________________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing."
- George Bernard Shaw
Alert moderator
|
Printer friendly
