Evolution question.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why does it follow that rejection of evolution demands belief in creationism? I don't think that scientists that question some of the tenets of evolution make a bee line for the nearest church.

Because those scientists do not exist.

 

[Woodznutz]

Because those scientists do not exist.

Did the other scientists kill them?

 

[zaangalewa]

There was no sudden destruction of all species.

There had been several destructions of nearly all species. Well known are "the big five": 444, 372, 252, 201 and 66 million years ago. Currently happens the worst mass extinction of species the universe ever had seen on planet Earth. Main reason for this current absurdity is the species which is called "homo sapiens" (=wise human beings). What an idiot who gave this stupid and greedy assholes this vain name.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did the other scientists kill them?

The interrogation ended 10 pages ago.

 

[Woodznutz]

The interrogation ended 10 pages ago.

But the fun continues.

 

[Hollie]

Why does it follow that rejection of evolution demands belief in creationism? I don't think that scientists that question some of the tenets of evolution make a bee line for the nearest church.

I agree. However, creationer gulags such as the Disco'tute are in no way objective or even honest. They have an agenda to press.

 

[Woodznutz]

I agree. However, creationer gulags such as the Disco'tute are in no way objective or even honest. They have an agenda to press.

And yet none has been sued by the scientific community.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet none has been sued by the scientific community.

Because there are no grounds to sue. They can't sue over a silly lie about science.

 

[Woodznutz]

I agree. However, creationer gulags such as the Disco'tute are in no way objective or even honest. They have an agenda to press.

So, none of their points are valid?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, none of their points are valid?

Not a single one. "Valid" implies they are backed by valid argument and evidence.

In fact, all they have are baseless claims.

 

[scruffy]

The Oxygen Crisis ≈ 2.2 Bya ... perhaps only one species of blue-green algae survived ... everything else died when oxygen started to accumulate in the biosphere ... all we can say for sure about the first half of Earth's existence is there were no respirators ... except for the above mentioned single species of blue-green algae (i.e. cyanobacteria) ...

Good thing the structure of the DNA molecule immediately proves evolutionary change ... just need time, a gynormous computer and a dedicated AI to work the problem backwards ... atom by atom ...

Folks lock into Darwin because he was wrong ... really only Wallace's contributions to The Origin of Species endured into the 20th Century ... when Darwinism was superseded by the Modern Synthesis ... then Pauling's Alpha Helix and quickly followed by DNA's double helix ...

Nobel Prizes galore ... only an alchemist would disagree ... ewwwwwwwwwwwwww ...

Yes. It's all about the energy. Before oxygen the prokaryotes you speak of depended on glycolysis, which has a net yield of only two ATP's. On the other hand, the complete oxidative breakdown of glucose will yield 36 to 38 ATP's.

There is the energy transfer, the informational content, and the geometry.

Life seems to have started with RNA, which is really the only raw material that can direct its own self replication. Contrasted with primitive RNA life, modern DNA has a bewildering and incredibly complex support structure, that includes things as diverse as the histones and chromosome alignment driven by centrioles (which are microtubules).

 

[Hollie]

So, none of their points are valid?

What points do you think are valid?

 

[Hollie]

And yet none has been sued by the scientific community.

Sue them for being dishonest?

 

[ReinyDays]

I think you're exactly right about Wallace contributing much (and uncredited for) what Darwin published. The core precepts of Darwinian evolution have survived. I suppose it's a bit like Newton's gravitation has been revised and better defined by Albert Einstein.

Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is what the trouble is ... in that Darwin defined this too broadly, and this is limited today to just reproduction ... the advantageous mutation must be passed on to progeny to make any different in evolution ...

An individual twice as strong but sterile is a useless change ...

Darwin deserves great credit for stating these matters in a scientific manner, and therefore testable ... but I'm sad to say, Darwin didn't discover evolution, Darwin discovered how to make money off evolution, the Origin of Species is still in print ... just like Einstein didn't discover embarrassingly high tuition rates, as you can see, he only discovered how to make money charging outrageous tuition ... what's a year at Princeton these days? ...

 

[Woodznutz]

What points do you think are valid?

To evolution believers, none.

 

[Woodznutz]

Not a single one. "Valid" implies they are backed by valid argument and evidence.

In fact, all they have are baseless claims.

I think we may be arguing the wrong points here. Perhaps we should be considering what value each place on their beliefs regarding our origins and how it effects our overall view of life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think we may be arguing the wrong points here. Perhaps we should be considering what value each place on their beliefs regarding our origins and how it effects our overall view of life.

Knowing evolution is a fact is not really a belief.

 

[scruffy]

To evolution believers, none.

Not so. Evolution "believers" as you say, do not waste their time (and others') protesting that what they're looking at is impossible. Instead, we ask the question "how is it possible that", and in doing so we learn about the structure and function of our universe.

FOR INSTANCE - during cell division the chromosomes are organized along a "spindle". The spindle structure is anchored by two sets of microtubules called centrioles. Centrioles are made of tubulin (a protein) and other than RNA they're the only other structure that can self-replicate.

Here's the deal though - the centrioles are always at right angles to each other. (Why?) And, when a daughter centriole is born, it always grows at right angles to the other two. However natively, the centrioles are 9 symmetric sets of 3 filaments each, so the process of giving birth involves SYMMETRY BREAKING, and we now know how that occurs. A protein called PLK4 is involved ("polo like kinase").

A simple Turing reaction–diffusion model explains how PLK4 breaks symmetry during centriole duplication and assembly

Centrioles duplicate when a mother centriole gives birth to a daughter that grows from its side. Polo-like-kinase 4 (PLK4), the master regulator of centriole duplication, is recruited symmetrically around the mother centriole, but it then concentrates ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Turing structure they're referring to in the link, is the same structure found in many if not most neural networks in the brain, the activation function looks like a Mexican hat, and in the literature it's frequently called "lateral inhibition".

 

[Hollie]

To evolution believers, none.

There's no requirement for "belief" when the facts support the theory.

 

[zaangalewa]

Not a single one. "Valid" implies they are backed by valid argument and evidence.

In fact, all they have are baseless claims.

Your I and their we are enemies, I guess. Astonishing is in the English speaking world that people who believe in a form of scientism defend their not-knowledge about the real scientific theory of evolution against - ¿how to say this? - against believers in a form of Christian religionism which is unknown to very most Christians in the world. In the mainstream is this discussion carried from the will to discuss about god and not-god. Short: This is a discusison between [anti-]spiritual evlutionists versus [anti-]materialistic Christianisists - while no one with a clear mind knows how this neverending fake-discussion could help anyone.

Whatever: Christmas helps everyone. A child in a manger is god and so ... crazy, isn't it? And in this craziness I believe. Ox or donkey? Who am I?