Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: OldDoc
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
Aug 1, 2017 16:25:00   #
At the risk of injecting some logic into this discussion: by the logic of that sign we are all murderers, since it draws an equivalence between bacteria and a heartbeat, and we have all killed bacteria at one time or another. Just sayin...

BTW, perhaps a reflection of the educational level of the person holding that sign is the grammatical error "a bacteria". It should be "a bacterium".
 
Nov 17, 2016 10:44:44   #
I'm certainly not a Trump fan, but lets be real here. He is 10 days into planning his transition! IMO he should not even be meeting with foreign leaders until after the inauguration, when the State Department would organize state visits.
Mar 2, 2016 12:25:08   #
"Near perfect", but not perfect. Fifty years of epigenetic variation results in identical twins being not-so-identical genetically. That said, it is the best you can hope for, and is pretty good as a control for large effects.
Dec 2, 2015 10:40:15   #
Let me throw some facts on this fire. Firstly, the clotting mechanism you describe is only found in hominins. Other animals have ony part of the clotting cascade, yet still manage to clot their blood. An example of this is the whale, which is lacking several of the cascade's components, yet doesn't bleed to death. Secondly, manyof the components of the clotting cascade are proteolytic enzymes which are found in some organisms, where they are responsible for cleaving proteins rather than participating in the clotting cascade. So...the likelihood is that over the course of evolution already existing proteolytic enzymes were recruited into a varietyof cascades that produce the thickening of blood we call clotting. Thus, the mechanism demonstrated not irreducible complexity, but reducible simplicity.
Nov 30, 2015 09:57:10   #
Collie lover wrote:
Glad the store's right to refuse to sell guns to possible terrorists was upheld by the court. :thumbup: :thumbup:


Please reread the article. The court did not uphold the refusal to sell guns to possible terrorists, the court upheld the right of the gun store owner to say in public that he would refuse to sell guns to possible terrorists. The dismissal was based on the failure of the plaintiff to demonstrate any actual harm, since they had not attempted to purchase guns at the store. While the court's decision is a victory for free speech, it should not be seen as an endorsement of bigotry against Muslims (or , for that matter, black Americans, in whose case the courts have already ruled that a store doing business with the public cannot prohibit sales based on color).
Nov 12, 2015 14:30:21   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Increase of diseases is an increase of disorder not order, which is evidence of increase of entropy...the increase of disorder.


Oh, please, please read a physics text. Entropy is defined by every physics text as the heat transfer divided by the temperature. That's all! It deals with energy and heat, and says nothing about disorder, and certainly nothing about disease-causing organisms. It has become fashionable to pretend that the second law is concerned with degrees of disorder, but it doesn't, so any argument about disorder that relies on second law principles is, be definition, a false waste of time.
 
Nov 12, 2015 09:46:41   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Again, James obviously doesn't know the difference between the origin of information from intelligence and the origin of entropy caused by bringing them into the world by man himself. Not only that we can also say that if evolution is true and things should be getting better why are things getting worse and more diseases and ailments developing and increasing? If evolution is in fact true why are things not getting better but getting worse?

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-rx_lS3ZwI

P.S. Contrary to what some have said on here, laws of thermodynamics or specifically Increase of entropy effect ALL systems NOT just closed systems. The effect of increase entropy has developed many diseases and ailments such as small pox, cancer, aids and all others. We did not evolve genetically and become immune to small pox, we used the application of scientific Intelligence to combat and conquer that disease by vaccination/Inoculation.
b Again, James obviously doesn't know the differe... (show quote)

How far wrong you are is truly breathtaking! try reading even a middle school-level science text, and you will see that the second law applies only to closed systems. In open systems the addition of energy, for example, is able to allow entropy to decrease. Otherwise, how do you think that an infant develops into an adult with increased complexity.

As for new diseases appearing, that would, in fact, be evolution at work, not some imaginary perversion of thermodynamics.
Nov 2, 2015 09:21:26   #
Steven Seward wrote:
I would differ with you on the importance of Evolution to modern Biology. I don't think it makes a wit of difference in his competence whether or not a biologist believes in Evolution. It would be like saying a Rocket Scientist for NASA cannot do a good job getting to the Moon if he does not believe in the big bang theory.


True enough, but misleading. A rocket scientist at NASA cannot do a good job getting to the moon if he/she does not believe in mathematics, which is the underpinning and unifying concept in engineering. It is also true that modern biologists do not, in the course of their everyday research activities, constantly invoke evolution any more than a carpenter invokes physics every time he/she swings a hammer. Nevertheless, unifying concepts are important in the long run, and the theory of evolution is certainly one such concept. In my own work on nutrition and longevity we do not check in with evolution on a daily basis, but we do frequently question how some response we observe might render an animal more fit to survive to reproduce, and this gives us insight into where to look for answers.
Oct 26, 2015 10:36:39   #
Behe has been refuted on this issue. See http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html for an explanation. Briefly, the components of the bacterial flagellum existed/exist in simpler forms playing other roles, mostly secretory. Occasionally, even today, these simpler units are seen to aggregate, and even rotate. The key idea here is that the flagellum is reducible to components that carry out other tasks. Similarly, Behe insists that blood clotting is irreducibly complex, whereas it is not. Whales use only a fraction of the units used in other mammals to produce blood clotting. Furthermore, many of the components of the clotting cascade are proteases that, in other species carry out protein degradation, but not (yet) clotting.
Oct 25, 2015 20:04:25   #
Opus wrote:
I just want to understand, are you saying there was a national religion?


"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists in 1808
Oct 8, 2015 14:39:35   #
Racmanaz wrote:
But couldn't your presupposition to Darwinian evolution require you tom assume that the planarians are or did in fact evolve from a lesser state of "advancement"? Maybe those planarians were designed this way from the start? I don't know much about the planarians so you will have to educate me on this organism. I don't think anyone on this earth understands the "theory" that you so wholeheartedly are in support of.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

http://www.livescience.com/24791-worm-regeneration-research-nsf-ria.html
But couldn't your presupposition to Darwinian evol... (show quote)

Planarians are highly evolved to fit their own ecological niche. It is purely a value judgement to say that they are less evolved - they do what they do better than other supposedly more evolved organisms. But the argument isn't about planarians, but about live organisms in general. Giraffes are better giraffes than we are, just as we are better human beings than giraffes (or planarians, for that matter).
 
Oct 8, 2015 11:12:16   #
Racmanaz wrote:
James doesn't even realize that those pics he is posting are in opposition if his own Darwnian theory. If darwinian evolution is true and occurring, why is everything getting worse when it should be getting better? Why are there more variations of sickness, diseases and genetic ailments? God told us in His words that things will get worse as time comes to a close after sin was introduced into the world by Adam and Eve, seems to me this has been coming to pass for quite some time now sadly.


You really don't understand the theory you so consistently demean! What do you mean by "why is everything getting worse, when it should be getting better?" You are taking a 100% anthropocentric view, which is leading you to an incorrect conclusion. "Things" are, in fact, getting better for something (in terms of reproductive success), and that may mean that "things" are more difficult for some other species. Evolution doesn't care whose ox is gored. While you think of a planarian as a poorly evolved organism, planaria think of you as really poorly developed and evolved planarians since you can't survive and reproduce in their world.
Oct 8, 2015 10:08:22   #
Racmanaz wrote:
I'm trying to understand what you are implying, here what the report said... Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years.
This is what you proposed...the time required is more in the very few hundreds of thousand years-very practicable for evolution.

Two coordinated mutations every 300,000 years? That's still way too long for the difference between chimps and humans from what I can tell. In 6 million years with 2 coordinated mutations every 300,000 years would be a total of 20 pairs of mutations. What am I getting wrong here? Please help me understand.



I am sorry, no offence intended...but darwinian evolution is just pure speculation and NOT based on any empirical observable scientific evidence. Now I understand that just because a theory is not observable does not mean it is not true, it just means it is not scientifically observable.
I'm trying to understand what you are implying, he... (show quote)


Sorry for the late response, but I was giving (and grading, ugh) mid-term exams. There are several incorrect assumptions inherent in what you have said. First, as pointed out in the paper itself, there is the assumption that changes must be exact. The multi-hundred million year prediction assumes that there must be an exact match for a 7-8 letter word, but, as the authors say,

"Fortunately, in biological reality, the match of a regulatory protein to the target sequence does not have to be exact for binding to occur. Biological reality is complicated, with the acceptable sequences for binding described by position weight matrices that indicate the flexibility at different points in the sequence. To simplify, we assume that binding will occur to any eight-letter word that has seven letters in common with the target word. If we do this, then the mean waiting time reduces to ∼60,000 years."

The second assumption you have made, that evolution is dependent on changing regulatory sequences, is incorrect. While it is true that in some (many?) cases regulatory sequences are involved, there are many other types of genetic/molecular events that can account for morphological changes. The new information on micro-RNA is one such example of non-regulatory changes that could alter regulation of gene expression.
Oct 5, 2015 20:26:03   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Yes and our chromosomes seems to indicate that as well.


No, if Eve were made from Adam's rib women would have an X and a Y chromosome - they don't.
Oct 5, 2015 18:32:51   #
Racmanaz wrote:
Just another scientific evidence for Creation from God.

"Let's consider just one part of the transition that would be required -- to go from an ape-like face to a human one. The portraits of our supposed ancestors are in museums everywhere, and on the web pages of National Geographic -- the latest one, H. naledi, can be found there now. But whether or not that reconstructed face is a part of our history, the question remains: Is there enough time for us to have acquired by purely, Darwinian natural processes the differences that make us look human as opposed to ape-like?" NO

So let's ask the question. Could naturalistic processes guided only by natural selection have accomplished any of this? Changes to the expression of one gene or another can affect morphology -- changing the expression of the gene ALX1 affects the size and shape of finch beaks, for example. Getting one regulatory change to an enhancer is not impossible. But there are multiple enhancers controlling multiple genes involved in facial morphology (see the paper in Nature by Lamichhaney et al.), and to get coordinated regulation of multiple genes, multiple enhancers must have changed in a coordinated fashion.

Is that possible? Durrett and Schmidt published a paper examining how long it would take to have two coordinated mutations (one inactivating and the other activating) take place in an evolving hominin population. They found it would require in excess of 100 million years. Obviously, the hominin population did not have that long to wait for regulatory change. We supposedly diverged from chimps six million years ago.

Nowhere in this paper is it demonstrated that anything like this regulatory network could have evolved step by step in the time available. All it establishes is that our faces are different from chimps because we have different regulatory sequences. In fact, I don't know of anywhere it has been demonstrated that regulatory changes on this scale could be the product of evolution.

In the meantime, we do know something that can coordinate change on this scale. It's called intelligence.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/why_we_dont_loo099831.html
Just another scientific evidence for Creation from... (show quote)

Please go and read the Durrett and Schmidt paper instead of the classic comic slanted summary. They do say that under some conditions that are not realistic it could take 100 million years, but using realistic boundaries, the time required is more in the very few hundreds of thousand years-very practicable for evolution. In fact, their paper is a direct disputation of Behe's nonsense.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.