A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second
Options
Comments
-
Prove it.
-
Bambu: I'm going to lightly skim this article because the title of it tricked me into believing that it proves my ? yet as I read, I'm not really going to take in any information with intellectual honesty; instead, I'm going to apply selective "seeing" and only understand the article by twisting it to my ignorant point of view. Then, I'm going to spam the boards with it and post wack gifs of a ? ? from the 300 movie to look smart but in reality appear anything but.
-
Prove it.
O.K.
"Vestiges" such as the pineal gland have been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
The Cambrian explosion debunks the "slow-pace" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Genetics debunk the tree of life, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
DNA evidence suggests that the blueprint for all life is similar to computer code, which must be written, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Not all life has been observed to "progress"......
Dollo's Law, (stating that once a lineage had lost or modified organs or structures, that they couldn’t turn back the clock and un-evolve those changes. Or, as he put it, “an organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors,”) has been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Darwin's moths have been debunked, removing another "example" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Now what?.?.?.?.?
You are the ? skimming articles..........
? , you didn't even know that there was a full article posted...........
oceanic: I am on the side of mainstream science, so I am right & I know everything, but I really don't know ? ............
furious one: I'm gonna sit on the sidelines and mash buttons because I remember when that ? bambu ethered my ass not too long ago..........
-
"Vestiges" such as the pineal gland have been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
The Cambrian explosion debunks the "slow-pace" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Genetics debunk the tree of life, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
DNA evidence suggests that the blueprint for all life is similar to computer code, which must be written, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Not all life has been observed to "progress"......
Dollo's Law, (stating that once a lineage had lost or modified organs or structures, that they couldn’t turn back the clock and un-evolve those changes. Or, as he put it, “an organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors,”) has been debunked, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Darwin's moths have been debunked, removing another "example" of evolution, yet evolutionists continue to support the theory..........
Now what?.?.?.?.?
You are the ? skimming articles..........
? , you didn't even know that there was a full article posted...........
genetics may have proved the tree to be an inaccurate concept, but it has definitely not debunked evolution, which is what you're claiming.. So again, prove it. And this time, try not to divert to avoid this ether. All that other ? you talkin has been, like this tree topic, been explained to you before.
Show me how I didn't know there was a full article. -
Prove what?????????
We now overstand "the tree to be an inaccurate concept"............
Because there is no way to show common ancestors............
Differing organisms have differing heritages and cannot be placed in a tree diagram.............
Because in genetics the tree diagram only works with genes/organisms that share a common ancestor...........
There is a tree for humans............
There is a tree for frogs...........
The concept that they share common ancestors or can be placed in the same tree is inaccurate............
-
@bambu oozled, word son, i remember you had that tantrum like a child and had this crazy outburst which confused me and threw me off a bit. Then you stalked me and stalked females to show that you're an equal opportunity stalker. Since then i a haven't bothered to respond to your inanity and flimflam, but enjoy your dual with Oceanic while i delve into different topics like a sane ? . I just felt compelled to flag you cuz i was bored. My bad.
-
The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.
-
The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.
"All life evolved from one organism"........
Yet, only some organisms can be validated using a tree diagram, but for the ones who cannot we will just say horizontal or web-like and call it a day.......
GTFOH...........
BAMBU WINS!!!!
FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!
-
The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.
"All life evolved from one organism"........
Yet, only some organisms can be validated using a tree diagram, but for the ones who cannot we will just say horizontal or web-like and call it a day.......
GTFOH...........
BAMBU WINS!!!!
FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!
Yeah except the difference is that we're looking at a larger scale pattern.
As previously stated, vertical gene transfer is not argued to not exist. On the contrary, it does.. HOWEVER, horizontal gene transfer also occurs, which makes the web a better representation of the history if evolution of species rather than the tree. -
The tree may be inaccurate because of horizontal gene transfer but that does not mean vertical transfer does not happen. So common descent is still suggested with the web representation.
"All life evolved from one organism"........
Yet, only some organisms can be validated using a tree diagram, but for the ones who cannot we will just say horizontal or web-like and call it a day.......
GTFOH...........
BAMBU WINS!!!!
FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!
Yeah except the difference is that we're looking at a larger scale pattern.
As previously stated, vertical gene transfer is not argued to not exist. On the contrary, it does.. HOWEVER, horizontal gene transfer also occurs, which makes the web a better representation of the history if evolution of species rather than the tree.
You must have rode the short bus............
Some species are not related and cannot be properly placed in a vertical or tree diagram.......
Instead they must be represented horizontally...........
You say it supports Darwinism........
The consensus says it demands a re-examination of the theory..........
I say it is, but yet another example of the dismantling of the theory of evolution............
-
Some species are not related and cannot be properly placed in a vertical or tree diagram.......
The consensus says it demands a re-examination of the theory..........
False. -
A.J. Trillzynski wrote: »I had some questions about evolution once, like how much do leading Scientists really know? what's the very latest scoop on this ? ? so I went to the book store and I discovered that there is an entire science out there called evolutionary biology. And in this field of science, there is a ? ton of material to read up on. You would be amazed at how deep this stuff goes, every day people are learning more about how evolution works and the facts are piling up at an extraordinary rate.
for people in this thread parading their ignorance like its funny, its really not. you might think its funny and get a few lol's here and there, but to the outside world you are embarrassing yourself. don't be stupid. just don't. Instead of asking dumb questions on a message board, read a book. have an intelligent discussion about whatever doubts you might have afterwards. trying to have a debate without even understanding the most basic basic ? though.. its absurd. don't be stupid, get smart.
this ? will really open your eyes, man. you're not a Scientist, in truth. I'm not either. Just be honest, you don't know ? all about evolution. But you would be AMAZED about how much IS KNOWN about evolution. you want documented evidence? read this book. you want to trace our lineage all the way back to primordial ooze with an actual evolutionary biologist holding your hand and explaining ? to you like a child the whole way through? read this book.
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
From tree to web
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
http://youtu.be/MXrYhINutuI
The chart in the original post is a modification of the "tree" based on modern evidence. That's the beauty of science... theories can and will be wrong and they will in turn either change or be discarded. If you use religion to define your knowledge of the physical world it just means your information is out of date by thousands of years and will remain that way. -
Leave it to Bambu to post an article in support of evolution because the picture associated to it seems to favor him.
From the article
"Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong" - Bambu -
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
-
Knock_Twice wrote: »man you been done and didn't provide nothing but Youtube clips of stanky ass monkeys beating down rocks and a bunch text that you thought sounded so deep lol...told you ? if you can't explain it to a 5th grader or an 60 year old, then you needs to get off that soapbox you're standing on...you looking weak...
Species do not jump from one to the next within a generation. In simpler terms a clown fish does not just give birth to a flounder fish. It happens slowly over time. Just like when two humans come together and have children that have different genetics than their parents so do other animals. The genetics your kids have is random to an extent but is heavily influenced by the genes its parents have. The genes that are most useful to an animal are the ones that get passed on while genes that hurt an animal's chances of survival and reproduction do not get passed on because that animal either dies or it does not get to have kids.
Over a long period of time the genetics of an entire group of animals can change because some genes might be better than others. A famous example is the grey moths in England during the industrial revolution that were able to blend in with the soot covered foliage and avoid getting eaten. This started out as a mutation that very few moths had but because it was effective at preventing them from getting eaten it became common. This is just one change and does not mean another species was created. In order for a new species to be created an animal has to be dissimilar to another to the point of being unable to reproduce with it. In simpler terms their genetics need to be so completely different that they cannot biologically have kids together and produce offspring that are also capable of having kids. Some animals are similar enough to reproduce together, such as mules and horses, but their offspring are impotent.
When you think of evolution you have to think of it as having occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. If you cannot let go of ideas that the earth is only 6,000 years old then even simple explanations like the above will not make sense to you.
The experiments behind the peppered moth story are known to be flawed
The evidence that predation by birds has caused the change in frequency of moth colour rests on a series of experiments which are now known to have been flawed. Bernard Kettlewell, who carried out most of the studies, assumed that the moths rested on tree trunks during the day. However, it is very difficult to find wild moths in their natural resting places (most textbook photos are of dead moths glued to tree trunks). Painstaking subsequent observations of wild moths have shown that they prefer to settle in locations higher in the tree than those used by Kettlewell. Another problem is that Kettlewell released his moths at the wrong time of day. This meant that they were not able to settle naturally in their preferred resting site. Futhermore, he released large numbers of moths, which may have created an artificial magnet for predatory birds. The experiments were simply too artificial – the moths were released at the wrong time of day, in the wrong places, and in the wrong numbers.
Conclusion
School children need to learn that the peppered moth story provides evidence for changes of frequencies of different types within a population, but does not show that large scale evolution can occur. They should also understand that the original experiments behind the peppered moth story have widely acknowledged flaws, and some of these issues have been addressed in more recent experiments.
Bibliography
Proffitt, F. 2004 In defense of Darwin and a Former Icon of Evolution. Science 304:1894-1895
So it begins................
@ All you ? .......
The example was not intended to show long term change but rather show how the traits of a population can change based on what is most effective for survival.
How can you accept the idea of change over short periods of time but reject that migration resulting in groups of animals living in isolation and developing independent of others would result in completely different animals? -
Knock_Twice wrote: »man you been done and didn't provide nothing but Youtube clips of stanky ass monkeys beating down rocks and a bunch text that you thought sounded so deep lol...told you ? if you can't explain it to a 5th grader or an 60 year old, then you needs to get off that soapbox you're standing on...you looking weak...
Species do not jump from one to the next within a generation. In simpler terms a clown fish does not just give birth to a flounder fish. It happens slowly over time. Just like when two humans come together and have children that have different genetics than their parents so do other animals. The genetics your kids have is random to an extent but is heavily influenced by the genes its parents have. The genes that are most useful to an animal are the ones that get passed on while genes that hurt an animal's chances of survival and reproduction do not get passed on because that animal either dies or it does not get to have kids.
Over a long period of time the genetics of an entire group of animals can change because some genes might be better than others. A famous example is the grey moths in England during the industrial revolution that were able to blend in with the soot covered foliage and avoid getting eaten. This started out as a mutation that very few moths had but because it was effective at preventing them from getting eaten it became common. This is just one change and does not mean another species was created. In order for a new species to be created an animal has to be dissimilar to another to the point of being unable to reproduce with it. In simpler terms their genetics need to be so completely different that they cannot biologically have kids together and produce offspring that are also capable of having kids. Some animals are similar enough to reproduce together, such as mules and horses, but their offspring are impotent.
When you think of evolution you have to think of it as having occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. If you cannot let go of ideas that the earth is only 6,000 years old then even simple explanations like the above will not make sense to you.
The experiments behind the peppered moth story are known to be flawed
The evidence that predation by birds has caused the change in frequency of moth colour rests on a series of experiments which are now known to have been flawed. Bernard Kettlewell, who carried out most of the studies, assumed that the moths rested on tree trunks during the day. However, it is very difficult to find wild moths in their natural resting places (most textbook photos are of dead moths glued to tree trunks). Painstaking subsequent observations of wild moths have shown that they prefer to settle in locations higher in the tree than those used by Kettlewell. Another problem is that Kettlewell released his moths at the wrong time of day. This meant that they were not able to settle naturally in their preferred resting site. Futhermore, he released large numbers of moths, which may have created an artificial magnet for predatory birds. The experiments were simply too artificial – the moths were released at the wrong time of day, in the wrong places, and in the wrong numbers.
Conclusion
School children need to learn that the peppered moth story provides evidence for changes of frequencies of different types within a population, but does not show that large scale evolution can occur. They should also understand that the original experiments behind the peppered moth story have widely acknowledged flaws, and some of these issues have been addressed in more recent experiments.
Bibliography
Proffitt, F. 2004 In defense of Darwin and a Former Icon of Evolution. Science 304:1894-1895
So it begins................
@ All you ? .......
The example was not intended to show long term change but rather show how the traits of a population can change based on what is most effective for survival.
How can you accept the idea of change over short periods of time but reject that migration resulting in groups of animals living in isolation and developing independent of others would result in completely different animals?
Sure change over time, both long and short....
However, all living creatures on this planet have a set of programmed code which gives it life.....
The code can be changed, but once the limits of the code (species) has been met, it no longer exists....
This is genetics 101.....
Bacteria does not evolve....
It changes, but it is still bacteria......
What makes you believe that a program can be changed into another.....
Or rather that an animal can change into a completely different animal......
-
Bacteria can come together to form larger organisms. Algae and fungi are touted as an example of such an evolution
-
Oh algae and fungi are signs of evolution, I guess we can now deduce that fish can morph into human beings.
Yeah that makes sense! Man can evolve from some ancient primordial ooze that somehow "spontaneously" gave birth to life.
Oh yeah that's right says evolutionists! Non-life can produce life! Nothing can become something which can produce everything we see in the universe! Who needs intelligence!
-
Dr Bapteste said: "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."
Bambu quoting mining fails again. -
The mysteries of abiogenesis do not disprove Darwinism
-
The mysteries of abiogenesis do not disprove Darwinism
"The mysteries of abiogenesis?"
There's not enough LOL's in the world to express how hard I am laughing at that quote. Are you serious? You can't be serious bruh, you just can't!
-
"The mysteries of abiogenesis?"
-
Is laughter your coping mechanism for when you are faced with some sort of cognitive dissonance between the story book you've built your life around and the progress of human science?
-
While abiogenesis is currently it will probably be unraveled in this century. In fact I believe, given the state of current research, we will have scenarios to produce life from chemical action. By the end of the century we will be able to produce organism that functions to a need.
-
BRB watching "abiogenesis" non-intelligently make a car!
BRB watching "abiogenesis" non-intelligently produce a dictionary!
BRB watching "abiogenesis" non-intelligently build a house!
No intelligence is needed to produce, create, or make anything that we see! "The mysteries of abiogenesis" are at work!
