Whoops, hold on now...Sticky, yes, but not up for debate. Go ahead and ask your questions, because without a clear understanding of the foundation of science, we aren't going to be able to build anything substancial on top of it.

there is not enough oxygen for larger beings than we have nowadays that why many many large animals, dinos, etc dont exist....and good cos spiders back then were the size of a large dinner plate...yuk!

I somehow fail to understand your argument. What do you mean "not enough oxygen"? Where do you base that?

Okay okay, my "up for debate" statement is retracted. I felt the need to use another term asides from sticky which I felt would apply to the statement I was making. It's not inportant. Lets move on.

Ancient geological events changed our atmospheric conditions. The air pressure is much lower now than it once was. The increased air pressure would force oxygen into the bodies of all animals, allowing for very large animals to exist.

Circular arguments are the bane of science. I recall once that I was arguing with a person concerning psi-wheels. He claimed that if I truly concentrated on spinning a psi-wheel, I would be able to do it, and if I didn't, then it meant that I wasn't concentrating enough. This is unfalsifiable. This experiment presumes that the wheel will most definitely spin, and that any error in that is attributable only to the experimentor. In other words, there is no way to prove that the wheel will not spin. Similarly, I also explained how I had set up another wheel as a control, and when the first wheel spun as I concentrated on it, so did the second wheel a little farther away, sans benefit of my psychic powers. He promptly explained that the reason the other wheel was spinning was because even my subconscious mind was powerful enough to spin the second wheel without my thinking about it. Again, there is no way to prove that it wasn't telekinetic powers that moved the wheel.

At this point, you are no doubt asking yourself: "Hey, didn't this crackpot say, just one page ago, that theories don't exist to prove things wrong?". Not to worry, this still applies. The purpose of a theory is indeed to provide an explanation for how a phenomena works. It must, however, have a method in which it can be proved wrong through experimentation. If the hypothesis cannot be proved wrong, then there is really very little point it designing a test for it; after all, how do you set up parameters and controls for something that will occur regardless?

Take, for instance, the theory of gravity. Simply put (very simply put), it states that, all other factors being equal, an object of greater density will move below an object of lesser density unless acted on by an outside force. Because of that, water (higher density), will move below oil (low density), if you place them in the same container. Similarly, if you hold a pencil up in the air and let it go, it will, due to its higher density, fall through the very low density air, until it is acted on by an outside force (most likely, the floor). Disproving it is relatively simple. All you need is an object of higher density that, when no acted on by an outside force, does not move below an object of lower density; in other words, a pencil that, when let go, simply floated in the air all on it's own.

Now, the requirement for falsibility must be present, but it does not have to be something that is ever found. The Pythagorean Theorum states that the sum of the squares of two sides of a Right triangle will be equal to the square of the hypotenuse. All you must do to prove this false is find a Right triangle in which this is not so. Good luck. The Pythagorean Theorum is currently in the Guiness Book of World Records as the single theory with the most independantly derived proofs of its validity in history, with over 3000 ways to show how it works, but, as yet, not a single way in which it does not.

Questions?

Hi all...I had a look on this thread and I would like to point out a particular statement that was made by "Insight" somewhat earlier.

So concering the evolution and mutation differences let me inform you sir the in principal evolution would not exist without mutation. There is no point comparing the tool to the product...

The reason your argument is flawed, lies in the very essence of the DNA structure. In ALL living organisms DNA (or RNA) is actually composed of the same basic building blocks (nucleic acids). The "New" material, that you base your whole objection on, does not actually exist as a concept at all. All species characteristics derive from the variable combinations of those building blocks. There is NO new material to be inserted to the genetic code. This is how it is possible "transfer" certain traits between species in modern biology eg anti-freeze gene. This is also how its possible random mutations can even make a human in the long run to develop gills should that carries an evolutionary advantage (that directly influnces his success to propagate)

Now before you think I am an atheist...I would say that is not true....but I have a problem being fed religious nonsense that have only served the human kind as mass control methods. To be a person to believe in creation is admirable...but if you do want to be true to your username try and search the truth...for unlike what you are told..it will never come to you in a platter.

Welcome to the forum Bio-Mage

Thanks Asterix...... Its good to be in a place where there is plenty food for thought !

Circular arguments are the bane of science. I recall once that I was arguing with a person concerning psi-wheels. He claimed that if I truly concentrated on spinning a psi-wheel, I would be able to do it, and if I didn't, then it meant that I wasn't concentrating enough. This is unfalsifiable. This experiment presumes that the wheel will most definitely spin, and that any error in that is attributable only to the experimentor. In other words, there is no way to prove that the wheel will [i]not spin. Similarly, I also explained how I had set up another wheel as a control, and when the first wheel spun as I concentrated on it, so did the second wheel a little farther away, sans benefit of my psychic powers. He promptly explained that the reason the other wheel was spinning was because even my subconscious mind was powerful enough to spin the second wheel without my thinking about it. Again, there is no way to prove that it wasn't telekinetic powers that moved the wheel.[/I]

Agreed.

At this point, you are no doubt asking yourself: "Hey, didn't this crackpot say, just one page ago, that theories don't exist to prove things wrong?". Not to worry, this still applies. The purpose of a theory is indeed to provide an explanation for how a phenomena works. It must, however, have a method in which it can be proved wrong through experimentation. If the hypothesis cannot be proved wrong, then there is really very little point it designing a test for it; after all, how do you set up parameters and controls for something that will occur regardless?

Also agreed.

Take, for instance, the theory of gravity. Simply put (very simply put), it states that, all other factors being equal, an object of greater density will move below an object of lesser density unless acted on by an outside force. Because of that, water (higher density), will move below oil (low density), if you place them in the same container. Similarly, if you hold a pencil up in the air and let it go, it will, due to its higher density, fall through the very low density air, until it is acted on by an outside force (most likely, the floor). Disproving it is relatively simple. All you need is an object of higher density that, when no acted on by an outside force, does [i]not move below an object of lower density; in other words, a pencil that, when let go, simply floated in the air all on it's own.[/I]

Understood.

Now, the requirement for falsibility must be present, but it does not have to be something that is ever found. The Pythagorean Theorum states that the sum of the squares of two sides of a Right triangle will be equal to the square of the hypotenuse. All you must do to prove this false is find a Right triangle in which this is not so. Good luck. The Pythagorean Theorum is currently in the Guiness Book of World Records as the single theory with the most independantly derived proofs of its validity in history, with over 3000 ways to show how it works, but, as yet, not a single way in which it does not.

An interesting fact!

No questions really. This was by far the most straight forward pre-requisite. On to the last!

The reason your argument is flawed, lies in the very essence of the DNA structure. In ALL living organisms DNA (or RNA)

RNA is different than DNA:

RNA is a molecule present in the cells of all living beings and is essential for the synthesis of proteins . There are different types of RNA, including messenger RNA (mRNA), and transfer RNA (tRNA). mRNA transmits information encoded in DNA, while tRNA uses this information to manufacture proteins.


But that is really besides the point.

is actually composed of the same basic building blocks (nucleic acids). The "New" material, that you base your whole objection on, does not actually exist as a concept at all. All species characteristics derive from the variable combinations of those building blocks. There is NO new material to be inserted to the genetic code.

Yes, charactoristics of a SPECIES. This is why humans look different from each other. But no matter how many times a human reproduces, they could never become something outside the human species. Either above or below it.

Also, a question I have never asked: Is de-evolution possible? Is it possible for mankind to de-evolve back into apes?

So you are saying that all DNA in all living things has the same code, but only with different variations?

Do you mean that a chicken and a rat have the exact same materials in their DNA, merely a differently arranged pattern?


This is how it is possible "transfer" certain traits between species in modern biology eg anti-freeze gene. This is also how its possible random mutations can even make a human in the long run to develop gills should that carries an evolutionary advantage (that directly influnces his success to propagate)

Would a human with gills be anything more than a human with gills? A race of gill men, still completely classified as Human? Where do we get to the part where we stop being human and start being something else above human?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how it goes against my main argument. Variation is species cannot cause new species to form. How do also account for the 99% rate of mutations being detrimental, debilitating, or deadly?

How could something as complex and foreign as a gill ever mutate and evolve on a human? Wouldn't there be some incredible need for it, ie world wide sustained flood? And how would the mutation carry on throughout reproduction as to develope more efficiantly every time? How long would this take before a fully functioning gill could be formed?

Anyways, I am trying to limit this thread to me and aquatus1, but I guess a few more questions and arguments couldn't hurt. *sighs*

I don't think it's very polite to say "I am trying to limit this thread to me and aquatus1" This is a post, anybody could participate. If you want to tell something specific to aquatus, send him a PM. Or if you want a debate, that is yet another thing.

But I believe a normal post should be open for all

Insight,

I am quite aware that RNA and DNA are different, the reason I mentioned both is beacuse not all organisms have DNA. Still however you should know that they are very similar. Only one base and their alignment in space is what really differentiates them. As for the different types of other RNA you mentioned they are purely intermediate functional forms...and by the way there is more forms...like nRNA (nucleosomes). But if you know points beside points then you know that all mention on them is irrelevant...

Secondly, the characteristics of one species does NOT necessarily restrict a certain ability to a species. As to become something different above and beyond...that is non existent as concept too. There is no higher form as such, only the most advantageous for any given time. Humans can accumulate new characteristics but the process is usually a very long process taking thousants of years or millions to fully become distinct to their previous status.

De-evolution may be possible although if it occurs its not really de-evolution as such. Humans CANNOT become apes because apes are an existing today's species. They could resemble the characteristics perhaps (like hair pattern) but they would be classified as hominides (greek misused word for resembling human but not quite). In humans I cannot think though any scenario that our improved intelligence and perception would not come in handy. Perhaps developing traits of supposingly inferior species (like excess hair...again) is what you would see (if ever because we manipulate our environment enough not to need that).

Answering to you DNA between species, you are correct. Rats and chicken and human have same DNA elements but different arrangement more or less. Different gene numbers though is the main reason why things are so variable as welll.

Which brings us to the gill question. Humans developing gills is a bit extreme but serving as an example, the long process of evolutionary traits could even accomodate that IF it was necessary. However again you are correct to say that most mutation end up being raher useless. In fact even a good one could still be useless if its not really a huge advantage. Still the mutation needs to occur frequently enough in a population to be genetcally viable. In other words the process will not be a straight forward one. A lot of changes in a human body will need to be made to accomodate gills, the organ itself will not suffice even if fully functional.

Taxonomy wise though the separation of species is entirely conceptual. Officially there is no one way to separate between species. Usually its the difference in biochemistry procedures, or a certain prominent trair that alters life style (feeding, mating etc). But in that context you can separate between existing human varieties too. Who knows though...by the time we develop gills there will be no more "air breathing" humans around

Evolution is not a clear concept. There is still extensive research on the way it influences life and so none is really qualified to say much. However some facts we need to be aware, if we are to make senseof anything. Even more if we try to discover how we came into being.

I personally have no problem with anyone coming onto this thread and asking questions or offering advice, however I do think it is worth a read through the thread in order to find any particular person's standing at this point. Insight, for instance, is willingly learning the step by step foundations which will eventually allow her to understand the basics of scientific methodology, and from there be in a better position to understand the nature of evolution. To begin debate at this time about the very minute details of the process is of little help, since they cannot be considered in the context of the whole. This is the major weakness in creationism in general; the inability to consider a process beyond its own personal workings and the relation it has to the entire system. One sees it in the speciation argument, the DNA argument, and even the thermodynamics argument. Only by learning how science views data as a whole can one understand why science makes the claims that it does.



This is an issue which almost any paranormal or supernatural phenomena tends to overlook. The essential problem with trying to find an explanation for crop circles, ghosts, or gods, is that the questions being asked is "How do the exist?". Science, however, must always begin at the beginning. The first question must be "Does it exist?". Before one can begin to explain a phenomena, there must be a clear indication that the phenomena exists. At a bare minimum, this requires a reliable, repeatable event. Without this, all else is speculation.

But let us say that you do have a reliable, repeatable event. At this point, one makes a hypothesis, which is a temporary explanation of how the phenomena could work. One has to collect all the evidence that pertains to that phenomena. That does indeed mean all the evidence. One cannot pick and choose what one needs in order to support the hypothesis. Also, remember that one is not trying to support the resulting phenomena; that should already have been established. Rather, one is trying to find an explanation of it.

Let us take, as an example the Great Flood. The creationist stance is that this is in the bible, therefore it occured, and all evidence that supports it is valid and all that does not is, by definition, not valid. Already, we are beginning at the end. One cannot take a result (the Great Flood), and assume that it happened, and base everything off of that. This is putting the result before the evidence. Likewise, one cannot pick and choose which evidence one uses to support it. Note that there isn't a hypothesis either. The explanation for the phenomena of the Great Flood is missing; all the evidence is dedicated to supporting the phenomena, not the hypothesis.

The scientific approach is to take the idea of a great flood into consideration. We do not assume that it is true, but rather that it is an alleged phenomena which needs an explanation. Our hypothesis, our explanation of how a world-wide flood would occur, is formed. In order for a Great Flood to have happened, certain things would have to result from it. We would expect to see certain physical effects on the Earth and on the flora and fauna. We start looking for this evidence, this "missing link", that needs to exists in order for the theory to be valid. If we cannot answer these questions, then we are forced to rework the hypothesis. Some element of it, be it the time scale, the actual event, the scope, whatever, must be incorrect, and we have to allow for it.

Alternatively (and ideally), one doesn't begin with a flood story at all. The purest form of science is to allow the evidence to lead you to the conclusion. If we first find the evidence that points to a single catastrophic flood, then we can conclude that such an event occurred, regardless of whatever tribal myth or religious text contains the story.

This pre-requisite is the trickiest to understand, as it involves some fine hair-splitting. I encourage you to ask questions.

Aquatus,

No disrespect here but that is a long post to state the obvious. Of course people will use the info they think its appropriate for their argument. I'll be damned if I had to quote ALL the literature relating to a subject. You can only hope to outline the things that directly relate to the question at hand.

This thread addresses evolution and consequently DNA and species argument IS the foundation of this subject. Evolution is a fact in nature. We only disagree on the degree it affects life.

It would be really good to take things from the beggining, I agree its a lot wiser. Yet if we are to act on this, then all research needs to stop until we can answer the "does it really exists" question as nothing else will really matter...

I believe sometimes you do need to investigate the smaller pieces to complete the puzzle. Going directly to the source is quite impossible for most things. I read the other day for example that they theorise that the universe is a giant computer creation - go figure - (probably some crazy mathematician that watched Martix a few times too many) does that really though goes to the true begging? I think not....who created the computer ...and in turn who created the creator? All this is a mirror in mirror infinite thinking which pretty much ensures, there is no "base" as such to start from.

I have to admit however that when speaking about mythological aspects in real terms, it would serve us better if we prove the occurance in the first place. Its only logical after all....

Sorry, Bio-mage, but what is obvious to you or I is not as obvious to others. What I am doing for Insight is explaining, in sequence, the specific pre-requisites that are required for a theory to be considered scientific. This one is fifth (and last) on the list. It is considerably important, as you and I know, but it must be emphasized for someone who has grown up with the research methods of the fundamentalist creationists.

Here is a quote from the foremost creationist websight, Answers in Genesis



This is one among many statements directly tied into their Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles. It states, outright, that any data pertaining to the phenomena that does not support the conclusion is inherently wrong and must be ignored. This is a direct violation of the fifth pre-requisite, and one of the many things that invalidates creationism as a valid scientific theory. A person who bases their research and verification methodology on such principles does indeed need to have this point clarified, or else they will, as has happened and will happen in so many of these posts, apply the principles of belief-based research into science, not knowing or understanding the difference between the two.



Yes, I agree, however trying to learn the foundations of evolution without understanding the basics of the science it is founded on will only lead to more questions. The more questions a person encounters, the more reluctant they are to continue until those questions get answered.



The great majority of research has already answered this question, primarily because it is the very first question a grant committee will ask when requesting funding. Those that have alternate sources of funding, such as certain government agencies, would do well to follow this as well, to save themselves several years worth of research and investigation into how effective a phenomena is, only to find out the phenomena doesn't seem to exist.



Most definitely. However, completing the puzzle is the last step. The first thing you need to do is understand the big picture (literally, in this case).

I personally have no problem with anyone coming onto this thread and asking questions or offering advice, however I do think it is worth a read through the thread in order to find any particular person's standing at this point. Insight, for instance, is willingly learning the step by step foundations which will eventually allow her

Whoooooa, dude, I am not a "her". I a guy! *laughs* As far as I know, it does say Male underneath my avatar. *laughs* No hard feelings though. *laughs again*




Let us take, as an example the Great Flood. The creationist stance is that this is in the bible, therefore it occured, and all evidence that supports it is valid and all that does not is, by definition, not valid. Already, we are beginning at the end. One cannot take a result (the Great Flood), and assume that it happened, and base everything off of that. This is putting the result before the evidence. Likewise, one cannot pick and choose which evidence one uses to support it. Note that there isn't a hypothesis either. The explanation for the phenomena of the Great Flood is missing; all the evidence is dedicated to supporting the phenomena, not the hypothesis.

Even though we have not yet disscussed the final pre-requisit, or the others as a whole, I have gained insight as to how to further discuss and argue my beliefs. I can also see a few errors in judgment and statement which I made in my pervious posts. And besides all that, I have been doing side research as to how to go about backing up my claims. Aleady I have a better definition of what I believe to be true, and what I believe to be fact.

Let us take, as an example the Great Flood. The creationist stance is that this is in the bible, therefore it occured, and all evidence that supports it is valid and all that does not is, by definition, not valid. Already, we are beginning at the end.

A common flaw in arguing our points is to assume others have a concept of a divine God and his workings. If I approach you at a supernatural level, and you appreach me at a scientiffic level, neither of us will understand the other. I can better take this into consideration now. And I hope you can also do the same.

One cannot take a result (the Great Flood), and assume that it happened, and base everything off of that. This is putting the result before the evidence. Likewise, one cannot pick and choose which evidence one uses to support it.

This is where faith and science conflict. My God says to put faith into him. Faith requires no evidence of facts to support it. Many outside of my faith believe this is a weakness. Scientiffically, it may be. But spiritually, it is a solid foundation, and a rock on which to build my fortress. Undertanding this for people outside of the faith is nearly impossible because they have not lived it, thus, they know not of it's purpose, meaning, or function. I could try to make this clear to you, but will choose to do so at another time. Just food for thought.

Note that there isn't a hypothesis either. The explanation for the phenomena of the Great Flood is missing; all the evidence is dedicated to supporting the phenomena, not the hypothesis.

I understand this. It's as if creationists and evolutionists come from opposite sides of reasoning and speculation. This creates barriers for sure. We each try to follow our meathods for gathering "fact" from opposite sides of the process. Am I right?


Alternatively (and ideally), one doesn't begin with a flood story at all. The purest form of science is to allow the evidence to lead you to the conclusion.

Of course, knowing what you are looking for will create a masisve head start into ever finding it. If no one ever thinks to look for evidence of a great flood, no one will find it unless one stumbles upon huge evidence. It would be a long process for minds to collaborate facts to lead up to the hypothesis os a great flood ever happening.


If we first find the evidence that points to a single catastrophic flood, then we can conclude that such an event occurred, regardless of whatever tribal myth or religious text contains the story.

herein lies speculation between minds as to what evidence could be able to support a theory of a great flood. Some would not accept evidence others provided inevitably. Perhaps this would not be a damning limiter, or, perhaps it would. Most likely though, people in the same professions would end up studying the suposed phenomena and would be on the same level. personal bias or personal understanding could only hold out for so far.

I'd like to see the summary sentences of each pre-requisite listed, if you don't mind. Now that we have gone into deeper detail regrading such, I will have background to consider when I see each summery statement. I will be easier for me to line up the process.

I'll post further questions and comments after I have a little more time to allow things to sink in. Talk to you soon.

My bad! My bad completely! I am so sorry; I deliberatly went and checked just to make sure (I usually assume members are guys), and I messed up in a large way. Mea culpa, mea culpa.



Excellent. I am ready for whatever questions you may have for me.



This is true. Science has one set of requirements, and religious beliefs have another. It is not really a problem with understanding persay, in much the same way that you now have a better understanding of scientific methodology, but rather of one of respect for others rules and beliefs. It is just as much an affront to a scientist for a person to claim that certain religious ideas are "fact" and "Theory" (scientific terms) as it is an affront for the devout for a scientists to claim that deities are delusions and frauds.



An extremely long process. Darwin took almost twenty years compiling his research and studies prior to publixhing anything concerning evolution (and he would have taken longer, except that he was about to get scooped by another scientist). Most discoveries follow this line. Research is a hard road, and a lifetime of dedication is just the right price for the immortality of new discovery.



Well...only to a certain extent. See, we shown respect by knowing and understanding the reasons the opposite side do things, but we do not necessarily have to agree with them. Your best friend might well decide that going bunjee-jumping for his birthday would be the right thing to do, but his method for doing so involves a friend of a friend of a friend who once read a pretty good book on the subject. You might be of the mindset that a better way to go about it is to find a professional bunjee-jumping company to arrange the whole process. Sure, you understand why he wants to do it, and you may or may not agree with his beliefs (good luck getting me to jump off a perfectly good bridge); it is simply the method that he employs to achieve the end result that you find lacks credibility.



I'm a little short on time as well, so if you don't mind I'll repost a previous post:

This is a site related to theory and evolutionary forms of Ape -> Human.

http://www.eadshome.com/transitionalforms.htm

Not a completely accurate site, I'm afraid. The first two are pretty good, unfortunately, it perpetuates the myth about Lucy being found in seperate locations, and makes no attempt to differentiate between what is considered an "ape" and what is considered a "human".