dryson GROUP: Members POSTS: 540  |
Report this
Oct. 21 2007, 10:06 pm
Religion meant to keep people scared and restless to control them for the profit of the person at the center of the contraversy. Science doesn't want people to be scared, science wants people to live better and longer lives through the understanding of how nature is based on imperical and tangible evidence, not superstions of allegorical non-sense.
Long live scientific truth.
|
Korban GROUP: Members POSTS: 597 |
Report this
Oct. 22 2007, 3:53 am
| Quote (dryson @ Oct. 20 2007, 5:32 pm) | Evolution is not a theory, it is scientific fact, I am not talking about Darwin either but science.
Religion professes that a singular god created all, in ancient times there were many gods that were used to describe what was going on in the natural environment. These notions of god are nothing more then people who do not live in the light of scientific truth, but would rather live in the darkness of self professed idiotcy to make theirself sound like they know the truth. Religion is nothing more then the feeble minded and un-intelligent trying to make theirself seem intelligent and almighty.
The question still remains. If a god did create all as Genesis states and God said "Let there be light" then god would had to have been created. Religion lives in a paradoxial illusioniated world where they try to make people think what they say is correct but since they come from the shallow end of the thought pool, they cannot let go of this notion and grow a pair venture out into the unknown to find out what is out there.
So who created god? |
Gee, I'm not even a Jesus-Freak and I can answer this simple chessnut: "In the begining, God was", you can find it in page one verse one of book one. According to every Christian I know, God always has, always will and is existing just fine without any need of a precursor. In order for "him" to be a creator, he must be infinite as the Universe he created is infinite. That much makes a certain amount of sence. If it isn't a theory, why is it called the Theory of Evolution? Has it been proven empirically (like Gravity)? No. Do we have any data drived from equations (as we would from the Laws of Momentum)? No. Until then, it's a theory. |
|
Korban GROUP: Members POSTS: 597 |
Report this
Oct. 22 2007, 4:05 am
| Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Oct. 19 2007, 11:04 pm) | | Quote | | besides, evolution is a religion anyway. |
Please stop making a fool of yourself on this forum. |
Theory: A plausable principle or body thereof offer to explain a phemomena or series thereof. (2) a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. Supposition, Conjecture, Speculation I suggest, for your own good, that you read a bleedin' dictionary before you spout off on any topic in the future. |
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Oct. 22 2007, 12:04 pm
| Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Oct. 19 2007, 12:04 am) | | Quote | | besides, evolution is a religion anyway. |
Please stop making a fool of yourself on this forum. |
I agree, as it stand scientific Theories provide models and predictions that allow scientists to conduct experiments to validate the theory and make advancement in that field of study. Einstein theory of Relativity is a theory also, but if physicists didnot include its equations in host of applications, such as designing particle acceleration, GPS position calculations, etc these application would not perform correctily. Like evolution, Relativity have been proven in 1000's of experiments, and have made prediction that are observed by scientists. It is not a religion, it common for detractors ( such as those that push to have "intelligent Design" taught in school) to attent to paint evolution as just another type of Dogma. Science demand proof using a specific methology, one that has allow science to make model of physical process so accurate that it shaped our civilization. Without scientific theories we would not microchip, nuclear power or a host of medicine created by genetic research that evolution has spawn. For Evolution to be consider a law, it must be the final word in the field of Genetics, but darwin had no idea of DNA and the host of chemical processes that allow it to work its magic. So until a better theory come along, it is the current models that Biologist use. There have been additions which is common with most theories, as scientist learn more they update them or create better ones. |
HisRoyalHighnessTheKing GROUP: Members POSTS: 34248 |
Report this
Oct. 22 2007, 7:21 pm
| Quote | If it isn't a theory, why is it called the Theory of Evolution? Has it been proven empirically (like Gravity)? No.
Do we have any data drived from equations (as we would from the Laws of Momentum)? No.
Until then, it's a theory.
Theory: A plausable principle or body thereof offer to explain a phemomena or series thereof. (2) a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.
Supposition, Conjecture, Speculation
I suggest, for your own good, that you read a bleedin' dictionary before you spout off on any topic in the future. |
I suggest you read your own quotes before you make anymore silly statements. The first dictionary definition you posted generally covers the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific context. |
Jarriss GROUP: Members POSTS: 382 |
Report this
Oct. 23 2007, 3:49 am
Evolution has been PROVEN?! Where? When was it's processes observed? The only "proof" is the fossil record which is stetchy at best.
It is not scienitific law, so don't treat it as such. I think some people are so fanatical about being Dawkinites that they forget the guy is a hate-spewing wackaloon.
|
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Oct. 23 2007, 12:04 pm
| Quote (Jarriss @ Oct. 22 2007, 4:49 am) | Evolution has been PROVEN?! Where? When was it's processes observed? The only "proof" is the fossil record which is stetchy at best.
It is not scienitific law, so don't treat it as such. I think some people are so fanatical about being Dawkinites that they forget the guy is a hate-spewing wackaloon. |
Wrong, tons of experiments ranging from fruit flies to the observation of naturalist and scientist. one example, in 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992) This is not an isolate instead, a host of experiments on yeast, microbes, fruit flies along with observation in the field support evolution.. If you like i can list more specifics on experiments that have been done that support evolution. It a common talking point that there is no proof, but that is a falsehood. |
|
dryson GROUP: Members POSTS: 540 |
Report this
Oct. 23 2007, 6:58 pm
Probably the easiest way to show EVOLUTION is correct in scientif terms is by looking at how a HUMAN evolves.
First we all start as spern from the father. This is half of the genetic sequence.
Second we have the egg from the mother. This is the other half of genetic sequence needed.
Once combined at the precise stage in the egg's travel down the fallopian tube and into the uterus the sequence begins.
We all start out as microscopic cells that then grow into a human lifeform.
Now if we take this same process and reverse engineer it back a million years or so we can see how we evolved from micro-orginism's that for some reason stopped re-producing a-sexually, split into two different sexes and then continued to evolve.
If a god did create and is all exacting in said gods eyes, why would god give man nipples? They server no purpose what-so-ever for the male, but for the female they are used to produce sustanance for the offspring until the offspring has enough strength to hunt or gather it's own food.
Nipples on a man serve no purpose. This also shows that we as men still retain some dna from the growth process of the female that gives us nipples.
THANKS ALOT for that one!
We evolved.
|
|
Korban GROUP: Members POSTS: 597 |
Report this
Oct. 24 2007, 4:01 am
Explain the "useless nipple" bit to old Russian men; they lactate when their daughters become pregant.
|
|
Korban GROUP: Members POSTS: 597 |
Report this
Oct. 24 2007, 4:03 am
While you're at that, tell me how the Bombadier Beetle was able to 'evolve' the ablity to project flames?
|
|
lanceromega GROUP: Members POSTS: 3859 |
Report this
Oct. 24 2007, 11:35 am
| Quote (Korban @ Oct. 23 2007, 5:03 am) | | While you're at that, tell me how the Bombadier Beetle was able to 'evolve' the ablity to project flames? |
 , but cease development in males well before puberty, where while testosterone inhibits the production of milk ( elderly men trend to suffer from low testosterone level, while male babies are expose to estrogen while gestating in their mother that promote milk production.). It is believed that the mammary gland is a transformed sweat gland, more closely related to Apocrine sweat glands[citation needed]. There are many theories of how they evolved, but since they do not fossilize well, supporting such theories presents a major difficulty for the researcher. One theory proposes that mammary glands evolved from glands that were used to keep the eggs of early mammals moist. So i donot see how lactating old men disprove evolution.. |
|
Korban GROUP: Members POSTS: 597 |
Report this
Oct. 25 2007, 6:15 pm
Could you explain how again?
How did these bugs first store these volitile chemicals? More importantly, how did they learn to mix them without exploding?
|
caltrek GROUP: Members POSTS: 0 |
Report this
Oct. 25 2007, 10:21 pm
| Quote (Korban @ Oct. 25 2007, 6:15 pm) | Could you explain how again?
How did these bugs first store these volitile chemicals? More importantly, how did they learn to mix them without exploding? |
Well, if they had exploded they wouldn't be around today now would they? |
|
HisRoyalHighnessTheKing GROUP: Members POSTS: 34248 |
Report this
Oct. 26 2007, 2:52 am
Bombadier beetles exploding huh?
Someone has been reading that old nutter Duane Gish.| Quote | The Bombadier Beetle Myth Exploded by Christopher Gregory Weber
Dr. Duane T. Gish, assistant director of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has made some extravagant and unfounded claims about the bombardier beetle (genus Brachinus). This beetle defends itself by shooting boiling-hot fluids out its rear end at its attackers; Gish argues that no ordinary beetle could have slowly evolved into a bombardier beetle through any conceivable transitional forms because a transitional beetle with an incomplete mechanism would have either been burdened with a load of useless baggage, or else have blown itself to smithereens. In this article, we shall see how badly Gish has distorted the facts about this insect.
In his book Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards (Creation-Life Publishers: San Diego, CA, 1977), Gish lays out his entire argument that transitional beetles are inconceivable. He describes how the bombardier beetle's explosive defense system is supposed to work, claiming to derive his information from the German entomologist Dr. Hermann Schildknecht. His argument is based on this description of the beetle's mechanism, and stands or falls with it:
This scientist [Dr. Hermann Schildknecht] found out, first of all, that the bombardier beetle mixes up two kinds of chemicals--hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. Now the marvelous thing about this is, if you or I went into a chemistry laboratory and mixed up these two chemicals -- BOOM! We would blow ourselves up.
But not the bombardier beetle. He's too smart. When he mixes up these two chemicals he makes sure he adds another kind of chemical, called an inhibitor. The inhibitor somehow prevents the other two chemicals from blowing up. In other words, they just sit there together real peaceful like. The beetle then stores this liquid in two storage chambers, ready to be used when needed. . . .
How does Mr. B. B. make the chemical solution explode just at the right time, in spite of the fact that it contains an inhibitor? Dr. Schildknecht found out just at the exact moment Mr. B. B. wants to fire his two cannons, he squirts in an anti-inhibitor. The antiinhibitor neutralizes (knocks out) the inhibitor, and the two chemicals (the hydrogen peroxide and the hydroquinone) can then react violently together and explode. (pp. 51-52)
Thus Gish is maintaining that the bombardier beetle juggles four chemicals in its defense mechanism. The hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone spontaneously explode unless an inhibitor is added to prevent the explosion. The beetle fires off its defense mechanism by adding an anti-inhibitor to this mixture. Gish bases his entire argument on this inhibitor model. If any of the four chemicals, any of the organs, or the nervous system mechanism were missing in any of the transitional forms, then either the beetle would blow itself up, or else it would be lugging around a lot of useless baggage. Obviously, natural selection would not select for either one. At any rate, that's how Gish argues.
Actually, Dr. Gish totally misrepresents Dr. Schildknecht, who says absolutely nothing about an inhibitor. On the contrary, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not spontaneously blow up when mixed together; they just slowly turn brown as they oxidize. The only time they explode is when the beetle forces them to by adding two catalysts, a catalase to decompose the hydrogen peroxide, and a peroxidase to oxidize the hydroquinones and thereby break them down into the simpler quinones. Apparently Gish's translator does not read German very well. Drs. William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey of San Diego State University in California have even shown Gish there is no inhibitor and that the two explosive chemicals do not explode spontaneously. Yet despite this, Dr. Gish still continues to use this false argument.
Thwaites and Awbrey teach a two-model Evolution vs. Creation course at San Diego State. Leading creationists such as Dr. Gish present the creationist viewpoint during one session, and then Awbrey and Thwaites present the findings of empirical science during the following meeting. At one such rebuttal session in the spring of 1978, Thwaites gingerly mixed hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone solutions together. The two professors took elaborate precautions to protect the class in case Dr. Gish's biochemistry turned out to be correct. The solutions only turned brown, failing to explode.
This is an easy experiment to duplicate. You- can even try it at home, since hydroquinone can be purchased from your local photography shop (it's used for photographic developer), and hydrogen peroxide is available at your supermarket or drug store (it's used in women's hair coloring). This allows you to prove to your own satisfaction that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not spontaneously explode.
When Thwaites and Awbrey confronted Gish with this fact, he became flustered, and said that somehow the German word for "unstable" had been mistranslated as "explosive."
When they asked him what his source was, he replied that he had gotten his information from Hermann Schildknecht, Eleonore Maschwitz. and U. Maschwitz. "Die Explosionschemie der Bombardierkafer (Coleoptera, Carabidae)," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 23 (1968), pp. 1213-1218. The purpose of this article is to study the nature of the catalysts that make the otherwise inert hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone explode:
During the "pop," the contents of the paired pygidial defense bladders of the bombardier beetle (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) are squeezed in small portions into chitinous chambers, and there they are explosively transformed into oxygen, quinone, and water. This explosion-chamber reaction is catalyzed by enzymes, which are emptied as a dark brown 40-60% albumin solution out of one-celled annex-glands into the front chamber. [My own translation]
Thus Schildknecht is saying that the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode until the enzymes make them do so, and mentions nothing about any inhibitor. Let us see in more detail what Schildknecht has to say on the beetle's explosion mechanism.
Schildknecht's diagram of the insect's defense organs shows that there are two chambers, the larger inner chamber (called the "reservoir" by Eisner and the "collection bladder" by Schildknecht) empties into the smaller outer one (called the "vestibule" by Eisner and the "explosion chamber" by Schildknecht), which in turn empties into the outside world through an opening near the anus. There are two sets of these organs, one on either side of the anus. The collection bladder collects hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone, which just sit there without exploding. The explosion chamber collects a brown gooey mixture of enzymes. This chamber has a thick chitin wall with numerous little holes in it through which single-celled glands secrete and deposit the enzymes into the chamber. When the insect becomes excited, a muscle opens up a little door on a hinge. Through this opening the two chemicals are forced into the explosion chamber, where the enzymes make them explode out of the insect's derriere as oxygen, quinone, and water. (The door opens into the explosion chamber so that the explosion will force the door shut and not injure the collection bladder. Schildknecht explains the chemistry of this reaction clearly:
Not only did the results of our earlier work on the defense system of the bombardier beetle give the surprising result that this beetle manufactures a 25% solution of hydrogen peroxide and a 10% solution of hydroquinone, but we can now also show that the enzyme that sparks off these chemicals is also stored in an extraordinarily high concentration. In the explosion chamber a 40-60% albumin solution is stored which consists of one third peroxidase and two thirds catalase. We are concerned here with the secretion of the annex-glands which empty into the front chamber of the pygidial bladder, an extension of the anus.
Gish was made aware of all this in the spring of 1978. Even though he continued to insist that this insect could not have evolved and that it has some kind of inhibitor to keep the two chemicals from oxidizing, he reluctantly admitted that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not spontaneously explode when mixed, and that Schildknecht has nothing to say about any inhibitor.
Nevertheless, Gish still continues to use his old description in his debates. For instance, on January 17, 1980, in a debate with Dr. John W. Patterson at Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa, Gish said:
The bombardier beetle is a remarkable little creature that has this explosive mechanism. He stores two chemicals in a storage chamber, and he puts in an inhibitor to keep it from exploding or decomposing. He squirts it in the combustion tube, and then he adds an antiinhibitor, and there all the enzymes there [sic]--and boom! An explosion goes off right in the face of his enemy. Beautifully timed! Beautiful mechanism! You have to have thick storage chambers, you have to have the two chemicals, you have to have an inhibitor, you have to have an anti-inhibitor, you've got to have those combustion tubes, you have to have the communication network all present and functioning, just as you have to have every part on the rockets to go to the moon present and functioning. How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!
Gish already knew better. Why would he repeat an old error? If he is this unreliable in areas where we can check up on him, then how can we trust him in areas where we cannot? But even if his facts were beyond reproach, we would still have difficulty taking him seriously because he brings up the bombardier beetle to help prove that fire-breathing dragons may have actually existed. In the very book in which he describes the bombardier beetle (Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards), he argues that old legends, Job 41:18-21, and the bombardier beetle all suggest that the unique crests on the heads of some duck-billed dinosaurs were the chemical storage tanks for their flame-throwing mechanisms. These dinosaurs were thus the fire-breathing dragons of myth and legend! Need I say more?
Although the main purpose of this article is to show that Gish's description cannot be trusted, we should take a little time to see how the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism could have gradually evolved. There's no problem explaining where the hydroquinone and the hydrogen peroxide came from.
As Thomas Eisner shows in his article "Chemical Defense Against Predation in Arthropods" (Chemical Ecology, 1970, pp. 157-215), hydrogen peroxide is a normal metabolic byproduct in insects, and various quinones are used to harden (or "sclerotinize") the cuticle of insects. All kinds of insects therefore secrete these chemicals. As a byproduct, hydroquinone tastes bad to predators and is the chemical that makes stink bugs stink. So, if an insect's cuticle became indented, forming little sacs to store some of this hydroquinone, it would have an advantage over its fellows even if its storage mechanism was not yet very efficient.
Schildknecht himself points out that the carabid family of beetles has little sacs like this. They have glands that exude enzymes into pygidial bladders that empty into the anus, even though these don't explode. So, even though the bombardier beetle is the only carabid beetle to shoot boiling liquid at its enemies, the other carabid beetles, living in different ecological niches, survive very well because, with their thick-walled little sacs, they can poison their enemies but not themselves.
Therefore, all the pre-bombardier beetle had to do was direct some of that hydrogen peroxide into its collection bladder, develop a little valve between the collection bladder and vestibule chamber, and finally supply the catalase and peroxidase in the vestibule. The hydrogen peroxide would make the insect more poisonous to eat than it was before. A muscle that pulled the duct between the two chambers open, and relaxed to let it close, would help the beetle be more selective about its poison discharges. Even if this valve structure was crude at first, it would have survival value until the side of the duct attached to the muscle could evolve into a little door. The enzymes would be useful the moment they appeared. Even if the beetle's new firing mechanism could not be aimed all that well or if the chemicals were not being secreted in the best proportions at first, the mechanism would still be useful from the start, and the beetle could refine it in time.
So, when Gish says, "How are you going to explain that step-by-step by evolution by natural selection? It cannot be done!" he is merely admitting that he has little ability in problem solving.
Copyright 1980 by Christopher Gregory Weber |
|
|
Jarriss GROUP: Members POSTS: 382 |
Report this
Oct. 26 2007, 3:27 am
| Quote (caltrek @ Oct. 25 2007, 10:21 pm) | | Quote (Korban @ Oct. 25 2007, 6:15 pm) | Could you explain how again?
How did these bugs first store these volitile chemicals? More importantly, how did they learn to mix them without exploding? |
Well, if they had exploded they wouldn't be around today now would they? |
As so, Evolution is flawed. |
