Star Trek

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?

The bugs didn't 'learn' anything, they evolved over millions of years.

Again the bugs didnt just appear with all their chemical spraying faculties as they are today, it was a 'one step at a time' operation.

If youre really interested, take a look at this 'hypothesis', and yes it can't be proven, but as the text in the video says, parts of what they're suggesting have been seen in other insect life.

Link.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE

Start at about 1min 15sec for the beetle.

Quote (Jarriss @ Oct. 25 2007, 4:27 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.

no, since exploding beetles would not breed so they would not pass on the gene, basically eliminate themselves from the gene pools.

That how evolution works, small changes that help are spread thru out the species, while ones that hurt trend to dissappear.
Small change in a small population trend to spread faster, so after a time that population will become a different species.

There are several species of beetles that use chemical to defend themselves, sub species of Bombadier Beetle some that don't shoot a spray. Looking at the differents make it easy to see how their defense mechanism evolved.

Evolution works, it is the survival of the fitest that prompt the development of natural defensive and counter in animal, plants and insects.

If there is a Flaw in evolution is that it was develop before scientists discover DNA, so it basically look at Macro changes in a species and doesnot understand the celluar nature of the changes..

Add on have been develop, but apparently many distractors ignore this or how successful the theory is. All we presently know on genetics is cover by Evolution and its add on. It is now behind the development of a multi billion dollars drug industry that use genetic engineering to create insulin ( harvest from genetically engineer batericum) to disease resistance fruit crops.. That just show the sucess of Evolution theory..

It like agruing against Relativity, Evolutionary theory has been and continues to be use by researchers, and it still provide valid predictions and results. You could not achieve this result by using "Intelligent Design" or other Creational dogma..

That what make it science. Science demand that a theory provide results, these result further the understanding in that field.

Evolution cannot explain every detail of how life came about, or feature of creature, it not a theory of everything. It deal with how organism changes, and give starting point for scientist to use in their research. Newer theories get develop and added on. Theory evolute and eventual are replace.

Asking Evolution how beetle can fire out it rear is fairly easy, it has already explained, but attempting to disprove it by continuing to ask why a certain creature can do what is do is not disproving evolution, since it a good bet that some scientist is already looking in to it already using evolution theory to guide his effort to find an answer.

When he find his answer, it will either disprove evolution and provide a better theory or add to the theory of evolution with further insight on its working.

Theories that don't work are dropped rapidly, there are millions of them that fail the test and are historical footnote for the ones that presently in use, scientist are not priest. They are not mated to idea that is untendable.

One that are, are left behind in that field. An example of this is Einstein and Quantum mechanics. Einstein was one of Quantum mechanics founding fathers, with his work on Photons and the relationship of matter and energy. He disagree with later development in the field.

He spend the last decades in his life attempting to replace Quantum mechanics with some thing more along his view of reality. His attempt to disprove QM ended up discovering Quantum entanglements, which only provide more proof of the theory.

Even Quantum mechanic is flawed, that why there is some much work being done on string theory. String theory has yet provide the results of Quantum mechanics, Every computer uses semiconductor which is direct result of research in Quantum mechanic and the sub field of solid matter physics.

For now evolution, Quantum mechanic, and Relativity are theories in science and there are no usable replacements..

And that is that.

Evolution tends to be misunderstood by naysayers. They tend to look at the end result and assume "How could that creature survive without wings five hundred thousand years ago?" The truth is, the creature survived five hundred thousand years ago by occupying a   different niche. Wings could have been floating devices instead of flying. Or, used to ward off predators. Now obviously there is suppose else going on when multiple kinds of creatures have wings(butterflies, birds, and bats) so it's safe to assume that for some reason it's encoded somewhere that arms and legs have the possibility of becoming wings inherently. Or flippers, tails...etc. But we cannot really know for sure. However, naysayers are getting it wrong when they assume by looking at the end result, rather then the beginning, because remember that the natural environment changes alongside the creatures, organisms, and other lifeforms.

Look at how the wolf dramatically changed over a few thousand years of spending time with humans. They come in various sizes and shapes. (I'm talking about the domestic dog if anyone was wondering.)

In 'The Ancestors Tale' Dawkins tells of experiments on 'Drospophila', the Fruit Fly, where HOX genes, which are genes that control what is built where on the insect, are manipulated in order to have things like legs in the place of antennae and other abnormalities.

Im sure its immensely more complicated than that, but thats the basics.

Link..

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap13/Chapter_13A.html

This thread still going?

Ah well, I'm certain science can fend for itself. When we make people immortal with telomere manipulation and a cure for cancers, we'll show them.

(Also, I have no idea if people can be made immortal with telomere manipulation, but the cancer thing makes sense)

Quote (Kirky333 @ Oct. 28 2007, 12:14 pm)

This thread still going? Ah well, I'm certain science can fend for itself. When we make people immortal with telomere manipulation and a cure for cancers, we'll show them. (Also, I have no idea if people can be made immortal with telomere manipulation, but the cancer thing makes sense)

well there are many factor involved in aging, telomere is one.

But science already has proven it, from everyday items such as computers to host of Designer drugs and organism....

Basically the war is over, but loser don't want to throw in the towel.

Sad, kind of remains me of the Monthy python scene with the Knight without arms and legs wanting to keep fighting..

Quote (lanceromega @ Oct. 29 2007, 12:45 pm)

Quote (Kirky333 @ Oct. 28 2007, 12:14 pm) This thread still going? Ah well, I'm certain science can fend for itself. When we make people immortal with telomere manipulation and a cure for cancers, we'll show them. (Also, I have no idea if people can be made immortal with telomere manipulation, but the cancer thing makes sense) well there are many factor involved in aging, telomere is one. But science already has proven it, from everyday items such as computers to host of Designer drugs and organism.... Basically the war is over, but loser don't want to throw in the towel. Sad, kind of remains me of the Monthy python scene with the Knight without arms and legs wanting to keep fighting..

LOL, monty python....

On Aging: anyone hear about Aubre de Grey?

Everyone sees things differently, maybe the ideas of science are simply undescribable to other paradigms of perception of the universe, then it would not be a question of argument, but a question of communication.

Quote (Parynthesis @ Nov. 15 2007, 7:50 pm)

Everyone sees things differently, maybe the ideas of science are simply undescribable to other paradigms of perception of the universe, then it would not be a question of argument, but a question of communication.

No, communication has nothing to do with it..

Basically it a  based on how one view reality.

Science demands a specific method to determine the the truth behind reality. This method is highly sucessful leading the the host of technological marvels we enjoy..

It not a easy path to follow, it requires years of study to understand the various fields and aspect of science.

It not a truth for the masses..

Other ways of looking for a truth are alot of easier, many declare that they know the truth and all followers have to do is believe. This make it way of looking at the universe very popular, no work require..

No Lancer you are wrong, communication is part of the process of expressing the scientific theory being talked about.

Your mentality also indicates that you are an absolutist where what you say is the only thing that is true and there are no other possibly ways to discuss a theory. Change is constant throughout the Universe Lancer and those that don't or who are unable to embrace change are sure to be left behind in the wake of a new discovery. The simple reasoning for this is because of the inability of people to continue to strive for new theories and ideas that would make someone like you lancer,who can only think like a book tells him to think, not as popular. Popularity only lasts as long as a idea or theory is popular, once a new theory comes along the old theory soon becomes like the dinosaur, puny brained and extinct.

Quote

Evolution tends to be misunderstood by naysayers. They tend to look at the end result and assume "How could that creature survive without wings five hundred thousand years ago?" The truth is, the creature survived five hundred thousand years ago by occupying a   different niche. Wings could have been floating devices instead of flying. Or, used to ward off predators. Now obviously there is suppose else going on when multiple kinds of creatures have wings(butterflies, birds, and bats) so it's safe to assume that for some reason it's encoded somewhere that arms and legs have the possibility of becoming wings inherently. Or flippers, tails...etc. But we cannot really know for sure. However, naysayers are getting it wrong when they assume by looking at the end result, rather then the beginning, because remember that the natural environment changes alongside the creatures, organisms, and other lifeforms. Look at how the wolf dramatically changed over a few thousand years of spending time with humans. They come in various sizes and shapes. (I'm talking about the domestic dog if anyone was wondering.)

Evolution is not a theory it is the scientific fact of how plants, reptiles and mammals effectively adapt to the surrounding enivironment. This adaptable change comes in the thought processes along with cellular structure change. The latter though taking many thousands of years to accomplish.

Darwinism is not Evolution. Darwinism is nothing more then applying what Darwin saw the animals that dont walk upright and only survive as a model to program followers into believing him so he could form a cult so he could be worshipped as a god.

The difference between Evolution and Darwinism is that those that have evolved have been shown to build and rationally process their environment through coherent and purposefull thinking.

Darwinism is animals that cannot build but only rely on pre-applied thinking. Meaning instincts, where the sole purpose is to hunt and survive.

Humanity has evolved past Darwinism, why because we launch vessels into space and have landed on the moon and sent probes into our solar system. Are there any other creature's on this planet that have accomplished this feat? The last time I checked,their have not been any.  

Evolution is science.
Darwinism is a cult hidden in science, Just like intelligent desing is religion hidden in scientific terminology.

Quote (dryson @ Nov. 21 2007, 11:03 am)

No Lancer you are wrong, communication is part of the process of expressing the scientific theory being talked about. Your mentality also indicates that you are an absolutist where what you say is the only thing that is true and there are no other possibly ways to discuss a theory. Change is constant throughout the Universe Lancer and those that don't or who are unable to embrace change are sure to be left behind in the wake of a new discovery. The simple reasoning for this is because of the inability of people to continue to strive for new theories and ideas that would make someone like you lancer,who can only think like a book tells him to think, not as popular. Popularity only lasts as long as a idea or theory is popular, once a new theory comes along the old theory soon becomes like the dinosaur, puny brained and extinct. Quote Evolution tends to be misunderstood by naysayers. They tend to look at the end result and assume "How could that creature survive without wings five hundred thousand years ago?" The truth is, the creature survived five hundred thousand years ago by occupying a ¿ different niche. Wings could have been floating devices instead of flying. Or, used to ward off predators. Now obviously there is suppose else going on when multiple kinds of creatures have wings(butterflies, birds, and bats) so it's safe to assume that for some reason it's encoded somewhere that arms and legs have the possibility of becoming wings inherently. Or flippers, tails...etc. But we cannot really know for sure. However, naysayers are getting it wrong when they assume by looking at the end result, rather then the beginning, because remember that the natural environment changes alongside the creatures, organisms, and other lifeforms. Look at how the wolf dramatically changed over a few thousand years of spending time with humans. They come in various sizes and shapes. (I'm talking about the domestic dog if anyone was wondering.) Evolution is not a theory it is the scientific fact of how plants, reptiles and mammals effectively adapt to the surrounding enivironment. This adaptable change comes in the thought processes along with cellular structure change. The latter though taking many thousands of years to accomplish. Darwinism is not Evolution. Darwinism is nothing more then applying what Darwin saw the animals that dont walk upright and only survive as a model to program followers into believing him so he could form a cult so he could be worshipped as a god. The difference between Evolution and Darwinism is that those that have evolved have been shown to build and rationally process their environment through coherent and purposefull thinking. Darwinism is animals that cannot build but only rely on pre-applied thinking. Meaning instincts, where the sole purpose is to hunt and survive. Humanity has evolved past Darwinism, why because we launch vessels into space and have landed on the moon and sent probes into our solar system. Are there any other creature's on this planet that have accomplished this feat? The last time I checked,their have not been any. ¿ Evolution is science. Darwinism is a cult hidden in science, Just like intelligent desing is religion hidden in scientific terminology.

science is more than communication, it deals with physical reality. Theories change do to the fact we learn and understand the under lying reality that the theories model.

Gravity never changed, but the theories we use to understand it has, from Astrotle,Newton, Einstein and in the future one hope Quantum Gravity theory...

It not that i fix minded, basically having  a scientific background i understand what a invovled in a valid theory and what science respresents.

It more than a paradyne or idea, science respresent a unique method to explore reality, one that pay off more than any of our other methods. All has to do is look at the vast array of technology all that have arose from the various theories that science has created.

That why other ways of looking at reality trend to attack it, i have yet to see some one who practice wicca or creationalism advance a recipe that could create a microchip or even create an A bomb...

Science represent a way to understand reality and shape it to our needs, it show us the rules in the game we call the universe. It evolves as we learn the rule better, that its strength...

Quote

It evolves as we learn the rule better, that its strength...

As we evolve we learn...through the understanding of science.
Not dogma.

Quote

Darwinism is a cult hidden in science...

Wrong.

Read:

Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection.

...

In a modern definition of the term, a Darwinian process requires the following schema:

Self-replication/Inheritance: Some number of entities must be capable of producing copies of themselves, and those copies must also be capable of reproduction. The new copies must inherit the traits of old ones. Sometimes the different variations are recombined in sexual reproduction.

Variation: There must be a range of different traits in the population of entities, and there must be a mechanism for introducing new variations into the population.

Selection: Inherited traits must somehow affect the ability of the entities to reproduce themselves, either by survival (natural selection), or by ability to produce offspring by finding partners (sexual selection).


Where's the dogma in this?

Quote (Kirky333 @ Oct. 29 2007, 11:14 am)

This thread still going? Ah well, I'm certain science can fend for itself.

Unfortunately, those that attack it often occupy positions of power, such as Senators, governers, school board members, ect.

The defense of science is to show people how important it is to keep real science in the classroom, and not inject the dogma of creationism or intelligent design into it.
Such thinking is a step backwards, to the days that religious leaders controlled knowledge, and told people the Earth was flat and that everything revolved around it.

Today's issues now deal with those that a false concern of morality is imposed, such as stem cell research.

We need good science today, more than ever, if we wish to avoid another Dark Ages.

If god made the universe - than it can be done
If someone made the universe and evidence was left - why can the builder not be a race terreforming
Why is the creator automatically assumed to be god
Why cannot science consider other possibilies than god if proof of terreforming existed

If the galaxies and the big bang are a terreform it would produce evidence that could be interpreted as either god or evidence of inteligent life.
SETI SETI SETI save me with your wisdom.