|
|
#61 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 10
|
Dog breeding too, where man holds the power!
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
|
Please, understand genetics first, Typist. As I suggested in the last thread, go to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and search "books" (free textbooks online) for the facts of genetic variability. Perhaps you don't understand how long it took for us to evolve the elaborate repair systems we need to protect against this incredible rate of mutation. Maybe you should find out what cancer is while you're at it, to see what happens when that system, even with its many redundancies, fails.
You are not talking about science. Perhaps you might accept that, after all, science is what real scientists do. Describe the research team that revealed the mechanism by which all the earth's variety of creatures appeared spontaneously. Oh, did they work at Oxford, or was it Johns Hopkins? What was their control, Buddhism? And their variable -- God's mood at the time? Much of science is directed towards testing every tenet of long-held theories -- we've redefined gravity countless times. But the difference I see here is that scientists (Remember? The people who make up the field of science?) use the scientific method to offer new understandings of things like evolution. You can't just throw out un-cited claims, thinking to prove us wrong, unless you are willing to engage science and offer experimental evidence that re-explains these natural processes. Otherwise, what you are doing is perverting religion, as if it was written as a science textbook. Of course, it's you who thinks I'm reading the Bible as a collection of "fortune cookie notes". Well, enjoy you're textbook -- the difference is, of course, that fortune cookie advice like "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is of immense practical utility to the purpose at which it aims: the living of ones life. Whereas, a reading like "6000 years ago all of the creatures of the earth appeared spontaneously and will remain unchanged until Judgment Day" would be of, unfortunately, ABSOLUTELY NO USE to the topic to which you ascribe it: science. Because it isn't science. Oh, you probably made e. coli produce green flourescent protein in Biology class by transforming them with a plasmid. But wait, e. coli don't glow green! And what's that -- you use only the tools nature provides?! Restriction enzymes, plasmids, polymerases? Oh well, you probably just found a long-lost colony of green e. coli that was created with all the rest 6000 years ago. That's a good hypothesis, I think I'll call it science.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
|
And Popeyes is, after all, far better than KFC. Now THAT'S scientific.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
FFR Player
|
egg
thread over
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#65 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Obviously cancer (which is, by the way, encouraged by a lack of the vitamin B17) and such is an example of genetic mutation, but it is not an example of a good one. And it definitely isn't an example of a mutation that would cause a change between species. Now certainly, a bunch of bacteria will be able to evolve traits to be able to resist some type of fungus that we humans throw at it. But that does not mean we can assume the existence of macroevolution. Now it's very interesting how you mention the scientific method, since when it comes to [Macro]evolution it seems like your otherwise reasonable scientists want have a conclusion in mind before they even think of a hypothesis! Baloney, you say? Not quite. Remember that guy I mentioned, Charles Lyell, who by saying he wanted to "free the science from Moses" effectively showed he was biased? Well he wrote a book called "Princicles of Geology," which supposed that one could explain everything that has happened to the Earth by looking at present observable processes. This biased book was read by Darwin after he climbed aboard the Beagle. Darwin based many of his concepts on the implications of that book. It pains me to hear you rule out Creation as not scientific. Thermodynamics demand that over time things decay, and that energy and mass cannot come from nothing. But most importantly science revolves around the concept of cause and effect. The effects are plain to see, and the cause cannot be nothing. Creation is the effect of a Creator, and a design is the product of a Designer. Having faith in Evolution is having faith that the miracle of life in all of its complexity has no real cause, but acknowledging Creation acknowledges the One who performed that miracle: God. Nothing was based on how He was feeling at the time because He is forever unchanging. And I find that pretty reassuring.
__________________
Joy is not the absence of sorrow but the presence of God -Nick Bank |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I'm sad lost little puppy
Posts: 140
|
The egg came first. Dinosaurs and reptiles and fish have all been laying eggs millions of years before the chicken came along.
__________________
I am not allowed to be happy for more than a half an hour. Otherwise strange things can happen. |
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
FFR Player
|
See, we've gotten past the point where reading just the first few posts and the last few posts will really do any good if you want to jump into the conversation.
__________________
Joy is not the absence of sorrow but the presence of God -Nick Bank |
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
FFR Player
|
The egg came first. Kakashi stated the same reason. Dinosaurs and reptiles have been laying eggs forever. We all know that birds are descendants of reptiles. The chicken comes from a branch of bird family, and henceforth lays eggs. There was no chicken, just an egg that produced a creature that eventually evolved into the chicken. Now everyone shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 89
|
I've read this somewhere.... No matter what you believe, the chicken came first. If you believe in creation, some great diety put a chicken on earth. If you beleave in evolution, some "almost" chicken laid and "almost" chicken egg. But when the egg hatched a modern chicken came out.
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
let it snow~
|
This thread die long ago due to the fact that it had been solved already. STOP BUMPING IT.
Ramones, you just proved yourself wrong. You say some "almost" chicken laid a chicken egg. Well, what comes from the egg? The chicken. But it came from the egg. Therefore, the egg came first. ~Squeek |
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northeasterly
Age: 31
Posts: 401
|
Indeed. All of the points that have any integrity to them were covered back when I posted on page 4. Lock it up.
__________________
How has it been 15 years |
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 89
|
Squeek, the modern chicken came from an egg. But it was a modern chicken egg. If you mean eggs in general, yes of course the egg came first by thousands of years. If you mean a modern chicken egg, then the chicken came first because it was born from an "almost" chicken egg
|
|
|
|
|
#73 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
And yes, this topic is old and answered so let it be locked. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 89
|
I stand by with what I said. This "almost" chicken laid an egg right? Yes. So that means this egg came from the "almost" chicken. Because it came from the "almost" chicken, it is an "almost" chicken egg. But inside this egg is a modern chicken.
I understand what all of you mean. I classify the egg from what animal it came from, not the animal inside of it. Let's say a chicken lays an egg. When the egg hatches, a robin comes out (yes, I do know htis isn't possible.) If you ask me, I'd say that a robin came out of a chicken egg. But from what you are saying, this chicken layed a robin egg. |
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
let it snow~
|
The species doesn't mutate once it's in an egg. Nothing can magically change from its egg-stage to its birth.
The change occurs in the pre-egg stage when the species is still a zygote. The thread is over. ~Squeek |
|
|
|
|
#76 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 89
|
I never said the species mutated while it was in the egg did I? No. I'm saying it came from the other chicken-like thing's egg.
|
|
|
|
|
#77 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
Evolution: The Egg. Creation: The Chicken. Thread Over. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|