How tis planet earth started actually? and how life form
-
wow you are so dumb, so why do viruses and bacteria mutate to become immune to anti biotics? why do mice become immune to poison? why do weeds become immune to herbicides? because one day god felt like it and reinvented them? what about the same species of animals changing in physical features like beak size in only a few generations after being exposed to a different environment as observed by Darwin? do you even know how newton's laws were proven? you think Newton proved it by throwing a ball to the ground? go learn some science before you talk nonsense thanks.Originally posted by banzie:yea I did. So how did they test evolution out? By observation again? What kind of test is that? I see you holding a knife and it means you kill someone? The last person that claims they can test evolution was doubted by the claims. Still no concrete test yet.
Unlike newton law, you throw a ball definitely it will fell down. -
evolution theory states that life is started by chance in a uncontrolled environment.but with all the knowledge of a cell structure,protein,dna.rna,laboratory equipment and controlled environment human have we can't even generate a most simple complete bacteria(a living one that is)so i just could not accept the evolution theory
-
That is genetic mutation, not evolution.Originally posted by the.owl:wow you are so dumb, so why do viruses and bacteria mutate to become immune to anti biotics? why do mice become immune to poison? why do weeds become immune to herbicides? because one day god felt like it and reinvented them? what about the same species of animals changing in physical features like beak size in only a few generations after being exposed to a different environment as observed by Darwin? do you even know how newton's laws were proven? you think Newton proved it by throwing a ball to the ground? go learn some science before you talk nonsense thanks.
Anyway you should not debate here. its for adult. -
We just need the unknown factor (some say they managed to create life through lightning - but proven wrong since they cant replicate the results).Originally posted by slowmover:evolution theory states that life is started by chance in a uncontrolled environment.but with all the knowledge of a cell structure,protein,dna.rna,laboratory equipment and controlled environment human have we can't even generate a most simple complete bacteria(a living one that is)so i just could not accept the evolution theory
that *unknown factor* has not been discovered yet. Just look at the black death, many years ago, we do not know why it happened and we automatically blamed it to the magical beings. Now we know what caused the Black Death/Plague. Soon or maybe many generations later, we can explain wtf made us.
Evolution theory shows us how we evolve. it is like reverse engineering, we start from the back and end at the front. Like observation. Even Newton's law had to do with observation and come out with theories on why this happen blah blah.
and to Banzie:About your second part. Yes it does. About 10% of our body function had not found it use yet through history. There could be a possibility that these could be of use in the future. That defies evolution as evolution says that the function of all our body is created for the purpose of neccessity.
If you are talking about the vestigial functions, pleaseeeeeeee for God's sake! read up!
Wisdom tooth, for chewing in the past
Appendix, for storing food and releasing of enzymes in the past
Our 3rd eye lids, blah blah blah. Only 1 primate (i think) kept their 3rd eye lids. We and the other primates lost the function long time ago.
Our tail-bones? Further indication that we might have a tail long time ago.
Let me correct you,There could be a possibility that these could be of use in the Past
------------------------------That defies evolution as evolution says that the function of all our body is created for the purpose of neccessity.
Wrong! It further purports that the function of all our body is for necessity, just look at the vestigial parts left in our body! We do not need it! blah blah blah
------------
---->>>>>>>>>
Vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in population over an extended period of time. The existence of vestigial organs can be attributed to changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the organism in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases. In some cases the structure becomes detrimental to the organism (for example the eyes of a mole can become infected). In many cases the structure is of no direct harm, yet all structures require extra energy to build and maintain, providing some selective pressure for the removal of parts that do not contribute to an organism's fitness. A structure that is not harmful will obviously take longer to be phased out than one that is.
The vestigial versions of the structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure. Homologous structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure.
--- -
Originally posted by kivine:
I didn't really read all your wrote but there are some functions of our body which seriously had not purpose at all.... even scientist say so. One of which is hiccup and a few others if you look at around. Whatever your body or your so called ancestry can find of use, the evolutionist would had already listed don't need to wait for you.
Wrong! It further purports that the function of all our body is for necessity, just look at the vestigial parts left in our body! We do not need it! blah blah blah
----
Vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered [b]evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in population over an extended period of time. The existence of vestigial organs can be attributed to changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the organism in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases. In some cases the structure becomes detrimental to the organism (for example the eyes of a mole can become infected). In many cases the structure is of no direct harm, yet all structures require extra energy to build and maintain, providing some selective pressure for the removal of parts that do not contribute to an organism's fitness. A structure that is not harmful will obviously take longer to be phased out than one that is.
The vestigial versions of the structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure. Homologous structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure.
---[/b] -
note to banzie...
What slowmover has done, --> now that is really engaging the issue. -
Please Banzie, if you dun read what i wrote then you are,Originally posted by banzie:I didn't really read all your wrote but there are some functions of our body which seriously had not purpose at all.... even scientist say so. One of which is hiccup and a few others if you look at around. Whatever your body or your so called ancestry can find of use, the evolutionist would had already listed don't need to wait for you.
Either :
1. You're lazy
2. You are arguing for the sake of arguing
3. Ignoring my comments because they might be right, and do not know how to reply and just basically shrug it off
What I wrote are basically the answers you are looking for. Evidence.
So you are basically saying that hiccups are being used in the future as your statements said earlier?
And because they have no function BASICALLY tells us that that might be a vestigial function/structure. A possible and highly evidential for the theory of evolution.
Anyway a theory and possible explanation:One possible beneficial effect of hiccups is to dislodge foreign chunks of food, which have become stuck in the esophagus, or which are traveling too slowly. When a piece of food is swallowed that is too large for the natural peristalsis of the esophagus to move the food quickly into the stomach, it applies pressure on the phrenic nerve, invoking the hiccup reflex. This causes the diaphragm to contract, creating a vacuum in the thoracic cavity, which creates a region of low pressure on the side of the lump of food nearest the stomach, and a region of high pressure on the side of the lump of food nearest the mouth.
AND ALSO evolutionist are probably more interested to list vestigial structures than list down something of use....tsk tsk...And why they need to wait for me for what purpose? It is common knowledge that vestigial structures are there for all of us to see.
Your comments shift from one ground to another too banzie, sometimes I kinda find it hard to reply to your comments.
on a side note:
I rather believe that God create Adam and Eve as primates and they slowly evolve into humans today. Than magically appear as humans with vestigial functions/structures. -
He's got a lot to learn to attain a level of maturity needed to put across convincing arguments. Maybe slowmover should teach him a thing or 2 so that he won't continue to perpetuate this negative Christian stereotype.Originally posted by kivine:AND ALSO evolutionist are probably more interested to list vestigial structures than list down something of use....tsk tsk...And why they need to wait for me for what purpose? It is common knowledge that vestigial structures are there for all of us to see.
Your comments shift from one ground to another too banzie, sometimes I kinda find it hard to reply to your comments.
on a side note:
I rather believe that God create Adam and Eve as primates and they slowly evolve into humans today. Than magically appear as humans with vestigial functions/structures. -
how all this vestigial organs which is useful to our so call primal ancestor appear is a question that can't be answered with the theory of evolution to me in the first place.
as we know natural selection support the idea of survival of the fittest but how the individual creature become fit?By chance the creature got a mutation in the gene which is beneficial and make it superior than other creature of the same species evolution theory tells us.
but the question is how much more beneficial and how big changes is there in the creature?if we agree with evolution then we must accept that some creature mutate got stronger and got selected by nature which is now we have our organs like eyes,stomach,heart,liver etc etc through evolution.
you see for a eye to see or even sense light there is a lot of components needed retina,optic nerves and brain(not human eye.human eye is far more complex)so how a creature in the very early times evolve to have the ability to see or sense light as if there is no retina only optic nerves and brain to process the image it will not work.if short of optic nerves it will not work.if short of brain the part that process images it will not work too.unless if by change a creature was born and wham bang it mutate it genes by chance and got a retina coincidentally which also coincidentally is connected to the optic nerves and which the optic nerves also coincidentally run to the way of the brain which also coincidentally mutate to process images.all this have to happen in a single mutation/time if not it will not work
in between this processes there is many many more small detail of the protein and information in the dna which is too long and complex for me to mention.
so theory of evolution is still implausible to me. -
I didn't know you guys can get so hyped up when i merely states the truth about the way science does things.Originally posted by banzie:YOu are supporting my views now. SO YOU AGREE IT IS FLAWED!? That is what I am talking about.
Newton laws is perfect. Because, it is testable undeniable. If I take a MRT, I know 100% it will work exactly as it is. Evolution? How you prove that? By looking observations?
Are results of observations that existed? nope. But taking MRT i see results everyday that newton law is right..
Evolution? It changes over times. Even many things are added after the original darwin's theory. It is a theory isn't it? Next please.
About your second part. Yes it does. About 10% of our body function had not found it use yet through history. There could be a possibility that these could be of use in the future. That defies evolution as evolution says that the function of all our body is created for the purpose of neccessity.
Oh yeah, that is what i am talking about too!
You sure newton laws is perfect? You might wanna retract that statement of yours back. It is testable, true, but what kind of test are you performing? Drop apple on floor?
Lol. You failed to comprehend what i am driving thru. You guys, for once, go and understand what does Theory means scientifically. Let me help you to get an idea of what Theory means to us scientifically. ^^
"The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. "
Source - http://www.reference.com/search?q=Theory
Don't give me the crap that "It is a theory isn't it? Next please."
So stop bashing theory when you don't even know what you are talking about. Please. The rest of the theory bashing jokers - take note. Don't make a fool of yourself.
Ok. Tell me about it. Vestigial organs can be potentially useful in the future? Alright! Chickens shall fly! Blind mole shall see! Whales shall walk on land! Fish shall breathe air vapor!
Wah, damn cool lah. You living in alice in wonderland or Gnarnia? -
wah kao, still got people talking about this, ah?
-
still going on it's a interesting subject isn't itOriginally posted by allentyb:wah kao, still got people talking about this, ah?
let me help you answer
just joking -
You're just playing with probabilities to elude people away from the fact that protein, or rather amino acids, does not store genetic information. It is rather, the RNA in the primitive world that defines the exact codon sequencing such that the right amino acid will be placed at that right position corresponding to the next as dictate by the triple codon rule.Originally posted by slowmover:the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.
The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)
The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.
For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability".
Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.
When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes"
Stop playing with probabilities when you ought to know that there is something else that dictate how proteins are formed. -
You're looking and questioning at the result of million years of natural selection. No doubt, it is hard to imagine how simple cells can actually come out with wonderful organ such as the Eye. But you should not discount the fact that it takes a hell load of time in order to attain that. Someone did mentioned that we merely lived 4seconds in a day if we were to compress the evolution time scale. Try something more primitive. Like the protozoa first. You know that the organ eye is an advanced photoreceptor that sense light and interpret them in the form of neurological impulse. Why not look at how simpler microbes response to stimuli such as heat, change in pH, osmolarity and photons?Originally posted by slowmover:how all this vestigial organs which is useful to our so call primal ancestor appear is a question that can't be answered with the theory of evolution to me in the first place.
as we know natural selection support the idea of survival of the fittest but how the individual creature become fit?By chance the creature got a mutation in the gene which is beneficial and make it superior than other creature of the same species evolution theory tells us.
but the question is how much more beneficial and how big changes is there in the creature?if we agree with evolution then we must accept that some creature mutate got stronger and got selected by nature which is now we have our organs like eyes,stomach,heart,liver etc etc through evolution.
you see for a eye to see or even sense light there is a lot of components needed retina,optic nerves and brain(not human eye.human eye is far more complex)so how a creature in the very early times evolve to have the ability to see or sense light as if there is no retina only optic nerves and brain to process the image it will not work.if short of optic nerves it will not work.if short of brain the part that process images it will not work too.unless if by change a creature was born and wham bang it mutate it genes by chance and got a retina coincidentally which also coincidentally is connected to the optic nerves and which the optic nerves also coincidentally run to the way of the brain which also coincidentally mutate to process images.all this have to happen in a single mutation/time if not it will not work
in between this processes there is many many more small detail of the protein and information in the dna which is too long and complex for me to mention.
so theory of evolution is still implausible to me.
Even bacteria can sense in the form of quorum sensing. Try to take it slowly, maybe you will find the reason why there is a need to "sense" the environment, and the need through natural selection that resulted in the formation of such complex organs like the eye. -
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but hiccups does have purpose, at least i've found one.Originally posted by banzie:I didn't really read all your wrote but there are some functions of our body which seriously had not purpose at all.... even scientist say so. One of which is hiccup and a few others if you look at around. Whatever your body or your so called ancestry can find of use, the evolutionist would had already listed don't need to wait for you.
"When a piece of food is swallowed that is too large for the natural peristalsis of the esophagus to move the food quickly into the stomach, it applies pressure on the phrenic nerve, invoking the hiccup reflex. This causes the diaphragm to contract, creating a vacuum in the thoracic cavity, which creates a region of low pressure on the side of the lump of food nearest the stomach, and a region of high pressure on the side of the lump of food nearest the mouth. This pressure differential across the food creates a force, which assists peristalsis."
Which scientist say so de? Don't anyhow por scientist here and there leh. Since you all don't even believe what majority of scientists believed in regards to origin of life. Don't like this lar. Sibei double standard leh. -
its the same thing if there is a incomplete components it will not be alive its not just the rna alone that life are form many more components are needed and at the same time.btw the quote u have me on i just copy and paste from a book my english is not so power lah but wat it write make sense with me.Originally posted by AugoeideS:You're just playing with probabilities to elude people away from the fact that protein, or rather amino acids, does not store genetic information. It is rather, the RNA in the primitive world that defines the exact codon sequencing such that the right amino acid will be placed at that right position corresponding to the next as dictate by the triple codon rule.
Stop playing with probabilities when you ought to know that there is something else that dictate how proteins are formed.
when you post this topic you should know only 3 types of ppl who will reply
one who believe in evolution theory(believe as it is not proven)
one who believe in life is created by intelligence be it god or some alien(believe also as i can't bring god to you and say Oh God pls tell AugoeideS that you r the creator)yes i believe in god
and the joker -
Oh, so you're not a science student - no wonder that abstract makes sense to you.Originally posted by slowmover:its the same thing if there is a incomplete components it will not be alive its not just the rna alone that life are form many more components are needed and at the same time.btw the quote u have me on i just copy and paste from a book my english is not so power lah but wat it write make sense with me.
when you post this topic you should know only 3 types of ppl who will reply
one who believe in evolution theory(believe as it is not proven)
one who believe in life is created by intelligence be it god or some alien(believe also as i can't bring god to you and say Oh God pls tell AugoeideS that you r the creator)yes i believe in god
and the joker
Funny how people can actually publish a book that seems so true and makes good sense when they don't even know the fundamentals behind the Central Dogma. -
No but your explaination are not quite logical and I had a feeling you are copying a chunk from else where to paste here. Finally you are talking about vestigial functions but you are assuming that it could derived from evolution. Which is quite baseless and pure assumption. That is just your thought until you can proved these organs are really so. Which of coz, till now scientist couldn't and put it as an assumption so. So don't tell me anything as part of your assumption as your debate stand here until you prove an used of this organ during from the process of evolution.Originally posted by kivine:AND ALSO evolutionist are probably more interested to list vestigial structures than list down something of use....tsk tsk...And why they need to wait for me for what purpose? It is common knowledge that vestigial structures are there for all of us to see.
Your comments shift from one ground to another too banzie, sometimes I kinda find it hard to reply to your comments.
on a side note:
I rather believe that God create Adam and Eve as primates and they slowly evolve into humans today. Than magically appear as humans with vestigial functions/structures.
So you are basically saying that hiccups are being used in the future as your statements said earlier?
And because they have no function BASICALLY tells us that that might be a vestigial function/structure. A possible and highly evidential for the theory of evolution.
I never say hiccups are to be used for future. There could be a purpose. But I didn't say there will be a purpose. If according to evolution all functions have its neccessity perhaps you should explain that.
Your explaination of hiccups is also an assumption sorry an not to be taken seriously. Further more we don't even know where you quote it from. Even if it is from a reliable source, the context was really assumption.
This is very important as you had stated as if it is of no consequence for evolution. You don't grow a hands for nothing right? you are just shruding off important points.
You debate points are contradicting to your theory of evolution and just some assumption. -
Finally stop using Vestigial organs etc with your assumption for the last time as far as we and even scientist see it is still assumption. It is quite intereting that you people like to use assumption on everything including Vestigial organs.
And one of the people talk about theory. Maybe I put the law as perfect could be flawed in the use of language. What I would mean is undeniable truth. How do we test gravity by throwing apple on the floor? Do you not be able to do that? Although the law may be limited to explain some circumstances.
There could be better way of testing but throwing apple of the floor is proving something too right?
Tell me how you prove evolution and stop telling me this and that? what test did the scientist take to proof evolution?
Carbon Dating?
Looking at a couple of skulls?
Looking at shared patents of species of animals?
If my dog died yesterday and my neighbour dogs died today, through dating can I determine that my dog evolved to my neighbour's dog? They are about the same right?
Carbon dating too has its limitation.
Unlike newton law we could had a brand new theory and overthrow the entire evolution theory to waste. But as for newton law, I don't think you can overthrow that part of apple falling from the sky. -
NVM
-
yes i'm not a science student i drop out when i'm secondary twoOriginally posted by AugoeideS:Oh, so you're not a science student - no wonder that abstract makes sense to you.
Funny how people can actually publish a book that seems so true and makes good sense when they don't even know the fundamentals behind the Central Dogma.
but u r not a mathematician either
this discussion will not end one lah no one can change someone thinking in a big way in the forum and why many scientist think that evolution is correct is because they are only taught natural selection when they are in uni i think -
lmao.. there since to be a season for these kind of topics.. when I first saw this topic, I told myself it's gonna be a flame topic.. True it is.. haha.. it jsut won't end...
-
Your source is from here right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2730251.stm
The first two theory doesn't stands up if you read
Your so call theory is considered plausible by the person himself. Its Still an untested assumption.
Come here copy half the story...? -
Eh, i know la, i not mathematician, but that does not necessary means that i do not know probabilities right? Furthermore, the application of probability in this context is flawed. As i said, amino acid sequencing is not random but dictated, so probability is rendered useless in this case.Originally posted by slowmover:yes i'm not a science student i drop out when i'm secondary two but u r not a mathematician either
this discussion will not end one lah no one can change someone thinking in a big way in the forum and why many scientist think that evolution is correct is because they are only taught natural selection when they are in uni i think
Nope, scientist does not think that evolution is correct just because they're taught natural selection. Scientists and science students are trained to use scientific method as the way of reasoning. We are highly critic of whatever is presented to us - but it won't take long for one to believe that evolution is the right way to go after intense scrutinization.
-
Eh, why so aggressive? Ha Ha.Originally posted by banzie:Your source is from here right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2730251.stm
The first two theory doesn't stands up if you read
Your so call theory is considered plausible by the person himself. Its Still an untested assumption.
Come here copy half the story...?
Eh tell you lah, you say you wanted something observable. Isn't hiccup an observable phenomenon with explanation behind it? Still considered an assumption? What more do you want?
So you mean that thoracic cavity does not work on the basis of differential in pressure for us to inspire or expire? Nor does our peristalsis mechanisms can be enhanced by the force of pressure? Or you still want me to link link link all the way back to law of pressure or whatever crap? Haha~
Funny lah you. If i wanna play with you i could dig out scientific journals from pubmed, but i lazy log in. Why so aggressive? Relax lar. K la, assumptions kk?