First of all, we don't use 10% of our brain or a small percent of our brain. This is one of the most perpetuated piles of a bullshit ever. This myth is actually infuriating to me because every goddamn person believes it. Whoever started it needs to have 90% of their brain sucked out of their nose. 10% of brain myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Neuroscience For Kids - 10% of the Brain Myth Do People Only Use 10 Percent Of Their Brains?: Scientific American You raise some interesting questions, but you ask them in the wrong way. It is wrong to ask why did we evolve this? Evolution doesn't choose to go in a direction, the other directions all just fail. So the question is: what made humans that can see beauty in visual/auditory things more successful than ones who don't? I don't have an answer to that question, but I'm sure there are some good discussion out there somewhere because its an important concept.
Excellent post +rep. Could you explain though why you feel that those who can see beauty are more successful? People without that function can also be very succesful too. MelT
No I can't. I wish I could, and if someone else doesn't have any legitimate answers, I'll do some research. Its a pretty interesting concept.
Nice. It's just that I lack many of those functions and, whilst I am broker than broke, other people might say my life has been quite successful - though I'm not personally sure about that! MelT
So you're saying that just because these cells have differentiated they are no longer "our cells"? Why are they not "us"? Are neurons not "us" or epithelial cells? Or is it because they are not attached to a matrix of tissue that they are no longer "us"? OK, so we have gathered viral and bacterial DNA what's your point? Use of an argument by fundamentalist christians does not make it incorrect. Second, well isn't that the whole point of my argument? That the complexity of the cell did not spontaneously aggregate? Ok, but what's your point? That life is diverse? Oh so because I am positing intelligent design it can no longer be considered "Nature"? This is a Science and Nature forum after all? You can't even seem to stay on topic. I don't understand what this has to do with our discussion. I am not doubting that there has been exchange of genetic information for billions of years between genetic carriers. In fact, I'm certain of it. Obviously if RNA viruses insert DNA in our genome in our past there will be remnants of it in their progeny...... Hell, I even find merit to the idea that mitochondria were once prokaryotes that found symbiosis with euks, but this is not what we were talking about. You're veering way off topic here... I'm not asking how nucleic acids congregated to form RNA. Because they would congregate because of the low free energy. I'm not saying God made our DNA as is and it exempt from modification. I am saying the level of organization and regulation found at the level of transcription and translation and the machinery required to make this possible is unfathomable. How did RNA get linked to translation without the machinery that is required for that to happen? Furthermore, how is it that the polymerases, ribosomes, helicases, topoisomerases, etc which is required for translation were formed without any way for the RNA that codes for those proteins to be translated? This is NOT a chicken or the egg question as either the chicken or the egg can give rise to another chicken... In this case, you require the genetic material that encodes that protein in addition to proteins that can process the genetic material which is encoded by other genetic materials.
LOL! I see. So your idea is to promote creationism and ID as theonlyother alternative to science? This is a strange thing to do when you began your postings by saying you didn't believe that god did it - but now you seem determined that he did? I think I'll leave this now, and let the good people here decide for themselves about how much god played a part in evolution. Please, regarding your questions about DNA and RNA, check out the latest research, no spookiness is required. "...Oh so because I am positing intelligent design it can no longer be considered "Nature"? This is a Science and Nature forum after all?.." Yes, the forums is 'science and nature'. ID is not science, it's a religious idea that hasn't been shown to have any truth behind it. As you may remember from the Dover case, not one ID or creationist scientist or researcher (and there have been many) has ever presented a case, a paper for peer-review, or any tangible information at all, ever, to the rest of the world. ID is silly. Mods, I do believe that this is a troll for christianity and that it shouldn't be here. Anyone else? MelT
Wait, creationism and ID are alternatives to science? Science is mutually exclusive to Creationism and ID. Last time I checked science wasn't a belief, but a method of figuring things out. Creationism and ID are theories, hypotheses, beliefs what have you. Once you figure out that science isn't a dogma my points will be much easier to understand. The latest research? Nice cop out because if you knew how to answer my question I don't doubt you'd lay it on me with the quickness. Instead of a simple, "I don't know how the proteins that transcribe and translate DNA/RNA can be formed without the genetic information for said proteins" you tell me to go read the latest research with the FAITH that the solution can be found there. Right, and aliens and UFOs are? But discussing possible evolutionary mechanisms of proteins isn't? I get angry at fundamentalists and Creationists who try to interject religion into schools too, but you are really no different... you ride on the coat tails of the "latest research" while being clueless on what the latest research is. For you, science isn't a method, but a belief... a belief you cling on to with the faith that the Ph.Ds of this country have it all figured out. Don't kid yourself... neither you nor I have the time to read the latest edition of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, so don't act like you have all the answers. Because God or ID or Creationism is NOT scientifically testable. Like I said, they are mutually exclusive. And last time I checked, no one has ever published a study about the likely hood of a time traveler in one of Charlie Chaplin's movies or the existence of UFOs, but hey that's fine by you. But talk about ID or molecular evolution...? OP must be a Christian troll. Funny, not once did I mention Jesus or advocate Christianity, but yet here you lump any consideration of intelligent design into Christianity and assume I'm standing on the pulpit like the Pope's messenger. The less you label things as science or non-science and secular or christian then label them in your head of yours as "good" and "bad" the more you can take things at face value for what they are and the more you can think for yourself.
Wait, creationism and ID are alternatives to science? Oh no, not alternatives, that makes them sound like they could be valid. The way you were writing made it sound that there could only be the choice of ID or science, when ID isn't even a choice. No, I'll say it again: My opinion is exactly the above. God, ID and Creationism are not science. Science is mutually exclusive to Creationism and ID. Yes, that's right. Science is real. Creationism and ID are unproven, quasi-religious concepts, not science.. Last time I checked science wasn't a belief, but a method of figuring things out. Creationism and ID are theories, hypotheses, beliefs what have you. Once you figure out that science isn't a dogma my points will be much easier to understand. MMmmmmm.....See, I don't know what to say now. It's like you're agreeing with me, but you don't realise you are. C' and ID are simply theories and beliefs - based on zero science. So, do you think they should be in a forum about science? The latest research? Nice cop out because if you knew how to answer my question I don't doubt you'd lay it on me with the quickness. LOL! As I said in my replies to you, look no further than GC for the required information, I've posted the relevant threads already here within the last few days, I didn't want to repost. All you have to do is read a couple of the recent thread names and you'll see them there. Instead of a simple, "I don't know how the proteins that transcribe and translate DNA/RNA can be formed without the genetic information for said proteins" you tell me to go read the latest research with the FAITH that the solution can be found there. Faith...LOL...no, I trust people who have spent their lives hoping, with an open mind, to make new discoveries. I prefer them to people who just read a couple of books about ID and get all fired up about the 'wonders of the natural world' and think that god must have done it. Science gives proof where it can, faith gives nothing. Read the posts concerned, it might help. As you said yourself: Last time I checked science wasn't a belief, but a method of figuring things out' Yes, that's right... YOU: \t Quote: \t \t \t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\t"...Oh so because I am positing intelligent design it can no longer be considered "Nature"? This is a Science and Nature forum after all?.." \t\t\t \t\t \t \t \t \t \t \t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\t ME: Yes, the forums is 'science and nature'. ID is not science, it's a religious idea that hasn't been shown to have any truth behind it. It's not nature either, as it misrepresents what we know about nature to try to prove its own beliefs. That's neither science, nature, nor anything else other than shady. \t\t \t\t \t \t YOU: Right, and aliens and UFOs are? As I have said in many threads here on UFO's and aliens, they should not be in S+N, you possibly missed them in your haste? Where did I say they were okay? Mind you TBH, I would much rather a discussion here on potential UFO physics than ID, at least we've got some evidence for UFOs. you ride on the coat tails of the "latest research" while being clueless on what the latest research is. For you, science isn't a method, but a belief... a belief you cling on to with the faith that the Ph.Ds of this country have it all figured out. Don't kid yourself... neither you nor I have the time to read the latest edition of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, so don't act like you have all the answers. Oooh, I get so embarrassed sometimes. LOL! I'm sorry, but actually, I do. You don't know my current circumstances, or how much time I get to look at list of things like QM, virology, archaeology, etc almost every day. I study many of these things in connection with other projects, or for the books I write. For one, my wife works in a lab, where the latest discoveries about the human body are incredibly important, and I get to see all of the current releases. And what I don't understand, she teaches me. Take a look at how many threads have my name on them here - how stupid would I have to be not to read what I post about? Do I have all the answers? LOL! Not by a long chalk, but I'm still looking with an open-mind and trying to keep up to date, that's all anyone can do. It's really not hard to find out what is current research, not at all. All you or anyone has to do to keep up with just about the best science in the world is to go to a reputable science news site, like Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. \t ME: Quote: \t \t \t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\t As you may remember from the Dover case, not one ID or creationist scientist or researcher (and there have been many) has ever presented a case, a paper for peer-review, or any tangible information at all, ever, to the rest of the world. ID is silly. \t\t\t \t\t \t \t YOU: Because God or ID or Creationism is NOT scientifically testable. Like I said, they are mutually exclusive. So....(embarrassed-to-have-to-ask-again-cough....) why have you posted thread about it here in a science forum? And last time I checked, no one has ever published a study about the likely hood of a time traveler in one of Charlie Chaplin's movies or the existence of UFOs, but hey that's fine by you. This is the reason I don't think you're actually reading my posts. If you'd look in pretty much all of the alien threads, I have placed the words, 'I don't think this posting should be here... But talk about ID or molecular evolution...? OP must be a Christian troll. Uhuh. Talk about molecular evolution until the cows come home, Sensible, plausible subject. ID, no. It's the latest version of fundamental christian creationism. Not calling 'the creator' god is a cop out to try and make it seem more scientific and acceptable to rational people. It isn't. ID focuses on the apparent complexity of systems and, because it doesn't understand how they came into being, says that there must therefore be a creator to have put them place. That's no better than attributing the sound of thunder to Thor's hammer. Because we don't know how something works doesn't mean that a god or 'ID' in some form did it. You can call it what you like, it's christianity. Don't want to equate your creator with the christian idea of a creator? That's fine, I get it,some branches of christianity have a lot to answer for. But talk of god and creators are the unproven world of theory and belief, as you yourself have continually said. They should not be here. Finally, if you don't want to sound like a troll for ID, then perhaps not calling your thread 'anyone find it hard to believe that there's not a creator?' in a science forum would be a good start. MelT PS: if anyone would like to read all the reasons why ID is wrong, and how it distorts evidence to keep itself alive, read the many articles here. ID is dead - not that it ever lived... http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html [/SIZE][/FONT]
Talk Origins has been around for a very long time and I'm very familiar with the site. I remember reading it when I was in high school. It's not anything new dude. So are you going to answer my question or not? But nature is intrinsic to the discussion of ID so what's your point? What on earth would JME have to do with archaeology? Second, you say your wife works in a lab. Only thing is that if she is involved in research, she would not be keeping up to date with all the research in her field.. only with her current topic of study... for example., as a grad student in an EBE lab, I was studying the diets and metabolic pools of ecologically and evolutionary distinct species of drosophila... there would be no way in hell I'd have time to keep up with anythign else which wasn't directly related to my research. So unless she's an editor and a reviewer for a publication I don't see how she can keep up to date with "all of the current releases" Granted I was a lowly grad student and your wife might be a research associate with a MD PhD or maybe a principle investigator, but even my PIs all had their specific topic of focus and much of the research from PubMed I presented to them in our little conferences was news to them. So... (frustrated-at-having-to-explain-again) because my initial post was talking about the structure and complexity of proteins which, I believe, falls under the domain of nature.
I'm with IwasA.Smurf on that one. It makes no sense to decide for or against on what we can't possibly know... Chiefton made a perfectly good response to explain how a pathway of enzymatic modifications / translations etc. came about in the other thread where you (OP) asked a similar question in relation to glycolysis... hopefully that has answered your questions, because I can only imagine the same is true for ribosomes, nucleotide coupling, et cetera. I could be going off track here... but you can kind of see how this is true with different isoforms of enzymes that are in us today, that have possibly branched off from a common ancestral enzyme as functionality developed. That enzyme probably has a branch point in evolution also.. going back to a less complex pathway that functioned for the organism at that time. You can almost see primitive motifs in the metabolic pathways we rely on today. Obviously they still serve a purpose, and I could be getting ahead of myself here... but while you are eating your body is in an anabolic state and all it takes is a threat/stress and adrenaline completely reverses the anabolic cycle to catabolic, ensuring your body has energy to attack or flee. The design allows the anabolism to kick straight back in, once the threat is gone and you're back in the energy storing phase - ready for another 'attack'.. Kind of like what we would have relied on in the wild... All thanks to some clever shifting of phosphate groups. I'm aware that adrenaline is used even in normal catabolic phases... but it makes me wonder if this kind of spawned from the days when "fight or flight" was particularly relevant to our species.
No, actually, your intial post was a troll that purposely set to weight the evidence in favour of ID, with the intent to deceive. It's firmly fixed in lies and fantasy and should therefore be elsewhere. Anything else? 'Lack' of transitional fossils perhaps? ID is not only faulty science, but intentionally so. How can anything that deliberately intends to deceive be good for anyone? How can anything that needs to lie to even exist deserve any place in a serious forum on science or nature? I think Talk' does a tremendous job of showing how silly it is as an idea. It doesn't matter how old it is, or whether you read it in kindergarden, it still tears ID to shreds and shows it for the insidious daftness that it is. Not a single shred of evidence apart from a misguided sense of what 'irreducable complexity' means. Saaaaaaad stuff. This is strange: Second, you say your wife works in a lab. Only thing is that if she is involved in research, she would not be keeping up to date with all the research in her field.. only with her current topic of study... for example., as a grad student in an EBE lab, I was studying the diets and metabolic pools of ecologically and evolutionary distinct species of drosophila... there would be no way in hell I'd have time to keep up with anythign else which wasn't directly related to my research. So unless she's an editor and a reviewer for a publication I don't see how she can keep up to date with "all of the current releases" Granted I was a lowly grad student and your wife might be a research associate with a MD PhD or maybe a principle investigator, but even my PIs all had their specific topic of focus and much of the research from PubMed I presented to them in our little conferences was news to them. What a strange and wonderful world you live in. My wife helps run a lab that works with virology, immunology, and a host of other 'ologies. She deals with things like organ transplants, spread of contagious diseases, blood products, etc, and I'm proud to say that it's within one of only three labs like it. Her job involves, amongst other things, maintaining a very close eye on any developments regarding the latest medical research and discoveries in a whole range of fields, and making sure that all relevant releases (not just from science daily... are dissemnated to the departments below her. Yup, she actually gets paid to read 'all of the current releases' in her field and others. Although she has her own specific field of interest and work, she isn't just gathering information for herself, but for others too. Where my wife works it's required, as a part of your 'job development' agreement (it's literally written into your contract) that you read as many releases as possible and keep up to date with anything new - cross-field. They deal with life saving products, and a new tablet or procedure can save lives if it's heard about in time. What's the point of working in any field if you can't stay up to date with it? As your previous 'unanswerable' proof for ID has been dealt with, could you give us any more reasons why we should think that it should be here? MelT
You've got your cause and effect all fucked up. We don't resemble machines. Machines resemble us. Or, one further level removed, all of physics resembles all the rest of physics. This does not point us to a creator. It just begs the question: why is physics the way it is? And now we're back at square one with an infinite regress that science cannot solve no matter how well it elucidates the relationships between certain things (as everything must ultimately be related to some first thing, and we cannot define this first thing in relation to anything else) and creationism just avoids (positing one creator doesn't do anything for the regression because it's creation must also be explained.) Welcome to infinity. Enjoy the absurd.
I find it hard to believe there IS a creator. Sometimes humans just want to think they mean something too much. If there was/is, who created the creator?