- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation...
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:23 am to League Champs
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:23 am to League Champs
quote:
The universe is a closed system
unus = one, hence no ability to share mass/energy with anything else, versus = turned (turned into one)
As a generalization: For the fighting of entropy in biological system here on Earth, there is an equivalent increase of entropy in the sun. Ergo, no violation of the 2nd law.
0
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:31 am to tuptiger
Science is the objective, sometimes ugly sometimes beautiful, truth.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 7:54 am to tuptiger
You ever spend time on /r/iamverysmart? You'd fit right in.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:01 am to tuptiger
I'll try to save this thread.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:18 am to tuptiger
Evolutionary theory is, as are all theories, not the absolute truth but a working model that partially explains biological progress. Natural selection is part of that process, but it does not explain the entire evolutionary process in a satisfactory manner. Much is still unknown and evolutionary research continues.
What's interesting is the amount of junk DNA in humans. There is plant DNA in humans, but it is not active. Where did it come from, why do we have it in our bodies? Is this the smoking gun that ties human existence to plant life? Scientists are researching these questions, no conclusions yet.
What's interesting is the amount of junk DNA in humans. There is plant DNA in humans, but it is not active. Where did it come from, why do we have it in our bodies? Is this the smoking gun that ties human existence to plant life? Scientists are researching these questions, no conclusions yet.
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 8:21 am
Posted on 3/12/17 at 8:20 am to TH03
Fewer. Not less.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 3:42 pm to Volvagia
Endosymbiosis
I'm not getting too deep into this debate. Your whats are amusing.
RNA Polymerase is a protein. There are many questions regarding its origin.
I used the development of mitochondria as an example. Not as a claim about the chronology of its existence relative to other cellular organelles.
quote:
Accumulating data suggest that the eukaryotic cell originated from a merger of two prokaryotes, an archaeal host and a bacterial endosymbiont. However, since prokaryotes are unable to perform phagocytosis, the means by which the endosymbiont entered its host is an enigma.
I'm not getting too deep into this debate. Your whats are amusing.
RNA Polymerase is a protein. There are many questions regarding its origin.
I used the development of mitochondria as an example. Not as a claim about the chronology of its existence relative to other cellular organelles.
This post was edited on 3/12/17 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:03 pm to tuptiger
quote:
Speciation doesn't mean evolution. For the theory to be accurate, you'd have to observe something more broad in the current taxonomic system. I agree there are slight variations among "species" that would distinguish one monkey from another. However, the theory of evolution requires a jump from one kingdom to another.
Answers in genesis.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:34 pm to tuptiger
quote:
However, the theory of evolution requires a jump from one kingdom to another.
Here we go again.
Read up on Loki Archaea.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:38 pm to tuptiger
quote:
There's a nice story about him in the Galápagos Islands observing birds. I have not come across one academic who will give a balanced view on him.
It's called being pragmatic. We're all human and therefore have our faults. Focus on the ways these people have helped to progress society.
Your argument is akin to discrediting all the good MLK did because he had affairs and may have been a womanizer.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:45 pm to tuptiger
a) how I miss Beejon, he would drool over this thread
b) if you're alluding to intelligent design, you are as dumb as a bag of rocks
c) keep this thread up long enough and Roger Klarvin will be in here to eviscerate whatever argument you think you have. He will beat you over the head with so much damn irrefutable science, your empty head will spin
b) if you're alluding to intelligent design, you are as dumb as a bag of rocks
c) keep this thread up long enough and Roger Klarvin will be in here to eviscerate whatever argument you think you have. He will beat you over the head with so much damn irrefutable science, your empty head will spin
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:50 pm to tuptiger
quote:
For instance, its hypothesized that the prokaryotic cell was a precursor to the eukaryotic cell. Yet, there's not any evidence of prokaryotic cells "becoming" eukaryotic cells. You'll say that they didn't "become" eukaryotic cells. It's just the transition from an apoxic environment to a more oxygen rich selected for cells that had mitochondria. But, the cells with mitochondria that could undergo aerobic metabolism had to predate the oxygen rich environment and at some point there had to be a "development" of what would be defined as precursors to eukaryotic cells. I'd say take some prokaryotic cells in an apoxic environment and see if the develop the machinery to develops to undergo aerobic metabolism. You'll say they were part of the transition and we can't "know" what the transition was like in the primordial soup environment.
I recommend you pick up a copy of Brock Biology of Microorganisms or Microbiology: An Evolving Science and read the first few chapters. It's all in there.
We can genetically sequence Mitochondria and Chloroplasts and place them on the tree of life, independent of their Eukaryotic hosts. Early phototrophic organisms evolved prior to Eukarya. Think of Cyanobacteria.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 4:59 pm to tuptiger
Early front runner for dumbest thread of the week. Congrats.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:04 pm to tuptiger
quote:
I'm not getting too deep into this debate.
Because if you were to get deep into it, you would know it is total nonsense. Your argument has no depth whatsoever.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:08 pm to OMLandshark
Peace out. This thread was not a debate about evolution. It was a consideration of Darwin's views and the context around his theory. If I wanted to debate evolution, I would choose where I currently work to debate. Or I would have started a thread about evolution.
I've already debated Klarvin on here. He's pretty knowledgeable. OMLS is just going to aggrandize himself and present current scientific questions as having answers and being "facts". And then claim his synapses are firing at a faster rate than everyone else's. I'd have a more enjoyable debate with a 3rd grader than OMLS.
I've already debated Klarvin on here. He's pretty knowledgeable. OMLS is just going to aggrandize himself and present current scientific questions as having answers and being "facts". And then claim his synapses are firing at a faster rate than everyone else's. I'd have a more enjoyable debate with a 3rd grader than OMLS.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:13 pm to tuptiger
quote:
I'd have a more enjoyable debate with a 3rd grader than OMLS.
Probably because that's the highest level of education you'd be capable of beating in a debate.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:21 pm to OMLandshark
Lol
Bait is shiny.
So, let's establish some things philosophically before debating it. What is a "fact"? I define fact as being linked to evidence. However, not everything that has some evidence associated with it is a "fact". For instance, there was at least some evidence the world was flat, but it's since been demonstrated it's round. So, what is a "fact"? A preponderance of the evidence? If something is a scientific "fact", I'm assuming it's immutable. Meaning no evidence to the contrary will contradict its truth.
So a "fact" essentially means it's not falsifiable. Agreed?
The argument isn't whether I can disprove the theory of evolution. The argument is whether or not the theory of evolution is a "belief", meaning it's not a "fact".
Bait is shiny.
So, let's establish some things philosophically before debating it. What is a "fact"? I define fact as being linked to evidence. However, not everything that has some evidence associated with it is a "fact". For instance, there was at least some evidence the world was flat, but it's since been demonstrated it's round. So, what is a "fact"? A preponderance of the evidence? If something is a scientific "fact", I'm assuming it's immutable. Meaning no evidence to the contrary will contradict its truth.
So a "fact" essentially means it's not falsifiable. Agreed?
The argument isn't whether I can disprove the theory of evolution. The argument is whether or not the theory of evolution is a "belief", meaning it's not a "fact".
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:21 pm to tuptiger
I already tried to give you a response not related to evolution by comparing your argument to those that attempt to discredit MLK based on his skeletons.
Care to comment?
Care to comment?
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:22 pm to tuptiger
quote:precisely. evolution is demonstrable. universal common descent is pure speculation.
However, the cohesive theory of evolution currently depends on things that are not verifiable.
one problem that i don't see ucd advocates answering is predation, why did it ever get started in the first place? what was the first organism to consume another and why? how did the first predator ever get the notion that "i need to kill and consume this other organism"? was it out of natural resources or was it just for fun?
another problem is gender. why did that ever need to happen? the first amino acid and protein chains were perfectly fine having no gender. when did gender develop?
and preservation of the species is full of holes. why do lions kill the litter of another male when they take over a female? why not just have another litter and significantly increase the chances of preservation? also, if organisms were truly interested in preservation of the species, they would cooperate to overcome natural selection. how many times have documentaries captured beasts of burden not protecting their offspring from predators? it seems to me that natural selection and preservation of the species are nearly mutually exclusive.
Posted on 3/12/17 at 5:23 pm to tuptiger
Debating 3rd graders kicks arse.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News