|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
We can't ask what came "before" the universe or define a point in time at which the universe began, because time is contingent upon the existence of the universe. We understand the rules which apply within the universe, but we can't assume that these same rules apply to the universe itself, end of story. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
If I told all of you 500 years ago some of the things technologically we can do today, then you would all say impossible. So the concept of something not having an origin point right now is ridiculous. The key word being RIGHT NOW. The thing is if everything has to have an origin point then how did an infinite god get there? Like DarkLink asked, why can't something else be there infinitely just the same? I'm not challenging anyone's beliefs, I'm just making points. Most amazing jew boots
THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES ARE YOUR 2008 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS.
|
in our hearts I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Additional Spam:
I agree with Brady, if I'm understanding him correctly. Time is something only percieved. Everything that exists exists right now. Time is just a name humans gave to how the Universe makes it's "forward motion." However, there is the "Multiple Universe Theory" which I find interesting, and I'd like to believe. However, there really isn't any evidence to support this. It's one of a few ideas proposed to explain some weird shit that goes on down at the Quantum level. It also could explain things that go on at a larger scale, such as black holes/wormholes, etc. If there is a Multiple Universe Theory, then the idea we have of "time" persay, is not so much a chronological dimension as it is a spacial dimension. A different place exists for every single possible moment that ever could have happened. It's a cool idea/theory, I think . FELIPE NO FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 17, 2007 at 06:20 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
Time is essentially a fourth linear dimension. The second is related to the meter by a factor of c. Velocity is, in fact, unitless. By extension, energy can be measured in kilograms.
The only difference between space and time is the way we perceive it. Somehow we experience time in a "compressed" form. It's sort of flattened onto a three-dimensional page, so that no matter where you are in time in relation to everything else, you still perceive everything else as being in your space. This is how special relativity works. This is also, I believe, why we can't travel back in time, in the traditional sense. Even if an observer moved backward along the time axis, everything else would still move forward as usual. Though on the bright side, it might reverse the aging process. How ya doing, buddy? |
um...the theory of evolution sounds much better to me I guess and that's why I believe it more.
For one man to have been created and a woman made out of his rib (basically the same DNA), and produce offspring? It's even worse than incest between siblings in the genetic point of view. And them being the parents of the entire human population? Ehh I don't know. Doesn't really work for me. And does it really even matter? One day the universe will collapse back into itself thus negating all life anyway. Jam it back in, in the dark.
Memento mori
|
But if I don't hear it wrong, theory of evolution has been proved NOT to be quite right (I didn't say it to be wrong, OK?). I learned it in my biology class. And the prove given is in fact very logical.
This is a biological issue. Spoiler:
Even Darwin write in his 'Origin Of Species' about things that can make his theory ruin into pieces. He even claimed in his dying bed that his theory was merely an imagination, and he believed that GOD created all. To tell you the truth, I still don't know which is to be believed. I believe that GOD create us and help us improve by evolution. That is what I believe. P.S. If there's any mistakes, please tell me. How ya doing, buddy?
Last edited by Ozma; Apr 18, 2007 at 02:31 AM.
|
Ozma: While I am not a believer in many parts of Evolution, there are a couple flaws in your reasoning.
There are still monkeys because the way evolutionary forces work, different environmental changes are supposed to spur changes in specific populations. It isn't necessarily a worldwide thing. So monkeys in population A might be driven to "evolve" while monkeys in population B might not. Another interesting fact about the fossil record, is that species of all complexity are found in many different layers, not just in the most recent fossil layers.
Additional Spam:
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 18, 2007 at 04:37 AM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? “When I slap you you'll take it and like it.” |
I was speaking idiomatically. FGSFDS!!! |
Yeah I believe in the Evolution Theory. That been said I think the "Adam and Eve" part of the Creationist Theory may also be relevent. This could be showing the time that man kind finaly Evolved past there basic animal instincts to a more devolped erea of thinking. I might be mistaken.. most likely am.. but the beliefe of a supreme beign, something greater than ones self requires a significant ability to think "out side the box" for lack of a better term. So what you could be seeing in the creationist theory is not the creation of man kind from nothing but the dawining of our ability from basic animal instinct to a though process of higher thinking.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? Check out this neat Media Player that I programmed Jason's Media Player Version: 4.21 Looking for MP3's check out my site Metavian's FTP |
FELIPE NO |
Evolution is an observable and provable process. Arguing that there is a difference on the micro and macroscopic scale is as dull as arguing that while a glass of water is wet, the ocean isn't just because it's bigger.
Is new information in the form of genes created? Why yes, all the time and quite naturally. Radiation from the earth and cosmic radiation from space drives naturally occuring mutations in all forms of life. These are not guided by anything "intelligent", but every now and then a gene may mutate in a way that offers the creature it belongs to an advantage, allowing it to excel against it's environmental competitors. This creature will prosper, become more numerous and eventually marginalise all similar creatures without this advantage. As a result, this chance helpful mutation proliferates. A changing environment doesn't cause an organism to deliberately change because of some magical in-built mechanism or "defence system". Rather, it causes those creatures least suited to the changes to die off. If the change occurs too quickly or is too extreme (such as getting creamed by a huge flying rock from space), they'll all die regardless unless their lifecycle is very short (eg a bacteria or virus, in which case they can evolve more rapidly) or if they are already by good fortune better equiped to cope with the new situation they live in. If the change is slow however, it will allow time for potentially advantageous natural mutations to occur, and certain organisms will survive. It's dumb luck, basically. All of this requires no God. It is serendipity. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark. FGSFDS!!! |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Is it not reasonable to focus on, and request an explanation for, an integral part of a theory which, as far as he is aware, has no explanation? Recombination is the standard driver of evolution, true, but that does not mean that all other methods can be easily written off as irrelevant. Whether or not he has a thorough understanding of evolution, the question posed needs an answer.
That being said, one means that genetic material may be added to an organism is "failed" mitosis or meiosis(nondisjunction, aneuploidy, etc), where extra copies of the same chromosome are brought into the same cell. While often times these events are detrimental to organisms(especially the more complex ones, like humans), that does not make it harmful to all creatures 100% of the time. Therefore, its only a matter of time before this information is whittled down to more useful configurations. I'm sure there are other means, and I'll be looking through Nature, and other such publications for them soon. edit: Another means by which genetic material may be added is through viral gene injection. Often viruses have destructive self-duplicating genes which get injected into the host cell, however, due to the large volume of viruses which may be produced, there is an increased chance of variations within their resulting genes, some of which may prevent viruses from injecting these destructive self-duplicating commands, enabling the rest of the genetic information to be passed on the other cells/organisms. edit2: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Last edited by packrat; Apr 18, 2007 at 12:24 PM.
|
Most amazing jew boots |
Macroevolution does NOT equal Evolution. Macroevolution requires the gain of genetic information, and currently, we do NOT have evidence to support that. Every time I see information put forth that supposedly "proves" this, it ends up being something like the example of disease-resistant bacterium that you put forth. The flaw lies in your understanding of what I'm trying to say. Once again: 1. I say I agree with parts of Evolution. 2. I then say I don't agree with other parts. 3. I then point out that I don't agree with Macroevolution in particular. 4. I point out a very vital, integral mechanism for the processes of macroevolution, that we don't have evidence for. I'm not sure I can put it any simpler than that for you. I'm sorry I don't agree with you on the topic of Evolution, but that doesn't give you the right to start re-inventing what I say. I was speaking idiomatically. FGSFDS!!! |
Mathematically macroevolution becomes more probable when dealing with organisms who have rapidly replaced generations. It's more likely to observe genetic traits being adopted over the course of hundreds of years in insects than higher mammals. Spread out over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, new species branch off of the base species (which may very well still be in abundance). Then over millions and hundreds of millions classes begin to form.
There is, of course, no set timespan for any macroevolutionary change, but the "faults" of macroevolution are more a fault of human perception than of logic. Of course, we probably can't definitively prove it until protohumans are able to directly observe the changes over several millenia, but in the meantime it's the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the species. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
DarkLink2135, what do you consider a gain of genetic information?
FELIPE NO |
I would consider a gain of genetic information (at least the type needed to make Macroevolution a feasible possibility, meaning, the organism didn't incorporate any DNA from external biological elements that it has come into contact with, which could explain some changes, but I don't believe all), to be any meaningful, beneficial, genetic code added to an organism via natural means. Changes that add more protiens, extra physical features, more complex internal process, perhaps so it can process more food, etc. Organisms "borrowing" genetic code from other organisms it encounters I suppose could explain some parts of Macroevolution, but I don't believe it's sufficient to explain any macroevolution forces very much beyond a microscopic level. We don't have any evidence to support this sort of advancement in species - it's simply a conjecture based on what we see with little supporting data. I choose not to believe it based on the incredible amount of complexity involved, and the literal impossibility of such things arriving via random mutations caused by background radiation. I might be able to see this sort of evolution happening among simpler, single-celled organisms, but even then, I find that to be a long stretch. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? FGSFDS!!! |
The hardest part of macro evolution is the grasping of just how complex it is. But in tern think of just how complex we are. I mean we depend completely on all the cells doing what they are supposed to when they are supposed to. Macro evolution is mind blowing to say the least just in part to the complexity of the organisms involved. In a single cell organisms if and evolutionary change doesn't work the organism doesn't last very long and doesn't propagate. But in a multi-cell organism it can take quiet some time for that failed attempt to be weeded out if ever. Also you would never notice if a small benificial change has occured in a multi-cell organism, well not as easy as in a 1 cell. Oh my head hurts just thinking of it :S
Most amazing jew boots Check out this neat Media Player that I programmed Jason's Media Player Version: 4.21 Looking for MP3's check out my site Metavian's FTP |
BasG: You move up a level by posting a bunch of spam like you just did. Although I wouldn't suggest that since it's a fast track to getting banned. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. FGSFDS!!!
Last edited by DarkLink2135; Apr 19, 2007 at 10:11 AM.
|