Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 24, 2014, 08:09:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: what is evolution anyway?  (Read 7170 times)
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2012, 08:20:22 AM »

Thanks for taking the time Zippelk.   applause applause applause   Very interesting.
 but then I'm a liberal.    grin  I even believe in evolution.
applause
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 08:38:33 AM by ray » Logged

Live long and prosper!
Johnny253
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92

Location: South Australia


« Reply #41 on: April 06, 2012, 08:39:42 AM »

"Nope. Evolution is the fact that gene pools change over time. Natural Selection is a theory (tested, corroborated, readily observable by anyone) for one of the ways evolution happens in nature. That doesn't confuse me at all."

Natural selection is a proven fact. Evolution is a theory. Natural selection is NOT one of the ways evolution happens.

All of your evidence for your so called 'evolution' is not evidence for evolution at all. It is all evidence for natural selection. Evidence for natural selection cannot be used as evidence for evolution. Natural selection acts upon the genetic potential that already exists. For evolution to occur, there needs to be some new genetic information.

Take for example the example you used for varroa in bees. I agree, there are colonies of bees around that are resistant to varroa. In the presence of varroa, those colonies that are resistant are selected for and become more common, no surprises there. This process is natural selection, not evolution. The genetics of the bees resistant to varroa already existed. There is no new genetic information.

For evolution to occur, it requires an increase in information which results in a directional movement. Natural selection cannot be a mechanism for evolution because it results in a decrease in information and is not directional. Speciation may occur as a result of natural selection but it only occurs within a kind.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. There is no direct, observable experiment that can be performed to prove it. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA and notice similarities in morphology but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

"If you believe in dogs, you believe in evolution"Huh?

How does that work?
Logged
beyondthesidewalks
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 286


Location: Very rural Navarro County, TX

I need a shave


« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2012, 10:28:09 AM »

" why is it so expensive to make?  why does the company make it when it's not a real money maker for them."

So people can feel good about themselves, showing up at the academy awards or similar event in their hybrid instead of a limo.  Prius is junk marketing made to please those confused by junk science and make those same people feel good about the manufacturer of junk.  It's not about fact.  It is all about perception.

Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2012, 10:31:44 AM »

what darwin wrote, if anyone read it, was the theory of natural selection.
the slime to man theory was spun by people who loved the idea that science could explain the existence of man.  

there are lots of things that we look back on, bleeding, bad vapors spreading disease, etc. and we shake our heads.  at the time, those theories make perfect sense and many of them were not completely wrong.  they were right that many diseases were spread though the air, but not by bad smells.  they were right that many infections are in the blood, but bleeding people didn't get rid of the infection.

slime to man is going the same way.  we have evidence that we are not the only version of man to have lived on this planet.  heck, this might even tie into climate change!!  evil  man may have adapted or died according to the climate....(just trying to stay within the parameters of both posts....)  
we also have a better, but not complete, picture of how living things change genetically.  the science of the 21st century will rewrite the science of the 19th century.  this is as it should be.  none of us wants to fall off the side of the earth.  
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
hardwood
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3482


Location: Osteen, Fl (just south of Daytona)

Alysian Apiaries youtube.com/MrBeedude


« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2012, 01:19:56 PM »

I prefer the term "primordial ooze" over "slime"...although either would make a great name for a metal band!

Scott
Logged

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2012, 01:48:56 PM »

brevity...

and spelling challenged

 grin
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
bee-nuts
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1101


Location: Northwest Wisconsin


WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2012, 01:50:27 PM »

“Scientists were urging governments to “take action” and recommending a variety of solutions, such as forcibly melting the polar ice caps in order to stop the impending Ice Age. “

Maybe the goverment did take action and thus "global warming"  of course I am kidding!

"That is why you believe in a flawed idea (evolution) instead of cold hard math."

Seriously?  Evolution is a FLAWED IDEA instead of COLD HARD MATH?

What is the cold hard math that shows evolution to be the ridiculous theory it is (which it is not, it is a cold hard FACT)?


“the Prius”  
“turns out the Prius might be one of the least earth friendly cars on the road “
“as long as it promotes the idea that we MUST get off fossil fuels, nothing else matters.”

Any technology needs to go through a stage of start up evolution before it can become efficient and viable in a manufacturing environment and market wise.  As far as the batteries go, look at cell phones!  They used to come the size of a large laptop with a huge battery.  Then when portables hit the market they were very bulky and heavy.  Now some of them are almost as small as a couple credit cards taped together with an amazing battery life.

Electric cars need to evolve to become a truly viable option and that requires them to actually be used and tested and yes that means to begin with there will be major manufacturing inefficiency and such before it can evolve into a great product which I believe it could be.  In the case of the electric car I believe federal funding would be great when you look at the real benefit it will have with our economy, industry, and so on.  In ten years we all could benefit from it.
Logged

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory

Thomas Jefferson
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4120

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #47 on: April 06, 2012, 03:13:21 PM »

Regarding your cell phones: as the gate sizes in ICs shrink the gate voltage drops.  Power = voltage x current.  Lower voltage means lower power for modern cell phones = less battery power needed = smaller batteries.  Basic Physics.  The same idea does NOT apply to cars though because the amount of kilowatts needed to haul our butts down the street are the same (actually more) now as they were 10, 20, 100 years ago.  Batteries are not getting much better, they just seem that way until you dig deeper into the facts.

FYI.  Dubya cut the Bill Clinton program to create 6 passenger 80 MPG cars by 2004.  Where would we have been now if we didn’t have Dubya?
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #48 on: April 06, 2012, 03:48:36 PM »

ever read Darwin's Radio  by Greg Bear?  the premise of the story is that man is genetically programed to change with a changing environment.  interesting idea. 


Quote
FYI.  Dubya cut the Bill Clinton program to create 6 passenger 80 MPG cars by 2004.


what he actually did was try to help the auto industry...you know, the industry you love...by keeping certain states from enacting very costly and unrealistic individual emissions standards.  he also ended a program that the LEFT was complaining about that gave federal money to companies developing things like hydrogen fuel cells.  they didn't like the corporate giveaway...which i guess is ok as long as a dem is doing it.

ya know, we went from gigantic and powerful cars in the 70's because that's what the market demanded.  you kids call them muscle cars.  some of us fondly remember them as real cars.


Quote
Electric cars need to evolve to become a truly viable option and that requires them to actually be used and tested and yes that means to begin with there will be major manufacturing inefficiency and such before it can evolve into a great product which I believe it could be.  In the case of the electric car I believe federal funding would be great when you look at the real benefit it will have with our economy, industry, and so on.  In ten years we all could benefit from it.


see above.
history shows that the industries produce what the people demand.  this is not only true of tech, but quality of product.  people often point to the space program and the military and say "see, if not for government spending we wouldn't have computers, rockets, etc."  there is some truth to that, but without popular demand, no private company would have bothered to market that stuff for public consumption.  your ipad is a result of popular demand, not government spending.

BTW....tell me again where the power for these electric cars comes from?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57367228/obama-backed-car-battery-maker-goes-bankrupt/
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
SEEYA
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 274

Location: USA

Poke a meek dog enough times.........!


« Reply #49 on: April 06, 2012, 06:33:06 PM »

>>The genetics of the bees resistant to varroa already existed. There is no new genetic information.
 Genes do mutate, does that not increase the genetic code?

How many billion years has our earth been life-tolerant? How many hundred of thousands, of planets exist with a life-tolerant environment?
If you flip a coin 100 times, and it comes up heads 53 times, that does NOT change the possibilities.


>>So people can feel good about themselves....
>> Dubya cut the Bill Clinton program
>>why aren't the greenies screaming about it
stay on topic




Logged

Live long and prosper!
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4120

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2012, 09:47:12 PM »

We always do seem to run off into the weeds on these coffee house threads.  Dubya is usually to blame  grin 

I’ve got a feeling I could go on and on about probabilities here until I’m blue in the face and my fingers are numb, but I do have other things to get done Smiley.  As with all these debates, nobody is likely to change their positions or evolve Smiley

As for your coin toss analogy, you are correct that the probability of the NEXT coin toss being a head is 50%.  That probability doesn’t change per toss.  What changes per toss is the odds of getting 53 heads in a row!  In the case of human DNA it would be like the odds of getting 3.2 billion heads in a row.  Surely you can’t argue that is likely to happen? 
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2012, 10:56:55 PM »

Thanks for taking the time Zippelk.

You are welcome. I hope that a few people found the discussion entertaining and perhaps educational.

Quote
When the earth was forming the atmosphere was full of carbon...

As I understand it, CO2 was not abundant initially, but eventually, yea, the early atmosphere was pumped full of it from volcanoes. Life, in the form of simple anaerobic bacteria, evolved under these conditions after about a billion years (plus or minus). Then along came a new type of bacterium called photosynthetic autotrophs that ate CO2 with sunshine and crapped out oxygen (aka, photosynthesis, more on that in a minute), turning the CO2 into their bodies, which as bodies became larger and more numerous would eventually get stashed in the earth as fossil fuels, until…right again!...humans started releasing them and warming things back up. Not that humans are inherently evil (Kathy!), just largely ignorant, especially when operating without understanding the consequences of their actions (science).

Photosynthesis not only lowered atmospheric CO2 and helped cool the planet; it also significantly raised the concentration of atmospheric O2. O2 was a potent toxin to the anaerobic bacteria of the time and it nearly wiped out all life on the planet. Fortunately, there was some genetic variation in O2 tolerance among those bacteria, selection favored those with higher tolerance, and some life persisted. Note that we are not the first species to threaten planetary biodiversity! But thanks to our ‘superior intelligence’ we are the first species to be able to realize the negative consequences of our actions…and then proceed anyway. I think that says something about our functional IQ relative to that of a farting bacterium. No Kathy, I am not saying that humans are evil, maybe not even that we are simply dumb in this regard, just that it is a little ironic and a lotta sad that, despite our big brains, we don’t seem to be able to curb our consumption even when our very lives depend on it (other examples: alcohol, tobacco, other drugs, obesity, promiscuity). The proximate urge to consume or enjoy seems to trump even the ultimate will to live. Not evil, just...natural. As my mom says, “I’d prefer to eat whoppers and die 10 years younger rather than live a longer life of sacrifice”. How do you argue with that? I guess if that is what people want to do, it’s their right (we sure are funny monkeys). But when someone’s excessive lifestyle affects the wellbeing of others, what do we do then? In the era before the surgeon general’s warning on cigarettes, the science was clear that smoking was hazardous to health, and even though big tobacco used all the resources at their disposal to try to discredit the science because they thought it would cut into their profit (déjà vu), we did ultimately label smoking hazardous (which it turns out did not affect sales so much) and limit where people could smoke so the secondhand did not harm others (although we still have to share their medical bills through our insurance rates). But what can we do about CO2? I want others to live the lifestyles they want, even if they wish to harm themselves, but there is no ‘outdoor smoking area’ for carbon junkies. No matter where you do your thing, it still impacts ‘my’ environment detrimentally. So what can we do? It is fully possible for us to transition off fossil fuels in a way that does not affect our quality of life, but no one is demanding it so no one is doing it. By the time we do wake up, we’ll still have to contend with 30 years of secondhand carbon in the air, and that ain’t going to be pretty, so the science goes. Until then, the science believers sit here and breathe others’ exhaust… 

Yikes, sorry for the long tangent, I just meant to corroborate your point about the earth stashing carbon. Sorry.
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2012, 11:05:14 PM »

That is why you believe in a flawed idea (evolution) instead of cold hard math.


I truly admire your respect for math BlueBee. You must be a man of logic, for math is so elegantly logical. As such, I am confused by your disdain for certain sciences, at least evolutionary biology. To me, the evidence is abundant and overwhelming; I could not escape it even if I wanted to. Every morning when I wake up, I wonder if my back will be sore today. It often is, because backbones evolved to support animals in a horizontal posture. When primates turned upright, bending the backbone at an odd angle and putting new compressive forces on the discs, the problems began. But a horizontal spine is all nature had to work with, and evolution can only work with what it has. Surely intelligent design would have come up with something more imaginative and less troublesome. Next I rub my eyes, invariably working my plica semilunaris (that little bump in the corner of the eye, by the nose) and marvel that I have this vestigial third eyelid that served my amphibious ancestors so well but does nothing for me now beyond collect eye boogers. Then I might reach down and scratch my appendectomy scar, wondering again why I should have a troublesome vestigial cecum reminiscent of my herbivorous ancestors; the design is not very intelligent in me. When I get out of bed, there is usually a morning chill in the air, and I break out in goosebumps. Why would my body do that? I have no significant coat of fur to raise and keep my body warm, just these insignificant little hairs that accomplish absolutely nothing, impotent little piloerections reminding me of my ancestry. If I do my business at the porcelain throne, I wonder why I have that tiny tail bone (coccyx) back there. Where does that fit in the design? Next I brush my teeth, all the way back to that little space in the rear where my wisdom teeth used to reside. Why did I have those ‘extra’ teeth that crowded out my mouth and had to be surgically removed?

Get my point? I haven’t been up for 15 minutes yet and already I am overwhelmed by the evidence of evolution on my own imperfect body, which is clearly the result of descent with modification from the species before me. And I haven’t even started thinking yet about fossils, genetics, and comparative anatomy! Complexity is not evidence of design, especially when our complexity is full of so many flaws based on faulty equipment inherited from our predecessors. Your notion of a Blind Watchmaker is neither new nor compelling (you might be interested to read this http://www.amazon.com/The-Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333732947&sr=8-1). And I don’t know why you think that intelligence is so special that it is beyond the capability of evolution. It such a minor feat that, in fact, it has evolved multiple times independently (octopi, bees, parrots, dolphins, primates, etc. etc.). I guess given VAST amounts of time (e.g., 3.5 billion years), the seemingly impossible becomes not only possible but downright probable. But surely a mathematician can see that.
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2012, 11:10:35 PM »

let me know when that theory of evolution is smoothed out.  …  i don't think it's about money either. … it plays well with the granola crunchers …


Kathy, I’m sorry that you cannot accept the concept of what a theory really is, despite my repeated explanations and examples. But thanks for at least admitting that scientists are not making up data for the money. Of course, that only leaves your notion that we are inherently evil, but we’ll blame Hollywood’s depiction of the ‘mad scientist’ for your issues. Personally I fail to see where the profit or any benefit is in that position; granola crunchers don’t strike me as a particularly affluent demographic, usually quite the opposite.

I wonder where you draw the line of trusting scientists? Do you visit a medical doctor (scientist of human health) and take their advice? Don’t you worry that they have been corrupted by big pharma and an insurance system that profits from the number of procedures performed? Do you believe the entomologists who advise us on how best to take care of our bees, even when it seems to involve buying new products and drugs and things that put cash in someone else’s pocket? Why all the distrust for climate and evolutionary scientists? What do we have to gain by being deceptive? Most people don’t fall into science, they get into it because they love the concept of an objective quest for knowledge. So where and how do we all convert to being evil liars? I must have missed that seminar in grad school.

Quote
so far, the mathematics of genetic mutation are making it harder and harder to believe in evolution in the way many insist on embracing as fact. 


I’ll point out that there are, on average, 3 mutations produced every time a single cell in your body divides. As a typical male, I am making ~200 million sperm per day (mutations in gametes are the only ones passed to the next generation), so that’s ~600 million mutations per day in my scrotum alone, and as spectacular as it is, my scrotum is not unique. Add to that 3.5 billion other dudes, and granted not all those swimmers are resulting in offspring, but you get the picture regarding the potential in just one species. I think current estimates are that every kid has at least 100 new mutations? And those are the ones neutral enough not to terminate them between gamete formation and birth. Every bacterium reproduces successfully every 10 minutes or so, and their proofreading machinery is far less sophisticated than ours. Plenty of room for errors, if your mind is open enough to look. If you cannot recognize the potential that creates for change over 3.5 billion years, then I think you’ve learned about as much as you are willing to learn.

If anyone is legitimately interested in learning about probability in evolution, I highly recommend that you check out Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0393316823/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333721486&sr=8-1.

Quote
all the while evil man has figured out how to feed the planet, conquer disease, protect against the elements, extend life....not to mention leaving the planet, instant communication all over the world, etc.


I wonder what community of intellectual, inquisitive, philanthropic professionals brought us most of those developments?  hmmm…
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2012, 11:13:59 PM »

If Darwins origin of a species was fact we would call it a law, not a theory.  Evolution occurs.  There is no doubt about that.  You seem to be confusing evolution of species that already exist and the notion that evolution created all species.  That's what's at play and in doubt here.  Facts are laws.  Unproven ideas are theories.  Sorry but that's the way it is.

While I am thrilled to hear you acknowledge that evolution occurs in existing species, I am saddened that you don’t accept that it can create a new species. I told you about the apple maggot, a new species evolving right before our eyes...did you not read about it? I guess evidence only goes so far. Being able to watch something happen is usually evidence enough for most people… And you still don’t know what a theory is. I fear that you and I too have said all we have to say to each other on the subject.
 
Quote
I guess I should have said politics has no place in science.  Science, more specifically, theories have no place in determining policy until they are laws IMO.  It's just an opinion.  Sometimes science is wrong and, therefore, policy derived from it would be wrong.

If we don’t base our policies on science, which is our best understanding of reality at any given moment, what do we base them on? The intuition of lawyers? (most politicians are lawyers). And if science is to be excluded from policy making because it has made a few mistakes in the past, what should we do with the lawyers and historians? Who will be left to make policy? There is only one man who supposedly never erred, but there is absolutely no tangible evidence for any of the claims that were made about him, and fortunately our founding fathers had the good sense to ban policy based on such legends. So really, minor flaws aside, science is the best we’ve got.
Logged
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2012, 11:15:09 PM »


Dude, I'm not sure where you got your education, but you should ask for a refund.  grin Sorry. I don't think that a single thing you said is correct. But apparently you're in good company here.   evil  Best of luck.
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4120

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2012, 11:43:53 PM »

OK Zippelk, let me ask you this.  How many planets are out there where intelligent life have evolved?  Since evolution is so “simple” in your mind, why haven’t we heard the radio waves from all those extra terrestrials yet?  The Universe has been around for some 15 billion years, right?  Where are all your evolved ETs?

BTW, Johnny253, I think you were spot on with your analysis!
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5423


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2012, 06:39:42 AM »

Ziddelk,
If you are calling people stupid here,and I have been following your posts,you may find your self in good company somewhere. And it may not be here. You seem to be flaunting yourself as smarter than everyone else.Our members here are entitled to their opinions,but if you feel the need to call them ignorant or "less educated" and perhaps not having the "supreme" knowledge you seem to have,take it somewhere else.
Logged
beemaster
Site Founder
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6221


Location: Manchester, NJ

It is my pleasure to bring the forums to you.


WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2012, 11:40:58 AM »

This whole topic is one that I often shake my head at, because of personal beliefs. I'm a big believer that the only thing science will find at the end of the EVERYTHING EQUATION is God.

Science wants to draw a formula as short as E=MC2 which will explaon everything in the Universe, and I think the more they look the greater they will be shocked at the answer.

I think much of the confusion occurs when people forget the age of the Bible and the technology of the day. A good example is the word dinosaur never entered the dictionary into the early 1800s, before that, if ancient bones were found in fossil form, they were neither understood to be a remnant of ancient life or not identified in modern words.

The Bible spoke to the people of the day and in parable for people of all time, I often think that if it were written today, we would have terms like computers, television, space-station, rockets and other words that may mean nothing in 1000 years.

I get lost in the fight of theology and science when I see people arguing apples and apples:Genesis and the Big Bang Theory are close enough for me to believe to be two variations centuries apart.

How would a scientist explain God's creation of the Universe? And thousands of years from now, would it be understandable to a lost concept or one twisted by that times language and society so that it was no longer recognizable as written?!

I think OIL is Abiotic - something Earth constantly makes, not some limited quantity that we constantly draw from. Of course can we draw it faster than Earth can make it, that may be another issue - but not yet and likely not for a very long time. http://viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

 I often wonder when life started, whether here or elsewhere - are we terraformed here? Did we crawl from ooze? Can we possibly be the only planet with life so bountiful and diverse - this one I don't believe in the least. I believe trillions upon trillions of planets with life so vastly different or similar that the greatest writers of fiction could only sit in awe.

But we sit thinking we are as good as it gets. We are the best that has ever existed, the best technology, the best understanding of how the Universe works - the smartest beings to every exist, with or without a God.

This may hold true for Earth, but that is awful presumptuous of us to believe that is the case with all the Universe and over all time. How many billions of far off civilizations have so greatly exceeded us in technology yet to perish when their turn came? Did they have a God and scientists who were so conflicted as to draw lines in the sands?

I know in my heart the day will come when science will prove the existence of God, I just wonder if they are humble enough to share that with the world.

Science (laughably) tells us how old the Universe it using data gained from deep-space observers like Hubble - tools of man which become more powerful that it can see further and by doing so and BILLIONS of YEARS to how long the Universe has been around. I remember not many years ago that we were told (with great certainty) that the Universe was 4 billion years old, then Hubble let them see further than ever before and magically we jump to nearly 15 billion years since the Big Bang. A new more powerful probe into the vastness is soon to be launched, when it does and suddenly the Universe is 30 billion years old, how do we still believe the data science feeds us as fact?

Yes people evolve, and in short time - generations. People barely 5ft average with a life span of 50 years ruled the earth just a few hundred years ago. Starving African women give birth like a Pez Machine while a woman's reproduction system in a healthy society would shut down if she were so starved and sickly, she could not bare children.

Many people call this ADAPTING not EVOLUTION but I like M-Ws differentiating of the words - Adapting to make fit (as for a new use) often by modification, where Evolution: is a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

So Adapting is a willful act, to add a new part to something to change it. When Evolution is something out of our control, but occurs out of need.

I'm sure humans are not done evolving, but it takes a need. If things stayed the same, there would be no need to change, but obviously things change or we'd all be dragging our knuckles in the bushland or if we don't evolve then obvious this is how we always looked, we are just more techy today.

I believe God made man to evolve, that one statement can insult both theologists and scientist, but it sure makes sense to me and explains a whole lot. Surely God wants us around until he doesn't and our ability to adapt as best we can be limited, but "evolving to adapt" to our environment secures or ability to survive.

A good example would be if the approx 20% of oxygen we breathe slowly reduced over a great deal of years, our bodies would change to survive with less - that's evolution. To happen overnight, we'd need oxygen tanks to live, that's adaptation. I just don't believe God hands out oxygen masks.

I'm just the kinda guy waiting for the aliens to come and have them show us "their" Bible, because I believe ours is one of Man's instruction manuals from God, and there are many just on our planet alone. I can only image how many trillions of others may exist out there, leading civilizations to grow and "adapt" with their bigger and better tools until they reach out into space and find other creatures to share their Bibles with.

Logged

NJBeemaster my YOUTUBE Video Collection
Follow us on TWITTER
SKYPE NJBeemaster - include your FORUM NAME in contact request
My Personal FACEBOOK Page


"All donations to our forums are greatly appreciated"
Please click HERE to help support our forum.
zippelk
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2012, 11:54:35 AM »

OK Zippelk, let me ask you this.  How many planets are out there where intelligent life have evolved?  

Many, I'm sure. It must be a mathematical certainty. Have you checked out the Drake Equation? I think you'd enjoy it as a mental exercise, especially being a math fan Blue.

Quote
Since evolution is so “simple” in your mind, why haven’t we heard the radio waves from all those extra terrestrials yet?  The Universe has been around for some 15 billion years, right?  Where are all your evolved ETs?

You did say intelligent life, right?  So why would they call on us?  grin  Seriously, intelligence is not the end result of evolution, just one possible outcome on a spectrum. "Unintelligent" is a far more common outcome. But the question is fair, of those that have evolved intelligence, why haven't we discovered any of them? This is not my area of expertise, but from what I know, I will say this. (1) Space is far more vast than we (=all of us, humanity) can possibly conceive. It is fully possible that there is no intelligent life within a range that we are able to detect. (2) If they are truly intelligent, then they are likely actively trying to avoid detection. As I said, most forms of life are not very intelligent and/or are doing whatever it takes to survive, typically eating or exploiting other forms of life. If you were lost in bear/wolf country, would you run around yelling for other people, or would you keep your head down and try to survive while avoiding detection? I laugh when I think about the 'messages' we send out into space hoping to alert others of our presence...might as well send a menu with directions.  grin Why haven't we met ETs yet? Most are too far away, the smart ones avoid us, and by sheer luck the hungry ones haven't found us yet.

Quote
BTW, Johnny253, I think you were spot on with your analysis!

He's really not though. We can go through point by point if people are really interested in learning. But as I said, he was so far off the mark that it didn't seem worth the effort. Anyone with a biology textbook, dictionary, or internet access can easily confirm that for themselves. Sorry Johnny.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.799 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page June 14, 2014, 07:42:31 AM
anything