PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: PaulS on April 26, 2016, 08:37:02 PM
-
Evolution baby, lol....... ::)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/26/bright-flash-of-light-marks-incredible-moment-life-begins-when-s/
-
Evolution baby, lol....... ::)
"The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes."
Science baby!
-
Ya'll funny.
I haven't even read the article yet but after seeing the comments ^ and ^^ I'm definitely gonna. ;D
-
Good find.
-
"The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes."
Science baby!
Ya right, science, the science of observation, I'll agree with you there.
-
There is nothing more pointless that arguing Evolutionary Theory - one might as well argue Germ Theory or Quantum Theory.
Science is never "settled", in that science is not a "thing" nor an assertion, it is a process.
Rarely, the evidence for a certain concept is so overwhelming that it is deemed unreasonable to deny it provisional acceptance as true. At that point it gets elevated to a capital-T Theory.
Paul S has repeatedly shown an inability to argue logically for his position, which I think is that Evolutionary Theory is false, or at least laughable (lol with an associated eye roll). In fact, often his "arguments" are either incomprehensible or profoundly flawed.
My best attempt to decipher his "reasoning", and hence the reason for this thread, is:
A) Scientists have discovered a physical phenomenom that causes fluorescence at the moment of conception.
B) It roughly coincides with a turn of phrase: "The spark of life".
Therefore: Evolutionary Theory is laughable (and false?).
Good luck with that. As I said, no point in wasting time debating Evolutionary Theory with those "debating" with theological blinders firmly in place.
For those about to engage Paul S - I salute you!
-
Good luck with that. As I said, no point in wasting time debating Evolutionary Theory with those "debating" with theological blinders firmly in place.
not directed at you, but it also a gross waste of time to argue with someone that can't fathom how science and theology are not mutually exclusive. Particularly true with people who hate all things religious.
-
There is nothing more pointless that arguing Evolutionary Theory - one might as well argue Germ Theory or Quantum Theory.
Science is never "settled", in that science is not a "thing" nor an assertion, it is a process.
Rarely, the evidence for a certain concept is so overwhelming that it is deemed unreasonable to deny it provisional acceptance as true. At that point it gets elevated to a capital-T Theory.
Paul S has repeatedly shown an inability to argue logically for his position, which I think is that Evolutionary Theory is false, or at least laughable (lol with an associated eye roll). In fact, often his "arguments" are either incomprehensible or profoundly flawed.
My best attempt to decipher his "reasoning", and hence the reason for this thread, is:
A) Scientists have discovered a physical phenomenom that causes fluorescence at the moment of conception.
B) It roughly coincides with a turn of phrase: "The spark of life".
Therefore: Evolutionary Theory is laughable (and false?).
Good luck with that. As I said, no point in wasting time debating Evolutionary Theory with those "debating" with theological blinders firmly in place.
For those about to engage Paul S - I salute you!
Once again Eddie, I've made my living with science, and am quite happy with where I am because of it, so your ad hominem widely misses the mark. As far as blinders go, you are the one with them firmly in place with your rejection of any explanation of life other than what "science" offers as incomplete as it is.
Most scientists appreciate the limitation of their understanding and the frailty of their theories due to those limitations. People like you don't get that and it can become a dangerous thing as you can see if you pay attention to the zealots attempting to criminalize dissent to AGW.
So I really have no desire to enter into a circle jerk of 100 questions with you on this. I'll just appreciate this wondrous discovery.
-
I don't understand the first post. Can you write a bit more about what you think of this?
-
I don't understand the first post. Can you write a bit more about what you think of this?
I don't understand Eddie's rant.
-
I don't understand Eddie's rant.
Old POA history.
-
Figures...
-
I don't understand the first post. Can you write a bit more about what you think of this?
If you can't understand a post that simple, then all the words in Webster's won't help you.
-
I don't understand Eddie's rant.
Theory vs theory, lol.
-
If you can't understand a post that simple, then all the words in Webster's won't help you.
Cool discussion.
You should head over to the bathroom thread. You'll fit right into the discussion of dicks. :)
-
Cool discussion.
You should head over to the bathroom thread. You'll fit right into the discussion of dicks. :)
Well, you are obviously much smarter than I so I bow to your huge sense of self worth.
-
Well, you are obviously much smarter than I so I bow to your huge sense of self worth.
Nah, we didn't even get that far. You posted two words and a teenage acronym.
-
I don't understand the first post. Can you write a bit more about what you think of this?
I don't either. What has it got to do with evolution?? ???
-
I don't either. What has it got to do with evolution?? ???
Absolutely nothing.
-
Discussion of what the observation actually was - and wasn't - a few minutes into the latest podcast here:
http://theskepticsguide.org (http://theskepticsguide.org)
-
Evolution is real. That is practically indisputable. It offers believable explanations about a lot of things. But it doesn't explicitly explain all of the various life forms, or how they were started. So in the face of that knowledge vacuum, people make up theories; some more legitimate and believable than others. Some are merely wishful thinking. Various religions offer various explanations, but none of them offer even more that a hint of circumstantial evidence. Why is it easier to believe in the "Christian" God than Zeus or Jove?
When I observe all that is around me, I am convinced there is a God (or Gods), and a Devil, but I am unable to convince myself who, where or what that God is.
-
I wonder which came first, evolution or the egg?
-
I wonder which came first, evolution or the egg?
Eggolution. Actually, evolution came first. The advent of the egg is part of evolutionary history, but not the beginning.
-
Eggolution. Actually, evolution came first. The advent of the egg is part of evolutionary history, but not the beginning.
Can an omnipotent being create an egg? And then after creating such egg, deciding to not further interfere with what happens and how that egg deals with its environment or mating choices?
-
Can an omnipotent being create an egg? And then after creating such egg, deciding to not further interfere with what happens and how that egg deals with its environment or mating choices?
Ha, ha, doh, now you did it.
-
Can an omnipotent being create an egg? And then after creating such egg, deciding to not further interfere with what happens and how that egg deals with its environment or mating choices?
If an omnipotent being exists or could exist -- which is not currently known -- yes, he/she/it could create an egg. However, this would not be mutually exclusive with the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is quite literally the underpinning of modern biological science. It is the theory that underlies all of the life sciences and it provides us with a solid foundation upon which to perform the processes of science -- developing testable questions and answering them with scientific investigation. Whether or not an omnipotent being created life and set the workings of Evolution in motion is, frankly, somewhat unimportant to the day-to-day study of biology. Though, certainly, it is a fantastic question to ponder in its own right.
-
Can an omnipotent being create an egg? And then after creating such egg, deciding to not further interfere with what happens and how that egg deals with its environment or mating choices?
Sure, I'm sure that an omnipotent could create anything they wanted. Why not just create a man and skip the damn egg? I know, I know... mysterious ways and all will be revealed...
-
Evolution, baby!
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0505/New-fossils-could-solve-paradox-of-primate-evolution
-
Evolution, baby!
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0505/New-fossils-could-solve-paradox-of-primate-evolution
Is that a Theory or a theory?
-
The problem I have with primate evolution (into humans) is the fact that we still have primates on the planet. Otherwise, carry-on.
-
The problem I have with primate evolution (into humans) is the fact that we still have primates on the planet. Otherwise, carry-on.
Against my better judgment, but this one is a softball.
That's either a joke* or you seriously misunderstand evolution.
If it's not the former, I could suggest some reading if you're interested.
Or not, and I'll bow out again.
*Most commonly expressed as, "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?". The key is, we did not "come from" monkeys - we share a recent common ancestor with them, which is completely different. And both we and the monkeys have continued to evolve from that common ancestor.
-
Against my better judgment, but this one is a softball.
That's either a joke* or you seriously misunderstand evolution.
If it's not the former, I could suggest some reading if you're interested.
Or not, and I'll bow out again.
*Most commonly expressed as, "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?". The key is, we did not "come from" monkeys - we share a recent common ancestor with them, which is completely different. And both we and the monkeys have continued to evolve from that common ancestor.
I'll buy that, with caveat that need not be discussed here.
-
The problem I have with primate evolution (into humans) is the fact that we still have primates on the planet. Otherwise, carry-on.
We still have alligators and sharks too. Those predate primates by hundreds of millions of years. I'm not sure what your point is? Evolution works like branches on a tree. New species branch off on a new evolutionary track, but the trunk remains the same and continues on. New species and old species can and do coexist.
-
The problem I have with primate evolution (into humans) is the fact that we still have primates on the planet. Otherwise, carry-on.
One flaw with your problem is that you appear to be assuming that evolution is linear without any branches.
For example, A evolves into B evolves into C evolves into D. But instead consider: A evolves into B and C, and B evolves into D while C evolves into E.
-
Does anyone read posts before responding???
-
Does anyone read posts before responding???
what would the fun of that?
oops, apparently I did read your post.