04 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57In other words, it was designed that way because that was the best way to do it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
It is the most simplistic way to replicate itself. the dna strand unzips down the middle and then each half collects the correct proteins in the correct order to replicate the original.
No it has not ceased it just occurs very slowly. Just a simple example is that our average height seems to be increasing. This according to the model should be the result ...[text shortened]... s nature, and of course it does not matter how much a species evolves it still has to be lucky🙂
05 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis "not interested in debate" attitude is becoming a little more pronounced of late.
Two things PK that you have failed to comprehend, im not interested in debate, i said
that at the outset and secondly my capacity for learning has no relevance to the
content of the post. Have a great time and watch the whiskey and dancing, naturally
for one as well endowed as yourself you'll be wearing a kilt? and its
pure speculation and utter conjecture, mere opinion masquerading as truth 🙂
Perhaps the cracks are beginning to show?
I am not a good debater by any standard of the term, average at best, but I support the debate format more than any other.
Aye, the "spirit of debate" should be the prevailing code to which this forum adheres to.
I too have at times wanted to tell stories and just basically proclaim stuff, but in the end questions have come up, and I believe I have never shyed away from any questions- even when they meant the defeat of my arguement.
(At last, you and Rajk have something in common -Halleluyah!! )
05 May 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoat this point of evolution we have started , consiously and unconciously , working on our inward understanding. Understanding our brains. Psycology in the west is still in its infancy, where they will inevidably begin to understand the reason for ones psycology (as the buddha had pointed out so many years ago), not to mention Jung.
Thanks for the reply ! It does raise further queries e.g. why RNA and DNA have mirror image construction ? What was the evolutionary advantage ?
Another point has bothered me. Has Evolution ceased to be ? Are we, the present set of living beings, the best possible fit among ourselves ? Of course, we will have to ignore the damage that man is doing to th ...[text shortened]... self-destruct mechanism-- against the well known aim of evolution to keep the species alive ?
So, physically, I see not much change for a while.
The evolutionary mechanism cannot react to a totally safe environment .
Thats why our environment will never be totally safe. Whether on the war lines or in the back with the mothers and children, we are all united behind the one cause.
05 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieinteresting, but useless information. the geological record is nor represented properly because if it was, it would be a clear refutation to everything stated above.
I have no real interest in getting involved in another futile creation v evolution
debate, i will simply provide the main arguments as to the discontinuity between the
different kinds, which represents one of the theists main objections to the
evolutionary theory, that and the question of origin.
The creation record found in the first chapter o ...[text shortened]... harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11.
source : Jehovahs Witnesses.
05 May 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelaye the cracks in the back of yer heid!
This "not interested in debate" attitude is becoming a little more pronounced of late.
Perhaps the cracks are beginning to show?
I am not a good debater by any standard of the term, average at best, but I support the debate format more than any other.
Aye, the "spirit of debate" should be the prevailing code to which this forum adheres to.
I too ...[text shortened]... e defeat of my arguement.
(At last, you and Rajk have something in common -Halleluyah!! )
05 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not desiring to debate is not synonymous with not wanting to learn, your first fallacy,
what transpires in other thread to other posters is also an irrelevancy, your second
fallacy and I could not care less whether you address the actual contents of the post or
not, i was merely pointing out your failure to do so on the basis of some irrelevant ...[text shortened]... ice
between that and remonstrating with you, Smita wins every time, have a pleasant
evening.
Not desiring to debate is not synonymous with not wanting to learn, your first fallacy,
where did I claim this? Can't you read?
I said “Mainly because you have already admitted you do not want to debate AND clearly implied you don't want to learn anything. “ (my emphasis)
the -”AND” is the operative word here. I am clearly NOT implying the two are the same.
what transpires in other thread to other posters is also an irrelevancy, your second
fallacy
it IS relevant IF you want me to address your 'points' for others in other threads have already debunked all of them and yet you ignore that thus don't see any point in addressing your 'points' if you are just going to ignore that as you have always done before.
and I could not care less whether you address the actual contents of the post or
not,
yes I knew that from the start and I didn't claim otherwise: can't you read? I said “IF”;
reminder:
IF you really want me to address the actual contents of the post then … (my emphasis and my quote)
“IF” is the operative word here. You do understand “IF” -right?
i was merely pointing out your failure to do so on the basis of some irrelevant
premise.
“ some irrelevant premise” for what argument/point? You didn't use it to make an argument/point.
Here is the proof: reminder of your previous post:
still unable to address the actual contents of the post, im changing your name to bumy!
-so where is your argument/point here that you use my “ failure to do so” as its “premise”?
Also, you said as your “premise” ( if it can honestly be called that ) that “still UNABLE to address the actual contents of the post (my emphasis) “
and then I pointed out the fact that I was not “ UNABLE” but rather “UNWILLING” thus debunking your “premise” as being severely inaccurate anyway.
05 May 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Suppose the human new born's skull is left off not fully covered by bones in order to allow its flexibility to help in the baby's passage through the narrow outlet , are there any skeletal remains of human or humanoid or ape babies having fully closed skulls at the time of birth ? These types would have died at birth along probably with their mothers so that the particular characteristic would have died out.
I am not sure about the symmetry of organs other than to note that nature invariably produces mirror image symmetry in most organisms (although there are numerous anomaly's to this) and this may be reinforced by natural selection for the reasons you mentioned. As for the newborn unformed skull I thought that was to aid birthing allowing the head some flexib ...[text shortened]... guessing here but I am sure someone on the forum can furnish you with the correct explanation.
The existing design of the new born's skull looks to me a case of intelligent design or guided evolution.
05 May 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen you state that the symmetrical arrangement saves on genes, is this a proven rule ( may be with some exceptions ) of Evolution or is it just a hypothesis ? Saving on genes, if a rule of Evolution, must have some justification and ought have controlled evolution to an extent, if beneficial to the species survival.
Bilateral symmetry is common but not universal. It is common because it saves on genes. It allows organ creating genes to be used on both sides of the body. There are cases where the gene is used more than twice - for example in libs (four for most larger animals) fingers/toes (ten in mammals), or in the case of skin which covers the whole body!
Also hav ...[text shortened]... oth eyes are on one side so it can lie on the bottom.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish
Stand alone body parts like heart have obviously developed that way because to have two hearts instead of one would have enormously complicated the pumping timings etc. and the plumbing complexities. Duplicate sex organs would have caused confusion and needless fumbling. Yet the two lungs that too, encased in rib cages for extra protection although well buried inside the body are suggestive of a design or a guided evolution. Or the Evolution theory as it stands today needs to prove that varieties not developed on the above lines have died out by way of skeletal remains.
05 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Suppose the human new born's skull is left off not fully covered by bones in order to allow its flexibility to help in the baby's passage through the narrow outlet , are there any skeletal remains of human or humanoid or ape babies having fully closed skulls at the time of birth ? These types would have died at birth along probably with their mothers so ...[text shortened]... design of the new born's skull looks to me a case of intelligent design or guided evolution.
Suppose the human new born's skull is left off not fully covered by bones in order to allow its flexibility to help in the baby's passage through the narrow outlet , are there any skeletal remains of human or humanoid or ape babies having fully closed skulls at the time of birth ? These types would have died at birth along probably with their mothers so that the particular characteristic would have died out.
OK, the above is 100% correct. But you then say:
The existing design of the new born's skull looks to me a case of intelligent design or guided evolution.
why? -I mean, why would it “look” like that you you given what you just pointed out?
What barrier do you see that prevents blind evolution simply continually eliminate from the genome ( natural selection ) any inflexible skull variants? After all, you just said “These types would have died at birth along probably with their mothers so that the particular characteristic would have died out.“ which is surely an acknowledgement of blind natural selection in progress for no intelligent “guidance” is required for those types to die out -just merely the disadvantage of having an inflexible skull would mean any of that type would have died out.