Is there proof for...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This boils down to "I don't believe it so it isn't true".

Most DNA does nothing. There is no selection pressure for that to be conserved at all. Let's say 3 million years to the last common ancestor. 20 years as an average generation time. That gives us 150,000 generations. 100,000 DNA substitutions per generation, mainly in non-coding re ...[text shortened]... , we could be talking millions or billions of generations of cells, rather than 150,000.]

So now I know what a research scientist does. He counts all day long all those millions and billions of generations of cells! 😵

Reminds me of Carl Sagan years ago on tv saying billions and billions and billions and billions and billions......🙂

Originally posted by josephw
So now I know what a research scientist does. He counts all day long all those millions and billions of generations of cells! 😵

Reminds me of Carl Sagan years ago on tv saying billions and billions and billions and billions and billions......🙂

So now I know what a research scientist does. He counts all day long all those millions and billions of generations of cells! 😵

We do all sorts of things. I spend my days working out the developmental cues for leaf initiation and senescence in grass leaves. I also spend time working on seed germination under saline conditions, and the way that grass plants are "plumbed".

Originally posted by crazyfox
how you can prove evolution 100%. if your so smart then tell us how you?

Did I say 100%.
As I've already noted, making such a claim for a scientific theory is idiotic.
But this doesn't mean we can't prove them.

Originally posted by josephw
So now I know what a research scientist does. He counts all day long all those millions and billions of generations of cells! 😵

Reminds me of Carl Sagan years ago on tv saying billions and billions and billions and billions and billions......🙂

Actually Carl Sagan never said that.
He even wrote a book - Billions and Billions - it was called where he described the erroneous notion that he'd actually said this. Everyone swears he did, they can remember him doing so, but, he claimed, he never did.

Originally posted by amannion
Actually Carl Sagan never said that.
He even wrote a book - Billions and Billions - it was called where he described the erroneous notion that he'd actually said this. Everyone swears he did, they can remember him doing so, but, he claimed, he never did.

That's funny. I saw and heard him on tv saying "billions and billions".
I don 't know what else I can say!

Originally posted by josephw
That's funny. I saw and heard him on tv saying "billions and billions".
I don 't know what else I can say!

"Oh, I said there are maybe 100 billion galaxies and 10 billion trillion stars. It's hard to talk about the Cosmos without using big numbers. I said 'billion' many times on the Cosmos television series, which was seen by a great many people. But I never said 'billions and billions.' For one thing, it's imprecise. How many billions are 'billions and billions'? A few billion? Twenty billion? A hundred billion? 'Billions and billions' is pretty vague... For a while, out of childish pique, I wouldn't utter the phrase, even when asked to. But I've gotten over that. So, for the record, here it goes: 'Billions and billions."
From the book (not on TV)

Looks like you're still unable to get even basic facts correct.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]So now I know what a research scientist does. He counts all day long all those millions and billions of generations of cells! 😵

We do all sorts of things. I spend my days working out the developmental cues for leaf initiation and senescence in grass leaves. I also spend time working on seed germination under saline conditions, and the way that grass plants are "plumbed".[/b]

I was only being facetious. Or trying to be.

I looked up "plumbed", is that like plumbic- chem. containing lead, esp. in the tetravalent state (pb+4).

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
"Oh, I said there are maybe 100 billion galaxies and 10 billion trillion stars. It's hard to talk about the Cosmos without using big numbers. I said 'billion' many times on the Cosmos television series, which was seen by a great many people. But I never said 'billions and billions.' For one thing, it's imprecise. How many billions are 'billions and billion ...[text shortened]... k (not on TV)

Looks like you're still unable to get even basic facts correct.

This is so odd. I can still see him in my minds eye standing there saying it.
But I won't press the point. Perhaps I am a victum of mass hypno- conditioning. I was very young.

Originally posted by josephw
I was only being facetious. Or trying to be.

I looked up "plumbed", is that like plumbic- chem. containing lead, esp. in the tetravalent state (pb+4).

Stop trying to pretend you have anything more than a 12 year old's grasp of science.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Stop trying to pretend you have anything more than a 12 year old's grasp of science.

My dad was navy. I went to 12 schools in 4 states in 12 years. Flunked 1st and 4th and dropped out after my sophomore year. Eventually went to college were I majored in art. In other words I studied everything except math and science.

When it comes to science I consider myself an idiot.
Most of what I know is experiential, and I've got alot of experience. Probably too much.

I never lie. What would be the point?

Originally posted by josephw
My dad was navy. I went to 12 schools in 4 states in 12 years. Flunked 1st and 4th and dropped out after my sophomore year. Eventually went to college were I majored in art. In other words I studied everything except math and science.

When it comes to science I consider myself an idiot.
Most of what I know is experiential, and I've got alot of experience. Probably too much.

I never lie. What would be the point?

So if you know nothing of science why not leave the science to those of us who actually do know it? Yes, there is more than adequete proof of Evolution, we see evolution occuring all around us. No, Creationism is not a valid alternate theory, it's utter crap. Any arguement you try has been tried before and come up short. Don't waste your time.

So, you have a choice, continue to believe a book written a long time ago with a creation story ripped almost entirely from even earlier sources, OR, embrace logic, science and common sense and admit that the Earth is billions of years old, you evolved from more primative lifeforms and this doesn't change a single thing about your existance or relationship (or lack thereof) with God.

Originally posted by josephw
I was only being facetious. Or trying to be.

I looked up "plumbed", is that like plumbic- chem. containing lead, esp. in the tetravalent state (pb+4).

Ah, more a colloquial term, because I couldn't be bothered at the time to explain further. However, inside of (pretty much) all plants there are tubes known as xylem, which conducts water from the roots to the leaves, and phloem, which conducts sugars from the leaves to everywhere else. Whilst our understanding of how xylem works is relatively good, we have far less understanding of the way that phloem works, mainly because its a pressurised system, and loses function as soon as you try to experimentally manipulate it. In other words, it's a bit of a swine to work with.

Originally posted by josephw
This is so odd. I can still see him in my minds eye standing there saying it.
But I won't press the point. Perhaps I am a victum of mass hypno- conditioning. I was very young.

I think that was his point.
While he never said exactly that, many people were sure that he had.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So if you know nothing of science why not leave the science to those of us who actually do know it? Yes, there is more than adequete proof of Evolution, we see evolution occuring all around us. No, Creationism is not a valid alternate theory, it's utter crap. Any arguement you try has been tried before and come up short. Don't waste your time.

So, you h ...[text shortened]... oesn't change a single thing about your existance or relationship (or lack thereof) with God.

Your error, XanthosNZ, is in your theory.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So if you know nothing of science why not leave the science to those of us who actually do know it? Yes, there is more than adequete proof of Evolution, we see evolution occuring all around us. No, Creationism is not a valid alternate theory, it's utter crap. Any arguement you try has been tried before and come up short. Don't waste your time.

So, you h ...[text shortened]... oesn't change a single thing about your existance or relationship (or lack thereof) with God.

If you figure something out then it can't be science anymore.