 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Neal51
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
Posts: 2726
|
 Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| |
God's plan? Strange gene pool  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
starman_
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Posts: 1010
Location: The Edge of Forever
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Survey reveals that creationism and ID are hardly extinct in high schools
The results of the first national survey of teachers about evolution in their classrooms are in. Darwin would quiver in his boots to learn that in this day and age, one in eight American biology teachers teach creationism and intelligent design as a sound alternative to his theory. In fact, 13 percent of the country’s teachers think they can run an excellent biology class without even mentioning Darwin or evolution. A few findings of note:
* The surveyed teachers spent an average of 13.7 classroom hours per year on general evolutionary processes in their biology classes.
* The majority spent no more than five hours a year on human evolution, and 17 percent did not cover it all.
* Only two percent of teachers did not teach about evolution, human or otherwise, at all.
* Thirteen percent of teachers thought an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory.
* Twenty-five percent of teachers said that they devoted at least one or two classroom hours to creationism or intelligent design. About half of this subset—one in eight biology teachers—taught it not in critique but as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species” and one that “many reputable scientists” endorse.
* Sixteen percent of all teachers surveyed believe personally in the “young earth” story of origins: that human beings were created by God in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. About 48 percent of the general public believes this.
The survey, which was conducted by a team of Penn State political scientists last spring, assessed 939 randomly sampled U.S. biology teachers. It appears in PLoS Biology.
One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism |
|
_________________
"Isn't Life Strange" ... A book without light
Unless with love we write
... Moody Blues
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
smokin_joe
B.V. VIP - Adventurer
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Posts: 6360
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Personally, I believe in microevolution (ie within a species) as science has demonstrated this alreay.
But, until science can, at the very least, demonstrate being able to manipulate genes and start w/ a monkey and end up with a man, macroevolution remains a nice idea in the minds and hearts of many.
I think of macroevolution (from one species to the next) in the same way as string theory (and I love the idea of string theory)..it's a nice thought that sounds logical but yet not one shred of solid evidence exists in the world. Same with wormholes. There's plenty of 'theoretical' evidence, so time will tell.
Many think I say that about man because I'm a Christian. Not so..the bible is clear (in genesis) that we were originally created as one type of man and then, through sin, God changed us and limited our years. This could very well demonstrate the Bible's version of evolution. So, either way, I wouldn't have a problem with the concept.
Before anyone goes on about reading this link or that link or this book/that book, I'll say this..I've read many theories on it over the years. The idea is sound, I want someone to show me where a monkey has been "evolved" to a man.
Science hasn't even yet shown that this is possible. But, the belief remains strong that we certainly evolved down a branch from a monkey. This is only my opinion based on what I've read over the years and more recently from the college websites (and other links provided) online. Nothing is there beyond an educated guess based on a probable line of thought. |
|
_________________
"Science & religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside. They look out at the same universe. Neither is complete. And both are worthy of RESPECT!" -Physicist Freeman Dyson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7706
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| smokin_joe wrote: |
Personally, I believe in microevolution (ie within a species) as science has demonstrated this alreay.
But, until science can, at the very least, demonstrate being able to manipulate genes and start w/ a monkey and end up with a man, macroevolution remains a nice idea in the minds and hearts of many. |
The problem is Joe, if scientists manipulated genes to turn a monkey into a man, that would not be evidence for evolution, it would be evidence for a scientist's ability to manipulate genes.
If scientists managed to observe a monkey turning into a man under natural conditions, that would refute evolutionary theory as we know it, because real evolution does not and cannot happen that way.
| smokin_joe wrote: |
| I think of macroevolution (from one species to the next) in the same way as string theory (and I love the idea of string theory)..it's a nice thought that sounds logical but yet not one shred of solid evidence exists in the world. Same with wormholes. There's plenty of 'theoretical' evidence, so time will tell. |
I object to anyone who claims there is "not a shred of evidence" for macro-evolution. The statement baffles me because time and time again evidence is provided. In fact, there are dozens of different scientific fields from which the evidence converges to show that macro-evolution occurs.
I can understand you saying you don't find the evidence compelling, choose to interpret it in a different way, or find potential flaws, but to say outright that none exists is just odd to me.
There is evidence in (each of these fields can be broken down into dozens of sub-fields of evidence):
* Fossils
* Observed Experiments Showing Speciation Among Other Things
* Homologies
* Geography, Chronology and the Distribution Of Species
* Radioactive and Carbon Dating
* Successful Predictions Based On Knowledge Of The Theory
This doesn't even mention the fact there is no reasonable alternative that fits the evidence, and the common sense argument that with little to prevent it, why would micro-evolution be able to occur while macro-evolution fails?
What is the mechanism in nature that stops micro-evolution becoming macro?
It seems a bit like saying you could eat a small piece of cake, but couldn't possibly eat the whole thing, even given a week to do it in 
It seems to me there is this inherent bias where believers forget all the huge flaws in creationism and reject evolution based on some small holes, gaps, uncertanities or lack of absolute, observable proof. Sometimes common sense is all that's needed, in my opinion. |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neal51
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
Posts: 2726
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
It just seems to me there is this inherent bias where believers forget all the huge flaws in creationism and then reject evolution based on some small holes, gaps, uncertanities or lack of absolute, observable proof.
Oy ye of little Faith
Last edited by Neal51 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
okiejack
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 29, 2001
Posts: 8767
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| humphreys wrote: |
| smokin_joe wrote: |
Personally, I believe in microevolution (ie within a species) as science has demonstrated this alreay.
But, until science can, at the very least, demonstrate being able to manipulate genes and start w/ a monkey and end up with a man, macroevolution remains a nice idea in the minds and hearts of many. |
The problem is Joe, if scientists manipulated genes to turn a monkey into a man, that would not be evidence for evolution, it would be evidence for a scientist's ability to manipulate genes.
If scientists managed to observe a monkey turning into a man under natural conditions, that would refute evolutionary theory as we know it, because real evolution does not and cannot happen that way.
| smokin_joe wrote: |
| I think of macroevolution (from one species to the next) in the same way as string theory (and I love the idea of string theory)..it's a nice thought that sounds logical but yet not one shred of solid evidence exists in the world. Same with wormholes. There's plenty of 'theoretical' evidence, so time will tell. |
I object to anyone who claims there is "not a shred of evidence" for macro-evolution. The statement baffles me because time and time again evidence is provided. In fact, there are dozens of different scientific fields from which the evidence converges to show that macro-evolution occurs.
I can understand you saying you don't find the evidence compelling, choose to interpret it in a different way, or find potential flaws, but to say outright that none exists is just odd to me.
There is evidence in (each of these fields can be broken down into dozens of sub-fields of evidence):
* Fossils
* Observed Experiments Showing Speciation Among Other Things
* Homologies
* Geography, Chronology and the Distribution Of Species
* Radioactive and Carbon Dating
* Successful Predictions Based On Knowledge Of The Theory
This doesn't even mention the fact there is no reasonable alternative that fits the evidence, and the common sense argument that with little to prevent it, why would micro-evolution be able to occur while macro-evolution fails?
What is the mechanism in nature that stops micro-evolution becoming macro?
It seems a bit like saying you could eat a small piece of cake, but couldn't possibly eat the whole thing, even given a week to do it in
It seems to me there is this inherent bias where believers forget all the huge flaws in creationism and reject evolution based on some small holes, gaps, uncertanities or lack of absolute, observable proof. Sometimes common sense is all that's needed, in my opinion. |
Yeah it's definitely a matter of opinion.
Hope your move was good. Welcome back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7706
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| okiejack wrote: |
Yeah it's definitely a matter of opinion.
Hope your move was good. Welcome back. |
Everything is a matter of opinion, okie, but some opinions are more solid than others.
Thanks, by the way
We're all settled in well, our apartment complex even has its own golf course.
Oh, and Hi Joe! |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
smokin_joe
B.V. VIP - Adventurer
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Posts: 6360
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
smokin_joe wrote:
I think of macroevolution (from one species to the next) in the same way as string theory (and I love the idea of string theory)..it's a nice thought that sounds logical but yet not one shred of solid evidence exists in the world. Same with wormholes. There's plenty of 'theoretical' evidence, so time will tell. |
I object to anyone who claims there is "not a shred of evidence" for macro-evolution. The statement baffles me because time and time again evidence is provided. In fact, there are dozens of different scientific fields from which the evidence converges to show that macro-evolution occurs. |
Hey hump, no, I didn't mean "no" evidence, I meant no "solid" evidence, ie. beyond interpretational. There's all kinds of interpretational evidence. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. But, that's why I specifically stated "solid"..I could've been a bit clearer, huh..lol
| Quote: |
| I can understand you saying you don't find the evidence compelling, choose to interpret it in a different way, or find potential flaws, but to say outright that none exists is just odd to me. |
That is what I'm saying. I haven't found/seen anything compelling. While, theoretically speaking, one species can turn into another, nothing concrete has been proven. Which is why I ended the previous post the way I did.
P.S. How goes the family life??
Neal,
How you got all that out of my posts I do not know. But, I'm actually a believer who doesn't have a problem w/ evolution. Everyone here who's chatted w/ me on this knows that much.
You're barking up the wrong tree when ya insinuate that I'm rejecting evolution..  |
|
_________________
"Science & religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside. They look out at the same universe. Neither is complete. And both are worthy of RESPECT!" -Physicist Freeman Dyson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
humphreys
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 22, 2002
Posts: 7706
Location: The moon, stupid.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Going great here, Joe. All moved and settled in, baby Jack is doing well, and we're getting ready to go see Kung-Fu Panda 
How are things with you? |
|
_________________
Silence, nerd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neal51
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
Posts: 2726
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Glad to meet you Joe, usually I hug trees
Einstein wasn't correct 100% of the time either
and what couple in their Right mind would move to Hurricane alley?
I think tornadoe season is much more exciting and longer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
smokin_joe
B.V. VIP - Adventurer
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Posts: 6360
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Quote: |
Going great here, Joe. All moved and settled in, baby Jack is doing well, and we're getting ready to go see Kung-Fu Panda
How are things with you? |
Good to hear Jim..Kung-Fu Panda is on our list, but (believe it or not) we haven't even seen Indy Jones yet..we're knocking Indy out this weekend and Kung Fu next..
Ya know, everytime I think about it, it is really cool how you and Shannon got ur start. When I first read ur post about getting married, I thought nothing short of a post that aliens landed on the white house could top it. Then, you two come along and post about the first bv baby...My best to your family Sir James..
| Quote: |
Glad to meet you Joe, usually I hug trees
Einstein wasn't correct 100% of the time either |
Neal,
You keep on huggin, cuz trees need luvin ..
And no one has it right all the time. Einstein just seems so darn close in many cases.. |
|
_________________
"Science & religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside. They look out at the same universe. Neither is complete. And both are worthy of RESPECT!" -Physicist Freeman Dyson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neal51
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
Posts: 2726
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Joe, I gotta quit making jokes about the weather here in Chicago
suburbs 
Heads up Florida |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Questioner101
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 3267
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Was watching the PBS "The Ghost Particle" yesterday...(it was re-broadcast twice) and was very interesting, but still didn't understand it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/
A particle (flavored neutrino) that has little mass, little time, goes through everything, is almost 'undetectable' and yet is what the Physicists think is the entity that everything is made from.
The "ghost" (spirit, soul) in everything, made in the center of stars...
maybe the Egyptians had it right.....Ra....is the creator.
 |
|
_________________
\\\"I´m disenclined to acquiese to your request...\\\" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
starman_
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Posts: 1010
Location: The Edge of Forever
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
PARIS (AFP) - Genetic material from outer space found in a meteorite in Australia may well have played a key role in the origin of life on Earth, according to a study to be published Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
European and US scientists have proved for the first time that two bits of genetic coding, called nucleobases, contained in the meteor fragment, are truly extraterrestrial.
Previous studies had suggested that the space rocks, which hit Earth some 40 years ago, might have been contaminated upon impact.
Both of the molecules identified, uracil and xanthine, "are present in our DNA and RNA," said lead author Zita Martins, a researcher at Imperial College London.
RNA, or ribonucleic acid, is another key part of the genetic coding that makes up our bodies.
These molecules would also have been essential to the still-mysterious alchemy that somehow gave rise, some four billion years ago, to life itself.
"We know that meteorites very similar to the Murchison meteorite, which is the one we analysed, were delivering the building blocks of life to Earth 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago," Martins told AFP in an interview.
Competing theories suggest that nucleobases were synthesised closer to home, but Martins counters that the atmospheric conditions of early Earth would have rendered that process difficult or impossible.
A team of European and US scientists showed that the two types of molecules in the Australian meteorite contained a heavy form of carbon -- carbon 13 -- which could only have been formed in space.
"We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoric fragments for use in genetic coding, enabling them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations," Martins said.
If so, this would have been the start of an evolutionary process leading over billions of years to all the flora and fauna -- including human beings -- in existence today.
We may all be space aliens: study |
|
_________________
"Isn't Life Strange" ... A book without light
Unless with love we write
... Moody Blues
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
starman_
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Jun 16, 2007
Posts: 1010
Location: The Edge of Forever
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Are we aliens? This question has come up due to a new result from studying meteorites, and is getting a lot of web-chatter. I figure I’d better get on this sooner rather than later!
First, the science. Then the chatter. Finally, the caution flag. 
The Science:
Some meteorites have been found to contain some relatively complicated organic compounds, including molecules that are components of amino acids, the building blocks of life. For example, the Murchison meteorite, which fell on Australia in 1969, has been found to contain purines and pyrimidines, which are crucial to a large number of biological molecules like DNA, RNA, and ATP (adenosine triphosophate, a chemical our cells use for fuel).
Now, you have to be careful. A meteorite might have had these molecules in it before it slammed into the Earth, or it may have absorbed them from the ground after impact. One way to tell the difference is to look at isotopes of the elements. An element like carbon usually has 6 protons and 6 neutrons in its nucleus, but an isotope is when the number of neutrons is different. Carbon 13, as an example, has 6 protons and 7 neutrons in the nucleus (the number of protons determines the chemical properties, so carbon 13 is still like carbon, though a tad heavier).
The ratio of isotopes in a sample can be different for objects in space versus on Earth. Various process can change the ratio, so that’s a good way to find out if these molecules are native to a meteorite, or if it was contaminated after it fell.
OK, that’s the primer. Now the good part: scientists studying the Murchison meteorite have determined that the purines and pyrimidines — specifically, uracil and xanthine — have a non-terrestrial origin. In other words, the molecules in this meteorite, so crucial for life, were actually formed in outer space and fell to Earth.
That is very, very cool.
So this means that the some of the basic building blocks of life formed out in space, and came to Earth via meteorites and, presumably, comets.
Note that "some of". That’s important. Because…
The Chatter:
This news is being picked up all over the blogosphere and news sites, of course. We’re aliens! lots of people are saying. I’m quite sure the panspermia folks are having nerdgasms over this news as well.
Well, I hate to throw some cold H2O on all this, but I’m gonna. Just a little, a few drops. I think this is big news, and extremely awesome, but I want to make sure people don’t take it farther than the evidence suggests.
The Caution Flag:
Let’s take a step back and see what this new finding really tells us. First of all, I have little reason to doubt the results — of course as a scientist I reserve some skepticism, but let’s assume the team was on the money and the results are accurate. (I don’t have access to the journal paper, sadly, but I’ll dig around and see if anyone else does) (I have the paper now; thanks to Preston Hart and Stan Gunn!).
So the Murchison meteorite has native chemicals in it that are the basis for life. Obviously, since they were found at all, that means they survived entry into our atmosphere and impact. This in turn means that in the distant past, when the Earth was bombarded by such rocks, these chemicals were scattered across the planet, where they could be incorporated into ever more complex molecules, which eventually became life. And, well, us.
Well, cool. And even, wow! It’s been hypothesized for years, decades, that the basis of organic chemistry may have fallen to Earth from space. And now we know that it’s true.
However, that does not mean that all of these chemicals came from space! Transport yourself back a few billion years. The Earth has just suffered a several hundred million year bombardment period, getting the crap pummeled out of it by impacts. But that finally ended, and the crust started to cool. The trickle of impacts that continued — some of which contained the organic compounds — fall to Earth. If they fall into a hostile environment, they’ll get destroyed, of course? But if the environment is not hostile to them, then it’s also possible these compounds could have formed right here, on Earth! It may be easier for them to form in space, where conditions may have been better, but that doesn’t preclude them forming here.
So it’s still possible that even though these compounds fell to Earth after the Earth settled down, it’s also possible the majority of such compounds formed right here, in situ. The original molecules are long, long gone, so we cannot test them for isotopes. There may yet be some way of determining if life actually formed from space compounds or from terrestrial ones, but right now I don’t think there is — I haven’t heard of one, at least.
So what these new results show is that life here might have formed from compounds that fell from space. It may even be likely. But it’s not rock-solid fact. As the scientists say on the abstract of their paper (emphasis mine):
These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code in modern biochemistry, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life’s origin.
To be even more broad, and to stop any extrapolation here, this also does not mean that life itself formed in space and fell here. We’re only talking building blocks here, not viruses, RNA, DNA, or bacteria. Just chemicals.
There is a group of folks who claim that every unexplained molecule must have fallen from space. Panspermia is a cool idea, and may even be right — but the group at Cardiff (founded by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) make outrageous claims about bacteria and viruses from space, with almost no real supporting evidence that I have seen.
So you have to be careful to not fall into a "God of the gaps" argument: because we can’t explain something now, that doesn’t mean it must be due to some supernatural (or extremely unlikely) cause. That’s a bad path to follow, because eventually someone will fill that gap with evidence, and then your supernatural cause gets squeezed out. For example, creationists say that the eye could not have evolved, therefore God did it. But now we understand pretty well how the eye evolved, and the creationist’s explanation looks silly. They found a gap in knowledge, proclaimed a supernatural explanation, and it turned out to be natural after all.
I put panspermia into that category for the moment. While there is some real science, and really interesting science, to pursue there, it’s not a panacea for all things biologica-ex-nihilo.
The Conclusion:
So here are the big points:
1) Researchers have found that some molecules which are the basis for life on Earth can have an extraterrestrial origin.
2) These molecules survived their impact with Earth.
3) These alien molecules may have been crucial to the development of life on Earth.
4) These needed building blocks of life may have also been formed right here on Earth, so we can’t fly off the handle.
5) Intact life from space — bacteria, viruses, and such — is still just an idea, with no credible supporting evidence.
But the really big point is that this is an amazing and wonderful discovery! It is entirely possible that life here — or at least the necessary components of it — began out there. This is one of those discoveries that makes you think, and sparks discussion, and also just happens to have some profound philosophical ramifications. I’m in favor of all three of those things!
So remember, when you go outside at night and look up, the sky is filled with far more than just the stars you see. Our future is up there, and our past. And, not incidentally, our present as well.
Are we aliens? |
|
_________________
"Isn't Life Strange" ... A book without light
Unless with love we write
... Moody Blues
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|
Online Stats: