Oldest primate fossil yet found. It is a tiny Chinese Archicebus fossil

[Azazel]

I see it works.

the missing link between europeans and indians. essentially the same. mates

Sorry, couldn't resits you see I spoke with somebody and this is the picture I posted and it came to mind when you said this. the indian monkey god "Hano Man".

Even though you have a good sense of humor,I must implore you to keep these silly superstitions and mythologies out of serious science related discussions.

Thank you,Peace....

 

[livingdead]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you read the dover trial in detail you can tell that the school's intent WAS to peddle creationism as ID.

ID is not creationism.

Its acceptance that complex organisms's complex organs all came into being in one go. The problem with ID proponents has been that they are always seen as Christian fundos. If it had the backing of scientists who would back it without regard to religion, they would have argued it better.

or it may be that majority of scientist in that field have accepted evolution as better explanation than ID, and only people still holding onto ID are religious people who find it difficult to let go of their belief.

Here is one proof (they gave in same trial) that show a 'theory' not only explain the data, it even predicts verifiable result.

ignore the title of video.

 

[Developereo]

Facepalm....why so defensive?

Nothing defensive about it.

Since you made an allegedly scientific claim out of bravado and found yourself in deep water, unable to prove it, it is understandable that you would start to attack other people.

your dogmatic view of the omnipotent creature playing with Lego's just one time is it?

And... here it is.

Anyone who demands that you back your claims with proof is labelled a religious nut.
How very scientific -- NOT.

You could have saved everyone the trouble and admitted up front that you have little more than conjecture for your multiverses.

From your own quote, notice the words "The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct,"

You're welcome to believe in them, but the rest of us will wait for something more solid.

 

[Audio]

Nothing defensive about it.

Since you made an allegedly scientific claim out of bravado and found yourself in deep water, unable to prove it, it is understandable that you would start to attack other people.

lol, i ask you for proof for your theory and you come up with a question if i differentiate religious and scientific belief. In what way am i attcking you? Already feel threatened by lack of evidence for the omnipotent Lego player?

You question my evidence (clues really, not evidence), i try to come up with links suggesting this might be the way, i question your evidence and all you can muster is differentiation of beliefs and accusation about attacking? Do you see how dishonest you are?

And... here it is.

Anyone who demands that you back your claims with proof is labelled a religious nut.
How very scientific -- NOT.

You could have saved everyone the trouble and admitted up front that you have little more than conjecture for your multiverses.

From your own quote, notice the words "The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct,"

You're welcome to believe in them, but the rest of us will wait for something more solid.

Ofcourse they think and not claim. How could you obtain direct (note not indirect with observation of consequences) definitive proof without even being able to take a picture of it or travel there?
I also do not claim, i am just presenting growing evidence that points in that direction and the effects of it cannot be explained in any other way,

To summarize, my conjecture is still miles ahead of what you offered, which is just about 0. And best part is, leading world scientists also think the same way. But hey, stay ignorant. Lego player likes it.

Btw, why don't you refute the rest of my post? You just pick one liners. Weak arguments maybe? Noticed this in a few threads before this, you only quote the most easily refutable part and make it out as some sort of victory. Pathetic.

 

[Developereo]

lol, i ask you for proof for your theory

Uh no.

Saying that God is omnipotent is not a theory; it is a religious claim. Religion is up front about its claims: you take them on faith; you either believe them or you don't.

It is clear that you do not understand the fundamental difference between any faith based ideology and science.

I also do not claim,

Wrong. You presented multiverses as a scientific fact and challenged people to explain it.
Why should anyone bother to explain a conjecture?

When you got caught, you started backtracking with "well, how can they prove it, etc."

leading world scientists also think the same way.

Leading world scientists think many things. Sometimes they are proven right, sometimes not.

If your yardstick for belief is argument by authority, you are well suited for a religious life.

 

[Audio]

Uh no.

Saying that God is omnipotent is not a theory; it is a religious claim. Religion is up front about its claims: you take them on faith; you either believe them or you don't.

It is clear that you do not understand the fundamental difference between any faith based ideology and science.

Why don't you present then a theory on how cold spots could have emerged.
As for my differentiation, well, i'm talking to you, i think you believe the Lego player created the Big Bang and thus in your mind you connect all the dots and you are the smartest man on the planet. In your head, that is.

Wrong. You presented multiverses as a fact and challenged people to explain it.
Why should anyone bother to explain a conjecture?

When you got caught, you started backtracking with "well, how can they prove it, etc."

lol, my first post was "How would a creationist explain a multiverse"? God found a new project?".

Where are facts? This was not a challenge, only a question, but in your black&white world i guess you see everything wrongly. After you started with your crap i only offered clues which might (in every post i wrote might, could) point to the theory being correct. You presented nothing but drivel about conjecture.

I never said that multiverse is the only valid explanation, i wanted a debate about it and all i got is you with conjecture claims. And all this hoopla you are writing now, in re backtracking, that's all in your head dude. All i wanted is debate with semi reasonable theories. It's evident you are not the right address for this endeavour.

Leading world scientists think many things.

If your yardstick for belief is argument by authority, you are well suited for a religious life.

Better i believe them, then a person like you. They present arguments all the time as they evolve, you don't. Kind of like a mullah, your attitude is "no you don't know, it is like it is because i said so". Man of science. You presented nothing up so far, just clutching at straws from cautious scientists.

As for the conjecture argument-ie "why should i debate conjecture", dude you labeled the most prominent scientists in the world with believing in conjecture. I'm sure you think you are better, more reasonable, smarter then them, but you really are not. You're just a straw man quoting one liners.

 

[Developereo]

Why don't you present then a theory on how cold spots could have emerged.

The people making claims need to prove their case.

lol, my first post was "How would a creationist explain a multiverse"? God found a new project?".

Where are facts? This was not a challenge, only a question, but in your black&white world i guess you see everything wrongly. After you started with your crap i only offered clues which might (in every post i wrote might, could) point to the theory being correct. You presented nothing but drivel about conjecture.

Oh please!
In a debate about evolution v/s creationism, you jumped in with multiverses as another challenge to creationists.
The implication being that multiverses was on the same level, theoretically, as evolution theory.

And I replied, correctly, that no one should bother wasting time on it until it gets upgraded from a conjecture into a proper theory accepted by a sizable segment of the scientific community as being the leading view of the cosmos.

They present arguments all the time as they evolve, you don't.

Once again, you fail to see the difference between a religious claim and a scientific one.

P.S. I just noticed you added more stuff to your post.

you labeled the most prominent scientists in the world with believing in conjecture

That's how science works. ALL theories start out as conjecture and make their way up the scale as they mature. A true scientist doesn't take offense at the word conjecture.

quoting one liners

I focus only on salient points, not repetitive content which has already been addressed.

 

[Thirdfront]

Citing the dover trial victory of evolutionists is the same as saying how Darwin was rejected 150 years ago when he came up with his theory.

Intelligent Design poses questions that evolutionists have no answer other than scream ooh and aah about how fundamental science it is. A lot of fundamental sciences have been disproven over the past and ID finds more and more takers.



Very nice, when Talon puts up her credentials as an actual scientist you belittle her by saying that "present your arguments", when I present my arguments you go back to "actual scientists" defence.

Please present your arguments on this thread and let's take it from there. If you can't justify your position, you're welcome to bow out and continue believing your "actual scientists". A suggestion people on this thread were only too ready to give @Talon.

Dover Trial is not the be all end all of the ID argument.

You do not even read my full statement and start to reply which makes no sense. First, in Dover trial, "EXACT" argument was made by creationists and they were demolished. Now, if you have searched you would have come to know about that... these are all part of "irreduceable complexity" bullshit that is there atleast for 50 years but not even 1 example has been put forward (which has not been debunked) Below is what I am copy-pasting from wikipedia:

Flagella[edit]
Main article: Evolution of flagella
The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 different protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[68][69] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[70] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[71][72] Dembski's critique of this position is that phylogenetically, the TTSS makes an unlikely precursor to the flagellum given that TTSS is found in a narrow range of bacteria which makes it seem to be a late innovation, whereas flagella are widespread throughout many bacterial groups, which implies it was an early innovation.[73][74]

Experiments have shown that many proteins can be deleted from the flagellar apparatus without destroying its function,[75][76] even though its activity may be reduced in some of these cases.

PS: Also, sorry mate, Talon is NOT an actual scientist. If yes, then even I am "Scientist"

 

[Thirdfront]

It's very easy to say "It evolved" but are you saying it evolved without natural selection?

If it had a tail and it did nothing, why wasn't the tail lost through natural selection?

Natural selection act only on "adverse" characteristics. That is, if anything that doesn't put the organism at a relatively dis-advantage with other individuals will not be eliminated. I am not saying flagellum evolved without natural selection, what I am saying is basis of rotating flagellum was a stationary needle which had most of the basic components already in place...

 

[livingdead]

Dawkins shows that evolution is blind and so called design is less than 'intelligent' sometimes..

warning: graphic scene

 

[Dubious]

Don't be so vague.Post what you think.

I do not think, I analyze evidence and let itdo the talking...

You have absolutely no evidence to back that claim.

CLAIM? It is basic Biology! Evolutionarist or even a BSc Biology student knows this! Dont tell me you never learnt the basics in BSc

Biologists on the other almost certain that eukaryotes evolved from procaryotes because they all share

1. microtubules (composed of the protein tubulin) and actin molecules-cytoskeleton for support or intracellular transport.-flagella (or cilia)

2. DNA in chromosomes (intertwined with histone protein)

3. membrane-bound organelles.

even plants have these...

Just because there is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes and procaryote in the overall scheme of cell evolution,It doesn't mean its a result of the designer.Its just another mystery that is just waiting to be unraveled.

The word designer was introduced by you lot...I didnt bring it up...ALL I DID SAY was bring me proof which I still am waiting for...

First let me ask why you didn't respond to my post regarding Chromosomal fusion that indicates humans did have an ape ancestor.And let me remind you that Humans and great apes have around 98% of common protein encoding DNA.Humans and Chimps share around 98% of protein encoding DNA.
Comparing Chimp, Human DNA

1st let me tell you It was based on believe that this chromosome and that chromosome MAY HAVE fused to form this new chromosome...Anything to make the theory as realistic as posssible...So if we have 23 chromosomes, and say Crab-eating rat (semiaquatic rodent) has 2x the number of chromosome should we find which of our chromosomes fused...who knows maybe the Crab-eating rat (semiaquatic rodent) is our ancestor!!

You present me an article from a science magazine from 2006 when I presented you an article from 2009 stating the 98% has decreased to 95% and is still decreasing as we learn more and have much power tools to estimate the similarity complexes! You did not answer a number of my own posts..and you are crying about 1 of your post based on speculations??


Here you go a paper in 2007 http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.short showing that human have more mutations since 50k years back (since they became Homo sapiens) then before....If you mutate this rapidly since say the "split" in the lineage...then we would have been some ultra human beings...or other apes would have formed different humans by now, a different race maybe?!

Another paper from 2007 Heredity - Looking for Darwin in all the wrong places: the misguided quest for positive selection at the nucleotide sequence level Cant solve Darin problems....Not 1 scientist is as clear cut in this theory as the Indians on PDF!

BMC Genetics | Full text | Genotyping human ancient mtDNA control and coding region polymorphisms with a multiplexed Single-Base-Extension assay: the singular maternal history of the Tyrolean Iceman In 2009 still nothing concluded...

These findings add to growing body evidence that non-protein-coding regions that some scientists have labeled "junk DNA" are not junk after all.In fact, there have been many evidence suggesting its the dissimilarity of non-protein-coding DNA is the main cause of the difference between Humans and apes.

maybe if you gave a little bit of time to what @Developereo and I discussed on page 7, you would realize we alre

It has been frequently observed that identical genes in Humans and chimps often behave in different ways.

same is true for Arabidopsis and fragaria, or Arabidopsis and wheat...

A gene's activity, or an expression, can be turned up or down like the volume on a radio. So the same gene can be turned up high in humans, but very low in chimps.The same genes are expressed in the same brain regions in human, chimp and gorilla, but in different amounts. Thousands of differences like these affect brain development and function, and help explain why the human brain is larger and smarter.

Yes and no...If it was only a matter of tuning...it wouldnt be soo much of a problem...
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Why humans are brainier than chimps
This is clear indication of the importance of so called junk DNA.[/quote] maybe you need to join us in 2013 instead of being in 2000s...

.

You can't teach pseudo sciences as theories in classrooms as theories.That is exactly what Creationism/Intelligent Design is.

You cant teach a theory as the only thing available...Because it is a theory which can be refuted any day...then how are the children of tomorrow going to react if the the theory is refuted and they were thought of it as fact...they will react like you ..

You have taken words used it out of context.That is intellectual dishonesty.When creationist says Evolution is just a theory not a fact,they are conveniently ignoring the fact that the scientific definition of the word "theory" is very different from the colloquial sense of the word. In the vernacular, "theory" can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions..In fact in science stating a theory is more important than stating fact.

I did not ...go read my post again....

And stop it with this creationist ...I only heard that word here on PDF...seriously no one is soo obsessed with things like you lot!

Either bring forward proof or just accept it you have mistook a theory for fact ....

 

[Audio]

The people making claims need to prove their case.

It's not like everyone has half a billion worth of telescope in space searching for evidence. Patience, padawan! Case is getting stronger each year.

Oh please!
In a debate about evolution v/s creationism, you jumped in with multiverses as another challenge to creationists.
The implication being that multiverses was on the same level, theoretically, as evolution theory.

And I replied, correctly, that no one should bother wasting time on it until it gets upgraded from a conjecture into a proper theory accepted by a sizable segment of the scientific community as being the leading view of the cosmos.

I was only interested in a creationists' take on multiverse, how they would fit in god and similar. The question is just as valid as any other in this thread. Especially in the light if they are bothering to prove that Lego player made entire species not mutations over millions of years. And again, i never wrote that it is the answer, i only support that it might be.

Once again, you fail to see the difference between a religious claim and a scientific one.
I focus only on salient points, not repetitive content which has already been addressed.

I was refering to the Standard Model and how it is being taught in universities and schools without fully understanding the mechanics of it. And it became theory due to growing amount of circumstancial evidence. Just like how the multiverse "conjecture" is on it's way of becoming one.
But you made it out as science vs. religion so that you look savvy with another one liner. Btw, you haven't really addressed it at all.

That's how science works. ALL theories start out as conjecture and make their way up the scale as they mature. A true scientist doesn't take offense at the word conjecture.

True, why then do you dismiss the growing amount of clues and theoretical predictions supported by those clues as mere conjecture, with not so subtle hints that it's all made up by wild scientists that are clueless? It is slowly maturing, and if it is correct or not, only time will tell.

 

[Developereo]

I was refering to the Standard Model and how it is being taught in universities and schools without fully understanding the mechanics of it. And it became theory due to growing amount of circumstancial evidence. Just like how the multiverse "conjecture" is on it's way of becoming one.
But you made it out as science vs. religion so that you look savvy with another one liner. Btw, you haven't really addressed it at all.

If you are suggesting that I was defending the Standard Model (of particle physics) then you are very wrong. I feel, like many other people, that it is far too over-complicated and 'hacky' to be the real deal. You may know that it is derisively called the particle zoo. Physicists prefer elegant solutions.

Physics theories are like boxing champions: the reigning champ must continually defend his title and, if someone 'fitter' comes along, then there's a change of guard. The same thing with the Standard Model. It has risen through the ranks and paid its dues by surviving challenges and providing a better explanation than other theories but, if something else works better, we will switch to it.

True, why then do you dismiss the growing amount of clues and theoretical predictions supported by those clues as mere conjecture, with not so subtle hints that it's all made up by wild scientists that are clueless? It is slowly maturing, and if it is correct or not, only time will tell.

And that is what I wrote in my very first response to your post. If and when multiverse theory survives the wringer, then it would merit the attention. Right now, it is a fringe theory; its proponents claim victories, but detractors claim alternative explanations.

Unlike you, I am not emotionally tied either to the Standard Model or multiverse theory. I find both theories to be less than elegant, but that's just a personal bias. In terms of "correctness" whichever theory wins will rule the day -- for a while at least.

 

[Awesome]

Natural selection act only on "adverse" characteristics. That is, if anything that doesn't put the organism at a relatively dis-advantage with other individuals will not be eliminated. I am not saying flagellum evolved without natural selection, what I am saying is basis of rotating flagellum was a stationary needle which had most of the basic components already in place...

Natural selection works on anything not being useful. Like the human vestigial tail if you believe we evolved from ape like beings. Bacteria Flagellum should have lose its vestigial tail without a rotor.

 

[Audio]

If you are suggesting that I was defending the Standard Model (of particle physics) then you are very wrong.

No, not really. I put that forward because you said theory has to be proven with irrefutable evidence before it becomes fact. All true, but that didn't deter anyone from teaching the Standard Model as a fact basically. They tell you this is what we think happened, deal with it. There's also Susskind with his String theory, don't know what is the latest on that, if it is still a "competitior" to the Standard Model.
Point being, if multiverse is conjecture so is the Standard Model but it gets taught anyway. Albeit there is heaps more evidence to support it then the multiverse theory.

the Standard Model or multiverse theory. whichever theory wins will rule the day -- for a while at least.

As far as my understanding goes, these two "theories" aren't competitors. Multiverse "plugs" into the Standard Model or vice versa, depending on which you talk about first. ie Big Bang was supposedly just another "event" in the Multiverse.