Posted on 06/18/2005 7:04:07 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Ah is confoosed.....what came first, DNA or the ribosome that read the DNA?...ribosome, DNA, ribosome, DNA, ribosome, DNA....or, is it true that the ribosome that read the 1st DNA coded for itself to have more ribosomes through the 2nd DNA?...so if I understand it right, the first ribosome and the first DNA developed independently, and yet knew of each other in advance so as to continue to propagate each other codependently.....interesting THEORY...
95% is more like it that is if you are just taking a code for code comparison which is not necessarily the best way to determine functional similiarity. A %5 difference is sizable when we realize we are talking %5 of 3 billion base pairs. That is why one has to be careful in how such differences are minimized. Also a recent study confirmed that the increase in brain size was a special event involving a rapid series of complex advantegous changes in several genes rather than a series of simple changes as previously thought. I think what is often ignored is that common design may be more the rule than common ancestry. Many similiar genetic features have arisen in populations that are distinct. When working from bones alone one could easily mistake a tasmanian wolf(now extinct) for a member of the canine family. I'm not saying that human beings don't have any monkey heritage but I also don't believe that the huge differences between apes and man in cognitive ability and capability can be explained by random mutations combined with natural selection pressures. There just isn't enough time for it also many of the adaptations were not advantageous from a physical standpoint and would've placed early man at a disadvantage, men are far weaker than apes, a common chimp can easily tear one limb from limb if it so desired. One might say modern man lost such strength after he became civilized, but that is not supported by the bone evidence which suggests modern man hasn't changed much in 250,000 years. The muscles attach the same, the bones weren't bigger or thicker to accomodate greater muscle mass so we are left with a big question, was modern man's intelligence alone enough to allow the first modern infants to survive grow to adulthood and reproduce? The crossing of the bridge between ape-like man and humans is a short but deep gap. And the idea that modern humans had the clear advantage becomes less clear the more we look at the transition period and what would've been required to make that leap. The one thing that is certain is the leap had to be made, weak infants with "higher intelligence" survived, managed to interbreed and survive and create isolated successful communities, weapons et., while more robust HomoErectus and Neandrethals, creatures that had similar brain capacity and immense physical strength, disappeared.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/monkeywire/2002-September/000250.html
Maybe nothing happenned at all before something happenned.We assume an action reaction response but eventually at the end of all reason we face infinity where each layer reveals another layer and so on. How thin can we slice a second of time? What is the highest possible energies we can probe to find the smallest parts of matter? Conceptualization of something before the beginning of the universe we are apart of and the rules of which govern every atom and every possible perception we experience leaves us with a wall that can not be breached unless of course we are more than the universe which our physical bodies are a part.
Oh really:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[1] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Hmm. I've always held the theory that animals who evolved to mimick their environment, did so through a mechanizism whereby DNA modifications were the byproduct of the animals own visual image processing. i.e. there is a link between what you see and what you become through evolution.
I'm not addressing anything about the theory that this thread is based on, but EMF is the force used in particle accelerators(protons and neutrons).
Um, no.
The electromagnetic force can be used to accelerate protons, but it doesn't work on neutrons. That's cuz they aren't charged, you see. And I do know about this, because I am a particle physicist.
One thing really puzzles me about the ID theory: why do so many Christians seem to like it despite the fact that ID theory directly conflicts with the Bible? I suppose I can understand that a sufficiently twisted version of evolution could be interpreted to conflict with the Christian account of Creation, but since ID is entirely based upon a premise that is completely contrary to Christian theology, I can't see any way to reconcile the two.
Oh, BTW: in addition to being a particle physicist, I am also a Christian.
Where does it say this?
The Bible says that God created the universe by the word of His mouth, not by light. (Psa. 33:6, 9; Heb. 11:3) "..so that things that are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The EMF is used to accelerate the protons which then are used to produce the neutrons.
Message:
Hello Tim,
You're right! Our usual particle machinery cannot accelerate neutrons and other neutral particles. However, we can create neutrons which are traveling very fast.
The best way to do this is via something called "spallation". Basically, when a high-energy proton (protons are charged, and easy to accelerate!) crashes into a nucleus, it will knock out a big spray of neutrons, protons, nuclear fragments, pions, muons, etc., all mixed together and traveling forward (in the same direction as the original proton) at high speed. (The verb "to spall" means "to split or chip; to detach small pieces")
Spallation isn't very useful unless you can sort out the neutrons from the rest of the spray. Fortunately this isn't too difficult. To sort out charged particles, pass the spallation products through a large magnetic field; charged particles will be deflected. You don't need to worry about other neutral particles (pions, lambdas, whatever) since they tend to decay within millimeters of the collision. The only thing in your "beam" a few meters away are the neutrons.
Also Weapons Neutron Research facility
Welcome to WNR
At WNR, high-energy neutrons and protons are used for basic and applied research in neutron nuclear science and weapons-related measurements. WNR consists of two target areas and their associated flight paths. Target 2, or the Blue Room, consists of a low-background room with seven flight paths that can exploit the variable-energy feature of the linac using proton beams from 250 to 800 MeV. Target 4, the most intense high-energy neutron source in the world, consists of an unmoderated neutron production target with six flight paths ranging from 10 to 90 m at angles of 15º to 90º with respect to the proton beam. The time structure of the proton beam can be modified to produce neutron pulses with different spacings for particular experiments.
More specifically, we're descendants of Noah's family, which included three spouses who weren't of his blood line.
1 : And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 : Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3 : Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 : Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 : And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 : And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 : And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 : Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
9 : These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 : And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 : They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 : Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
13: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14: And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15:Every raven after his kind;
16:And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and hawk after his kind,
17:And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18: And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 : And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 : All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 : Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
Levitcus clearly identifies bats as unclean fowl. They are mammals, obviously. Genesis too refers to bats as birds and Verse 21 above refers to flying, creeping things that go on all fours. Seen any of those?
I don't agree that a hell of a lot happened before the Big Bang. There isn't a hell of a lot that is south of the South Pole, now, is there?
BTTT
And I know very little about particle accelerators, but using magnetic fields to accelerate atomic particles is one thing; separating the particles from their original atoms is another.
I think radioactive material sources protons for accelerators. In other words, a source undergoing atomic decay naturally emits a proton and EMF focuses the particle into a high speed path through the accelerator.
I think one has to discriminate between evolution and Darwinism. Darwin's personal (if disguised) atheism colors his science, as we can see more clearly in his "Descent of Man." Interestingly enough, Wallace's more circumspect but virtually identical views, have been forgotten.
At the next level you learn the "victory dance" and the secret password.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.