Evolution: What is it? (long article)

Information Central ^ | Craig McClarren

[medved]

Having all the mass in the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing could "big-bang" its way out of something like that.

I've only had a couple of courses in quantum theory and quite frankly found Hawking's papers a bit over my head. At any rate, the top physicists in the world have no problem with it, but hey, if medved says different who am I to disagree.

Turns out, it's precisely some of the top physicists in the world who are having the big problems with it.

[jennyp]

Yes, and I forget this favorite: TIME CUBE .

You know, there is a heretic interpretation of TIME CUBE.

Then there's the VIDEO of the TIME CUBE DEBATE at MIT, featuring Gene Ray Himself! Watching & listening to him give his presentation puts me into the same trance state as when I read his website.

[donh]

It shows what real science has found about how hard it is to create the simplest living thing

I'll recapitulate your entire arguement for you in brief: Science hasn't been able to produce life, therefore God exists. This is an obvious logical fallacy.

[highenergyzone]

There is a time to create and a time to evolve; all things according to His time and purpose. www.HezSez.com

[Lurking Libertarian]

If one believed in God, he could suppose that God was so clever that he figured out a small set of physical principles, i.e., gravity, weak force, strong force and electromagnetism, packed them along with an ample supply of energy into the Big Bang and let it rip, knowing full well that the world would evolve just as it has. I just can't figure out why people who believe in gods don't have more faith in them.

I do believe in God, and that is precisely what I suppose.

[jennyp]

You might want to read Jenny's post (164) which I replied to before accusing ME of insulting anybody. There's something comical in the great expert in "online communities" having to use multiple personnas here because she basically doesn't know how to act in an online community...

You're mistaken, Medved. I'm really AndrewC.

[longshadow]

You're mistaken, Medved. I'm really AndrewC.

And I am STILL Sparticus.....

[VadeRetro]

Me, to Heartlander: If it were new, the introduced material would almost certainly be out in the "junk" or it would be too harmful to be inherited.

The more I look at this, the less I like it. If it goes out there, it's not likely to mutate into a useful gene with START and STOP codons. It has to be workable up front, and it probably isn't, which is one reason we don't see this kind of thing all the time. The other is that bacteria probably don't often get inside eukaryotic cells the way viruses do.

[VadeRetro]

I'm really AndrewC.

"Clack, clack!" yourself!

[Doctor Stochastic]

No, I'm Spartacus.

And next week I'll be a Berliner and then a Napoleon.

[AndrewC]

Is this where I hang out in anticipation of the next appearance of a certain missing poster?

[jennyp]

Is this where I hang out in anticipation of the next appearance of a certain missing poster?

You mean Piltdown_Woman?

[PatrickHenry]

And I am STILL Sparticus ...

No, I'm Sparticus!

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the additional TIME CUBE links, but you're giving me more information than I require on this topic. I'll stick with the purity of the original source.

[Nebullis]

It turns out that some of the genes from bacterial origin are from ancient endosymbiant events. Cytoplasmic DNA-containing organelles, such as mitochondria have transferred some of their DNA to the host nucleus. Other examples of prokaryote to eukaryote lateral gene transfer exist, but most of them are from transfer events at the unicellular level. It's much easier to imagine how that can take place.

The fact remains that there are sequences shared by humans and bacteria which are not shared by other multicellular organisms--at least, those compared thus far. Random gene loss can account for some of this and an increase in comparisons with other organisms show that the earlier large numbers, circa 200, were reduced because the genes did show up somewhere else, but, nevertheless, those sequences are present and only an extensively constructed phylogenetic tree will elucidate their origin.

[Nebullis]

I'm really AndrewC.

I knew it! Both programmers with interests in chemistry... too coincidental!

[Nebullis]

Paranoia runs rampant, of course. I've been accused of being the same poster as a "cornelis" with whom I have had many conversations. By PatrickHenry, no less. Or was it jennyp? And this without humor.

[AndrewC]

You mean Piltdown_Woman?

No. But if the shoe fits, wear it.

[AndrewC]

I knew it! Both programmers with interests in chemistry

Very perceptive.