Skip to comments.
Chemistry guides evolution, claims theory
NewScientist.com ^
| Jan 20, 2003
| Robert Williams and Joäo José R. Fraústo da Silva
Posted on 01/20/2003 7:01:47 AM PST by forsnax5
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321 next last
To: VadeRetro
Thanks Vade, appreciate it!! THat is not exactly what I was talking about, but hopefully this person will follow the link provided. Excellent info!!
21
posted on
01/20/2003 11:45:01 AM PST
by
Aric2000
(Evolution is science, ID and Creationisme are Religion, Any questions?)
To: PatrickHenry
Thank you PH, hopefully they will follow the link.
22
posted on
01/20/2003 11:45:35 AM PST
by
Aric2000
(Evolution is science, ID and Creationisme are Religion, Any questions?)
To: VadeRetro
Seems a couple of hours have elapsed since the eye question was answered. It's always good to see people taking time to read. ;^)
23
posted on
01/20/2003 12:10:08 PM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
Seems a couple of hours have elapsed since the eye question was answered. It's always good to see people taking time to read. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes a newbie will show up in one of these threads, pop his big killer question, and then -- when the question is almost immediately answered -- the newbie just vanishes, never to be heard from again. I don't know if they suffer a crisis of faith, or a revulsion that there really are satanic eee-vooo-luuu-shunists on the website, or what.
24
posted on
01/20/2003 12:27:49 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
To: PatrickHenry
I have to admit that on the (vanishingly rare) occasions when I am proved wrong, I tend to lurk for a while.
25
posted on
01/20/2003 12:32:23 PM PST
by
js1138
To: js1138
I have to admit that on the (vanishingly rare) occasions when I am proved wrong, I tend to lurk for a while. When it happens to me, there are too many people making jokes about it, so I just have to join in. Like the time when I spent days saying that Uranus was the 8th planet ...
26
posted on
01/20/2003 12:38:14 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
To: PatrickHenry
As long as nobody says, "Insert joke here..."
27
posted on
01/20/2003 12:41:44 PM PST
by
js1138
To: PatrickHenry
Buried deep in your
link was this lovely tidbit:
There is a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures. From these formulae, Nilsson and Pelger concluded that the 1829 steps could happen in about 350,000 generations.
In real life, an eye could evolve a little more quickly than that, or more slowly. It would depend on how much the specific creatures were being pressured to change, and on whether vision was relevant to their lifestyle.
If one year equals one generation, then a fairly good eye could evolve in maybe a third of a million years. It is thought that animal life has been on earth for at least 600 million years. That is certainly enough time for eyes to have evolved many times over.
In fact, taxonomists say that eyes have evolved at least 40 different times, and and possibly as many as 65 times. There are 9 different optical principles that have been used in the design of eyes and all 9 are represented more than once in the animal kingdom. Why so many? Well, because there was time.
This is for all those creos who claim there is not enough time for evolution to have occurred.
28
posted on
01/20/2003 12:48:25 PM PST
by
Junior
(No tag line this time.)
To: Junior
That's if one year equals one generation. There are numerous species with eyes that reproduce many times faster than that.
29
posted on
01/20/2003 1:01:41 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
To: PatrickHenry
pm...
I just thought up a joke -
How many liberals (( evoplutionist ))* does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer -
none, because they like to remain in the dark.
21 posted on 01/20/2003 0:32 AM PST by pram
.. .. .. * ...oops---I did that ! !
30
posted on
01/20/2003 1:20:16 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: PatrickHenry
Like the time when I spent days saying that Uranus was the 8th planet ... I still say Romania would be utterly landlocked if the Black Sea did not exist.
31
posted on
01/20/2003 1:24:06 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs ... maybe you just don't get it.)
To: Junior
This is for all those creos who claim there is not enough time for evolution to have occurred. Well, 6000 years really isn't a lot of time.
32
posted on
01/20/2003 1:25:43 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs ... maybe you just don't get it.)
To: Alamo-Girl
From the article:
Not everyone is convinced.
That says it all.
33
posted on
01/20/2003 1:26:05 PM PST
by
Dataman
To: forsnax5
That cytoplasm was partly dominated by the reducing chemistry of the primitive oceans and atmosphere from which it formed, and has changed little since, says Williams. If I could just point out one tiny, itsy bitsy problem here: the geologic evidence does not document a reducing atmosphere in the primitive earth - there is plenty of oxygen as evidenced by the presence of ferric iron in the rocks from these time periods.
These guys are apparently making the same erroneous assumptions Stanley Miller did in 1953. The presence of oxygen in any significant quantities is anathema to these reactions.
To: VadeRetro
One of these days I'll make a gigantic blunder, go into denial, and start posting in blue. That way, I'll avoid making a fool of myself.
35
posted on
01/20/2003 1:28:29 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
To: Dataman
That [not everyone is convinced] says it all. Indeed it does! Thank you for looking it over and for your post!
To: Alamo-Girl
Evolution mind games . . . rhetoric - - - channeling rocks // bones // mold // navels // atoms // molecules // dna ! ! !
37
posted on
01/20/2003 2:22:36 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: Alamo-Girl; Dataman
Can anyone point to any theory that debuted with unanimous acceptance?
Or is the opposite more generally true?
38
posted on
01/20/2003 2:27:12 PM PST
by
Condorman
(Being popular is important. Otherwise people might not like you.)
To: Junior; PatrickHenry
By your reasoning, we should be seeing fast breeding critters go from sightless to having eyes, or at least, from eyespots to socket type eyes, within human history.
If it takes only 333,000 years to go from nothing to a "fairly good eye" for critters that have a generation equal to a year, then I suppose it would take only 6,400 years to develop a "fairly good" eye in critters that can reproduce in only a week. And of course that should mean that criters can go from nothing to eyespots in a fraction of that, or from eyespots to socket-eyes in a fraction of that. The very recent fossil record should document that rate of evolution- if it happens.
What, no such evidence exists? I wonder what that could mean?
39
posted on
01/20/2003 2:36:19 PM PST
by
Ahban
To: Dan Day
Hey DD, wanna buy stock in my Blind Watchmaking company?
It's Mindless as well, so no creationists working..just gullible darwinites.
Also, chemistry describes processes toward equilibrium.
Life is contra-equilibrium.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson