Prime Factor

[FinsterniS]

@Anonymous:

Well, in a way, the sun is directed. Chloroplasts, reflecting light in the green spectrum, absorb light at other wavelengths. This is the right amount of energy to set off a reaction causing CO2 to ultimately be built into glucose.
The glucose is the next part of the equation - use of it through various metabolic pathways (glycolysis, pyruvate dehydrogenase, the Kreb’s cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation amoung others) provides the ATP (a high energy intermediate) required for DNA replication/transcription, translation (i.e. protein production) etc.
There is a kind of elegance to it.

Not directed; just perfect for the apparition of protein and ultimatly life… Anyway we don,t even know how life exatly start out; maybe from ashe, maybe from our sun, maybe it is just inherent to planets like ours…

For better or worse, no matter what you say, no matter what “evidence” you produce, there is absolutely no way that FinsterniS will consider it possible that there is any intelligence to creation.

That is an easy one, and i can say exactly the same thing…

And any chance you could give this whole “menacing people” a rest?

No because, it is too, historicly valid…

And yes, i clearly lack objectivity. So do you. So does everyone in the world, each according to his/her ideology.

Agreed, and i already tell that.

The reason why X religion is better than Y might be answered by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Christianity answers the questions we ask late at night.

The fact it answer the good question is an argument for it ?

Sure, i don’t know all of the answers, but my most important questions have been answered - in a personal way.

Keep that personnal, that way everything is ok.

[Guest]

@TG:

CC, brought up chloroplasts and the like.

So here’s another question to see if you can solve:
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

The first bacteria actually did not have an aerob metabolism, oxygen was poisonious to them, they produced that as their kind of “waste” and changed the atmosphere. Then, at some stage, a step in evolution has happened, and a bacteria started an aerob metabolism, which is much more efficient. Then later, an organism (probably a bacteria) joined a symbiosis with a chloroplast (the things in plants that do the photosynthesis, they actually have an own DNA like the mitochondria, which means they have been sole living beings before). THis was the birth of the first plant, so to say (except that plants of course have a different cell “outer layer” than bacteria and animals, but i don’t know where to place that chronologically).

[TG Moses VI]

You mentioned symbiosis and there are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How does evolution explain this?

[cystic crypt]

@TG:

You mentioned symbiosis and there are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How does evolution explain this?

supposedly as two beings come together they are more productive than the individual units were (for example, an aerobic prokaryote - mitochondrion, merging with another, possibly more advanced, anaerobic prokaryote, resulting in a eukaryotic cell). You get increased efficiency by using Oxygen to reduce hydrogen in aerobic energy production this way. Maybe some environmental or competative change might occur, causing increasing dependence on each other. This could might lead to attenuation of genetic material causing increased reliance on each other.
Nothing scientifically proven, but it is a possible explanation to your question (if we take intelligent design out of the equation, of course).

and FinsterniS - the fact that something answers questions demonstrates its utility, which just might in some people’s consideration, give it some validity.

[TG Moses VI]

In my best Penguin typing on keyboard impression: _Okay, here’s another:

Information theory states that “information” never arises out of randomness or chance events. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information._

[FinsterniS]

The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

First evolutionism is not perfect, but thermodynamic is not an argument against it.

The second law of thermodynamics says that heat energy will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one rather than the other way around

The second law says that entropy will tend to increase, but sometime entropy will decrease… only in a closed system it will always finish to increase. But life is not a closed system because the sun provide our energy… Creationism often say that the second law mean that everything is going from Order to Disorder and that Order will not pop up from Disorder. This is a deformation; there is exemples of order coming from disorder without any intelligence; snowflakes, lightning…

This is a good exemple of how creationist are creating more confusion than constructive criticism… Because at first the argument (for someone like me without formation in physics) seem valid, but it is just the deformation of a law (like the Occam’s razor)…

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

First evolutionism is not perfect, but thermodynamic is not an argument against it.

The second law of thermodynamics says that heat energy will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one rather than the other way around

The second law says that entropy will tend to increase, but sometime entropy will decrease… only in a closed system it will always finish to increase. But life is not a closed system because the sun provide our energy… Creationism often say that the second law mean that everything is going from Order to Disorder and that Order will not pop up from Disorder. This is a deformation; there is exemples of order coming from disorder without any intelligence; snowflakes, lightning…

This is a good exemple of how creationist are creating more confusion than constructive criticism… Because at first the argument (for someone like me without formation in physics) seem valid, but it is just the deformation of a law (like the Occam’s razor)…

odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.
And Moses: good question. We dont’ have all that much to go on from a molecular biology/cell biology basis. There are a few ways of introducing genetic material:
One way is through simple mutations. The sun, or other carcinogen “zaps” the DNA causing splitting of the molecule, or a shift from one base to another. The cell’s repair machinery might skip this part, or repeat it unnecessarily, ditto for replication. Also in some genetic diseases “repeat sequences” tend to multiply themselves over generations (your mother might have a 20 CGA repeats in one gene - you might have 40 . . . ) - just another mutation.
Another way if you go back really far is through conjugation and transduction. Conjugation is where bacteria exchange genetic material on plasmids with each other thereby increasing the amount of genetic material in the group. Transduction is where a virus takes genetic material from one bacteria and puts it into the genome of another one. We see where this works all the time in humans - AIDS, and even the simple adenovirus is being sought out for it’s ability to “transform cells” (get the cell to integrate genetic material into its genome). Women get a pap smear to prevent against cervical cancer - this is caused by a virus. Same idea, basically.
Finally we have all the ways of non-monera genetic manipulation via simple meiotic mechansims - assortment, crossing over,etc. An offspring might have taken on more genetic material than was intended through sexual reproduction, giving it more genetic material to play with.

People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.
Hope this answers your question. It might appear biased coming from a “intelligent design” guy tho’ . . . .

[TG Moses VI]

@cystic:

Hope this answers your question.

Koo…

While I wait for my other question to be answered, how does evolutionist explain metamorphosis? Ex. How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the “mass of jelly” (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn’t it appear to be “stuck?”

CC, also mentioned DNA and cell replication. Here’s another question: The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the “plan”) and RNA (the “copy mechanism”). How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

[FinsterniS]

odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.

What is odd ? That is what i said…

[Field Marshal]

TG Moses VI - back to your reply post on the 3rd to “the goal of evolution is survival”. Can we really still use natural laws to reference to the most domesticated animal - us! Humans make their populations what they want, evolution will play a small part. It matters little with today’s technology the ratio of male to females in our population.

So what’s this Jedi religion in the UK all about? Does it follow George Lucas’ story/dogma or is it different?

[HortenFlyingWing]

@TG:

I don’t know, my sister is Christian (and from an athiest family no doubt), and I bet it wasn’t the fear of God and a life long eternity in Hell that made her become one according to her own will. (though I don’t like children being baptized when they have no yet the capacity to choose that religion as their own)

You brainwashed her!

[TG Moses VI]

“Can we really still use natural laws to reference to the most domesticated animal - us!”

Ants are very domesticated, but evolution wise, they won’t stop improving. Also, the gender split has remained constant for most of time.

“So what’s this Jedi religion in the UK all about? Does it follow George Lucas’ story/dogma or is it different?”

All I know is that it’s based on the movie Star Wars (duh). It probably centers on how to become a Jedi Knight and become “one with the force” and to resist the “Dark side.” Other than that, I wouldn’t even know if they worshiped Yoda. :P

“You brainwashed her!”

Wha… what the hell!? More like trying to brainwash me! :wink:

[Field Marshal]

TG Moses VI - out of stupid curiousity, I did a search on “Jedi Religion”. Apparently THERE ARE people out there claiming to be practicioners of the “force”! In fact, there are groups in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand who are trying to get their groups recognized by their governments as organized religion! This may be part of a rebellious online prank, but it’s happening all the same! I guess the Australian government is warning people with fines for falsifying the census when it comes around. Some groups seem to seperate their “dogma” from the Star Wars movies!?!?! Others seem to embrace George Lucas for showing them the “light”!!!

My friends, I try to be open minded and defend other’s beliefs. But this is too much even for me. What a bunch of wacko’s!!! I’ll admit I’m a big fan of Star Wars. You’ve gotta give George Lucas the credit. The guy takes a chance on a movie idea almost 30 years ago, turns it into top grossing films of all time, merchandising galore, and now spin-off religious groups! What’s next people praying at his feet? Lucas for Emperor? It’s not hard to see why people follow their Jim Jones’ and David Koresh’s (spelling?)!!!

[TG Moses VI]

Well, thanks for passing along the info. I know it’s more than some online groupies trying to start some ruckus, as they been around for quite some time. But like you said, I’m not sure if the government has officially recognized them, though UK Gov might’ve last time I heard on the news about a year ago. I even think that some live in huts similar to that of Uncle Ben (Obi-Wan) in Scotland! :roll:

I really admire George Lucas, too. He makes the movies for himself (well, his son also! :wink:), not for some box office proceeds or merchandising (though set records in both). He’s also a very political minded person. A liberal (growing up in San Fran), though he often talks about how all people eventually hand over their power to a powerful ruler. And as you can see in Ep. 1-6 (and 7-9, though he probably won’t film them), it reflects that. If George did run for president, I would certainly vote for him! 8)

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.

What is odd ? That is what i said…

it’s odd b/c i’m a creationist.

[cystic crypt]

@TG:

@cystic:

Hope this answers your question.

Koo…

While I wait for my other question to be answered, how does evolutionist explain metamorphosis? Ex. How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the “mass of jelly” (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn’t it appear to be “stuck?”

CC, also mentioned DNA and cell replication. Here’s another question: The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the “plan”) and RNA (the “copy mechanism”). How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

too tipsy to deal with metamorphosis.
DNA and RNA are not that different - just one base (uracil vs. thymine). RNA is considered by some molecular biologists to be one of the first biological molecules due to its facility as a protein, as well as a genetic information carrier. DNA may have evolved due to its efficiency at condensing, replicating, or acting as a template (i don’t really know). Anyway, to answer your question, RNA may have come before DNA, the two are not different enough that they may have been the same molecule-type at one point. In fact, many viruses use RNA as their primary genetic information molecule. I hope this makes sense. The Alexander Keiths beer is really smooth . . . . :D

[FinsterniS]

it’s odd b/c i’m a creationist.

Wow. that is fanatism…

And you said once the bible was not a scientific text ?

[Guest]

[quote="cystic cryptPeople try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.
Hope this answers your question. It might appear biased coming from a “intelligent design” guy tho’ . . . .

It does not appear biased, as you have not mentioned any need for an intelligent desing, you just told how it works. I think that was really good.

[Guest]

One for TG,
how do you explain the metamorphosis?
God turns each caterpillar into jelly and forms a butterlfy out of it :)?

For the Jedi Religion:
I think it’s funny, total stupid, and shows how influental such fiction can become.
More interestingly, the Jedi would be the second totally artifical “religion” of the last 100 years.
Remember, there was this second class sci-fi writer, who once said “to become really rich, you have to found a religion”. Which he later did, and called it “Scientology” (which his first “clean” later committing suicide … what a joke, but what a dangerously powerful, greedy and ruthless joke)

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

it’s odd b/c i’m a creationist.

Wow. that is fanatism…

And you said once the bible was not a scientific text ?

not scientific. Historical, anthropologically significant, literary, and most importantly a guide through spiritually muddy waters.
i am a creationist. maybe not a young-earth creationist - although it is possible to defend that at some level, i don’t really buy into it. but yes. i’m an intelligent design/creationist.
Fanatism . . . i don’t get it. I don’t even know what that word means. Is it like Fanaticism? And if so that’s a pretty subjective comment. Maybe in this context it’s good to be fanatical? And if i’m fanatical about this, then are you not also fanatical? I mean, you’ve mentioned hatred vs. certain religious types much more than i’ve mentioned hatred vs. . . anyone.