Reply With Quote
No I don't so why lie?
I meant after the expulsion. Then they don't make a sound.
No I don't so why lie?
Do your parents allow you on the computer after 10 at night?
Oh...that reminds me. Hey Avante, what's the difference between you and a bowl of apples?
The bowl of apples doesn't have sex with children.
Anyone who has sex with children needs their cut off and stuck down their throat. They are the lowest s on earth as I have said many times so why act ing re ed?
Dude, are you really this lame to that Navy world, come on guy.
Let me see the hands of those out there that didn't know what....
U
F
O
..stood for.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is this er for real?
Never seen so many idiots in one place before, it really is amazing.
Texas.... hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some predictions....
Gay footballers will not...I'M GAY DEAL WITH IT...if they plan an NFL career.
We will see something similiar to 9/11 before the end of the year.
Clipper Nation will call 10 people... got...before the end of the year.
ChumpStupid will post in this thread...soon!
spurraider will continue to tell people what UFO, NFL, WWE, NBA, NCAA, ACC, HBCU...stand for, haha!!!!!!
Blake will continue to try and sell..."I'm really smart, you're not"....hahahaha!!!!!!!!! While looking dumb as a sock.
Kool will never outgrow...OH MY GOD SHE HAS A PUSSY,YIPPPPEEEE!!
This thread will hit 200 pages before football season starts.
avante will keep talking to himself
Trust me amigo Avante doesn't have to talk to himself in case ya haven't noticed. I got leechs hanging all over me.
Dude, did you honestly believe me/anyone didn't know what UFO stood for, hahaha!!!!!!!!!! What did you think I thought it did stand for, well?
Come on little guy, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me again..."there are fish still in the sea ya know" ...hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
, no wonder you believe in evolution, you're an idiot.
Last edited by Avante; 07-12-2015 at 06:38 AM.
I'm starting to think those MasterDesigners were aliens.
Membranes allow you to divide space into functional units that can be dedicated to specific reactions. And of course let specific items in and out. It makes for division of labor on the biochemical level. The membranes we see today are most likely much more complex as multicellularity requires the membrane to be able to receive signals.
The actual role of proteins in enzymatic pathways evolving is much more difficult IMO.
Dude, cool all that crap, ok?
what makes you think that, specifically.
and how did those aliens come to be, in your opinion
There are just too many things built in ancient times that they could't have built at that time. So how did they do it?
I do think where we humans make our big mistake is thinking everything must have it's beginnings, when when it comes to this that simply isn't true.These aliens have always been there, always.
but why alien lifeforms, specifically? why not just a divine being like a god? i'm just curious of how you arrived at aliens, specifically
but you dont know that about them. heck, you dont even know if they exist at all, let alone if they are eternal.I do think where we humans make our big mistake is thinking everything must have it's beginnings, when when it comes to this that simply isn't true.These aliens have always been there, always.
i mean, its your belief and you're en led to it, but there's no direct evidence you can provide to support it.
Do this if you are really interested in this conversation. Take a few minutes maybe not right now but soon and actually delve into this a bit. I was also skeptical at first, but there are things that simply cannot be explained other than Alien introvention.
If you're too busy or just jacking around, forget it.
Translation:Quote Originally Posted by pgardn
Membranes allow you to divide space into functional units that can be dedicated to specific reactions. And of course let specific items in and out. It makes for division of labor on the biochemical level. The membranes we see today are most likely much more complex as multicellularity requires the membrane to be able to receive signals.
The actual role of proteins in enzymatic pathways evolving is much more difficult IMO.
Well, let's first determine what a "transitional fossil" is. Defining terms is an important thing in science, and any attempt to understand any topic.
Easy enough to start with wikipedia:
Basically, for evolution to be true, one should be able to show, generally, how groups of animals changed over time.A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
This is generally done by using the above noted Law of Superposition.
Evolution, as a workable theory, predicts that if you have a fossil of an animal in any given layer or era, you should be able to dig down to previous layers, and locate the ancestors for that species grouping.
Archaeopteryx being one of the most commonly presented examples. We have modern birds, that we had always suspected came from dinosaurs. Digging down we find a dinosaur with bird-like traits, below any examples of the first birds.
Whales are another good example of how evolution predicts things that we eventually found. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises, are air breathing mammals, relatively recently emerged.
For evolution to be true, we would expect that these animals would have had to come from animals that lived on land. Further, we would know approximately *when* these animals would have to have existed, simply by observing the oldest whale fossils we could find and theorizing that their ancestors came before.
After a lot of research, we finally discovered the first candidates in the early 80's, and in the mid 90's enough other specimens were found for a reasonable consensus about where whales probably came from to emerge:
Further reading could be had here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/evograms_03
Here I will pause, and note a common logical flaw in many peoples reasoning;
Moving the goalposts.
Logical fallacy[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpostsMoving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]
Or if you prefer, a better presented form of this flawed argument here:
MThe common application of this flawed line of reasoning is to insist on the impossible proof that every single transitional form be presented before evolution is "proved".OVING THE GOALPOSTS
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.
Logical Form:
Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example #1:
Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless, since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.
Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.
This is neither feasible, nor required to accept something as true.
Take this series of numbers for example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (X), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ...
We can deduce what "X" is, even if we don't know with an absolute certainty what comes after 14 in the series, simply by forming a hypothesis that the rule governing the set is "add one to the number on the left".
Examples?
Genetics.
Phylogeny.
Yes, we are, very distantly.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
Apes - humans
Most ape-like at the top (though in a technical sense, humans are still considered apes). Images and diagrams of the fossils here.
Sometimes called "the only transition which matters", this mustn't be thought of as a transition from chimps to humans, but rather, as a transition from the-common-ancestor-of-chimps-and-humans to humans. Chimps themselves have had time to evolve and change since we parted ways, and so "the ancestor we last shared probably differed substantially from any extant African ape" (White et al, 2009).
Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 mya
Similar.
habilis ~2 mya?
habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).
erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).
heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
