DNA- gods amazing programming

[Montana]

like i said i only wish to empower my self and everyone i associate with and that is defiantly the opposite of a troll. an i truly do appreciate every one that included their opinions because all of you do expand my knowledge to greater horizons. i dont know how strongly you will take this but i believe if its possible for me to have a idea and manifest into my own personal life i believe it is possible a higher entity can manifest somthing as DNA. theres no reason any of you should be upset we are here to question and learn no matter where that takes us. if you guys really are upset ill ask an administrator to take these to threads down i just wanted to share information i thought was interesting who cares if there claim are correct incorrect or scientific or not every ones opinon matters

Those are noble thoughts on your personal lifestyle, and I admire your willingness to share your thoughts - but I think you're going about it wrong, to be honest. Most people (at least here on the forum) do care if a claim is correct, incorrect, scientific or not - and not all opinions have the same validity.

If someone said it was their opinion/claim/theory that mantids should be raised on veggie burgers and given a bath in concentrated nitric acid every now and then to help them molt - obviously, that's dead wrong, and we all care about that. How can we tell it's wrong? We have evidence for it! Mantids eat live prey and all living creatures are damaged by nitric acid. So we know that opinion/claim/theory is wrong, yes? And we are always looking for better ways to raise mantids. Nobody knows exactly the perfect way to raise them, but we have a good idea, and we obtained that good idea through experience and evidence of how our mantids grow. But there's always room for improvement.

Does it take faith or belief to know that mantids need living prey, etc. etc.? No, it takes evidence to form a conclusion on the validity of the argument or theory.

Well... guess what? Same applies to evolution.

We have so much evidence for evolution around us - all you have to do is look with open eyes and a thoughtful mind. We have approximately 550 million years of fossil records of complex organisms, and fossils of simple organisms dating back 3.4 billion years. Although the majority of ancient organisms have not been preserved as fossil, we have literal tons of evidence of evolution in the Earth's crust, and we are still uncovering amazing things (recently the first known insect to use camouflage was discovered in 120-million-year-old amber!). So we get a pretty good understanding of intermediary fossils and evolution of features over millions of years to adapt to different ecological niches - just look at Archaeopteryx or Quetzalcoatlus for examples of intermediary ancestor type fossils.

And then we have mitochondrial (and for plants, chloroplast) DNA analysis that can trace the phylogenetic relations between distantly related plants and animals. How can we do this? because DNA mutates over thousands, millions, even billions of years, and the natural rates of mutation found through genomic sequencing shows a rate consistent with the ages of more primitive plants and animals that have remained essentially the same (still exploiting the same ecological niches) over these long periods of time. We see this with some of my favorite organisms: carnivorous plants. I can post more on that if you're interested! I can attach some papers I have saved from JSTOR and such on the topics.

So, through DNA mapping and comparison of phenotypic traits among different organisms, a phylogenetic tree of all major types of organisms - which I have attached for your pleasure (can you find humans on there?). And keep in mind, the fossil record, genetic analysis, phenotypic analyses, and rates of mutation over time all consistently show as evidence for evolution. Microevolution has been proven in the lab, and macroevolution is proven by natural records of natural history which are literally everywhere. All of this can be explained by natural means and processes.

Now, I again invite you to present some evidence or question what I have presented. that's how thoughtful discussion and empowerment of ideas works: by presenting valid evidence.

-Montana

Phylogenetic Tree of Life.pdf

 

[Mime454]

Making an argument from complexity is the worst line of Creationist apologetics. By that logic, how could a god complex enough to scheme a "proton pump" and design it just pop out of nothing?

It's clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Evolution doesn't make that claim. Evolution says that all of biological complexity resulted from small changes of billions of years. While any sophisticated biological apparatus appearing in one swoop is clearly improbable, small mutations are observed. There is no reason why these small mutations can't build up if given enough time.

It is clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Creationism does make this claim. Creationism presupposes a being of nearly infinite complexity to explain beings of lesser complexity. It is not consistent to say that we have to explain comparatively mild complexities(although we do) when you allow yourself to merely presuppose a being more complex than anything ever observed.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

Have you heard of the confirmation bias? I'm a science guy, but I'm guilty of this all the time. It's a human characteristic to look for patterns. If you spend your life looking for positive events, you're more likely to notice positive events. It might make life more enjoyable, but it isn't proof if anything divine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

If this "Secret" were true, it would mean that everyone in starving to death is Africa just aren't as happy as those in America. Maybe if those children just wished for a cheeseburger, it would come to them. Sad that they're not as happy and positive thinking as these is of in rich, first world countries.

the confirmation bias is just another way to interpret karma if thats how you want to believe it works so be it

also if Africa and other thrid worlds learned to manifest there ideas together they very much would see the change they desperately need and that goes for every other nation as well. we create reality together. its basically what sub conciseness mind is

 

[gripen]

Montana if I could give you 10 more likes I would!

 

[gripen]

the confirmation bias is just another way to interpret karma if thats how you want to believe it works so be it

also if Africa and other thrid worlds learned to manifest there ideas together they very much would see the change they desperately need and that goes for every other nation as well. we create reality together. its basically what sub conciseness mind is

Did you read the book "sphere" recently by any chance? I think you like it very much. There is much "manifesting" in it if that is what you are into.

 

[Mime454]

the confirmation bias is just another way to interpret karma if thats how you want to believe it works so be it

also if Africa and other thrid worlds learned to manifest there ideas together they very much would see the change they desperately need and that goes for every other nation as well. we create reality together. its basically what sub conciseness mind is

Should aid groups stop giving out food and instead give out copies of "The Secret?"

To make this claim is to insult every victim of circumstance both now and in the past. It makes light of atrocities like the holocaust and the crusades.

It might be a fun way of thinking for someone in a first world country, but as a universal fact, it is incredibly ethnocentric and callous.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

Those are noble thoughts on your personal lifestyle, and I admire your willingness to share your thoughts - but I think you're going about it wrong, to be honest. Most people (at least here on the forum) do care if a claim is correct, incorrect, scientific or not - and not all opinions have the same validity.

If someone said it was their opinion/claim/theory that mantids should be raised on veggie burgers and given a bath in concentrated nitric acid every now and then to help them molt - obviously, that's dead wrong, and we all care about that. How can we tell it's wrong? We have evidence for it! Mantids eat live prey and all living creatures are damaged by nitric acid. So we know that opinion/claim/theory is wrong, yes? And we are always looking for better ways to raise mantids. Nobody knows exactly the perfect way to raise them, but we have a good idea, and we obtained that good idea through experience and evidence of how our mantids grow. But there's always room for improvement.

Does it take faith or belief to know that mantids need living prey, etc. etc.? No, it takes evidence to form a conclusion on the validity of the argument or theory.

Well... guess what? Same applies to evolution.

We have so much evidence for evolution around us - all you have to do is look with open eyes and a thoughtful mind. We have approximately 550 million years of fossil records of complex organisms, and fossils of simple organisms dating back 3.4 billion years. Although the majority of ancient organisms have not been preserved as fossil, we have literal tons of evidence of evolution in the Earth's crust, and we are still uncovering amazing things (recently the first known insect to use camouflage was discovered in 120-million-year-old amber!). So we get a pretty good understanding of intermediary fossils and evolution of features over millions of years to adapt to different ecological niches - just look at Archaeopteryx or Quetzalcoatlus for examples of intermediary ancestor type fossils.

And then we have mitochondrial (and for plants, chloroplast) DNA analysis that can trace the phylogenetic relations between distantly related plants and animals. How can we do this? because DNA mutates over thousands, millions, even billions of years, and the natural rates of mutation found through genomic sequencing shows a rate consistent with the ages of more primitive plants and animals that have remained essentially the same (still exploiting the same ecological niches) over these long periods of time. We see this with some of my favorite organisms: carnivorous plants. I can post more on that if you're interested! I can attach some papers I have saved from JSTOR and such on the topics.

So, through DNA mapping and comparison of phenotypic traits among different organisms, a phylogenetic tree of all major types of organisms - which I have attached for your pleasure (can you find humans on there?). And keep in mind, the fossil record, genetic analysis, phenotypic analyses, and rates of mutation over time all consistently show as evidence for evolution. Microevolution has been proven in the lab, and macroevolution is proven by natural records of natural history which are literally everywhere. All of this can be explained by natural means and processes.

Now, I again invite you to present some evidence or question what I have presented. that's how thoughtful discussion and empowerment of ideas works: by presenting valid evidence.

-Montana

like i said i do support most of evolution theroy i just think it starts at a conscious level. similar to ideas and other internal psyche before a result is present id love to have your sources you seem very knowledgeable thank you :detective:

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

Making an argument from complexity is the worst line of Creationist apologetics. By that logic, how could a god complex enough to scheme a "proton pump" and design it just pop out of nothing?

It's clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Evolution doesn't make that claim. Evolution says that all of biological complexity resulted from small changes of billions of years. While any sophisticated biological apparatus appearing in one swoop is clearly improbable, small mutations are observed. There is no reason why these small mutations can't build up if given enough time.

It is clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Creationism does make this claim. Creationism presupposes a being of nearly infinite complexity to explain beings of lesser complexity. It is not consistent to say that we have to explain comparatively mild complexities(although we do) when you allow yourself to merely presuppose a being more complex than anything ever observed.

i do not claim things come from nothing they come from intention and meaning you really arnt getting what im say to the least

and how is saying that people especially in there own countries need to have a more collective conscious an insult again you arnt getting what im saying to the least

people should come together for peace because that is very much possible ive experienced with the most profound changes to myself and every one involved.

stop twisting my words

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

Did you read the book "sphere" recently by any chance? I think you like it very much. There is much "manifesting" in it if that is what you are into.

ill check it out thanks

 

[Mime454]

i do not claim things come from nothing they come from intention and meaning you really arnt getting what im say to the least

and how is saying that people especially in there own countries need to have a more collective conscious an insult again you arnt getting what im saying to the least

people should come together for peace because that is very much possible ive experienced with the most profound changes to myself and every one involved.

stop twisting my words

If I'm twisting your words, it's not intentional, it's because of the lack of normalized spelling, punctuation and grammar. Which of these premises do you disagree with?

1. People can change their reality through their thoughts

2. This change can be had by people not in rich first world countries

3. Negative events and situations can be avoided, shortened or reversed through the power of thought

Then there's the evidence:

1. It is not debatable that people in first world countries live longer on average and have lower infant mortality rates

2. Millions of Jews died during the holocuast

3. At least 20,000 people die a day from starvation

Assuming you agree with my premises, how do you assimilate them with the above evidence? Because if those premises are true, it clearly suggests:

1. People in 1st world countries are better at positive thinking.

2. The fact that Jews died during the holocaust shows that their thinking wasn't positive enough to save their lives.

3. The 20,000 people who die a day from starvation could have avoided it with positive thinking and having food manifested to them. Their failure to do so represents their own mental discrepancies rather than economic factors.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

i dont care what creationism says the only thing i may agree with in that philosophy is the cosmos what created by thought or conciseness everything eles is just defending the churches for themselves and not empowering any one

every philosophy and theory has it own importance and meaning that it was i actually meant when i said every ones opinions matter and if you desern wether or that that idea is there to empower or just control you. you will be able to pick out the good and truth and build more complete model/s for your self and you may attemp to share them with people you care about.

 

[Montana]

I believe in micro-evolution, because there IS proof...The Bible is not to clear on that, after The Fall of Man and The Flood, things on earth changed...

MY RESPONSE IS NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC PERSON

In the process of chemiosmosis (making ATP), how can that detailed proton pump just assemble or evolve? (my opinion)...really think about how complex things like that can just evolve. Or the bacterial flagella that is irreducibly complex...

DNA contains information specifically for making proteins. If you will, it is like an instruction manual for making proteins. Did the proteins evolve fist? Or the dna? ....I guess they just had to co-evolve at the same time...would we ever think that something that contained information was not written by some source of intelligence?

Thanks for bringing that up! That is certainly a good point of discussion.

Proton pumps and other complex proteins may seem like they are difficult to explain through evolution. But the evidence is there.

Essentially it boils down to this: the earliest fossil cells are 3.4 billion years old, and the conditions for small cells in the relatively hostile environment of primordial Earth very much favored selection of helpful proteins. And there was a 2.8 billion year hiatus between these earliest fossil cells and the earliest known fossils of complex life.

Here are are the more complex and fascinating details! The hot, volatile-rich environments in which cells are thought to have originated (similar to underwater volcanic steam vents we see today; the earliest fossil cells are iron/sulfur/pyrite-rich which is consistent with this idea) provided the raw materials and energy for simple cells to replicate - assumed, at first, to be by growth followed by environmental disruption that split cells which got large. Early cells need not necessarily have all the organic compounds we see today, but over time and by chance (which, due to sheer scale of time, nutrient availability, accumulation and growth/division of these early cells etc. lets this mostly-random process produce a few with organic that resembled modern organic cell essentials). So we have a lucky few cells with plenty of random organics, some of which can interact with each other! Inevitably, some of these interactions are detrimental; again, a rare few have beneficial organic interactions. This process continues over 2.8 billion years, and if the biomass surrounding these primordial hotspots of life approached anything like 100kg - which is the size of a good-sized person, who has trillions of body cells that are much larger than bacterial cells - that's a whole lot of cells, with a whole lot of time, with a whole lot of energy, and the probability of things going right, however slim, can happen. And it did. It does. Bacteria today bioaccumulate free organics too.

With the accumulation of amino acids and various other organics, random DNA sequences may be built - again, most detrimental or useless (and we see plenty of "useless" DNA with no purpose in all cells today) - but some cells produce beneficial DNA sequences. Same applies to proteins - some may prove detrimental but others are capable of reducing the energy required to make random organic interaction happen, resulting in a clear benefit to the cell which allows it to grow better and exhibit more beneficial cell mechanisms.

And the process goes on. 2.8 billion years of high-energy-density processes that produce fatal errors in some cells but beneficial effects in others. Those with the advantage grow faster and beat out the other cells. And the process continues. Simple proteins combine with more complex ones due to charge interactions determined by their distinct structure and sequence of molecules. Flagella? One type of protein unit assembled into macromolecular structures by one other type of protein - pretty simple in that respect. And the benefit to early cells, even without motor movement, is obvious: better environmental mobility or stability, depending on the organism; increased surface area; and internal/external support (there are great reasons why microtubules/macrotubules - which make up flagella - are in all eukaryotic cells: to move organelles around, anchor the, and provide internal support).

You may think: "well, that takes a lot of faith, because it's all on chance!" Well, it is a load of chance, and probability and natural selection of cells with advantages, and with super large timescales and energy densities higher than those we experience every day. But it all lines up. The math supports it. The fossil record supports it. The composition of early minerals and the Earth's mantle is consistent with it. The extraneous genetic material in all cells supports it.

There's a misconception that complex information cannot be spontaneously generated; it can, but the entropy it creates around the structure as a result makes up for that. There's a humorous example we can reflect on: if there was an incredibly large number of monkeys all typing randomly on a typewriter for an incredibly long period of time (assuming they have the resources they need), eventually one of them could type the entire works of Shakespeare (and never would have known the significance of it!). With the massive numbers involved in early cellular development, evolution of all the structures we see in cells today seems the most reasonable answer to the complex organic interactions we've observed in cells today.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

If I'm twisting your words, it's not intentional, it's because of the lack of normalized spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Which of these premises do you disagree with?

1. People can change their reality through their thoughts

2. This change can be had by people not in rich first world countries

3. Negative events and situations can be avoided, shortened or reversed through the power of thought

Then there's the evidence:

1. It is not debatable that people in first world countries live longer on average and have lower infant mortality rates

2. Millions of Jews died during the holocuast

3. At least 20,000 people die a day from starvation

Assuming you agree with my premises, how do you assimilate them with the above evidence? Because if those premises are true, it clearly suggests:

1. People in 1st world countries are better at positive thinking.

2. The fact that Jews died during the holocaust shows that their thinking wasn't positive enough to save their lives.

3. The 20,000 people who die a day from starvation could have avoided it with positive thinking and having food manifested to them. Their failure to do so represents their own mental discrepancies rather than economic factors.

people dont understand the power they posses and its able to be further diminished if they are forced to believe they are powerless biased on there environment. things wont just happen to the people cause they think about them instantly that is bogus. its the thought that is the motor and how powerful activism and result will be. if your separated from like minded people it will be much harder to bring the change you want to see.

 

[gripen]

people dont understand the power they posses and its able to be further diminished if they are forced to believe they are powerless biased on there environment. things wont just happen to the people cause they think about them instantly that is bogus. its the thought that is the motor and how powerful activism and result will be. if your separated from like minded people it will be much harder to bring the change you want to see.

Seems like you changed your argument yet again. First it was DNA, than femininity, than manifesting, than finally when you put people together they can make miracles.

 

[Montana]

Montana if I could give you 10 more likes I would!

Mantises are as good as likes, if not better... if you ever feel so inclined to share extras... :clown:

 

[Mime454]

. things wont just happen to the people cause they think about them instantly that is bogus.

These things happened or are happening for long periods of time. If you don't believe that thought could have changed those situations, we don't disagree. If you do believe that the power of thought could have changed this, that is callous and only serves to shift the blame to the victim needlessly.

its the thought that is the motor and how powerful activism and result will be. if your separated from like minded people it will be much harder to bring the change you want to see.

So it takes a lot of people to make it work? How have you come to this conclusion, because it certainly wasn't based on evidence in the traditional sense.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

studying the I ching could be another experiment worth investigating to make findings

 

[Mime454]

studying the I ching could be another experiment worth investigating to make findings

I'll keep responding to Andrew,I'm glad that he's looking for an evidence based approach, but I can't carry on a conversation with you if you're going to change the subject to something completely unrelated every time a point against you is brought up. I have no hard feelings towards you as a person, but I don't think that my exchanges with you in this thread have been even remotely enlightening or productive.

 

[Malakyoma]

I'm amazed I was able to read this all...

I want to thank montana for keeping a level head and providing hard evidence far better than I would have. Arguments like these make me sick to my stomach and often a very angry person.

 

[AxolotlsAreCoolToo]

These things happened or are happening for long periods of time. If you don't believe that thought could have changed those situations, we don't disagree. If you do believe that the power of thought could have changed this, that is callous and only serves to shift the blame to the victim needlessly.

So it takes a lot of people to make it work? How have you come to this conclusion, because it certainly wasn't based on evidence in the traditional sense.

peoples intentions effect the course of history and if people are on the same page history will go in that direction. if a body of people feel disempowerd they cannot create and other people will do if for them. history happens for a reason no matter how horrific we learn and learn some more. there is no blaim it doesnt excised

think about this forum and how it brings like minded people together to bring change in this specific hobby. we do it together. if i was alone i would just have native species. and have a very had time having enough food for winter. it would be impossible with out every ones help. thanks every one especially Alex.

if you go to a gathering that has a specific goal and everyone has the feeling they can do anything the you will accomplish those collective goals in time. the more people the better and i do see this with my own experiences and my friends and families experiences. i see it very easily and obviously. its how science is able to find such extraordinary things they do it together as well as how powerful their intentions are. if we really believe we can do anything. i used to think that is just what they tell you in preschool just to keep you head up high but it so true and amazing and accepting this will make you more intuitive, healthy, more relate able, and carry a greater meaning every where you present your self.