View Full Version : Evolution Deniers...
this thread is not for you.
This is a perfect example of why people do not understand key components of evolution...because the media are fucking idiots when it comes to science and getting people's attention, i.e., with the headlines.
Title as shown on Yahoo front page:
"Humans may have evolved to walk upright to conserve energy"
First fucking problem. Nothing "evolves" so as to accomplish something. Humans weren't walking around and all fours and then decidedd, "Hey, I'm pretty f'n winded...if I just walk on two feet, I'll save a ton of energy!"
No, that's not how the theory works. Goddamnit.
How it works is (if this is true) the organisms able walk on two feet and able to conserve energy didn't have to acquire as much food to sustain their energy consumption, thus, weren't as prone to starvation as tetrapods are/were. Thus, they were able to thrive in areas containing less food.
In theory, of course.
I get the media (or the report) is trying to make it clear to the public as to what happened (supposedly), BUT, in turn, they end up teaching the wrong shit and people understand it less.
Anyway, for those that care, here is the article. It's interesting, but I don't think for one minute that this holds much water...just kind of an "oh, that's interesting" thing...nothing big.
Just wanted to comment more on the fucking Yahoo idiots.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_sc/standing_up
Humans walk upright to conserve energy
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer 53 minutes ago
Why did humans evolve to walk upright? Perhaps because it's just plain easier. Make that "energetically less costly," in science-speak, and you have the conclusion of researchers who are proposing a likely reason for our modern gait.
Bipedalism — walking on two feet — is one of the defining characteristics of being human, and scientists have debated for years how it came about. In the latest attempt to find an explanation, researchers trained five chimpanzees to walk on a treadmill while wearing masks that allowed measurement of their oxygen consumption.
The chimps were measured both while walking upright and while moving on their legs and knuckles. That measurement of the energy needed to move around was compared with similar tests on humans and the results are published in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It turns out that humans walking on two legs use only one-quarter of the energy that chimpanzees use while knuckle-walking on four limbs. And the chimps, on average, use as much energy using two legs as they did when they used all four limbs.
However, there was variability among chimpanzees in how much energy they used, and this difference corresponded to their different gaits and anatomy.
One of the chimps used less energy on two legs, one used about the same and the others used more, said David Raichlen, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Arizona.
"What we were surprised at was the variation," he said in a telephone interview. "That was pretty exciting, because when you talk about how evolution works, variation is the bottom line, without variation there is no evolution."
If an individual can save energy moving around and hunting and spend more of it on reproduction, "that's how you end up getting new species," he said.
Walking on two legs freed our arms, opening the door to manipulating the world, Raichlen said. "We think about the evolution of bipedalism as one of first events that led hominids down the path to being human."
Theirs is the latest of several explanations for walking upright. Among the others have been the need to used the arms in food gathering, the need to use the upper limbs to bring food to a mate and offspring and raising the body higher to dissipate heat in the breeze.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the L. S. B. Leakey Foundation.
ryr8828
07-16-2007, 08:00 PM
I figure it was because walking on all fours like a damn animal was unhandy and hard on the knees.
Also hard to pick a banana that close to the ground.
I figure it was because walking on all fours like a damn animal was unhandy and hard on the knees.
Also hard to pick a banana that close to the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
swordfish
07-16-2007, 08:04 PM
What about vegetables?
What about vegetables?
They don't walk.
ryr8828
07-16-2007, 08:13 PM
They don't walk.
Lazy bastards, but they do have feelings.
Lazy bastards, but they do have feelings.
"Clams Have Feelings Too (Actually They Don't)"
Birds are dumb, 'cause small bird brains
But so are kids and old people
Some birds talk, most others sing
I don't see you eat a talking bird
Pigs smell bad, they roll in poo
But so do kids and elderly
I don't see you chop off an old man's feet
Put 'em in a mason jar and pickle them
No chowder for you, 'cause clams have feelings too
Actually they don't have central nervousness
No manhatten style, clams have the right to smile
Come to think about it, they don't have a face
They have no face, no place for ears
There's no clam eyes, to cry clam tears
No spinal cord, they must get bored
Might as well just put them out of misery
I don't beleive it's selfish
To eat defenceless shellfish
No chowder for you, clams have feelings too
It could happen to you, clams have feelings too
I don't think they do, clams have feelings too
Ed Who?
07-16-2007, 09:16 PM
Praise be to God.
Praise be to God.
Very dynamic.
Ed Who?
07-16-2007, 09:22 PM
Very dynamic.
It's awesome that He created such a dynamic system of life on Earth that we were able to walk upright rather than knuckledragging our entire lives.
Hotpapa666
07-16-2007, 09:48 PM
It's awesome that He created such a dynamic system of life on Earth that we were able to walk upright rather than knuckledragging our entire lives.
That's one of looking at it. Then there is the one that considers libraries full of scientific data that all point to evolution as the way we got here.
That's one of looking at it. Then there is the one that considers libraries full of scientific data that all point to evolution as the way we got here.
NO NO NO! There is plenty of science behind creationism, and plenty of science that points to a young earth. Now, I am not going to show it here, because you would just attack it. It's there though, it's there.
NO NO NO! There is plenty of science behind creationism, and plenty of science that points to a young earth. Now, I am not going to show it here, because you would just attack it. It's there though, it's there.
Strange...that's all I get when I post anything pro-evolution...
Strange...that's all I get when I post anything pro-evolution...
I have never seen good science behind creationism. I am not a scientist, but I just don't think its there. That is why they call it faith. Now I don't have it, but respect those that do. I just can't buy what, to me anyway, is so obviously not there.
I have never seen good science behind creationism. I am not a scientist, but I just don't think its there. That is why they call it faith. Now I don't have it, but respect those that do. I just can't buy what, to me anyway, is so obviously not there.
The only thing remotely scientific that I have seen is to refute evolution on scientific terms...but that is notsupport of Creationism or ID on scientific terms.
Shit, biologists debate amongst themselves points of evolution...but that by itself doesn't mean Creationism/ID is then correct.
Bad logic.
The only thing remotely scientific that I have seen is to refute evolution on scientific terms...but that is notsupport of Creationism or ID on scientific terms.
Shit, biologists debate amongst themselves points of evolution...but that by itself doesn't mean Creationism/ID is then correct.
Bad logic.
Yes, it actually is the absence of logic. Or rather, it is this:
Bifurcation
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:
"Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."
Tom Joad
07-17-2007, 11:32 AM
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/R-ScienceDiscov.jpg
Ed Who?
07-17-2007, 12:21 PM
NO NO NO! There is plenty of science behind creationism, and plenty of science that points to a young earth. Now, I am not going to show it here, because you would just attack it. It's there though, it's there.
How is this not attacking and disrespectful?
Ed Who?
07-17-2007, 12:22 PM
Yes, it actually is the absence of logic. Or rather, it is this:
Bifurcation
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:
"Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."
It's also called people so fucking skeptical that they wouldn't know a 2000 year old book if it hit them in the ass at 100 MPH.
You can go bifurc yourself.
It's also called people so fucking skeptical that they wouldn't know a 2000 year old book if it hit them in the ass at 100 MPH.
You can go bifurc yourself.
:eek: How is this not clearly attacking and disrespectful? Awesome man. Awesome.
I am only saying, that to say that since Evolution is not clearly 100% correct, and that somehow makes Creation science anything at all, is shit logic plain and simple. Sorry if you are offended by that. I am glad you saty away from such offensiveness.
It's also called people so fucking skeptical that they wouldn't know a 2000 year old book if it hit them in the ass at 100 MPH.
You can go bifurc yourself.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been." The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.
"For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution."
Can I go ad antiquitatem myself too? :) :) :)
Ed Who?
07-17-2007, 12:45 PM
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been." The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.
"For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution."
Can I go ad antiquitatem myself too? :) :) :)
One day your arguments will be considered ad antiquitatem.
If only logicians could find a language that wasn't ad antiquitatem
One day your arguments will be considered ad antiquitatem.
If only logicians could find a language that wasn't ad antiquitatem
Good because old- That is what it means. When will my arguments be considered old? When we stop using logic? Oh wait, that is now. Saddam!!!!!!!! 9/11!!!!!!!
pnkpanther
07-17-2007, 04:12 PM
One day your arguments will be considered ad antiquitatem.
If only logicians could find a language that wasn't ad antiquitatem
actually, as the bible has been known to denounce scientist in the past, since well, a long time ago. They have three step plan, and are consistant, i'll give them that.
Step 1-Denounce the idea as a heretical beleif and try to quash any arugment. (see copernicus and his views on flat earth)
Step 2-Accept the argument and try to wrap the bible around to fit their argument and compromise.
Step 3-Eventually, the scientific victory is complete, and the Church is left to indulge in apologetics, a field of study that explains away and defends the Church's actions. In this stage, it is common for apologists to claim that there is not, and never was, any conflict between the Church and science..
pnkpanther
07-17-2007, 04:14 PM
i feel i should cite my three step process, that was from formell cornell univeristy leader (over hundred years ago) andrew white..the third bullet i believe is verbatim
dont F me for plagarisim
Ed Who?
07-17-2007, 04:31 PM
Which Biblical passage says that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth?
Also, I don't know much of the history of the reasons for the religious community to rail against him.
Which Biblical passage says that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth?
Also, I don't know much of the history of the reasons for the religious community to rail against him.
Praise be to God.
Jiddy78
07-17-2007, 04:34 PM
Praise be to God.
I still say the sperm is the human and the women can go f*ck themself too.
I still say the sperm is the human and the women can go f*ck themself too.
I'm a huge proponent of that as well.
swordfish
07-17-2007, 04:36 PM
I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Just not the bullshit evolution that everyone throws around. My belief of creation includes the fact that God was smart enough to create genes that repair and improve themselves. The church wants to oversimplify things in order to lambast non-believers. I am really sick of everyone's overblown egos. Why must the church go around telling everyone they are wrong. Why must science to around telling everyone they are stupid.
Heres the two arguments.
God created everything. People did not come from monkeys. Your going to hell if you don't give us money. Sinner.
People evolved from dirt. Yes it was a slow process, took millions of years. Well I have a Phd in biology so obviously you don't know wtf your talking about. Idiot.
I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. Just not the bullshit evolution that everyone throws around. My belief of creation includes the fact that God was smart enough to create genes that repair and improve themselves. The church wants to oversimplify things in order to lambast non-believers. I am really sick of everyone's overblown egos. Why must the church go around telling everyone they are wrong. Why must science to around telling everyone they are stupid.
Heres the two arguments.
God created everything. People did not come from monkeys. Your going to hell if you don't give us money. Sinner.
People evolved from dirt. Yes it was a slow process, took millions of years. Well I have a Phd in biology so obviously you don't know wtf your talking about. Idiot.
So, is that ID that you speak of, or do you think God just started the process, but then let nature/randomness take its course?
swordfish
07-17-2007, 04:41 PM
That is the hard part my friend. I do not think that humans evolved from monkeys, but I really can't say.
The major problem I have is the whole big bang theory. Science tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well where did it come from then? It is the same question as where did God come from.
swordfish
07-17-2007, 04:43 PM
Oh I just thought of an answer.
It was just there.
That is the hard part my friend. I do not think that humans evolved from monkeys, but I really can't say.
The major problem I have is the whole big bang theory. Science tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well where did it come from then? It is the same question as where did God come from.
That would be correct. They didn't, at least not according to the theory.
As for the big bang, astronomy and such is beyond me. I have been enjoying The Universe on History Channel the past couple of weeks, though.
The way I understand the Big Bang is that it's "only" the theory of the beginning of our universe and all things in it, not necessarily the beginning of all things...basically a big ball of something (matter? antimatter?) was all concentrated (like a black hole?) and then just let loose and began expanding. The question is, what was this "thing" in, what is the universe expanding into, and where did that come from?
When you get to thinking about it, it's pretty messed up.
Right now, there are really now widely accepted theories to any of those questions, although, from what I understand from "The Universe", the big bang (in it's simplest form) is pretty widely accepted. The details aren't ironed out, and probably never will be.
Jiddy78
07-17-2007, 04:49 PM
God created everything. People did not come from monkeys. Your going to hell if you don't give us money. Sinner.
People evolved from dirt. Yes it was a slow process, took millions of years. Well I have a Phd in biology so obviously you don't know wtf your talking about. Idiot.
Oh really fool?
REALLY?
Don't make me start another crusade!
Why not just climb a tree instead monkey boy!
*preparing to fight*
Hey, wait...Is that your house?
Yeah man...Got it zero down, no payments for a year!!! 7 bedroom...6 1/2 bath...4 car garage...They tell me it will be worth double next year!!
KICK ASS MAN...Ya know...Let's just drop this whole God vs. Science thing and go play some X-box and drink some Yuengling. I can show you my FICO score online!
SWEET MAN!
*high fives all around*
swordfish
07-17-2007, 04:49 PM
We can't even iron out the details on Iraq and you want to figure out something that happened billions of years ago :rolleyes:
We can't even iron out the details on Iraq and you want to figure out something that happened billions of years ago :rolleyes:
The universe is child's play compared to figuring out Iraq.
swordfish
07-17-2007, 04:52 PM
Oh really fool?
REALLY?
Don't make me start another crusade!
Why not just climb a tree instead monkey boy!
*preparing to fight*
Hey, wait...Is that your house?
Yeah man...Got it zero down, no payments for a year!!! 7 bedroom...6 1/2 bath...4 car garage...They tell me it will be worth double next year!!
KICK ASS MAN...Ya know...Let's just drop this whole God vs. Science thing and go play some X-box and drink some Yuengling. I can show you my FICO score online!
SWEET MAN!
*high fives all around*
According to the county assessor my real estate doubled in 2 years.... You know this nice neighborhood and all , with the crack heads down the road.
pnkpanther
07-17-2007, 05:08 PM
Which Biblical passage says that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth?
Also, I don't know much of the history of the reasons for the religious community to rail against him.
the bible says the earth rests on pillars and doesnt move.
Jiddy78
07-17-2007, 05:12 PM
According to the county assessor my real estate doubled in 2 years.... You know this nice neighborhood and all , with the crack heads down the road.
The county assessor will fight you to the death before he lowers it too...Gotta get that guaranteed pay raise baby!!
pnkpanther
07-17-2007, 05:12 PM
That is the hard part my friend. I do not think that humans evolved from monkeys, but I really can't say.
The major problem I have is the whole big bang theory. Science tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well where did it come from then? It is the same question as where did God come from.
and i dont believe we all started in a garden, a snake, and a tree....i dont believe a 500 year old man built a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal, or that man lived inside a big fish (we assume a whale) for sometime.
Jiddy78
07-17-2007, 05:14 PM
and i dont believe we all started in a garden, a snake, and a tree....i dont believe a 500 year old man built a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal, or that man lived inside a big fish (we assume a whale) for sometime.
Yeah...and I wouldn'tve believed a dead guy could buy a house...but looky looky....
swordfish
07-17-2007, 05:18 PM
I always had a hard time stomaching church. It's not because I sin, or because I am ashamed. I just could never listen to hypocrites tell me what to do and use force/punishment in order to bring it about. I even tried going back to church after I was grown. First sermon they take up two offerings. I wouldn't think much about it except the sermon was about going to hell for not giving up the 10%. Now I do not begrudge anyone for going to church in fact I am glad they do. I just have a hard time with the way its presented. I have always been looked down upon for my sins. Others look down on me and judge me. I speak the truth and offend. Yes the truth hurts. I learned early on that you must be swift with your actions, like scolding a child or animal. You cannot wait until days,hours,minutes past the infraction. You must act swiftly and strongly to stand up for what you believe and speak it.
Most church-goers roll their eyes if you mention aliens. I have found not one passage in the bible were God said they do not exist. I never said they exist, I just will not say they do not. In fact it is possible that angels could be considered alien. They are not from earth. They are not human. What about demons/devils/spirits are they not alien to us. We even call Mexicans aliens, etc.
The human ego is our worst enemy. We feel so important proclaiming that we are the only thing. Both sides do this. The religious sect says that we are the only sentient creature (other than angels) God created, which is hooey. The Bible never states this. The science crowd wants you to believe that if there is life its surely not God.
The key word to most of the stuff happening in the world is division.
Divide and Conquer.
United We Stand Divided We Fall.
It is the common theme in everything going on today. It is hard to quantify how I feel that a greater evil is affecting the world. I will start a new post about it.
swordfish
07-17-2007, 05:22 PM
and i dont believe we all started in a garden, a snake, and a tree....i dont believe a 500 year old man built a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal, or that man lived inside a big fish (we assume a whale) for sometime.
I am pretty sure that you need to read the book for yourself and not let someone else's interpretation fool you. Everything in the bible is not literal. This is what leads to the 100000 different churches all saying they are the only ones who are right. You hear what the pope said about there being only one church? Thats primo stuff hes smoking. For him to say that Jesus granted him those powers is blasphemy and he knows it. No man is better or more righteous for all have sinned.
pnkpanther
07-17-2007, 05:28 PM
I am pretty sure that you need to read the book for yourself and not let someone else's interpretation fool you. Everything in the bible is not literal. This is what leads to the 100000 different churches all saying they are the only ones who are right. You hear what the pope said about there being only one church? Thats primo stuff hes smoking. For him to say that Jesus granted him those powers is blasphemy and he knows it. No man is better or more righteous for all have sinned.
many church's take the story of genesis as fact
swordfish
07-17-2007, 05:54 PM
Yeh and many churches think that chi is magic and evil. See I don't believe in "churches". Where was Jesus first church built?
swordfish
07-17-2007, 05:55 PM
Also where did he park his cadillac?
Also where did he park his cadillac?
He kept it at his 2nd home.
Emmanuel
07-18-2007, 08:21 AM
Yeh and many churches think that chi is magic and evil. See I don't believe in "churches". Where was Jesus first church built?
I may have been a carpenter, but I had Peter handle the labor.
And I wouldn't think of driving one of those tanks.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 12:55 PM
Evolution! (the Heretic's Jesus)
One day a lil plant moved to a bog. He found a place to lay down some roots and grow. Soon after moving in, he came to "realize" that this place didn't have enough nitrogen for him to flourish. There was nobody around to help him, so he was all alone and facing extinction. Then he saw a little fly buzzing around overhead. He thought, "Hey there’s some nitrogen!" Maybe ill evolve a way to catch him. Many years later he had finally caught one! "Now what?" he pondered. I need to evolve a method to consume this fly. So he did just that.
Meanwhile, plants do not have eyes so there is no chance of noticing a fly flying around and No chance of determining that insects are a source of nitrogen. Evolution is not a two tiered process, meaning you cant evolve to prepare for a future change, like building a trap, then to evolve a process of digesting trapped insects. Change is supposedly driven by purpose, without a method of digestion, there is no purpose for trapping. Without a trap there is nothing to digest. Evolution fails when scrutinized. It is bunk science. A fallacy for the purpose of rejecting God.
... and heathen's say; "It's the best we got."
Evolution! (the Heretic's Jesus)
One day a lil plant moved to a bog. He found a place to lay down some roots and grow. Soon after moving in, he came to "realize" that this place didn't have enough nitrogen for him to flourish. There was nobody around to help him, so he was all alone and facing extinction. Then he saw a little fly buzzing around overhead. He thought, "Hey there’s some nitrogen!" Maybe ill evolve a way to catch him. Many years later he had finally caught one! "Now what?" he pondered. I need to evolve a method to consume this fly. So he did just that.
Meanwhile, plants do not have eyes so there is no chance of noticing a fly flying around and No chance of determining that insects are a source of nitrogen. Evolution is not a two tiered process, meaning you cant evolve to prepare for a future change, like building a trap, then to evolve a process of digesting trapped insects. Change is supposedly driven by purpose, without a method of digestion, there is no purpose for trapping. Without a trap there is nothing to digest. Evolution fails when scrutinized. It is bunk science. A fallacy for the purpose of rejecting God.
... and heathen's say; "It's the best we got."
Wow. In order to "debunk" evolution, you would need to not fully misrepresent and/or misunderstand what the theory says...because the above is so far off base, I initially thought this was a sarcastic post from a supporter of evolution.
I suppose it's easy to not believe something when it presented completely wrong.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 01:08 PM
Wow. In order to "debunk" evolution, you would need to not fully misrepresent and/or misunderstand what the theory says...because the above is so far off base, I initially thought this was a sarcastic post from a supporter of evolution.
I suppose it's easy to not believe something when it presented completely wrong.
Most is sarcasm, however I chose the venus fly trap because I do not know why it "evolved" to consume animals. So I task you, to tell the story correctly. How does a plant, absent a brain, determine it's survival depends upon consuming animals.
Oh I know... this is all some giant ever-occurring continuous accident....
Most is sarcasm, however I chose the venus fly trap because I do not know why it "evolved" to consume animals. So I task you, to tell the story correctly. How does a plant, absent a brain, determine it's survival depends upon consuming animals.
You should read my first post in this thread.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 01:13 PM
You should read my first post in this thread.
You left out Venus fly trap. How do plants know animals exist?
You left out Venus fly trap. How do plants know animals exist?
The idea you're pushing an answer for is basically that the venus fly trap "decided" that it needed a new way to acquire food. So, my initial post addresses that sort of thought.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 01:23 PM
The idea you're pushing an answer for is basically that the venus fly trap "decided" that it needed a new way to acquire food. So, my initial post addresses that sort of thought.
Your stance must hold up in all cases. Simply saying that accidental changes and adaptations, push survival of a species is bullshit.
Your stance must hold up in all cases. Simply saying that accidental changes and adaptations, push survival of a species is bullshit.
My stance doesn't hold up in the case of what?
I appreciate you judgment of my stance, but me and biology respectfully disagree.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 01:29 PM
My stance doesn't hold up in the case of what?
I appreciate you judgment of my stance, but me and biology respectfully disagree.
Explain the evolution of the plants that consume animals.
Explain the evolution of the plants that consume animals.
I'm not a botanist. I know very little about them. For me to the be all end all explainor of carnivorous plant evolution would severely trample on the people that actually know something about it.
I'll try to find something to explain it, however.
Here's a start:
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq4780.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant
http://www.splammo.net/ppproj/litrev1.html
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq.html
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/
If I find more before my 5 minute editing window is up, I'll just add them to this post, otherwise, I will make a new post with them...
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 01:41 PM
Here's a start:
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq4780.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_plant
http://www.splammo.net/ppproj/litrev1.html
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq.html
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/
If I find more before my 5 minute editing window is up, I'll just add them to this post, otherwise, I will make a new post with them...
Q: How did carnivorous plants evolve?
A: The evolution of carnivorous plants is not well known. This is not because there is anything really mysterious going on, it is just that carnivorous plants do not have very rigid parts which are likely to get fossilized, nor do they make huge numbers of leaves each season to increase the chance of one being fossilized. I have no doubt there are great fossils of carnivorous plants someplace, but we just have not yet found them.
Pretty comical for the "science" that so many "believe" in.
Q: How did carnivorous plants evolve?
A: The evolution of carnivorous plants is not well known. This is not because there is anything really mysterious going on, it is just that carnivorous plants do not have very rigid parts which are likely to get fossilized, nor do they make huge numbers of leaves each season to increase the chance of one being fossilized. I have no doubt there are great fossils of carnivorous plants someplace, but we just have not yet found them.
Pretty comical for the "science" that so many "believe" in.
What's comical about it?
That is the hard part my friend. I do not think that humans evolved from monkeys, but I really can't say.
The major problem I have is the whole big bang theory. Science tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well where did it come from then? It is the same question as where did God come from.
Matter was not created there, nor destroyed. The big bang was not the beginning of everything, just of the world as we know it.
I'm not a botanist. I know very little about them. For me to the be all end all explainor of carnivorous plant evolution would severely trample on the people that actually know something about it.
I'll try to find something to explain it, however.
Memo to all evolutionists- Saying that I, or anyone else cannot explain everything billions of years ago, does not prove your theory. Not even fucking close. I shudder to even call it a theory, as there is no science or reason behind the creation story.
Matter was not created there, nor destroyed. The big bang was not the beginning of everything, just of the universe as we know it.
I fixed it for you.
I fixed it for you.
Thank you. Just semantics, but hey.
Thank you. Just semantics, but hey.
The difference between the world and the universe is much more than semantics.
My first microbiology professor taught us that using the correct terms for things was "not being picky...it's being correct"
That anality has stuck with me since.
The difference between the world and the universe is much more than semantics.
My first microbiology professor taught us that using the correct terms for things was "not being picky...it's being correct"
That anality has stuck with me since.
Fair enough. I agree.
Now for this question Bill Nye:
Was I correct in saying that matter was neither created nor destroyed? Will kinja come back to own up? How is the weather in La right now?
Fair enough. I agree.
Now for this question Bill Nye:
Was I correct in saying that matter was neither created nor destroyed? Will kinja come back to own up? How is the weather in La right now?
My knowledge of Physics isn't advanced...my chemistry is pretty old...but I do believe that is the First Law of Thermodynamics...that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Weather is nice, relatively speaking. Sunny, a little breeze.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 04:43 PM
Now for this question Bill Nye:
Was I correct in saying that matter was neither created nor destroyed?
Possibly. It's science so it stands to be corrected. "Black holes" if real or not, envelop matter and theoretically give off radiation. Matter requires mass, radiation doesn't. Until you can say for sure, what happens to the mass entering the "black hole" you don't know if mass has been destroyed.
Will kinja come back to own up?
Own up to what?
Possibly. It's science so it stands to be corrected. "Black holes" if real or not, envelop matter and theoretically give off radiation. Matter requires mass, radiation doesn't. Until you can say for sure, what happens to the mass entering the "black hole" you don't know if mass has been destroyed.
Own up to what?
Black holes are areas in space so dense, light doesn't escape. That doesn't mean there isn't matter there.
But you're right...the knowledge base around a black hole is so little, relatively speaking, it's hard to say for sure what is or isn't going on there.
Vegas is much better with this physics/astronomy stuff, though, so he'd be the one to ask.
Tom Joad
07-18-2007, 05:07 PM
Pretty comical for the "science" that so many "believe" in.
It's pretty comical that so many people show blinding faith in a book written by humans about a time before any of the writers existed.
swordfish
07-18-2007, 06:27 PM
Possibly. It's science so it stands to be corrected. "Black holes" if real or not, envelop matter and theoretically give off radiation. Matter requires mass, radiation doesn't. Until you can say for sure, what happens to the mass entering the "black hole" you don't know if mass has been destroyed.
Own up to what?
Hold your horses. Light is composed of photons. Light is radiation. An electron can give off 5-7 photons from its outer valence shell. An electron has mass. A nuclear blast works in somewhat the same way. The outer electrons become so charged that they release energy in the form of waves.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 06:45 PM
Hold your horses. Light is composed of photons. Light is radiation. An electron can give off 5-7 photons from its outer valence shell. An electron has mass. A nuclear blast works in somewhat the same way. The outer electrons become so charged that they release energy in the form of waves.
Hold up for what? Photons have no mass.
swordfish
07-18-2007, 06:50 PM
Electrons turn into photons. Just because we are ignorant of waves and cannot find the matter does not mean its not there. It has to be there. If matter cannot be created or destroyed then how is the mass of electrons being destroyed?
What about solar panels as well. They take photons and turn them into electrons. So that is like something from nothing from your estimation.
KinjaKahn
07-18-2007, 06:55 PM
Electrons turn into photons. Just because we are ignorant of waves and cannot find the matter does not mean its not there. It has to be there. If matter cannot be created or destroyed then how is the mass of electrons being destroyed?
What about solar panels as well. They take photons and turn them into electrons. So that is like something from nothing from your estimation.
Electrons turn into photons?
Vegas
07-18-2007, 07:06 PM
Electrons turn into photons. Just because we are ignorant of waves and cannot find the matter does not mean its not there. It has to be there. If matter cannot be created or destroyed then how is the mass of electrons being destroyed?
What about solar panels as well. They take photons and turn them into electrons. So that is like something from nothing from your estimation.
Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. When you burn a block of wood, you end up with an ash pile that's less matter than you started with. A good part of what's gone has turned into heat energy.
And he's right that photons have no mass. That's true even though they are particles. It's one of the most common "apparent contradictions" in science.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00332.htm
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 02:12 AM
Q: How did carnivorous plants evolve?
A: The evolution of carnivorous plants is not well known. This is not because there is anything really mysterious going on, it is just that carnivorous plants do not have very rigid parts which are likely to get fossilized, nor do they make huge numbers of leaves each season to increase the chance of one being fossilized. I have no doubt there are great fossils of carnivorous plants someplace, but we just have not yet found them.
Pretty comical for the "science" that so many "believe" in.
First. The term "not well understood" has a spectrum of meanings. It never means, 'we don't know, God must have made it'. It also doesn't mean that the discoveries won't be made in the future and that scientists will give up being critical thinkers, as every single creationist on the planet has in regards to Creationism, and attribute the exisitence of EVERYTHING to God.
I find it strange that creationist, in the last desperate throws of their belief system, point to tiny, specific areas where science hasn't answered many questions and use that as justification for their faith. The questions haven't been answered because not enough people are working toward answering them, not because God did it...
Science isn't a belief system, you'll keep throwing that in to arguements but it won't start being true. Science is way to ask and answer questions, nothing more, nothing less.
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 02:17 AM
Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. When you burn a block of wood, you end up with an ash pile that's less matter than you started with. A good part of what's gone has turned into heat energy.
And he's right that photons have no mass. That's true even though they are particles. It's one of the most common "apparent contradictions" in science.
Actually, very little of the mass is converted into energy. Most of the mass of the wood is turned into gasous matter (CO2, H2O for the most part). To give an idea of how much energy there is in mass, a match stick, converted into kinetic energey could generate enough force to lift Mt. Fuji a few feet off the ground. If that log turned into pure energy, Las Vegas would be no more.
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 02:22 AM
Hold your horses. Light is composed of photons. Light is radiation. An electron can give off 5-7 photons from its outer valence shell. An electron has mass. A nuclear blast works in somewhat the same way. The outer electrons become so charged that they release energy in the form of waves.
Most of the energy from a nuclear blast, or any nuclear reaction, comes from the nucleus. IIRC, the most common nuclear reaction goes, Plutonion -> Uranium + Helium + a shit load of energy. There is probably some from e- changings valencies but not anywhere near as much.
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:12 PM
Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa. When you burn a block of wood, you end up with an ash pile that's less matter than you started with. A good part of what's gone has turned into heat energy.
And he's right that photons have no mass. That's true even though they are particles. It's one of the most common "apparent contradictions" in science.
This is just simply not true. A reaction does not destroy atoms. Your hypothesis is stating that atoms are being destroyed and turned into heat which is clearly false. If you take 2H2 + O2 = heat + 2H20 you do not lose protons to the heat. The energy is stored in bonds. Bond energy can be converted into many forms of other energy. Most of the weight your talking about is vented in gases like CO2.
Einstein stated that Energy = mass*(speed of light squared)
By your reasoning the energy produced from burning a gram of carbon would be the square of the speed of light in joules. This is a tremendous amount of energy.
Just because we cannot detect the mass of a photon does not mean its not there. Scientists also did not think electrons had mass until the early 1900s. Electrons act much like photons if you think about it. The electron has a field of density, not a real time position around the nucleus. A photon works in much the same way, it is somewhere on that sign function wave. I personally do not subscribe to the we can't test for it so it must not exist argument. It is the one the atheists use.
And yes electrons produce photons. Lets take a flourescent light bulb. Energy from the power company(which is electrons) is hooked to a tube of gas that has electrodes on opposite sides to create a voltage potential. When you add electrons to one side they try to reach the ground on the other. To do this they must first integrate into one of the gas molecules then pass from molecule to molecule until they reach ground. However because the atom is in an excited state with an electron forced into its last shell it will decay that electron into photons. The color of the light is determined by the frequency of the photon, which is determined by the gas. Neon lights work this way also. I will look up some reputable sources since you guys don't believe me.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:18 PM
This is just simply not true. A reaction does not destroy atoms. Your hypothesis is stating that atoms are being destroyed and turned into heat which is clearly false. If you take 2H2 + O2 = heat + 2H20 you do not lose protons to the heat. The energy is stored in bonds. Bond energy can be converted into many forms of other energy. Most of the weight your talking about is vented in gases like CO2.
Einstein stated that Energy = mass*(speed of light squared)
By your reasoning the energy produced from burning a gram of carbon would be the square of the speed of light in joules. This is a tremendous amount of energy.
Just because we cannot detect the mass of a photon does not mean its not there. Scientists also did not think electrons had mass until the early 1900s. Electrons act much like photons if you think about it. The electron has a field of density, not a real time position around the nucleus. A photon works in much the same way, it is somewhere on that sign function wave. I personally do not subscribe to the we can't test for it so it must not exist argument. It is the one the atheists use.
And yes electrons produce photons. Lets take a flourescent light bulb. Energy from the power company(which is electrons) is hooked to a tube of gas that has electrodes on opposite sides to create a voltage potential. When you add electrons to one side they try to reach the ground on the other. To do this they must first integrate into one of the gas molecules then pass from molecule to molecule until they reach ground. However because the atom is in an excited state with an electron forced into its last shell it will decay that electron into photons. The color of the light is determined by the frequency of the photon, which is determined by the gas. Neon lights work this way also. I will look up some reputable sources since you guys don't believe me.
Can you find one source that claims a photon has mass? I don't believe you can. It's a well accepted fact of modern physics.
My burning wood analogy is definitely a simplification, but the fact is that matter (in some amount) is converted to energy.
Can you find one source that claims a photon has mass? I don't believe you can. It's a well accepted fact of modern physics.
My burning wood analogy is definitely a simplification, but the fact is that matter (in some amount) is converted to energy.
A well accepted fact that's constrained by the current knowledge base of man.
Just saying that assuming current base of knowledge is the be all end all of information is jumping the gun a bit.
I may not be able to find an example right now that says you're wrong. I'm not even going to try to look or try. But I'm not going to assume that this is how it is and how it will forever be, either.
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:22 PM
Can you find one source that claims a photon has mass? I don't believe you can. It's a well accepted fact of modern physics.
My burning wood analogy is definitely a simplification, but the fact is that matter (in some amount) is converted to energy.
There are no sources to prove that photons have mass. I cannot argue this, however I do not believe everything I am told. Can anyone explain how a photon which is a proven particle has no mass. Its simply the answer because they don't know.
For matter to be converted to energy you need to lose atoms. Your saying that atoms are destroyed in reactions and its simply not true. Give me an example where energy turns into mass. I thought about this all day long. Energy does not turn into mass. Energy is the ability to do work, not create weight.
There are no sources to prove that photons have mass. I cannot argue this, however I do not believe everything I am told. Can anyone explain how a photon which is a proven particle has no mass. Its simply the answer because they don't know.
For matter to be converted to energy you need to lose atoms. Your saying that atoms are destroyed in reactions and its simply not true. Give me an example where energy turns into mass. I thought about this all day long. Energy does not turn into mass. Energy is the ability to do work, not create weight.
isn't that the E=mc^2?
as your mass approaches the speed of light, it becomes energy, and you break apart?
Of course, the question is, what do you break apart into? Photons? C, O, N, S, and H with the energy being only that which was contained within the bonds?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:27 PM
There are no sources to prove that photons have mass. I cannot argue this, however I do not believe everything I am told. Can anyone explain how a photon which is a proven particle has no mass. Its simply the answer because they don't know.
For matter to be converted to energy you need to lose atoms. Your saying that atoms are destroyed in reactions and its simply not true. Give me an example where energy turns into mass. I thought about this all day long. Energy does not turn into mass. Energy is the ability to do work, not create weight.
Energy is converted into mass in a nuclear accelerator.
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:31 PM
A particle accelerator speeds up charged particles to split atoms. They try to divide atoms, not create them.
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:34 PM
isn't that the E=mc^2?
as your mass approaches the speed of light, it becomes energy, and you break apart?
Of course, the question is, what do you break apart into? Photons? C, O, N, S, and H with the energy being only that which was contained within the bonds?
I don't know about what happens when your mass reaches the speed of light. I do know what an equals sign means. It means if you destroy mass you get the speed of light squared in energy gain. Thats like punching a hole through the earth with a pea. If we knew how to do it or how it works there would be no "energy crisis".
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:37 PM
A particle accelerator speeds up charged particles to split atoms. They try to divide atoms, not create them.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-10-30-mass-energy-eyes_x.htm
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:38 PM
On another note, in chemistry class you always have to balance the equations. When you take a mole of a substance, even when heat is generated, you still end up with a mole. The energy is stored in chemical bonds. Its not the destruction of mass that creates it.
On another note, in chemistry class you always have to balance the equations. When you take a mole of a substance, even when heat is generated, you still end up with a mole. The energy is stored in chemical bonds. Its not the destruction of mass that creates it.
The energy we run on is from a high energy phoshodiester bond...not the C, H, O, P, N, or H in ATP. Is there N in ATP? I should know that. Oh well.
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:43 PM
So they take a charged particle like a photon. Which i believe has some form of undetected mass. Then collide it with another particle and make matter/anti matter particles which have detectable mass.
swordfish
07-19-2007, 04:45 PM
The energy we run on is from a high energy phoshodiester bond...not the C, H, O, P, N, or H in ATP. Is there N in ATP? I should know that. Oh well.
You reminiscing, or got a point. What does N have to do with anything.
ryr8828
07-19-2007, 04:47 PM
So they take a charged particle like a photon. Which i believe has some form of undetected mass. Then collide it with another particle and make matter/anti matter particles which have detectable mass.
vball = ((velc*(1.67))/(1.0+(ball/mass)))
vball = the velocity of the ball
velc = club head speed.
ball = mass of ball
mass = mass of club head
Loft of the club is used by the formula:
vballi = ((cos (loft))^2*(sin(90-loft))*vball
Distance for shots can be found by using this formula.
distc = 0.0109*ball^2
You reminiscing, or got a point. What does N have to do with anything.
I was supporting your statement that E comes from bonds, not the matter. So, the breakdown of ATP results in a breakage of the PO bond, not from destruction of the individual elements making up ATP (C, H, O, and P...I said "N" as well, but then couldn't remember if N is in ATP or not).
KinjaKahn
07-19-2007, 06:48 PM
So they take a charged particle like a photon.
Photons do not carry a charge. I think you are confusing the idea that a photon can exert force, for it carrying a charge.
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 10:03 PM
isn't that the E=mc^2?
as your mass approaches the speed of light, it becomes energy, and you break apart?
Of course, the question is, what do you break apart into? Photons? C, O, N, S, and H with the energy being only that which was contained within the bonds?
As an object excelerates it gains mass (acceleration=energy=mass) as it excelerates toward the speed of light it's mass increases toward infinity. This is why a massive object can never reach the speed of light, as it approaches the speed of light it requires more energy to accelerate it, but it keeps getting more massive, requiring more energy, etc...
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 10:50 PM
First of all, energy and mass are inversely proportional by the famous E=mc^2. C = speed of light, which is always constant in a vacuum. As matter gains energy, it's mass must decrease.
As far as balancing equations, yes, matter may not be created nor destroyed, but the way it works out is through the molecular weights of the requisite products of the reaction. Thus, let's say you take sodium hydroxide and hydrogen chloride...those will react to produce one molecule of sodium chloride and a molecule of water. But the net reaction will produce a higher weight of sodium chloride than the sodium hydroxide you started with, because the chloride is a heavier counterion.
The whole bond-breaking and forming thing is a different ballgame. Each bond has an energy of its own, and the molecules also assume a certain energy value. If a molecule is changed into another molecule that's higher energy (less stable), energy is consumed by the reaction (i.e. you have to add heat) to get it to go. And you get evolution of energy when the opposite is true.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 10:53 PM
As an object excelerates it gains mass (acceleration=energy=mass) as it excelerates toward the speed of light it's mass increases toward infinity. This is why a massive object can never reach the speed of light, as it approaches the speed of light it requires more energy to accelerate it, but it keeps getting more massive, requiring more energy, etc...
As an object accelerates and gains velocity, it gains momentum, not mass. p=mv.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 11:01 PM
Man, I love science.
Yeah, except I try not to talk about it on my time. LOL.
Yeah, except I try not to talk about it on my time. LOL.
Outside of work and here, I don't talk about it much, either. But when I'm at work (as I am now), it's all around me, so I think about it more.
But in general, I like to make the noggin work...keeps me entertained.
In fact, right now I'm reading an article on how to make a homemade quantum eraser.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 11:15 PM
Outside of work and here, I don't talk about it much, either. But when I'm at work (as I am now), it's all around me, so I think about it more.
But in general, I like to make the noggin work...keeps me entertained.
In fact, right now I'm reading an article on how to make a homemade quantum eraser.
See, I am often the opposite when I'm away.
I play a lot of guitar, and my thought process tends to be very analytical and keeps my mind going.
I also like crossword puzzles and other types of puzzles like that. I really don't like thinking much about chemistry if possible at home.
See, I am often the opposite when I'm away.
I play a lot of guitar, and my thought process tends to be very analytical and keeps my mind going.
I also like crossword puzzles and other types of puzzles like that. I really don't like thinking much about chemistry if possible at home.
Well, I don't do a lot of biology at home, either. I didn't mean it field specifically, just science in general. Some bio, some physics, some outer space stuff...nothing like sitting and pondering Avogadro's number or anything like that, but more philosophical stuff. Even when I'm playing video games, I tend to find my mind wandering.
But between work, some Nintendo here and there, and taking care of the kid, I don't find a lot of time for a bunch of other things...just me and my head. Hopefully I can get this crap done in the next semester or two and have a real job. Then again, maybe I'll just do another degree, on Ryr's dime.
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 11:31 PM
As an object accelerates and gains velocity, it gains momentum, not mass. p=mv.
It gains both.
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 11:40 PM
Here's a quote: Deciding that masses of objects must depend on speed like this seems a heavy price to pay to rescue conservation of momentum! However, it is a prediction that is not difficult to check by experiment. The first confirmation came in 1908, measuring the mass of fast electrons in a vacuum tube. In fact, the electrons in a color TV tube are about half a percent heavier than electrons at rest, and this must be allowed for in calculating the magnetic fields used to guide them to the screen.
Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is found in practice that these particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the "rest mass".
From this source: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html
I would give you more but, trust me, this is a very well understood idea that is backed up with thousands of experiements.
swordfish
07-20-2007, 04:01 PM
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/BondEnergy.html
This explains bond energies.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.