Leaderboard

So looking at the image below, it appears that Galagidae have recognizable soles, but Cynocephalidae do not : and when we look at a primate phylogeny, we see the split between these two groups is around 65 million years ago: So soles originated about 65 million years ago, give or take. You meant soles as in soles of the feet, right?

Apologies, I misinterpreted and thought you meant a few weeks in the literal sense, and yes, I knew that - I was making an analogy to a well established scientific theory and an inappropriate alternative hypothesis rather than trying to directly comment on your own example. The point was that evolutionary theory does have plenty of alternative mechanisms and hypotheses - it's just that ID insists that none of them are adequate and there HAS to be a supernatural explanation. It's not really the case that it is one explanation or the other.

I'd say early to mid-twentieth century. But it wasn't God, at least not directly. It was Ray Charles.

Not at all. Inflationary theory is part of the BB scenario and was added to explain a couple of anomalies, namely the Flatness and Horizon problem. The main proposal of the BB, is that the universe/spacetime evolved from a hot dense state. We have ample evidence that this is so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).

1) CRISPR Cas9 isn't well regulated enough to ensure that off-target DNA damage doesn't occur throughout the babies' genomes. We use CRISPR kits on bacteria and have trouble with off target cut sites... when I first heard this story I thought it was a hoax because I believed the likelihood of a CRISPR engineered human embryo being viable was too low. These babies probably have a bunch of uncontrolled, unexpected mutations with as to be realized consequences. 2) There are preventative AIDS vaccines in advanced stages of clinical trial. There was very little reason to gene edit humans to prevent HIV infection given there is a vastly safer route to immunity pretty close to realization. 3) The actual motivation for modifying these babies may have been to enhance their cognitive function: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612997/the-crispr-twins-had-their-brains-altered/ This moves from the realm of using gene editing to prevent/cure disease, to the realm of gene editing for enhancement. In this case, it was pretty damn irresponsible, the motives are questionable, and widely condemned. As for the general question I think the answer is dependent on whether you are trying to prevent/cure disease, or if you are producing designer babies.

Have yeasts that are used for making bread, been used for making cheese, beers/ethanol and other products, and viceversa; or do not always work well outside the 'customary/intended' application? Are several different yeasts ever used simoultaneously combined at a variety of proportions to produce something ?

Hi All, Apologies if this breaks forum protocol, as I'm about to post a link to a blog post (Mods feel free to remove if inappropriate). The blog is Richard Lenski's blog, where he responds to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves" and it's treatment of Lenski's own long term evolution experiment (LTEE). He really does a great job of explaining the limitations and context of the LTEE, and why the arguments Behe makes are simply not supported by the experiment. Basically, the LTEE houses bacteria in a nutrient rich environment with selective conditions deliberately minimized. It's not reasonable to assume that the bacteria would evolve novel functions given the environment they are in, and it is unsurprising that functions that do not benefit the bacteria in this environment are lost. Not only that, but novel, advantageous mutations HAVE arisen in the LTEE. Worth a read. https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/is-the-ltee-breaking-bad/

I should add not asking too many questions, religious topics tend to get bad rep (since they tend to be opinionated) and I'm sure some of the questions you just posted can easily be googled.

Still waiting.

Write polite senseful and useful replies..

I think you should temper what you say (not everything) and you should realize things which sound 'logic' to you are not necessary logic for other people. So unless you have valid reference to back up your opinions, it's sometimes better not to join the 'thread'. My reputation is positive but my reputation on this forum is messed up.

Only part of it.

You can't disprove a supernatural being. Maybe they simply controlled everything to such a degree that everything only appears to have evolved. Does strain belief though. Lot of apparently deaths and dead ends when an all powerful being could have jumped straight to the end result. Code really suggests a lack of intelligence involved. Spaghetti or disorganized code.

Evolution doesn't disprove the "god hypothesis" or "intelligent design" (although the designer is pretty stupid, if you look at the evidence) but it renders them unnecessary. And then one can apply Occam's Razor and say that entities which are unnecessary (have no detectable effect) should be discarded.

There can be a big gap between knowing something brutal is being done and witnessing it first hand. And a bigger gap between knowing others are doing it and being a participant. Easier to tolerate or get satisfaction from brutality from a safe distance. I think it might have been thescienceforum.com where I started a thread on squeamishness and what benefits it's evolution might bring - me being subject to it. Lost with most of the last few years posts at that site. Our ability to feel empathy can short-circuit hatred and pleasure in the pain of others but when we hate, there is not much room left for empathy. Or logic or reason.

Yeah, it's a whack-a-mole process trying to keep up with it. Despite all of the allegations against him, it's shirked regularly by a new issue d'jour it seems. You'd think with all that's known about him, he'd back away or show some introspect, but no. It's bad enough his former attorney implicated him in fourteen crimes, yet the news cycles are newly preoccupied by the free pass he gave Kim Jong Un on nuclear armaments and human rights violations. Then of course, there's nepotism too. Having influence peddled Jared's security clearance subsequent to having previous denials for doing so. Legal, constitution or administrative, there's just no bottom to Trump's pit of transgressions. The saddest part being, his base is totally fine with that. All the while wrongfully accusing long since ousted liberals of phony crimes, bogus constitutional illegality and imperialism. Trump and his base have effectively nullified their often recited standards of family values, personal responsibility, dignity of office and rule of law. What's worse. Trump is a rino, but at the opposite extreme. A privileged white New York liberal turncoat con man. To that end, I say good riddance. He's ended up where he belongs, on the wrong side of history with a party that deserved him.

! Moderator Note zyntiger, your concept is full of misconceptions, mistakes, and misunderstandings that you refuse to look into. Others are pointing them out, but you're simply continuing as if nothing were wrong. We call that soapboxing here, and it's against the rules. If you can fix the most obvious errors (look back through the thread, they're all pointed out) and rethink your concepts, you can open a different thread on it, otherwise don't bother bringing up ideas you can't support, especially if you make assertive claims about them. Given your obvious lack of formal science education, perhaps you should ask questions about what you don't know, rather than making things up. Thread closed.

It was not random and life doesn't evolve by chance. Things evolve via cause and effect. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. This 'large scale evolution' formed our Solar system and Earth had the correct 'composition' for life to develop/evolve.

Pointing out that crackpottery is not an appropriate response in a mainstream thread is not ridiculous Neither am I; once they find out that they do not have free reign to post nonsense, purveyors of woo sometimes choose not to return.

Granted. And I think that would be a misuse of the word knowledge (and an example of unjustified anthropomorphism). So this is another "people don't use words the way I do, and they must stop it" thread.

I find a lot of people here tend to be older so see simple questions as trolling, before asking a question see if you can google it first. Also try not having a strong opinion on things and keep your answers relevant to the topic question and not just reply to somebody else's comment.

I never said that's what I wanted. Dimreeper is in the habit of saying some random statement that ultimately means nothing. I was replying in turn. If you're gonna call me out for it being irrelevant, then call him out on it too.

Nonsense. I would say that if machine is capable of learning, it should be capable of knowing. Besides that, the enzymes that are capable of synthesizing certain kind of protein, are able to do so due to the information they are provided with, by DNA. If I had to choose consequently the word to describe that their ability to do their work, that would not be energy, that would be knowledge. And the enzymes are not living entities, they are just molecules, molecular machines capable of utilizing information. No, it is only bad when it is mentioned, and there is no sign of it. Such as in mississippichem case.

Real science has a very specific metaphysics. Scientific knowledge must derive from observation and experiment. While there may be some latitude on how you define "experiment" it certainly does not encompass the assumptions necessary to linguistics. Indeed, most of the soft sciences where statistics are not firmly rooted in definitions and void of assumptions are likely not to even return results reflective of reality. Much of what is considered "science" is not and probably not real. "Linguistics" has attributes of real science but there are far too many assumptions to make some of the results of any value at all.