sammy7

hay dude even though i dont really know anything about thermodynamics/energy etc just thought id say congrats on achieveing something good work lol

i watched a documentary the other day(cant remember what it was) where they were talking about guys that have come up with this kind of stuff (like maybe not "free" energy but like nearing equilibrium if thats the right way to put it?) umm yeah and they were saying the standard thing is--attempt to buy patent off the guy for millions, if they refuse and maybe also if they refuse to stop trying to get it out commercially -well some dudes have been dying under suspicious circumstances lol....

okay so i loosely understand this is the energy currency of the cells/body whatever but my friend said its the "high energy phosphate bonds" where the energy comes from, so its actually not the molecule itself but the energy in the bonds between the phosphate groups? arnt these just single covalent? so where does all this "energy" come from? thanks

hay asinine cretin

ok so i will just start by saying mutations (whatever types)=noise ie i smash my keyboard and bunch of random stuff comes up, as opposed to a well written out sentence like this which="information" (it is conveying a message) this is very preliminary i will read more. so mutations just seem to add "noise" if you will NOT new information (like for a functional protein that the wild type doesnt have, if this had actually been observed this would give minor creedence to you know what lol.

ok so basically whenever i read evolutionary biology sites the word "evolution" is used as a general term to encompass one or ALL of the following (it depends on the site,) variation within a kind (like dog has white haired kids black haired kids ), speciation-ok i dont fully get this one yet but so i wont comment (note that there is never an increase in information here i will read more), umm and yeh pretty much anything meaning a change in dna/or genes or whatever (so if i have a kid=evolution lol) and also though...(this is where the tricky bit comes in imo)-to mean origin of life from bacteria or something (note this would take an incerase in "information" NEW properly sequenced dna for NEW proteins which serve a NEW purpose-again this has never been observed (which is why im looking for literature on it)......so knowing the huge range of the definition of the word makes it easier to read the stuff and take note of when they are just referring to standard stuff which we see all the time (variation) and take note of when the meaning switches to that of the never observed one (like when big changes are implied, like bacteria to a fish or something...) so yeah....so i guess all the things that have been observed one might call micro-evolution (variation speciation etc) and its hard to actually name something that has never been observed that said macro-evolution would be when they are referring to/implying origins of life/fish to fish with legs or something lol) but again we would have to actually observe this to rightly call it macro-evolution, as the term is for a process that doesnt exist (or hasnt been observed)...

also the ecoli experiment (lenksis its on the actual website only 6 pages) starts with "Parallel and convergent changes across lineages are hallmarks of adaptive evolution" so i think this is horizontal gene transfer (unicellular things can swap bits of dna it seems, dont fully understand it yet, just pass em right through there cell membrane ) again notice the word evolution is used in this context and it would just be referring to micro-evolution if one wished to call it that, but as this is in actual peer reviewed literature itself (not just an overview) it may be deceptive.....also horizonal gene transfer seems to be a way somethings can pass around or "swap" dna that grants them "antibiotic resistance" (in commas coz i dont know the exact mechanism of action behind it yet)...so yeh hope that helps i will read more...

No, you still don't get it. The sunlight you see everyday takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth. You literally see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. When you look at light that took 13.7 billion years to reach us you are literally looking at an event that took place 13.7 billion years ago and you are directly observing it.

ahh yeh someguy posted this on my thing yesterday and left a link i will have to read it..... um yeah so...i will have to look at this paper this dude referenced me and get back to you one that one.. (from a creationists pov)... the thing the guy was saying is tricky im still reading about it...

ok ok yah i guess i get what your saying there is *some* time descrepancy or whatever i guess this is where metaphysics comes in( i dont even know what that means really but is that right?...... but thats what i mean....everyhuman being is using faith all the time....i have faith that when i take a step down my stairs there not going to collapse underneath me....so.... but yeah with the time discrepancy thing, i guess that is where semantics/metaphysics/ (maybe even philosophy of science)? comes in....so your saying the radiation or whatever is uniform through out the universe??? well ok if someone believes the big bang they believe by faith that singularity or whatever created it...if someone believes "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" then they take that by faith i guess to explain all the physical phenomena we observe today.......

I'm not even asking you to trust Evolution, I'm just asking why creationism seems right to you.

yah so it appears "light"on the first day (im not god i cant explain this?) and on the 4th day stars sun moon etc...

umm why it seems right....mmm.. um.. well....hmm i could make some personal suggestions if you wanted to explore the possiblity of it yourself....but umm well i read only maybe like 2 months ago of people who thought the earth was only around 6000yo and i was like "i want to know WHY they believe that?" like not harsh but like curiosity..... i thought it was strange because it isnt what we hear all the time and they seemed cool about it..... and then i started reading etc etc watching vids with richard dawkins etc etc actually it was my reading of origin of species god delusion etc etc that kinda made me read more about this 6000yo thing coz i personally felt as if there books didnt have any MY OPINION science in them THAT WAS MY OPINION so yeah....umm and just started reading more and more and more and then one day a few things hit me...and i was like....wow......this is the most amazing thing ive ever known (imo)....so yeah...umm so actually dawkins and darwin helped me start reading about the 6000yo thing etc.....umm i could provide one more short vid that opened my eyes if you want....(those 2 original vids i posted in this thread did too).......

Do you realise that you are not making sense.

I pointed out that I have directly observed the radiation from the big bang.

Your reply is " it was never observed ".

Plain wrong. It has been observed many times in a whole variety of ways.

Just plain denying the truth doesn't help you here.

oh sorry i thought you were joking i dont understand what you mean precisely? if you mean you have observed some radiation or whatever today ok i might agree... if you want to make up a story about how that came from something in the past ("big bang" "stellarnucleosynthesis" "creation week") that was never observed, it is taken by faith that it happened if you believe it.......???if thats what you mean???

lmao umm just bored and getting people to realise which ever belief you have on origins it was never observed so its a faith based belief....(people have faith all the time anyway like umm say when someones driving their car and they hit the brakes...you have faith obv that it will work..or numerous other examples....and science is used by everyone on the planet...a baby learning to crawl..umm is this right... hypothesis- "i will try to crawl" observation and theory together i guess/ he crawls observes whats going , falls over/readjust theory....repeat process etc etc?

i dont know what to say then......unless someone else has actually read it then we cant have a discussion on it.i will try to find some literature from what craig venter did and post it that should be interesting.. (also i will review your speciation one or whatever you posted the other day in the next few days....

hay um yes i have read some ummm like literatry analysis of genesis...saying how its not poetic prose or something (like i think its considered narrative prose )but its a specific type of format...umm... if you want the site i will link it for you if you want (i havnt studied writing really but i might now that you mention it) umm yeah and also yom it goes on about how in this type of narrative prose or whatever that read plainly its just a standard day kinda thing...i was kinda the same till a few weeks ago.ie all we hear on the media all the time is "millions and millions" of years etc..so MY OPINION because we get fed that all the time thats why some people read it that way...but imo if someone hadnt been exposed to the media per se like living in a isolated tribe and they read it...well.. it would just be a very standard plain reading kind of....like they wouldnt have the thought of "millions and millions" of years in mind so...i hope that helps? if you want the site i will link it...

That is INCREDIBLY obvious!

lmao i mean even as a laymen WITH NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER lmao i understand what science is (yes yes flame on please lol) no please dont flame me i would like intelligent posts to respond to or some challenging literature to read or something...thank you and needless to say gravity, electromagnetism etc etc=observable

lol dude no offence, i will start by saying when i say literature i mean peer reviewed scientific literature ( I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING IN ANYTHING ) i dont mean some mainstream media story. that said i loosely understand what venter did and yes while it is remarkable it has nothing to do with the question i asked. i would be interested to read the actual literature of what he did though... (i think i know what he did but i wont comment until i read the literature)........

That's the problem, we have given you vast amounts of information on how these things work and you've ignored it. It seems like you either are purposefully being dishonest about wanting to look at the evidence or you don't understand what you are reading due and are embarrassed to admit it. I hope it's the second one, because if it's the first you are wasting all of our time. If you fall into the first category I would prefer you admit it so I can move on. If you fall into the second category please say what you don't understand, if you are truly willing to learn we are more than happy to help.

dude i asked him to explain what the bigger picture of it is kinda? i thought he would have a better understanding of it than me? but he didnt want to so i went first... if you have read the literature (have you)? please what is the bigger picture/outline of it then iyo?

especially, not restricted to....i will research this more though thank you... i will say though has a single element or a bunch of elements ever been observed to transform itself into "life"? if the answer is "yes" well lol...please cite some literature...if it is "no".......you have a faith based belief.....thank you for your input

please see my new thread in religion entitled "every human being on the planet is religous"

The order of creation only differs by one point, so "no apparent order" is inaccurate (especially for someone claiming an inerrant Bible). And the question of whether man and woman were created together or it was man first, woman second should at least show you that the two Genesis versions are subject to interpretation, which means you can't say one is literal and the other isn't.

well if you want to believe it/interpret it in your own way ok....to each his own? if your asking if i take it literally the answer is "yes" i will review it again and see how i go...

As for a literal six day creation, Genesis 2:17 says:

Obviously, Adam and Eve did NOT die the day they ate the fruit of the tree. This must mean that "day" (yom in the original Hebrew) has multiple interpretations, such as during daylight, 24-hours, or an indeterminate time like "back in the day". Could it not be that six days could be billions of years to your god? Wouldn't it have been easier to write a six day creation as an explanation to the iron age Hebrews of the time, as opposed to what the geological record shows us really happened?

um i dont know lol? if someone wants to put x number of years or whatever in there to each his own? i didnt write it either no offense.....if your asking do i believe the bible over an imagined geologic time column used to date index fossils which are used to date the geologic time column which they then pick which radiometric dating method they use to get the target range they already have in mind the answer is "yes"

haha lol umm well i read the literature and i loosely understand where someone would like to go with it.... but the obv question is....when hox genes get activated/deactivated whatever and a leg or wing (even an additional one) grows somewhere that in the wild? type it wouldnt....well the question is....is it functional? and if the gene for if its a leg or if its a wing was already existing.....well then that gene didnt just magically appear...it was already existing...and this hox mutation or switching on/off that gene just caused an additional formation of something that the blueprints were already available for..then....well i dont know... i need an evolutionists point of view.......because i guess an additional wing or whatever the question is..is it functional? like sure it might have an extra set of wings or whatever but do they work? or is it an actual hindrance to whatever it is? and a thought i just had then is there is a limit to all of this...ie the gene(s) were already existing in the first place right? and these hox switches or whatever are just messing with the output number of the original gene? is this a fair comment? i dont know...comment away please...also i found the ecoli literature(lenskis) or just one piece of it anyway but havnt read it yet so if you want i will post it...

So it's "heads i win, tails you lose?

well i dont know what you mean? just saying....was bored and thought it might spark some action lol

This paper is interesting

 

http://www.genetics..../156/1/297.full

 

It would appear that there is on average 175 mutations per person in each generation. I've read lower and higher estimates, most quote a rate of about 130 per generation if i remember it correctly.

hay thanks good link damn we are all mutant as lmao

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang" or "stellar nucleo synthesis" or "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" or "aliens seeded us here" or "allah made us" , if the answer to this question is "yes" well...i would be interested in your response lol...if it is no.....well you have a religous belief.... thank you for your time etc etc lol just throwing a spanner in the works so to speak lool haha just bored...

dictionary.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Of what creature? Any rate you get would be an estimate...

in human beings, im looking now but i just thought someone might know...

you'll have to post the link but I'll have a look and see what i can get from it.

yah just saying the wiki one says its an estimate , so maybe there for whatever reason isnt much data or census data or whatever pre 1950 but i will keep looking...thanks moontanaman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

hay just wondering where one can find the most accurate genetic mutation rate graph kinda? like extrapolating back in time? also do yous have a graph you feel is the most accurate for whatever reason just for population going back in time? wikipedia has one but pre like 1950 it says is an estimate.....

!

Moderator Note

sammy7, this thread is not about computer games, so your comments are off-topic. We had hoped you would get the hint with the deletions. Please stop trying to derail the thread.

hi they are directly related to the question though?oh sorry i should say in the bible it is cain that is mentioned and the land of nod thats why there is a correlation between the two...

good answer good answer, just some random spewing i guess--- apparantly the body produces like its own body weight in atp each day....amazing imo...also before atp we have NADH or NAD (even coq10 comes after this i think, i think nad is also considered like coenzyme 1 so..) this of course is all going on in the electrontransport chain/oxidative phosphoralation etc etc...so you want to increase atp?? well NADH is something like NIACIN adenine dinucleotide....NIACIN=b3...so thats an important part of the molecule precursor to atp...also one of the first steps in the krebs cycle is acetyl coa-----what is part of this? vitamin b5 pantothenic acid... so a bunch of molecules in krebs cycle and everything after it are composed of/dependent on the b vitamins (water soluble vitamins)....so yeah.........also i think the largest molecule known to man is "titin" something like 34k amino acids or something...and the longest word in the world too depending on how its classified i think (lmao) hahaha yeah....oh yeah and thats a "molecular spring" which does something with muscles.......random musings thanks for your time etc etc lol

No, the Bible says that there were other people living at that time.

hay where does it say this please dude? is far as i am aware it only says later in genesis that adam had "other sons and daughters" and so logically if there was no other people on the earth it had to be his sister lmao (i think genetic mutations if we tracked them back in time exponentially decrease though? because i presume they are exponentially increasing today? thoughts? ( i dont have sources for this just a preliminary thought)...thanks

I remember asking about that as a child and being told she was his sister and god allowed that incest because the family of Adam and Eve were the only people on the earth.

lmao looool