0

yeah the thing between birds, mammals and fish can be seen between human leg , whale leg and bird leg

except of course that a whale is not a fish, it's a mammal :)

0

If God created all animals then there would have been no such similarity. we might as easily have found cortex and neocortex in reptiles but instead we only find them in mamal. of course it possible for two different branches to evolve similar characteristics if subject to identical environmental pressures but such similarities tends to be not only rare but often artificial as well. another example. the wing of a bird has far more in common with the forelimbs of the rest of the phylum chordata than with the wings of an insect. similar goes for the flukes of dolphin and whales.

But what if God was using a library, such as the ones programmers use?

0

If I take the time to answer you points will it make a difference in your beliefs or will you just ignore my post? I take time to make thoughtful responses to such questions but my responses seem to be ignored. If you really want a response to these points, I will provide it.

That depends on whether your answers are based on science, speculation, liberalism, or a hatred of certain religious beliefs.

You will not change my religious beliefs, if that is your intent. Nothing can do that. So I am not interested in any diatribe against any religious belief.

But my other post was not made on the basis of any belief. It was based on an apparent contradiction in fact that is independent of any particular belief. This became apparent to me when I was making a CD backup of the files containing the instructions for using the CD burner I was using to make the CD.

I am interested in any logical error or possibility I overlooked.

I had thought of the possibility of a process that records proteins into DNA, but that just multiplies the paradox, because now I need a source for the recording process.

The real problem is that second cell, when the first cell divides. If the ribosome instructions are not written on the DNA, one of the cells wouldn't have a ribosome, and would die.

0

You don't have to be a DNA expert to understand evolution, just go and have a look at a chalk quarry where you can just see the different stages of life embedded in the chalk walls, the lower you go, the lower the organisms, all the way to flatworms and single celled organisms.

0

>>except of course that a whale is not a fish, it's a mammal

which is exactly my point. the fluke of a whale has much more in common with its mamalian brothers than it has with its fish great uncles.

consider the following points:

whale flukes move up and down in a manner similar to the movement of the spine of other mamals rather than side to side like fish or even reptiles. In addition the skeleton, which extends far into the fluke, is bone. it contains the normal spinal disks of all mamals. fish dont. and last and best: sperm whales have retained the part where hind limbs connects to the hip bone and from there to the skeleton. that is why i said the similarity between a whale fluke and fish tail is artificial.

same goes for wing of birds. i have looked at their skeletons hundreds of times. If you look there you will see the upper arm bone, the radius and the ulna(two lower arm bones), the carpals(wrist bone) and metacarpals(finger bones).

bird wing, insect wing. whale fluke, fish tale. these perform similar functions. but there the similarity stops. they dont function in the same manner. nor are they composed of the same elements. hench my saying that the relationship between them is artificial at best.

@midimagic

of course you have a valid point. highly unlikely and highly improbable but i cannot at this point see how it falls in the realm of impossible. have you read what i said to venomlash about how evolutionary circuits might, some 20 billion time units from now debate amongst themselves?

i often entertain the thought, jokingly of course, that perhaps God is a species in another dimension like we are a species in a dimension removed from the computer world we create when we develop software. only in that universe they build devices to proccess energy while we build devices that process information(i.e. computers). and matter is the input into this universe while energy is the output. and all things which converts matter into energy or energy from one form into another are the processors. of course it is a self programming computer and there we get not only evolution but also highly evolved processors(e.g. humans) that develop devices to convert matter and energy from form to from. evidence? not much at this point. but look at how life evolved from cold animals needing little energy to warm blooded animals needing lots. it would even account for parallel universes. perhaps this God species have networked their devices together but certain things prevent the free movement of in-computer elements to move from one computer to another. all we have to do is find the way to by pass the security of the networks and then we can move from one computer(universe) to another. or something like that. silly thought but if you try to follow it then you can see where it leads!

0

You will not change my religious beliefs, if that is your intent. Nothing can do that. So I am not interested in any diatribe against any religious belief.

But my other post was not made on the basis of any belief. It was based on an apparent contradiction in fact that is independent of any particular belief. This became apparent to me when I was making a CD backup of the files containing the instructions for using the CD burner I was using to make the CD.


The real problem is that second cell, when the first cell divides. If the ribosome instructions are not written on the DNA, one of the cells wouldn't have a ribosome, and would die.

I do not want to change your religious beliefs -- if I had it to do over, I would have worded that sentence much differently. Especially, I would not have used the word 'beliefs' -- I should have spent more time choosing my wording but never mind.

The transcription story is long and rather complicated so I am going to point you to an interesting site that might help you understand the process: Evolution of DNA. I hope this helps and I hope it stimulates further discussion

0

Ravenous Wolf, I must take issue with your .sig -
"The colour of nature is not green, its red. The red of blood. The strong eat the weak. And the weak eat the weaker." The strong do not eat the weak - carnivores eat herbivores (generally) and herbivores eat plants and plants eats sunlight and the sun consumes hydrogen (then Helium... until it reaches iron and suddenly energy is consumed in stead of produced then <Nova>)

Dang, I digressed again. Food chains are pyramidal because the further up the chain, the less the less energy is available. Plants are producers, herbivores are primary consumers, carnivores are secondary consumers (and carnivores that eat carnivors are tertiary consumers). Stronger elk do not eat weaker elk.

And this is not really accurate either because it is purely macro and does not take chloroplasts or mitochondria into account - but going there would be a massive digression and I imagine you know all of this.
This might be where K.A. Applegate got her quote:
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed
In Memoriam A.H.H. Lord Tennyson

0

@ grimjack

i personnaly dont believe that but what i love about myself is that i can champion any point of view without believing any of it.

here is what i know. in nature: predators cannot take down the strong. only the sick, old, young etc. unless they use numbers advantage. this means that in terms of relative strenghth predators exceed prey. predators normally lag behind prey in athletic ability endowed by evolution. that is why in modern ecology we no longer believe that the predator numbers can control herbivore numbers but we believe that herbivore numbers control predator numbers.

in addition:
herbivores cannot easily wipe out an entire grassland. in grasslands as much of 70% of primary production(photosynthesis) goes the way of the detritus food chain.

point? creatures lower the food piramid has a survival advantage since they depend on something which is more plentifull then they themselves under normal circumstances. otherwise they go extinct or something.

now as to K.A. Applegate. She wrote this in a fiction book. it was a phrase uttered by one of her characters when that character was in extreme emotional turmoil. that character had believed all her life about life, fairness etc and by circumstances she was forced to go against those believes. so she cried out those words to herself. i dont think that applegate believed that. I dont even think that the character believed it. but at that exact instant she felt like that.

but if it really irks you that much; i was planning on changing it soon anyway. i found a cute one yesterday. you will see it soon but it would offend most programmers and software engineers. but i see it as funny. especially since i am a programmer who aspires to software engineering myself.

0

herbivores cannot easily wipe out an entire grassland

goats can . they are a menace. i did them for a biolofy experiment - they devour grass (right back to the root) like theres no tomorrow

also look up overstocking

0

goats can . they are a menace. i did them for a biolofy experiment - they devour grass (right back to the root) like theres no tomorrow

also look up overstocking

And that was the basis of the cow/sheep wars in the west - cows shear grass while sheep/goats grasp and pull, getting roots and all; then their tiny hooves tear up the ground. Cattle can re-graze after a couple months whereas it takes at least a year before sheep can re-graze.

[digression]The Great Plains grass grew so high that a person on horseback had trouble seeing for any distance, this is how the huge herds of buffalo could be supported. [/digression]

0

@jbennet

>> goats can....also look up overstocking

when i say herbivores i am of course refering to natural ecosystems. i know that if an idiot want to let a million sheep eat grass which was meant for a hundred then only disaster awaits.

here in south africa we see it often. we have something called affirmative actions which basically aims to transfer wealth to the non-european people since they were severely deprived during the racial segregation years. and that often takes the form of giving them farming land. problem is the white have been sent to tertiary education where they learn how to use the land. the non whites have not. the results are disasters of all sorts including that overgrazing thing.

on a similar note. that is one thing that impress me about the americans. they have realized that natural ecosystems cannot effectively support livestock. so they are planting stacks and stacks of maize and feed them to the cattle.

good thinking. a better quality animal is produced with less problems and if you look at it; more economically as well.

1

@jbennet

>> goats can....also look up overstocking

when i say herbivores i am of course refering to natural ecosystems. i know that if an idiot want to let a million sheep eat grass which was meant for a hundred then only disaster awaits.

<<clip>>

on a similar note. that is one thing that impress me about the americans. they have realized that natural ecosystems cannot effectively support livestock. so they are planting stacks and stacks of maize and feed them to the cattle.

good thinking. a better quality animal is produced with less problems and if you look at it; more economically as well.

Unfortunately, feeding maize to cattle is a problem. Cattle evolved to eat grass/hay, they have 4 stomaches that contain various organism needed to convert what they graze into food. When cattle are put on a corn/grain diet, things go wrong. The first thing that goes wrong is the normal E. coli found in the stomaches of most (if not all) mammals is not able to perform its normal function of producing Vitamin K and keeping pathogenic bacteria out of the intestine - the environment is changed enough that the nasty version of E. coli (serotype O157:H7) is able to gain a foothold in their guts and then increases the risk of contaminating the food supply. The simplest way to clear this up is to feed the cattle hay/grass for the last 24 hours before slaughter; this actually clears the stomaches. For some reason, most slaughterhouses refuse to do this. The big moneymaker in the US now is free-range cattle (the reason that western ranchers tried so hard to get beefalo workable is that buffalo meat marbles quite well on range grasses.

Cattle that are at least 1/16th buffalo will marble quite well on ranges grasses.

The other problem with grain feeding livestock and this is true for chickens as well as cattle is that Omega 3 fatty acids need to be found in a ratios of somewhere between 1:1 to 6:1 ratios of omega 6 : omega 3 fatty acids. Free range chickens and cattle produce the omega 6;3 ratios naturally. Grains are rich in Omega 6 fatty acids and the ratio ends up being 20 or 39 to 1 Omega 6 to Omega 3.

I hope I explained this to your satisfaction. Ask questions if you want.

Votes + Comments
good science!
1

@zzucker

i am not sure what you are trying to say. are you saying that evolution cannot happen because of the hundreds of animals that has to die each epoch to keep evolution going?

if so then you are way wrong. just read the origin of species by charles darwin and you will understand. you dont even need to read all of it. just the first four or so chapters.

besides. whole species have died out. we have the skeletal remains to prove it.

and lastly god may not be malicious but he is as merciless as mother nature. look in the old testament how he sanctioned the whole scale extermination of not only families but also whole nations. and he said to include the women and children too.

on a more positive note. i like your quote. i have been applying the principle in my own life for quite some time now. but ironically enough mostly against people who say that evolution is wrong without understanding an inch of what evolution is about. not that all religious people are fools. but some of them are really deliberate. they argue something like this:
i dont know what you are talking about. i did not have biology as a subject at school. i dont have the time, inclination, intelligence etc to understand evolution. but i know that you are wrong and nothing can make me even look at anything other than the bible.

kinds of reminds of the church refusing to look through galileo's telescope saying it is from the devil himself.

@ grimjack. interesting. i did not realise. but i am talking from an economic point of view.

still if omega fatty acid ratios in america is a legal issue or if people are aware enough to demand then of course the economic point is invalid since grain raised cattle and poultry simply wont sell. but i first have to look at it. but it will have to wait. i am struggling with a maliciously killing project. you cant perhaps give any links can you?

Votes + Comments
some very good points
0

@ grimjack. interesting. i did not realise. but i am talking from an economic point of view.

still if omega fatty acid ratios in america is a legal issue or if people are aware enough to demand then of course the economic point is invalid since grain raised cattle and poultry simply wont sell. but i first have to look at it. but it will have to wait. i am struggling with a maliciously killing project. you cant perhaps give any links can you?

The economics of the situation is pretty controversial for a variety of reasons:

1)cattle feeding
2)Grass fed
The Omega 3/6 ratios are not a legal issue and are not usually considered when determining economic outcomes but what is a heart attack worth?
3)Omega 3/6 fatty acids
4)Omega balances
5)More ranting

Another economic benefit is that now local ranchers can start raising 'boutique' beef cattle that are purely grass-fed and hormone free - ie, organic cattle (heh,heh).

0

@ grimjack

i shall answer later but for now i am only going to say the following:

when i said economic i meant you make more money for each dollar of expense if you grainfed.

shall talk to you later.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.