Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Threads like this are made so those who like to argue can do so. It's more of a sport, than anything else. Only play if it is fun for you and don't take any of it too seriously.Then why even make the thread?
Miracle! Look at the unlikely duo you got,toThreads like this are made so those who like to argue can do so. It's more of a sport, than anything else. Only play if it is fun for you and don't take any of it too seriously.
Threads like this are made so those who like to argue can do so. It's more of a sport, than anything else. Only play if it is fun for you and don't take any of it too seriously.
I can't just copy the video, and sorry it's a FB reel/link, but it really does apply to this here, so you should click on it to check it out, lol.857K views · 32K reactions | We have endless “small town” memes quotes & post, posted daily on this page. Like our post? hit that like button it’s how you drop a quarter in the meme machine. | The Gentlemen's Barber Shop
We have endless “small town” memes quotes & post, posted daily on this page. Like our post? hit that like button it’s how you drop a quarter in the meme machine..www.facebook.com
References to the prime evil soup should not go unremarked!What about bouillons of years?
The Ancestor's Tale - Richard Dawkins, of which wikipedia says "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life is a science book by Richard Dawkins and Yan Wong that delves into the topic of evolution. The book adopts a unique approach, retracing the path of humans in reverse chronological order through evolutionary history."@Estrid All I am asking is; where did the bonobo ancestor come from? Then, where did that ancestor come from? Then, where did that ancestors come from? Ad infinitum. Until we reach the junction of divergence
ThanksThis answers your questions in great detail, with very many examples and extensive references. It addresses the points that are difficult to properly address in a medium such as this forum
You’ve had that explained to you. If you’re not going to address the OP why are you here?The fact of the matter is that bonobos needed to come from a land dwelling mammal, because that's what they are.
You’ve had that explained to you. If you’re not going to address the OP why are you here?
What sort of facts could disprove it?
I'll just leave this mini-discussion with this: A single-celled organism most definitely IS special. Again, it's more complex than all the writings of Shakespeare combined. And it's result is amazing. It's very special.Assemblers are for CS-types. I have things to achieve.
The way in which DNA is clearly "a code" is in the sense of an encoding of one type of information in a different medium. DNA encoding for proteins has been decoded for a long time (it was in all of our HS bio textbooks) and is more akin to the encoding of letters (and words) into binary bits with ASCII. For DNA that is encoding amino acid sequences in a series of chemical nucleic bases. The existence of an "end of sentence" symbol doesn't make it a language. (DNA is also not a code in the encryption sense, not even at the rot13 level.)
Your reverse engineering example actual is useful for one of the issues with "unlikely DNA sequences". When you finished your reverse engineering, you had no reason to think that your code matched the original even if you used the same instruction set on the same machine. Perhaps you found a clever and more efficient solution to a problem the original authors did (or vice versa). These aren't problems with unique solutions and various biological functions are similarly non-unique in solution.
This is a very common misunderstanding about the mathematics and modeling of evolutionary systems or the building of biochemistry, but observations and experiments show us how utterly varied things are and the multitude of possible paths to a solution. There is nothing special about any one particular single-celled organism or the various biochemical pathways it uses to live. There isn't even anything special about the particular form of DNA/RNA or the amino acid set used in Earth life. There are many other possible bases (even other possible nucleic acids) that could be included in a DNA protein code and alternative amino acids that could be added to our set (or even substitute some). Even if we keep the same set of amino acids and bases the encoding didn't have to be the one we have.
-- 48 61 6E 73
An article I read about 8 years ago. I didn't save it. But I can explain how JCL works:Evidence please.
An article I read about 8 years ago. I didn't save it. But I can explain how JCL works:
I already explained why land-dwelling creatures are unlikely to evolve anything like gills when they return to the water. Did you miss it or did you not understand it?Because sea dwelling creatures evolved to live on land.
I'm a non-retired Python/C/C++/etc programmer and a geneticist. DNA isn't remotely like a computer program. Make almost any change to a functioning computer program and you have something that doesn't do anything at all. Make almost any change to functional DNA and you have something that still does something -- possibly the same thing, possibly a slightly different thing, possibly a very different thing.I'm a retired COBOL programmer. Not only is DNA like a computer program
It has been calculated that a single light-sensitive cell can evolve into a fully-functioning eyeball in a few hundred thousand generations. The eye has evolved independently many times in nature. So much for being laughable.It's even more convincing than the old "eyeball" example. The idea that it could exist "accidentally" is laughable, no matter how many billions of years you throw at it.
Don't confuse random with 'driven by natural selection', which is more powerful than random.I'm saying that explaining away its complexity and usefulness as possible "accidentally" if you just throw enough time at the problem is laughable. As I said in my post above this one. Mathematically, nothing is impossible, though it may be astronomically unlikely. In reality it is so unlikely that it is reasonable to assume it is not possible. Using the billion monkeys thing, DNA is infinitely more complex than Shakespeare.
Pointing to the data and the repeated successful predicitions of the ToE is not an appeal to authority.Then why even make the thread? You already know everything. Nobody from my camp is going to dissuade you. The appeal to authority fallacy is alive and well with you, it would seem.
Sounds like a reference to the Richard Dawkins book. He's also the person who invented the word 'meme'.BTW, I read an article in a science journal back in the early 80's regarding RNA. It was called "selfish genes, selfish memes". It made the argument that the only reason we exist is because RNA wants to reproduce itself. Of course it was tongue in cheek. But interesting nonetheless.
Yes I did.Were you a JCL co-ordinator?
And did you work with an IBM 370?
All extant single-celled organisms are descendants of 3-4 billion years of evolution and competition. There is no reason to think that the first cells were anything as complex as modern single-celled organisms.I'll just leave this mini-discussion with this: A single-celled organism most definitely IS special. Again, it's more complex than all the writings of Shakespeare combined. And it's result is amazing. It's very special.
Perhaps it was a popular magazine or news article by or about Richard Dawkins. (Selfish genes is a concept he developed as are memes.)BTW, I read an article in a science journal back in the early 80's regarding RNA. It was called "selfish genes, selfish memes". It made the argument that the only reason we exist is because RNA wants to reproduce itself. Of course it was tongue in cheek. But interesting nonetheless.
Then why even make the thread? You already know everything. Nobody from my camp is going to dissuade you. The appeal to authority fallacy is alive and well with you, it would seem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?