|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Darkov
1
« on: November 23, 2005, 05:56:47 pm »
holy shit fragin, that's awesome. Kudos :thumb:
2
« on: November 22, 2005, 07:49:18 pm »
brosie in case you think im retarded and shit i dont walk around with the hat glasses or the ski mask. i just craked them on cuz i was bord Nah man, I just knew you'd do something funny like that.
3
« on: November 22, 2005, 06:44:31 pm »
It's Aviator Season. After watching Top Gun, I couldn't resist pulling out these badboys  Nice country comrade, I'll take it btw, Langerz looks exactly like I thought he would.
4
« on: October 24, 2005, 09:16:15 pm »
EMPIRE FTW
5
« on: October 24, 2005, 09:54:12 am »
Star Wars movies were only averege because the Empire didn't win.
Stormtroopers > Ewoks
Darth Vader > Skywalker
Empire > Republic
That really annoyed me, I remember seeing the movie and thinking how godly the Empire was with all it's huge battlecruisers and deathstars and legions of henchmen.
Then they get beaten by some two-bit rebels and....furry little critters who swing rocks at them....WTF!?
btw: The Imperial March is the best tune ever, it seriously rocks, the ultimate pwnage music.
6
« on: September 23, 2005, 11:52:24 pm »
LOL i remember that one nick, classic
7
« on: September 23, 2005, 10:27:34 pm »
Why? Too much bling?
8
« on: September 23, 2005, 07:53:42 pm »
Oh right.
Darwin couldn't explain how eyes form? I bet he could barely grasp the idea of a huge intergrated computer network as well.
13th Century farmers knew from experience that if they shifted their crops about, they got increased yields. They couldn't know the exact science behind it but they knew it worked. Now we know it's because contiuous farming depletes valuable minerals and nitrogen from the soil.
Kinda like our position, just because we havn't got the science or technical knowledge to prove evolution now, doesn't mean it's irrevelant.
9
« on: September 23, 2005, 04:48:17 pm »
People can have their tailbone's removed if needed, esp. if it's broken badly and doesn't heal properly and still walk fine.
10
« on: September 22, 2005, 08:53:27 pm »
All true, but are any of those animals related very closely with humans, (intelligence etc.) have almost the same amount of chromosomes and are believed to be by some, the precursors of homo erectus?
11
« on: September 22, 2005, 07:50:38 pm »
Just thought of something, humans have a tailbone yes? It's a small nub of bone where our tails would be if we had them. Apes and Monkey's have them as well, although monkeys actually have tails. Dig the connection?
12
« on: September 13, 2005, 03:46:43 pm »
Groovy, I like this thread :thumb:
13
« on: September 07, 2005, 09:59:15 pm »
awww, how cute
and she's already got her own hoody
Zziiing!! hahahahaha...class note to self: do not piss off jugganawt
14
« on: September 01, 2005, 08:36:45 pm »
Enough rambling! More pics@!
15
« on: September 01, 2005, 05:38:23 pm »
I don't want to kill myself. I don't need to believe in something just to have a point. I'm having fun right now without listening to some old men who know no better than me. I don't want to end up in hell, because frankly it's a bad bed time story told to threaten people to be good or else. I'd rather not think about death because well, when it comes it comes and I'll find out about it. I've got too much life ahead of me to worry about dying.
I'd rather just get on with my life. There are more complicated things like string theory and electron tracking. I can see why people would prefer to believe that after death there is a perfect utopia of justice and freedom. Karl Marx likened religion to a drug, something people use to escape the injustice and woes of day to day life. I think some of his views make a lot of sense but you can interpret them differantly.
Honestly, the point of life is simple. It's to reproduce, pass on DNA. It's the simplest reason because without it don't worry about anything else. There won't be life.
That's it in the long term big picture as I interpret it. Short term is more important things that effect you individually, your family/community/country etc. They don't last long as history shows us.
In the end, I don't care what people believe as long I'm not forced to conform with their beliefs or forced to learn their ways like school children unfortunately have to in their early "impressionable" years with "Religious Studies". You can believe what you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the running/administation of things or my life.
16
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:43:22 pm »
Haha, I'm known for strong opinions as I love debating. To me, both theories are devoid of sufficient evidence but I find science better to sleep with at night. At least I havn't got Big Brother watching me and prohibiting me from doing stuff.
Everything makes sense when you're on acid but for those not fortunate enough, you take it how you see it. For example, unless we have photographic and more proof of evolution it's unlikely to convince most religious types and some never will be convinced. On the other hand, unless I see evidence of religious theories I will never believe.
17
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:32:35 pm »
I think he thinks it's offensive you considered him a jock. Jocks are like athletic stupid people who go around mumbling "hurrr hurr generic sport, it's a religion not a sport." They're generally technologically illiterate.
I'd say Quphoz is more like an e-gangster and Langerz is a e-chav from the definition.
18
« on: August 31, 2005, 06:21:23 pm »
lol yeah, i mean come on...Dinosaurs fossils are easily older than 10,000 years
19
« on: August 31, 2005, 05:32:27 pm »
Ugh, read something highly depressing today. The education board of Kansas is apparently trying to teach Creationism instead of Evolution in science classes. They talk about how the earth is only about 5,000 years old :chuckle:
20
« on: August 26, 2005, 05:05:58 pm »
Agreed if you hand over Chechnya
21
« on: August 23, 2005, 10:11:11 pm »
yes, ive been making aboslutely giant posts, and then i have to come up with more intricate replies back. one of my bigger posts i went to bed thinking "ha, try weasel out of that" and laura did, and it made sense sort of. so then i had to get searching for more stuff and it goes on and on and on.
anyway, my interpretation of the meaning of life is really basic. simply, to pass on DNA, to replicate. not very romantic but when you boil down to it, it is the meaning of life for if we didn't do it, there would be no life to mean.
noooo not string theory...omg thats nuts, they tie themselves in patterns and knots etc.
i was shocked enough to discover last year that electrons dont go in nice neat orbits, we don't even know where they are at all and then you've got quarks and then they divide into something else and omg...crazy
22
« on: August 23, 2005, 05:14:14 pm »
Lol yeah, each to their own but christianity sounds boring.
23
« on: August 23, 2005, 04:43:57 pm »
Perhaps we should be asking why people believe in what they do?
What makes you so certain there is a god, he's looking after you (apart from family feuds, unfortunate storms etc. etc.)
I think Karl Marx summed it up best when he said "Religion is the opiate of the masses." When you think about it, even if you are religious, it's true. People look to religion for comfort, to justify killing others etc.
As sacredpossum aluded to above, it's used by a small number of people as a means of gaining power and control over a large number of people. People weren't very educated in the years after Rome's fall. They could be easily seduced by magic tricks with simple powders and had no reason to believe that hell/heaven didn't exist. They would prefer to believe it.
And laura, virus evolution can happen. Just because Dr. Zheng or any of the others say it's un-true, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Everybody thought Galileo and the other early astronomers were off their nuts. Of course, those who believe in evolution could be wrong, but who's to say what is happening and what's not?
Virus evolution is a subfield of evolutionary biology that is specifically concerned with the evolution of viruses. Many viruses, in particular RNA viruses, have fairly high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication in RNA viruses) and short generation times. As a consequence of the elevated mutation rate, combined with natural selection, many viruses can adapt to changes in their environment within months. Virus evolution is an important aspect of the epidemiology of viral diseases such as influenza, HIV, hepatitis, and many others. It also causes problems in the development of successful antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks to months after the beginning of the treatment.
Apart from the obvieous objectors (the author of that article you linked to) many scientists believe that when a Virus becomes resistant to anti-biotics, it is evolving as you can put no "rules" on evolution, it is a natural process that does not have to conform to physical laws. Especially when it's been around for a hell of a lot longer than us. Just because it doesn't fit current thinking you can't discount it.
With anything we don't understand, it's so easy for religious types to go "Oh...yeah, that was us, we did it all." Funny, since at least evolutionists can come up with theories, not just think up some mystical creation story that cannot even be looked at scientifically.
Here's my favourite example. A child is scared by something, perhaps a storm or such, nothing they have control over. In their pre-school years, a common practice is to "adopt" an imaginary friend. Someone they can consult in confidence and naturally feel more secure as they're not by themselves as it were.
Now, developing humans could not explain everything that happened but they wanted to. They might feel safer if they believed that everything in their environment was controlled by an ethereal being. It has been suggested that religion flourished at the time the human brain was on a comparable developmental stage with that of a five-year-olds.
In any case, I doubt any of us will be converting any time soon. Personally, even though there are some flaws with the evidence, an evolutionary theory makes more sense than something we apparently "cannot see nor comprehend." and people are blindly led on like sheep by "enlighted individuals" who apparently have it all sorted out and take money from people who are strung along on words and thoughts rather than evidence.
Especially when we dig up ruins of ancient humanoids that have DNA that is at least a 97% match to ours...
24
« on: August 23, 2005, 08:30:05 am »
Okay, Neanderthal probably wasn't the right example, because early man hunted and warred against them leading to their extinction. There are many other examples that fit the puzzle better. The exact criteria for membership in the Hominid family is not clear, but the family generally includes those species who share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language and for simple cultures beyond the family or band. The theory of mind, providing the capacity to lie convincingly, is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age, whereas the bonobo, gorilla and chimpanzee never seem to do so. However, without the ability to test whether early members of the Homininae such as australopithecines or Homo erectus, had a theory of mind, it is irrational to ignore similarities seen in their living cousins.
Now these are definately not in the Homo Sapiens group yet, more than 97% of DNA? That's proof of evolution enough for me.
Current thinking is that life started this way.
1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, one of the two basic components of a cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
DNA may have come from this. It's unclear as noone was around to study such processes. Life is only what we perceive it to be, since we have no other examples bar what is on earth to study.
Another evolutionary theory, this time documenting on "Lucy" a humanoid found in Ethiopia.
The so-called 'savannah theory' on how A. afarensis evolved bipedalism hangs on the evidence that around 6 - 8 million years ago there seems to have been a mass extinction of forest dwelling creatures. This triggered a burst of 'adaptive radiation', an evolutionary characteristic that generates new species quickly. Lucy's 'grandparents' were tree dwelling apes, but in Lucy's world the trees would have gone, and Lucy would have been forced to find a living on the flat treeless savanna.
The article on anti-biotics was interesting, it shows Bacteria adapting to changes in their environment successfully. Regardless of whether it's in Evolution's "set rules" it still shows adaption via natural selection so why could the same not occur within humanoids or other early organisms. If a human's brain size increased, but not within the guidelines of evolution, what would you call it? I doubt the intracasies of evolution will ever be fully clear. Or Sharks. They have been around for millions of years. In that time the earth's climate has changed dramatically. If nothing in them changed, they would not have been able to cope and would've died out.
Viruses can also adapt. Some blur the distinction between sense and antisense, because certain sequences of their genomes do double duty, encoding one protein when read 5' to 3' along one strand, and a second protein when read in the opposite direction along the other strand. As a result, the genomes of these viruses are unusually compact for the number of genes they contain, which biologists view as an adaptation. The Human eye is an adaption, an enlarged brain from previous times is an adaption.
btw, noone can witness evolution because the theory has only been around for 100-200 years. Evolution takes thousands or millions of years depending on the organism. As such, we have only fossils of previous organisms that we have remarkable similarities to.\
There are many religions, each with differant principles
Marx believed that people turn to religion in order to dull the pain caused by the reality of social situations; that is, Marx suggests religion is an attempt at transcending the material state of affairs in a society — the pain of class oppression — by effectively creating a dream world, rendering the religious believer amenable to social control and exploitation in this world while they hope for relief and justice in life after death. In the same essay, Marx states, "...man creates religion, religion does not create man..."
And bY, if you were wondering my family is not strictly athiestic. Only my mum thinks about creation and she is more of an agnostic. I however decided to research evidence for both ways. Eventually I turned to Marxism, for a lot of things he has said make sense and there are true life examples. It's true though, unless god himself comes down and smites everything, I'm unlikely to believe.
As for your post on Carbon Dating, it's all true. Irrevelent, but true you see I was referring to uranium lead dating under the Radiometric Dating techniques which also include
* rubidium-strontium
* samarium-neodymium
* potassium-argon
* argon-argon
* uranium-uranium
* uranium-thorium
* optically stimulated luminescence dating
* iodine-xenon
25
« on: August 22, 2005, 11:09:10 pm »
To answer the question about evolution. Attempts to shed light on the earliest history of life generally focus on the behavior of macromolecules, particularly RNA, and the behavior of complex systems.
For example, every living thing makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. Because the selection of these traits is somewhat arbitrary, their universality strongly suggests common ancestry. For evolution, as long as you have an atmosphere that is composed of something other than noble gases, it is entirely feasible. Evolution occurs with mutating genes over periods of reproduction. e.g. one animal might develop a growth from a mutating gene to help it grab food or keep it afloat. If this was harmful to the species, the animal would die and therefore not reproduce/pass the gene on. If however, this was successful the animal would hopefully reproduce and carry on a line with the mutation that would spread out to eventually encompass the whole race. Cancer has been linked with this as it does not always strike up in people susceptible to it. You can hardly comment that just because evolution doesn't happen now, doesn't mean it's a false assumption. Evolution occurs across thousands or millions of years, far longer than the theory has been about or the means to monitor the process have been around. Animals today are completely differant than they were several thousand years ago with exceptions to those that have lived isolated, encased lives i.e. kiwi. The Moa died out because the Maori hunted them into extinction. The period may have been hundreds of years, far less time than required for evolutionary processes so they couldn't cope. The emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis (around 3 billion years ago) and the subsequent emergence of an oxygen-rich, non-reducing atmosphere can be traced through the formation of banded iron deposits, and later red beds of iron oxides. This was a necessary prerequisite for the development of aerobic cellular respiration, believed to have emerged around 2 billion years ago. In the last billion years, simple multicellular plants and animals began to appear in the oceans. There is not A SINGLE ONE in the entire world, because it has never happened. Oh hello? Thats the basis of evolution. And while we're at it, where are all the remains of the things that we evolved into between everything, what you say, theres none of those either? Funny that... You keep missing the point, and please read my posts before firing back random answers. Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that phylogenetically close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas [4], and 6.6% from baboons[5]. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct mistakes in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. Now, if these similarities arn't due to evolution, then what? There is remains of what we've evolved from and between the processes, prehistoric humanoid remains of differant stages (including various shaped skulls and body shapes, some races died out due to inability to change, those that could adapt did and are our ancestors) are scattered across Africa and some parts of Asia. Evolution has proof, belittle or discount it if you wish, but there are genuine similarities and that's one heck of a lot more proof than religion which even today remains in the thought processes of humans and nothing more. Even if evolution could be fully proved, it is unlikely we would be able to grasp the intricate workings of it, and the seemingly random mutations that can prove harmful or help us. Eskimos do not need to adapt, because they have mastered their environment. They do not grow full body fur because there is no need for it. Polar Bears/Eskimos are completely differant biologically. Stone to cytoplasm is a generic comparison and impossible. It is unclear how bacteria/viruses really form and how they came to be on earth. No one knows for sure how they formed, whether they came from somewhere else or were formed by the extreme conditions earth was under in it's early life. Alone for billions of years, evolutionary process would've sped up as the Earth's conditions changed to support more life. Perhaps a real example of evolution is the battle against Bacteria with Anti-biotics. Penicillin is nearly useless now because bacteria have "developed" and become resistant to it. Qualified docters worry that anti-biotics will become useless when "super-bugs" that are resistant to anti-biotics sweep the earth, if they ever do. For all their simplilarity, bacteria show an incredible resolve to adapt to their conditions within relatively short times. Penicillin has only been around in the last 50-70 years (i think) so they could well of developed fast in the billions of years leading up to other growth Cold viruses are another example. Their DNA is constantly mutating and as such we have found no common factor to base a cure on.
|
|
|
