Depends; which one is covered by my insurance?
James Webb Space Telescope
- Thread starter BarrelProof
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Depends; which one is covered by my insurance?
Karam is in Europe and hopefully sleeping a restful sleep, but I think he'll have a good chuckle when he wakes up.
I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Natural selection obviously applies to a specific swathe of what falls under the rather broad term "biology." Certain features of biology might be dependent (or result from) natural selection. Others not directly.
I don't think so. But he's near enough to Austria, which might count on a CV judging from what I've seen today.
I really do not know anything about geology and the fossil record so I cannot comment on it.@karam, since you haven't actually quit this thread as you said you would,I'm just curious what you thought of the assertion (in the video) that the Cambrian Explosion happened too quickly to be accounted for by Darwinian Natural Selection, and that the fossil record (with my own avowed caveat that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack) lacks evidence of sufficient precursors. Is their math just bad? Is their understanding of geology bad? Are they just complete and total morons? Because I didn't get that impression at all. Their questioning of Darwinian Evolution's accounting (or lack thereof) of the origin of life and consciousness, and of the geologic abruptness of the Cambrian Explosion, made me think — far from Creationism — of the theory of Panspermia. Impossible to falsify, but interesting. No?
I don't want to engage you in a debate per se, because I surely lack the expertise to do so. I'm just a deeply curious person. There was a lot that was obviously debatable about that video, but also a lot I found interesting. You've already stated you're a Dawkins-level atheist. Talk of "Intelligent Design" certainly smacks of Christian Apologetics. Is it possible your own bias is playing a role in your vehement denunciation of this video? You don't need to answer that, but I'm curious what you think about the former questions. I'm mainly interested in where life and consciousness come from. Not in whether or not Darwin was "Right", or whether "God" created heaven and earth.
I tried to read the Origin of Species but couldn't get through it so my actual knowledge is based on university and high school biology. The reason I am very convinced of Darwin's theory is that as more knowledge was accumulated in the mid to end of the 20th century everything remains aligned with the original statement, as well as providing proof to hypotheses made well before any of it was known. How evolution acts at the molecular level is something I've seen with my own eyes, in my own hands. Then taking that as a solid foundation I extrapolate that the principle applies at the macro level as well - ie beak sizes and shapes, colours etc
My problem with the video is, as @greeneyes put down a lot more eloquently than I did, that there are three people with serious lack of knowledge and understanding about the subject, to the point a lot of what is being said is utter nonsense and completely untrue. And this is coming from a biochemist - my pure biology learning stopped at undergrad level, after that I specialised in a field which uses chemistry, molecular biology and genetics to manipulate and understand how enzymes work to produce various useful products (like medicines), how disease may develop. This is not pure biology. Molecular genetics is, or was for me as I am no longer an active scientist for 10 years now, a tool for a biochemist, as such we know how to use it but cannot claim to be experts on it.
Understood. I'll assume your responses to my questions directed at him are equivalent.
Warren mentioned in the other thread… If you use a tree surgeon you can itemize it at a loss at the IRS return
Really not sure what you mean. Biology literally means "study of living things". Natural Selection is a theory attempting to explain how the various species and forms of life came to be. It may be replaced by something else in the future, but I think that this is highly unlikely.
This theory came about 100-150 years before we were advanced enough to begin to understand how to apply it for our benefit, although humans have been employing Natural Selection as early as the first time someone picked a sweet fruit from a tree usually making sour fruits, bred together sheep making more wool than others in the herd etc etc.
What elevates Darwin's (and others, Darwin was not the only one) theory to axiom is that it has not only withstood the test of time, but further knowledge uncovered not only did not threaten it, but in fact confirmed it further.
I said it may one day be replaced, Newton's physics were replaced by Eistein's 200 years later, it could happen in biology too, it is still a young science. Edit: this is the reason I have little tolerance for hardcore religious people, they are afraid of being proven wrong and have in the past used the most brutal and violent methods possible to silence questioning - in the West, in other places it is still going strong. Science is not afraid of questioning, it invites it because this is the only way it improves. If someone is good enough to knock Darwin off the podium they would be Einstein level. I want these people to appear and enlighten us. Funny as it may sound, I actually like a lot of aspects of religion, in particular the kinds found in what we call the West, my problem is more with the way it's been used by political organisations over centuries.
Last edited:
Much of this thread is, in every sense, laughable. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I’ll make one serious remark. I have great respect for authentic expertise, but none at all for people who use their expertise in one field to claim authority in another unrelated one. Can people express opinions in areas outside their field of expertise? Of course. But trading on a reputation as a world famous actor (or mathematician or veterinarian), for example, lends shockingly little weight to political or economic views. My peeve is that the highly qualified actor/mathematician/veterinarian honestly believes that people should swallow his/her/their opinions on subjects for which their knowledge has no special relevance. Arrogance is always irritating. Except mine of course.
If it was a limb rather than my heart I’d be ok with that.
I think I tried reading Origin of Species once to. haha. Anyway, what I found interesting about the video was the philosophy. The question of other minds. The philosopher's assertion that it's not an important or interesting question. The questions about life's origins. How DNA knows how to organize itself and code for proteins. Whether or not such complexity could have potentially "evolved" in the lifetime of the planet (based on mathematical models).
I guess my final takeaway is that three overtly biased guys with limited knowledge and high intelligence were talking past each other on subjects that would take 10 lifetimes to truly master. Reminds me of this forum a little.
There's no difference, the keyword is "selection". Is it artificial selection when due to smog in British cities darker moths were more easily evading predators, while white moths were eaten, to the point where darker moths dominated? Read: Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36424768
Edited for accuracy, I didn't know of this article or associated scientific papers published because I am out of this field for 10 years now, however it illustrates my previous point about new knowledge strengthening the old theory.
Last edited:
I think you'll find this a very interesting read: Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Yeah I'm familiar with that. The article also mentions that meteorites have been found to contain many different amino acids. I just don't see how you get from amino acids and formaldehyde and ribose, to DNA code. It's a deep mystery that Darwinian evolution can't account for. Can it? (Never mind consciousness.) I'm not advocating for Creationism or Intelligent Design or anything. I'm just curious, and I appreciate it when maverick stooges question established theories. (JWST Rocks! IBTL!)
If you believe in telekinesis, raise MY hand.
I say one thing… by virtue of this thread alone, one might draw the conclusion that pipe smokers are smarter than cigar smokers.
Then again, it’s a small cross section and without fail, someone, also enjoying a pipe - will opine and blow the conclusion out of the water.
I say one thing… by virtue of this thread alone, one might draw the conclusion that pipe smokers are smarter than cigar smokers.
Then again, it’s a small cross section and without fail, someone, also enjoying a pipe - will opine and blow the conclusion out of the water.
I don't know, deep, fundamental, primary research was never very interesting for me to look for an answer! I really don't know much at all about evolutionary or developmental biology.
It's a good discussion we're having though! Civilised despite touching heavily on a topic that can be aggravating!
It's exactly 3 AM here, and I am going to bed, have a good day/evening all and good start to the week!