Customer Discussions > Science forum

On the Predictive Value of Theory of Evolution Versus the Theory of God-Did-It


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2351-2375 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 9:55:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 8:00:20 AM PDT
The brain and the spinal column *are* the CNS -- I guess the post you cited wasn't 100% clear on that. Perhaps I meant PNS (peripheral nervous system).

You've already got a nerve net (connected nerve cells all over the body) in coelenterates --- all you really need is to get a slightly more organized portion of it and, voila, the start of a more central brain. (I must admit, though, that invertebrate anatomy isn't my area of expertise, so would need to go and read up on this some more before making any firm pronouncements.)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 10:02:55 AM PDT
Doctor says:
I am told by my boss ( ms in nuclear physics ) that different wavelengths of light travel at slightly different speeds.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 10:08:24 AM PDT
Doctor says:
What happened to the speed of light durning the miracle of expansion during the big bang?

How does that affect current observations?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 10:11:20 AM PDT
Doctor says:
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

Posted on Apr 30, 2012 10:21:54 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "BAD: So, seeing as you need both CNS and brain, how did these multi-complex systems evolve slowly, over time, to coordinate instant codependence?"

**Not my field either, by a long shot. However the literature is available. Examples below:

Origin of the neuro-sensory system: new and expected insights from sponges.
Images
Diagram Diagram Diagram Diagram
Authors:
RENARD, EMMANUELLE1 emma
VACELET, Jean1
GAZAVE, Eve1
LAPÉBIE, Pascal1
BORCHIELLINI, Carole1
ERESKOVSKY, Alexander V.1,2
Source:
Integrative Zoology; Sep2009, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p294-308

Abstract:
The capacity of all cells to respond to stimuli implies the conduction of information at least over short distances. In multicellular organisms, more complex systems of integration and coordination of activities are necessary. In most animals, the processing of information is performed by a nervous system. Among the most basal taxa, sponges are nerveless so that it is traditionally assumed that the integrated neuro-sensory system originated only once in Eumetazoa, a hypothesis not in agreement with some recent phylogenomic studies. The aim of this review is to show that recent data on sponges might provide clues for understanding the origin of this complex system. First, sponges are able to react to external stimuli, and some of them display spontaneous movement activities. These coordinated behaviors involve nervous system-like mechanisms, such as action potentials and/or neurotransmitters. Second, genomic analyses show that sponges possess genes orthologous to those involved in the patterning or functioning of the neuro-sensory system in Eumetazoa. Finally, some of these genes are expressed in specific cells (flask cells, choanocytes). Together with ultrastructural data, this gives rise to challenging hypotheses concerning cell types that might play neuro-sensory-like roles in sponges.

***
The origins of the arthropod nervous system: Insights from the Onychophora.
Authors:
Whitington, Paul M.
Mayer, Georg
Source:
Arthropod Structure & Development; May2011, Vol. 40 Issue 3, p193-209

Abstract:
Abstract: A revision of evolutionary relationships of the Arthropoda has provided fresh impetus to tracing the origins of the nervous system of this group of animals: other members of the Ecdysozoa possess a markedly different type of nervous system from both the arthropods and the annelid worms, with which they were previously grouped. Given their status as favoured sister taxon of the arthropods, Onychophora (velvet worms) are a key group for understanding the evolutionary changes that have taken place in the panarthropod (Arthropoda + Onychophora + Tardigrada) lineage. This article reviews our current knowledge of the structure and development of the onychophoran nervous system. The picture that emerges from these studies is that the nervous system of the panarthropod ancestor was substantially different from that of modern arthropods: this animal probably possessed a bipartite, rather than a tripartite brain; its nerve cord displayed only a limited degree of segmentation; and neurons were more numerous but more uniform in morphology than in living arthropods. These observations suggest an evolutionary scenario, by which the arthropod nervous system evolved from a system of orthogonally crossing nerve tracts present in both a presumed protostome ancestor and many extant worm-like invertebrates, including the onychophorans.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 2:08:45 PM PDT
Doctor wrote:
"What happened to the speed of light during the miracle of expansion during the big bang?

How does that affect current observations? "
===============================
Few minutes after the Big Bang, the Scotland Yard Criminal Investigation Unit was called to the crime scene.

The light seems to have escaped through the implosion equi-potential layers before the imploding matter reflected outwards from the critical mass center.

That is the same route which Jesus follows in his routine business practices.

The second part of your question was addressed by the CIA, which claimed that the Scotland Yard investigators sexed up the alibi of the escape of light from the initial compressed tomato sauce that formed the core of the Big Bang.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 4:36:11 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Only in matter, not in a vacuum.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 4:38:34 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
If you wish to contribute, find a website not hosted by a crank with no understanding of physics and who writes papers that are clearly contrary to experiment.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 7:34:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2012 7:39:30 PM PDT
Doctor wrote:
"I am told by my boss ( ms in nuclear physics ) that different wavelengths of light travel at slightly different speeds. "
========================================
That could really happen in the following conditions:

1- If one wavelength is pregnant, the other not, then you know what follows, right?

2- If one wavelength was hot, the other not, ..

3- If one wavelength got shot in foot, it might stumble on it.
.....
.....

Doctor, you are a true joy to listen to.
Is your keyboard acting out on you?

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 8:25:36 PM PDT
Physics Geek wrote:
"If you wish to contribute, find a website not hosted by a crank with no understanding of physics and who writes papers that are clearly contrary to experiment."
==================================
Isn't that funny?

What papers did you write, Geek?

How would writing paper make people sane when Robert Pound screwed up two of his own graduate students to support Einstein's delusion?

Because you are an immature, fanatic illiterate, you could not tell that neither the gamma-ray detectors could account for the trivial fluctuation of absorbed radiation by the radioactive emitter, nor the loudspeaker cone, ferroelectric and moving coil magnetic transducer could create oscillations that could be precisely determined.

Michelson repeated his experiment between 1881 throughout 1928, and in his own words, he was unhappy with his own results.

But, here, an anonymous geek claims that Pound-Rebka experiment was beyond reproach even though no one else bothered to examine Pound's delusion. There is not any application for general relativity that could pay back and most researchers got to relativity ended bankrupt.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 11:32:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2012 11:43:08 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"What papers did you write, Geek?"

Why do you care? I am not making an argument from authority. I am citing the work of others.

"Michelson repeated his experiment between 1881 throughout 1928, and in his own words, he was unhappy with his own results."

So? His unhappiness with his own results does not invalidate them. If anything they strengthen the credibility of the results because a suspicious researcher could not get rid of them.

"But, here, an anonymous geek claims that Pound-Rebka experiment was beyond reproach.."

Not necessarily. Simply that a website hosted by an a man with not claims of credentials, papers that can be linked to him with a Google search, and dramatic errors that are quite prolific thought his "essays" is not a valid or reliable to rebut anything in physics.

"... even though no one else bothered to examine Pound's delusion."

Plenty of people have checked his results and other experiments have been done that show the effects of gravitational redshift are real and not an artifact of his experiment. Besides, did you even look at the argument presented against the Pound-Rebka experiment? Do you have the expertise to critique it? By your standards since you don't have any GR publications (Or any other relevant area) I suppose you are not qualified to judge either the website or the experiment.

"There is not any application for general relativity"

*cough* GPS *cough cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

"Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is not designed as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. When the first satellite was launched, some engineers resisted the prediction that a noticeable gravitational time dilation would occur, so the first satellite was launched without the clock adjustment that was later built into subsequent satellites. It showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. This rate of discrepancy is sufficient to substantially impair function of GPS within hours if not accounted for. An excellent account of the role played by general relativity in the design of GPS can be found in Ashby 2003."

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 4:32:16 AM PDT
"What papers did you write, Geek?"

A trick question, methinks, given MFEH's reaction to my response to this sort of request.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 7:40:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 8:35:19 AM PDT
Doctor wrote:
"http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html "
===========================================
Ernest Rutherford would be turning in his grave over the delusion of physicists over trivial matters.

Rutherford earned Nobel Prize in Chemistry, not Physics, in 1909 after discovering the nucleus of the atom.

But,

Most of Rutherford's greatest achievements were in Physics and after he won the Prize.

In 1911, Rutherford proposed the neutron.

In 1932, Rutherford realized that Irène and Frédéric Curies had screwed up, missed the neutron. Rutherford swore to his student, Names Chadwick: It is the damn neutron.

Chadwick discovered what the Curies missed with Rutherford's swearing and his 20-year old theory.

Irène and Frédéric Curies almost missed the artificial radioactivity for which they won the Nobel Prize. It was a freak question directed to them when they completely ignored the fact that nuclei could be agitated to radiate.

That was the great history of physics.
Many fo0ls, few geniuses.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 9:04:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 9:05:34 AM PDT
Physics Geek wrote:
"We have never seen light move at a different velocity.

Physics Geek wrote:
"Only in matter, not in a vacuum. "
===========================
Robert Pound attempted to prove that light does not travel at constant speed in the gravitational field of Earth.

Here, what the Pound-Rebka experiment postulated:

Doppler redshift due to Special Relativity:

fr = fe . sqrt [(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]

Gravitational blueshift due to General Relativity:

fr = fe . sqrt [(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)]

The detector at the bottom of the tower, where the experiment was carried out, sees a superposition of the two effects:

(1) Special Relativity RedShift
(2) General Relativity BlueShift

such that:

Special Relativity RedShift * General Relativity BlueShift = 1

OR

sqrt [(1-2GM/(R+h)c^2)/(1-2GM/Rc^2)] sqrt [(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)] = 1

The source was alleged to need a velocity

v = gh/c= (9.8 meter/second * 22.5 meter /(3*10^8 meter/sec) = 7.5×10−7 m/s

In order to cancel the two effects.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 9:27:04 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 2, 2012 11:24:51 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 10:50:56 AM PDT
"You worthless jerk, you have an empty biography with no trace of any scientific achievements. "

Hmmm --- now seeing as how you treat people who *do* have scientific achievements, maybe he's taking the safe road.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 11:11:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 11:14:16 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 1:20:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 1:22:01 PM PDT
B. A. Daley wrote:
"how did these multi-complex systems evolve slowly, over time, to coordinate instant codependence? "
===============================
Why not start with immediate issues that you could relate to before jumping into the deeper water of creation?

Here is a simple exercise to test your ability to dive into those deep waters.

Try to summarize the steps involved in the processes from typing a letter on the keyboard to the appearance of that letter on the screen, say in Notepad. Ten or twenty steps should bring you closer to the very decisive issue in the binary logic that governs natural processes.

Getting that far in the process of education of physical sciences requires good 16 years of laborious education on top of the aptitude required for enduring the harshness of abstract disciplines.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 4:16:56 PM PDT
I obviously can't attest to arpard's knowledge in physics, as it is not my field. However, in other matters I find his posts to be both well-informed and enlightening.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:13:04 AM PDT
B. A. Daley says:
BAD: "Let's say you were driving along a road at 2:00 AM, and you really had to urinate. Let's say you pulled over, and ducked behind a tree. Now imagine, as you stood there 12 cars descended on that spot with their headlights on you, the lead car being a police car. Do you have remorse for this decision? Was this an immoral act?"

John D. Croft says: "Exposure of the genitals in public is in many areas considered a crime. But there is interesting evidence that the "shaming" associated with public nudity is something that happened during the early Iron Age. Before that, people had no shame in public nudity at all. Look at the "penis sheaths" in Papua New Guinea for instance. No self respecting man would be without one!"

BAD: The shame doesn't come from the nudity. If the scenario didn't involve 'getting caught,' it would be forgotten within hours. As conjectured, it could cause remorse for a lifetime. But this remorse is entirely removed from shame, as there is no shame about the act, only remorse about the consequences.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:19:18 AM PDT
B. A. Daley says:
B.A.Daley - you wrote: "As you can gather from the above correspondence, a brain isn't needed to fend off other organisms."

John D. Croft says: "Plants fend off other organisms by making themselves indigestible. To be more active in fending off others, though, you would need a brain of sorts."

BAD: To be more active in fending off others - - others with a brain? That is the crux of my query. There seems to be no advantage (to a brain) at inception. Only later - much later - can it be be shown to have an advantage to the species."

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 4:03:28 AM PDT
BAD: There seems to be no advantage (to a brain) at inception. Only later - much later - can it be be shown to have an advantage to the species."

BPL: Evolution produces new species, but the advantage is to the individual. Genes mutate, individuals are selected, species evolve.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:50:51 AM PDT
Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 11:05:01 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Well done.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 11:07:01 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
DJ wrote: "Well, I disagree Robert."

Very persuasive response, DnJn!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  70
Total posts:  2553
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 31, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions