| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Discovery Channel |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 97
|
|
| Author |
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Just thought I'd pitch this in because I'm interested in your thoughts (and it's topical)
----------------------------------------Last week I watched a program on Dolphins on the Discovery Channel. The narrator said that the dolphin was descended from a small dog sized mammal that had once roamed the land. That it had re-entered the sea and over time its rear end had turned into the tail fin that we see today. Over time its nostrils had migrated to the top of its head to form a blow hole. The creature had lost all of its fur and laid down blubber to protect it from the cold instead. The creature had developed the skill of echo location to help it see in the dark and was now equipped to find its food source beneath the gravel on the seabed by use of its melon - a large lens-shaped organ found in the forehead of dolphins and toothed whales that concentrates and emits the sounds used in echo location. In order to do this the layout of the teeth in its jaw were perfectly offset by half a tooth length from the left to right which could be used to find the direction of the sonar pulse reflections. All of these adaptations occurring to a small dog sized land mammal. All of this was stated as an absolute scientific fact, no questions asked. Now tell me who needs the biggest leap of faith?  We have just spent 20,000 years of processing power on the wonder of our DNA in creating over 30,000 individual proteins that go to make up each one of us. Personally I think that is an incredible complexity Please don't shoot me for holding this view I just wondered what my fellow crunchers views on this subject might be. Dave  [Edit 4 times, last edit by David Autumns at Dec 23, 2005 3:25:30 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The Vatican Astronomer (why the astronomer? don't ask me) finally came out and said that the study of Intelligent Design does not belong in the catagory of Science. I was wondering why it took this long for the Vatican to finally acknowledge this.*** Intelligent Design is absolutely a worthwhile subject to study but I don't believe it belongs in the catagory of Science either.
***I think this Papal constituency is more verbal than historical Papal constituencies. I even read where it was reported that the Pope made an 'off the cuff' remark considering Intelligent Design. I was shocked! I can't remember that ever happening previously. By the way, I don't think there is enough time in the history of earths evolution to account for many of the complexities that exist. Even if we're talking billions of years. It's just not enough time if evolution is suppose to explain it. |
||
|
|
Michael Milan
Cruncher England Joined: Nov 20, 2005 Post Count: 14 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi David!
Heh, no one's going to shoot you for your views, I hope. That just wouldn't be constructive.  I used to be a firm believer in Intelligent Design theory, but over the years I've more or less been won over to the theory of Evolution. Of course, the sad thing about that theory is that it's completely incompatible with the belief of a caring God who's in firm control of our lives  however...The fantastical evolution of the dolphin is stated as fact, with no questions asked and no counter arguments mainly because most of the questions have already been asked countless of times by biologists over the years, and the answers have mostly been in support of evolution. Remember, modern science is supposed to be ALL about "asking questions", and then working to find an answer, even if a lot of people won't like it. 20,000 years of WCG computing power is incredible, but most probably does not come aywhere close to the equivalent of 20,000 years of natural selection.  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
And now the next question, politicians...Intelligent Design Theory or evolution?
|
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I thought this thread might run and run (or swim and swim
----------------------------------------) but it's evolution seems to have ground to a halt.So here's another log for the fire So that dog had time to go back in the sea............ The planet we all live on happens to be at just the right distance from just the right type of star so that the proteins we are all made of don't turn into scrambled egg. We are protected by a magnetic field (Van Allen Belts) so that the solar wind goes around us instead of through us. That light from our local star beats down on lovely green chlorophyll which with a spot of H20 and CO2 produces glucose - the power source for most forms of life - and as a handy by-product produces Oxygen. Not too much mind or too little, just enough to mix with the other 80% of inert gases so that we don't all spontaneously combust down here. It's also handy for that grossly overated breathing malarky There are many forms of dolphins (all surprisingly with their blow holes on the tops of their head ) all conforming to some type of template perhaps.Now before I get dismissed as some flat earth luddite Which came first the remora or the itchy shark?  [Edit 3 times, last edit by David Autumns at Nov 22, 2005 8:10:57 PM] |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
We see the world through our slice of history.
----------------------------------------Who is to say that we are correct in all of todays assumptions. Even in my lifetime (I've nearly reached the point when life begins  ) Dinosaurs have changed from cold blooded ruthless lizard types to warm blooded, brooding over their young and covered in duck down. Science should be all about asking questions instead of being cast in stone We should have the opportunity to explore all posibilities. btw Michael evolution doesn't negate the possibility of a caring God (see previous line of text) Dave |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Nice change of pace, David. Thanks.
As you might guess, my own perspective has an unconventional slant. The existence of some form of both intelligent design and evolution is absolutely irrefutable. Since these recurrent and predictable phenomena are both observable, to argue “which one is true” is ridiculous. The conundrum lies in our inability to realize the inherent limitations of conceptual thought. Thought is derivative and static. Reality is generative and dynamic. Concepts, a priori, are inherently incapable of being truth-full. The measure of the validity of a concept lies in the extent of its usefulness, and nothing more. Truth is simple reality; the process of hearing a bubbling brook, or of smelling a spring rain. All we really have to do is to appreciate reality for what it is; and thought for what it is not.  |
||
|
|
Michael Milan
Cruncher England Joined: Nov 20, 2005 Post Count: 14 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
LOL, politics.
One of the best things about this community is that we can put aside our political and religious beliefs and crunch for humanity.  It might just be that this thread has hit an evolutionary dead-end because people are just too damn tired of the debate raging across the schools in Amerca right now. As for the view that evolution can still be compatible with the idea of a just and caring God, well, I suppose it's to do with my upbringing, but to me that idea seems even harder to swallow than a God-less evolution! Everyone on the planet has their own bias and makes their own assumptions, especially me! I think you're absolutely right that we should strive to think outside the box and make the opportunity to explore all possibilities. Unfortunately, bias is an enduring human trait that I think we will always have, no matter how many times we change our beliefs. We'll never be rid of bias. Perhaps unless we evolve into Vulcans! As for which came first, the remora or the itchy shark... What's a remora? |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi Michael, Julied
----------------------------------------There are 2 schools of thought on the spelling of Remora/Ramora http://www.oceanoasis.org/fieldguide/remo-rem.html http://www.cybereef.com/Mabul/Large%20Pages/ramorashark.htm on wikipedia ramora redirects to remora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remora I'm just interested that ID (In whatever form you specify the I - My personal beliefs were outed in an exchange on the forum involving TribalWar) doesn't get elimated as a scientific possibility My computer (designed) operates on a 2 bit code 1's and 0's. The DNA (designed?) we have been crunching is a 4 bit code of Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, Cytosine. Has the outcome in the States been decided as yet? Dave |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
btw
----------------------------------------How do we know it wasn't the nuts and seeds that evolved to fit the beaks of Darwin's Finches  |
||
|
|
|