VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Exactly, out of all the Planets in all the Galaxies ours had so many meticulous events take place that it just happened to spawn life. Now... I want Science to prove that this all happened by coincidence rather than by divine creation. Which is more likely...? Science me that. The likelihood of a single sperm being assembled without defect, migrating through the acidic environment of the vagina and uterus to the fallopian tubes, at the right time of the month such that it meets an ova that is also traveling down the tube is extremely low. Once the sperm actually reaches the egg, the first ones there won't be the one to fertilize it. Instead, a chemoreceptor on the head of the sperm meets the egg, releasing a chemical that degrades some of the membrane surrounding the egg. How does nature compensate? Ejaculate contains over a quarter billion sperm cells (2.5*108) to tip the odds in our favor. 7 billion (7*109) humans inhabit this planet, so it appears that billions of sperm are actually meeting the egg in spite of the unlikely odds of any single sperm to do so. Now lets apply this concept to the universe. The amount of mass in the observable universe is estimated to be 1050 kg (for the less scientifically inclined, that number is 1 with 50 zeroes after it). That mass is comprised of the interstellar medium and galaxies - of which there are estimated to be 100 to 200 billion (2*1011) galaxies in the universe. Our spiral galaxy is made up of approximately 300 billion (3*1011) stars, and we live on a planet that orbits one of those stars that is in the most unlikely position, the Goldilocks zone, which is conducive to biological processes. Between the stars of are galaxies are incredible distances which are difficult to comprehend. 93 million (9.3*107) miles from here to the sun. It takes light, which travels at the cosmic speed limit of 3*108 meters per second, over 8 minutes to get from Sol to your eyes. The muzzle velocity of an M16 is about 1000 (103) m/s - that's 300,000 times slower than light, to give you perspective. The nearest star to our own is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.7 light years away. We're too far to travel to other star systems and explore them, even with unmanned satellites. Voyager 1 is the furthest manmade object from Earth. It was sent off 36 years ago, and it only reached interstellar space (ie. beyond the planets and heliosphere of our solar system) last year yet it's still 4.7 light years from the nearest star. Instead of sending out probes, scientists have decided to just observe the light received from stars with the Kepler satellite, which went into service in the last decade. It studies a few hundred stars in our solar system each year and to date, has found 962 exoplanets in 76 star systems. The term "a drop in the ocean" cannot sufficiently describe how little of the observable universe we've actually studied. There are lots of star systems out there in our own galaxy, and umptillions more in the billions of other galaxies. So while the probability of life on any single planet is extremely low, those odds are likely overcome by the sheeer numbers of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Actually the opposite, in my experience. The more you learn, the more you can look at something and understand the science behind it, and what caused it to form in that way. But then, you may want to claim it was designed that way. What really gets me, though, is all the ridiculous things we find in nature that are very far from being intelligently designed, like Dawkins' recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the brain to the voice-box - but only after travelling via the heart. Intelligent design? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality Vestigial Structures - totally from a divine creator, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 And I grew up in the outdoors. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, canoeing, gardening. It's all a fascinating miracle. Not science glitchy at all. Truth is, the more science and nature you learn, the more you would, I figure, learn that it all it fascinating and complex, that only God could have put it all together. I posted a few time before I got to this post, but what you said is not true at all. There further you get in your science education, the less likely you are to believe in a personal god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I think the thing with Science/Athiests is they knowingly or unknowingly stopped believing in God and started to believe that they/we are God. Where did you get that idea? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality Vestigial Structures - totally from a divine creator, lol God gave me enlarged tonsils and sleep apnea as a punishment for calling him bad things as a teenager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 God gave me enlarged tonsils and sleep apnea as a punishment for calling him bad things as a teenager. He gave me an allergy to literally every single thing that floats around outside, then got those allergies to give me exercise induced asthma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 But then you end by saying that if it's not in the best position, that's an argument *against* evolution? I don't believe its an argument for or against it. Dawkins et al, are using the argument against ID by saying that the RLN is not in the ideal (their definition) position/length. My question was to say that shouldn't evolution have corrected this less than ideal (their definition) position length? I mean if it's as clear cut as they say it is against ID. IF ID missed the boat in the placement/length of RLN, then evolution has too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I don't believe its an argument for or against it. Dawkins et al, are using the argument against ID by saying that the RLN is not in the ideal (their definition) position/length. My question was to say that shouldn't evolution have corrected this less than ideal (their definition) position length? I mean if it's as clear cut as they say it is against ID. IF ID missed the boat in the placement/length of RLN, then evolution has too. As far as I can understand it right now, with very little research, the nerve travels a fairly short distance in the fish from which we evolved, but then as the fish evolved in to land animals, the heart moved away and that nerve ended up essentially being the wrong side, so as the heart moved further away, so did the nerve. Evolution isn't perfect - that's exactly the point, we keep changing, becoming better. Nobody ever said we're perfect. The fact that I still sometimes bite the inside of my lip is testament to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 It is more likely there was no divine intervention. There is no evidence or proof of divine intervention, none. If there was any evidence, then it would be something scientists legitimately considered. When you consider how huge the universe is, how many planets there are, it really isn't surprising we are on one that can support life. Not to mention we probably are not the only one. We just haven't found any others yet because we're looking at an incredibly small fraction. That's not necessarily true. We've found a number of planets that can theoretically support life, buy they're beyond our capacity to explore at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Oh ye of little faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Oh ye of little faith. I don't take that as an insult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I don't take that as an insult Wasn't meant as an insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 That's not necessarily true. We've found a number of planets that can theoretically support life, buy they're beyond our capacity to explore at this time. I'm going off of probabilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation I believe we have also found bacteria in space/on meteorites as well. Plus some sign of past life on Mars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I'm going off of probabilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation I believe we have also found bacteria in space/on meteorites as well. Plus some sign of past life on Mars There are about 40 'earth like planets' discovered so far - check out the wiki page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 According to Gray's (THE authority on anatomy), the RLN innervates more than just the vocal chords with efferent fibers, in addition to being a conduit for afferent fibers to return from the heart and other organs. Looking at the entire picture and everything the RLN "touches" it's likely that it's already in its "shortest distance" position. And if it's not in (what Dawkins and others are defining as) its ideal position/length, why hasn't it evolved to make it so?? When you say RLN, do you mean to say the vagus nerve? I'm looking at Gray's right now, and the functions you described are carried out by the vagus nerve, and not the RLN, which is a branch off of the vagus nerve. I don't believe its an argument for or against it. Dawkins et al, are using the argument against ID by saying that the RLN is not in the ideal (their definition) position/length. My question was to say that shouldn't evolution have corrected this less than ideal (their definition) position length? I mean if it's as clear cut as they say it is against ID. IF ID missed the boat in the placement/length of RLN, then evolution has too. I think you're misinterpreting the argument. As you can see below, the RLN takes a roundabout route to the places it innervates. It's an argument for evolution in demonstrating that evolution doesn't have any hindsight. Captain Hindsight can take a look at the picture and say, well this is unnecessarily long, and the vagus nerve should have branched off superior to where it currently does. Because of this, vocal cord paralysis can happen due to lymph node enlargement near the aorta or lungs. If you're taking the ID route, then the argument becomes "this was put here so that we could detect lung cancer early." The evolutionary argument for it shows that the vagus nerve and recurrent laryngeal branch is apparently unnecessarily long. However, when you look at the fish, a primitive creature, you see a direct connection from brain to gills. In more highly evolved creatures, the nerve as well as its shape is conserved. Evolution is not very good at deletion of organs (ex. tailbone, tonsils), instead this nerve was reappropriated to innervate the larynx, trachea, and esophagus. As species evolved from fish, the nerve simply extended and reshaped itself in response to the changing locations of the listed organs. Evolutionarily, it was easier to extend the existing nerve rather than to delete the branch and create a new one closer to the effector. The motif is seen in other species too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 so only that didn't evolve well, but everything else did okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The POINT, sieg heil woodpecker, is that you deem people in gov should not be allowed to decide anything based on their beliefs. Because you don't have those beliefs. But, if they decide things based on your lack of the same, well, THAT is okay, because it all is predicated upon... what you want. God only knows what rock you crawled out from under. Aren't you also allergic to rocks, in addition to comprehending what you read ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I want those that represent me in govt to make decisions based off of reason, data, evidence, science, etc. I don't want them to make decisions based off of "faith" or their believe in an old ass storybook. It has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. How you don't get that is beyond me. How'd your be cool with a governor that wastes time praying for rain is beyond me. How'd you'd be OK with a congressman that claims evolution is "a lie straight from the pit of hell" is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 so only that didn't evolve well, but everything else did okay? I wouldn't say that it didn't evolve well. I'd just say that it evolved. You could argue that the layout is inefficient in that it would require less energy to make a shorter nerve with a more direct route. In order to do so, however, it would require a modification of the complex network of homeotic genes which provide the framework for the development of an organism. How these networks work isn't very well understood, though lots of geneticists are studying it today. What is apparent though is that these homeotic genes, specifically the homeobox are conserved across species as simple as bacteria to as complex as us. This genetic conservation across species is probably the most significant argument for evolution today. Basically, it shows that most every living species started from the same basic framework. Due to evolution, this framework was tweaked here or there, at random, and certain genes were more survivable than others. This blueprint works well, apparently better than anything else, and it's why you can see it in probably every genome on the planet. If you can accept the molecular argument, then you can see how it ties into the development macroscopic organism. Gradual changes are evolutionarily easier than making something disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 When you say RLN, do you mean to say the vagus nerve? I'm looking at Gray's right now, and the functions you described are carried out by the vagus nerve, and not the RLN, which is a branch off of the vagus nerve. Yes, the RLN branches off from Vagus at the aorta which is where you start "naming" it when looking at the image you provided. However, the somatic motor neurons originate in the medulla, then travel through the vagus (or with it, if we're getting technical). The RLN innervates several laryngeal muscles in addition to the vocal chords and sensory info from the vocal chord region. So what I described was the RLN. Still. I think you're misinterpreting the argument. As you can see below, the RLN takes a roundabout route to the places it innervates. It's an argument for evolution in demonstrating that evolution doesn't have any hindsight. Captain Hindsight can take a look at the picture and say, well this is unnecessarily long, and the vagus nerve should have branched off superior to where it currently does. Because of this, vocal cord paralysis can happen due to lymph node enlargement near the aorta or lungs. If you're taking the ID route, then the argument becomes "this was put here so that we could detect lung cancer early." The evolutionary argument for it shows that the vagus nerve and recurrent laryngeal branch is apparently unnecessarily long. However, when you look at the fish, a primitive creature, you see a direct connection from brain to gills. In more highly evolved creatures, the nerve as well as its shape is conserved. Evolution is not very good at deletion of organs (ex. tailbone, tonsils), instead this nerve was reappropriated to innervate the larynx, trachea, and esophagus. As species evolved from fish, the nerve simply extended and reshaped itself in response to the changing locations of the listed organs. Evolutionarily, it was easier to extend the existing nerve rather than to delete the branch and create a new one closer to the effector. i think the answer rests more with embryonic development than evolution & "stretching". embryos despite being reliant on the host, still need to function a certain degree vs assembling everything at the end. We also "grew" lungs and "deleted" gills when we allegedly evolved from fish. The motif is seen in other species too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 So in human beings as well as giraffe the brain heart and asshole are in relatively similar order? I'm in. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 So in human beings as well as giraffe the brain heart and asshole are in relatively similar order? I'm in. WSS And fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Yes, the RLN branches off from Vagus at the aorta which is where you start "naming" it when looking at the image you provided. However, the somatic motor neurons originate in the medulla, then travel through the vagus (or with it, if we're getting technical). The RLN innervates several laryngeal muscles in addition to the vocal chords and sensory info from the vocal chord region. So what I described was the RLN. Still. i think the answer rests more with embryonic development than evolution & "stretching". embryos despite being reliant on the host, still need to function a certain degree vs assembling everything at the end. We also "grew" lungs and "deleted" gills when we allegedly evolved from The first one was a question, not an attack. As for landborne creatures losing gills - Yes, trait deletions do happen, but slight modifications of existing traits are far more common than cases where an existing trait gets replaced by a new one. Those cases, for the most part, are major evolutionary divergences on the levels of kingdom, phylum, class, and order rather than species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Posted Today, 04:54 PM I want those that represent me in govt to make decisions based off of reason, data, evidence, science, etc.I don't want them to make decisions based off of "faith" or their believe in an old ass storybook.It has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. sig heil woodpecker *********************************************************************** right. that's okay if you are the only idiot in your entire district. Hate to break it to ya, but you aren't, I'm certain. All those other folks voted for, and elected an official who has spiritual beliefs? Yet, he has to deny them just for little old sig heil woodpecker. How about sig heil woody napoleonic complex? Good grief. Science certainly hasn't helped with with reasoning skills. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 I'm actually pretty tall You wanna talk about reasoning skills?!?!? HAHHAHA. Youve been trying to call me a nazi your last 4 or 5 posts and have failed each time. I'm trying to figure out if you are just too stupid to understand, or you are just choosing to understand what I am actually saying. It is looking more and more pointless to respond. As much as I'd love to repeat myself 5 more times and see you still not get it... If you are cool with your governor holding a public prayer for rain or having your congressman think evolution is "a lie straight from the pit of hell" then there is no hope for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 heres something interesting http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144299-nasa-may-manned-spaceflight-business-check/ Astronomers have discovered a rocky planet that weighs 17 times as much as Earth and is more than twice as large in size. This discovery has planet formation theorists challenged to explain how such a world could have formed.*“We were very surprised when we realized what we had found,” says astronomer Xavier Dumusque of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), who led the analysis using data originally collected by NASA’s Kepler space telescope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Well, all they have to do, is ask woodypeckerhead. He knows how to bs about every subject in the universe, and look like a dumbass little tart woodpecker while having at it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Fantastic post Cal. It must be tough being wrong in this one thread so often. I can see why you've resulted to insults and responding to shit I never said. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Actually, you did say it. You want Christians to only make decisions based on atheism, because you are not a Christian. Sig heil, woodypeckerhead strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 I want PEOPLE to make decisions based on REASON, DATA, FACTS, EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, etc. If you think atheism is those things, and Christianity isn't, well then there you go... But you still won't understand. You'll still take anything I say as some BS "War On Christianity" or whatever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.