Nick: There are great strides in punctuated equilibrium models. I'd encourage you to look into them!
Dave: Ad hominem and baseless attacks won't convince me of anything, nor should it convince anyone else. There is a preponderance of evidence, and very very good theory, that describes exactly how this all works. The fact that you have no knowledge or understanding of Emergent Systems Behavior or Genetics doesn't mean they don't exist, or exhibit complex behavior that appears intelligent (namely, higher mammal species including us) as a result of these processes. You can insist all you like, but you end up sounding exactly like the so called "Zealots" that you are railing against.
If you want to be taken seriously, give me some evidence to back up your claims that intelligence must have come from an intelligent origin.
Better yet, prove to me that THAT intelligent origin couldn't have evolved, but IT must have been made from some other intelligent force.. but then you get into infinite regress, don't you?
I don't have to disprove a super being's existence, nor will I try, since a negative proof of anything is impossible.. but you do have to PROVE it's existence to me, beyond a reasonable doubt.
knomegnome
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
One quickie:
"That's like saying that a million monkeys with typewriters can type all the works of Shakespeare word for word IN CODE and then create and engineer a mechanism that transcribes that code into meaningful Elizabethan English. Now THAT requires INTELLIGENCE."
No, it most definitely does not.
First, Selection does NOT work like that whatsoever. You need to read up on it to understand how it works before you make blanket statements like this. I'll explain it very roughly here:
Selection is the NON RANDOM selection of RANDOMLY GENERATED traits as a response to environmental pressure. So in the example above, if you had a million monkeys, here is how it actually works:
Lets say all 1 million monkeys, every letter/word/sentence/paragraph they type, they are given clues as to how close they are to the desired text. Lets say they get a small piece of banana every time they get closer to the right answer each time they touch the keyboard.
In nature, this banana slice is provided by the physical rules of our Universe, and nothing else.
If this is done, it can be easily shown that a substantial percentage will converge on the desired text in a fairly short time. This is, in fact, how they are taught sign-language, by the way.. and how dogs are taught tricks, and so on. In nature, it is why various groups of monkeys and wolves of identical species act differently in different environments. Because they learned from doing, and by surviving.
So this mechanism is pretty much exactly what Darwin proposed originally, and it is the intentional MIS understanding of it that has driven Creationism and ID for decades. Every time I get into one of these, I have to explain it over and over again.
This argument was dispensed with in the early 1900's. Can we please move on from this? Please READ about selection if you want to argue about it. I would much rather have a difficult discussion about phenotypes and gene lines than all of this stuff...
Lloyd
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
NOTICE * If anyone wants to discuss evolution, please do that on another board. This topic is supposed to be the Saturn System breakup 5,000 years ago.
knomegnome
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Quite correct Lloyd. Thanks for reminding us.
Dave
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Allow me one last reply to our confused friend, knomegnome.
You have missed the point entirely that the monkeys are typing CODE - they do not know if they are close to the desired text, or not, until the translation is done. And neither does DNA until the messenger RNA has been created and assembled and starts building whole proteins. But Nature STILL doesn't know if the full protein - which can contain hundreds of amino acids in a very strict sequence which is determined by DNA - is beneficial or not and even if it is stable and viable. In order for DNA to be of any use, RNA must also have been planned and assembled already. All this happening all at once by chance or in response to the environment where certain beneficial traits are passed on to offspring is neither here nor there, and statistically can be calculated as impossible.
What part of the word CODE do you not understand?
Lloyd
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Uh
Dave, I'd really rather not allow that, if I had my way. It's still not appropriate here.
Aristarchus
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
saul wrote:
Dave wrote: Official timeline of ancient Egypt, that doesn't even take into account multiple parallel dynasties which, on that basis alone, makes it a monumental lie:
It's things like this that make some of these "historical observations" hard to believe. Where do all those romanizations come from? I don't read ancient Egyptian, but I know that even looking at documents in English from 100 years ago, history is not so clear.
Claiming that the Earth (our planet) was a moon of Saturn (the ringed planet) based on translations of translations of documents of unclear motivation? Not very convincing.
However for now I will just add flames to the fire and point out that in Chinese 土星 is Saturn which is literally "Earth star".
Well, while the discussion digresses into 1-million as opposed to 1-million and one or two monkeys - hey - anything to maintain a kludge factor as opposed to scientific exactness, what I'm wondering is how simply creating the term as "romanizations" serves as a vehicle for understanding. Ancient Rome was a peripheral civilization of Ancient Greek. In other words, it lacked culture and had to borrow it. Rome had technology, but it did not have a means to the culture of Ancient Greece, which according to World in Collisions were told by the other Ancients that Greece did not have access to the verbal knowledge of more ancient civilizations that witnessed the unveiling of the new Sun.
The Ancient Greeks were dependent upon knowledge from the Mystery Schools of Egypt. What the Electric Universe model demonstrates empirically is that the scarring of planets shows that the plasma arcs of heavenly bodies in close proximity to each other can cause catastrophes. Ergo, the accretion disk model is compromised, along with the unexplained factor of Jupiter retaining the bulk of angular momentum of the solar system. Rocky planets like our Earth cannot therefore be a product of a Sun such as we have. Myth combined with observation leads to a hypothesis, which is severely wanton of a thrust to understanding the true dynamics of our solar system according to the consensus science. Science can never be proved, but only disproved.
You have to choose now, between the angular momentum being a part of a binary star system, or that of other interacting devices such as a system being capture by other systems and a movement based off electromagnetic interplay.
The hypothesis has at least one fault: it fails to explain how the planets possess about 97% of the total angular momentum in the Solar System when their combined mass is less than one-tenth of one per cent of the Sun's mass. Some astronomers have attempted to prop up the theory by suggesting that the Sun has an undetected companion star on a long, parabolic orbit that takes it beyond our instruments.
Kepler-11's inner five planets all revolve closer than Mercury orbits the Sun, posing a problem for the conventional explanation of planet formation. However, Electric Universe physicist Wal Thornhill argues that a different view of stellar ignition and evolution clears up the problem of planets packed in so tightly to their parent star, as well as their angular momentum.
The plasma cosmogony hypothesis suggests that stars form when cosmic Birkeland currents twist around one another, creating z-pinch regions that compress plasma into a solid. Laboratory experiments have shown that such compression zones are the most likely candidates for star formation and not collapsing nebulae, which is the eighteenth century theory to which astrophysicists still cling.
When stars are born, they are most likely under extreme electrical stress. If such is the case, they will split into one or more daughter stars, thereby equalizing their electrical potential. Thornhill writes: "The fission process is repeated in further electrical disturbances by flaring red dwarfs and gas giant planets ejecting rocky and icy planets, moons, comets, asteroids and meteorites. Planetary systems may also be acquired over time by electrical capture of independent interstellar bodies such as dim brown dwarf stars. That seems the best explanation for our 'fruit salad' of a solar system."
He also argues that the longer a star lives, the more metal it will accumulate: "Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize 'metals' that continually rain into the star's depths." At some point, the star ejects those metallized accumulations as large, ionized gas giant-type planets. Smaller, rocky objects might also calve from the host star.
Dave wrote: Allow me one last reply to our confused friend, knomegnome.
You have missed the point entirely that the monkeys are typing CODE - they do not know if they are close to the desired text, or not, until the translation is done. And neither does DNA until the messenger RNA has been created and assembled and starts building whole proteins. But Nature STILL doesn't know if the full protein - which can contain hundreds of amino acids in a very strict sequence which is determined by DNA - is beneficial or not and even if it is stable and viable. In order for DNA to be of any use, RNA must also have been planned and assembled already. All this happening all at once by chance or in response to the environment where certain beneficial traits are passed on to offspring is neither here nor there, and statistically can be calculated as impossible.
What part of the word CODE do you not understand?
I understand it completely, as I have coded GP and GA for non gaussian probability models on actor choice. I am perfectly clear, but I think that my point is fading into the wind.. I'll try to clarify a bit.
There are prion theories that show great promise to explain why proteins can have marginal benefit, and can, in fact, "come into being fully formed" in a sense, from pieces. There are a whole slew of them in fact. And you are missing the point that other, simpler proteins can have a similar effect. In other words there is evidence to suggest that there are, in fact, marginal benefits to simpler proteins which mutate over time, and due to circumstance, to more complicated proteins with better effects. The horseshoe crab is a shining example of copper based hemoglobin that works very well, and is definitely inferior to iron based hemoglobin. Heck, hemoglobin in general is a fantastic mutation if you want access to cheap energy, but there are lots of non hemoglobin life forms that are doing just fine.
Your point about RNA/DNA synthesis is moot. There are RNA only lifeforms out there, mate, and there are current theories as to how DNA could have come from those, as well as the aforementioned prion theories.
What I am saying is two fold: (1) I don't think you are referring to the latest research, and (2) just because something isn't able to be explained today, doesn't mean it can't be explained tomorrow. We are constantly being "shocked" by new discoveries that force us to re-evaluate our universe. Like The Electric Universe.
And by the way, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "Nature doesn't know". Nature doesn't "know" anything, and noone is claiming it does. Nature is an assemblage of processes. The monkeys don't have to know they are typing code to type it out well.. they just need a banana. That's the same thing as a trait-mutation giving marginal evolutionary benefit over some other trait, thus winning the resource war with others, and propagating, and continuing the long, slow road.
knomegnome
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
This is the whole jumping off point for much of Talbott's work, no?
My money is on Fissioning as the cause. Goddesses were born from god's heads.. that could easily be references to fissioning of planets being observed in the sky. Thanks for those references!
Dave
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
@knomegnome. <moderator edit> To all you others with open minds:
Dr. Colin Patterson—Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)—gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, "The theory makes a prediction; we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely." Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted "evolution was a faith," he was "duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way," and "evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life]." "Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory," Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, Personal communication. For other statements from Patterson's presentation, see Tom Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper's Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49–61.
"... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ..." Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280.
"It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shape. ... One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature." Ibid., p. 282.
The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series." Ibid., p. 289.
"Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence." Ibid., pp. 289–290.
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." Ibid., p. 290
The hypothesis has at least one fault: it fails to explain how the planets possess about 97% of the total angular momentum in the Solar System when their combined mass is less than one-tenth of one per cent of the Sun's mass. Some astronomers have attempted to prop up the theory by suggesting that the Sun has an undetected companion star on a long, parabolic orbit that takes it beyond our instruments.
Kepler-11's inner five planets all revolve closer than Mercury orbits the Sun, posing a problem for the conventional explanation of planet formation. However, Electric Universe physicist Wal Thornhill argues that a different view of stellar ignition and evolution clears up the problem of planets packed in so tightly to their parent star, as well as their angular momentum.
The plasma cosmogony hypothesis suggests that stars form when cosmic Birkeland currents twist around one another, creating z-pinch regions that compress plasma into a solid. Laboratory experiments have shown that such compression zones are the most likely candidates for star formation and not collapsing nebulae, which is the eighteenth century theory to which astrophysicists still cling.
When stars are born, they are most likely under extreme electrical stress. If such is the case, they will split into one or more daughter stars, thereby equalizing their electrical potential. Thornhill writes: "The fission process is repeated in further electrical disturbances by flaring red dwarfs and gas giant planets ejecting rocky and icy planets, moons, comets, asteroids and meteorites. Planetary systems may also be acquired over time by electrical capture of independent interstellar bodies such as dim brown dwarf stars. That seems the best explanation for our 'fruit salad' of a solar system."
He also argues that the longer a star lives, the more metal it will accumulate: "Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize 'metals' that continually rain into the star's depths." At some point, the star ejects those metallized accumulations as large, ionized gas giant-type planets. Smaller, rocky objects might also calve from the host star.
I believe it necessary to bump this post, because the digression of the topic is obviously still being tolerated. The two posters in question have been told to start their off topic responses to each other on another more appropriate thread, but it still continues between them tit-for-tat and unabated.
Llolyd had given us much to consider as it relates to the Saturn Myth topic, not just on this thread, but others as well. His hard work should be apreciated and respected.
Lloyd, thanks for your efforts and research. I've been sharing this information that you and others have provided here at TBIF on another forum, as there are those at the forum starved for the information and are quite intrigued and dazzled. Hope you don't mind.
Sco4444
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
Aristarchus Wrote;
"Lloyd had given us much to consider as it relates to the Saturn Myth topic, not just on this thread, but others as well. His hard work should be apreciated and respected."
While agreeing with this statement and no matter how appealing the Saturn Myth, it remains just that. For me the migration of The Earth from Saturn's environment to its current position without stripping off the atmosphere presents a big problem, let alone there being species that observed and recorded the migration.
Finding scientific evidence that Jupiter and Saturn are related to Brown/Red Dwarfs would be a start. New research is attempting to show that ultra-cool brown dwarfs, demonstrate auroral behavior similar to Jupiter and Saturn. Perhaps they will go further.
Ari: Lloyd, thanks for your efforts and research. I've been sharing this information that you and others have provided here at TBIF on another forum, as there are those at the forum starved for the information and are quite intrigued and dazzled. Hope you don't mind.
Nope. I don't mind. And if anyone else does mind anyone quoting them from here to somewhere else, I don't think they have a say, at least as long as the source is included in the new post. I don't care if the source is mentioned or not when I'm quoted though. Thanks for the compliment. I would have said so sooner, but I just now first read your message.
Sco: the migration of The Earth from Saturn's environment to its current position without stripping off the atmosphere presents a big problem, let alone there being species that observed and recorded the migration. - Finding scientific evidence that Jupiter and Saturn are related to Brown/Red Dwarfs would be a start.
Why do you think the atmosphere should have stripped off if Earth moved from the Saturn System to its present orbit? I think Fred Jueneman has suggested that Earth may have started out like one of the gas giant planets and periodically had large amounts of its atmosphere blown off, esp. if there was much methane in it, and maybe other explosive gases, including hydrogen, I guess. I think Cardona or someone will be talking in the early January EU Conference about evidence that Earth's makeup is consistent with that of bodies from another galaxy, where he thinks Saturn and Earth came from, i.e. the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, which circles the Milky Way.
Sco4444
Re: Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago
"Lloyd wrote » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:22 am Why do you think the atmosphere should have stripped off if Earth moved from the Saturn System to its present orbit?"
I think The Saturn Myth presents an intriguing hypothesis of Stellar collision and subsequent planetary re-alignment. Assuming Stars move within Galactic plasma fields then there must be "rules" when the smaller star intersects another plasma cell (heliosphere) and how the "power train" is usurped by the higher current density of the bigger Star i.e. Sun/Saturn. At what "boundary" would this occur and is the process gradual or instant?
Loss of power equals loss of heat and arguably loss of photosynthesis and plant support. If break-up occurred at Jupiter boundary then Snowball Earth is likely outcome, with resultant temperature impact on Oxygen and Nitrogen in Earth atmosphere. Titan and Enceladus are most obvious examples. Until Earth achieved current orbit where would heat/food source come from to support life?
Is planetary magnetosphere independent of stellar body? During the migration did Earth's change as it aligned to Sun? Arguably Magnetosphere could be seen as "step down transformer" of stellar energy but the Sun having a higher current density than Dwarf Saturn must have had consequences for life on Earth when Sun's Solar Wind penetrated the Earth's magnetopause. More questions than answers really.
