DNA replication, Cell division and Evolution

[AFJ]

the fossil record and current genetic studies show transitions and connections

The fossil record is the weakest evidence for the theory. You have fully formed extinct organisms in the Cambrian explosion. With those you have many living fossils. Would that not be rather an indicator of the stability of the genome? If transitions are so prevalent then why do you need to have such media hype when a supposed missing link is discovered? Even Darwin was concerned with this lack of evidence in the fossil record. Many of the fossils found are found in vast animal graveyards, with evidence of cataclysmic sudden death. Fish mixed in with mammals--an indicator of catastrophic flooding. Those fossils can not speak, but if they could they might tell a totally different story than what we have heard all our lives!

[gamila]

So what r u?

i accept colin leslie deans point that all products of human thinking will end in meaninglessness ie self contradiction all thesis and anthesis nhilism existentiisim rationalism etc every thing creationism creationism darwinism everything
dean has shown maths and science end in meaninglessness

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ience4.pdf

he has shown godels theorm end in meaninglessness
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... GODEL5.pdf

he has shown man is decentred from being a priviliged knower in the universe
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ntred1.pdf

and all products of human thinking end in meaninglessness
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... hought.pdf

as a case in point

understand that exact definition of species is problematic.

because of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

thus
such that something like this is really meaningless

without knowing what species and phylum are
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodivers ... cords.html

Kingdon: Animalia

Phylum: Annelida Worms
Class: Polychaeta Polychaetes

Phylum: Arthropoda Insects, Spiders, Millipedes, Crabs, Beetles
Class: Arachnida Spiders, Scorpions
Class: Insecta Ants, Bees
Class: Malacostraca Crabs, Lobsters, Shrimps, Woodlice
Class: Maxillopoda Barnacles

Phylum: Chordata Animals With A Backbone
Class: Aves Birds
Class: Actinopterygii Ray-finned Fishes
Class: Sarcopterygii Lungfishes
Class: Cephalaspidomorphi Jawless Fishes

Phylum: Cnidaria Corals and Sea Anemones
Class: Anthozoa
Class: Hydrozoa

Phylum: Echinodermata Sea Stars, Sea Urchins and relatives
Class: Asteroidea Sea Stars, Cushion Stars and relatives
Class: Echinoidea Sea Urchins, Heart Urchins and Sand Dollars
Class: Holothuroidea Sea Cucumbers

and this is equally meaningless
http://www.indianchild.com/animal_kingdom.htm

Animal Kingdom can be split up into main groups, vertebrates (with a backbone) and invertebrates (without a backbone). When you think of an animal, you usually think of something like a cat, a dog, a mouse, or a tiger.

All told, around 800,000 species have been identified in the Animal Kingdom -- most of them in the Arthropod phylum.

In fact, some scientists believe that if we were to identify all species in the tropical rain forests the ranks of Arthropoda would swell to over 10 million species! Most people do not normally think of a clam, a jellyfish, or an earthworm as an animal.

[/quote]

with out exact definitions of its terms without knowing what species or phylum are then biology just ends in nonsense because its terms really dont signify anything at all

[AFJ]

gamila,

Let me encourage you to read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. King Solomon (son of King David) wrote 3000 years ago along the same lines, Vanity, vanity (meaninglessness) says the preacher, all is vanity. The wind blows to the east and then comes back again. All that has ever been will be again. Nothing new under the sun. The sun rises and sets. Man works, lives and dies, and leaves his money to someone who did not work for it. Oppressive people rule over the poor who have no power to fight. These are some of the ideas he puts forth. But in the the end he says, This is the conclusion--serve God and do his will, for he will bring our works to judgement.

The Bible teaches that
1)all of mankind are victims of their own sin basically--"the wicked man will be bound by the cords of his evil desire"--Proverbs.
2)The problem is that "all have sinned and come short of God's glory." Romans 3:23
3)and that "the earnings of sin is death [death means separation--from body and from God],

4) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

For all flesh is as grass, and the glory of the flesh as the flower of grass, the grass withers and flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. I Peter 1

Receive the engrafted word with meekness, which is able to save your souls.

[gamila]

[quote]Let me encourage you to read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. King Solomon (son of King David) wrote 3000 years ago along the same lines, Vanity, vanity (meaninglessness) says the preacher, all is vanity.[/quote
yes i have read that book and i enjoyed it t has many useful things to say

[futurezoologist]

Wow i missed this one... I'm starting from the start.

gamila said:
what he is saying is you must toe the line and repeat the orthodoxy
just as if you where a student in Galelios time in order to pass you would have had to repeat the earth centric doctrine

No i think what he means it that you have to be skeptical of everything you ready, even if it is claimed by the smartest person you know.

gamila said:
and as i have shown these biologists cant even tell you what a species or phylum is

Nope he has shown that the classifications made by humans are not perfect.

gamila said:
Khun a philosopher of science

ahah i like that one "A Philosopher of Science", makes him sound like he knows something about science.

gamila said:
how can you talk of speciation when biologist dont know what a species is

We DO know what a species is - a species is what we decide it is! Our classifications are not perfect, we are constantly restructuring them to make the picture fit together properly. A 'species' can ONLY be what we decide it is, because it is a classification that we made!! The same goes with the word 'speciation', we made it up, so we can give it whatever meaning we want, but we have to supply that meaning with the processes that it encompasses--and we have, mutation, natural selection. So if it comes down to mutation of natural selection that you have a problem with BE SPECIFIC, don't just say "natural selection is invalidated by" and paste an article you found on genesispark, state what it is that you disagree with, then i think your argument will be much more easily interpreted.

AFJ said
So therefore, unlike evolution teaches, the effects of NS are not set in stone.

Natural selection has never been set in stone, this is the whole process of science, when we receive evidence that refutes our current theories we attempt to adjust these theories to suit the new margins, it is a continual cycle of adjustment.

AFJ said
If transitions are so prevalent then why do you need to have such media hype when a supposed missing link is discovered?

Because the media likes to make money, and to do so they need to dramatise things, don’t make the mistake of thinking that the media is on the scientists side. Take the event where they were acceleration particles at near the speed of light into one another to try to make a singularity, the media got hold of this and though “singularity? I learnt about singularities in yr 9 when we were leaning about black holes.. Black Holes! That’s a good idea, I’ll just say they ar e going to make a black hole!”.

gamila said
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
"Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists"

Once again you are wrong in your interpretation of a text. Classifications are made to try and find similarities in animals and group them, to do this we need fossil evidence of each stage of their evolution where they have mutated away from the ‘normal’ population and have not been out competed- via isolation etc. We are still looking for these links, and in my opinion we have done a pretty good job so far.

gamila said
with out exact definitions of its terms without knowing what species or phylum are then biology just ends in nonsense because its terms really dont signify anything at all

OK, new approach because you have said the same thing in other topics but neglected our explanations. You have a chair – I say nope that’s not a chair, its just an oddly shaped piece of wood – Someone else comes along and says no, its lots of plant cells packed into a small area. The lesson is, our classifications are what we make them.

I think you are flawed in one main point:
We do not use our classifications to explain our theories, we use our theories(and processes, evidence etc.) to develop our classifications.