Ordinary Evolution of Intelligent Life = 10 Billion Years

[kmarinas86]

The Earth is billions of years old. The Solar System a bit older than that. The Universe itself is much older. The Universe was not created, it just exists. The Galaxy wasn't created, it just exists. The same goes with the Planet Earth, it just exists.

However, there could be a engima that is intentionally obscured. Why are there religions in the first place? Do the myths and legends associated with people like the Greeks, Romans, Israelis, African Tribes, South American tribes, and Aboriginies the reflect their long forgotten observations? Many artworks show human like figures from the sky, and other beings coming from the sky. Why is it that the ancients were interested in flying, wings, and such? What was there talk and riddle about stars "that move". What exactly did they look like? Did they behave like planets, meteors, or something else?

So we have a limitation, we cannot travel back and time to see what was. We don't know if Jesus existed. We don't know if there was a "star" of Bethlehem. We don't know if the flood was caused by a bomb or asteroid that split the continents. We cannot consider any possibilities which are ruled out by lack of chance or absurdity.

But I contest that existence of Jesus is not an impossibility, and neither is his ressurection and ascension to heaven. The science that would actually make this possible would have to be quite advanced and beyond even our current technology. Mankind has only within the past century learned HOW to build helicopters, airplanes, and spaceships. Flying for humans has only been possible for 100+ years. Our technology is limited, but our imagination is not. Ressurection of the dead may be as simple as taking a cell from a deceased loved one and doing some miraculous things with it which are infeasible to science of this decade. Imagining having all the data of Jesus before he died. If you had a cell of him, with very futuristic technology, you could make a total copy of him, skin bone and all. Ressurection of the dead is absurd as was the invention of the airplane and the printing press. Ressurection of the dead is no more than result of an invention that has not come.

Creating life on other planets appears to be inhibited by our either by the laws of the universe or by the limitations of 20th century science and theory. We're only just off past of the 20th century, and we learn that interstellar space travel is impossible. Is that so? Travelling faster than a horse was impossible, look at us now. Travelling faster than a supersonic jet was impossible, but scientists made it happen. Interstellar travel is possible without breaking the speed of light but it takes many years that way.

What is the purpose of creating life on other planets? The purpose is its function. Life on Planet A creates Life on Planet B which creates life on planet C, etc. So how did Planet A come about? Is it evolution? What percentage of intelligent life in the universe had to evolve to become intelligent. It is wholly not impossible that Intelligent life on Planet C can create life on Planet D. All the information for evolution could be stored in the "DNA" of life in planet D, so that life evolves 100-10,000 times faster than it would by random chance alone. The airising intelligent life on Planet D could discover hidden code in their once-thought Junk DNA. Their new understanding of Junk DNA would revolutionize their understanding of genetics and raise many questions which the scientists among them try to answer.

Who is this life on planet D? Did it evolve faster than usual? Does evolution usually take tens or even hundreds of billions of years? Even if there are many planets that have evolved intelligent life, is the normal speed of evolution 10-100 times slower than we think? Is Planet D really unique for having life evolve over billions of years?

Planet D could actually be earth. A planet billions of years in age, but with the advantage of life which is already set up to evolve to reptiles, birds, and mankind in a relatively short period of time. However Planet D may not be Earth. Or may be it is.

It's another one of those things we don't know, yet. Something as fantastic as this can only be discovered if we have the scientific means explain it observationally. We have the DNA, so what's in there to be discovered? Absolute knowledge of DNA and our biology is the only way to determine our origins. Science and the study of life is the only way to determine our origins. We can't use ice cores to determine how life began on planet Earth. The origin of life comes from biology itself, not the ice cores in Antartica.

[kmarinas86]

Who is this life on planet D? Did it evolve faster than usual? Does evolution usually take tens or even hundreds of billions of years? Even if there are many planets that have evolved intelligent life, is the normal speed of evolution 10-100 times slower than we think? Is Planet D really unique for having life evolve over billions of years?

This speculation is flawed if the Big Bang theory is complete and accurate. However, I have an explanation for the above.

It's called the cyclic multiverse theory.

http://members.roadfly.org/kmarinas86/the+cyclical+mutiverse+theory+2.jpg

What applies to our universe also applies to the quarks within us. However, for these quarks, life living within passes many eons before make another step. For every blink, countless civilizations pass on their integrity to new civilizations. All of this is happening inside of us while you read this. What was 1 trillion years for them is a year for us. From here we can conclude that the universe is eternal.

If such speculation is true, the beginning of evolution of intelligent life (100+billions years transformation) resulted in numerous speedier "evolutions" and perhaps genetic manipulation.

The suprauniverse is in equlibrium, for nothing exists outside it, and no thing can be added to it.

[Essan]

There's no evidence that intelligent life has ever evolved. Anywhere.

We do know for certain that there's none on Earth..... 8-[

[Avatar28]

There's no evidence that intelligent life has ever evolved. Anywhere.

We do know for certain that there's none on Earth..... 8-[

Now, now. Let's not be so insulting towards the dolphins. And the mice. Can't forget the mice. They are hyperintelligent transdimensional beings, after all.

[Yorkshireman]

Now, now. Let's not be so insulting towards the dolphins. And the mice. Can't forget the mice. They are hyperintelligent transdimensional beings, after all.

And they're experimenting on us!

[Amadeus]

Whenever I see a photo shop lens flare filter in a diagram I just switch off.

*click*

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Now, now. Let's not be so insulting towards the dolphins. And the mice. Can't forget the mice. They are hyperintelligent transdimensional beings, after all.

And they're experimenting on us!

Yes, Life, the Universe, and Everything, don'tcha know?

Too bad the Program takes 10 Million Years, to Run!

[electromagneticpulse]

kmarinas86 i recommend you read the book Time Travel: A Guide for Beginners (by J. H. Brennan) dives into this through most of the book in his theory that we could have already traveled back in time as their are anomylous findings predating modern man by umm over 600 million years before we came out of the sea. It is really interesting and i've wondered what would happen if we took one of our cells and modified it and put it into a monkey embryo left the planet and 10 million years or so down the line and see if it evolved into a human because we have neanderthol mans genetic code stored in our DNA as we once evolved into him and then bred out or devolved out.
Oh and the helicopter was originaly desgined over 400 years ago i believe with da vinchi, aswell as HE explosive shells, screws, drive shafts, water cooled gun barrels, machine guns, hang gliders (which worked), submarines, electricity products... need i go on? im sorry but when the guy had designs for the missile systems that could rivel the V2 rocket the germans built in WW2 400 years before they did i would be rather skeptical of us being of little potential and that a battery was found dating back to 200bc-200ad.
I personaly believe in the existance of jesus and if the guiding star to bethlehem was actualy a space ship which have been reported by the egyptian pharoes in bc 1500 or so, could be possible as they reported 5.
If life was made on this planet to evolve into highly inteligent and hopefully not kill ourselves off in the process, and jesus' miracles now thought to be capable of higher evolved humans umm DNA modifications maybe, virgin pregnancy...

Also alot of old religions relate to quantem physics in that everything is created and destroyed over and over, hello hinduism and budism. Also that all our evolving was by chance when earth used to be uninhabitable for life when mars used to be and it is now thought it failed there, what is the chance life would start twice in the same solar system? Pardon the pun but its astronomical! especialy with the current ratio of 1 planet with life to many billion with out.


anyone fancy a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster... Zaphod would you do the honours? :lol:

[gritmonger]

kmarinas86 i recommend you read the book Time Travel: A Guide for Beginners (by J. H. Brennan) dives into this through most of the book in his theory that we could have already traveled back in time as their are anomylous findings predating modern man by umm over 600 million years before we came out of the sea.

"Anomalous findings" of what? Are you talking about fossils? Sedimentation? Iron deposits? Please elaborate. And please define "...before we came out of the sea." Are you referring to the Permian and the expansion of life onto land, or are you talking about vertebrates in particular?


It is really interesting and i've wondered what would happen if we took one of our cells and modified it and put it into a monkey embryo left the planet and 10 million years or so down the line and see if it evolved into a human

One cell? Not likely. Changes have to occur in the population, and if our cell was left in a monkey and supposing it was a germ cell, it would likely not grow beyond the gastrula stage before problems with incompatable blueprinting killed it. One parent would be a monkey, and man-monkey hybrids don't live as far as we know.

because we have neanderthol mans genetic code stored in our DNA as we once evolved into him and then bred out or devolved out.
Not really. This is not substantiated by current genetic studies (for instance: multiple origins of human DNA, significant differences between populations with regard to origins, tracking of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome studies) nor is it likely: Homo sapiens neandertalis was another branch, with which we more than likely had a common ancestor.


Oh and the helicopter was originaly desgined over 400 years ago i believe with da vinchi, aswell as HE explosive shells, screws, drive shafts, water cooled gun barrels, machine guns, hang gliders (which worked), submarines, electricity products... need i go on? im sorry but when the guy had designs for the missile systems that could rivel the V2 rocket the germans built in WW2 400 years before they did i would be rather skeptical of us being of little potential

Da Vinci sketched. He did not build many of these, nor did he engineer or test many more. He was called upon mostly for fortress designs. He had a vivid imagination and a bit of foresight.

and that a battery was found dating back to 200bc-200ad.

Evidence for this claim is scarce: wine as acid is weak at best in terms of forming a battery of any use and for any length of time.


I personaly believe in the existance of jesus and if the guiding star to bethlehem was actualy a space ship which have been reported by the egyptian pharoes in bc 1500 or so, could be possible as they reported 5.
If life was made on this planet to evolve into highly inteligent and hopefully not kill ourselves off in the process, and jesus' miracles now thought to be capable of higher evolved humans umm DNA modifications maybe, virgin pregnancy...


So Jesus was an Ubermensch? Because of DNA?


Also alot of old religions relate to quantem physics in that everything is created and destroyed over and over, hello hinduism and budism.

Quantum physics talks about probability, not Dharma, the wheel, the incarnations of Vishnu, or the like. Oh, but it does claim that in a previous age we were 16 feet tall, made of gold, and had multiple heads, if I recall. Very much like quantum theory.

Also that all our evolving was by chance when earth used to be uninhabitable for life when mars used to be and it is now thought it failed there, what is the chance life would start twice in the same solar system? Pardon the pun but its astronomical! especialy with the current ratio of 1 planet with life to many billion with out.


We don't know the chances of life forming. We have only inferred with data the presence of 120 or so planets outside our system, not billions, and have not stopped to look closely at more than four, if you count Eros and the Moon. The chance of life forming twice, three times, or not at all within one system has not been established, and won't be established until we fail to find or find any other in ours and look in close up detail at many, many others.

[Richard of Chelmsford]

Religion is banned on this site, old chap. [-X

[electromagneticpulse]

kmarinas86 i recommend you read the book Time Travel: A Guide for Beginners (by J. H. Brennan) dives into this through most of the book in his theory that we could have already traveled back in time as their are anomylous findings predating modern man by umm over 600 million years before we came out of the sea.

"Anomalous findings" of what? Are you talking about fossils? Sedimentation? Iron deposits? Please elaborate. And please define "...before we came out of the sea." Are you referring to the Permian and the expansion of life onto land, or are you talking about vertebrates in particular?


It is really interesting and i've wondered what would happen if we took one of our cells and modified it and put it into a monkey embryo left the planet and 10 million years or so down the line and see if it evolved into a human

One cell? Not likely. Changes have to occur in the population, and if our cell was left in a monkey and supposing it was a germ cell, it would likely not grow beyond the gastrula stage before problems with incompatable blueprinting killed it. One parent would be a monkey, and man-monkey hybrids don't live as far as we know.

because we have neanderthol mans genetic code stored in our DNA as we once evolved into him and then bred out or devolved out.
Not really. This is not substantiated by current genetic studies (for instance: multiple origins of human DNA, significant differences between populations with regard to origins, tracking of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome studies) nor is it likely: Homo sapiens neandertalis was another branch, with which we more than likely had a common ancestor.


Oh and the helicopter was originaly desgined over 400 years ago i believe with da vinchi, aswell as HE explosive shells, screws, drive shafts, water cooled gun barrels, machine guns, hang gliders (which worked), submarines, electricity products... need i go on? im sorry but when the guy had designs for the missile systems that could rivel the V2 rocket the germans built in WW2 400 years before they did i would be rather skeptical of us being of little potential

Da Vinci sketched. He did not build many of these, nor did he engineer or test many more. He was called upon mostly for fortress designs. He had a vivid imagination and a bit of foresight.

and that a battery was found dating back to 200bc-200ad.

Evidence for this claim is scarce: wine as acid is weak at best in terms of forming a battery of any use and for any length of time.


I personaly believe in the existance of jesus and if the guiding star to bethlehem was actualy a space ship which have been reported by the egyptian pharoes in bc 1500 or so, could be possible as they reported 5.
If life was made on this planet to evolve into highly inteligent and hopefully not kill ourselves off in the process, and jesus' miracles now thought to be capable of higher evolved humans umm DNA modifications maybe, virgin pregnancy...


So Jesus was an Ubermensch? Because of DNA?


Also alot of old religions relate to quantem physics in that everything is created and destroyed over and over, hello hinduism and budism.

Quantum physics talks about probability, not Dharma, the wheel, the incarnations of Vishnu, or the like. Oh, but it does claim that in a previous age we were 16 feet tall, made of gold, and had multiple heads, if I recall. Very much like quantum theory.

Also that all our evolving was by chance when earth used to be uninhabitable for life when mars used to be and it is now thought it failed there, what is the chance life would start twice in the same solar system? Pardon the pun but its astronomical! especialy with the current ratio of 1 planet with life to many billion with out.


We don't know the chances of life forming. We have only inferred with data the presence of 120 or so planets outside our system, not billions, and have not stopped to look closely at more than four, if you count Eros and the Moon. The chance of life forming twice, three times, or not at all within one system has not been established, and won't be established until we fail to find or find any other in ours and look in close up detail at many, many others.

1, Anomalous findings would be copper tubes which can't be formed naturally, modern human skulls appearing 10 million years before we evolved, a fossilised shoe print with stitching which dates back 500 million years, bones of a whole family swept up on a beach shore IIRC 50 million years ago... im sorry but rather big anomolys that havent been explained by the best in the archeological field. and i am reffering to the population explosion 600 million years ago purely of multi celled organisms.

2, i wasn't talking about growing a human in a monkey i was talking about altering our DNA coding which the MODIFIED was supposed to imply so that our DNA would be in the 'junk' coding in the DNA so not a monkey man hybrid just a monkey with some guidance in its DNA coding.

3, theirs archeological evidence of neanderthol man and our ancestors living together in trade communities and had offspring which would then have offspring with another of our ancestors or a hybrid and as the strong survive we evolved out of it purely on our ingenuity not our strength.

4, Da vinci may have not tested his designs but many have been tested, one was his hang glider which worked as good as a standard one today and with a little modifications could easily out perform standard ones today because the shape of the wing allowed for deformations like in a birds wing. He also desinged a super ballista which would have been able to fire a cannon ball 300 meters against a castle wall with high accuracy and was meant to out perform the cannons of the time and would have with ease. He also designed an armored personal carryer of sorts which could easily move over 30 men which would be armed with cross bows and be capable of firing out while not been able to be shot back.

5, the battery was a reusable one and it would have more likely used sour juices more like lemon or even vinigar which they had back then granted it was rare but it is thought that the ancient battery may have traveled around.

6, reiki is a practice of healing using the bodys energy to restore someone elses some cases have been reported of reiki masters on freak cases actualy healing someones wound while they where in deep concentration. Its possible that jesus was an Ubermensch and yes because of DNA. I dont find it so hard to understand and especialy as jesus would have gone through years of mental training and spiritual training, hello zen masters that can be blind folded put into a room with a target placed at random and be able to hit it dead on a bulls eye, just concentrate.

7, Quantum physics talks about everything being created then destroyed and created all over again, anti matter collisions of two electrons (one anti and one normal) which dont emit light afterwards but in the destruction create two more electrons which can then collide and create two more. Also the universe is a closed system in motion and will eventualy after a certain period of time return to how it originaly was and at some point all be in the same position as you read this post. Hello rebirth! who says that we couldn't be 16 feet tall with multiple heads and as budism and hinduism reffer to the soul as being gold and not the actual physical person.

8, we have no idea how life even formed and its thought to have been discovered in space clouds so life could be as simple as skimming a stone across a pond, if you dont think about it and do it then its simple if you think about it and take a serious metholodical approach to it you'll most likely end up with a lot of pebbles at your feet and be better off kicking them in.

And sorry Richard and the big BA but in the case of evolution religion has to be brought in as it has been a key element for over 5000 years in our life and deffinetly alot longer. Anyway Budism isn't a religion its a philosophy :D

[gritmonger]

1. Ah, the old saw and debunked claims. I thought maybe you had something new.

2. You stated putting one cell into a monkey. A monkey. Population dynamics would depend upon that one monkey with that one cell procreating with that one cell, and that particular monkey being successful enough to procreate, and avoid dying. Carrying extra junk DNA which slows down copying and cell division is not as I recall a distinct survival advantage.

3. No, there is not. There is evidence of "contemporary" human and neandertal civilizations, but not in the same region. There are examples of overlapping populations, but not in the same time period, usually separated by on the order of tens of thousands of years. And neandertal, while they had "bigger" brains (purely measured in cc's) they also were, by their bones and muscle attachment scarring, significantly stronger than modern man. And as I've stated, the DNA analysis has pretty much shown that no modern human has ancestry other than the "single" Y-chromosome ancestor and single mitochondrial ancestor. If we had Neandertal DNA, we woulde expect some populations to diverge from this finding.

4. How many were built in his time and were used? I'd wager not the rocket or the helicopter. He was an expert at fortification and siege engines. Regardless of foresight, his inventions were not that much beyond good speculation, not superintelligence. He had a vivid imagination.

5. It is stated that it was a battery: this is not a fact, or known as its purpose. There are no other records of a battery, or this particular novelty of copper in an urn of acidic juice. For all we know they might have considered it as making it taste better.

6. Reiki, paranormal abilities et al: a single case has yet to be verified objectively. And piles of anectdotes are just that: piles of ancectdotes. This is not like "Miracle on 34th Street" where enough belief will result in an establishment of fact.

7. My point is that you appear to confuse mathematical analysis of phenomena with general religous assertion. It may be analogous after a sort, but one does not affirm or deny the other, or predict or establish the other.

8. Your statement is not parsed. Pebbles are not life, and analogy, similar to anectdote, is neither fact nor proof. Chemicals are similar everywhere, and behave similarly, this much we can reasonably assert. If conditions exist which are similar to earth circa 4.5 billion years ago, we don't currently know the likelihood of life forming. That is the point. We don't know if it is close to zero or close to one. Until more data is gathered, we won't know.

Pebbles and ponds have less than zero to do with the discussion.

______________________________________
Edited for spelling. Edited one time.

[electromagneticpulse]

1, theirs only so much that can be found from 500 million years ago because most of land mass from back then is normaly gone. Their was also a whole wall of large smooth rocks found in a mountain quarry in the USA aswell as a gold necklace of ornaite design which was found in a lump of coal that was carbon dated to 45-55 million years old, sorry but coal cannot be seperated and formed back together with out several tons of pressure.

2, its an idea i dont plan to do it... any time soon anyway :wink: i know as little of genetic engineering as the monkey i'd be putting the modified embryo in.

3, their is an overlap it was found in europe of 1000 years of both living in the same area, only female neaderthol bones where ever found and would be the only tradeable aspect of the different people if they were killed. if you take a hostage who would you rather have a man who could potentialy kill you or a woman who you could get offspring from and force to cook you food and make your clothes. (sorry to the female members of this forum but just stating a fact and we all know you'd take the women cause they'd be able to do more then one thing at a time :D )

4, the rocket wasn't obviously as they didn't have any of the skills we have in metal work although he did make the first full cast bronze statue instead of plates which was decades ahead of his time. his painting techniques where also revolutionary as he painted onto dry wall instead of wet plaster... which is what we all do now. The helicopter he designed wouldn't be practicle as its design was poor as it worked like a screw into the air it would have provided lift but nothing else. He designed shrapnel which he later added to the design of his HE shell, shrapnel was invented in 1900's by a british colonel IIRC. He had a vivid imagination he wrote backwards for no apparent reason and he didn't like being told what he should and shouldn't be doing, he was an average person by that definition but he invented things that no one of the time or for hundreds of years after did either.

5, no one is around to state that it is or isnt a battery because they were dead over 1800 years ago, theirs also a design for a bike like the one you possibly ride every day which wasn't invented till the safety bicicle.

6, The inventor of Reiki himself reported 4 miracles in one day which he performed.
http://www.quantumtouch.com/stories.php
http://www.crystalinks.com/reiki.html
read the sites and you might change your skeptic view, i've seen touch healing working at a religious festival well over 20,000 people where there, in the youth tents which i saw these 'miracles' happen in there was about 1,000 people i saw a few people who had problems like bad backs all sorts and then we did a communal prayer tunnel and then single prayers where people fell with the spirt, some nights their was mass laughter for no reason, then mass sadness the next night. I personaly don't think it necisarrily had to be religious kind of like the hype at a big party you dont have to be drunk to feel the energy of everyone having a good time but when everyone focus' this energy its alot that is pointed on one person.

7, agreeable but maybe they are clued in a bit more then we are or just more observant of things. But the fact that their religion is based on rebirth and that vishnu the creator can be in many forms (staying on antimatter idea) for example two photons, a photon and an electron, a photon and a positron (anti-electron) or an electron and a positron. 4 possibilitys, 3 different forms how about adding in protons and neutrons which can emmit neutrino's, create other protons and electrons...

8, my point was if you watch for something it doesnt always happen, 'a watched pan never boils' the sayings where invented for a reason and where normaly by very wise people.

pebbles and ponds have something to do with budism which has a part with this discussion. :lol:

[Musashi]

1, theirs only so much that can be found from 500 million years ago because most of land mass from back then is normaly gone. Their was also a whole wall of large smooth rocks found in a mountain quarry in the USA aswell as a gold necklace of ornaite design which was found in a lump of coal that was carbon dated to 45-55 million years old, sorry but coal cannot be seperated and formed back together with out several tons of pressure.


And heat, no? Which would melt the intricate necklace down into a not so intracate lump of gold?

[electromagneticpulse]

Im sorry but its not formed by heat thats how you make charcoal wood biodegrades and it being sealed increases the heat so that it degrades at the right temperature until the oxygen runs out for the bacteria to live so they die out, not enough heat would be involved to melt the gold as coal can be found in the ground soil in some places... if heat were involved it would be diamond.

[Quartermain]

8, we have no idea how life even formed and its thought to have been discovered in space clouds so life could be as simple as skimming a stone across a pond, if you dont think about it and do it then its simple if you think about it and take a serious metholodical approach to it you'll most likely end up with a lot of pebbles at your feet and be better off kicking them in.

Scientists have many ideas how life formed. Your suggestion that they do not is part and parcel to your dismissal that your evidence (such as the charcoal necklace) is anecdotal rather than the findings of rigorous scientific research. When such evidence is put under the microscope we find that the original observation gives way to a more common explanation. So you fail to adequately account for the lack of explanation (both pro and con) for said artifacts as you fail to research the very theories they are claiming to debunk.


And sorry Richard and the big BA but in the case of evolution religion has to be brought in as it has been a key element for over 5000 years in our life and deffinetly alot longer. Anyway Budism isn't a religion its a philosophy

Well then I guess I would argue that Evolution has been a key element for 5,000,000,000 years. That's a much bigger number than 5,000. Does that mean I win? No.. but it probably does mean that you need to come up with a better argument. This board is dedicated to scientific debate. By it's nature, religion cannot be argued against. How can I say there isn't an invisible all powerful entity controlling everything? How can I say there isn't an invisible all powerful blue and red sports wagon controlling everything? That's the conflict of religion, not only with Science but also with its self. And that's why it doesn't belong here. So religious debates should be left to boards dedicated to the discussion of such philosophies.

[electromagneticpulse]

the necklace was found in a lump of coal from a coal seam not char coal their is a great big difference, my old house had a coal fire which burnt on either coal or charcoal and its an obvious difference coal you normaly have to split in half or quarters so that it will burn propelry charcoal crubles in the fire and it normaly isn't big chunks anyway.

The earlyest religion is about 3000-5000bc but ceremonial burial goes back to when we were still nomadic, if we could take religion out of the picture evolution would be alot clearer to explain because religion is in the mind which is the key part of our evolution and as most wars are started because of religion you now have the computer your using because of the british that invented it in WW2.

[gritmonger]

1. This point is dead. No sense beating it further, or debating old claims here again.

2. Still not much chance. A monkey already has 93%+ of our DNA.

3. You ignored the genetic data. No neandertal DNA found. Circumstancial evidence is not quite as telling.

4. Thinking of things you don't have to invent is not that hard. Shrapnel and throwing damaging bits into explosives was not new. Painting on dry surfaces was not new. He was a maverick, not a supernatural genious of any stripe.


5. The point was: no other "batteries" have been found, no accompianing equipment, records, or other historical recordings of its use have been found.


6. So: more anectdotes. Anectdotes still do not equal proof.

7. Their religion also says you can't rise above your caste during your life: only after you die. And it is simply easier for a person of this philosophy to grasp the interchangability of matter and energy, but does not make any religion any more or less "true."

8. Still straying from the point, and irrelevant. We don't know the probability of life forming. Currently. Period. No skipping stones, no Bhuddism, no koans, no outside postulates with more anectdotes and no hard data.

[Quartermain]

the necklace was found in a lump of coal from a coal seam not char coal their is a great big difference, my old house had a coal fire which burnt on either coal or charcoal and its an obvious difference coal you normaly have to split in half or quarters so that it will burn propelry charcoal crubles in the fire and it normaly isn't big chunks anyway.

Actually the necklace is nothing. It is anecdotal (ie. casual observation). The necklace, the bell, the iron rod and human bones (et al.) were discovered primarily by non-scientists. This does not disqualify them in the least. But they claim to have come from coal. Did they really? Do we have an example of such an artifact still embedded in coal? Was the extraction done in an controlled environment? Was the rock really coal? Were the bones really human? Are the artifacts really as old as the surrounding rock? Are there additional circumstances involved which we have not been told?

Well.. you see the questions you have left to answer. Please have at it.

The earlyest religion is about 3000-5000bc but ceremonial burial goes back to when we were still nomadic, if we could take religion out of the picture evolution would be alot clearer to explain because religion is in the mind which is the key part of our evolution and as most wars are started because of religion you now have the computer your using because of the british that invented it in WW2.

To clarify we are talking about biological evolution here. Not technological evolution. You're absolutely correct that Religion is responsible for most wars and wars are responsible for a great deal of technological advancement. But this does not in any way connect to theories of biological evolution and the overwhelming evidence in its favor. So no, I'm sorry, Religion has no place in this discussion.

[electromagneticpulse]

Quartermain i agree that their is no 100% certainty that the artifacts where found in the coal or not because no one scientific was there to examine them, but i'd find it highly irregular someone knowing if their was a gold necklace in a lump of coal until they opened it. By all means travel back in time till then and check every lump of coal with an X-ray scanner but we can't.

But this does not in any way connect to theories of biological evolution and the overwhelming evidence in its favor

Actualy in our case biological evolution is in one with technological because its how WE survive. evolution is the survival of the fittest we are not the fittest and we would be dead if we hadn't invented weapons you wouldn't be alive today to be able to figure out evolution. Our evolution is hand in hand both biological and technological and some people are so comfortable with it that the next step may be with it.

gritmonger why dont you open your mind your posting on a forum called against the mainstream and your being the mainstream, hello wake up think outside the box which this is meant for coming up with idea's that wouldn't be accepted in the normal scientific community. Why don't you go join the normal thinkers that work for techological developers or join in on thinking out side the box.

The fact you'd rather criticise idea's then think with them shows the kind of scientist you'll be, until someone proves you wrong you'll keep thinking down the same straight line. Einstein ignored quantem physics and said it would die out but a lot of posts on this forum concern it, Kelvin said planes would never fly but they are hypersonic fighter jet capabilitys now, Isaac newton said that light had to be a particle but its not its a photon. You have your eyes closed to my surgestions and kmarinas86 main surgestion, no one likes people that get in the way on purpose so why dont you get out of the way and let people discuss what where trying with out you being ignorant and not opening your eyes to peoples ideas.

[beskeptical]

i recommend you read the book Time Travel: A Guide for Beginners (by J. H. Brennan) dives into this through most of the book in his theory that we could have already traveled back in time as their are anomylous findings predating modern man by umm over 600 million years before we came out of the sea. It is really interesting and i've wondered what would happen if we took one of our cells and modified it and put it into a monkey embryo left the planet and 10 million years or so down the line and see if it evolved into a human because we have neanderthol mans genetic code stored in our DNA as we once evolved into him and then bred out or devolved out.
Oh and the helicopter was originaly desgined over 400 years ago i believe with da vinchi, aswell as HE explosive shells, screws, drive shafts, water cooled gun barrels, machine guns, hang gliders (which worked), submarines, electricity products... need i go on? im sorry but when the guy had designs for the missile systems that could rivel the V2 rocket the germans built in WW2 400 years before they did i would be rather skeptical of us being of little potential and that a battery was found dating back to 200bc-200ad.
I personaly believe in the existance of jesus and if the guiding star to bethlehem was actualy a space ship which have been reported by the egyptian pharoes in bc 1500 or so, could be possible as they reported 5.
If life was made on this planet to evolve into highly inteligent and hopefully not kill ourselves off in the process, and jesus' miracles now thought to be capable of higher evolved humans umm DNA modifications maybe, virgin pregnancy... There are a lot of fanciful claims in your posts. Did you get most of them from the book you cite? Your claims seem to be right out of the fictional mysteries of the Earth kind of sources. If all of it was from one source, then you have to seek more information to really know if the claims are real or tabloid type stuff.

Instead of believing this stuff because you read it in this book, try to find the original sources of the claims. If the claims are based on some evidence, you have to look for all possible explanations before accepting paranormal ones.

Let's start with your imaginary idea of putting human DNA into monkeys embryos. It doesn't work that way. DNA that compromises the human genome, (in other words the plan from which a person grows) or the chimpanzee genome or other primates are very specific and complete. If you just added DNA to the mix, where would it go? You'd have to replace very specific sequences with matching sequences and then only sometimes would you get viable results.

Experiments have been done inserting single genes from one species into another with some success. It requires splicing a gene into a virus then infecting ova with the virus, fertilizing and growing the embryos, implanting them into the mammal womb and seeing whether the offspring survive, whether they contain the gene and whether the gene is expressed. Here is the report of one such experiment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A49318-2001Jan11&notFound=true)on monkeys.

I don't think your idea of adding a bit of human DNA to monkeys and see what happens reflects the reality of genetic engineering. It sounds more like the imaginary scenario of ETs coming to Earth and manipulating human DNA then leaving to return at a later date to see what has happened. Your version is from science fiction, but not from real science.

In other words your plan would not result in a different direction for primate evolution. It would only change one little thing at a time. So, for example, you could get green skinned monkeys, but you wouldn't get monkeys evolving into different species.

On the other hand, if you wait a few thousand years, you might see some evolutionary changes in monkeys without tinkering.

BTW, monkeys is not very specific. You should use the term primates or specific species like chimpanzees to be more accurate.

Also alot of old religions relate to quantem physics in that everything is created and destroyed over and over, hello hinduism and budism. Also that all our evolving was by chance when earth used to be uninhabitable for life when mars used to be and it is now thought it failed there, what is the chance life would start twice in the same solar system? Pardon the pun but its astronomical! especially with the current ratio of 1 planet with life to many billion with out.
and
But the fact that their religion is based on rebirth and that vishnu the creator can be in many forms (staying on antimatter idea) for example two photons, a photon and an electron, a photon and a positron (anti-electron) or an electron and a positron. 4 possibilitys, 3 different forms how about adding in protons and neutrons which can emmit neutrino's, create other protons and electrons...
I don't think quantum physics is even closely related to Buddhism or Hinduism. I think you are taking one or two concepts and seeing correlations that aren't really there.

Modern evolutionary science doesn't have much more to explain and all the pieces fit into the time line of the Earth and the probability predictions without ETs nor god(s) intervening.

1,Their was also a whole wall of large smooth rocks found in a mountain quarry in the USA aswell as a gold necklace of ornaite design which was found in a lump of coal that was carbon dated to 45-55 million years old, Where's the evidence? Link us up, Scottie.

3, their is an overlap it was found in europe of 1000 years of both living in the same area, only female neaderthol bones where ever found and would be the only tradeable aspect of the different people if they were killed. if you take a hostage who would you rather have a man who could potentialy kill you or a woman who you could get offspring from and force to cook you food and make your clothes. (sorry to the female members of this forum but just stating a fact and we all know you'd take the women cause they'd be able to do more then one thing at a time :D )Neanderthals and modern humans did overlap in Europe. But the latest genetic research shows we had common ancestors but didn't interbreed. Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is. Again, be careful of stretching interesting ideas into seeing evidence where there is no evidence.

4, the rocket wasn't obviously as they didn't have any of the skills we have in metal work ...............but he invented things that no one of the time or for hundreds of years after did either.I'm not sure what your point is re Da Vinci. He produced a lot of engineering designs. They may have been as the saying goes, 'before their time', but they weren't really any kind of inexplicable ideas.

And, missile designs? I don't think so. Did Da Vinci have a formula for rocket fuel to go with the rockets? Maybe you could show us a web site with the designs you are talking about. I'm not familiar with them.

Again, Da Vinci had a great mind, but he didn't talk to ETs if that's what you are implying. Instead, I think what may be giving you and a lot of other people such impressions is our poor job of exploring real history.

For example, history books make it sound like Columbus was the first to believe in a round world, when in reality, that belief was quite common by the 1600s. It's the popular historical record that makes Da Vinci seem more superhuman than human. Great, yes. Magical, no.

6, The inventor of Reiki himself reported 4 miracles in one day which he performed.
http://www.quantumtouch.com/stories.php
http://www.crystalinks.com/reiki.html
read the sites and you might change your skeptic view, i've seen touch healing working at a religious festival well over 20,000 people where there, in the youth tents which i saw these 'miracles' happen in there was about 1,000 people i saw a few people who had problems like bad backs all sorts and then we did a communal prayer tunnel and then single prayers where people fell with the spirt, some nights their was mass laughter for no reason, then mass sadness the next night. .....You need to look at a few more debunker sites. This stuff is mostly selective memory and attributing cause and effect when really there is none. If I go to a ball game, there can be a lot of crowd action. Why not, people in groups often feed off eachother's energy. It isn't mysterious and it doesn't cure cancer. So if I wear my hat backward and my team wins, does that mean my hat or my positive attitude caused it? Of course not.

Don't be so gullible as to believe in this stuff without real evidence. These people have been shown to be either outright fraud or foolishly believing in cause and effect that is really coincidence time and time again. Yet here's another batch and another batch of new believers once again.

8, my point was if you watch for something it doesn't always happen, 'a watched pan never boils' the sayings where invented for a reason and where normally by very wise people.And, my point is, if you can't test it scientifically, chances are the observation isn't what you think it is. If you put a pan on the stove and heat under it, it most certainly will boil while you are watching. The saying does not relate to the imaginary things you think you see in the world. Your logic is faulty.

PS, may I suggest a spell checker? It would make your posts a bit easier to read.

[gritmonger]

emp: I have attempted to discuss specifically your assertions. You did not state positions, theories, or suppositions. You made assertions as if they were fact, when they are at best anectdotal claims.

If you feel I have ignored your points, I have ignored those ones which have already been debunked. I will not niddle-pick each specific claim, as that is more of a tactic designed to bog down the skeptic.

You have provided anectdote and debunked claims along with concrete assertion.

I don't accept your assertions, much less based upon the examples. I know quite well that I am posting in "against the mainstream," but at no point did I see a sign saying "leave your brain at the door." I do not accept anectdote from the science community either, and I consider myself very even-handed in that regard. I am a biology graduate, and a programmer, and quite proficient at each. However, being open to speculation does not mean PC acceptance of all theories being equal.

And as far as getting in the way, I suppose a lack of blind acceptance is an accusation that could actually be supported with data. Congratulations; it is perhaps the first data-based position I have seen you put forward. If questioning, asking for data, and asking for clarification is getting in the way, I hope you never have to write a real research paper. Or a presentation. Or even a letter to the editor.

[electromagneticpulse]

sorry beskeptical but on the biology engineering front gritmonger payed more attention i talked about putting it in the genetic junk which we dont use to live (as far as we know) and seeing if they would use it over time as they evolved, and personaly im not going over the same points when they are already in the thread.

I apologise for criticising you gritmonger but we are talking in a thread that started on the evolution of life and some funky universe picture using photo shop. I agree that i have been asseting things with little fact but these 'debunked' claims could end up as popular as string theory is now. String theory was basicly kicked out and now its one of the most popular fields with hundreds of scientists going into it every year. They had no evidence and it was full of singularitys at the start but now it works.

My evidence has been debunked by archeologists all who have been through darwinisation basicly they all believe we evolved which everyone does and even i have no faults with it, but if theris a chance we evolved before then isn't it worth the thought? If you could prove or disprove God would you take the chance even knowing millions of people would hate you for doing it while others would love you and if all the people who could help you do it where the people that would hate you and do everything to prove you wrong then your stuck if your claim is right like nearly 100% of the people who have found these artifacts no one wants to believe that we aren't original and that we could have been on this planet before the 2nd and 1st ice age both times dying out.

[gritmonger]

electromagneticpulse, this discussion is not about indoctrination. Science is not a religion; it is open to questioning. But it does not accept new viewpoints as if they were divine revelation either.

I am consistently nonplussed by the assertions given that scientists would "hate" to find evidence of this or that. On the contrary; everyone wants to find something new. Any concrete evidence of the type of which you are speaking would be welcomed with slavering countenances, heavily evaluated and documented, as well as having papers written on it for decades to come. However, the claims are shakey at best, and not enough to analyze or anectdotal at worst. Claimed human finger bones found in a coal pit from 300 mya were discovered to have no structure at the macro or microscopic scale to indicate they were bones of any kind, much less human finger bones.

Science loves new things - but only if those things are real and subject to independant verification. Piltdown Man made scientists wary of any new claims made through statement and without record or supporting evidence. Reiki is one such element. It is not consistent in clinical trials when compared with control results (results with the treatment given without the "proper" method, and results of persons enrolled in the study with no treatment). It might work, but if it does it doesn't work any better than random chance, and is not distinguishable from doing nothing at all, then you might as well do nothing and get the same results.

[beskeptical]

sorry beskeptical but on the biology engineering front gritmonger payed more attention i talked about putting it in the genetic junk which we dont use to live (as far as we know) and seeing if they would use it over time as they evolved, and personaly im not going over the same points when they are already in the thread.Sorry emp, but my response on your lack of understanding of biological engineering stands.

First, it wouldn't matter where you put the DNA in the case you are describing. DNA is not like adding a little blue to a yellow painting. Each gene is very specific.

And, second, the junk DNA is not junk. We just don't know exactly what its function is yet. If it were junk, one would expect to see lots of random mutations throughout. Instead, we see the strands conserved from offspring to offspring. That tells us mutations in the junk DNA are not surviving. That means for some reason, we need the junk strands.

What can I say, your idea is pure fiction and the subsequent changes you wonder about just wouldn't work with what we know about genetic engineering.



I agree that i have been asseting things with little fact but these 'debunked' claims could end up as popular as string theory is now. String theory was basicly kicked out and now its one of the most popular fields with hundreds of scientists going into it every year. They had no evidence and it was full of singularitys at the start but now it works.

My evidence has been debunked by archeologists all who have been through darwinisation basicly they all believe we evolved which everyone does and even i have no faults with it, but if theris a chance we evolved before then isn't it worth the thought? If you could prove or disprove God would you take the chance even knowing millions of people would hate you for doing it while others would love you and if all the people who could help you do it where the people that would hate you and do everything to prove you wrong then your stuck if your claim is right like nearly 100% of the people who have found these artifacts no one wants to believe that we aren't original and that we could have been on this planet before the 2nd and 1st ice age both times dying out.Your fantasies are not close enough to what we know to be considered. It is much different than having a minority view that is at least based on existing evidence.

String theory was not made up out of the blue and then turned out to be considered later. String theory is based on careful examination of the evidence and putting it together in a way others had not yet thought of.

You are just making stuff up with no basis. It doesn't get you very far to do that.

[geofreak]

I know some of you are past electromagneticpulse's point number 1 and this is an astronomy board not geology. But I just couldn't let this to statement ride.

Im sorry but its not formed by heat thats how you make charcoal wood biodegrades and it being sealed increases the heat so that it degrades at the right temperature until the oxygen runs out for the bacteria to live so they die out, not enough heat would be involved to melt the gold as coal can be found in the ground soil in some places... if heat were involved it would be diamond.

I'm sorry but the formation of coal and charcoal are totally different. Charcoal is essential man-made. You smolder wood, burning it with as little oxygen as possible, in giant kiln, to get charcoal. It's not formed by any geologic process that I know of.

Coal, on the other hand, is a rock/mineral. It began as plant but no more. It's formation involves both heat and pressure. The peat that coal forms from has been buried quite deeply in the earth's crust creating thousands of pounds per square foot of pressure. The pressure creates heat, and the depth to which it's buried adds heat as well. If coal is found in soil it got there through erosion, it wasn't formed in the soil.

A good website discussing the basic formation of coal can be found here:
http://www.athro.com/geo/trp/gub/coal.html

And diamonds never form from coal. Way too many impurities and totally different processes.

[worzel]

And, second, the junk DNA is not junk. We just don't know exactly what its function is yet. If it were junk, one would expect to see lots of random mutations throughout. Instead, we see the strands conserved from offspring to offspring. That tells us mutations in the junk DNA are not surviving. That means for some reason, we need the junk strands.
Is this true? I thought they used the fact that there was no selective pressure on junk DNA (and therefore the fairly regular mutation rate doesn't get baised by selection) to help establish the relatedness of species and populations within species.

[gritmonger]

And, second, the junk DNA is not junk. We just don't know exactly what its function is yet. If it were junk, one would expect to see lots of random mutations throughout. Instead, we see the strands conserved from offspring to offspring. That tells us mutations in the junk DNA are not surviving. That means for some reason, we need the junk strands.
Is this true? I thought they used the fact that there was no selective pressure on junk DNA (and therefore the fairly regular mutation rate doesn't get baised by selection) to help establish the relatedness of species and populations within species.

"Junk" strands, as I understand it, are the "telomeres" or end-regions of DNA, which consist of repeating sequences of essentially the same thing over and over and over. They get clipped during cell division just as part of the process, and protect "working" DNA from this damage by acting as an ablative sort of endpiece.

The DNA you might be referring to in relatedness of species is mitochondrial DNA. The power plants in eukaryotic cells have their own DNA, and their variation and mutation is at a much slower rate than the DNA of the "host" organism (Nuclear DNA). It is also interesting to note that most mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother through the egg cell, so it is possible to establish familial relationships through the maternal side of the family with this DNA.

[electromagneticpulse]

Okay can i just say that i never said anything about genetic enginering a cell today, it was an idea! thats it it could be 50 billion years in the future or 50 billion years in the past i couldn't care i was wondering what would happen if we did thats it! nothing more nothing less it would be an experiment to see if evolution could be encouraged in a certain direction IE towards human.

Diamonds do never form from coal because i diamond is pure carbon but their are impurity diamonds/crystals that are formed from coal. I was mistaken on the formation of coal i was always explained that it was formed purely from pressure, a mistake in my teaching i believe but thank you for reaffirming my point that coal and charcoal is completly different in their appirance as charcoal still holds the appirance of wood unlike coal which come with a lot of deformations and irregularitys which give them a unique look.

As for your point gritmonger that science loves new things is absalootly true but scientists are human and they dont.
Thomas Young's experiment didn't exactly set the world of scienceon fire, especially in britain. the scientific establishment there regarded opposition to any idea of newton's as almost heretical
on Thomas Youngs proof that light is a wave which was later taken to be the status quo of things.

Also Ludwig Boltzmann killed himself because he felt he was the only person trying to prove the point that gasses where made up of atoms and would have died a naturaly death or atleast lived longer if Einsteins paper had been published in german as the austrian Boltzmann IIRC could only speak/write/read in german and therefore never read Einsteins papers and was left feeling he was making a point on his own and ended up commiting scuicide.

Doesn't seem like an acceptinc scientific community.

[01101001]

"Junk" strands, as I understand it, are the "telomeres" or end-regions of DNA, which consist of repeating sequences of essentially the same thing over and over and over. They get clipped during cell division just as part of the process, and protect "working" DNA from this damage by acting as an ablative sort of endpiece.
Nah, telomeres aren't the junk. As I understand it, junk DNA is just DNA they haven't figured out the purpose of yet. It's all over the place.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA):

Within a chromosome or a genome, the "junk" DNA is those portions of the DNA for which no function has been identified. The term "junk" is recognized as something of a misnomer, especially in light of the fact molecular biology is a young science. Segments of DNA may function in additional ways that have not yet been discovered. Scientists generally keep this likelihood in mind even as they persist in using the word "junk," which for better or worse has stuck. Recent work, as of 2004, suggests that junk DNA may indeed perform unrecognized functions.

[worzel]

"Junk" strands, as I understand it, are the "telomeres" or end-regions of DNA, which consist of repeating sequences of essentially the same thing over and over and over. They get clipped during cell division just as part of the process, and protect "working" DNA from this damage by acting as an ablative sort of endpiece.
Maybe, like "gene" it's a word that has differenr meanings for different biologists. I'm sure I read only last week Richard Dawkins talking about exactly what I was talking about.

The DNA you might be referring to in relatedness of species is mitochondrial DNA. The power plants in eukaryotic cells have their own DNA, and their variation and mutation is at a much slower rate than the DNA of the "host" organism (Nuclear DNA). It is also interesting to note that most mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother through the egg cell, so it is possible to establish familial relationships through the maternal side of the family with this DNA.
I thought all mitochondrial DNA came from the mother.

[electromagneticpulse]

Not in females they get an X from the father, the man's "soldiers" decide if the babys male or female... oh the power :lol:

[beskeptical]

Not in females they get an X from the father, the man's "soldiers" decide if the babys male or female... oh the power :lol:emp, you just need to learn more and conclude less. Mitochondria are their own little organisms within cells. They divide separately from the nucleus. Since the sperm deposits its DNA in the ova but doesn't leave any of the rest of the cell, all the mitochondria are genetically from the ova. Mitochondrial DNA in all humans, male and female is inherited from the mother.

Females inherit an X chromosome each from their father and mother. Males inherit a Y from the father and an X from the mother. That means that all the genetic material on a Y chromosome is from one's father. The rest of the genes including those on the X chromosome can be from either the mother or the father.

[electromagneticpulse]

Sorry but i was told the male passes down information that helps cells work, possibly the orginasor cells. Afterall they can be passed down by either parent as no human has them past the age of about 3. 4am biology programs dont completly sink into my mind, very much like potato chips in curry sauce (and im talking extra spicey)

[beskeptical]

Some of the following may have been covered but I'll add what I know. Long DNA strands consist of genes with 'junk' DNA in between. The junk DNA consists of long repeating strands of single nucleotides. For example, a gene might be a certain sequence of nucleotides:

AGTGAGTCTCTCAGA....etc. The code itself is in 3s called codons. So each 3 nucleotides translates into a piece of the code that eventually makes a protein. Then in between these genes will be long chains of nucleotide patterns such as AAAAAAAAAAA or ATATATATATATATA and so on. That is what is referred to as the junk DNA. It isn't known what function these long repeating chains have.

I thought they used the fact that there was no selective pressure on junk DNA (and therefore the fairly regular mutation rate doesn't get baised by selection) to help establish the relatedness of species and populations within species.Mutations occur with every cell division. The 2 sided DNA strand pulls apart and each side attracts replacement nucleotides making 2 strands where 1 was before. But the copying is never perfect so errors occur. The errors add up over time. (I'll leave consequences of the errors and selection pressures for another time, but essentially, if there were no selection pressures you would have completely random process rather than a selective one.)

So due to copying errors one would expect the long repeating strands of junk DNA to have lots of differences from person to person. But that is not what we find. Instead, we find very little variation. That tells us either the junk part of the DNA is very stable, and/or we don't survive well with errors in that part of the DNA which means it has a needed function.

"Junk" strands, as I understand it, are the "telomeres" or end-regions of DNA, which consist of repeating sequences of essentially the same thing over and over and over. They get clipped during cell division just as part of the process, and protect "working" DNA from this damage by acting as an ablative sort of endpiece. They don't get clipped, Grit, though they are at the ends of genes. Telomeres are at the ends of chromosomes. Chromosomes are long single DNA molecules and have many genes within their DNA.

Foe perspective, we have 21 pairs of chromosomes, on which are about 30,000 genes, made up of 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides.

Maybe, like "gene" it's a word that has differenr meanings for different biologists. I think we are all on the same page with the definition of a gene. What other definitions have you heard of?

[gritmonger]

Oh, boy. What I get for trying to keep it simple. :) There are all sorts of patterns, codon groups, stop sequences, reversals, "leader" sequences, inhibitor sites, and the like within the nuclear DNA's chromosomes.

Telomeres originally were part of the "Junk" dna set (back when I studied this long, long ago) before telomerase was identified, and mainly consist of repeating sequences at the end of chromosomes. They used to be the "classic" example, as they essentially were long trails of repeating pointless "code." What I get for being old and not keeping up with the times.

Within DNA are other "Junk" sequences, many of which don't appear to make sense (i.e. their three-letter-code does not code for a specific protein when their transcripted messenger RNA sequences are then translated by ribosomes, the translator two-part RNA molecules). A lot of these might be genes active in earlier stages of development, only active occasionally, binding or leader sites for gene activation/inhibition by hormones, or, in my own frayed opinion, perhaps remnants of older RNA enzyme templates that just aren't used anymore, as even though they are classed as "junk" they are still highly conserved. Some DNA structure seems designed to prevent mutation at particular sites, or to provide easier access for translator molecules when "activated." Some people think that "junk" sequences are viral introns that simply are inert, or time-bombs waiting to go off. And then there are those that see "messages" in junk DNA. You know, like folks who see messages in the clouds.

It really is fascinating that DNA essentially has a potentially 64-"word" system using three-letter combinations of four letters to make a "byte" which codes for either one of 21 (and in some other organisms 22 or 23) amino acids or for a "stop" sequence (!) which are used to construct enzymes and other protein structures through folding and activation with other molecules or enzymes. Maybe why I moved on to become a programmer.

But, then- this has really drifted afield of astronomy- which is kind of why I didn't want to plonk this far over into the minutia of the genome, as fascinating as it is to me... but the distinction between "Junk" and mitochondrial seemed important at the time. I'm old, and full of old knowledge, so I'll bow out in the future.

And I didn't want to state absolutely that all mitochondrial material comes from the mother, as I'd remembered hearing rumors of some material coming from the sperm in some species.

[Yannox]

Further to geofreak, the creationist allochthonous theory for the formation of coal is at least as good as the evolutionary autochthonous theory .

[gritmonger]

Further to geofreak, the creationist allochthonous theory for the formation of coal is at least as good as the evolutionary autochthonous theory .

Peat bogs are gatherings of moss. Large gatherings of moss. Club mosses and ferns, oddly enough, show up very very frequently in coal seams to the point of making up most of the material. Essentially, if there was a "massive flood" that created coal seams, it favored mostly tree ferns and mosses both in estuarine environments and boglike environments disproportionately over all other lifeforms.

We currently do not see such selectivity in floods and mudslides; it tends to be a mixture in proportion to actual populations in the affected regions, and not just river-adjacent or bog-only species. One would expect modern trees in large numbers were this a recent event, as witnessed by the logjams after the mudslides following the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens.

So, while it could be that this was one unusual moss-and-fern-specific flood, it is more likely based on what we see that when the material was laid down the population consisted mostly of moss and fern.

When material is laid down in a flood or mudslide, massive amounts of silt and rock are included with other organic detritus, instead of the pattern in peat bogs where very little non vegetable matter is present between layers of decaying vegetable matter. If all rock layers and coal seams were to be attributed to one event, it would appear that the event was neat as well as discrete, carefully drowning only mosses and tree ferns and deliberately excluding any silt or rock before laying over layers of rock one at a time, and then afterward piling some of these up into mountains.

So, while each theory accounts for the presence of coal, we currently cannot pinpoint an example of a modern-day discrete, silt-less and organism-exclusive flood event, even in cases of very large and violent floods, while peat bogs appear to perform the required task of layering decaying matter in species-restricted layers with little silt in-between layers quite adequately.

[geofreak]

evolutionary autochthonous theory .

There's no such thing. There always seems to be an assumtion that geology is based on evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with coal formation as I and gritmonger have described it. The plant fossils found in coal seams are mostly of extinct species but that only implies extinction, not evolution.

I would also argue that the "evolutionary autochthonous theory" I described is, in fact, at least more scientific than the "creationist allochthonous theory", if only because geologist didn't go in with a pre-assumed time limit for the formation process to occur. Sure, we assume it's been there for millions of year but if it only took 1,000 years to form a coal seam it wouldn't matter one way or the other.

On top of that, as far of electromagneticpulse's point number 1 goes, pressure or heat, both would ruin an intricately work gold necklace.

[Musashi]

Hi geofreak. I meant to respond earlier, but I got lazy. Welcome to the board. I had a feeling that coal formation included heat, but I wasn't sure. And I also agree that high pressure or high heat would destroy the necklace.

[electromagneticpulse]

actualy it depends on the type of gold and what temperatures it gets to,
By the way, the temperature is not very hot. It probably doesn't get any higher than 150 C. But it cooks for millions of years.
and as gold is a very very very unreactive metal it wont react naturaly with anything in the ground so im very sorry but your 'high heat' wouldn't destroy the necklace because it isn't involved in the coalification process.
Im sorry but you have to find another reason why the necklace couldn't be in the coal :lol:

[Oyvey]

Joe Vialls is an anti-Bible anti-Zionist evolutionary Aussie atheist, but is his report about limitless non-organic origined self-replenishing oil correct? Could coal do the same?! http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

[electromagneticpulse]

Okay even i think thats a load of rubbish and i normaly believe in the far out wackey ideas!

If oil formed in the mantle wouldn't it all form as a gas and become super heated as lava temperatures i remember being reported of 1140 centigrade from the hawian volcano's and that is on the surface, as has been said repeatedly on this thread is pressure causes heat which i agree with and i've heared that if FeO is a major property in the earths outer mantle which it is reported to be the temperatures in it would have to be over 4500 centigrade, the boiling point of bitumen which makes up all the roads and highways surface has a boiling point of 300-340 degrees centigrade which means it would be a super heated gas and it passing out of a small gap in the earths crust would most likely cause an earth quake.

See the easy doubt that oil can't form in the mantle as a sudden pressure loss in the earths mantle by a gas passing out would shoot the magma of 4500C shooting up with extream force after it. A simpler explenation and one that is proved to be more likely is the simple fact that oil usualy forms in pores rock which would contain oil instead of gas and the slow collapse of this rock as oil is taken out would explain why it seems to be an endless source of oil.

Thats just my opinion on it and i believe the answer to coal doing it is a complete 100% deffinet NO as coal cant flow, the germans extracting oil out of it in WW2 was an advanced cracking process IIRC plus coal can be found with fossilisations imprinted in them which wouldn't occur if they came from the earths mantle.

(addition) Hey i've become a sceptic :lol:

[gritmonger]

Joe Vialls is an anti-Bible anti-Zionist evolutionary Aussie atheist, but is his report about limitless non-organic origined self-replenishing oil correct? Could coal do the same?! http://joevialls.altermedia.info/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

I've heard of his conjectures before. Among petroleum geologists, his stuff is considered "woo woo." But, no, I doubt even he would go that far, simply because of the number of patterns found in coal seams, such as the forms of tree ferns and club mosses, identifiable and consistent, is not very likely to arise by chance. His theories depend upon inorganically derived methane eventually being converted into purely geologically derived petroleum, without any storage of solar energy beforehand.

[electromagneticpulse]

Hmmm some how sounds like magick energy to me, wouldn't the pressures have to me extreamly high or it be extreamly hot for methane to be forced together as the bond between the Carbon and the Hydrogen would need to be broken so that a C-C bond could be formed.

[geofreak]

Hey thanks for the welcome. Always nice to meet new people.

EMP, you're right about the heat, it wouldn't have melted the gold necklace. #-o
I should've checked the melting point of gold (1064.43 °C - elemental gold) before I implied that it would. Still, I stand by the point that the high pressures would seriously damage any ornate-ness of the design.

Anthracite coals are typicaly compressed to 5-10% of the orginal thickness of the peat bed

Unless it was a smushed gold necklace, of course.

Way "woo-woo" petroleum thing. I'm not a petroleum geologist (took one class and decided that's not what I wanted to do) but scientists have been desperately searching for a way to replenish/find new oil supplies for quite a while. This guy implies that all researchers in the western world are being controlled by the almighty "Wall Street" and "the government".

And hey, our petroleum resources are being replenished, just not on a time scale that's going to do us any good.

I mean, really, if Russia has this great oil recovery technology, why aren't they selling it to the world right now? ... Unless they're waiting until the rest of us are desperate and they can take us for all we're worth. 8-[

[electromagneticpulse]

Im not so sure the necklace would be defformed from pressure as gold is used in deep ocean UAV's and is planed to be put into ultra deep ocean UAV's because with the pressure it will still perform properly, im not even 1% sure of the pressures coal is formed at i just know its alot but im sure you've seen the pictures of polystyrene cups that are taken under water on a submarine and they come up about 1/8th their original size, this isn't cause of the pressure on the polystyrene its on the air inside which is forced out so i dont think the pressure would deform the necklace either afterall it is denser then the rock applying pressure onto it by much, Rocks density is about 2600 KG/M^3 pure carbons is 2267 KG/M^3 19300 KG/M^3. So gold wouldn't be compressed nearly as much as the ground around it.

I agree on the oil thing Russia would preffer the money now and rent out the 'technology' and when the price of oil sky rockets like it is they'd charge more, if we get used to using less oil then when they say pay us 10 million dollars a month to use our technology we'll all laugh cause everyones got power from somewhere else and we wont be using oil power plants or petrol engines anymore.

Apparently if they did the "secret people" behind the all mighty "wall street" are dumber then this Joe Vialls.

[tuffel999]

2, i wasn't talking about growing a human in a monkey i was talking about altering our DNA coding which the MODIFIED was supposed to imply so that our DNA would be in the 'junk' coding in the DNA so not a monkey man hybrid just a monkey with some guidance in its DNA coding.

What?????????????


3, theirs archeological evidence of neanderthol man and our ancestors living together in trade communities and had offspring which would then have offspring with another of our ancestors or a hybrid and as the strong survive we evolved out of it purely on our ingenuity not our strength.

Gritmonger already smacked this but here is a link from Nature on the subject:

http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/000330.html
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v404/n6777/full/404490a0_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=

And another:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/Courses/3333/sci-neanderthal-dna.html



You would think people would look this stuff up before coming out with this garbage. There is no evidence of a hybrid species or any contribution to modern man.


6, reiki is a practice of healing using the bodys energy to restore someone elses some cases have been reported of reiki masters on freak cases actualy healing someones wound while they where in deep concentration. Its possible that jesus was an Ubermensch and yes because of DNA. I dont find it so hard to understand and especialy as jesus would have gone through years of mental training and spiritual training, hello zen masters that can be blind folded put into a room with a target placed at random and be able to hit it dead on a bulls eye, just concentrate.

[Cuba Gooding voice]Show me the data![/Cuba Gooding voice]


sorry beskeptical but on the biology engineering front gritmonger payed more attention i talked about putting it in the genetic junk which we dont use to live (as far as we know) and seeing if they would use it over time as they evolved, and personaly im not going over the same points when they are already in the thread.

Sorry but junk DNA is not junk. There are line's, sine's, transposons, retrotransposons, siRNA's, pseudogenes, promoters, operators, and retroviruses there just to name a few. May the power of PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) be with you.

[electromagneticpulse]

Gritmonger already smacked

Thank you so whats the point in saying it, we're talking about a completly different thing now! Thanks for interupting it with this pointless post READ WHATS BEEN SAID SINCE!

[tuffel999]

Gritmonger already smacked

Thank you so whats the point in saying it, we're talking about a completly different thing now! Thanks for interupting it with this pointless post READ WHATS BEEN SAID SINCE!

Because when I skimmed it noone including the links to the information...

[electromagneticpulse]

Gritmonger already smacked

Thank you so whats the point in saying it, we're talking about a completly different thing now! Thanks for interupting it with this pointless post READ WHATS BEEN SAID SINCE!

Because when I skimmed it noone including the links to the information...

But they weren't needed the subject had changed and i'd accepted gritmongers points links were completly unnecissary, especialy after almost all the thread.

Sorry but the points where dead and finished moved on from got over what ever you want to call it, we have all finished mourning over the passing of those points. :wink:

[geofreak]

EMP, I knew there was something wrong with your last pressure discussion, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out what it was. I was calculating ocean densities and rock densities and even e-mailed some researchers to try to get a pressure at which different types coal form (haven't heard back yet). Then it hit me.

It's the difference between hydrostatic pressure and non-hydrostatic pressure.

With those Styrofoam cups in deep ocean water you're getting hydrostatic pressure, equal pressure on all sides. It's unable to change the shape of things, just the size. (Side point: Those Styrofoam cups are pretty cool. I had a friend who did some research using Alvin. He had a couple of cups they drew on and sent down with the submersible. An 8oz cup had become the size of a thimble.)

Now these coal formations aren't experiencing hydrostatic pressure, or they would be decreasing horizontally the same amount they're decreasing vertically. Once you pushing on things in one direction more than another, you start changing the shape of things.

On top of this gold is the most ductile and malleable of all metals. If you put a piece of gold between two rocks and push down on it you're going to being to flatten it. Now since the coal starts out as peat which is quite ...squishy... itself you're not going to deform anything right away. The next step is lignite, which is still pretty soft, bituminous, anthracite, and, if it goes on long enough, graphite.

So I guess, to go about this scientifically, the first step would be to determine which type of coal the necklace was found in. Then we would need to determine the pressure needed to deform gold in an unconfined environment. Finally, determine if the type of coal the necklace was found in could maintain enough differential pressure to deform the gold without deforming itself.

[geofreak]

I've been thinking about it some more.

If the necklace was found in a lignite formation it wouldn't matter that much. Lignite is ... a step up from peat, still idenifiable as organic matter. It doesn't take that much time to form. You could probably form lignite within 5,000 years (assuming gold was first worked in 3000 BC, as I read somewhere).

Bituminous coal is mined underground, held up by iron supports. If it's not deforming around these structures it's not going to deform around a gold necklace, it's going to deform the gold.

Even with all this you really need a lot more information about the necklace and it's "discovery" to draw any real conclusions. Like:

1. What type of coal was it found in?
2. What coal formation was it found in?
3. Had the formation been mined in the past?
4. What was the ornate gold necklace like?
5. Could it be dated based on its design?

I'm sure there are many more but I'll stop here.

[electromagneticpulse]

I no longer have the book with me, my brothers got it at his girl friends house for some obscure reason but IIRC the date said for the coal was 35 million years or 35 thousand both would predate gold work. Also IIRC it was ornate design like victorian but i can't be 100% certain, a good guess would be that it had to be of a more modern design for it to be considered ornate as most early (talking pre AD) gold work is considered crude and it was discovered in america which is more puzzeling as their wouldn't have been people around in 3000 BC IIRC the native americans moved over there relatively recent and within the AD time scale but i'll check up on that to make sure.