For the alternative theorists:

What's a "selves"?

Shouldn't it have been written "They speak for them there selves"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i can't say about the big bang, but i do know what i've read about evolution and matters relating to it.
i offered my opinions about possible conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What have you read?

Quote it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually themselves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Themselves’ or 'themself’?

The standard reflexive pronoun form which corresponds to the plural forms they and them is themselves:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/themselves-or-themself

 

In line with the BB, Evolution is a near fact, ...as is of course Abiogenesis.

 

You know I was joking, right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

my posts and links are in the thread.
i am not going to search the last 62 pages for you.

 

ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

 

"This is just some rambling by a computer programmer about DNA. I'm not a molecular geneticist."

I've debunked it with it's first sentence. Didn't try to read passed that.

 

The thing certain about this beery, is that the computer programmer and the computer itself, are no more then star stuff.

 

This may be of interest: the precision of the instructions are absolutely amazing. I am astounded by the ability to reverse the knitting process to create an exact reverse copy by way of looping and then matching the reversed section to the original code in a precise reverse order.
http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology#t-200999

None of this makes me an expert, but it has contributed to my awe and wonder of the potentials inherent in all matter and their mathematical application through the laws of nature.

In defense of spiritualists, it is easy to see how one might assign "magical" forces at work. But as explained by others, it takes relatively simple instructions to create astounding complexity. Thus, no "irreducible complexity".

Fractals are a perfect example of a few simple commands being able to create structures of incredible beauty and complexity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2rg7CeY1ek

 

I'm a StarChild.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

from my link in 1228:
Only discovered in 1983, the Homeobox genes are a very exciting area of research right now. It is interesting to note that like a Makefile, 'HOX' genes only trigger things in other genes and don't materially build things themselves.

the above is probably what drives evolution.
and i really don't like the sound of it.

 

How can you say peer review is necessary and cite a link that admits to be only ramblings?

Didn't you say I'd be wrong in following my text books, but you cite a link that has gone through no peer review whatsoever?

Agenda much?

 

no, i said your textbooks do not present current breakthroughs.

yes, because i find it a novel way of looking at DNA and it's presented in easy to understand terms (for me anyway.)
it also includes some other stuff you might find of importance, my above post for example.

 

You defeated with your logic.

I have to retreat and go to bed.

 

I like this approach to the fundamental functions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmxJ1KDR_s0

Any comments?

 

Nice periodic table beery!

Just started watching Write4u. Interesting. will continue later...things to do, places to see!

 

after due consideration, this is my opinion on evolution as applied to lifes diversity:
microevolution, AKA adaptation, happens.
it's assumed that these changes accumulate to produce macro evolution.
the article i found says this doesn't happen.
in my opinion, macroevolution is the result of regulatory genes and NOT related to the environment.
this will explain why some organisms evolve faster than others and why some organisms do not evolve at all.
so, to recap:
i believe what was written in "science", that the small changes of microevolution do not accumulate.

 

What article?