The Age of the Universe

[knight66]

Saul, You turned the thread from its subject by whining. So far as I can see you have not in fact discussed the topic, merely broke a rule you repeatedly broke when you were a 'regular' here, then stood on the sidelines and indulged in cheerleading.

If you want to discuss the topic, get to the nitty gritty and dissect it. Just giving a hurrah to a long piece of someone else's thinking is not discussing the subject.

Perhaps this little reminder will mean that for the future that rule here about spamming the site will lodge more firmly into your memory.

Knight

[Daidalos]

Did you know that we share 50 percent of the same DNA as a Banana?
And 60 percent of the common fruitfly?

Does that mean that humans grew on trees and were busy buzzing around ?

Of course not, but some people like Daidalos totally ignore this.

Some of the DNA in our cells is not used for anything particularly interesting; examples include the transposable elements and defective gene duplications. If evolution did not occur, why do humans share more "faulty" DNA with chimpanzees than we do with gorillas?

So, we have stretches of DNA that don't contribute to the function of the organism, yet when we examine this DNA we can still construct a family tree of species where the more closely related two species are, the more of this DNA they share. This is perfectly consistent with evolution, but it doesn't make sense if the species aren't related. Why would the "faulty" DNA be distributed such a way, if the species didn't evolve?

I refer you to this link for an easily understandable description of the kinds of genetic elements I talk about. You can check this figure:

The arrows at the bottom of the tree's trunk indicate "useless" genetic elements shared by all species at the branches of the tree, but arrows after the bifurcation of the human and gibbon lineages are genetic elements that are absent in gibbons, while present in humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. This mirrors the family relationships inferred from other genetic studies, paleontological findings, and anatomical, morphological and biochemical comparisons. There is a consilience of evidence that points to evolution, and only in the light of evolution does this evidence make sense.

[Saul]

Saul, You turned the thread from its subject by whining. So far as I can see you have not in fact discussed the topic, merely broke a rule you repeatedly broke when you were a 'regular' here, then stood on the sidelines and indulged in cheerleading.

If you want to discuss the topic, get to the nitty gritty and dissect it. Just giving a hurrah to a long piece of someone else's thinking is not discussing the subject.

Perhaps this little reminder will mean that for the future that rule here about spamming the site will lodge more firmly into your memory.

Knight

Knight ,

Have you not noticed that I barely post in this site?

Why is that?

The quality of the topics is extremely low, things like 'The Joke thread' and 'The movies' and other such trivial things can be found all over the web, why do I need to spend time talking about it with intelligent people like yourself when I can speak to you and other about more important things, that can make me grow intellectually ?

That is why I barely post here.

But when I post something that infused science and religion, explaining the origin of this world by a world respected scientist, scholar, teacher and intellectual, it all turns negative.

I wonder why it is?

Does this site has a hyper sensitivity to these topics that require more then 'average casual thinking'?

Has my absence for such a long time has not proven to you that my intentions are genuine and not cynical?

With all the accusations of 'spamming' that you hurl at me, is it not evident that I am not 'spamming' here anything?

Is posting one long article in 10 months or once a year with the most noble of intentions still considered by you as 'spamming'?

Where do you get off?

About the discussion, I'm still trying to deflect all these accusations and bellicose feelings some people have with me personally and this scientist and this very topic itself...

Its hard to create a discussion when all you hear is personal attacks, even you can agree to that Knight.

This thread was a genuine desire by me to share this knowledge with others , because I  was delighted by it, and wanted others to be too.

That's a good and positive thing according to my book...

[canninator]

Did you know that we share 50 percent of the same DNA as a Banana?
And 60 percent of the common fruitfly?

Does that mean that humans grew on trees and were busy buzzing around ?

Of course not, but some people like Daidalos totally ignore this.

Not strictly true. What we share with the banana and fruit flight are a high percentage of homologous genes (not necessarily orthologous). The figure for chimp is actual DNA identity.

[knight66]

Saul,

1st of April today; just sayin'.

Now, I am all for people getting on with the discussion, so make that your last whinge for the moment and formulate a decent reply to Daidalos, who has looked at your remarks and given a reasoned reply asking questions.

Knight

[Daidalos]

Saul, my first post in this thread was in direct response to the article that you posted. I commented on what I found to be an inconsistency, and noted my observation that current science doesn't seem to agree with the claims of the author. For instance, I pointed out that the age of the universe is considered to be 13 and 3/4 billions of years old, not 15 and 3/4, so the calculations that the author derived did not match up with scientific theory. I made no negative remarks about you or the author, merely the content of the article; at the first opportunity, you turned it negative.

[DavidW]

Is that the sound of tumbleweed across a desert I can hear.

Mike

It seems appropriate that I'm listening to Desolation Road while reading this thread!

[Scarpia]

But when I post something that infused science and religion, explaining the origin of this world by a world respected scientist, scholar, teacher and intellectual, it all turns negative.

I wonder why it is?

Discussion implies that you accept the possibility that a contrary opinion might be valid.  This does not describe your participation in this site.  Your routine is to post some fringe diatribe together with pre-emptive ridicule for anyone who fails to agree, then to dismiss or ridicule any serious discussion of the subject, capping it off with the victimization complaints.  It's very tiresome.

[Bulldog]

Knight ,

Have you not noticed that I barely post in this site?

Why is that?

Because you don't receive on GMG the special protection from moderators that you get on the other classical music discussion site?

[karlhenning]

Busted.

[Lethevich]

Bugger, I missed it ;___:

[bhodges]

Or...how about this for a novel idea, this being a classical music site, why not try to discuss music without bringing religion into it?

Exactly.

--Bruce

[karlhenning]

Another Great Jewish Bagpiper . . . .

[knight66]

Bugger, I missed it ;___:

It is just the same in the reruns. Go to BBC iPlayer for the Thursday Saul Show.

Pity the topic became a sensible attempt on only one side. Anyone willing to take on the opposed view to get an actual debate going?

Mike

[Opus106]

Can it be a parallel view to get a discussion going? It's not that I have one -- I only want to clarify with the almost-all-powerful Mod.

[Scarpia]

It is just the same in the reruns. Go to BBC iPlayer for the Thursday Saul Show.

Pity the topic became a sensible attempt on only one side. Anyone willing to take on the opposed view to get an actual debate going?

Mike

Actually I have noticed that the creation myth in the Torah has some parallels with what is now the consensus theory for evolution of life on earth.  Making the analogy may have some literary value.  But to say that this is science is absurd.

[knight66]

Dear Opus 106, Any view you like. I would never have entered onto the thread had the initial post provided a link rather than a toilet loll length of copy and paste.

Signed: Your friendly almost-all-powerful Mod.

[Opus106]

Dear Opus 106, Any view you like. I would never have entered onto the thread had the initial post provided a link rather than a toilet loll length of copy and paste.

Signed: Your friendly almost-all-powerful Mod.

[karlhenning]

And now we know the length of the toilet paper roll . . . unrolled.

[knight66]

And now we know the length of the toilet paper roll . . . unrolled.

Yes, roughly 5,700 sheets.

Mike