Do you believe the universe is granular?

Do you believe the universe is granular?

Created by humble brother on Aug 5, 2011

35 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21 Sep 1, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't see it? DNA is a part of the universe. The claim was that DNA "evolving" into another DNA cannot be observed because of the genetic drift. There was an argument that the change can be seen but it cannot be truly observed. Why not, because it just can not!
The claim didn't actually make any sense to me, but alas, there it was, presented to me. And I had to counter it, twice.
"DNA 'evolving' into another DNA cannot be observed because of the genetic drift"? I'm not sure what that is even supposed to mean. By "DNA" I am presuming you mean "DNA sequence". In this case, we have observed it: new DNA has been added to the sequence of bacteria and insects, in the forms of antibiotic and pesticide resistance. We've also observed new systems emerge in the form of nylonase.

I'm also not sure you know what genetic drift actually is. Genetic drift is, according to Google Dictionary, "the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling". In case you don't understand, let me explain it to you in the following scenario.

Imagine there is a population of creatures. These creatures can either be fast or slow, and can be either red or green. There are predators which can eat the slower creatures. The color of the creatures does not impact their survival, as there is nothing to blend in with. Since color is not selected for or against, it will simply be inherited from whoever survives. The fast creatures are mostly green, while the slow creatures are mostly red. As the fast creatures dominate the population, greenness also dominates. Being green was not favored for by natural selection, though, but was random. This is an example of genetic drift: the genes for being green became more common due to chance, and not due to helping organisms survive.

This still has nothing to do with the original question, which is if matter is ultimately consisted of tiny particles. The simple answer is "yes", although this is a question of particle physics and not evolutionary biology. Why it is here is not apparent.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#22 Sep 1, 2011
I'm trying to keep the messages relatively short. You made the correct presumption about the DNA comment.
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
In this case, we have observed it: new DNA has been added to the sequence of bacteria and insects, in the forms of antibiotic and pesticide resistance. We've also observed new systems emerge in the form of nylonase.
This does not indicate transition from one species into another. Simply changes inside species.

I know what genetic drift is. It was used as an argument against me to illustrate that the transition from one species into another is not observable. This is why the question is here. I am saying that every change can be observed.

Let's continue the evolution debate in the other thread...

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23 Sep 1, 2011
humble brother wrote:
I'm trying to keep the messages relatively short. You made the correct presumption about the DNA comment.
<quoted text>
This does not indicate transition from one species into another. Simply changes inside species.
I know what genetic drift is. It was used as an argument against me to illustrate that the transition from one species into another is not observable. This is why the question is here. I am saying that every change can be observed.
Let's continue the evolution debate in the other thread...
Okay, I'll just finish up here by saying that speciation has been observed to occur. See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/... for info on the famous fruit-fly experiment. Geographic isolation + different environmental pressures + time = speciation. Speciation is very easy to observe, as shown in the fruit fly experiment: split a population of Species A in two separate environments with different conditions in each, give it enough time, and you will get two new species X and Y. To see if speciation has actually observed, put a female of X with a male of Y and see if they produce any viable offspring. If they fail to successfully breed, then we have just observed speciation occurring. This is basically what happened with the fruit fly experiment.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#24 Sep 1, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists have tried to argue that genetic drift somehow magically happens and there is no change that could be observed. Someone showed me an image which contained text and a color slide from one color to another across the whole picture. The argument was that one can not detect any individual changes in the picture. Well, one can when one zooms in.
Plainly put:
Two different instances of DNA from fossils of "different species" does not a transition make. No transition has been observed.
So the whole argument was just plain religious mumbo jumbo.
So you're saying an analogy falsifies evolution.

Should I fetch a kitten now?

I suppose there's not much point in telling you we don't tend to extract DNA from fossils as a general rule.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#25 Sep 1, 2011
humble brother wrote:
I'm trying to keep the messages relatively short. You made the correct presumption about the DNA comment.
<quoted text>
This does not indicate transition from one species into another. Simply changes inside species.
There is no barrier to prevent changes from accumulating, thus resulting in speciation. The ONLY thing that would do that would be if the Earth was say, about 6,000 years old.

Of course if you do claim the Earth is young, we will laugh.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#26 Sep 1, 2011
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no barrier to prevent changes from accumulating, thus resulting in speciation. The ONLY thing that would do that would be if the Earth was say, about 6,000 years old.
Of course if you do claim the Earth is young, we will laugh.
...laugh and point fingers.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#27 Sep 2, 2011
The Dude wrote:
There is no barrier to prevent changes from accumulating, thus resulting in speciation. The ONLY thing that would do that would be if the Earth was say, about 6,000 years old.
Of course if you do claim the Earth is young, we will laugh.
You make big claims but your words are void. Does the human body try to fix errors that are appearing? Does the human body fight against mutating cells?

You are trying to make an argument without any argument. Come back when you have something to say.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#28 Sep 2, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You make big claims but your words are void. Does the human body try to fix errors that are appearing? Does the human body fight against mutating cells?
You are trying to make an argument without any argument. Come back when you have something to say.
During cell division, there are mechanisms in place to prevent any errors from being made. White blood cells also typically are able to identify cancer cells and destroy them before a tumor forms. Occasionally, though, an error is made (a mutation) and doesn't get caught. If this mutation is in a gamete's DNA, then it can be inherited by the organism's children.

Think of it like having to copy a book by hand. You do the best you can to copy it correctly, you check it to make sure you did nothing wrong, but the occasional typo makes it through. If others copy your copy, they may end up copying those typos, as well.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#29 Sep 2, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You make big claims but your words are void. Does the human body try to fix errors that are appearing? Does the human body fight against mutating cells?
You are trying to make an argument without any argument. Come back when you have something to say.
The human reproductive and immune systems attempts to fix all "errors", nevertheless, every human being born has 125 to 175 mutations which neither parent has. Whether they be good, bad or neutral.

Your "argument" is nothing more than Goddidit with magic. But god didn't use evolution because your god's a wuss who takes orders from you.

So spare me the fake superiority routine.
Dr_ C -P - SHRIVASTAVA

Bhilai, India

#30 Mar 21, 2013
Granular universe is a truth.Planck action can be explained using this fact. Dualism and uncertainty
are directly linked with the mechanism of this action known in details only to the author.
cpshrivastava

Bhilai, India

#31 May 28, 2015
every thing is granular ,all matters and radiations(photons),even plank action.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Joncy David 40,340
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min DanFromSmithville 15,822
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min DanFromSmithville 201,132
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 88
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr Dogen 151,416
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Sat One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature Sat Fear-God 8
More from around the web