What? How does evoulotion have no proof. The finches in the galapagos islands evolve every year to suit their food source thats proof.
I have to agree that FF is only a game. It is made to provide us entertainment and square money.
What? How does evoulotion have no proof. The finches in the galapagos islands evolve every year to suit their food source thats proof.
I have to agree that FF is only a game. It is made to provide us entertainment and square money.
No FH is built in the middle of the ocean, there are no islands in the area. It is just a small town built off of the Horizon Bridge going across the ocean.
Doc "But I'm a pacifist, I don't believe in violence"
Caboose "Your a thing babies suck on?"
Tucker "No thats a pedophile"
bull! for one, birds have good sight. things that are see through they can't see because with their eyes they see only air in the area of the clear thing. no radiation, no EMW. they'll hit the holo walls and fall into the sea and die! no excuses!Originally Posted by Future Esthar
Exactly, birds do not possess such capabilities. Bats have sonar equipment, not birds. I have birds fly into my/others windows all the time. I guess they may be experiencing technical difficulties with their sixth sense?bull! for one, birds have good sight. things that are see through they can't see because with their eyes they see only air in the area of the clear thing. no radiation, no EMW. they'll hit the holo walls and fall into the sea and die! no excuses!
And that does not explain why Squall and co. can commute through the portal by walking and/or vehicle ( ie the raganorok anyone ) without the wall zapping or blocking them.
Why in hell would there be holographic, time warping, force field whatevers in the middle of the continent in the first place??? It is just NOT logical...
FE you still have yet to give us proof, you said you would last night, so...where is it? All ive read so far is more theories, the newest one being Hyne is Dr. Odine ( evangelical thread ), which makes no sense at all...
I demand an explanation.
While I agree that FF8 is only a game, we disagree on the finches proof...
Ah, the lovely finches of the famous Galapagos. Many think that the finches evolve to suit their needs, but of course they do not. First off, you say they evolve every year, but evolution is supposed to take millions of years to occur, does it not... The finch world is like so, one year there are many edible seeds, all finches eat freely and are happy. In the next few years there is a shortage of seeds, but many bugs hide in the tree bark, the finches with longer beaks can reach them to eat. The finches with shorter beaks cannot quite reach the bugs, so they starve and die. The longer finches thrive and now there are lots of long beaked finches.
A zoology professor Peter Grant held an 18 year study of the finches, he estimated at the current rate of generational changes ( the info gleaned from the beak incident ), that it would take only 1200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch , to convert to a larger ground finch only 200 years.
No, this does not qualify as proof for evolution. The finches have not created new genes, they have simply gotten bigger/smaller through process of elimination. Evolution states that it should take millions of years for such events to occur, yet they only take place in a few hundred years and have not evolved.
The theory of evolution could be as stated as this: any creature that develops into a different superior creature by growing new genetic material over a period of millions of years has evolved. The finches have shown no such behavior, thus it is not evolution.
The finches show no signs of new genetic material ( the foundation of evolution ), thus they have not evolved.
actually, it does. evolution is the longer process of natural selection practically. through natural selection animals use what they need to survive and is then strengthened. after a couple thousand years or even millions the animal looks quite different than it was before. evolution is again a theory, i agree, but it does explain why animals have many different looks. also, evolution does not state anything about new genetic material. it is only enhanced.
New genetic material is the foundation of evolution, the main argument being a single celled organism evolved into mankind. A single celled organism MUST aqcuire new genetic material to make that leap, right? No? Then how else? Evolution's "goal" is to continually improve itself and it has to acquire the new genetics to make the extra leap.
Yes, the animals will look different, but that isnt evolution. No new genetic material is present they simply improve upon what they have ( like the finches ) . Chihuahuaas and Saint Bernards do LOOK different, but they are still dogs nonetheless. Black people and white people are still human...
Where did FE go...?
I never heard evolution say we came from single celled organisms. I'm pretty sure it said we came from primates. Another thing, no, evolution is not based off of new genetic material forming. as i said before, it's just natural selection but waaaaay longer. by the way, new genetics? all organisms have the same genes but are different in a sense that their genes make what they look like and our genes make what we look like.
I know I'm going to regret this.
Organisms actually can aquire new genetic material but that process is transformation, not evolution. Frederick Griffith and Oswald Avery did a series of experiments that indicated that one strain of bacteria (smooth) was able to transmit some of it's DNA to another strain (rough), and some of those rough cells transformed into smooth cells.
Evolution is a process where existing DNA in populations gradually accumulate small changes in base sequences, some beneficial, some not, depending on the conditions. Existing DNA is being modified, not new DNA that is being created. What you call mistakes are certainly unintended, at least from the point of view of the organism, but that does not mean they are purely destructive. We would all be the same if not for these mutations.
Exactly, if everything came from the same single celled organisms then every creature has the same genes. Different parts of DNA are used for different organisms.
Doc "But I'm a pacifist, I don't believe in violence"
Caboose "Your a thing babies suck on?"
Tucker "No thats a pedophile"
this thread went off on a tangent
It's what happenes when Future Esthar's theories are compared to the theory of evolution.
It's bound to be controversial.
wait...tell me how that strain got from one strand to another. if it was that frederick guy and the oswald guy then that was just an experiment and does not provide any proof for evolution cuz that wouldn't have happened naturally and that is not part of evolution. what u say about the small changes in DNA is true. that is what i said. natural selection is what causes these changes.I know I'm going to regret this.
Organisms actually can aquire new genetic material but that process is transformation, not evolution. Frederick Griffith and Oswald Avery did a series of experiments that indicated that one strain of bacteria (smooth) was able to transmit some of it's DNA to another strain (rough), and some of those rough cells transformed into smooth cells.
Evolution is a process where existing DNA in populations gradually accumulate small changes in base sequences, some beneficial, some not, depending on the conditions. Existing DNA is being modified, not new DNA that is being created. What you call mistakes are certainly unintended, at least from the point of view of the organism, but that does not mean they are purely destructive. We would all be the same if not for these mutations.
actually, we use all of our DNA. we use each part of information on it to make who we are. every organism has the same number of codes on their DNA. so we pretty much have the same genes just really different information.
This should really be moved to evc forums(kidding)
It´s impossible to give proofs of my theories.
If one can not even find them for R=U and Squall=Laguna+Raine´s sun (SLR) theories how can we find for my more farfetched ones?
Flo:Honey,the clock is late.Go out fix it.
Mayor Dobe:What hours is it?
Flo: 15:30
Mayor Dobe:Hey do you wanna to send the Estharians to Centra or what?
Flo:Ok,let it be on 3:45
Images removed for being utterly colossal. Please use images that conform to the size limit.
Regards,
Big D
A more detailed explanation:
Griffith found smooth cells caused pneumonia in mice. The rough strain of the same species didn't. After heating cultures of smooth cells over flame to kill them, they no longer caused infections. But rough cells that were incubated with heat killed smooth cells eventually included cells that were smooth and capable of causing pneumonia. He suggested some factors were crossing from the dead smooth cells to the living rough cells. He couldn't pin down what factor it was though.
Avery picked up years later with the same setup, but using two batches of dead smooth/living rough cells; one batch with enzymes that destroyed protein, fats, and sugars, the other that destroyed just DNA. When the DNA was destroyed, transformation did not occur. When the molecules other than DNA were destroyed, transformation occured. The implication was that DNA from the dead smooth cells crossed through the cell membranes of the rough cells.
Mechanisms by which DNA can cross between bacterial cells is now well documented.
I was not suggesting that transformation is evolution, but it is a way for organisms to get new DNA and genes.
I have never agreed with you more. Well, except for SLR.
Last edited by BG-57; 01-13-2006 at 01:58 AM.
Recognized Member
Dante the demon prince: Do not tell any member on this site to shut up or call them a dumb ass. You are getting a warning for the posts that you have made in this thread.
Anyone elso who posts in this thread to diss or insult or flame will also be getting a warning.
FE: I suggest you start to back up your claims or your threads will start to get closed.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
Posting Permissions
