text:
Get great-value Bethnal Green Dent and Scratch Removal with Who Can Fix My Car.
Enter Your Registration to compare repairer prices and reviews in seconds. Get your competitive local quotes now!
Get great-value Bethnal Green Dent and Scratch Removal with Who Can Fix My Car.
Work done promptly and correctly. Cost was more than initially expected due to misunderstanding of what materials had already been obtained. Work required draining of air con system which was not mentioned before work began or on return of car. Had to get this done elsewhere at an additional cost.
Paid a little more than expected as apparently the spark plugs for my Corsa were more expensive than the standard. Service was completed in decent time
Good garage, honest and reliable owner. I will use this garage in the future. Thanks Ade
very friendly and helpful
The quote was honoured, it took about as long as expected. I would definitely recommend this garage & will use it again!
What an amazing service!!! So so happy happy!! Ray has put the biggest smile on my face. You couldn't ask for a nicer, more efficient, genuine man to be doing the job. I was so upset and worried about the damage that someone else had caused and my little boy hated the fact that it was his door that he had to get in to go to school, but Ray made us feel much more relaxed about it and made us feel reassured that our car was in safe hands. The work that they have carried out is unbelievable, the best I have seen and is definitely a 5 star service without a doubt. I am so impressed and will recommend everyone to him. Ray thank you and all your firm for doing all the work so brilliantly and promptly. Your the best!
Very pleased with the job Ray and his team did. They had a very competitive price and the customer service was one of the best I have seen across several sectors. They work around your schedule rather than having you to move your schedule to their availability (something I have noticed with several other garages). Great job done with my car. They even delivered my car back to my house.
Great experience! I wanted to repair a stone chip and bonnet dent and Ray was a friendly chap answering any questions I had. My request was dealt with very fast and the repair process was explained very well and the job was complete within 4 days. I also had 3 other smaller stone chips which was also repaired too without me asking so now the bonnet looks completely new.
They did a great job and car looks like new. Pick up and collect too which was a big reason why I chose them. Very satisfied.
Great service. They kept me informed the whole way through. Cleaned inside and out. Would definitely recommend.
Samet has been very professional and has fixed the problem very quickly and at the right price. Will use his services again. Thanks
One star because you did not write the report I asked and you don't respond to my messages.
Excellent service, carried out more work than originally requested and honoured original quotation. Thank you
Yes highly recommended excellent clutch replacement and the work was done quickly and its great to have the car running so well
Paul was excellent. I'm always a bit wary with new garages, but was put at ease immediately and felt that he was going to do a good job which was to change the cambelt and replace the starter motor. and at last minute, put in a brand new battery due to me not telling an important piece of information, which explains the final price and happily paid for an excellent job and customer service. I would definitely use this garage for all future jobs. Thank you, Paul!
Very professional and quick service
nice guys, found my problem.
Didn't really do much to the car they couldn't fix it told me I needed a new engine I asked them to put it back as it was and when I checked the car bitspares wer left off and a bolt is missing


text:
Creation of species through programmed evolution
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
Creation of species through programmed evolution
An organism is natural biocomputer system or more correctly biorobot, especially animals, in view of the presence of sensory organs, muscles, etc. A cell is biochip. An organism has both hardware (constituted by chemical structures including DNA) and software, the nonphysical biosoftware or bioprogram (divine rooh or the so-called 'soul') stored on chromosomes, the hard disk of natural biocmputer (see my earlier post in Molecular Biology section 'Life is nonmaterial phenomenon' dt. 20-1-2012. I may also point out that there is some spelling mistake in the URL of my blog given there. The correct URL is http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com).
The creation of biological species (excepting man) by God can be explained as programmed phenomenon. It cannot be chance phenomenon of descent with modification driven by random mutation and natural selection as hypothesized in Darwin's theory. There were no gradations either between any two organisms created by God. All of them are perfect biosystems. The process of creation of biological species can be explained based on the theory of programmed evolution in the light of the Quran (Wahid, P.A. 2005. Islam and Science 3(1): 7-42). It is briefly presented here.
The theory is founded on Quranic revelations and well-established cellular phenomena like cell-directed (programmed) biosoftware engineering mechanisms and natural demonstration of biosoftware differentiation processes (e.g., development of baby through execution of the bioprogram carried in the zygote). The term 'biomeme' is used to describe biological information stored as sectors on the chromosome. Biomeme is the smallest unit of biological information that can be transmitted from parent to offspring and that can take part in natural biosoftware engineering processes like cutting and splicing of chromosomal sectors, deletion, replication, translocation, crossing over (recombination), etc. These phenomena lead to alteration of the biosoftware (biological information) via rearrangement of the biomemetic sectors on the chromosome. All these processes, which biologists regard as random 'errors' or 'mistakes' are in fact bioprogram-driven functions to bring about the required alterations in bioinformation content stored on chromosomes, which reflect as sectional changes in chromosome organization.
Origin of biological information
The term 'origin of life' is a misnomer. A better description is 'origin of biological information'. Everything in nature is governed by chemical or biological information (i.e., program). A baby with diverse tissues develop in mother's womb through execution of the bioprogram stored on the chromosomes of zygote. This means a source of biological information is required for the development of baby. The evolution of baby is the reflection of sequential execution of the bioprogram carried in the zygote. In effect the execution leads to resolution of specific number of subprograms (carried in diverse tissues) from the original biosoftware stored in the zygote. The hardware (cell structure in a given tissue) is produced in accordance with the program carried in it to suit its functions.
In almost the same way, origin of species can also be theorized. To start with, there should be a primordial cell or biochip (PBC) similar to zygote. The PBC carried the required biological program (divine rooh) to create diverse microbioprograms through biosoftware engineering processes in accordance with the bioprogram. Each microbioprogram formed in the end represents a species. Species is thus comparable to tissue. The origin of PBC marked the origin of biological information. It is the origin of the cell (PBC) carrying the biological information (divine rooh) that can be described as origin of life. PBC is not an organism but a cell like zygote that served as the source of biological information.
How was PBC created on Earth? The Quran illustrates this phenomenon in the example of creation of Prophet Jesus Christ.
Prophet Jesus was created from a Word of God (God's instructions or software, which is what we call 'energy', see post 2 at my blog http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com). "Behold! The angels said: "O Mary! Allah gives you glad news of a Word from Him. His name will be Easa (Jesus Christ), son of Mary, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter and one of those nearest to Allah." (Q. 3:45). The 'Word' (divine instructions) mentioned in the Quranic verse 3:45 is the rooh (biosoftware) to create Prophet Jesus Christ (Q. 19:16-22). "And remember Mary in this Book when she retreated from her family to a place in the east. She placed a screen (to separate herself) from them. Then We sent to her Our rooh (biosoftware of Prophet Jesus) and he (the angel through whom the rooh was sent) appeared to her as man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge in Most Gracious (Allah) from you (i.e., the angel in human male form), if you fear Allah. He (i.e., the angel) said: "Indeed I am only a messenger from your Lord to gift to you a pure son." She said: "How can I have a son as no man has (ever) touched me and I have not been an unchaste (woman)?" He (i.e., the angel) said: "It is like that. Your Lord says, "It is a simple thing for Me (Allah) and (We wish) to make him (i.e., her son Jesus) a sign to mankind and a Mercy from Us (Allah). It is a matter ordained." So she conceived him (i.e., her son Jesus) and she retired with him to a remote place." (Q. 19:16-22). From this verse, it is evident that the rooh (biological information) transmitted by God through the angel materialized in the genital organ of Virgin Mary as the zygote carrying the biosoftware of Prophet Jesus Christ. "And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her genital organ; and We breathed into it from Our rooh; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants)." (Q. 66:12). The entire phenomenon resembles teleportation event in which biological information transmitted by God materialized into a cell (zygote) carrying biosoftware (of Prophet Jesus Christ) in the genital tract of Mary.
Teleportation involves what is called "quantum entanglement", a less understood concept of entwining two or more particles without physical contact. In 2004, physicists in Austria (Nature 429(6993):737. doi:10.1038/nature02608) and in the US independently demonstrated quantum teleportation with atoms for the first time [Nature 429 (6993):734. doi:10.1038/nature02570]. In 2006, Eugene Polzik and his team in Denmark, successfully conducted a teleportation experiment involving a microscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms [Nature 443(7111):557. doi:10.1038/nature05136]. They teleported the information to a distance of half a metre. For the first time, it involved teleportation between light and matter, two different objects. In effect, in a teleportation event, the information transmitted to a faraway place transforms into the corresponding material.
Programmed evolution of biological species from the PBC
The PBC or the first cell with biological information necessary for the creation of millions of species would have been formed on the earth by a teleportation event in the same way as the creation of zygote in Mary's womb from the rooh sent by God. The PBC would have materialized in an aqueous milieu and it is in that aqueous medium all the species were created. "…We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Q. 21:30). "And Allah created all animals from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills, for verily Allah has power over all things." (Q. 24:45).
Development of a human individual from the zygote is natural demonstration of how the bioprogram stored in a cell differentiates to create diverse subprograms each representing a tissue. Creation of diverse species may be viewed as programmed evolution of diverse microbioprograms through differentiation (natural biosoftware engineering processes) of the bioinformation carried in the PBC. Each microbioprogram so created represented a species. This would have been achieved through stepwise operation of appropriate software engineering mechanisms involving cutting and splicing of chromosomal sectors, shuffling of the sectors, replication, deletion duplication, translocation, mitosis, etc., in accordance with the bioprogram carried in the PBC. Ultimately it produced cells each carrying a microbioprogram representing a species. With the evolution of end cells carrying diverse microbioprograms in the aqueous milieu, the creation of diverse species is effectively complete. The end cells would have been in the form of spores, seeds, eggs, which got dispersed over land and water areas subsequently. From these end cells, the first members of diverse species developed. The theory agrees well with natural evidence and it is explained based on scientifically well-established and known phenomena. For a detailed discussion, see post 6 and also posts 2 and 4 at my blog http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com
Good lord...
When will people realize that there is no science whatsoever in religous scriptures- be it the Quran, the Torah or the Bible! At the time these texts were written (by ordinary people!), science as we know it now was practically nonexistent (back then, a rainbow was a miracle...). You will hardly find any serious scientific contributions in texts older than ~300-400 years.
So, interpreting religous texts in a pseudoscientifc language doesn`t make them a bit truer. Not to be misunderstood- everybody is free to belief in a supernatural entity and to find salvation in religion- no doubt about that.
But, please, keep science out of it...
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
Hello Pallazzo,
The theory of programmed evolution of biological species, which I posted, is scientific. We should not call a theory unscientific just because it is based on Scripture. Such judgement is unscientific. That is the kind of approach adopted blindly by atheists. Our criterion for judgement should be whether it can be scientifically proved. We are truth seekers; that is why we conduct studies through scientific means. There are a wide variety of information ranging from hypothesis to truth. Every one of us considers science as truth because we are able to develop technologies with the help of science. So science must be truth; otherwise technologies will not result. This is one hundred per cent correct. But we should not at the same time forget that there are several areas (e.g., origins) in science, which do not contribute to the development of any technology. The veracity or truth of theories developed in these areas can only be judged by assessing their agreement with Nature. What is meant by truth? "Truth" in science is any information that agrees with natural rules and laws. A theory is false if it does not agree with Nature. Nature is the "reference standard" for confirming the truth of an information. Scientific experiments we conduct do exactly that. Once confirmed, it becomes truth. Unfortunately, what we consider as 'science' is not entirely what is confirmed through scientific studies. Whatever journals publish including the unconfirmed information constitute modern science. Obviously, we find several theories as controversial. Any number of theories belonging to the controversial category can be cited. For instance, consider the section discussing the theories of origin of life at this website. We find dozens of theories proposed. Going by Pallazo's criterion all these are scientific theories because none of them is based on Scripture. If you examine these theories, you will find none of them can be considered as theory of origin of life for the simple reason they do not suggest how life originated. They all stay in the non-life domain. There is also no suggestion in any of those theories that can be tested or falsified. Neither the scientists who proposed those ideas nor the publishers believe any of those theories is true. But yet they are published. Just because they are published in journals we accept them as scientific! Every one of us can propose ideas of that kind. But it should not be mere ideas which we should consider as science. Scientifically proven truths alone should be considered as science.
Pallazzo's comment does not expose the scientific inadequacies of my theory but your point is, since it is based on Scripture, it is not true! Instead, Pallazzo should have examined the theory in the light of scientific facts and judge its merit. The theory of programmed evolution of species is grounded on natural evidence and scientific findings. Although I have given the link to my blog where the theory is discussed in detail, it appears Pallazzo has not read my post there. The theory is based on the following scientific facts:
a) It states that source of biological information is a pre-requisite for the evolution of biodiversity. The natural evidence is that a baby is developed from the zygote through differentiation of the biosoftware stored on the chromosomes of the zygote. The PBC suggested in the theory of programmed evolution of species is comparable to the zygote.
b) Darwin's theory of evolution and its modern variants (e.g., neo-Darwinism, synthetic theory, etc.) do not indicate the source of biological information required to create the novel structures and functions in the evolving species. Evolutionists assume instead that the required information comes from thin air through random mutation. The results of several studies show that this assumption is wrong. It has been shown experimentally that mutation is cell-induced phenomenon meaning that changes in DNA take place based on the information carried in the cell itself. This also supports my proposal that biological information (biosoftware) exists as stored information and not as information encoded by any chemical structure (e.g., DNA). Please see post 5 at my blog. Unfortunately, scientists do not accept this well-founded fact, which anyone can repeat in his/her lab, perhaps for fear of recognizing its divine origin!
c) Living systems show existence of biosoftware engineering processes that operate in their cells in accordance with the bioprogram carried in them. This also proves that biological program exists independently of DNA. These processes are treated as errors and mistakes by scientists. An organism is natural biocomputer (see my post 'Life is nonmaterial phenomenon' in Molecular Biology section of this website). A computer cannot do anything by 'mistake'; it can only operate as programmed. In meiosis, crossing over takes place in accordance with the biosoftware stored in the cell and it produces viable gametes. It is the natural biosoftware engineering mechanism (shuffling of chromosome portions) that is suggested in the programmed evolution of species, as responsible for creating new chromosome organizations and hence new bioinformation content. It predicts the occurrence of identical chromosome portions (say, identical DNA segments) in the evolved species. This is a well-established fact. In fact the concept of horizontal gene transfer is based on the observation of identical DNA segments on the chromosomes of the diverse species. This natural evidence validates the proposed theory of programmed evolution but it goes against Darwin's theory.
If Pallazzo can find out on scientific ground any flaw or inadequacy in the theory proposed, please do report. Let us discuss it scientifically.
"For nearly six decades now biologists have been promoting the idea that a chemical molecule, DNA, encodes biological program. There is sufficient evidence to show this perception is wrong." http://quranscienceblog.blogspot.com/20 ... cally.html
see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=dna
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
Pallazzo has quoted the above statement from my post at my blog. OK. Now let us examine why I say molecular gene concept is wrong. The concept is violation of chemical fundamentals. First let us examine the concept assuming it is correct.
a) Take the case of a zygote. It carries biological program which is supposed to be the genome. Genome is a large chemical molecule. If it encodes biological information, that information should be specific to that chemical structure like any chemical properties of that molecule. During development, the zygote divides mitotically handing down the same genome to the daughter cells. Ultimately tissues are formed. These tissues are structurally and functionally different from one another except for the genome. Genome is supposed to be identical in every cell of the body. (This is what we teach our students from school level to Ph.D). Human body consists of trillions of cells. In all these cells genome is identical. This means each cell should carry identical biological information. That being the case, how can there be variations in cell structures and functions among different tissues? If mitosis generates identical genomes (i.e., identical genetic information), how variation in cell structure and function can originate?
Now let us examine the other side of the argument. These variations among tissues indicate genomes in the tissues are not identical. This has been scientifically proved recently [Gottlieb et al., "BAK1 gene variation and abdominal aortic aneurysms", Human Mutation Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 1043. DOI: 10.1002/humu.21046]. This means genome is also changing like any other structure in the cell during mitosis clearly showing biological program is not encoded by the genome but it exists independently of any chemical structures in the cell. And it is that biosoftware, which is directing the production of cell structures (including genome) appropriate for the functions of the tissues concerned. It is impossible for a chemical molecule to change itself and change its properties and functions.
b) The discovery that genome is not identical in the body tissues calls into question every other claim like clone, personal genome, etc., to cite but a few.
c) Biological program comes into operation with the formation of zygote. The sequential execution of the instructions in the program is reflected in the evolution (development) of the individual and every other biological activity until death. How can a constant genome structure encode information that varies with time?
d) At the time death occurs biological functioning of the body comes to a halt in spite of the fact the genome is intact. A dead cell (unicellular organism) or a dead body is materially identical to its living counterpart before death occurred. How can the cell or the body cells stop functioning with every material including genome intact? Is it possible for a chemical molecule to lose its property – in this case biological program encoded by the genome?
There are several such anomalies or more correctly violation of chemical fundamentals associated with the material gene concept. The Scriptural revelation of nonmaterial 'soul' (biosoftware) is therefore correct. The soul is the nonmaterial biosoftware stored on chromosome like the nonmaterial software stored on the hard disk of computer. The Quran also informs that it is removal (deletion) of the soul that results in death. A dead body is like a computer without software. This revelation predicts that all the experiments to create life from nonlife (material) without involving a living cell or organism will fail. It also predicts it will be impossible to restore the life of a dead cell or dead body through chemical means. The Quranic revelation is therefore falsifiable and hence as good as scientific theory. We cannot refute that. If our on-going efforts to chemically synthesize (without involving living cell or organism) succeed in creating life from nonlife, that will invalidate the Quranic revelation and God. But if the attempts fail, it will be confirmation of the divinity of the Quran and God's existence. What I have proposed is a falsifiable theory. In the true scientific tradition, so long as a falsifiable theory remains unproven, it should be accepted as correct. Therefore, as it stands today, God exists because till date all our attempts to create life from chemicals have failed. Maybe, God is proving to us His existence scientifically. Indeed biologists are poised to prove God. It will not be too long before they realize that life cannot be created from nonlife or a dead cell cannot be restored to life. That will compel biologists to reject the molecular gene concept. That will be the ultimate scientific confirmation of God. This is destined to happen. Biologists can only delay it but cannot stop it. I hope Pallazzo can now understand that the entire discussion of the Quranic revelation is strictly on scientific basis.
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
You have to demonstrate this first. Where have you applied the scientific method? What null hypothesis have you used? What verifiable evidence distinguishes your model from the null?
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
Yea, Astra Sequi. From my post itself one can understand that the theory of programmed evolution of species proposed by me is scientific. An assertion is scientific if its validity can be tested or it can be disproved (falsified). This is the criterion Karl Popper introduced and universally applied in science to distinguish between scientific theory and pseudoscientific theory. If the assertion is falsifiable it is scientific theory. The theory I proposed is falsifiable. Further there is ample natural evidence that supports my theory. Let me explain this further in comparison with Darwin's theory.
Darwin's idea of origin of species can be considered a scientific theory because it yields certain falsifiable predictions. It is not because Darwin proved it in 1859 when he published his book 'Origin of Species'. The predictions can be tested and through that, it will either be proved or disproved. If the predictions fail, the theory is not scientifically valid and has to be rejected. If predictions proved correct, the theory becomes a scientific fact. Darwin's theory is not scientific fact because its predictions have failed. Hence it is not even a scientific theory now. Now let us examine this aspect.
Darwin stated in his book (The Origin of Species. Bantam Books, New York, 1999): "…the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth." [p. 231]. "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains…" [p. 149-150]. This is a prediction of his theory. Since his theory gives predictions, it becomes a scientific theory. Now the validity of his theory is testable based on this prediction. If the prediction is found true, his theory will be proved. If the prediction fails, his theory gets falsified or proved wrong. Now let us see whether the prediction of his theory is correct or not. Darwin says if his theory is true, innumerable intermediate forms should be present in the fossil record. Are there intermediate forms? No. The fossil record did not live up to Darwin's expectations. It is barren for transitional forms. Darwin's reaction to the absence of intermediate forms is: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." [p. 230]. What we should note is that Darwin who proposed the theory of evolution, himself says there are no intermediate forms. Since there are no intermediate forms, the prediction of the theory has failed. That means the theory is wrong and to be rejected.
Another thing to be noted is that in order to give credibility to the theory, Darwin described the fossil remains imperfect! No scientist would have called natural evidence imperfect if his theory does not agree with it. Take a hypothetic case. Suppose if Newton's theory had predicted a reddish sky instead of blue, and Newton explained that the sky should have been reddish, who will accept his theory and the explanation? None. But instead of rejecting Darwin's theory, evolutionists promote it! We should bear in mind one thing that Darwin knew even before writing his book that there were no gradations in the geologic record. What scientists normally do is they will not even consider it as evidence or they will change their theory to suit the natural evidence. It is Darwin's theory and not nature that required intermediate forms. In other words, if Darwin's theory had not predicted intermediate forms, no evolutionist would have doubted or even imagined that fossil record is imperfect. Nobody would have started work to find out the intermediate forms or why it is imperfect!
Transitional forms are the backbone of his theory. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record thus prompted Darwin to state: "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation." [pp. 279-280]. To call nature's archive of biological history as imperfect for the simple reason that it does not agree with one's idea is something unheard of and unthinkable in science.
There is another card Darwin had played to distract our attention from this failed prediction. Consider this statement of his. "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working …." In other words, evolution is a non-stop phenomenon. It was here, it is here and it will be here forever. If evolution is a continuous phenomenon, the intermediate forms should be seen at every point of time in the earth's history and not confined to early history and fossil record. But Darwin cleverly directed our attention to the geologic record. If evolution is taking place now, we should see those innumerable intermediate forms predicted by his theory in the extant biological diversity also. Among the two million or so recorded species, not one of them has been identified by taxonomists as intermediate form; all of them have been described as perfect species clearly indicating that transitional forms as predicted by Darwin's theory do not occur in nature. The absence of intermediate forms in the existing biodiversity, besides the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, is confirmatory evidence against Darwin's theory. Against this background, we may examine the scientific basis of the programmed evolutionary theory proposed by me.
The theory is based on the nonmaterial biological information as inferred from the Quranic revelation (see my post 'Life is nonmaterial phenomenon' under Molecular Biology at this website); Quranic revelation of creation of organisms from water; scientific discovery of cell-directed changes in DNA implying biological program exists independently of any chemical structure; evolution of structurally (including DNA) and functionally different tissues indicating differences in the biological information carried by them, which is also supported by the discovery of variations in the genomes of different tissues of the body; nature's demonstration of the necessity of a parent source of biological information (carried in zygote) to create tissues with different bioinformation content, etc. form the supporting evidence for the proposed theory. Besides these evidences, the theory also yields predictions. Hence its validity can also be tested. Since the basis of the theory is nonmaterial biological information, it follows that if it can be shown that life can be produced chemically without using living cell or organisms in the process, it will invalidate or falsify my theory. Another method to falsify the theory is by restoring life to a dead cell or organism purely by chemical means. In fact, failure of each attempt now going on in various institutes to create life from nonlife is proving life is not material (DNA) phenomenon and hence it proves the theory of programmed evolution is scientifically correct as of today.
...You did not answer my questions. Furthermore, only your first and last paragraphs actually addressed the topic I was asking about.
Falsifiability only means that that we are able to apply the scientific method - it does not mean that the process of science stops there. It is possible to produce a falsifiable theory in an unscientific way. If I said that there was a china teapot buried on the dark side of the Moon, that is a falsifiable statement, but you still have no reason to believe me.
Also, the successful theories generate thousands of predictions in different circumstances, not just a handful. Otherwise, you are not talking about a theory but rather a hypothesis.
We also tend to require some positive predictions (of the "This will happen" variety rather than "This will not happen"), and for at least some of these to have verifiably occurred.
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
I have indicated that whatever scientific evidence and falsifiable predictions one wants to call an assertion as scientific theory are there in my posts at this website and at my blog whose link I have given. It appears you want those evidences and predictions enumerated here. Before I do that, let me point out a couple of things you mentioned in your reply which I cannot agree.
a) "It is possible to produce a falsifiable theory in an unscientific way. If I said that there was a china teapot buried on the dark side of the Moon, that is a falsifiable statement, but you still have no reason to believe me." This is neither scientific evidence-based statement nor the one that yields predictions. We generally go for falsifiable predictions if a hypothesis is not directly testable. The example you have given belongs to that category. It is neither directly testable nor does it leave any testable (falsifiable) prediction. You do not have to bring the teapot-moon example for this. All the theories of origin of life advanced in biology belong to that kind. None of them is scientific theory though they all pass as scientific theories!
b) "Also, the successful theories generate thousands of predictions in different circumstances, not just a handful. Otherwise, you are not talking about a theory but rather a hypothesis." When we say a theory is successful, it means it has already been proved either directly or through successful predictions. It is no longer a hypothesis or just scientific theory; it is now a 'scientific fact'. If a theory is correct, its predictions will also be proved. If any of its predictions is found invalid, then the theory should be modified accordingly. Had such modifications been made in Darwin's theory, the theory would not have existed now.
c) "This will happen" variety rather than "This will not happen". There is no such distinction in science. Either way it is acceptable because if it is "This will happen" for a theory, it will be "This will not happen" for its rival theory. For example, big bang theory predicted a beginning for the universe, which implied it was created (by God). So there were several deliberate attempts to counter it by developing an alternate theory that did not imply a beginning for the universe (see Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time"). The theory that received attention was steady state theory. It implied no beginning for the universe. Both these theories are not directly testable. However, they are called scientific theories because they yielded testable or falsifiable predictions. Now if the predictions of big bang theory are proved correct, it belongs to "This will happen" variety as far as that theory is concerned. However as far as the steady state theory is concerned, it is "This will not happen" variety. Today, the predictions of big bang theory have been proven, while steady state theory, which implies the universe was not created and hence no God, remains unproven.
Now coming to your doubts regarding my theory, I have the following scientific or natural evidences and falsifiable predictions. These have already been given in my posts here and at my blog posts.
1) The theory of programmed evolution requires the availability of a parent source of biological information from which diverse microbioprograms (each representing a species) evolved. The theory in fact focuses on the resolution of millions of biosoftware programs through partitioning and differentiation of a common pool of information. This is well based on the natural and scientific evidence of resolution of several biosoftware programs (each representing a tissue) from a common pool of information stored on the chromosomes of zygote. Thus it is naturally and scientifically evident that different biosoftware packages can evolve through differentiation and portioning of a common pool of biological information.
This would also mean that programmed evolution of species does not depend on random mutations on which Darwin's theory is based. The discovery of cell-directed mutagenesis, which indirectly proves new program has come into operation as observed in several situation especially when the organism faces environmental stress, disease, etc. validates this aspect of the theory. For example cell-directed changes in DNA reported under stressed environmental conditions or resistance development against diseases or pesticides are the required changes brought about in hardware (DNA) to execute the program concerned.
2) My theory is based on the Quranic revelation that biosoftware (soul) is the cause of life and it is nonmaterial. This means that modern molecular gene (genome) concept is wrong. This forms a falsifiable prediction of my theory. Now a lot of studies are going on in various institutions and universities around the world to create life from nonlife. These attempts are made based on the belief that it is a material (genetic program encoded by DNA molecule) that confers life to an organism. Modern biology therefore considers a living organism as no more than a bundle of chemical molecules and there is nothing non-material in a living being. Thus the molecular gene (genome) predicts life can be created from pure chemicals (nonlife). This is also the basis of all the theories of origin of life (excepting panspermia, which is not strictly a theory of origin of life). That life is material phenomenon is a foregone conclusion by the scientific community. This belief is however falsifiable. The experiments to create life from nonlife (materials) without involving a living cell or organism, in fact, also test the validity of this belief (prediction) although scientists may not admit it. The failure of these experiments is one of the predictions of the Quranic revelation of nonmaterial biosoftware. Therefore, if the experiments fail, it will prove Quranic revelation is correct and disprove molecular gene (genome) concept. If the experiments are successful, it will prove molecular gene (genome) concept is correct and Quranic revelation is wrong.
3) The theory of programmed evolution assumes that partitioning and differentiation of the original pool of biological information (natural biosoftware engineering processes such as deletion, duplication, translocation, cutting and splicing, crossing over, cell division, etc., etc.) led to the evolution of diverse microbioprograms (each representing a species) in the end cells from which the first members of the species developed. This prediction can be tested as follows. Since biosoftware is stored on the chromosomes as biomemetic sectors (like the sectors of hard disk in computer, see post 4 at my blog), biosoftware engineering processes to create new bioinformation content on the chromosome would result in shuffling of chromosome portions. This will in turn reflect in the presence of identical chromosome portions in the chromosomes of the evolved species. It has been proved beyond doubt that this phenomenon has happened during evolution of species. The presence of identical DNA segments, which represent chromosome portions, in different species has been well documented in biology literature. The horizontal gene (DNA) transfer (HGT) observed is a reflection of biosoftware engineering processes taken place during programmed evolution of the species. HGT therefore validates my theory (this is a positive prediction). At the same time, it is against the predictions of Darwin's theory. 'Descent with modification' implied by Darwin's theory predicts only vertical descent. That is, the evolutionary tree should show only vertical descent. The existence of HGT questions Darwin's theory. It is impossible to accommodate HGT in evolutionary tree based on 'descent with modification' concept, although several explanations for HGT are in circulation. The evolutionary tree is now under scanner. That is another blow to Darwin's theory. Another prediction of the theory has fallen.
4) Another (positive) prediction of the theory of programmed evolution is that all the species evolved will be in perfect condition and there will be no gradations (intermediate forms) between any two species. This prediction is proven by the absence of intermediate or transition forms in the fossil record as well as in the extant biological diversity.
5) The theory does not view that life originated as emergent phenomenon through chance encounters between molecules. Instead it views origin of life as origin of biological information on Earth as the result of divine transmission (based on Quranic revelation of similar events). The phenomenon has been scientifically explained on the lines of teleportation. What once Einstein described as 'spooky action at a distance' has now been demonstrated experimentally through teleportation phenomenon. It suggests the possibility of materialization of transmitted information. Every aspect of the theory proposed by me is scientifically founded.
The final confirmatory scientific proof of creation through programmed evolution will come in the form of failure of experiments to create life from nonlife. So far all the experiments have failed validating my theory. More failures in future will further confirm the truth. It will also prove scientifically the divinity of the Quran and existence of God. We should be open-minded, unprejudiced and without any pre-conceived notions. We should not hesitate to accept the truth.
I think I have made clear the scientific basis and validity of my theory, success of its predictions, etc. If AstraSequi has any further doubt in his regard please spell it out clearly. Please also let me know whether you now think my theory is scientific? If not, why?
I can't evaluate whether or not your theory/hypothesis is scientific - or its degree of correctness, which is a separate matter - because you haven't answered my questions.
Where have you applied the scientific method?
What null hypothesis have you used?
What verifiable evidence distinguishes your model from the null?
Any scientific theory finds it completely trivial to supply these answers. If you can't do that or don't understand the questions, there's nothing wrong with that; it just means that some part of your thinking process is unscientific.
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
I have told you to point out the aspect(s) of my theory that you feel not scientific by your standards and also give reason why it is not scientific. You see my previous reply in which I have considered your answers one by one (a, b and c) and exposed to you why your understanding of scientific methods and criteria used in judging the scientific merit of a theory are vague and not correct. Likewise you take my points (1 to 5 given above) one by one, examine them individually and give scientific reason(s) for each why it is wrong or not scientific. Without doing that, you are repeating the same questions. Why can't you understand my theory is suggesting that all the organisms are products of creation by God through programmed evolution and not the products of chance evolution? That is the null hypothesis you are talking about.
You state: "I can't evaluate whether or not your theory/hypothesis is scientific – or its degree of correctness, which is a separate matter – because you haven't answered my questions". If the 5 aspects and their scientific basis do not answer your questions, and from which you cannot judge whether my theory is scientific or not, I have no more explanations. Sorry.
Re: Creation of species through programmed evolution
You're saying that your theory is the null hypothesis? That would mean that if nobody proves you wrong, you are right. That is not how a null works.
If I say there is a teapot buried on the dark side of the Moon - I think it's fairly clear that this "theory" predicts that if you go to the Moon and dig around for a few centuries, you will eventually find a teapot. If the entire Moon is turned inside out and no teapot is found, the theory will have been falsified. The point is that falsifiability is only a minimal criterion for something to be called scientific.
I was hoping to evaluate your theory for certain necessary qualifications, which you have not provided. I do not have that much free time to spend, so I let your other points be. You may choose to interpret that as you will. If you have reasonable questions, I do not mind trying to teach someone who asks (send me a PM, or start a new topic), but otherwise I do not wish to post in this thread again.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Remoting Architecture
This page is intended to summarize basic architecture concepts for Firebug (and Firebug extensions) remote capabilities (such as remote debugging or remote HTTP monitoring).
The proxy object represents a connection between a panel (front end) and a module (back end).
The proxy has essentially two implementations:
- Local - direct API calls
- Remote - communication over TCP/IP protocol
- Panel (a view) should never use Module (a service) directly
- The communication should always be done through the current proxy
- Each Panel should have its own proxy that implements API of the remote module (service)
- There can be also proxy objects used by non-panel objects, e.g. the Profiler
- It should be possible to create new proxies in extensions.
- There should be also something like a default (or global) proxy that can be used for things like getting list of tabs on the remote browser
Here is a more detailed diagram with local and remote proxies.
- Panel object at the top is referencing its proxy object
- The proxy implementation can be local or remote
- Local proxy uses direct API calls (in process) and asynchronous callbacks
- Remote proxy uses TCP/IP connection to communicate with the back-end using JSON packets
- The remote communication is based on RDP
- The server side implements Actor, which is responsible for communication with specific proxy
- The actor is finally consuming back-end Module (service) API
Connection object is responsible for sending properly setup packets to the server and handling all response packets. This object is also responsible for handling any errors (or error packets) that can occur during the communication.
- Remote proxies should always use the connection object to send JSON packets
- The connection to the backend is currently maintained by DebuggerClient object. This object comes from built-in dbg-client.jsm module.
- DebuggerClient object is accessible as Firebug.debuggerClient.
Firebug also needs its server side implementation that will be used if Firebug is running in a server mode (on the remote browser). In such cases only back-end services like: NetMonitor or Debugger modules will be loaded and activated. UI overlays (i.e. browserOverlay.js) shouldn't be loaded at all since it isn't necessary and e.g. Fennec UI doesn't even have expected XUL elements to be overlayed.
Individual services should be always loaded on-demand at the time when appropriate actor is requested by the client side. For example, when the client side requests a net actor then NetMonitor module should be loaded and activated.
- Only actors are registered on the server side by default
- Actors are responsible for loading and activating back-end services
- Extensions should be able to create and register custom actors
- In order not to delay server side browser start-up time, we should delay loading of AMD modules till they are really requested by actors (e.g. the Net and Script panels don't have to be even enabled).
Firebug TabWatcher is responsible for watching browser tabs events (open, close, switch) and firing further events to make sure that Firebug UI is properly updated and showing information related to the current page.
TabWatcher is clearly a server side component and as such it also needs a proxy. In case of JSD2 some events like tabNavigate might be server by API built-in in the platform.
BTI is implementing TabWatchListener (see browser.js file), which is listening to TabWatcher and forwarding all events to Firebug infrastructure. This object should be reused or removed not duplicated.
- Local TabWatcher must be disabled when Firebug is connected to a remote browser instance
This section describes the current BTI (Browser Tools Interface) concepts. These concepts should be reviewed and refactored as necessary.
WebApp represents a browsing context. Browsing context is an environment in which Document objects are presented to the user. Instance of this object is associated with top level page window (it's on the same level as the context object).
This object doesn't implement any logic it's there only to demonstrate the concept.
JavaScriptTool implements API related to script debugging. It serves similar purpose as a proxy object. It's currently placed between the Script panel and Firebug.Debugger module.
Compilation Unit[edit]
CompilationUnit has:
- list of breakpoints
- url
- reference to the current context
Asynchronous Data Access[edit]
One of the challenges for consuming JSD back-end API through RDP is picking the right way for asynchronous consuming of back-end data. This chapter is suggesting Asynchronous Data Providers to solve the problem.
Working prototype (a web application) showing asynchronously populated tree is available:
- Source https://github.com/janodvarko/prototypes/tree/master/async-provider
- Online http://janodvarko.cz/firebug/jsd2/prototypes/async-provider
The concept is based on:
- Viewer & Provider pattern
- Promise pattern
First of all, see the following diagram that explains how the Watch panel (child of the Scrip panel) is populated with data coming asynchronously from the back-and (as a set of grips) and cached on the client side (orange boxes represent the concept).
- The Watch panel update starts when a selection (or navigation) event is sent to it. It usually happens when JS execution is paused. Note that the current implementation of the panel displays the global object (window) if the execution is not paused so, it's never empty and useless.
- Evaluation of custom expression in the Watch panel is not covered in this scenario, but would be implemented using same technique.
- The Watch panel is essentially a tree and so, it embeds a Tree widget based on Domplate - DomTree. Set of domplate templates in this widget are responsible for HTML generation.
- The widget (a viewer) uses standard Provider interface to get data. See more about Data Providers.
- The provider uses a cache to get all objects. If an object is cached on the client side it's returned synchronously. If it isn't cached it needs to be fetched from the server and so, returns asynchronously.
- Promise object is returned by the cache in both cases (sync and async).
- Children objects are returned immediately, in the synchronous case.
- It's responsibility of the widget to update itself and re-request the object again from the provider. The object is already cached at that point and so, returned synchronously.
- Of course, the cache is part of the Context object that collects all data about the debugging target.


text:
Write a "thank you" letter, but get the names right
At a time when space is often at a premium in newspapers, The Gazette still allows service organizations and others to submit "thank-you" letters. I'm sure some newspapers our size reject these or even charge fees for publication as papers look for new revenue sources. Rather than place these letters with opinion material under the "Your Views' category, The Gazette labels these "Your Thanks." Sometimes I can get a flooded with these, particularly around national volunteer week or month.
We don't take every "thank-you" letter submitted. For example, if the letter is from an individual thanking a doctor, hospital or some other caregiver, I'll typically write back and encourage the person to thank that person or facility directly. If we accepted the good ones, then to be fair we would also have to accept the critical ones, and we can't sort out right and wrong to make sure the complaint is valid when it involves private medical records.
If it's someone thanking those who stepped forward to help after an accident or some other incident that made our news pages, I'll likely use it. I'm also happy to hear about those cases of "good Samaritans," when someone returns a lost wallet, forgotten purse or helps someone who fell or had some other accident that didn't make our news columns.
Here's something I'd like service clubs and others who submit thank-you letters to keep in mind. If you want to thank someone for their help, please provide us with that person's first and last name, and make sure you spell it correctly. The last thing you should want to do when thanking a person or business is get the name wrong and offend that person or company.
I recall a recent "thank-you" letter, however, that had five (yes, five!) business names, as well as an individual's spelled incorrectly. I don't know everyone or even every business in our readership area, but I did happen to know this person and that the name was spelled wrong. As far as business names, for example, does the company use "&" instead of "and" in its formal name? Missing the hyphen in Kutter Harley-Davidson is a common error. So, too, is omitting the word "community" in Blackhawk Community Credit Union.
Please, before submitting such letters, do me and those you're thanking a favor—double-check those names and make sure they're right. Those who have helped you will appreciate it, and so will I.
Greg Peck can be reached at (608) 755-8278 or email@example.com. Or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.
Greg Peck can be reached at (608) 755-8278 or email@example.com. Or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.


text:
James Avery, Star of 'Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,' Dead at 68
It brings us great sadness to report this news on the first day of the New Year — James Avery, the beloved actor who portrayed Uncle Phil on the hit '90s sitcom 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,' has passed away at the age of 68. Avery, who passed away late last night in Los Angeles, was an actor known for his warmth, and continued to appear on many TV shows over the years after 'Fresh Prince' concluded.
TMZ first reported Avery's death this afternoon, and it was confirmed by his 'Fresh Prince' co-star Alfonso Ribeiro in a Facebook post, which read:
The world has lost a truly special man. I am very saddened to say that James Avery has passed. Even though he played my father on TV, he was a wonderful father figure to me in life. He will be deeply missed.
Avery passed away following surgery for an undisclosed illness. Following his role on 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' with Will Smith and Ribeiro, he had continued to make appearances on several television shows, including 'Grey's Anatomy,' 'The Closer,' and 'Harry's Law.' He recently appeared in the TV movies 'Call Me Crazy: A Five Film,' 'Hunt for the Labyrinth Killer,' and 'Go, Bolivia, Go!'
In addition to his live-action work, Avery was the voice of Shredder on the popular 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' animated series and the voice of War Machine in the 1995 'Iron Man' cartoon.


text:
Giveaway: The wonderful people over at Cate and Levi were kind enough to give me a hand puppet to test in my home for the review. And one reader will win a Cate and Levi hand puppet of their own!
Mandatory Entry: Go over to Cate and Levi and tell me what other product you would like to have! http://www.cateandlevi.com/ Please leave your email address with at least one of your comments so I can contact you if you win.
Extra Entries:
Follow this blog publicly on Google Friends Connect (2 entries)
Follow me on Twitter (2 entries)
Tweet this giveaway daily (1 entry daily)
Follow me on Facebook (2 entries)
Vote for this blog on Top Mommy Blogs (3 entries)
Subscribe to this blogs email (2 entries)
Enter any of my other giveaways (1 entry per giveaway)
Grab my button and leave the URL to where I may find it (3 entries)
Blog about this giveaway (5 entries)
This giveaway is open to US and Canada residents. This giveaway will run through midnight on October 12,2010. The winner will be chosen at random.org and will be given 48 hours before a new winner will be chosen.


text:
Puzzle Levels
Download a FREE Solution for your puzzles!
Click Image to Enlarge
Cube 21 - Rotational Puzzle
Product Information
|Mix up the pieces and put them back to the start
|Level 10 - Mind Boggling
|Other Rotational Puzzles
|2 1/8 in x 2 1/8 in x 2 1/4 in / 5.4 cm x 5.4 cm x 5.6 cm
Product Description
The Cube 21 is made from a high quality black plastic. The idea of this puzzle is to scramble up all 6 sides and then return it so that each face only has one color on it. This is the original edition of the puzzle, and due to its unique challenging design, it is also a shape-shifter, and can take on more than 200 different shapes. The Cube 21 is manufactured by Hryahavolamy.
Customer Reviews |Write your own review!
This item has yet to be rated


text:
Helen Lewis, Janesville, WI (1929-2014)
December 25, 1929 - January 7, 2014
Helen Lewis, age 84, of Janesville, died Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014, at Mercy Hospital and Trauma Center. She was born in Hillsboro, WI, on Dec. 25, 1929, the daughter of Albert and Amy (Roberts) Blaha. Helen married Billy Lewis on Nov. 9, 1951, in Janesville, and retired from Seneca Foods.
Helen is survived by her 11 children: Bill (Pat) Lewis, Judy Fugate, Carol (Joe) James, all of Janesville, Linda (Jeff) Davis of Edgerton, Karen (Lyle) Downing and Bob (Diane) Lewis, both of Janesville, Gary (Kelli) Lewis of Orfordville, Jerry (Becky) Lewis of Janesville, Richard (Brenda) Lewis of Brodhead, Don (Jennifer) Lewis of Missouri, and Randy (Phyllis) Lewis of Beloit; 27 grandchildren; 11 great-grandchildren and a brother, Roger (Arlene) Blaha of Ontario, WI. She was preceded in death by her parents; her husband; two grandchildren; son-in-law, Bob Fugate; three brothers: Joe, Albert, Larry; and a sister, Agnes Jones.
Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 13, 2014, at the SCHNEIDER APFEL SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER FUNERAL HOME & CREMATORY. Burial will be in Oak Hill Cemetery. Visitation will be held on Sunday, Jan. 12, 2014, from 12 until 2 p.m. at the SCHNEIDER APFEL SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER FUNERAL HOME & CREMATORY. For on-line guestbook and condolences: www.schneiderfuneraldirectors.com


text:
Death notices for Jan. 27, 2014
Robert G. Holtzheimer, 81, Genoa City, died Wednesday, Jan. 15 at Lakeview Specialty Hospital, Waterford. Graveside service will be 1 p.m. Tuesday at St. Joseph's Catholic Cemetery, Lyons. Haase-Lockwood & Associates Funeral Homes and Crematory, Elkhorn, is assisting the family.
Richard "Red" L. Loveless, 75, Elkhorn, died Saturday at William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison. A memorial service will be held from 1 to 5 p.m. Saturday at Haase-Lockwood & Associates Funeral Home and Crematory, Elkhorn.
Florence M. Watson, 93, Elkhorn, died Saturday at Aurora Lakeland Medical Center, Elkhorn. Services will be at noon Monday, Feb. 3, at Sugar Creek Lutheran Church, Elkhorn. Visitation will be from noon to 3 p.m. Sunday at Haase-Lockwood & Associates Funeral Home and Crematory, Elkhorn, and from 11 a.m. until time of services Monday at the church.


text:
Man arrested in Edgerton for gun charge sentenced Thursday
MADISON — Aneudy Benitez-Martinez, 33, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was sentenced Thursday to 21 months in prison for illegally re-entering the United States and being a felon in possession of a firearm, according to a news release from the office of U.S. Attorney John W. Vaudreuil.
The incident occurred on August 22, 2013 when Benitez-Martinez was arrested in Edgerton for illegally re-entering the United States, according to the news release. During the arrest, officers found a .44 Magnum revolver in his home, according to the release.
In a post-arrest interview, Benitez-Martinez admitted to illegally re-entering the country and possessing a firearm, according to the release. He has a prior felony conviction for distribution of cocaine from the state of Oklahoma, according to the release.
He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Lynn S. Adelman. Benitez-Martinez pleaded guilty to the charges on November 13, 2013, according to the release.


text:
The Canadian Opera Company is delighted to be part of the ever-growing support of honeybees, Currently we host seven hives onthe roof of our opera house, the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts. Follow the honeybees' progress on Parlando, with visits and posts from beekeeper Fred Davis!
NEW - Our bee blog has moved!
Visit Parlando for more updates about our honeybees.
Posted by Gianna Wichelow / in Video / comments (0) / permalink
Posted by Gianna Wichelow / in Video, Audio, Press / comments (0) / permalink
A lot has happened since my last entry in August. The very hot summer months got me thinking about how to help the bees stay cool. I inserted chopsticks between the honey supers and the deep brood supers. I hoped this would improve air flow in and around the colonies. I noticed that the colonies were not in direct sunlight for very long throughout the day and until late in the afternoon. That was great during those hot months but now it's time to think about keeping them protected from the harsh winds this fall and winter.
Before I leave my thoughts of our hot summer I have to recount the work involved with taking off the honey. I planned on one honey harvest this year because it's a LOT of work to take off the honey. We ended up having to leave a few honey supers on to allow the bees to complete their work. The day was hot and the honey frames can be very heavy just like they were this year. In late August my wife and son helped me to remove most of the honey. We suffered a few stings. My son has yet to be stung! My wife was not so lucky. I was stung a few times and Barb got it on the ankle once. We acted fast but in a calm way trying not to upset the bees too much. It worked for much of the time. We spent the next few days cutting the caps off the frames and placing the frames in the extractor. Then you spin. It's best to do this work on hot days so that the honey flows quickly out of the cells and into the holding tank. I must have lost a few pounds over the course of the week spinning and uncapping frames. But it was a lot of fun. Our kitchen and breakfast nook were covered in honey and we got some unexpected and unwelcome company: ants! I tried my best to clean up all the honey that dripped onto the floor but we tracked it around and that must have gotten the ants' attention. I found out how much my dog likes honey as well. He did a pretty good job cleaning up after us.
Posted by Gianna Wichelow / in Update from Fred / comments (0) / permalink
Read the nutritional guidelines for the FSC Honeybees Honey!


text:
Difference between revisions of "Script Panel Refactoring"
|Line 208:
|Line 208:
* '''ThreadClient''' sends packet to the server side and waits for asynchronous response.
* '''ThreadClient''' sends packet to the server side and waits for asynchronous response.
* '''DebuggerTool''' has a direct (function) callback that is executed as soon as the response comes back from the server. Breakpoint's location is auto-corrected if needed.
* '''DebuggerTool''' has a direct (function) callback that is executed as soon as the response comes back from the server. Breakpoint's location is auto-corrected if needed.
* '''DebuggerTool''' directly access '''BreakpointStore''' and calls ''createBreakpoint''. Since '''BreakpointStore''' is a singleton, every context might try to create
* '''DebuggerTool''' directly access '''BreakpointStore''' and calls ''createBreakpoint''. Since '''BreakpointStore''' is a singleton, every context might try to create .
* '''BreakpointStore''' sends ''onBreakpointAdded'' to all listeners. So, in our case, the '''ScriptPanel''' also receives it.
* '''BreakpointStore''' sends ''onBreakpointAdded'' to all listeners. So, in our case, the '''ScriptPanel''' also receives it.
* '''ScriptPanel''' calls ''updateBreakpoint'' so, the '''ScriptView''' can update itself. Remove the waiting-icon and display the new breakpoint at the right location. It might also scroll to make sure that auto-corrected location is visible to the user.
* '''ScriptPanel''' calls ''updateBreakpoint'' so, the '''ScriptView''' can update itself. Remove the waiting-icon and display the new breakpoint at the right location. It might also scroll to make sure that auto-corrected location is visible to the user.
Revision as of 08:17, 8 April 2013
This page summarizes refactoring the Firebug debugger to use JSD2 and adding support for remote JavaScript debugging. Issue 5421 tracks the actual changes done.
Firebug Wiki:
- HTTP Monitor
- Firebug 1.7 BTI
- Net Panel Architecture Review
- Remoting Prototype
- Remoting Architecture
- JSD2 Adoption
Mozilla Wiki:
- Debugger
- Debugger Client API
- JS Debugger API Guide
- JS Debugger API Reference
- DevTools Debugger
- Remote Debugging Protocol
- Adopt JSD2 (get rid of all JSD1 APIs)
- Support remote debugging
Related Issues
- Issue 5421: Implement JSD2
- Issue 5837: Implement remote debugging
JSD2 API Requirements
The following list summarizes the high-level features that Firebug needs to support. It should be verified that all the features can re-implemented on top of JSD2 before starting the refactoring.
- List of scripts available on selected tab (including static, events and evaluated scripts) including iframes →
- Stepping (into, over, out, resume, current line)
- Support for
debugger;keyword →
- Support for breakpoints (add, remove, enable, disabled, conditional, list of existing breakpoints) →
Debugger.Script methods
- Recognize executable lines
- Dynamic eval in a frame (used e.g. by the Watch Side Panel when the debugger is halted) →
- Get stack frames (including passed arguments) →
- Scope chain variable exploring (with & closure scopes). It should be possible to see all values. →
- Break on next call
- Profiling (was part of JSD1)
- Tracking (break on) throw/catch/error →
- Tracking (monitoring) function calls
- Freezing page UI if debugger is halted (including timeouts, intervals and worker threads)
Not Ready in JSD2
- There is not source for evals.
- new Function scripts?
- Meta bug: Implement a script Debugger
- As soon as this one is fixed
- Profiling is unrelated to JSD2. What is the plan here?
- Tracking (break on) throw/catch/error; also what is the plan?
- Conditional breakpoints (bug 740825)
Current Debugger Architecture
This section describes the current debugger architecture.
There are several layers/objects so, let's describe them step by step starting from the bottom.
- Backend: JSD1, FirebugService, Debugger
- Frontend: JavaScriptTool, ScriptPanel
This layer represents JSD1 platform API. These API allows to implement script debuggers and represent direct competition to JSD2 API. Of course this layer should entirely disappear and should be replaced by JSD2.
Firebug Service
Firebug service is implemented as js module on top of JSD1 layer. The object is called FBS and it's purpose is to wrap JSD1 API so, they are not directly accessed anywhere else. This layer also maintain list of registered debuggers (usually
Firebug.Debugger module) and fires various events to them (e.g. onToggleBreakpoint, onToggleMonitor, etc.) or execute theirs callback (e.g. onBreak, onFunctionCall, onError, onThrow, onScriptCreated, etc.)
Main responsibilities:
- Activate/deactivate JSD in the browser. The activation is global for all current browser windows.
- Hook debugger events (interrupts, break on a breakpoint, etc.)
- Maintains list of registered debuggers (there is usually just one - Firebug debugger) and sends events to them.
- Manages nested event loop that is created for the debugger UI when page JS execution breaks.
- Sets/removes/enables/disables/saves/loads breakpoints
- Implements debugger stepping over/in/out/runUntil
- Monitors function calls
- Starts/stops profiling
- Tracks exceptions and errors (not working well)
- Tracks compiled scripts (not all of them)
This object is derived from
Firebug.Module and represents Firebug's debugger. It's also registered as a debugger into Firebug Service (FBS). This object should be the only one accessing FBS. It calls FBS API and receives various callbacks and events.
This object implements methods that can be used by the Script panel or other parts of Firebug (e.g. by those panels which implements BON).
Some examples of the API:
- evaluate, evaluateInCallingFrame
- breakNow, getCurrentStackTrace
- rerun
- stepOver, stepInto, stepOut, runUntil, resume
- setBreakpoint, clearBrakpoint, etc.
- monitorFunction, unmonitorFunction
- monitorScript, unmonitorScript
- activateDebugger, deactivateDebugger
Implementation of these methods is based on FBS API.
There is also
Firebug.DebuggerListener that defines the interface used by FBS
- onStop, onResume, onThrow, onError, onScriptCreated (there is more onScriptCreated events)
This object is part or BTI and represents a javascript debugger tool. This object is like a proxy sitting between
Firebug.Debugger and the
ScriptPanel. The current implementation is in-process only so, based on direct
Firebug.Debugger API calls.
API of the tool is as follows:
- setBreakpoint, clearBreakpoint, enableBreakpoint, disableBreakpoint, isBreakpointDisabled, getBreakpointCondition
- rerun
- resumeJavaScript, stepOver, stepInto, stepOut, runUntil
- onConnect, onDisconnect
- onStartDebugging, onStopDebugging
- onCompilationUnit
The BTI is used by Crossfire. Crossfire has the following structure:
Crossfire Panel ↓ Crossfire Module ↓ Crossfire Server ↓ Crossfire Socket Transport
When starting up it does the following.
- Register tools (e.g. console, inspector, ...)
- Start server
- Create socket transport
- Add BTI listener
- Set connection status
Script Panel
The Script Panel sits at the top of the whole stack of layers/objects. It represents the debugger UI (a view + a controller). The implementation of this object is quite extensive since it also includes the source code view and viewport (see
firebug/js/sourceBox.js module.
The Script panel should never access the
Firebug.Debugger directly. It should always use the
So, for example, if the user clicks on the Breakpoint Column, the action is handled by the Script panel, forwarded to the
JavaScriptTool, which forwards it to the
Firebug.Debugger, which forwards it to
FBS. Finally,
FBS is using JSD1 API to set the breakpoint.
There are side panels (Breakpoints, Watch and Stack), which are synchronized automatically with the Script panel. They should all use
JavaScriptTool to get appropriate data to display.
The synchronization happens through basic Firebug mechanisms like,
updateSelection and
New Debugger Architecture
The Script panel needs to be built on top of JSD2, remote protocol and Firebug remoting API. Remoting is already supported by HTTP Monitor.
First of all, take a look a the following diagram.
- DebuggerClient This object comes from Firefox platform and is responsible for connection to the server back-end. The object maintains the underlying transport layer, it's responsible for tab attach/detach, it implements basic packets send and receive logic. The implementation is currently within resource://gre/modules/devtools/dbg-client.jsm module.
- DebuggerClientModule This module (singleton, one per Firebug instance) represents a wrapper around DebuggerClient. It implements connection setup and initialization (e.g. port number). This object represents the connection in Firebug and should be shared by all remotable tools (e.g. the Script panel, Net panel, Profiler, etc.). Name of this module isn't probably descriptive enough, it could be changed. This object (or related object) could also replace the TabWatcher.
- DebuggerTool This object implements API related to debugging (typical methods: stepIn, stepOut, setBreakpoint, etc.). The Script panel should always consume debugger API through this object. DebuggerTool registers itself as a DebuggerClientModule and thus gets all necessary events from the back-end (e.g. onConnect, onThreadAttached, etc.)
- ScriptPanel Represents debugger UI and listens mostly to onStartDebugging and onStopDebugging events. Those are used to properly updated the panel's UI.
- ScriptView This object is currently based on Orion (but could be replaced by CodeMirror, see bug 816756). The main responsibility of this object is displaying the source code (using color syntax highlight).
- CallstackPanel This panel displays list of frames when the debugger is halted. The frame list is synchronized with ThreadClient's stack frame cache using framesadded and framescleared events.
- ThreadClient This object comes from Firefox platform and is responsible for tab-thread related logic.
- BreakpointStore Responsible for breakpoint persistence across Firefox restarts (in breakpoint.json file).
A grip represents handle to server side object (see RDP for more details).
Firebug framework introduces several objects that deals with these handles, see the next diagram.
- GripFactory This is the place where grips instances are created. Every grip object is associated with a class (see RDP) and uses Firebug.registerGrip to register itself. This factory uses a list of registered types and instantiates the right one according to the server side grip class attribute.
- GripCache The cache is the place where panels and other parts of Firebug should ask for grip-objects. If the requested object is not in the cache a request is sent to the backend and a promise synchronously returned and asynchronously resolved. If the object is already in the cache a promise is returned and synchronously resolved. GripCache is the only place, which uses GripFactory. See more about asynchronous data access.
- ObjectGrip Represents a wrapper for RDP Grip
- Property Represents a wrapper for RDP Property
- FunctionGrip Represents a wrapper for a function object.
- ScopeGrip Represents a wrapper for a scope object. This object is used by the Watch panel to show chain of current scopes.
This section describes architecture design for debugger breakpoints.
- BreakpointStore The main component implementing API for breakpoint creating and removal. This object is also responsible for client side persistence and initialization. There is one instance of this object per browser window. So, if a breakpoint is created in one context it automatically appears in all contexts that are using the same URL.
- FunctionMonitor, ScriptPanel, BreakpointPanel, ConsolePanel These represent example objects that are dealing with breakpoints. There is and can be even more such objects in the future. All these objects register themselves as BreakpointStore listeners and also use API implemented by BreakpointStore object.
- DebuggerTool is responsible for breakpoint creation/removal on the server side. BreakpointStore uses this object to sync breakpoints on the server side. There is one instance of this object per context.
See an example of a breakpoint creation (using the Script panel UI):
- The user clicks on ScriptView breakpoint column. It's currently based on Orion, but it could be also CodeMirror in the future.
- ScriptView notifies ScriptPanel about the action.
- ScriptPanel is using BreakpointStore API to create a breakpoint. It calls addBreakpoint. Breakpoint creation is asynchronous so, the return value is not useful. The panel must wait for onBreakpointAdded event instead.
- BreakpointStore sends onAddBreakpoint event to all registered listeners (in all contexts). The listeners will be most likely all DebuggerTool instances (one per context) and also all UI object that want to display a temporary waiting-icon at the place where the breakpoint will (asynchronously) appear.
- DebuggerTool uses its associated ThreadClient to create a breakpoint on the server side. Each DebuggerTool instance will do it for its context. This way all contexts will be updated. We might want to filter according to URL.
- ThreadClient sends packet to the server side and waits for asynchronous response.
- DebuggerTool has a direct (function) callback that is executed as soon as the response comes back from the server. Breakpoint's location is auto-corrected if needed.
- DebuggerTool directly access BreakpointStore and calls createBreakpoint. Since BreakpointStore is a singleton, every context might try to create the same breakpoint. So, the tool just bails out if the same breakpoint already exists.
- BreakpointStore sends onBreakpointAdded to all listeners. So, in our case, the ScriptPanel also receives it.
- ScriptPanel calls updateBreakpoint so, the ScriptView can update itself. Remove the waiting-icon and display the new breakpoint at the right location. It might also scroll to make sure that auto-corrected location is visible to the user.


text:
3 hurt in I-90/39 crash Monday
TOWN OF FULTON—Three people were injured in a three-vehicle, chain-reaction accident that blocked southbound Interstate 90/39 near Edgerton on Monday morning.
Kalinn M. Harrison, 41, of Edgerton, was treated and released at Mercy Hospital and Trauma Center, Janesville.
The State Patrol said Alexander L. Delguerico, 17, of Edgerton, also was taken to Mercy with non-life-threatening injuries. Mercy does not give condition reports on minors.
A third injured person who apparently was not transported for medical care was Rochelle M. Stiles, 22, of Chippewa Falls.
The accident occurred around 10:52 a.m. near mile marker 163. The State Patrol reported that Delguerico was driving a Volkswagen Passat with Harrison as a passenger. He merged on to I-90/39 from Highway 59 and saw a semitrailer truck slowing in the right lane in front of him.
Delguerico swerved into the left lane to avoid a collision, but the car's bumper hit the semitrailer, which caused the car to spin out of control in front of another car in the left lane, according to the State Patrol.
Stiles was driving the second car. She braked but collided with the Volkswagen, causing it to roll over.
The truck driver was listed as Roger A. Vaade of Janesville. He was not injured.
The Interstate reopened around 12:30 p.m., State Patrol Sgt. Craig Lindgren said.
Edgerton police and EMS and Rock County sheriff's deputies also responded to the crash.


text:
TIME'S UP! is a New York City-based not-for-profit direct-action environmental group that uses events and educational programs to promote a more sustainable, less toxic city.
TIME'S UP! campaigns support objectives shared globally and locally by people like you. We're community-based and all volunteer. It's easy to participate: JOIN!
Check out our 25th Anniversary Timeline of events and accomplishments.


text:
Best Stache letterpress and foil card
folded card: 3.31 x 5.44.
card: sustainably letterpressed and foil stamped on bamboo paper. kraft envelope: 100% post-consumer recycled, fsc certified paper. made with love in upstate New York.
packaged in a clear cello bag.
Available as:
- single folded card - letterpress and foil - kraft envelope


text:
Metal Clip-In Bioguard
8 Items
Metal Clip-In Bioguard
* Some products may have Dncw values published. These are valid although Dnfw, which is essentially the same as Dncw, has superseded it. For further information on the acoustic performance of Armstrong products please contact our Armstrong Technical Sales.
- Inspiration & Knowledge
- Green Building
- Products
- Technical Data
- Contacts


text:
Theories - Origin of Life
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I really like the way you put that. Exactly my thoughts as well.
@Scottie: And if you've ever listened in on the debate about where to draw the line between certain species (the debate on how to classify early hominid remains for example), you'd realize that 'species' is really an artificial concept constructed in the human mind. Believing in evolution within a species but not believing that evolution can create new species is a weird belief. Where do draw the line? If you believe that evolution can occur within a species, why can't that species experience enough change that we would call it a new species? I guess I'm just a little confused on your position.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." -Carl Sagan
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Also a very good point. The "accept micro- but reject macroevolution" camp might well ponder this.
scottie, you have consistently stated that you will not believe something because it is
"just a hypothesis". I don't think you realize that the first step of the scientific method is to make a hypothesis. So, according to your judgement, if every hypothesis is not worthy of consideration and false, the scientific method becomes useless?
From wikipedia:
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose".[1] For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]
Every theory must initially be a hypothesis. If the theory matches all the criteria necessary to be a theory, such as evidence, predictability, and consistency, then it becomes a theory. Your belief that the organisms on Earth are designed is a hypothesis as well. If it matches sufficient criteria, we will consider it a theory.
That's a bit confusing. Which did he say ?
a )Doesn't necessarily believe a hypothesis because it's only a hypothesis, or
b) Will not consider any and they are all false ?
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
In your estimation, which of these is true, or synonymous in meaning, to your words ? That you think it has explained, can explain, would explain, does explain...?
I've had a "scientist" tell me (after rebuttal) , that he only said "would explain", not "did explain" or "does explain". Do you see any difference in intent in wording, between these ?
Are you saying everything observed has been explained ?
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I am sorry for the delay but I have an illness in the family and I, at this moment cannot devote much time to this discussion.
I am a communications engineer (retired).
I hope, that probably will indicate I try to remain grounded in the world of what can happen or indeed is possible, in the light of our current understanding of the world around us.
My belief in the scientific method as I have explained is something I try and apply to all matters in life that require evidence to formulate opinions. I try not to have a preconceived bias when examining any matter.
That is why I am definitely not a philosopher
It is my belief in this scientific method, that has led me to accept the evidence that a only a mind can be responsible for the life processes we see all around us.
That is not to say that a mind in a material body cannot create a new species.
Craig Venter and his team have in a small way has done just that. It was his mind and that of his team that made what they accomplished possible. They did not create life itself but managed to create a new species.
What they did serves only to highlight my acceptance that a mind must be involved in the creation of species. I see no evidence that natural forces have that capability. That is why I have continued to refer to the peer reviewed papers of scientists.
I also accept that you can draw legitimate conclusions by way of circumstantial evidence.
So returning the question of Darwinism, is it a fact or is it a hypothesis.
Well it certainly is a hypothesis and indeed could reasonably be regarded as a scientific hypothesis. In fact in Darwin's day it could have reasonably have been regarded as a null hypothesis.
I find however that the accumulating evidence opposes that hypothesis and I have tried to present that evidence.
Can I prove that a non material mind is responsible for life?
No I can't, what I can do is to present the evidence that circumstantially draws me to that conclusion.
I did not grow up in a religious household and I don't regard myself as a religiously inclined person. I have too much evidence around me to see the damage that organised religion has done. The same goes for organised atheism.
I don't have any objection to organisations per se. I just always keep in mind that the evidence shows that we don't have the capacity to successfully organise our own affairs. The thousand of years of human history demonstrates that so clearly that I regard it as a fact.
Yes I believe we are indeed partial allies.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Scottie. Thank you for making your position clear, at least to me. Amongst other labels, I consider myself an Occamist.
We mortals face two "Big Questions" - the origin of the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) and the origin of life. Evidence is totally lacking for both, so for us to have an opinion or belief about them, we have to make a leap of some magnitude or other.
For the origin of the universe, some physicists propose an extrapolation from the very small to the very large - the popping in and out of "existence" ("limits of detection" might be a better term) of virtual particles as a mechanism for the origin of the universe. I guess that's the best we can do at present without invoking a deity of some sort. As a fellow old fart, I doubt much progress will be made on this front within my lifetime. Occam is not much help here. For the scientific method to be a valid means of accumulating data, though, it has to assume that observations are not the result of "outside" influences. The creation of the universe by a mind or from nothing are both rather bold proposals. I only prefer the latter due my inability to entertain the former.
For the origin of life, various ideas have been proposed that are testable for the mechanisms involved but not for whether or not these mechanisms actually occurred (on Earth). I doubt that any test for what actually occurred is even possible, so we will probably never find sufficiently strong evidence to favour one idea over another, although I think that in order to avoid invoking an outside influence, it would have to involve an abiotic Darwinian process (selection) of some sort. For me, a materialistic process seems more likely than a supernatural one.
For the origin of species, I can only defer to my previous argument of the magnitude of any leap that may be required. The question is not of the scale as the above two. We have pretty solid evidence that evolution occurs. Here, the extrapolation from the small to the large seems far less troublesome than what the physicists have to deal with. Occam, I think, would agree. I doubt that this leap could be the origin of your belief in some sort of cosmic mind, considering the larger issues mentioned above. I personally cannot get my head around the concept of a cosmic mind (circumstantial evidence cannot justify such a large leap), but I would choose that option over any form of a theistic god if only two options were available. But I choose the third option, just because it makes the most sense to me. The thought of a purely naturalistic, purposeless origin for everything also seems to be very comforting to me. But then I'm quite irresponsible - if there's no cosmic purpose, then I'm off the hook for pulling my weight.
I don't know about that. Without any speciation occurring, we have come a long way. You can't possibly believe that we are no more organised today than our hunter-gatherer ancestors were a hundred thousand years ago. Biologically we may not have changed much, but culturally? Sometimes I think that you just like pulling our chains.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I've read the entire thread (well, maybe about 80-ish% of it… skipping Russian translations, etc…) – that was one HELL of a ride. I have NO idea how Scottie managed to withstand the pressure for so long, but I want to sincerely thank him for very interesting links, ideas and reasoning. I was also impressed by Gavin's elegant summary.
While I'm not in the position to judge the conclusions drawn by Scottie, it was interesting to see some arguments used against Scottie's logic (or an absence of one, in case you are in the opposite camp). At the end, it frequently rolled down to:
- Who is the designer?
- Who designed the designer?
- Why majority of scientist do not share your views?
I still fail to comprehend why it is absolutely necessary to present a complete alternative to the dominant view to be even considered being a serious debater? For 29 pages people demanded the declarations of Scottie's alternative. What the alternative can possibly be? A Flying Spaghetti Monster, obviously. But what would've happened if a Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared out of the shadow - Neo would've been unplugged from the Matrix and got flushed down the toilet without any need to spend any time on him (hence, on my opinion, Scotties reluctance to make any official declaration on the matter). So what's the big deal if no well shaped alternative is offered… How about denials of Dark Matter, for example? Do those scientists have to be stripped of their degrees and sent back to school for just disagreeing with the mainstream believes? They are still the scientists, right? They earned the right to have a voice.
There were a lot of legit links presented - I listened to a lot of Dawkins; let me listen to something different for a change.
And this thing – who designed the designer? According to my observations, this one is always used as a final Ace up one's sleeve when the conversation hits the roadblock, because it supposed to send a poor Flying Spaghetti Monster into a rotating loop.
I saw a very good movie ones – Contact. There the humanity received a signal with 60,000 pages of complex data from ET life in the area of the star Vega. Nobody was able to crack it, until one guy realized what the problem was – we think like humans ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYRvABhHAY ). We are the products of the world that we live in, and all our understanding of reality is bound by the properties of this world – a son is supposed to have a father, just like a father is supposed to have a father of his own. But is that all there is out there? If we crystallize all the knowledge that exists out there, going beyond this universe, in terms of time, space and maybe even dimensions, wouldn't Socrates' "I only know that I know nothing" still hold? The state sponsored religion (materialism, being that) in the country where I grew up was based on the axiom that matter has always existed, and it precedes mind. What if somehow and somewhere this concept actually works the other way around… You see what I'm sliding into? But is it really necessary, relevant or even possible to answer this question at the moment? If the mind preceded life on the planet, there should be its fingerprints left in the life itself. That's complex enough for now, as I see it. That's what Scottie tried to concentrate on.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Gavin and Nick 7
I appreciate both your comments, thanks very much
I am sorry for being out of the loop for so long but as I explained I have had to deal with family illness
Anyhow all seems to be well now so, if ( FSM willing) I am not barred again I will study both your posts and try to continue to bore everyone with some more of my observations unless of course you want me to shut up now.
Nick 7 --- all 29 pages read!!! Good grief you are a sucker for punishment.
Both your comments are deserving some thought.
scottie, I'm sure you will first answer my very old question, right?
you said, that 1 and 3 are wrong, so the creator "arrived" several times on Earth and worked on schifts, right? That would at least explain, why we don't find fossils of recent animals in say Mesozoic era.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Right, they are all wrong, all the evolutionists, all IDers and all creators are wrong, but one retired engineer with no biological knowledge is right
I see, you are using another anti-evo trick. Just saying, that since evolutionists argue against each other, than the evolution is wrong. Hey, they do not argue, whether evolution is true or false, but how exactly it's occurring. With the same logic, IDers and creators are wrong, because they (with you) are arguing about the exact way, how we were created.
BTW what do you think about this video?
I guess it's fine for you, as an engineer.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
The No 2 option of yours is the nearest to my view without of course the rather silly appendage you have attached.
My major point seems to have escaped your understanding.
If evolutionary theory (in all it's various forms) is correct then there will be no disagreement between the theorists as to what the mechanism that drives macro evolution actually is.
The reality that different dissenting views not only exist but are actually competing for prominence demonstrates that the mechanism is not known.
The only common thread that unites the various adherents is that a naturalistic cause is the only one that is acceptable, regardless of where the evidence leads.
This makes any of these theories philosophically based. That is not a view I have any difficulty with, other than the point that it is regarded as a scientific fact and any dissension from that view is regarded as intolerable and therefore worthy of censorship, as you yourself have so plainly demonstrated.
The creationists also introduce their religion into their arguments and then present their views as fact.
And by the way the information I have posted comes from accredited scientific peer reviewed sources. They don't come from a "retired engineer with no biological knowledge". This retired engineer is only the messenger, which brings to mind the phrase "Please don't shoot the messenger"
Gavin and Nick 7
I will respond to your posts asap.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |