State your unpopular opinions

[Balta1701]

I'll try to help you understand those beliefs a bit here (without fulling knowing the thoughts of the poster). Now, I'll just say that I have my own weird thoughts that I am hashing my way through still that leave room for evolution, but don't completely follow the mold that we see in the scientific stuff. I know, weird, but it's my own thoughts I'm working through while trying to take in as much information as possible. You can probably even find a discussion I had about it on here a while ago.

 

Anyhow, the flu seems to be a bad example because evolution implies a gain of information of abilities, right? Did the flu gain any new information to become more than a flu? Not really, it is still a flu and still acts like a flu. It always had the ability to transfer between species. So, just because it uses that ability doesn't mean anything new was added and evolution occurred.

 

Also, with the unique traits and absurd characteristics. Again, the thought would be that these creatures had a lot of abilities before, then settled into a certain spot where they gradually lost their abilities and became much more specific to the environment they are in. So, instead of a gain of information for those weird things, it is viewed as them going down a specific branch that they always had the capabilities to do.

 

Another take on that same thing would be the Intelligent Designer philosophy that would say that the creatures were pushed along to develop perfectly into that weird spot and that you are showing an excellent example of why we can believe in an Intelligent Designer.

 

The other stuff, well you'd have to go into specifics, but I may or may not be able to give you some thoughts on those. Hopefully, that gives you some insight. If you want to hear more since I have really looked a lot into this subject from several angles, go ahead and send me a PM since I don't want to see this turn into another discussion on evolution and derail this thread.

It is actually fairly easy to produce a gain of information in biology, and I'll give you a specific demonstration of how using 2 mutation mechanisms. A standard mutation mechanism is a duplication of a gene or chromosome. So, start off with a duplication (this is especially common in plants). Now I have twice the amount of genetic material, but it is identical, thus you could conceivably argue that no information has been created. Then, allow for a random mutation on one of the parts that is not precisely duplicated in another part. Now, I have increased the genetic material and increased the variation in that material. By any definition of information available, the information content has increased.

 

Have we seen this happen? Yes. For example, in experiments, Yeast, which typically thrives on sugar, can be placed in low-glucose environments, where there are other potential sources of nutrition. After about 450 generations, the Yeast had adapted to its new food source. Genetic analysis of the yeast found that it had done exactly that process; the yeast had duplication of some of its genetic material, combined with a set of mutations on different sections of the new material, and the Yeast had adapted to move its nutrition around in other ways. This is a very simple example of this process; there are hundreds more in the literature. This is an example of how a "Unique trait" can be developed and adopted within a population within a very short time, especially if the survival advantage to that trait is large. This has happened repeatedly in evolution of just about every species, and in fact can be traced quite well in a number of them.

 

Another argument against statements you give is that "unique traits" come about because the designer created things perfectly to fit in to those niches. This is obviously incorrect, as anyone who has ever suffered a knee injury can attest to. A wide variety of traits are very, very poorly developed, even on people. Knees, hips, digestive system, etc., I could design a better set of systems in my sleep. To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, it makes no sense to both breathe and swallow food through the same pipe because then you can choke on your food and die. You can't digest cellulose. Knees are just godawful. Why do you think people still have wisdom teeth?

 

Evolution by natural selection tends to cause development towards things that provide the largest selective advantage. For people, this has driven us towards walking upright, having large brains, etc. But then you get the byproducts; your brain gets bigger, but it starts pushing in to the back of your mouth, and suddenly you're stuck with 4 teeth that just don't fit. Childbirth is a real bear because human hips weren't set up to send out a large brained baby and at the same time walk upright.

[vandy125]

It is actually fairly easy to produce a gain of information in biology, and I'll give you a specific demonstration of how using 2 mutation mechanisms. A standard mutation mechanism is a duplication of a gene or chromosome. So, start off with a duplication (this is especially common in plants). Now I have twice the amount of genetic material, but it is identical, thus you could conceivably argue that no information has been created. Then, allow for a random mutation on one of the parts that is not precisely duplicated in another part. Now, I have increased the genetic material and increased the variation in that material. By any definition of information available, the information content has increased.

 

Have we seen this happen? Yes. For example, in experiments, Yeast, which typically thrives on sugar, can be placed in low-glucose environments, where there are other potential sources of nutrition. After about 450 generations, the Yeast had adapted to its new food source. Genetic analysis of the yeast found that it had done exactly that process; the yeast had duplication of some of its genetic material, combined with a set of mutations on different sections of the new material, and the Yeast had adapted to move its nutrition around in other ways. This is a very simple example of this process; there are hundreds more in the literature. This is an example of how a "Unique trait" can be developed and adopted within a population within a very short time, especially if the survival advantage to that trait is large. This has happened repeatedly in evolution of just about every species, and in fact can be traced quite well in a number of them.

 

Another argument against statements you give is that "unique traits" come about because the designer created things perfectly to fit in to those niches. This is obviously incorrect, as anyone who has ever suffered a knee injury can attest to. A wide variety of traits are very, very poorly developed, even on people. Knees, hips, digestive system, etc., I could design a better set of systems in my sleep. To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, it makes no sense to both breathe and swallow food through the same pipe because then you can choke on your food and die. You can't digest cellulose. Knees are just godawful. Why do you think people still have wisdom teeth?

 

Evolution by natural selection tends to cause development towards things that provide the largest selective advantage. For people, this has driven us towards walking upright, having large brains, etc. But then you get the byproducts; your brain gets bigger, but it starts pushing in to the back of your mouth, and suddenly you're stuck with 4 teeth that just don't fit. Childbirth is a real bear because human hips weren't set up to send out a large brained baby and at the same time walk upright.

 

Thanks for the cool info Balta. I never did state that I don't think it happens, but was attempting to get at the thought process that your points go against. I was waiting for you to post on it there.

[Balta1701]

Thanks for the cool info Balta. I never did state that I don't think it happens, but was attempting to get at the thought process that your points go against. I was waiting for you to post on it there.

Sorry for the delay, I was at the gym.

[MiddleCoastBias]

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

 

So I've never really questioned the Apollo moon landings, and I've always laughed at my friends that say that it was faked. I've always accepted that it was real like a good American. Last night I decided to do a quick google search to see what everyone was talking about (always good to know what you're detractors are talking about). Well, after reading this and other sites, I'm pretty upset with myself because I've started questioning the truth of the whole thing. The pictures and videos being 'faked' aside (I still don't really buy that but whatever), the science of it the whole trip and the fact that we haven't been back since (and many saying we're still many years away from returning) has shaken my faith.

 

I almost feel like I just found out Santa isn't real. I've always been a proponent of learning both sides of an argument and deciding on the best, and now that I've seen some of this I'm upset that I have. I really want the lunar landing to be real, and if it turns out that it wasn't, well, damn.

 

I understand there are always conspiracies about contentious events and I never really believe them. People always have explanations for this or against that, and that's good and great because that's why it remains a conspiracy and not fact.

 

I know the page is long (and ignore the fact that the website is called ufos-aliens, or that it's written by those bloody brits), but it's an interesting read, especially the 33 items at the bottom of the page.

 

Share your thoughts, call me unAmerican, I just thought it was an interesting read.

 

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

 

 

[Balta1701]

There's a number of fairly simple debunkings of these supposed errors.

 

Seriously, there is zero chance it was a hoax. We have the samples They're very cool. Unlike anything you would have expected had you not gone there. It taught us a ton that we wouldn't have known otherwise. We actually have images of the rover tracks from a recent orbiter. You can see where the things drove. The video/image anomalies are fairly easily explained.

[MiddleCoastBias]

There's a number of fairly simple debunkings of these supposed errors.

 

Seriously, there is zero chance it was a hoax. We have the samples They're very cool. Unlike anything you would have expected had you not gone there. It taught us a ton that we wouldn't have known otherwise. We actually have images of the rover tracks from a recent orbiter. You can see where the things drove. The video/image anomalies are fairly easily explained.

Given your history of very thorough rebuttals, I must say that was a little weak, with all due respect.

 

I'm not claiming that I buy into it, but it's interesting listening to the other side's point of view. For instance, I don't doubt we've had landers on the moon; these rovers could easily have made those tracks and claimed they were from the original landers. And like I said, the image anomalies don't concern me, I don't really buy into those... It's the fact that many current and past NASA scientists say that landing a man on the moon and getting him back is a feat unattainable by our current technology, given the radiation problems, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

Given your history of very thorough rebuttals, I must say that was a little weak, with all due respect.

 

I'm not claiming that I buy into it, but it's interesting listening to the other side's point of view. For instance, I don't doubt we've had landers on the moon; these rovers could easily have made those tracks and claimed they were from the original landers. And like I said, the image anomalies don't concern me, I don't really buy into those... It's the fact that many current and past NASA scientists say that landing a man on the moon and getting him back is a feat unattainable by our current technology, given the radiation problems, etc.

Where have you seen that cited?

 

[MiddleCoastBias]

Where have you seen that cited?

It was in the site I provided above. Lot's of garbage to get through, yes, but there is some science provided on that site.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was in the site I provided above. Lot's of garbage to get through, yes, but there is some science provided on that site.

I searched that entire site for "NASA", looked at the areas around it, and saw no citations of any NASA scientists, at all, saying what you are saying. My search must not have worked right. Can you quote this supposed passage?

 

[MiddleCoastBias]

I searched that entire site for "NASA", looked at the areas around it, and saw no citations of any NASA scientists, at all, saying what you are saying. My search must not have worked right. Can you quote this supposed passage?

 

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

 

In the section of the 33 things towards the bottom of the site

[NorthSideSox72]

In the section of the 33 things towards the bottom of the site

So... in the face of all the huge number of scientists, NASA, and everyone else saying that it happened... your evidence against it is an uncited source on an obsessed guy's website about a supposed NASA astrophysicist? It doesn't bother you that there is no name, no citation, no quote, not anything like that?

 

[Kyyle23]

So... in the face of all the huge number of scientists, NASA, and everyone else saying that it happened... your evidence against it is an uncited source on an obsessed guy's website about a supposed NASA astrophysicist? It doesn't bother you that there is no name, no citation, no quote, not anything like that?

 

 

This thread is about unpopular opinions, no?

 

[MiddleCoastBias]

So... in the face of all the huge number of scientists, NASA, and everyone else saying that it happened... your evidence against it is an uncited source on an obsessed guy's website about a supposed NASA astrophysicist? It doesn't bother you that there is no name, no citation, no quote, not anything like that?

 

Let me reiterate my position from my first post... I do not take all of this as fact. I just said that I looked around at some websites and the counter evidence was intriguing and worth a second thought. It's an interesting topic to discuss.

 

When I read a story I do not need a citation to find it interesting. I'm not going to write to NASA and demand they release the 'hidden' story. This is just something I stumbled upon and found intriguing, and I wished to share with others.

[NorthSideSox72]

This thread is about unpopular opinions, no?

 

Unpopular is all good. A factual claim unfounded in any sort of evidence, professional expertise or reality, I can't get my head around.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Let me reiterate my position from my first post... I do not take all of this as fact. I just said that I looked around at some websites and the counter evidence was intriguing and worth a second thought. It's an interesting topic to discuss.

 

When I read a story I do not need a citation to find it interesting. I'm not going to write to NASA and demand they release the 'hidden' story. This is just something I stumbled upon and found intriguing, and I wished to share with others.

Interesting, I agree. But when a guy with a site like that makes statements crediting scientists with supposed positions, and provides no citation whatsoever, to me that pretty much says "I am talking out of my ass" (the author of the site, not you).

 

[Balta1701]

Interesting, I agree. But when a guy with a site like that makes statements crediting scientists with supposed positions, and provides no citation whatsoever, to me that pretty much says "I am talking out of my ass" (the author of the site, not you).

The guy is actually right though. We couldn't simply recreate the Apollo missions today if we wanted to. Why? Because no one is set up to do anything similar in terms of design or construction or materials.

 

If you dumped a trillion dollars in to it, you could probably recreate it. Boeing would be thrilled. But that's about it. We'll get there pretty soon again, probably for a lot less money too.

[NorthSideSox72]

The guy is actually right though. We couldn't simply recreate the Apollo missions today if we wanted to. Why? Because no one is set up to do anything similar in terms of design or construction or materials.

 

If you dumped a trillion dollars in to it, you could probably recreate it. Boeing would be thrilled. But that's about it. We'll get there pretty soon again, probably for a lot less money too.

He's not right then - he's being intellecually dishonest. He's saying it was never possible.

 

[G&T]

Interesting, I agree. But when a guy with a site like that makes statements crediting scientists with supposed positions, and provides no citation whatsoever, to me that pretty much says "I am talking out of my ass" (the author of the site, not you).

 

After doing some research, the quote is from a guy named John Mauldin in the book "Prospect for Interstellar Travel." Last I checked, going to the moon does not require traveling between stars. The quote is used on multiple conspiracy websites, but only the few words about 2 meters of shielding. I think they are missing the point.

 

NASA claims that radiation would not be a problem because the astronauts would only be exposed for a couple of days. My guess is that it would take 2 meters of shielding if you are going to spend YEARS in space traveling between points.

[IITsox]

All persons born in the United States should be given vasectomies/ligations at birth. Only after applying for and passing an exam should they be allowed to have the procedure reversed. Those without the financial means, mental competence, etc., as well as violent criminals and sex offenders would not have children.

[GoodAsGould]

All persons born in the United States should be given vasectomies/ligations at birth. Only after applying for and passing an exam should they be allowed to have the procedure reversed. Those without the financial means, mental competence, etc., as well as violent criminals and sex offenders would not have children.

 

You do know there is a risk involved in vasectomies, I cant believe anyone would honestly think this would be a good idea.

[BigSqwert]

All persons born in the United States should be given vasectomies/ligations at birth. Only after applying for and passing an exam should they be allowed to have the procedure reversed. Those without the financial means, mental competence, etc., as well as violent criminals and sex offenders would not have children.

As dark and twisted as that sounds I could see myself buying into that. Although I'd prefer a global enactment.

[bmags]

that sucks though, no one would understand the "jizz in my pants" song.

[IITsox]

You do know there is a risk involved in vasectomies, I cant believe anyone would honestly think this would be a good idea.

 

If it gets messed up and becomes irreversible, they can always adopt. I don't think anyone has ever died of a vasectomy.

[IITsox]

I'm also, of course, mostly kidding. It's a little crazy.

 

Remember, kids, get your pet spay or neutered.

[GoodAsGould]

If it gets messed up and becomes irreversible, they can always adopt. I don't think anyone has ever died of a vasectomy.

 

Of course in your scenario only people responsible and that wanted too would have kids, so adopting wouldnt really be an option. How f***ed up would it be is the only reason you cant have your own kids is because as a child you were forced into a vasectomy?