logo Sign In

Shimraa

User Group
Members
Join date
24-Jul-2003
Last activity
1-Aug-2007
Posts
6,563

Post History

Post
#82184
Topic
Remake the OT?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/82184/action/topic#82184
Time
you know if 10 years down the line CGI was so cheap that it would take only like 30 mill to remake the trilogy with some good undiscovered talent i could see him doing it just reshooting and refilming the exact same movies.

the complaints i could see is ppl coycoting it cus the new luke doesnt look like the old luke. that complaint would really piss me off.
Post
#82094
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/82094/action/topic#82094
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB

Shimraa, you're talking about things that don't exist, and there's no evidence of them existing either. You're right, the fundamental form of life is the cell. Even ignoring that, a virus does not perform the necessary functions of life. It is a non-living thing. It performs operations out of necessity only.

Anyhow, I’ll explain, if I must, to you why such a virus could not exist. Because it wouldn't be able to reproduce, end-of-story. If it fused with a cell, then it can't infect other cells, it can't spread. I find the idea of a single cell's DNA changing effecting the whole completely ludicrous.



Quote
Anyway viruses are not, by the current definition of life, alive. (Correct). However they have many, not all, but many characteristics of life. they 'evolve'; that is why you have a different form of influenza every year, (yes) they feed, once they are in a cell NO. (They don’t feed. They use the cell’s machinery (Transcription and Translation) to produce more viral particles), the virus will use the food the cell makes to replicate (actually they use the cell’s energy molecules such as glucose as a source of energy to be able to accomplish their goal of producing more viral particles). Parasites which are a form of life follow this exact same proccess, (correct) however they are made up of cells and most can break down very simple forms of food. they still require there host to provide all these things though. they are like larger living examples viruses. you are incorrect in saying that viruses cannot survive without a cell. this is true from some viruses like HIV however it is not true for others which will remain intacte for long peroids of time outside of a cell (you are correct. Some viruses can survive for long periods outside of a cell). and you stated that a cell can survive without the virus, once a cell has been infected it cant survive without the virus. the reason viruses are not defined as life is because by definition the fundimental form of life is the cell, and since viruses are not made up of cells the can't be called life even if they fill many of the other requirements, that is why viruses are not defined as living. (Remember viruses don’t grow nor do they respire, two characteristics generally associated with living cells). IF this definition were changed which can happen very easily then viruses could be called life. there is a push in the world of science now to change this definition,(true – my personal opinion is that the definition does need to change). these scientists propose that nucleic acids should be defined as the fundimental form of life. however, that is beside the point when i said that viruses could have been involved in evolution the theory ( - current thought is that they have been interlinked in evolution for a long time). spans from the fact that viruses can substantially change the DNA make up of a cell, it could be possible that at some point in the past there was a virus which would fuse itself with the cells DNA rather then take full control of the cell it would become a part of the cell and change it, in this way when the cell reproduced it would create a much different form of life. so even thou viruses are not currently defined as life they still could have affected evolution in the method decribed above. (True, therefore the argument goes that if they have affected evolution in such a way, which is very plausible, then we need to rethink the definition of life.)

Hope this helps.

Call me when you’re in town.



ok what i have posted above was my post which was critiqued by a biologist that i know this is done by am man that knows alot moreabout this then both of us. the process of viruses in evolution are very complicated he added to me. i will not begin to explain that to you because frankly i do not know much about them however besides the point, it is still 'very plausible' that virus were part of evolution. the mechanism that i used to explain it is correct but only just it is a very very simple way of explaining it.
Post
#81988
Topic
The Top Ten
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81988/action/topic#81988
Time
there were some bad movies on my list, Blade was ok not great i'd call it a huge Ipod commercial. day after tommorow it was a very bad movie but for some reason i enjoyed it. And i agree with gun concerning National treasure.

snd ric were you just talking about blade, DAT and NT or all of my choices.
Post
#81289
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81289/action/topic#81289
Time
ok DanielB you bring up some very good points about viruses. i really like how your using examples and good science now. maybe we can be friends.

Anyway viruses are not by the current definition of life alive. However they have many, not all, but many charateristics of life. they 'evolve' that is why you have a different form of influenza every year, they feed, once they are in a cell, the virus will use the food the cell makes to replicate. i give you a example of where this occurs in the animal kingdom. paracites follow this exact same proccess, however they are made up of cells and most can break down very simple forms of food. they still require there host to provide all these things though. they are like larger living examples viruses. you are incorrect in saying that viruses cannot survive without a cell. this is true from some viruses like HIV however it is not true for others which will remain intacte for long peroids of time outside of a cell and you stated that a cell can survive without the virus, once a cell has been infected it cant survive without the virus. the only reason viruses are not defined as life is because by definition the fundimental form of life is the cell, and since viruses are not made up of cells the cant be called life even if they fills all of the other requirements, that is why viruses are not defined as living. IF this definition were changed which can happen very easily then viruses could be called life. there is a push in the world of science now to change this definition, these scientists propose that nucleic acids should be defined as the fundimental form of life. however, that is beside the point when i said that viruses could have been involved in evolution the theory spans from the fact that viruses can substantially change the DNA make up of a cell, it could be possible that at some point in the past there was a virus which would fuse itself with the cells DNA rather then take full control of the DNA it would would become a part of the cell and change it, in this way when the cell reproduced it would create a much different form of life. so even thou viruses are not currently defined as life they still could have affected evolution in the method decribed above.
Post
#81247
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81247/action/topic#81247
Time
oh that is not true at all. and i am proof of that. i believe in god however i still believe that the big bang occured and that evolution is true. let me ask you a question. what is the best type of world. one what need to be constantly looked after and tinkered with, or one that is self-sustaining, one the develops on its own. i would thing the second of those two. i believe that it was god who cause the big bang (we dont know what caused and we only have theories about what happened), and i believe that is was god who designed the universe in a way that evolution occured the way it does so that he didnt need to interfere all the time. I do not however believe in the bible, i am not chirstian or islamic or any other major religion. belief in the big bang or evolution does not require a disbelief in god.

if you are curious, my religion is sihkism, and the thing i love about it the most is that it doesnt constrain people. it doesnt have myths or stories about how the world was created or any of that stuff, it is a religion that just believes and pays tribute to god. would created the universe, it doesnt try to give ways of how he did it or of what happened when he did it.
Post
#81164
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81164/action/topic#81164
Time
on thing to say to you danielB NATURAL SELECTION IS EVOLUTION... again learn about what you are argueing b4 you argue and if this whole time you have been thinking that evolution relies on genes being created to coup with a change i am going to be very angy because it is the opposite of that. mutations occur and then if the enviroment that the creature lives in favor that mutation it will grow and become prodominat in the population.

As i understand it science it proving answers to all of your questions that is what string theory is about. personally i do not know that much about the theory cus i have not read that much about it, so i will not persume that i am able to explain it to you. the friend of mine that posted obove and dont worry i gave him hell for breaking into my room does understand it, i can get him to explain it to you if you like but am not going to talk about something which i dont know very well.

I know that Viruses are not life however they still undergo evolution because they are strands of RNA which it a less evolved form of DNA. (on aside note viruses are thought to be the first step in creating life, it is that that in the primordial goo viruses formed and from there they turned into cells)

i am happy to see that you used a couple of facts in that lastpost. i liked your example of neutrons turning into protons and electrons. to find the answer to how this works read into quarks.
Post
#81012
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/81012/action/topic#81012
Time
This is Shimraa's friend.

Silly boy with his computer on and door unlocked is taking a shower so I thought I'd add my two cents. I'd like to say that I'm more tiilting towards the evolutionist view of creation as it seems to make more logical sense. In addition to this, I find that frequently religious arguments condemning evolutionism have virtualy no merit. One of you guys brought up something about the Big Bang. as this is what everyone can safely agree is the quintisential point of creation it seems relevent. While I feel the Big Bang is an adequate theory, it does not tell everything but what it's tying to explain is pretty fuckin complicatd so why should it. People who use the inability of science to explain where all this matter came from are either searching too hard for an argument or are retarded. Just because there isn't a cohesive explanation doesn't mean it's not possible. I'd also like to point out that creationism presents the same prolem. If God created the niverse, where the hell did God coem from. Kinda poses the same questions if you ask me. Also, evolution does not talk about the origin of life or the universe or anything. The book is called "Origin of Species". It's a good book, suggest you read it. Darwin never once claimed to explain where everything came from just why there's soo much variety. A completely different banch of science came up with the Big Bang theory based on analysis of light from far off in space and the composition of matter. Currently the most valid theory explaining the Big Bang would be string theory, which is disgustingly complicated and frankl too long of a discussion to get into on a posting forum. And just a tip to constructing some kind of valid argument, use actualy valid premises to support you conclusions, not just dumbfuck facts pulled out of your ass. Cheers.

P.S.: As an added point to argue. I must remind everyone that this a Star Wars forum, and so comments must be takn in contrast. I am not very well vesed in the tales of the so caled wars of the stars, but am knowledgable to enough to know that thi war torn galaxy, hasgood,....and evil. Upon analysis of your avatars I have noticed that both Darth Chaltab's and Daniel B's are for the dark side. I mean hell, Daniel's is Darth vader, he's like the biggest asshole out there after the emperor. I mean he's really cool, just fuckin mean. So both of your are likely horrible un truths to misguide the populace of the empire you govern. Dirty nasty propaganda. And to show that Shimraa's argument is very true, may I point out that his avatar is of Nom Anor. Whom I have been led to believe is a double agent of one of the cool fuckin aliens. Not only is he a cool fuckin alien, but he's a double secret agent. I mean James Bond was only secret agent, and he slept with like three girls every movie and had a lot of of really cool stuff. So this guy, must sleep with twice as many girls, have twice as much cool stuff, and have at least twice as many movies. AND he's an alien, a fuckin cool one. Ina ddition to this great reason why Shimraa is correct, is that his name also happens to be the cool fuckin aliens leader or whatever. I mean that's amazing. Not only is his avatar one of an uber cool dude, but his namesake could kick yur ass to wherever the hell far off galaxy he came from. Just a point I think you should consider. TTFN
Post
#80953
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80953/action/topic#80953
Time
Text






Quote
Do you have any idea how many scientific laws have to be broken to allow the theory of evolution to float? Genetic mutations have never been observed to be beneficial. They're neutral at best, or they just loose the genetic information already present. Now Darwin tried to explain this with what he called "survival of the fittest". He theorised that the bad genetic mutations would die out and only the beneficial ones would live on. How come we haven't observed this? Usually when a genetic mutation occurs, good or bad, it eventually weeds its way through the entire species. If that observation is true, as it appears to be, than it means much more harm than good occurs from mutations, and so we shouldn't expect good results to flow.


DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY LAWS CREATIONISM HAS BROKEN. actually it has been observed. if you look at man different diseases you can clearly see that is has happened. for example many forms of lucemia(Sp) are not resistant to Penicillin, this occured because some forms of the disease in the 1940s were resistant to the anti biotic because of a simple mutation. this mutation aloud it to survive and so it evolved. there are many more examples of this look at HIV do you know why we cant cure it or create a vaccience for it, its cus the body virus mutates so much. it has been shown many times that evolution occurs. here is a another example for you. look at the cattle industery do you know why we have some cows that produce milk like mad, its because since the 1700sman has been selectively breeding so the cow has evolved to produce more milk. you say harm can come, i say why, a bad mutation will not travel throught out the species because the speciman that has it will not be able to breed as well due to its disavantage.

Quote
Nevertheless, even if the theoretical origin of life does assemble itself, AND survive (I won't bother detailing the reasons why survival is blatantly impossible) - how is it going to replicate? Can it reproduce? No it can't. It can't grow, it can't create more-cells it can just live and sustain itself and that's about it. The theory of evolution requires reproduction - or it couldn't occur. So how did THAT evolve? Simply stated, it couldn't have. But let's say it did, and you've got your single-cell bacterium replicating itself, and re-arranging its genetic code to adapt to new environments and alike. Of course, it has to be able to adapt very quickly to climate changes as the Earth cools, but apparently it did. Now it's time to evolve into a higher form of life. Perhaps one where reproduction occurs between two different sex's of the same species. How is it going to do this? I mean it's happily been reproducing asexually, how is it going to rearrange its code to allow reproduction to occur between two different specimens of the species? What a load of rubbish!


ok now up till this point we have been keep it libral but that last meg really got on my nerves because you jsut made it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to be nice and i usually never mock creationism but this post is an execption. first of to me i find it rubbish that just out of no where the universe was jsut made pop out of nowhere just as it is today. also find it rubbish that the world was suppositedly created in 7 days. i also find it rubbish that just by saying something exists it exsists. now that just about sums up creationism. i know your not going to find what i jsut said very nice and your probably going to get mad. well if you feel that way then youll understand my feelings towards your post. now it is apparent that you need to learn some bio cus you clearly do not know shit. Bactria DO repoduce asexually. infact 90% of all species reproduce asexually. its called mitosis and it also is how you grow bigger. cells in you bones undergo mitosis so that you can grow bigger. infact most of time when ever a cell repoduces it will undergo mitosis. the only time your see reproducing that combines two different DNAs is when two cells undergo meiosis. now if you want to learn the details go read more then just books that are religously bias. another thing you should know is that it can be clearly seen how life evolved from reproducing asexually to sexually if you do a little bit of research. hell i learned all of this in grade 11 bio. seriously man i not going to go through any more of this shit but you should know what you jsut said in that quote is WRONG just strait up. and i am not even going to debate you until you go learn something about what you are talking about. what your last quote jsut proved was that you dont know anything about what your talkign about instead you hear bits and peices of things from people. like that the earth is 4.3 billion years old or that the universe is thought to be 12 billion years old and you say thats not true, it cant, be cus you cant see it being true. let me tell you something jsut cus you dont see it happening doesnt mean that it doesnt, all it means is that you are near sighted. next time your goign to call soemthing rubbish read a book or learn a fact before you say it wrong BEFORE you speak.

Quote
But apparently it happened. Okay sure, why not? Maybe now it's simple useless floating around isn't doing much good anymore, and because it evolved into having different sex's it now needs to move around freely at will (or, it needs to move around freely at will because it intends to create different sex's). What does it need first? A Brain? A Heart? A Central Nervous System? Veins? Arteries? Blood? Kidney? Lungs? Stomach? Acid? Skin maybe? Which is it going to start with? If it evolved a heart, than it's a useless organ that's just taking up valuable space and resources. Darwin's theory of the fittest claims it dies out. What about blood? Well that's useless too without anything to use it with. So you see, life is so complex that it can't be reduced step-by-step. Heck we can't design cameras as advanced as the human eye. Sure we can magnify it, but that's about it. The brain stores information more reliably, and more solidly than any form of data-storage we've designed.


again go read a book, go take a course on evolution and youll learn how evolution explains those things. in fact look at forms of life that exsist today. did you know that there are types of single cell organism that have rudimetary eyes. any forms of algae have this so that they know where light is and so they can go towards it.
Post
#80884
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80884/action/topic#80884
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Starboy
Quote
If you assume the atom as the starting point and look at the present, then biology must be increasing in order. But if you look at things like rate of extinction compared to rate of species generation...or increasing cancer rates (that is, the harmful mutation of DNA)...and trace that line all the way back to origin, it points to a MORE complex biological history rather than a less complex biological history.


Forgive me i dont understand your logic here. What points to a more complex biological history?


I don't have a hard and fast point, nothing scientific, just an observation. Sometimes as you look around it seems that life in general is degrading rather than evolving. It seems like more stuff is dying out than is developing. It seems like the human genome is getting more disease prone and more unstable rather than evolving to a higher state. There are of course lots of different possible reasons and a myriad of competing factors in that, so it's not an argument. Just food for thought.


ah i understand what your saying. your observation appears to be true if you look at things in the short term and overall. for example when things died they are then consumed by other life that is what decay is. Now as this other life is created, it in-it-self becames more complex be reproducing multiplying and mutating. these small life forms are then consumed by some larger form of life an things dieing just feed the entire circle of life. when something dies the circle will multiply and thus mutate becoming more complex.
you were saying that that the human genome is become more disease prone, this is not true we are jsut noticing all the different viruses and bacteria which do us harm.

those were just explinations for the specific examples you gave. but but overall i understand what your saying.
Post
#80800
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80800/action/topic#80800
Time
I know what your saying starboy. I just last week had a talk with my chem prof about entropy and how it works. the basic idea is that the entropy of the universe always increase or remains the same, it will never decrease, it does this according to the formula Entropy = Energy(J)s / Temperature(K), now you can do anything you want in a reaction as long as it follows to rule that i jsut stated. here i'll put forward an experiment for you. if you were to take 1 ml of water at 0 C and you added it to 1 ml at 100 C you would get a 2 ml solution that is at 50 C. That process will increase to order of the universe, however you had the 100 C water going to a state that was less random.

Quote
If you assume the atom as the starting point and look at the present, then biology must be increasing in order. But if you look at things like rate of extinction compared to rate of species generation...or increasing cancer rates (that is, the harmful mutation of DNA)...and trace that line all the way back to origin, it points to a MORE complex biological history rather than a less complex biological history.


Forgive me i dont understand your logic here. What points to a more complex biological history?
Post
#80683
Topic
Myths
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/80683/action/topic#80683
Time
Ok I really don't want to get back in the habit of posting but I just have to get involved in this discussion about evolution but from what I can tell it seems like a bunch of people just throwing stuff out. please if you were involved in the discussion read all of this post i put alot of time into it, time that took me away from studying for exams. i know its long but take the time and bare with me i only spent as much time as it took to write it so it is unedited asides from a spell check.

I'll begin by stating what I am. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. I believe that god in-fact did indeed create the universe and all that is. I do not believe that he came here the earth specifically and put human beings here and other forms of complex life. I believe that evolution is something that he made so that life could exist and change by itself.

I have debated many people on evolution and so I have heard many if not the large majority of points from both sides.

I will start with one misconception that really makes me mad. It makes me mad because it shows that some one thinks they know what they are talking about when it is obvious they don’t. That is the idea that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. The fact is that it has nothing to do with evolution. The second law states that many THERMODYNAMIC PROCESSES will only go in one direction (university physics pg 754) e.g. heat will only flow from a hotter body to a colder body, why because the more heat something has the more random it is. if you can imagine a block of matter lets say its water at 0 C if you were to look at the particles in that block even thou the block is solid the particles are in movement even though the block it solid its particles are in random motion they are moving slow but they are still in random motion thus they can be in random places in the block of matter. Now if you looked at this same block at 0 K or absolute zero nothing is moving. The block one could say is in prefect order. Now if you were to vaporize this block of water you would now have particles from that block flying everywhere moving in very random paths. So heat goes from a hotter body to a colder body because the randomness of the colder body will increase, or in other words there is greater entropy. Now that I have told you this entire how does this have anything to do with evolution. The idea of survival of the fittest. It DOESN'T that is why when people bring it up it really annoys me.

Next ill will explain the theory of evolution to people because from what I have read it is not very clear. There are two types of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Microevolution is a fact it happens it might as well be a law cus it is the reason we have super bugs (antibiotic resistant diseases) and it is the reason we can make immunizations and so on. The second type of evolution is macro evolution. It should be noted that Darwin’s theory of evolution primarily talks about the above, not macroevolution. Currently there is one theory of macroevolution, and I found it quite funny that one of the jokes on this thread was very close to what it is. I can remember the name of it off the top of my head but it states that at certain times in earths history, for some unknown reason the genetic pool of life becomes unbalanced, this unbalance creating many new species, and then after a very shot time it stops. Evidence for these sorts of unbalances can be found in the fossil records. Some of them occur after mass extinctions. 4 the time of 65 million years ago there were dinosaurs reptiles galore. But after all we see are mammals (galore) why? It’s not known. It is thought that this happened because the death of the dinosaurs created thousands of new niches in the biosphere and in a rush to fill those niches species changed dramatically. The only analogy I can think of is that it was like water breaking a damn, before you have the damn and a reservoir, after the land is changed dramatically. However there are other instances that have been seen where there was not a mass extinction to go with the unbalance an example of this is how for give me on the specifics here I think it was homo habilas however it could have been Homo erectus. anyway what occurred was before a point in history I think about 1 million years ago, there was only homo habilus but within a very short time after that its been found that there were 6 new species of homos(do not laugh) previously never seen before, and after that point homo habilus was no longer found. It was noted that all of these species had attributes similar to homo habilus but were distinct species. It is not know why this occurred however it fits the theory. One possible cause of this break in balance was that earth passed through a strange radiation field. It is also thought that these breaks could be caused but Strong solar flares that hit the earth.

Now for the lack of fossil evidences. If the theory above is correct we will never ever find a transition fossil. Why because of all the conditions that have to be filled for something to be fossilized. Let’s look at my friend Dino. Dino is an animal from 65 million years ago. in order for Dino to die and be fossilize he has to done one of the following, fall into a pit of tar(we won't find him if he does this but he will be fossilized for a time) second die in a desert and hope that he gets covered up quickly by a dust storm. 3rd fall in a lake and home that he is heavy enough to sink into the mud at the bottom b4 the organism of the sea eat him. fall into quick sand.( if he does this we will then we might find him, if we dig in exactly the right place at exactly the right depth.) 4th he can get lost deep in a cave and hope that he is deep enough that the air is stagnate( not sure if that is the right word) he could get covered in ache but he has to be far enough so that he dies and doesn’t get burned and that he is close enough that he will be completely covered in ache, or he could get frozen and if he accomplishes any of these feats now he needs to ensure that his bones decay properly so that they can be preserved in rock. something that is not often know about fossils is that the old the fossil the less real bone is in it, that is why we cant clone a dinosaur with its fossils because there is no bone and thus no complete DNA. Now once he has been fossilized and you can tell it is very hard to get fossilized he has to stay intact to the present day. to do this he must avoid being eaten by the earth through plate tectonics, or being crushed by rock pressure caused by tectonic plates, he has to avoid erosion, and has to be pushed up to the surface with rock pressure caused by tectonic plates at this exact point in all of time so that we can find him also it has to come up at the right place i.e. a desolate place where there isn’t much water or anything. If it comes up in a forest the roots of the plants will destroy it, if it comes up in the ocean we won’t ever find it.

The above is why fossils are rare and why we will never find a fossil proving the theory of macroevolution, because it will be almost impossible to find a specific animal that went through all of the processes above and that existed in a 1000 year gap in a total fossil history of around 1.5 billion years. Let me just say this as a side note if it were easy to be fossilized then we would have fossils all over the place. The fact is we don’t. It also assumed that the fossil record is a complete dictionary of past life. This is not true. I would say that we have probably have a fossil of around of millionth maybe even a billionth of all the life that has existed on earth (excluding bacteria and that is a big extraction.)


one last thing some one asked why dont we see transition fossils today.the other theory of marcoevolution, that things jsut evolved states that there should be transiti