Started by randomvim, September 11, 2016, 03:14:56 AM
Quote from: SGOS on April 12, 2018, 10:26:47 PMThe structure of a hemoglobin molecule is almost identical to chlorophyll, with one atom of iron, instead of manganese (or is it magnesium?). I saw the molecule diagrams for them in biology side by side, but I noticed other structural changes besides just that one. We must be related to plants. Well of course we would be.
Quote from: Baruch on April 13, 2018, 07:00:12 PMIn the beginning, there was cyano-bacteria. It evolved when the atmosphere wasn't oxygen rich like it is today. Stromatolites were the major class of being.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
Quote from: SGOS on April 13, 2018, 09:21:48 AMSorry, I just like to write absurd nonsense from time to time. I try to make it absurd enough that people will recognize it's intentionally absurd, but I try to avoid such an extreme so that it might actually sound like something someone might say out of ignorance.Actually, from what I just googled, it's more likely that the evolution seems to be that animals evolved to eat plants, and then evolved some mechanism that uses chlorophyll to manufacture hemoglobin. It was not a detailed enough explanation to explain if the chlorophyll is a catalyst or a building block in the process or exactly how it is used. The part about eating plants first and then using the chlorophyll itself is conjecture on my part. I have no actual knowledge of the order of the evolutionary events.Happy now?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 15, 2018, 12:55:20 AMYes, I am a lot more tolerant about intelligent people who sometimes say odd things than I am about stupid people who accidentally say accurate things. I actually do trust that you know better than to think that some plant suddenly became an animal. :)
Quote from: Cavebear on April 15, 2018, 12:57:15 AMThis post showed up on a thread where I wasn't. Admins, check your software!
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 08, 2018, 07:37:13 PMI am an agnostik atheist, also named as ''negative atheist''.Cant say there is no god ''absolutely'' but may be.
Quote from: aitm on April 15, 2018, 12:08:53 PMI checked and checked but the more I checked on my software the harder it got.....
Quote from: SGOS on April 15, 2018, 12:16:46 PMI've posted stuff to threads I never intended to post to, but this mistake has always required that I have been there. Sometimes I've had two different threads on my desk at the same time, and end up writing in one to someone in the other. Usually, it's because I google something to double check it's correct, then I go back to the forum and get the wrong thread.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 12, 2018, 05:44:32 AMYou have referred to "negative atheist" before. I used to think that meant someone who hated a deity for some reason, but that never made much sense to me. And you use it differently. I think of "atheist" simply as being without a "theism".Could you describe what you mean in more detail?
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on September 27, 2018, 06:22:23 PMa- adds negative meaning to the root word. so, etimologically thinking, i too think of atheizm as being with out theizm.why i hate a deity that does not exist?negatif ateists dont comment on whether a god exists. they assert that they simply dont know whethet it exists or not. but pozitif ateists claim there cant be and is not a deity absolutly.