It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I will answer every question about evolution you have

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I'm not trying to get into a big semantics debate again, but genetic drift and natural selection don't have to be mutually exclusive and I would imagine you could look at the genome to understand a good amount of the genetic history in either scenario, or scenarios where both apply. I just don't see a viable model where natural selection is not a factor. I could see it if the organisms were in a static unchanging environment, but even in that environment there would still be nonviable mutations that lead to organisms not reproducing before they died and also beneficial mutations that help the organisms reproduce faster, so it still applies.

Genetic mutations aren't the only possible way to increase genetic diversity, they are just the most common and most observed type. Plus I would argue that other perceived mechanisms arose via genetic mutation in the first place, so it's very difficult to claim genetic mutations are not involved in virtually all of them.


I wish more folks around here would realize just how much we don't know before they start trying to "teach" others about evolution.


No offense, but the people that "teach" evolution, are doing so to correct misunderstandings and lies put out there by creationists. I wish folks around here were more patient and let science learn more before trying to pick apart the theories based on things we don't fully grasp yet (epigenetics etc) and scream that it's not the whole story. Nobody's claiming evolution as it stands right now is absolute.


edit on 3 2 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I wish more folks around here would realize just how much we don't know before they start trying to "teach" others about evolution.


Before I answer your other inquiries, you've stated that we we need to realize 'just how much we don't know'.

No one is denying that we don't know everything about Evolution, or anything else within science for that matter.

Science doesn't work with absolutes. There are no claims that are immovable simply because we cannot possibly know everything, and that leads us to logically conclude that there could always be 'something' out there that goes against the hypotheses we've made on our observations of various naturally occurring phenomenon.

However, we don't need absolute certainty to still gather evidence that supports the claims made about how a specific phenomena functions. Science is merely a tool that allows us to describe a naturally occurring phenomena to the best of our abilities with the current information at hand, subject to change upon further discoveries.

Many people go into scientific discussions not understanding this, and so regardless of the information within the context of the discussion, there is always this lingering false premise that Science states facts as if they were absolute. Which is simply not accurate.

Is this what you believe?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
I'm not trying to get into a big semantics debate again, but genetic drift and natural selection don't have to be mutually exclusive and I would imagine you could look at the genome to understand a good amount of the genetic history in either scenario, or scenarios where both apply.


It's not a semantics debate. While basic, these are specific questions about how evolution actually works. I only engage you when you go around defining evolution as just "simply" mutation and natural selection, and that's it. I know you find this explanation simple and satisfactory, but it is only partially correct. The MES, as you regularly refer to, is antiquated.

Maybe I should ask you the same question, because I'd like to know - can you tell the difference between a trait derived from genetic drift vs natural selection? If so, how?


originally posted by: Barcs
I just don't see a viable model where natural selection is not a factor.

Is that so? How many models have you actually looked into? Can you give me 3 so I can look into them also?
Thanks


originally posted by: Barcs
.... but even in that [a static] environment there would still be nonviable mutations that lead to organisms not reproducing before they died and also beneficial mutations that help the organisms reproduce faster, so it still applies.

How do you know that's not drift? Are we to expect that every organism that's made it to reproduction did so because they had a beneficial mutation? Which we all know are very rare anyway.

And why do you automatically assume that traits which might aid in the survival of an organism came about due to a mutation?


originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic mutations aren't the only possible way to increase genetic diversity, they are just the most common and most observed type.

But you keep telling people that evolution relies on mutation. So which is it then?

Why not just say recombination ?


originally posted by: Barcs
No offense, but the people that "teach" evolution, are doing so to correct misunderstandings and lies put out there by creationists. I wish folks around here were more patient and let science learn more before trying to pick apart the theories based on things we don't fully grasp yet (epigenetics etc) and scream that it's not the whole story. Nobody's claiming evolution as it stands right now is absolute.

I understand that, and it's a noble endeavor to try and stamp out creationism wherever it exists. Kudos to you for your efforts, seriously. But what's the use if you're "teaching" people a less than accurate, incomplete if not an antiquated version of evolution? Not that you're doing it on purpose, but to me it seems a bit contradictory.

The version of evolution that I see being "taught" around here is very over simplified version and leaves a lot of things out. It's as if it's being pulled out of high school text books from the 70's.

So yeah - Mutation and selection are NOT THE WHOLE STORY ! Was that loud enough ?
edit on 2-3-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

Many people go into scientific discussions not understanding this, and so regardless of the information within the context of the discussion, there is always this lingering false premise that Science states facts as if they were absolute. Which is simply not accurate.

Is this what you believe?


I understand it fully and I know science is not absolute.

It's not science I have the issue with. It's the self appointed public defenders, who treat scientifically derived data as absolute, end of story. "Evolution can only happen this way, not that way.." or "Evolution happens the way the MES says it does." etc etc.. I see it all the time. Heck I can probably point out a couple of instances that's been said in this very thread.

Still want to answer my other questions?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Is the Earth 6000 years old ?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
can you tell the difference between a trait derived from genetic drift vs natural selection? If so, how?


I already explained this in my other response to you. There is no single mechanism that dictates both the selection and production of a trait. Evolution functions through a series of mechanisms.



originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
How do you know that's not drift? Are we to expect that every organism that made it reproduction did so because they had a beneficial mutation? Which we all know are very rare anyway.


I believe Barcs is referring to Mutation Rate in his comment.

Genetic Drift simply states that within each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and therefore genes) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the "lucky" individuals, not necessarily the healthier or "better" individuals.
you can learn more about the specific mechanisms within evolution here


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
And why do you automatically assume that traits which might aid in the survival of an organism came about due to a mutation?


All a mutation is is a change in DNA. A Inherited traits are controlled by genes, So mutations in the genes within the DNA would apply to this.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
Why not just say recombination ?


What do you mean by 'recombination'?


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
But what's the use if you're "teaching" people a less than accurate, incomplete or antiquated version of evolution? Not that you're doing it on purpose, but to me it seems a bit contradictory.


As both Barcs and I have stated previously. Science doesn't deal with absolutes. There is no such thing as a "complete theory". The conclusion that Science deals with 100% certainty is therefore based on a false premise.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
The version of evolution that I see being "taught" around here is very over simplified version and leaves a lot of things out.


We could very well post the more scientific information, but many of the comments so far have been from people who are asking for the basics. There is no need for us to start posting graphs and hard-to-understand concepts if the basics aren't first learned.

You don't start school in University, you work from kindergarten up.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs
So yeah - Mutation and selection are NOT THE WHOLE STORY ! Was that loud enough ?


No one said it was.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Ghost147
Is the Earth 6000 years old ?


The age of the earth isn't mentioned in the Theory of Evolution because the Theory of Evolution deals with Biology once it already exists, and nothing more.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
It's not science I have the issue with. It's the self appointed public defenders, who treat scientifically derived data as absolute, end of story.


I haven't seen anyone state that it was here.

In fact, I just mentioned how it wasn't in the very post you're responding to, so I'm not quite sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
"Evolution can only happen this way, not that way.." or "Evolution happens the way the MES says it does." etc etc.. I see it all the time.


I don't doubt that you do see it. Many people, even those whom are interested in science, make direct statements like that.

The thing that confuses people the most would be something along the lines of stating that "evolution is a fact" as well as "evolution is a theory". I assume you understand the difference?

But again, I must ask. When have I stated it? You first brought this issue up in a response to me. If I didn't claim that "Evolution can only happen [this way]" then why bother mentioning it at all?


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Heck I can probably point out a couple of instances that's been said in this very thread.


Possibly, I would too like to see them.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Still want to answer my other questions?


I do, but I'm still curious as to why you brought up this point in the first place as a response to one of my posts.
edit on 2/3/16 by Ghost147 because: quote malfunction



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

edit on 3/2/2016 by WASTYT because: (no reason given)

arrrgh, sorry I lost my entire post.

edit on 3/2/2016 by WASTYT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: WASTYT

arrrgh, sorry I lost my entire post.


Haha, no worries. If you ever feel like asking the question some other time, please do.

I hate it when I put a ton of effort into a post and then the internet shuts off or my browser fails all of a sudden



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Yea, thanks.

I'll circle back when I get motivated again, haha.
Awesome thread



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


originally posted by: Ghost147
I already explained this in my other response to you. There is no single mechanism that dictates both the selection and production of a trait. Evolution functions through a series of mechanisms.

With all do respect, I’m not sure you explained it.


originally posted by: Ghost147
Genetic Drift simply states that within each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants (and therefore genes) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the "lucky" individuals, not necessarily the healthier or "better" individuals.
you can learn more about the specific mechanisms within evolution here

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not being clear, because you haven’t answered my question. I wasn’t asking for the definition of genetic drift.

So here it goes again: How does one determine the difference between GD vs NS when looking at a population of organisms? IOW, how do you determine whether reproductive success was due to luck vs fitness? If there is selection, how do you reliably determine the actual trait[s] which gave way to the reproductive success of that organism? And in how many instances would/could these traits be linked to just one gene?


originally posted by: Ghost147
All a mutation is is a change in DNA. A Inherited traits are controlled by genes, So mutations in the genes within the DNA would apply to this.

Yes, I know what a mutation is.

Key word there should be "could".


originally posted by: Ghost147
What do you mean by 'recombination'?

recombination


originally posted by: Ghost147
As both Barcs and I have stated previously. Science doesn't deal with absolutes. There is no such thing as a "complete theory". The conclusion that Science deals with 100% certainty is therefore based on a false premise..

Well Im glad you both see it that way.

edit on 2-3-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I wasn't implying you with that reply. It was a generalization mostly aimed at others who partake in these discussions.

You seem very knowledgeable and exercise great patience when explaining things.

My beef is with the overall prevailing notion of what evolution is that keeps getting regurgitated as fact. The last 10 years of research has changed things



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147

I wasn't implying you with that reply. It was a generalization mostly aimed at others who partake in these discussions.


Alright, thanks for clearing that up


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
You seem very knowledgeable and exercise great patience when explaining things.


Thank you very much


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
My beef is with the overall prevailing notion of what evolution is that keeps getting regurgitated as fact. The last 10 years of research has changed things


I would say that is true, at least with the public's responses. The general public either knows very little about the theory of evolution, if much of anything at all, and those that do know a good deal about it may not be totally up to date on the current discoveries.

Different levels of knowledge on the subject requires different levels of responses to claims and questions. I have let a few members here who are knowledgeable about the mechanisms within Evolution that the actual description of what they claimed is either not accurate anymore, or false to begin with, and provided them with the necessary information to help them understand what is now more accurate, or accurate at all in the first place. And many members here have corrected me, or 'finished my sentences' on parts of the theory I wasn't very familiar with.

I feel that the best approach with a topic like this one is to be as open minded as possible. Like we discussed earlier, science isn't based on absolutes, and it is always subject to change upon further observation and study. It is only reasonable to conclude that not everyone will be as up to date on the latest concepts and evidence. So if an older concept has recently been shown to be less 'magnificent' to the theory at a whole, you can't really blame them.

Now. Let me go back and review the questions you had that were unanswered



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Gotcha, so perhaps "massive role" was a bit of an overstatement.


I wouldn't consider it an overstatement. Without Genes we wouldn't see the diversity we see at all. But, this is all just a matter of opinion as to what a 'massive role' describes.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
How does one tell the difference between populations that have evolved by genetic drift vs ones by natural selection?


Quite simply.

The difference between the two is that Genetic Drift allele frequencies change by chance (such as a humans indiscriminately hunting), whereas in natural selection allele frequencies change by differential reproductive success (the most adaptive traits for an environment become more common generation after generation.)


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
And how would one determine the size of a population as being small or large, so the effects of genetic drift can be determined? How much of this is just guesswork?


This article on Wildlife Population monitoring can explain some of the practices a bit more thoroughly.

It varies from species to species, however.



originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Do genome wide studies reveal the differences?


Yes, they can.

Let's take Genetic Drift as an example. So we know that Genetic Drift allele frequencies change by chance, and this can occur in two ways.

Population Bottlenecking

and

Founder Effect

Population Bottlenecking is when the population of a species within a particular area is drastically reduced in a short amount of time. This usually occurs when some kind of catastrophic event occurs, like a volcano erupts on an island wiping out most of the population of a species indigenous to that island (but can occur from other events too).

Founder Effect is when a small amount of organisms from a single species populate a new area.

In both instances the population ends up being very small, so the gene pool now has less variety in it. When this occurs, less 'new information' is added to the gene pool, so the variation within the genes of the generations 'drifts' away.

If we can get a DNA sample from either the living population that the 'founders' which went off and populated a new area came from, or got a DNA sample from the now dead population to the bottlenecked one and compared the two, we would see that genetic drift and the genes that were effected.



originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I'm talking about gene expression, and the resultant traits. You seemed to single out traits as a result of mutation. I guess I'm not clear how that could be determined with any consistent degree of certainty.


Traits are an effect of mutations in genes, but it's not necessarily at one-to-one level (Gene to trait). In some cases a single and small change to a gene that provides functionality for a specific mechanism or trait does in fact make a large difference, but most are cases where a number of genes need to change in order to create just a small difference.

This article goes into great depth on how it all works



originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Right, although I don't believe I mentioned anything about mutations. I simply asked about genes


Indeed you did. I was only adding the information for better a understanding on what effects genes have and can have through reproduction.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I'm sorry, but which mechanisms specifically from the ones you mentioned actually "produce" traits?


That would be Mutations


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
But of course the phenotype is what's being selected, right? Do you not think so?


In a way both the genotype and the phenotype are. The Phenotype is the one that's really interacting within the environment, but the genotype may be the reason why the phenotype lasted as long as it did to lead to successful reproduction.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
How can a genotype be selected when we know that very rarely does a gene act in isolation in relation to the trait[s] it influences. Most often genes are engaging epistatically, in networks, to influence the expression of a trait or multiple traits at once. Genes get hitchhiked. How can anyone know for certain what gene is getting selected for and why?


This is very true.

The only requirement for a gene to be 'select' is it's continual existence within a population. If it has a negative impact, reduces survivability, reduces successful breeding, it may become weeded out of the population.



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
I wouldn't consider it an overstatement. Without Genes we wouldn't see the diversity we see at all. But, this is all just a matter of opinion as to what a 'massive role' describes.

Yes genes are very important in all if this, but epigenetics is showing that variation can occur without changes to the underlying nucleotide sequence. Hence no mutations required. And with new technologies to study the genome, researchers are finding evidence of epigenetic signatures more and more.


originally posted by: Ghost147
The difference between the two is that Genetic Drift allele frequencies change by chance (such as a humans indiscriminately hunting), whereas in natural selection allele frequencies change by differential reproductive success (the most adaptive traits for an environment become more common generation after generation.)

I'm sorry but you're still dancing around the question. I'm not looking for the wiki definitions of these mechanisms. I already know and have extensively read about them.

I'm asking specifically how a researcher, looking at an organism or a group of organisms, can determine whether those phenotypes came about due to natural selection or genetic drift? You are aware of at least two schools of thought on this right? The selectionists vs neutralists. This tells me that there isn't a distinct way to classify it, and that it really all depends on opinion, school of thought (belief system), or just flat out guess work. In other words who the heck knows!


originally posted by: Ghost147
This article on Wildlife Population monitoring can explain some of the practices a bit more thoroughly.

My take way is that it's not at all an easy process, which I suspected. Yet much of how we verify certain evolutionary mechanisms in a population is based on it's size. Genetic drift, it's said, can't be measured in large populations. But since we can't easily determine what is sufficiently large (or not), it seems it must involve quite a bit of guesswork.


originally posted by: Ghost147
Let's take Genetic Drift as an example. So we know that Genetic Drift allele frequencies change by chance, and this can occur in two ways.

Population Bottlenecking and Founder Effect

Taking your volcano example – if you were to observe those organisms which survived, how do you determine if it was due to some beneficial trait that allowed them to escape the inferno (natural selection), or that perhaps they just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time (genetic drift)?


originally posted by: Ghost147
If we can get a DNA sample from either the living population that the 'founders' which went off and populated a new area came from, or got a DNA sample from the now dead population to the bottlenecked one and compared the two, we would see that genetic drift and the genes that were effected.

Would a selectionist see it differently?


originally posted by: Ghost147
Traits are an effect of mutations in genes, but it's not necessarily at one-to-one level (Gene to trait).

Are you saying that traits are only the effect of mutation? If so, I will respectfully have to disagree.


originally posted by: Ghost147
This article goes into great depth on how it all works

Thanks, yes, I've read this one. I think it does well at explaining that there is not at all a linear relationship between genotype and phenotype. So a mutation is not generally going to cause meaningful effect on its own.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I'm sorry, but which mechanisms specifically from the ones you mentioned actually "produce" traits?



reply posted by: Ghost147
That would be Mutations

Okay, so you do think mutations alone are responsible for trait expression.


reply posted by: Ghost147
The only requirement for a gene to be 'select' is it's continual existence within a population. If it has a negative impact, reduces survivability, reduces successful breeding, it may become weeded out of the population.

But since almost all genes don't act in isolation, how can that specific gene be selected?
edit on 3-3-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
It's not a semantics debate. While basic, these are specific questions about how evolution actually works. I only engage you when you go around defining evolution as just "simply" mutation and natural selection, and that's it. I know you find this explanation simple and satisfactory, but it is only partially correct. The MES, as you regularly refer to, is antiquated.


I don't think I've ever said that it's simply mutation and natural selection, and that's it. And no it's not antiquated because genetic mutation and natural selection are observed CONSTANTLY in ongoing experiments. It's great that you think other factors are involved, but can you please break down how many species are said to have evolved via epigenetic factors, that do not include genetic mutations?

Little is known about epigenetics, more work needs to be done before incorporating it into MS. Epigenetics has only been observed in a select few simple species and it is about gene EXPRESSION, not the development of new traits. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me, but I understand it as the traits are already there, but environmental pressures cause them to switch the traits on or off, and I was under the impression that it has never been observed in a complex animal species.


Maybe I should ask you the same question, because I'd like to know - can you tell the difference between a trait derived from genetic drift vs natural selection? If so, how?


Can you explain to me how natural selection is ever not a factor, even in cases of genetic drift? I thought I questioned this in my last response.


originally posted by: Barcs
Is that so? How many models have you actually looked into? Can you give me 3 so I can look into them also?
Thanks


I was hoping you could provide a model of evolutionary diversity that does not include natural selection or at least explain how this would be possible. I'm only familiar with the standard model, I have not seen any others.



originally posted by: Barcs
How do you know that's not drift? Are we to expect that every organism that's made it to reproduction did so because they had a beneficial mutation? Which we all know are very rare anyway.


I never said that it wasn't drift. You are looking at it like an either/or scenario. I think you missed my point in breaking up my post the way you did. I was trying to say that natural selection STILL plays a role in populations that experience genetic drift. How could it not?

Are beneficial mutations more rare than epigenetic factors in evolution?

I'd really like an answer to this one.



But you keep telling people that evolution relies on mutation. So which is it then?

Why not just say recombination ?


Because genetic mutations are not just recombination of DNA. There are several different ways that genetic coding sequences can be changed.


originally posted by: Barcs
I understand that, and it's a noble endeavor to try and stamp out creationism wherever it exists. Kudos to you for your efforts, seriously.

It's not about stamping out creationism, it's about denying ignorance. I don't care what creationists believe, but when they blindly attack science it must be called out.


But what's the use if you're "teaching" people a less than accurate, incomplete if not an antiquated version of evolution? Not that you're doing it on purpose, but to me it seems a bit contradictory.

The version of evolution that I see being "taught" around here is very over simplified version and leaves a lot of things out. It's as if it's being pulled out of high school text books from the 70's.


I'm not a biology teacher and I'm not a scientist. Most of the people that are being "taught" do not understand the very basics, so there is no point in mentioning every possible thing every single time. I just correct the misunderstandings. What's the point in teaching the technical details of a theory if they still need to comprehend the basics? You don't teach a grammar school kid calculus before he or she understands basic math.


So yeah - Mutation and selection are NOT THE WHOLE STORY ! Was that loud enough ?


Perhaps you are correct, but maybe you can explain to me why it has to be either/or. One is a mutation that changes the genetic code, the other is a change on the chromosome level that affects which genes are expressed, correct? If this is right, then how did the expressed traits first arise? Is my understanding wrong here? It could be easily be, and I'd be the first to admit it as I have not extensively studied epigenetics. I just don't understand the big fight here against genetic mutations and NS as if they aren't responsible for the vast majority of observed evolutionary changes even when epigenetics may apply.

Again, I'm not trying to dictate here, I'm trying to improve my understanding of epigenetics and how much influence it actually has in the evolutionary process. Are you aware of how much influence it has or does more research need to be done? If we do not know the answer to this question, and it only fits in a tiny niche that affects less than 1% of simple (not even complex) organisms, we can't possibly update the entire MES theory to accommodate it. Sure, we add it to the list of factors that influence morphology in certain organisms, but it doesn't over write anything about the genetic mutations or the influence of natural selection. I just don't get the fight against GM and NS, it seems even including epigenetic factors, they are still influence diversity in a much large capacity, and much broader scope.


edit on 3 3 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I am not trying to be "cute" or anything like that, but I have a question which I have asked for several years.
No! I am also not a "creationist", just seeking an answer to my question.

When did chemistry become biology?

There had to be a singular point of time in which organic chemistry became life. This is the crux of my question... When?

Most people would say "approximately such and such time ago". I am wondering about the timing and what triggered the change.
edit on 3-3-2016 by tinymind because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I'm guessing that the "4 hour window" to edit your posts is not actually four hours, because I posted that at 12:20, and it's almost 3:20 and it says the editing time has run out. Sorry about the redundancy near the end, I was going to edit it out but got busy at work and my window expired

edit on 3 3 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: Ghost147

I am not trying to be "cute" or anything like that, but I have a question which I have asked for several years.
No! I am also not a "creationist", just seeking an answer to my question.

When did chemistry become biology?

There had to be a singular point of time in which organic chemistry became life. This is the crux of my question... When?

Most people would say "approximately such and such time ago". I am wondering about the timing and what triggered the change.


What you're referring to is technically Abiogenesis, the origin of life itself, life coming from 'non life', Which doesn't really have anything to do with Evolution (which is changes that occur through reproduction while life already exists), but I'll answer it anyway


This very short video goes into great (and simple) detail on how this could have occurred here on Earth (start at 2:40) and really helped me grasp the concept before I knew what it really was. It's only 6 min long (from 2:40), and explains the concept very well.



There was an exciting post recently on ATS that linked to an article which stated Earth's Early Ocean Was Not Boiling Hot, which is fantastic news because that means that the environment would have been more likely than previously thought to help kickstart life.

But, this still leaves the question as to where did "organic molecules" come from, and what are they?

this site here explains that very well, too.

Essentially everything is made up of atoms, and the periodic table is our arrangement of the chemical elements, ordered by their atomic number. We ourselves can be broken down into how much of each element is within is, making up our total mass.

The show "Breaking Bad" does a great job at this (no spoilers, but there is a graphic scene in this video if you know what they're doing in it)



So, As the great Walter White would say...

"There's nothing but chemistry here"




top topics



 
24
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join