What is your understanding of biological evolution?, page 2

reply to post by Mike_A

---

Biological Evolution

Aspects of creatures can change.

If the alterations are beneficial, future generations of their offspring will have a greater chance of survival and their genetic line will be more likely retain those traits

Those who do not have these adaptations will likely die.

Biological Evolution is what gives rise to subspecies.

[edit on 10/27/2009 by JPhish]

Sorry to go against your wish's Mike, but I have to do this. I can't stand seeing blatant stupidity thrown around like it's the newest hottest thing to do this year.

No need for apologies (Mike? Mod or something?) - obviously being ignorant but thinking you are intellectually superior to those who disagree with you apparently is not a violation of the TOU, so keep'em coming.

Well Mr. SquireeelNutz, your just a bit wrong in your line of logic here. There is no physical process that allows for a fully functioning and fueled 747 to form out of non-organic molecules. From that right there alone we can shoot down your analogy.

My apologies at using humor to draw an analogy - I'll remember my audience next time.

What I should have said was Okay, Organic molecules DID exist 'in the beginning', however, in nature they don't spontaneously reassemble into the ever more complex molecules. Biological dogma simply insists the stroll down the magical yellow brick road of scientific imagination had to occur this way because cell components do exist and must be accounted for in a "natural" way.

We have discovered that non-organic compounds can and do combine to create organic precursors of life. This feat in itself has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. What you dismissing away is called abiogenesis.

So, you're telling me that you still believe (as I once did) that all life began in the primordial soup, starting with single celled organisms, and with the perfect combination of clay formations, amino acids, lightening, whatever the hell you want to throw in here, ultimately ended up in the human beings that we are today? Is that what I'm to understand?

Wrong, we can trace our evolution back about six million years. LINK

Post all the links you want, Sparky - that is all unprovable disinformation - rather than the 6 million years, please just try to concentrate on a much more manageable chunk: from primate to pre-human to homo sapien. This is where evolutionary theory just completely falls apart...

The Darwinist evolutionary paradigm requires "gradual" transitions among and between species, with one deftly morphing into another over vast stretches of time. Unfortunately for you Darwinists (again, used to be me), the contemporary fossil record DOES NOT support the dogma. Instead, we find huge jumps such as the one between Australopithecines and early Homos - not even close - one more time for the cheap seats: NOT EVEN CLOSE to a 'transition', it is a total transformation (i.e. we were helped along)

So the fusing of two chromosomes leaving us with 46 and the rest of the primates with 48 makes us less superior? Where do you get your logic from, in order to be more superior we should have more chromosomes? Somehow I don't think you know what your talking about... idk, call me crazy, just a gut feeling here... possibly too many squirrelnutz for you, try slowing down.

You completely misread that sentence - read it again. Obviously, WE (humans) are FAR superior to primates, yet we are so with LESS DNA? Yeah, I don't think so (them 48, us 46) - that was the point of that statement.

Reading comprehension is a mother, ain't it?


"Oh, it's already been broughten."


[edited for grammar / spelling]

[edit on 10/27/2009 by SquirrelNutz]

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

---

What I should have said was Okay, Organic molecules DID exist 'in the beginning', however, in nature they don't spontaneously reassemble into the ever more complex molecules. Biological dogma simply insists the stroll down the magical yellow brick road of scientific imagination had to occur this way because cell components do exist and must be accounted for in a "natural" way.

We don't know if this is true or false. We haven't observed this particular feat in itself, but nor am I aware of any research being conducted that is specifically looking for this feat in nature today. Lack of knowledge is not evidence against.

So, you're telling me that you still believe (as I once did) that all life began in the primordial soup, starting with single celled organisms, and with the perfect combination of clay formations, amino acids, lightening, whatever the hell you want to throw in here, ultimately ended up in the human beings that we are today? Is that what I'm to understand?

We don't know the exact conditions of the early Earth nor the exact conditions required for molecules to self-replicate on early Earth. Abiogenesis is just a theory with a multitude of possible processes of how self-replication can occur. With that in mind, there is nothing in physics, chemistry or biology that would not allow for this to occur, in fact everything known about those three sciences alone would be false if this was not allowed in nature. Again, lack of knowledge is not evidence against.

Post all the links you want, Sparky - that is all unprovable disinformation - rather than the 6 million years, please just try to concentrate on a much more manageable chunk: from primate to pre-human to homo sapien. This is where evolutionary theory just completely falls apart...

Did you ever stop and face palm yourself before you wrote that? Please try and explain why it fails that way. I'll give you a hint, because the evolution of our species didn't occur that way, it goes back further.

The Darwinist evolutionary paradigm requires "gradual" transitions among and between species, with one deftly morphing into another over vast stretches of time. Unfortunately for you Darwinists (again, used to be me), the contemporary fossil record DOES NOT support the dogma. Instead, we find huge jumps such as the one between Australopithecines and early Homos - not even close - one more time for the cheap seats: NOT EVEN CLOSE to a 'transition', it is a total transformation (i.e. we were helped along)

Blatantly false in it's own accord. You think God or little green men from mars made us?

You completely misread that sentence - read it again. Obviously, WE (humans) are FAR superior to primates, yet we are so with LESS DNA? Yeah, I don't think so (them 48, us 46) - that was the point of that statement.

I still fail to see your logic in number of chromosomes versus superiority. Explain how your drawing that conclusion. Look at Down Syndrome people, they have one chromosome more than we do and yet they aren't superior to normal people because of more genetic code.

reply to post by sirnex

---

Thanks for the reply.

Only portion that really needs addressing - and, kind of explains the rest...

You think God or little green men from mars made us

That is precisely what I am saying - And, I don't believe in God, soooo....

Given the community we have here, I figured this would be an easily accepted explanation, by now. A little suprised.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

---

I'm more surprised that people still think little green aliens from mars made humans. How do you figure this happened? What evidence is there? Are you basing this off the religious mythologies of ancient man that don't actually describe any of this stuff in reality?

reply to post by sirnex

---

Hey Sirnex. Hows it going. You may be able to help me with a question. How much information is in the Human body if you broke it down into bits, as the way they do with computers, if that kind of thing can be answered at all? Taking into account the memory, processing speed, power supply, power distribution center, cognitive procedures, healing mechanisms, ect..... It seems it would be reasonable to think it would be in the thousands of trillions of bits of information, if not more. Possibly a lot more.

And second question. With the evolutionary process, seemingly slow and random (which would make it even slower), putting the information into place. How long would it take to, sometimes randomly, put together hundreds of trillions of bits of information together. If evolution through random selection could produce 1000 bits of information within 1 year that would be quiet a bit of information for a random process. Would you agree with that? If so, and that is the case it would take longer than the Earth has been around, Trillions of years or way more, to end up where we are today.

I like the way you dissect information with your responses and answer each. It is easier to understand what you are saying. Show me how this reasoning is offtrack.

reply to post by Conclusion

---

Hey Sirnex. Hows it going. You may be able to help me with a question. How much information is in the Human body if you broke it down into bits, as the way they do with computers, if that kind of thing can be answered at all? Taking into account the memory, processing speed, power supply, power distribution center, cognitive procedures, healing mechanisms, ect..... It seems it would be reasonable to think it would be in the thousands of trillions of bits of information, if not more. Possibly a lot more.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know the answer to that question and I doubt anyone else does either. I mean, look at how much *we don't* know about the human body and it's various functions. The science of studying our bodies is still incomplete. We haven't figured out our entire genome or it's capacity yet, the brain is nearly alien to us and various thing's we're discovering, like biofeedback showing the complex relationship involved between mind and body. All of these many unknowns make it impossible to make any real calculation.

And second question. With the evolutionary process, seemingly slow and random (which would make it even slower), putting the information into place. How long would it take to, sometimes randomly, put together hundreds of trillions of bits of information together. If evolution through random selection could produce 1000 bits of information within 1 year that would be quiet a bit of information for a random process. Would you agree with that? If so, and that is the case it would take longer than the Earth has been around, Trillions of years or way more, to end up where we are today.

There is no such thing as randomness. Everything that takes place in nature takes place for a reason. Non-organic molecules combine into organic molecules following the laws of physics under the right conditions or variables. There is no such thing as random evolution. Evolution follows the same fundamentals of physical laws. Evolution=biology=chemistry=laws of physics, there is no randomness as things are doing what they must naturally do as things don't just randomly break the laws of physics.

reply to post by sirnex

---

Yes, no randomness. I must have been thinking of mutation. If we could figure out the amount of information in our body, then the speed of evolution could be determined. And that could give some time frame reference to actually test it.

reply to post by Conclusion

---

It's not informational capacity of our genome alone, you have to take into effect various variables that exert control of the expression of those genes from external factors. Something even as mundane as what you eat can effect the genetic disposition of your children and grandchildren. Not to mention the wide variety of pollutants and stresses we induce on ourselves on an every day basis.

reply to post by sirnex

---

Yeah I see what you mean. Still given the state that we know of our body and acknowledging what we still do not know, that alone seems to speak volumes of how long it would take to evolve. Given the rate at which we observe it. Don't ya think?

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Conclusion]

reply to post by downunderET

---

What brought you to that conclusion?

If I may ask.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by downunderET

---

What brought you to that conclusion?

If I may ask.

Go to UTube and punch in Lloyd Pye, there is a presentation by him which is riviting. His take on it might be "out there", but I believe he is right.

Sitchin also cannot be taken lightly, he did the hard yards on the Sumerian tablets and if you read the Annunaki chapter in Rule by Secrecy, it's very clear of how we came to be here.

reply to post by Conclusion

---

No, I don't believe it does say much about how it took over three billions years to go from simple life to... less simple life. We share almost the same exact genetic code as all other forms of life on this planet. When we look at other life, we don't see different ways of doing thing's from one species to the next. We all share the same generalized digestive tract with minor differences based on diet. Same capacity for breathing oxygen with minor differences in lung size to body size. Same generalized brain structure and requirement for a nervous system and sensory organs all with very minor differences.

Humans are not any more complex than anything else. The only thing more highly complex in our species compared to any other species of primate is our higher capacity to think abstractly, but even this trait isn't entirely non-existent in other primates. It is just more developed in us compared to them. We're constantly trying our damnedest to prove to ourselves that we are better and above the animals while losing focus that we *are* animals. There is no difference between you, me and a chinchilla. I only chose chinchilla's because I think they're cute and funny.

reply to post by sirnex

---

Exactly. So how can one reason that with the variety of life on this planet some more complex than others, and the very slow process of evolution, that with all the genetic information which makes up all life evolved in only billions of years when it would take trillions?

Also to say, " from simple life to less simple life" comparing a single cell organism to what we have become is true, but the words of Francis Crick comes to mind, which is my signature. I thought it was cool so I changed to it. lol.

Since Humans are not anymore complex than any other creature, then why are we so much more adaptable to an environment. We can survive in more parts of the world than any other living thing. That would mean we are evolutionarily more advanced. How can that be if we are one of the youngest species according to evolution?

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Conclusion]

reply to post by Conclusion

---

You're quite wrong. "Theory" has a specific meaning in science - it does not mean "guess" or "hunch."

it is, in fact, as close to "absolute certain fact" as you can get in physical sciences - the only place where you can move to the pinnacle of certainty, law, is in mathematical science.

The theory of evolution and natural selection remain theory rather than law, because it's possible to have instances where they don't apply - imagine a world where life developed... but that life doesn't utilize a recombinant genome, and does not mutate. it's incapable of evolution, so it's just a planet full of pont-of-origin clones.

Only when we manage to find every single life-bearing world in the universe will evolution be able to be called Law.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

---

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by Conclusion

---

Exactly. So how can one reason that with the variety of life on this planet some more complex than others, and the very slow process of evolution, that with all the genetic information which makes up all life evolved in only billions of years when it would take trillions?

Where do you get the idea that it would take trillions of years? We are no more complex genetically than anything else on this planet. Life may take different shapes and form and live in different environmental niches and eat different foods, but we all share most of the same genetic code. Humans are no more complex than a mouse.

Also to say, " from simple life to less simple life" comparing a single cell organism to what we have become is true, but the words of Francis Crick comes to mind, which is my signature. I thought it was cool so I changed to it. lol.

That's a great quote! Life does indeed seem to be miraculous to those who don't understand the underlying physics, chemistry and biology that allows it to occur. Not saying we have a complete understand of the process in whole, but enough of an understanding to know that it isn't ruled out by the universe.

Since Humans are not anymore complex than any other creature, then why are we so much more adaptable to an environment. We can survive in more parts of the world than any other living thing. That would mean we are evolutionarily more advanced. How can that be if we are one of the youngest species according to evolution?

We're not the youngest species, we're the oldest adaptation change from the youngest species. We don't equate a ninety year old younger than a three month old do we? We can adapt to different environments because we have a higher capacity for abstract thought, language and communal society. Throw a single human into a harsh environment and he'll perish alone, we can't adapt on our own. We live in familial packs and larger communal groups and that strength in number is what allows us to adapt more easily.

reply to post by sirnex

---

Where do you get the idea that it would take trillions of years? We are no more complex genetically than anything else on this planet. Life may take different shapes and form and live in different environmental niches and eat different foods, but we all share most of the same genetic code. Humans are no more complex than a mouse.

The idea came to me when I thought about all the information that is not just in our dna, but in our thoughts. From one single cell organism to evolve in the first place to the next step, what would have to happen?

How did life originate?

Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:

1. Simple organic molecules were formed.
Simple organic molecules, similar to the nucleotide shown below, are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides.

a nucleotide, composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus atoms
2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.

a chain of nucleotides forms an RNA molecule
Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an "RNA world" in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.

Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more "offspring." These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved.

3. Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
The evolution of a membrane surrounding the genetic material provided two huge advantages: the products of the genetic material could be kept close by and the internal environment of this proto-cell could be different than the external environment. Cell membranes must have been so advantageous that these encased replicators quickly out-competed "naked" replicators. This breakthrough would have given rise to an organism much like a modern bacterium.

genetic material enclosed in membranes
Cell membranes enclose the genetic material.
4. Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.
Up until this point, life had probably relied on RNA for most jobs (as described in Step 2 above). But everything changed when some cell or group of cells evolved to use different types of molecules for different functions: DNA (which is more stable than RNA) became the genetic material, proteins (which are often more efficient promoters of chemical reactions than RNA) became responsible for basic metabolic reactions in the cell, and RNA was demoted to the role of messenger, carrying information from the DNA to protein-building centers in the cell. Cells incorporating these innovations would have easily out-competed "old-fashioned" cells with RNA-based metabolisms, hailing the end of the RNA world.

DNA contains instructions. RNA copies DNA. Proteins are made from copies instructions.
5. Multicellularity evolved.
As early as two billion years ago, some cells stopped going their separate ways after replicating and evolved specialized functions. They gave rise to Earth's first lineage of multicellular organisms, such as the 1.2 billion year old fossilized red algae in the photo below.

Bangiomorpha pubescens Bangiomorpha pubescens These fossils of Bangiomorpha pubescens are 1.2 billion years old. Toward the lower end of the fossil on the left there are cells differentiated for attaching to a substrate. If you look closely at the upper part of the fossil on the right, you can see longitudinal division that has divided disc-shaped cells into a number of radially arranged wedge-shaped cells, as we would see in a modern bangiophyte red alga.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

A lot of speculation is involved in the theory of evolution. I know it is needed to further the agenda, but speculation none the less.

With this information we are down to 2 billion years before some cells stopped going their separate ways after replicating and evolved specialized functions.

Also with this information They gave rise to Earth's first lineage of multicellular organisms, such as the 1.2 billion year old fossilized red algae in the photo below. Now that is .8 billion years just to get that far.

Now I know you have to agree that our bodies are more complicated than this type of multicellular organism. Say a billion times more complicated.

Since we have frame of reference for the time it takes something to evolve, then we can clearly see, from facts found by evolutionist , that there would be not enough time for it to be what it is today.

That's a great quote! Life does indeed seem to be miraculous to those who don't understand the underlying physics, chemistry and biology that allows it to occur. Not saying we have a complete understand of the process in whole, but enough of an understanding to know that it isn't ruled out by the universe.

Yeah I like it too. Especially coming from someone who understood the underlying physics, chemistry and biology that allows it to occur.

We're not the youngest species, we're the oldest adaptation change from the youngest species. We don't equate a ninety year old younger than a three month old do we? We can adapt to different environments because we have a higher capacity for abstract thought, language and communal society. Throw a single human into a harsh environment and he'll perish alone, we can't adapt on our own. We live in familial packs and larger communal groups and that strength in number is what allows us to adapt more easily.

What I mean is that species have been here on earth far longer than us that are still here. mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

The man with the survivalist show seems to do quiet will in harsh environments alone. If we can't adapt on our own how did the very first of our kind adapt then?

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 17 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags

Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags

Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 16 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: