Ask me any questions you have about evolution

Extending to post by Maslo.

Our DNA is home to a big pile of junk or junk DNA. Als known as garbage or "non coding" DNA. Well at least that is what they used to think. Visit this thread called : Junk DNA. To get acquainted with DNA, previously thought of as garbage.

In our DNA are traces of all kinds of viruses and sick making bacteria, which our species and our ancestral organisms encountered throughout history.

reply to post by FlakeMaker


This is a common myth. Human's actually use almost 100% of their brains (at least some of us do).

reply to post by catwhoknows


As myself and others have stated before, the origin of life is unrelated to evolution. If you would like to do some research on your own the study of how life began is called abiogenesis. Evolution is merely the study of how the Earth's different species of animals came about.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

so where did the first spark of life come from - it had to come from somewhere - and if there was a somewhere, where did that come from?

You have not answered my question, you have ignored it.

Where did God come from? Who created the creator ?
If you're going to assume God always was or We can only partially comprehend Gods existence, You might as well save a step and say the same about the universe.

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed? [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]

Even if we knew nothing about how life could have started naturally here on Earth (This is false, we no more then most people think) Your argument does not prove god, nor prove God and/or a creator.

Really the argument implodes on its self when you say Something from nothing is not possible, when that is not what abiogenesis is saying (or evolution) but that is exactly what your bible says God did.

Ex nihilo

Some verses from the Christian Bible cited in support of ex nihilo creation by God include:
"ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν (The primary cause caused to be...) Genesis 1:1 Septuagint
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
John 1:3
en.wikipedia.org...

Any of you brave apologetics want to this point?

If you are going to say God did it, we must then ask who created God.

I am not interested in your God always was bull#, I have no interest in hearing it.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
A belief is anything that one person finds to be true. It could be anything at all, no matter the number of people who share that belief or not.

We're not discussing a belief. We're discussing a scientific theory. . It's not a hunch, it's not beliefs, it's a logical and tested statement of what the accrued facts represent.

Evolution may be gaining ground and it is fact that religion is slowly going way, but isn't that just swapping one un-proven belief for another?

I can prove that i have the same hox genes as other animals. I can prove that mitochondria, whether mine, a fungus' or a kelp frond's, are in fact prokaryotic organisms living in symbiosis with me. I can provide molecular and fossil evidence detailing where whales came from (they are a common ancestor with hippopotamuses.)

I'd like to see you or anyone accomplish the same with Zeus or Jesus - especially given that those two are mutually incompatible if they are real!

The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but I will not commit to one or the other until there is fact to back it up. To believe or the other does not make sense to me if there are no facts.

If one party is saying 2+2=4 and another party is saying 2+2=6, should we then compromise and say 2+2=5? Argument from the middle is a logical fallacy, because very frequently in life, there really is only one correct answer, and compromising on it simply makes you as wrong as if you had gone with hte totally wrong answer anyway.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by Nosred


How much mud and electricity does it take to make a simple organism?

Why do you believe that dead bones are proof of evolution?

How can you prove that one set of dead bones is the ancestor of another set of bones?

How can you prove that any off spring were born from any certain set of bones?

Why do you believe, (notice how I use the word believe that is a faith based word) lizards birthed chickens?

Why do you use variation and adaptation as proof of macroevolution?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


""I can provide molecular and fossil evidence detailing where whales came from (they are a common ancestor with hippopotamuses.) ""

This I would love to see.

You nor can any one prove that one set of Bones gave birth to any thing different from it self or whether it had offspring at all.

homeostasis is not proof for evolution. Any more than round wheels on all cars mean they were made by the same maker.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


It's really not as simple as lizards giving birth to chickens. Evolution is a long process that takes thousands of years.

I don't believe in evolution simply because of bones, I believe in it because of the biological evidence as well. Whether you believe in evolution or not you simply cannot dispute that your children's DNA will be different than yours, and their children's DNA will be different from theirs. Take this idea and multiply it by thousand's of generations. That's the theory of evolution. It's simple really.

reply to post by Nosred


Here is how evolution works,,, Long ago and far far away.

All science books start of with millions of years ago, like any body was there and there are date stamps on the bottom of stones.

As for believing you have a great faith, because you can not create life from nothing nor can you see and repeat macro evolution in any form. There for it is a belief and that is not factual as true science works.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


So just because nobody was there to witness evolution that means it didn't happen? That logic would work for creationism too.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

How much mud and electricity does it take to make a simple organism?

Mud? Not sure. But you can produce the precursors to amino acids, and even a good mix of the amino acids themselves, pretty readily using the gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere and some electrical discharges.

And, before you say, "But the Miller-Urey experiment was debunked years ago!", I'm not talking about the gases from the original Miller-Urey experiment. They did the experiment based on the best information available in the 50's. But guess what happens when you update Miller-Urey with the currently accepted mixture of gases? You still get the same precursors and amino acids! Amazing, no?

reply to post by Nosred


Obviously the origin is life is related to evolution.

There would have been no evolution without an origin of life.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how anything at all happened without a creator of some kind - and I am not saying it was "God" necessarily.

Let me quote a Philosophy professor who taught me - he mentioned the "unmoved mover" - some philosopher coined that term.

Meaning that it all started somewhere, with some creator.

Who or what, we don't know - and then you have to go back to where that force came from......etc etc etc - and then you officially go nuts.

my question:

evolution and creationism....one and the same? the argument(as witnessed a few times) from both sides is that "evolution happened..creation didnt" and vise versa....is it fair to say, that with science for the most part in agreement that "the big bang started everything" that creation occurred, then evolution?

i'm not very religious at all, just pondered as to whether both sides were correct......

[edit on 30-8-2010 by ahmonrarh]

reply to post by ahmonrarh


What a refreshing idea - that both sides could be right - thank you, ahmon!

Wouldn't it be nice if warring countries could also decide that!

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


Facts:

1. mutations in the DNA happen e. g. each offspring is slightly different from the parent (mutations supplement variation to population)
2. natural selection promotes positive changes and supresses negative changes in a population, according to environment
3. if two populations of the same species became separated by some reproductive barrier (rivers, mountains..), there is NO mechanism to synchronize inevitable changes in both populations, and over time they will inevitably diverge to the point that they wont be able to interbreed anymore - speciation

This three FACTS alone are enough to deduce that evolution happens. And proof by deduction is also a valid way to obtain scientific knowledge. So even if we didnt have paleontology, developmental biology etc., just biochemistry (the 1st point) and population genetics (2nd and third points) is enough to prove evolution, even macroevolution - speciation.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Maslo]

reply to post by Maslo


Impressive - I still want to know who or what started it, given that there was nothing there.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by Maslo

 

Impressive - I still want to know who or what started it, given that there was nothing there.

There are some good theories ( Abiogenesis ), but we dont know for sure, so if you like God of the Gaps, you can insert your favourite deity there. But not inplace of biological evolution.

Accepting Evolution...

We are talking about the "mechanics" of Evolution.

What Controls the "boundaries" i.e. the "Limitations" of Evolution ???

What Controls the "behaviour" within Evolution ???

In order for evolution to work, it has to start with the first life. Every single cell contain life. Therefore life must begin with First Cell. Scientists suggest that First Cell was formed from amino acid which when heated and cooled polymerize into proteins.

But how did these proteins and other organic compounds form the first cell?

How this polymer direct their own synthesis and be able to influence the replication?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by EasternShadow]

Why after 500,000, years a Chimp is still a Chimp?