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.

 

TOE experts what is your answer?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
If you believe in evolution please answer these simple questions

Why multicellular organisms? Bacteria prove that they can remain single cell and adapt to anything we throw at them. So when did they need to become multicellular and why? The more complex an organism becomes, the slower it reproduced, the less chance it has for survival. And yes bacteria are more likely to survive ELE than we are.

Why Genders (I can see no environmental adaptation that requires sex) If evolution were true wouldn’t asexual be the preferred choice for reproduction.

Why live birth or an egg (not the chicken and the egg) just the fragile not very safe from predators egg. When did these become necessary for an organism to survive? What was wrong with self replication?

Why emotions. Do you think bacteria are more likely to survive if they feel loved?

Why intelligence. Do you think the smarter bacteria are more likely to self replicate?

How can you not see God all around you? If you can’t answer these questions don’t you at least have to believe in intelligent design? The why of not one of these can be explained by TOE. Only convoluted well meaning how’s. Since bacteria have only been proven to be adaptive and never proven to become more than adaptive why do you assume they would?
edit on 4-10-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Why ...
Why...
Why ...
Why...
Why...
The why of not one of these can be explained by TOE.



Looks like you've already decided on your answer then.
On the face of it, it doesnt actually look like you came here genuinely searching for information, more like you just came here to put forward a point of view that you're already settled in.

So I wont bother answering.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I did read the bible. I read the Torah. I read the Qouran and i have dwelt in the eastern "religions". I do believe in a god. But most certainly not in a religiousness god.

God must be mighty enough to let a African child that never heard about "jesus" die and come to heaven. Religion as we have them today is nothing more than politics imo.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 




Bacteria prove that they can remain single cell and adapt to anything we throw at them. So when did they need to become multicellular and why?


Just a thought but why don't you look these up yourself? Or find the email address to an evolutionary scientist and send it to someone who's an actual expert. You won't find many experts here on ATS, though some might claim to be most people here are layman who brush up on the subject from time to time. Another important thing to point out is that there doesn't need to be a WHY answer. What evolves isn't necessarily BETTER than what came before, it only has to be good enough to survive and reproduce.

It is thought that sexual reproduction was developed amongst single-celled life BEFORE multicellularity was, thus meaning that the first multicellular life didn't have to rely on dividing the way a single-celled organism would. I took the liberty of doing a Google Scholar search on the subject of Multicellular Evolution. That should help you in your research.



If evolution were true wouldn’t asexual be the preferred choice for reproduction.


Last I checked it was, bacteria and single-celled lifeforms far outnumber us multicellular ones. That being said sexual reproduction has benefits, it increases genetic variation and diversity. Rather than just a world full of single-celled clones of other single-cells mutations and genetic changes can occur much faster and must easier in a gene pool, a population of sexually reproducing organisms will likely vary greater genetically than asexual reproductive organisms.



What was wrong with self replication?


Why does something have to be wrong with it in order for sexual reproduction to develop? Again evolutionary changes, in order to be passed on, simply need to function, they do not need to be perfect or even necessarily be an improvement on what came before. Survival of the fittest actually means that what's FIT enough to pass on its genes will survive. It only has to be FIT ENOUGH.

As for the egg thing, here's an article that might help, but again those are good questions to ask actual scientists: Evolution in Action




Why emotions. Do you think bacteria are more likely to survive if they feel loved?


This one is OBVIOUS. What animals typically feel the most emotion toward each other? SOCIAL ANIMALS. What animals typically portray the most altruistic behavior toward each other? SOCIAL ANIMALS. Social animals thrive in groups and while its true there are some who do this seemingly without emotion (ants for instance) mammals have the benefit of a much bigger brain capable of complex emotional states. This allows for social mammals to bond and thus survive.

Emotions help you fit into the group and bond with members of it and they help with empathy so you can understand how your actions might affect another member of the group. All of this adds up to better survival especially when it comes to a species like humans, our young as so vulnerable, and, as they say, it takes a village to raise a child.



Do you think the smarter bacteria are more likely to self replicate?


No but a clever animal might have the smarts to outwit a predator, and that drives the predator to either get smarter itself or die off. Seriously this is common sense.




How can you not see God all around you?




Let's see, I see trees outside, cars passing by, I see my laptop monitor... I see my TV... But I can't SEE God, not in the actual sense of the word SEE.



If you can’t answer these questions don’t you at least have to believe in intelligent design?


Let's say for a moment that I reject the Big Bang, why would that suddenly mean I have to believe that the supernatural is the answer? Same thing here. Why would rejecting Evolution make the supernatural a viable option? Rejecting evolution is no more reason to believe in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God than it is a reason to believe in Zeus or Odin,

As a former Creationist myself I hope you seek answers from the actual experts. Don't take my word or the word of anyone on ATS on it, look up the information for yourself. And remember that even if evolution fails that doesn't make the supernatural answer the right one, you'd still have to find evidence for that.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Since I do not know your level of understanding regarding genes, DNA, evolution, etc, I am not sure where to start. I suppose that since you are asking these questions you have exhausted your search capabilities, so I will just assume you understand the basics.

The answers to most of your questions are actually fairly simple and straightforward. For instance, why did bacteria need to become multi-cellular? Well, they didn't need to. Basically a mutation happened, it was advantageous, so it stuck.

As far as why there are different genders, instead of everything being asexual, the answer, in short form, is that sexual reproduction basically increases variations within a species. Things evolve at a faster rate.

Again, your next question is answered, for the most part, in the same manner I used to answer number 1.

Oh, now that I get to the end of your thread I see where you are going. You don't believe in evolution, and rather in creationism. Well fact check time...dun, dun, dun...Evolution is REAL. If it doesn't fit your worldview then I am sorry, but don't you think that you are lying to yourself?

Also, evolution does NOT contradict creationism. It only does if you are simple-minded. I will leave it to you to fill in the blanks of those statements. Science does not contradict God. How can you not realize that? Is it because you are not attempting to find your own answers, since so many people believe that science and religion aren't compatible?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Since I do not know your level of understanding regarding genes, DNA, evolution, etc, I am not sure where to start. I suppose that since you are asking these questions you have exhausted your search capabilities, so I will just assume you understand the basics.

The answers to most of your questions are actually fairly simple and straightforward. For instance, why did bacteria need to become multi-cellular? Well, they didn't need to. Basically a mutation happened, it was advantageous, so it stuck.

As far as why there are different genders, instead of everything being asexual, the answer, in short form, is that sexual reproduction basically increases variations within a species. Things evolve at a faster rate.

Again, your next question is answered, for the most part, in the same manner I used to answer number 1.

Oh, now that I get to the end of your thread I see where you are going. You don't believe in evolution, and rather in creationism. Well fact check time...dun, dun, dun...Evolution is REAL. If it doesn't fit your worldview then I am sorry, but don't you think that you are lying to yourself?

Also, evolution does NOT contradict creationism. It only does if you are simple-minded. I will leave it to you to fill in the blanks of those statements. Science does not contradict God. How can you not realize that? Is it because you are not attempting to find your own answers, since so many people believe that science and religion aren't compatible?


Actually I am willing to believe the Bible and TOE are compatible. The problem is when people try and throw God out. Our world is based in cause and effect, action and reaction so to believe that this all came about due to random mutation seems flawed to me. This thread is more intended to target those who do not believe in God. Thank you I have heard those arguments and while I will say they are plausible until a scientist wins the Nobel prize for witnessing a single cell organism mutate into a viable multicellular organism I will hold on to Creation, leaving TOE to explain only the adaptation of species.

Also the argument for expanding diversity assumes some level of intelligent design? Other than the possibility of random mutation I don't see the need for bacteria to become more complex than adapting to the current environment. And your answers assume this happened out of some sort of need. I don't see that need.
edit on 4-10-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


The answers to the questions don't exist. You may think they do but they do not. The only way to explain any of this is mutation. If mutation could result in a more complex life form I imagine we would have witnessed it by now. Scientists have been trying to make it happen for hundreds of years. Yes organisms do adapt but the leap from cellular to multicellur self replication, then to asexual replication, and finally to complex organism that leaps from asexual to genders. These all had to occur do to mutation not adaptation. The odds against this are staggering.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 




If mutation could result in a more complex life form I imagine we would have witnessed it by now.


Did you know that Tibetans have developed special genes that allow them to thrive at high altitudes where the rest of us wouldn't be able to? If you don't think mutations can result in the addition of genetic information than you're either too closed minded to accept reality or you've done no research on the subject.



These all had to occur do to mutation not adaptation. The odds against this are staggering.


Given than there were MILLIONS of years during which these changes had the opportunity to take place I'd say the odds are actually pretty good. The most important variable in evolution is TIME. Also, even if these changes are all against the odds what are the odds that it happened by supernatural means? I'd say natural causes trumps supernatural no matter what the odds, since nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist beyond the imaginations of believers.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Everything is an accident that turned out to either be beneficial or neutral.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
Everything is an accident that turned out to either be beneficial or neutral.


You may have resulted from an accident but I assure you I did not.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I believe in a sentient universe. So yeah, I see "god" in and around everything because it *IS* everything. The why to every one of your questions can be answered with, it seemed like a good idea at the time


Seriously, though, in almost every case, it was a matter of beneficial change that caused either an increase in further beneficial changes, an increase in reproduction rates, an increase in survivability, or improved symbiotic relationships in the environment (which amplifies the other benefits).

Nothing about TOE prevents the idea of an active diety playing with the process. How can anti-toe's not see that this is a moot issue?

and, btw, is this bible study night on ATS? soo many evangelical threads tonight.. *shrug*
edit on 10-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I believe in a sentient universe. So yeah, I see "god" in and around everything because it *IS* everything. The why to every one of your questions can be answered with, it seemed like a good idea at the time


Seriously, though, in almost every case, it was a matter of beneficial change that caused either an increase in further beneficial changes, an increase in reproduction rates, an increase in survivability, or improved symbiotic relationships in the environment (which amplifies the other benefits).

Nothing about TOE prevents the idea of an active diety playing with the process. How can anti-toe's not see that this is a moot issue?

and, btw, is this bible study night on ATS? soo many evangelical threads tonight.. *shrug*
edit on 10-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)


Lately it is bible study night for me every night that is why I like ATS. I guess nothing doom and gloom. Strange that might actually be worth noting. The end must be coming this week since no one is predicting it. And yes I do see TOE working if you include intelligent design even though I still choose creationism at this time.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25Strange that might actually be worth noting. The end must be coming this week since no one is predicting it.



LOL... you may be on to something there...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 

I'm far from an expert, but I'll do my best to address your questions...


Why multicellular organisms? Bacteria prove that they can remain single cell and adapt to anything we throw at them. So when did they need to become multicellular and why?

Read about quorum sensing in bacterial colonies. Individual bacterial cells don't adapt, populations do.


The more complex an organism becomes, the slower it reproduced, the less chance it has for survival.

The more complex an organism becomes, the more able it is to deal with changes to its environment. It's hard to have an immune system when you're a single cell


And yes bacteria are more likely to survive ELE than we are.

Speculation.


Why Genders (I can see no environmental adaptation that requires sex) If evolution were true wouldn’t asexual be the preferred choice for reproduction.

Sexual reproduction actually allows for more genetic variation than asexual reproduction. There was a thread here in O&C a few months ago about the origin of sexual reproduction, I just don't have time to look it up before I go to work.


Why live birth or an egg (not the chicken and the egg) just the fragile not very safe from predators egg. When did these become necessary for an organism to survive? What was wrong with self replication?

Self replication = asexual reproduction, discussed above.


Why emotions. Do you think bacteria are more likely to survive if they feel loved?

Why are you assuming that emotions evolved on the bacterial level?


Why intelligence. Do you think the smarter bacteria are more likely to self replicate?

Why are you assuming that intelligence evolved on a bacterial level?


How can you not see God all around you? If you can’t answer these questions don’t you at least have to believe in intelligent design?

So you're suggesting that everyone fall into the "God of the gaps" logical fallacy because every single question isn't answered yet? Ridiculous.

Electrons are responsible for chemical bonding. We knew about atoms before we knew about electrons. So, based on your logic, a reasonable answer for what held atoms together in molecules would have been "God does it". Some of us aren't happy with "God did it" and will try and find answers to those questions.


The why of not one of these can be explained by TOE.

Actually, at the very least, the first one has been pretty well explained at this point. And I'm pretty sure that there are reasonable explanations for the other three if you're willing to exert the effort to research them for yourself instead of just inserting God when you, personally, don't know the answer to a question.


Only convoluted well meaning how’s.

Creationism and intelligent design are far more convoluted than evolution for the simple reason that they rely on a creator for which there is no objective evidence.


Since bacteria have only been proven to be adaptive and never proven to become more than adaptive why do you assume they would?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this question. Can you restate it a little more clearly?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Why multicellular organisms?

Their versatility confers a selective advantage on the genes they carry.


Bacteria prove that they can remain single cell and adapt to anything we throw at them.

They do this by ingesting other bacteria, plasmids, etc. The genes in a single-celled organism need the functional resources of other genes to survive. Eukaryotes are simply assemblies of prokaryotes that have permanently pooled their resources.


So when did they need to become multicellular and why?

When is uncertain. For why, see above.


The more complex an organism becomes, the slower it reproduced, the less chance it has for survival.

Rates of organic reproduction have no implications for the differential survival of genes.


And yes bacteria are more likely to survive ELE than we are.

Do you know of any mass extinctions eukaryotes have not survived?


Why Genders (I can see no environmental adaptation that requires sex)

Sex shuffles genes from generation to generation. This spreads mutations through a population, allowing eukaryotes to evolve effective responses to fast-evolving unicellular parasites more rapidly.


Why live birth or an egg (not the chicken and the egg) just the fragile not very safe from predators egg. When did these become necessary for an organism to survive?

Quite soon after sex was invented. An egg is where shuffled and mixed genes are stored while they go about creating a new survival machine for themselves.


What was wrong with self replication?

See above.


Why emotions.

Emotions help animals survive and reproduce. Fear keeps them out of danger. Anger helps them win mates, hunt and defend themselves effectively. Pleasure and arousal spur survival-promoting behaviour. Pair-bonding makes raising offspring easier and safer. Affection and empathy promote the survival of shared genes.


Do you think bacteria are more likely to survive if they feel loved?

It would depend on how they felt it.


Why intelligence.

It increases the versatility and appropriateness of an animal’s response to threats and opportunities in its environment. This is useful for big, complex animals, particularly social ones.


Do you think the smarter bacteria are more likely to self replicate?

Yes, most certainly.


How can you not see God all around you?

I believe He left his name-tag behind at Reception.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Thread is based around an argument from ignorance

"I carn't imagine how...."

etc

The information is out there, the questions have been answered already



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Let me keep this simple. You believe that sexual reproduction is a better mode for transfering genes. Ok sure lets go with that.

Imagine you are a bacteria, everyone in your family are bacteria, heck you have adapted to everything the world throws at you for a million years and our still bacteria. Here is the gap that you keep filling with how’s. The only reason you evolve is due to some sort of necessity to survive. You have no necessity to do anything other than to continue to adapt. It is never necessary for you to become multicellular to survive. Science has so far proven that you do not need to become multicellular to survive. And they have put you into every possible scenario they can imagine but you just keep adapting as the single cell you are. This is not complicated. Until science can provide me the scenario that caused a single cell organism to become multicellular I refuse to believe it can happen.

The only thing you are left would be mutations. I’m sorry but science has yet to prove this either and they are trying. The thought of putting all my belief in random mutation leading us to where we are now is much more difficult to believe than creation or intelligent design.

edit on 5-10-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   


Until science can provide me the scenario that caused a single cell organism to become multicellular I refuse to believe it can happen. The only thing you are left would be mutations. I’m sorry but science has yet to prove this either and they are trying. The thought of putting all my belief in random mutation leading us to where we are now is much more difficult to believe than creation or intelligent design.
reply to post by sacgamer25
 

Yet another silly creationist "question" posted with zero understanding of it.
DO your research!!

TalkOrigins.org Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CB922 wrote: Claim CB922: There are no two-celled life forms intermediate between unicellular and multicellular life, demonstrating that the intermediate stage is not viable. Source: Brown, Walt. 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 9. www.creationscience.com... Response: 1. The intermediate stage between one-celled and multicelled life need not have been two-celled. The first requirement is for signals between cells, which is necessary if cells are to cooperate in division of labor to break down a food source. Many bacteria utilize a variety of different signals. The evolution of a signal for cooperative swarming has been observed in one bacterium (Velicer and Yu 2003). The transition to multicellularity has been studied in experiments with Pseudomonas fluorescens, which showed that "transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable" (Rainey and Rainey 2003, 72). Choanoflagellates, which are unicellular and colonial organisms related to multicelled animals, express several proteins similar to those used in cell interactions, showing that such proteins could arise in single-celled animals and be co-opted for multicellular development (King et al. 2003). 2. Desmidoideae is a class of conjugating green algae, phylum Gamophyta. Most desmids form pairs of cells whose cytoplasms are joined at an isthmus (Margulis and Schwartz 1982, 100). The bacterium Neisseria also tends to form two-celled arrangements. As noted above, this may not be relevant to the evolution of multicellularity. References: 1. King, Nicole, Christopher T. Hittinger and Sean B. Carroll. 2003. Evolution of key cell signaling and adhesion protein families predates animal origins. Science 301: 361-363. 2. Margulis, Lynn and Karlene V. Schwartz. 1982. Five Kingdoms San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 3. Rainey, Paul B. and Katrina Rainey. 2003. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature 425: 72-74. 4. Velicer, Gregory J. and Yuen-tsu N. Yu. 2003. Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. Nature 425: 75-78. Further Reading: Bonner, John Tyler. 2000. First Signals: The evolution of multicellular development. Princeton University Press. Cavalier-Smith, Tom. 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 297-354. (technical)

source
edit on 5-10-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
What a shame. You posted the very same post in my thread. I gave you an excellent source to answer these questions. But you don't really have any questions. You just want to stir the pot with ignorance



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Why do you expect scientists to achieve in 150 years what nature achieved in at least a billion? Also, multicellular organisms do have a number of advantages over single cell organisms. These include more capable of standing up to predators, the ability to specialize, and once again greater genetic variation.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join