EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?

Originally posted by crayzeed
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I really do feel for anyone who try to use the bible to prove their theories. The book inself is riddled with inconsistensies. But to use the book there are 2 very basic questions I would like anyone to answer. Firstly, god created Adam and Eve only. They had 2 sons,Cain and Abel. Cain slayed Abel so the question is Who did cain marry to beget the human race? Secondly, the human race was wiped out in the flood. That left Noah and his 3 sons. My second question is, how did the human race come about because it would mean fully fledged incest in Noah family as there was no-one on earth but them? I sincerly hope you see where I'm comming from with this as the book you keep quoting for your evidence is nothing of the sort.

Noah, Noah's wife, Noah's 3 sons and their wives (3) all were on the ark. 8 total human beings 4 pairs of man and wife. Each of Noah's sons married a women of a diferent race (Ham had a black wife, Japheth had a yellow wife, and Shem had a white wife).

The 70 great grandchildren of Noah are the archetypes for every race/culture on Earth and all mankind can be traced to one of those 70 bloodlines, that were scattered when God confounded the languages at the Tower of Babel.

Now back on topic. The OP is right, but it doesn't matter, intellectual pride will prevent any from rejoycing in our creation in this age. The truth of it all will be given in the ages to come.

God Bless,

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by MentalData

 

It wasn't chance/coincidence, but it didn't have to be a creator either, in my opinion.

Something that is witnessed time and time again in our daily lives is that reactions are happening everywhere. Matter forms complex matter and then react with other matter. These reactions may seem random, but due to their tendencies, I would argue that life was inevitable when the right ingredients became available. All it takes is one single set of amino acids joining together and replicating. Replication is an imperfect process, and the changes add up over time.

The problem with this is Chemiosmosis. Before biological chemistry, there was no biological chemistry to form more complex chains. The first theory in biology for early bacteria was the theory of the primordial soup and lightening. This has sense been moved aside because of the new discoveries about Chemiosmosis. Why is this important?

Chemiosmosis works in as a mechanical process for cells to derive energy. It is nearly 100% efficient and does not depend on the chemical process, but instead, relies on the transport of electron chains for cellular respiration. In terms of simple analogy, it's a pump that acts as the most efficient fuel cell possible. This process is so efficient that industry is trying to duplicate it for our own fuel cells. The problem for evolution is apparent. This represents yet another irreducibly complex function that is at the lowest fundamental level of life. There is no explanation that can show this arising by mere chemical chance. It is engineered. For evolution to use early cellular life as a means to the end game of human function, they need to be able to explain this by some random accident. Can we make the case that an actual mechanical pump in the cell derives energy from specific molecules in the chain of production? NO!!!!!!! It's designed. Engineered to such a degree that it is the MOST efficient fuel cell known. This is where life needs to start for evolution to hold water.

cell #1- do you think we are part of anything bigger and greater then this work we do?

cell #2- nope, its just random we came about here, the most we can do is just get our jobs done so we stay in existence
( not realizing they are just the tiniest smidgen, in a harmonious chain of events, that create a larger, more complex being, who performs actions unimaginable)

it reminds me of how humans are born into the world, and then must scramble to fit a part, to secure an ability/ies and skill/s to perform and function as a cell in civilization.,,. if from birth there was no other way for you to exist then taking up the skills and profession you currently hold, was it random, or predetermined, for you to act out your destiny?

What a silly thread. So random numbers prove evolution is somehow wrong? Just because "22" appears elsewhere? You're kidding, right?

We are talking about evolution, if you argue all species evolved from the first bacteria/lifeform on earth by chance/coincidence then everything in the universe happened by chance/coincidence.

You open up with a statement like that and expect to taken seriously? Those 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive and inaccurate to boot. Funny I haven't seen a single person in this thread talk about the science behind evolution.

Alright. I see this is a lost cause. Not a single argument the OP used about the universal forces or anything else disproves evolution or proves creationism / ID. It's all just the guy standing in awe looking at all the cool things in the universe with limited understanding of how they work and attributing it to god. I just don't understand why you'd even put the word evolution in the title of this thread, when you haven't made a single argument against it. If you want to think deeply about your purpose in life and place in the universe, then feel free, but don't unjustifiably attack a field of science that you yourself haven't even studied. The main goal of science is to learn about how the universe works and apply it in our lives to make them better, as it has been doing for hundreds of years. Without it, we wouldn't be using computers to post on a forum that can be accessed globally to even argue about it. If you want to address evolution, address the physical evidence.

"Durrrr, evolution can't explain why the solar system formed". Yeah no kidding, that's because it's biological process. Google is your friend. Use it.

reply to post by Barcs


That wasn't an opening statement, part of a discussion if you read. Yes that is the stance of evolution, I know, doesn't make much sense to me either.

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by Barcs

 

That wasn't an opening statement, part of a discussion if you read. Yes that is the stance of evolution, I know, doesn't make much sense to me either.

That is your stance on evolution, not THE stance. Evolution is separate from big bang theory and astrophysics. It is about how biological life changes via genetic mutation and natural selection. If you want to talk the universe and planet formation, let's talk about it, but don't claim it has anything at all to do with evolution, because that's 100% wrong.

reply to post by Barcs


Well then how does your theory start? Where did first life come from in your opinion? If you believe evolution is how all life started then yes, you believe a series of coincidences from the start of the universe led up to the formation of life. I believe since animal life forms have interdependent systems needed to survive then all systems must have been present at the same time in order for animals to exist. This is not something that would form to perfection on its own. Furthermore, the atmosphere is regulated at concentrations of needed gases that again I believe could not happen on its own. It wouldn't mutate/change drastically for millions of years then sustain itself to sustain life. Same for bodily systems. Nothing could ever live because dependent systems would be on their own timeline and would never evolve to perform all nessary functions at the same time in history to then fix itself where life would need it to for existence. My opinion

reply to post by MentalData


Evolution is the process by which life diversified, not how it started.

Let's get the basics right before we argue about anything.

reply to post by Varemia


With that being said, how would you say it started?

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by Varemia

 

With that being said, how would you say it started?

If my Biological Anthropology class was based on any kinds of facts, I would say it was likely a combination of acids coupled with energy (be it from combustion, electrical discharge, or chemical reaction). Something caused the combination of acids to begin absorbing energy and duplicating, and things went from there.

There's argument over whether RNA or DNA came first, and in my opinion, it was probably RNA. That's basically half a strand of DNA. Then, all it would take is a mutation involving the combination of two RNA, and you have the first DNA. DNA begins producing other structures, and voila, cells.

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by Barcs

 

Well then how does your theory start? Where did first life come from in your opinion?

By "my theory", what are you referring to? I don't know the origin of life and neither do you. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Why is it that that is the only thing that creationists such as yourself cling on to. "But science can't explain everything". Yeah, no kidding. If you have no idea about what evolution actually is and haven't studied it, then you have no reason whatsoever to even comment on it. Your reasoning is more based on philosophy than science, just like everything else in this thread.

reply to post by Barcs


Spending resaerch time deeply studing evolution is futile as the information is sure to change a few years down the road. With so many frauds put out to confirm it time and time again I wouldn't try to go so deep into it. At least the poster before you admits no one knows for sure where life came from. That, at least, is a starting point.

Originally posted by MentalData
reply to post by Barcs

 

Spending resaerch time deeply studing evolution is futile as the information is sure to change a few years down the road. With so many frauds put out to confirm it time and time again I wouldn't try to go so deep into it. At least the poster before you admits no one knows for sure where life came from. That, at least, is a starting point.

I don't see studying something that could help develop medicines that save lives as futile. Maybe the knowledge is useless to you, but then again, you never know. It may just help you some day. I already admitted I don't know the origin of life. It's irrelevant to evolution. Knowledge and understanding of any subject is a starting point if you plan to criticize it or claim its wrong.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch

 

Apart from the human body using 20 amino acids, and not 22, your babbling is quite fun to read.

"The chemical structures of the 22 standard amino acids, along with their chemical properties, are described more fully in the article on these proteinogenic amino acids." LINK

I assume your "debunking" is based on proper reviewing whatever litterature you come across? If you read your own source, you'd realize that the 21 AA is not read by the genetic code, and that the 22 AA is not even present in eukaryotes.

reply to post by Varemia

There's argument over whether RNA or DNA came first, and in my opinion, it was probably RNA. That's basically half a strand of DNA. Then, all it would take is a mutation involving the combination of two RNA, and you have the first DNA. DNA begins producing other structures, and voila, cells.

Would you say thats exactly what happened?

I'd say its an assumed sequence of events. But has this entire sequence ever been observed? Is it possible to recreate the sequence in labs and then observe it?... you know, just to confirm the theory, so it does not remain guesswork?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Varemia

 

There's argument over whether RNA or DNA came first, and in my opinion, it was probably RNA. That's basically half a strand of DNA. Then, all it would take is a mutation involving the combination of two RNA, and you have the first DNA. DNA begins producing other structures, and voila, cells.

Would you say thats exactly what happened?

I'd say its an assumed sequence of events. But has this entire sequence ever been observed? Is it possible to recreate the sequence in labs and then observe it?... you know, just to confirm the theory, so it does not remain guesswork?

edit on 31-1-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Would you say you understand what an opinion is? I said it was debated, and of course it's not exactly what happened. Structures such as the ribosome and the nucleus and chromosomes had to develop in the mean-time. It took a very long time, considering that there are hundreds of millions to a billion years in-between the beginning of life and the boom in diversity. That would obviously come with an increase in available function, to me.

reply to post by Varemia


What!? You mean you can't tell us the exact detailed sequence of how DNA originally formed from RNA? That totally proves evolution wrong and intelligent design correct!!

reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Varemia

 

There's argument over whether RNA or DNA came first, and in my opinion, it was probably RNA. That's basically half a strand of DNA. Then, all it would take is a mutation involving the combination of two RNA, and you have the first DNA. DNA begins producing other structures, and voila, cells.

Would you say thats exactly what happened?

I'd say its an assumed sequence of events. But has this entire sequence ever been observed? Is it possible to recreate the sequence in labs and then observe it?... you know, just to confirm the theory, so it does not remain guesswork?

Would you say you understand what an opinion is? I said it was debated, and of course it's not exactly what happened. Structures such as the ribosome and the nucleus and chromosomes had to develop in the mean-time. It took a very long time, considering that there are hundreds of millions to a billion years in-between the beginning of life and the boom in diversity. That would obviously come with an increase in available function, to me.

Oh, it was just an opinion? Im so sorry, I missed that part.

So then, how are scientists explaining the origin of life? And do we take their explanation as an opinion or as a FACT?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


It's debated. Is that so hard to understand? It's not fact, it's theory. Almost nothing in science is considered fact. Even gravity is only considered to be a theory.