EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




It's debated. Is that so hard to understand? It's not fact, it's theory.

What about idea that lifes diversity evolved from a single cell...? Is that debated too?


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




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Varemia
 




It's debated. Is that so hard to understand? It's not fact, it's theory.

What about idea that lifes diversity evolved from a single cell...? Is that debated too?


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


It's doubtful that it was ever only one single cell. There were single-celled asexually reproducing organisms for a great deal of Earth's early life based on fossil evidence, but it's debated exactly how life began.

It's kind of like examining a mudwash and trying to determine which part of the mudslide began to seep first. There's just too much muddled information there to make a chicken/egg decision.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

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.


But there are 23 pairs of chromosomes total. 22 pairs are non-sex chromosomes. 1 pair are sex chromosomes. Chromosomes are mainly DNA (Coded digital information). The location and structure of chromosomes differentiate prokaryotic cells from eukaryotic cells. The 21st and 22nd amino acids are Selenocysteine and pyrrolysine. They are genetically encoded by stop codons.

My point is still valid on two levels of chromosomes and amino acids.
edit on 31-1-2012 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


"exactly. you have a choice to believe god created you, but left the universe up to physics or not.
however if he did create you, he sure the hell choose evolution as his vehicle.
perhaps he has infinite time, and takes delight in such things as evolution?
just saying."

thats how i see it. i never understand how some ppl think evolution and laws of physics disprove god. cause if he truly did create the universe (and i believe he did) he'd be the most intelligent force ever. so he obviously would have taken those things into consideration for the survival of his creations.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tzdub
reply to post by BBalazs
 


"exactly. you have a choice to believe god created you, but left the universe up to physics or not.
however if he did create you, he sure the hell choose evolution as his vehicle.
perhaps he has infinite time, and takes delight in such things as evolution?
just saying."

thats how i see it. i never understand how some ppl think evolution and laws of physics disprove god. cause if he truly did create the universe (and i believe he did) he'd be the most intelligent force ever. so he obviously would have taken those things into consideration for the survival of his creations.


He'd also be the most complex force ever. So, if he's that complex and can't have come from nothing (because we all know that life is so complex it had to be created)...who created God?

Whether he's intelligent or not is another story. As Douglas Adams put it, "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

Actually, studying evolution gives a lot hints about how life started, and what were some major transitions. For example, we have derived the knowledge, which were the first amino acids that life used and what codons coded for them. Likewise, we have derived the knowledge, that DNA to protein was the last major transition. E.g. before that we had RNA genomes coding proteins, riboproteins and ribozymes, and before that we had RNA genomes 'coding' riboproteins and ribozymes, and before that we had RNA genomes 'coding' ribozymes only.
edit on 24-2-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

Actually, studying evolution gives a lot hints about how life started, and what were some major transitions. For example, we have derived the knowledge, which were the first amino acids that life used and what codons coded for them. Likewise, we have derived the knowledge, that DNA to protein was the last major transition. E.g. before that we had RNA genomes coding proteins, riboproteins and ribozymes, and before that we had RNA genomes 'coding' riboproteins and ribozymes, and before that we had RNA genomes 'coding' ribozymes only.


That's all true, but biological evolution requires life to be present first, since its primary mechanism is genetic mutation sorted through natural selection. We can definitely use our knowledge of evolution to help understand how life could arise, but you're talking abiogenesis, which is only evolution in the layman's sense of the word. It's similar to saying that technology evolves, or that our understanding or knowledge evolves. It's not actual evolution, just a synonym for change over time. So abiogensis and the origin of life itself is not a product of evolution. Evolution is about the diversity of life. Without life, evolution cannot happen.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet! [138]

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. [139] No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 1040,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! [140]

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old [141], and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! [142]


www.christiananswers.net...


The above article gives some more interesting odds of why it is virtually impossible for any type of life to form by accident .

This being said with the OP's facts the creationalists will give the same boring argument " we Re here so it must of happened"





posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Azadok
 


Could you please post the complex Dna code.

Thanks.

One person's interpretation of the complexity of DNA doesn't prove creation or disprove evolution. It's one of the oldest arguments in the book.
edit on 25-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Azadok
 


Virtually impossible does not nor shall it ever equal impossible, it is simply improbable.

Incidentally the same old argument of "I'm here so it must have happened" is easy to dismiss but "virtually" impossible to ignore.
Though the fact that you are choosing to do so, is proof that even the improbable can, will (and does) occur.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join