So if we come from the sea, why didn't we stay there?

vethumanbeing

What is causing them; the environment? If so how would a cell decide for itself to mutate as its living in a microcosm not even knowing the body/brain thats in charge (its just doing its thing, not even dim awareness here of its actual function in the body host or what it describes, liver cell? heart cell? If they are not deliberate and become out of control cancer cells that will randomly kill its host body; what is that called, insanity or revolt of one cell in trillions?

Genetic mutations occur various ways....none of which are deliberate. The two most common reasons for genetic mutations are that the (1)DNA fails to copy accurately or (2)external influences such as radiation.

In just 3 million years we just happened to become intellectual giants; rulers of this land? Do you tell your body to behave itself on a regular basis "Hey Im here the brain trust as in charge, dont go off partying and mutate out of control to the detriment of the whole' as you cant be charged with murder or pay the burial costs.

Obviously we don't control how our genes may copy themselves or repair themselves after exposure to chemicals or radiation...As far as as rulers of the land, I disagree. I believe we have become destroyers of the land, but that's a matter of perspective and opinion.

I take it as a Darwinist you believe all of the life forms on this planet just appeared and managed to get along or create such sophisticated eco/biosystems that they just happened to survive in. More of these specie died out because they were essentially experiments by others that failed; this was and still is a laboratory. The human is next on this ecological chopping block.

Made me chuckle...I'm not a Darwinist friend, I'm a Christian that understands but doesn't necessarily support evolution. I have my own theories on the matter, but that is beside the point and irrelevant to the OP.

How does flora and fauna communicate its intentions to each other to enable conscious decision making (of creating a detriment or success I get this its call PROFITABILITY). This plant disapears so this animal dies because it was its food source. I dont see this happening at all, its too unreasonable to think an entire system will accidently spring into being by sheer accidents of mutation. Im not understanding why two idealogical thought forms, created by the human: Evolution and Creationism (dislike these terms) cannot have worked together. We were messed with, and we also evolved. If you are the mind that the universe is just information putting itself together, organizing itself 1s and 0s for the profit/success of the system this would make better sense.

edit on 16-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

"How does flora and fauna communicate intentions..."-They don't. The entire system did not ALL AT ONCE spring into being....It took millions of baby steps to get to where we are today.

By all means, "evolution and creationism" could have worked together...no one can dispute that as a possibility... but it remains only a possibility for the time being...

A2D

UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

The fish issue in evolution is a problem because all of the fish fossils look like.....well.....fish. There is no evidence of any sort of evolution within this specie. Also, like you said....if there was evolution....then it would be into another like/kind specie....not from a fish to an air breathing human. But I will get attacked for even pointing this small thing out.

On this note too....and sorry because it is a bit off topic but.....as far as carbon dating goes.....it is my understanding that we only have equipment that can read out to about 50,000 years. Science further tells us that diamonds are some of the oldest substance on earth but we can still read c-14 in them. This means they are 50,000 years or younger.

Back to the subject.....carbon dating fossils reveals c-14 levels as well.....which again....our instruments can only read back to 50,000 years and this is questionable because we have to us c-12 levels to calculate the c-14 levels as c-12 levels are constant but scientists have to essentially guess at how much c-12 was in the environment at that time to then get a good read on the c-14.

Having said all that.....if we can read any c-14.....it is 50,000 years or younger. If we can't read any c-14 then we have no idea how old it is......but we always find c-14.

Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals

Accuracy of fossils and dating methods

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

I'm not a Darwinist friend, I'm a Christian that understands but doesn't necessarily support evolution. I have my own theories on the matter, but that is beside the point and irrelevant to the OP.

I have total respect for your sentiments in your statement. I have personally never had a problem with those of faith who have another idea on how things came to be.

I can only speak for myself on the issue when it comes to creationists vs evolution debates I do get a bit worked up. The reason for my dismay is because so many have not taken the time to understand the theory. I could care less if they except it I just wish they understood it. I do understand there is a plethora of misinformation on the subject that has worked its way into mainstream understanding some is disinformation being repeated and that seems to be a major problem.

You have different thoughts on the matter which is cool, but I think it is way cooler that you understand other theories as well even if you do not agree with them.

It is like the hologram theory for me. I do not really agree with it, but I try my best to understand it. Which BTW I do struggle with at times.

Anyway

reply to post by Grimpachi


Well for me it's just a matter of common sense.

I could not logically dismiss or accept something if I did not first understand it. This is why my studies have lasted so long and cost so much

And yes, unfortunately there is a plethora of misinformation out there...Which is why it takes actual devotion to dig deep and really study. I dare say a very large portion of individuals discussing topics such as evolution know very little and have only done quick "overviews" on the topic. I think this is why terms like natural selection and adaptation often times get misused and misunderstood, and ultimately the theory itself is misunderstood....

But the very, very, VERY most basic key thing to remember when it comes to evolution is this....

(1)DNA literally MAKES the organism what it is...It is the written code describing each and every aspect of that organism....AND...
It is very well documented that (2)DNA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

These 2 things sum up why the theory of evolution is so prominent. You literally cannot debate against those 2 key points...

A2D

intrepid
The question should be, "Did intelligence leave the oceans?" Look at what WE deem intelligent. Us #1. Dolphins #2. We could go on but really, this is OUR scale. Who says WE are right? Do OUR tests confirm anything? Human egoism.

The oldest living things on this planet live underwater. I know age doesn't equate to intelligence but as all species evolve/adapt don't you think these "old" species have learned a thing or 2? Like avoiding humans? Hell maybe they kicked us out of the ocean. I don't recall who said this about aliens but it made sense. "The proof of alien intelligence is that they haven't tried to contact us." Maybe our oceanic brethren got that millions of years ago.

well we there wouldn't have been any humans during the time that life is supposed to have moved to land, so i doubt that's it. there was never a time when Humans live underwater and decided to leave.

Water + Sun > Simple Celled Organisms > Algae > Time > Micro mutations > New Beginning >Cannibalism > Complex Organisms > Growth > Adaptation > Branching > Evolving Species > Environmental Changes> Rocks on Shore> Water + Rocks > Algae On Rocks> Water species near rocks > eat algae of submerged rock > Eats algae slightly above submerged rock> Species discovers algae slightly above rock> First Contact With Air/Oxygen >Adaptation to moving slightly new environment > Food plentiful above water > Time> Develops tolerances for staying above water> Time + Evolution > Species eats outside of water > Takes air/oxygen into body while eating food source out of water > Tolerance to air/oxygen within the body > Adapts to bigger tolerances > Evolution + time > Species develops special adaptation for breathing outside of water > primitive lungs > Time > Stronger tolerances for air/oxygen > Bigger, stronger lungs > Body evolves to new environment> Calluses> New tolerances > Moves further into the mainland> Omnivores> Cannibalism > Species develop defense mechanisms> Environment > Adaptations > Plentiful food source > Strongest of the fittest> Stronger gene pools > Brain evolution > Some species make it out of the water > Others don't!

@ everyone that is pushing creationism,wouldnt youre takes on how it all began mean the entirety of the earth is insestuios and therefore hellbound...

OpenEars123
Our world is 2/3's covered in water. Life as we know it adapts to the environment surrounding it. So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world?

Probably to exploit the resources for which little competition existed at the time.

Survival is a great motivator. When resources are on the decline less competitive creatures would starve or find themselves on the menu.

Leaving the water is not only a great way to escape predators/establish an abundant new food source, it would also be a great way to protect eggs from a hostile environment. Creatures developed a taste for eggs, some cannibalize their own.

Survival of eggs is as vital to a species as securing a food source. Eggs are so vulnerable even those spawned from large, fierce creatures get picked off.

One stressed species hopped out unknowingly carrying a mutation that allowed for hardening of the egg case. This mutation would probably have meant certain death for the eggs had they remained under water but on land it was a different story. No longer needing a wet environment to incubate eggs gave that species a huge advantage. Not only could they establish an abundant food source for themselves/offspring but it also provided greater protection for eggs.

The shear volume of eggs that could survive on land would give less competitive, lowly species a foothold even if they had to return to the water.

Many aquatic creatures still lay their eggs on land. Even though their eggs developed a hard case they're very much attached to the aquatic environment because it works well for them, no other changes needed. That doesn't mean other mutations didn't arise but if it didn't benefit survival it couldn't become a dominate trait. The few mutated varieties either died or their numbers were kept down due to successful breeding practices of those without it.

For some aquatic species preserving eggs was the only obstacle once they worked that out it was back to the water/life as usual. It was simply more beneficial for a few, thanks to mutation, to become full time egg laying land inhabitants.

Motivation for food/survival or even the ability to adapt only takes a species so far. Without real physical/biological change/mutation, it doesn't matter how motivated a species is. Motivation alone isn't always enough.

Abstractadam
@ everyone that is pushing creationism,wouldnt youre takes on how it all began mean the entirety of the earth is insestuios and therefore hellbound...

Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on the actual stance of the creationist....

But I will say this, what makes incest so taboo? If you trace it back, it comes all the way back to the time of Moses in Leviticus chapter 18. Religion says incest is wrong...buuuut

Genetic mutations occur naturally....it's the driving force behind evolution...I figure all the evolutionists in the building would support incest which seems to be great at creating mutations...even Darwin married his first cousin
(/sarcasm)

A2D

reply to post by OpenEars123


Haven't read the thread yet, but I would answer with another question.

Why do some types of catfish walk on land?
To survive.

At some point some organism started making its way on land and over generations grew tolerant to the conditions on land. Then generations later an organism was born that could just survive on land. Simple as that really.

UxoriousMagnus
Roger that.....I understand that you think scientists that also happen to be Christians have no credibility. I know you trust ALL scientists and ALL "science" because they are infallible .... unless of course they also happen to believe in God. I am just saying that I don't agree with you.....which is what we do here at ATS. Thanks for chatting and have a good day man.

Can't speak for anyone else, but you may want to read up on Dr. Kenneth Miller Professor of Biology
Miller was the lead witness in the Pennsylvania "intelligent design" case.
"On the stand, Miller noted that virtually every prominent scientific organization in the United States has upheld Darwin's theory of evolution as an unshakeable pillar of science and that "intelligent design" is "a form of creationism.... Miller is a firm believer in evolution, he is one of America's foremost experts on the subject, but he also believes in God."

reply to post by Pauligirl


Here is a good documentary about it.



I made a thread about it but the ID's and the creationists didn't even try to debate the issues in it.
It shows that the ID's lied and that their science is hogwash and evolution is true and right.

However, the fact that some species moved on to land, and others certainly did not, is proof that there is no supreme design. Also, who is to say that a whale or porpoises, or cuttlefish .... does not have a more satisfactory and fulfilling life, than we do? We cannot ask them, and they cannot ask us as well... but smart? we all certainly are in some very unique ways.

Agree2Disagree
vethumanbeing

VHBWhat is causing them; the environment? If so how would a cell decide for itself to mutate as its living in a microcosm not even knowing the body/brain thats in charge (its just doing its thing, not even dim awareness here of its actual function in the body host or what it describes, liver cell? heart cell? If they are not deliberate and become out of control cancer cells that will randomly kill its host body; what is that called, insanity or revolt of one cell in trillions?

Agree2DisagreeGenetic mutations occur various ways....none of which are deliberate. The two most common reasons for genetic mutations are that the (1)DNA fails to copy accurately or (2)external influences such as radiation.

Is not radiation the active force here; the manna? Why would the 'lifeforce' that drives the heart overreact to cause body termination? I understand genetic mutations becoming cancerous or the inability of cellular copy being inconsistant; causeing a breakdown, say the liver..Do you have another idea what actually ANIMATES the human body (spirit/soul) other than radiation? We are not plugged into a 110 socket with an extension cord. Thanking you in advance of an answer A2D.

When i talk about animal life/vegetable life, i mean different sorts of bacterium that display the properties of modern animal/vegetable life like bacteria that live off plant matter or radiant energy vs carnivorous bacteria that live off of other bacteria. The very first forms of animal life that took to land was exploiting a resource that no other was taking advantage of. As soon as that first animal began to feel at home on land it's predator/s would have gone looking for it, at least one of it's enemies must have had some sort of mutation that enabled it to live on land better than the others of it's species & over time it/they underwent natural selection. This probably happened for several types of animal species almost simultaneously.