Now, I am a firm believer in evolution, and in science.

But I have been thinking, and I have come across a question that I honestly would like someone to answer. If life origininated with unicellular organisms, how did evolution occur?

Don't unicellular organisms divide by splitting down the middle, so that both daughter cells get the same DNA?

Splitting in the middle is a bit to simplistic to put it. What happens is that the DNA of the cel gets copied, this happens most of the time without mistakes. However not all the time. These mistakes can lead to a new organism if the changes are not fatal.

However this is probably not the only mechanism that drives evolution, it is probably a highly complex interaction between the organism, its surroundings, the rate of copy-mistakes and the period between two generations. This is probably why there is still so much controversy regarding the very mechanisms of evolution.

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

In high school, I saw a chemical formula for human blood; I cannot remember the specifics, except that it was fairly large, and there is an immense amount of iron. The point I'm after here is that everything can be described by its basic components.

Now--what, specifically, is Life? Humans do well defining life as it relates to human perception, but what is Life as related to the Universe? Are we a thoroughly unique event on this planet, or are we merely a fascinating variation on the balance of matter and energy, so that Life is merely an entertaining form of energy exchange that could be described as having the same Universal purpose as a star consuming fuel?

I personally hold that, despite our wonderful human experiences, we really are no different than stars; certes we rightly place importance upon our own interests, but in the end, if you're the planet, or the Universe ... it's just another form of the equation playing out.

Thus, instead of seeing purely the divine spark of life, I see it as a building process as well. I submit that life occurred in several places at once (relatively at once ... not poof! Let there be diversity). But the conditions with each rising lifeform varied from place to place, so the Life Constructions, while sharing certain fundamental aspects (those that define life) also responded microevolutionarily to the conditions, requiring biological diversity.

Even simpler: If life occurs in one place on the planet only ... Imagine a quantity of single-celled organisms, say, confined in a small body of water. Microvariations in water pressure (at the top of a lake compared to the bottom), or perhaps the amount of light energy at a specific depth, can have a dramatic effect on how life forms. (We're talking extremely simple microorganisms.) Imagine a single blob of these organisms, nice and round if you like. Just like anything exposed to radiating heat, the effect on the observed whole will vary from station to station within the whole. Seriously, this is as easy as microwaving a muffin-pizza--tell me how the cheese melts and where it scorches first. Likewise with the sun's radiative energy on that blob. Not only will the sunlight affect the most exposed organisms first, but also differently from other organisms in the observed area. Simple natural conditions could create diversity within a formerly homogenous biosystem.

It almost looks like the PC-compatibility BIOS work ... similar product, similar appearance, different construction to achieve similar effect.

On a Universal level, the conditions allowing for life seem extremely narrow; but if you're that single-celled organism coming up in the primordial soup, it would seem that the conditions fostering life would be relatively broad, so that the organisms could experience a variety of conditions affecting their existence and propagation.

But, in case you couldn't tell, I'm just rambling off ideas ... the writing on the wall tells me in large, chartreuse letters to get my ass back to work.

thanx for putting up w/it,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Go to www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org) for an alternative view with some very interesting research behind it. Click on "Research". ICR changed my perspective of the universe. Plato, many things they talk about make sense to me. I got the "Suns don't fire up by themselves" idea there. I know you think that is crazy but... They haven't put out a research paper on it yet but the idea is interesting. May your search prove benificial Corp.Hudson.
Cable Man

[This message has been edited by Cable Man (edited June 23, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Cable Man (edited June 23, 2000).]

Tiassa,
I invite you to read a bit of my ideas about this that I posted under the Fatima - Miracle or Close Encounter? (if you haven't already done so that is)
I would even take it a bit further, when we look at life we think of chemistry but who is to say life hasn't found other means ? If we broaden our definition enough we can say we created 'silicon life' in our computers. These are little pieces of code that can breed.
Perhaps we should look at life from an information standpoint to capture it in its most general form.

Cable,

the last thing I want here is start a new discussion about creation vs evolution, there is a thread out there be my guest and post it what ever you would like to say.
May be one note on the icr site, creation 'science' as they call themselves is more of an anti-science that parasites on the soft underbelly of conventional science. Like everything that humans undertake, science is far from being complete and error free. If a group of persons decides to focus only on the mistakes and unfinished threads of science then it is clear they only want to destroy it. This is why I call it anti-science.
The main difference between 'real' science and fake science is that real science doesn't make any presuppositions about what it will find. Of course there are theories who make predictions about things but theories aren't considered to be fundamental facts. They are more like a hypothesis that if such and such assumptions are true then this and that will follow.

------------------
I err, therefore I exist !

[This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 26, 2000).]

Plato--

I'm chewing on the Fatima post right now. More later if I get it figured out. ;)

thanx kindly,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Plato--

If I fail to comment on your Fatima posts for a while, it is because I'm still not ready to wade into that fray.

But as they relate here ... I'm not without the connections, but I am without anything of substance to illustrate them. I beg your forgiveness at this time, but several days have been wasted in drunken revelry at our shiny new museum.

I did want to ask your opinion of Douglas Adams, if you've read him. Specifically, the organic signature that The Mice are after in Hitchhiker's Guide. I promise to make that relevant if I can.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I am a very dedicated believer in evolution, but I also believe there's more to it than that. What the human race has become, is far more than a series of random accidents over millions of years.
When a race evolves, it does so to adapt to its surroundings, but I've always wondered how and why.
There must be some sort of energy out there, more than likely beyond our three dimensional perception. Conscious or not, I believe that this energy is what guides these minute, specific changes.
It just seems ludicrous to believe that we were accidents.

Gabriel--

I'm curious, then, if that apparent intent creates a problem of determinism best (and worst) expressed in religion by a host of predestining dogmas. Not as applies salvation; that's neither here nor there for me. But portions of my own concept of the Universe has been accused (and, perhaps, fairly) of determinism.

To spare unnecessarily long-winded details, I might note the relevant crux of that conceptual Universe is that we aren't so much accidents as we are an eventual result of the Universe; Creation by Will, as it were, though not necessarily requiring a god or intelligent force (by any means we recognize as intelligence) guiding the process.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Plato,
I AM BIASED. YOU ARE BIASED. Give it a rest. I have found you state yourself to be an athiest. I claim to be a Christian type. You are heart bent on finding out how the universe operates without God. I am heart bent on discovering how God created the universe AND WHY! I made a commitment about 5 years ago to take the Bible at its word. Many times that means going against the grain...politically incorrect. It's happening. I'm having fun, and learning to. I start with a foundation, just like you do. Then I start testing it, just like you do. Then I come to conclusions and more questions, just like you do. Give us Christian types a break Plato. I may not be always right however at 43 I,m having more fun than I have a right to have.

See ya around!
Cable Guy
.