Abiogenesis was not random, there were preconditions that favored it, making it almost certain. Scientists do not say the Big Bang originated from nothing. They say the universe emerged from a very hot dense state many billions of years ago. They cannot as yet say for certain what was the cause of this hot, dense, state.
Yeah, god looked down and thought, "Gee, I think I'll make a damned universe or something! Just for fun, you understand!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yep, while drinking his mint Juleps, god looked down and thought, "Hmm, I need something down there to entertain me while I get drunk." POOF! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
So where did God come from? It is more likely that complex things evolved from simpler things than that complex things were created by other complex things.
I'm not sure what body of knowledge you refer since your assertions (not theory) have no consistency with the current body of knowledge. In fact, most of it is gibberish and has been refuted as such.
Only god knows that answer. You believe what you want, but please let others believe what they want. Ain't that a neat, peaceful approach to it all? Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Baron Max
If anyone wants to learn more about evolution (human evolution in particular) I would recommend reading "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. I am currently reading it and it is fascinating. He discusses many mechanisms for driving evolution as well as reasons we know what we know about human evolution. I like one thing he said in there, basically if every fossil were to just dissapear, we'd still have mountains of evidence to support the theory of evolution and the current concensus on human evolution. I know my appeal for certain members of this forum to actually go out and learn more about the things they are staunchly arguing against is in vain, but hell -- I'll throw it out there anyways.
ddovala I think this is correct. The argument for evolution by natural selection would be greatly enhanced if all the fossil record would disappear. For the fossil record does not support evolution by natural selection and is a great embarrassment to Darwinists. One whole section of my book is dedicated to Richard Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker”. I really can not understand why people have been reading his crap for 20 years. For example his attempt to show that his computer could select for complexity (page 48 The Blind Watchmaker) is laughable. Below I will post again 37 flaws I have listed in the evolution by natural selection theory. If you like we can discuss them one by one. Ophiolite had a go but he fell over on number 2.
There are a lot of very interesting theories for this. The big bang theory, for instance, has a lot of credibility and is supported by evidense. Grantid, there is a lot we don't know -- but thats one thing science isnt afraid to do -- admit it doesnt know something. One theory is that there are multiple universes, but we are here observing this one because it is by nature capable of supporting life. There may be 10,000,000 others that arent, but we'd never be there to observe them. Darwin isnt the only one who has advanced the theory of evolution. If you wish to learn more about possible beginnings for life from nonlife, consult my post a few posts back. I'm tired of explaining this to everyone. Yes -- science does have an explanation. Yes it can. Nucleic acids can form spontaneously under the right conditions. It is likely that RNA was the first genetic material, not DNA. This is not impossible, lots of things have RNA as the genetic material even today (many forms of viruses). 99.9% of the species that were single celled are likely extinct too. Things go extinct, no big deal. Guess what, humans will be extinct one day too! Greater complexity is a great survival strategy. Take a biology class to learn about the advantages of cell specialization in multicellular organisms. If I'm a hungry bacterium, am I more likely to eat another, single, lonely bacterium floating around? Or a giant clump of hundreds of bacteria stuck together? The answer is obvious. Also, some single celled organisms (like ciliates) are much more complex than other single celled organisms. The argument that things can survive in 1500 C heat is rediculous. That temperature will denature any protein, killing the organism. Freezing usually also kills organisms, as ice crystals forming in the cells will rupture them. This is completely untrue, and goes to reveal your ignorance on the theories of evolution. Nobody thinks that evolution was punctuated. The reason the fossil record does not show a nice continuous spectrum is because the conditions for actually producing a fossil occur very very rarely. The chance of an invidual producing a fossil (let alone being found) is astronomically low. Even worse in places like forests, where the leaf covered ground spawns plenty of decomposers that just destroy the entire corpse. However, like I said (and you misunderstood), fossil evidense is not required to proove the theory of evolution, it is just "an added bonus". Please learn more about the fossil process before posting more stuff about the fossil record. Thanks. Darwin's theories directly contradicted Lamark's theories. Lamark would say that a girraffe has a long neck because it kept stretching it up and up. Darwin would say that girraffes with longer necks naturally survived, and over generations nature selected for longer and longer necks until their necks were longer. Their theories are mutually exclusive. I highly doubt Darwin was a Lamarckian. Also, Darwin could have believed in a flying hotdog bun that spread ketchup over all the land for all I care. It doesnt make his theories any less correct. By the way, attacking the characters of the person, and not the argument, has long been considered a logical falacy. Darwinists have NOT had to argue that there has been no increase in complexity since first life. We argue the opposite! You have no grasp of the second law of thermodynamics -- that is made abundently clear by this ludicrous post. Based on your understanding, you would say it is impossible for me to bake a cake from all the ingredients, as that is increasing complexity. Hell, your understanding would not allow for the existance of a refridgerator! If you dont see why, you dont understand the second law. Pure and simple. Why cant they be explained by environmental pressures? If the same pressures are selecting two different, isolated, populations -- the same traits will be selected for. Darwinism actually explains this very well Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I've heard "the eye argument" a million times. If you'd like to see how easy it is for the eye to have evolved, look at a planarian. They have eyes, but they are nothing more than a few photosensative cells. That is how eyes started! They then gradually gained complexity as that complexity gave the organism a greater advantage. Complex systems do not evolve all at once, but rather in a series of gradual steps. Also, if you think about probabilities -- it is probably very small that something like photosynsativity could evolve say, any givin year in a population. But when you consider the BILLIONS of years that life has evolved on this planet, it becomes almost inevitable. This doesn't disprove evolution. So what if single celled organisms were on an asteroid or something and crashed into earth. They could still have evolved into us no problem. I dont see your argument here. As someone who has just takin a very advanced course in genetics, I can tell you this argument is full of crap. 98% of our genome is NOT silent. I have no idea where you got that number. Grantid, the number isnt trivial -- it is a fairly large percentage but it is not the majority. Also, darwinism can explain why. In fact, it explains it much better than an intelligent designer. Why would an inteligent designer put crap DNA in the genome? Hmm? A big theory on junk DNA and highly repetitive sequences is that it is the remnants of old retroviruses. If you have taken genetics (I doubt it) then you would have learned about prophages that can integrate themselve into the host's genome. This is the likely source of the Alu gene, which copies itself as a transposable element throughout the human genome. We have over a million copies of it. It has been carried forward through the generations because of the properties of DNA replication. DNA replication does not pick and choose what DNA to replicate, it replicates it all. Natural selection acts on phenotypes, not genotypes. If the junk DNA isnt doing anything bad for the organism, then the organism will survive just fine. Its a probability game. If you make 10,000,000,000,000 different antibodies, chances are there's one to fit anything. As for the exact mechanism of DNA rearrangement, I am unsure. I do know there are enzymes that can accomplish this task. The gene can come about randomly -- probably through gene duplication. If it doesnt hurt the organism, it can propogate and mutate a little bit. Eventually it might help the organism by providing sight. Also, I would like very much to see the source of this research, if you have it. Yes it can Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Take a genetics course. Or look up "transposable elements". If you actually do, by the way, you'll get the explanation for #12. Yes it can. Introns allow alternative splicing. This gives eukaryotes a huge advantage. Our 35,000 genes do not just code for 35,000 proteins, but rather hundreds of thousands, because of alternative splicing. Alternative splicing requires introns and exons, by the way. There are SEVERAL mechanisms for this. Some things are likely to happen randomly (ie: gene duplication of chromosome 21 to cause Down's). But most other genetic diseases confer some advantage to the heterozygote. For example, carriers of Cystic fibrosis are resistant to cholera. Carriers of sickle cell anemia are resistant to malaria. There is a huge list of things like this. A third mechanism is that human beings keep genetically diseased individuals alive for ethical and moral reasons. Thus, natural selection cannot act on them. Darwinism works with "natural selection". This is artificial selection, a human controlled process, and well understood. Consciousness is an emergent property stemming from the interconnected neurons in the brain. If we screw up the brain, we can screw up your consciousness. The brain and consciousness are 100% connected. It is easy to see how the brain could have evolved, as there are organisms on the planet, even today, with a wide range of neuronal capacity. From organisms with a couple neurons to organisms with hundreds of billions. I fail to see what quantum particals have to do with human evolution. Things react to observation because you have to whack them with electrons or photons to observe them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course traits do not blend. Mendel proved that in his particulate theory of inheritance. The reason a black and white couple will have an intermediate child is because of polygenic inheritance -- a well understood concept that follows Darwinian evolution perfectly. The reason organisms change is because the evironment changes the selective pressures all the time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you go where there is a lot of snow, a huge amount of solar radiation is reflected off of the white surface. This is very very bad for white skinned individuals, who would get severe sunburn every day they were out. That is why, in these snow covered regions, darker skinned individuals were selected for. Speciation takes a very very long time. If givin enough time, populations of humans seperated by geographic barriers (eg: africans and chinese) would have speciated. However, we have transcended geographic barriers with technology, and interbreeding prevents speciation. Thus, only one human race. Scientists think we killed the neanderthals off through competition :-D Throughout time there have been land bridges and islands that do not exist today. Island hopping is not difficult and can explain just about any migration (including to Australia). If you wish to learn more about possible mechanisms, do some research. I found something after 10 seconds of looking. To the contrary. The evolution of the brain makes perfect sense. In fact, there is a whole chapter in "The Ancestor's Tale" that explains it. As humans became bipedal, we freed our hands. Those that could do more with them (make tools, etc) were more successful. Later, art arose and led to more selection via sexual selection. All of these selective pressures lead to larger brain size. In fact, if you look at the brain size of our evolutionary ancestors, there is a clear and undeniable trend upward. Refer to 23. It feels good? Evolution did not anticipate (it cannot anticipate) the arrival of condoms Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Who says its genetic? Homosexuality has been observed in nature. If it is genetic, it could be a likely spontaneous mutation. I dont think they've ever found a genetic basis for it. I like this argument though, because if you're using it to support inteligent design of some kind, then you're suggesting god invented the gays. Hillarious in light of the Church's view on them :-D Alas but it can. Populations that are altruistic have a greater chance of survival. Teamwork baby! If you're wondering where it came from, many speculate it started as a means of sexual selection. That female might be more receptive to you if you bring her chocolates :-D Wow, look, it still works like that today! Fancy that. Helper bees are, believe it or not, clones of the queen. She can reproduce in other means. Think of them more as an extension of the queen bee herself. And remember, evolution acts on populations, not individuals :-D The populatin of bees with lots of workers is going to survive longer. That queen (who produced the workers with unfertalized eggs) will survive longer to produce more fertile offspring in the future (other queens). Sexual selection. The barbary macaque is a matriarchal species. The female mates more with those males who are good caregivers for her other children. Sexual selection is a big part of Darwinian evolution. It also explains why some birds have bright plumage, dispite that plumage also attracting predators. While I know nothing about the Sumerian culture, I fail to see your argument. Perhaps they learned from another culture? What does this have to do with evolution? Sexual reproduction has its pros and cons. Bacteria produce asexually and get by because they can mutate easily. I would assume the same is true for the whip tail lizards. I did a little research in whiptail lizards. They also have non-parthenogenic genera and it is believed that the parthenogenic species arrose through interspecific breeding. Gender based reproductive systems have disadvantages, but the advantage of genetic recombination trumps them. We can provide more variability that allows us to survive a faster changing environment. You're only looking at one variable. Alligators can catch prey thats much faster than them by stalking. Cheetahs can do the same. Also, cheetahs are not like humans -- they only eat when they are hungry. There are also lots of animals that cheetahs can eat, not just gazelles. Further, there are less cheetahs around than gazelles, by a longshot, so there is no danger of running out of food. Human poaching, however, is a different problem. Trees can evolve to not be eatin too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The glory of natural selection is that it applies to allllll life, including plants. Its hard to imagine a forest where all species are over populating. Predator - prey relationships generally take care of that. However, in this scenario, just for the sake of agument, say this happens. Then what, no more leaves, lots of animals die, the leaves regrow, the animals population sizes increase again. so? Such dire situations where competition is THAT fierce generally do not occur. However, evolution has taken care of the problem yet again. Most mothers will take care of their children, even fighting off other adults to protect them. A tigress will die protecting her young. This is evolutionarily advantageous. They were bored? What does this have to do with evolution? Dogs interbreed, preventing speciation. If I made a new breed of dog, and threw it on an island where it survived for millions of years, it would be a different species Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Artificially selected breeds have not been around long enough. Almost every human being knows how to ride a bike. We didnt have to be born with the genetic knowledge of how to do it. We learned. Ability to learn is something that is tied to brain chemistry, which IS genetic. Populations that figure things out can pass the knowledge down in the same way we do, by teaching. This is called local custom. It has been observed in nature. Different populations of chimpanzee have different local customs that can be taught to other population. Language is not necessary, hence the saying "Monkey see, monkey do".
Irrelevant to the subject. Irrelevant to the subject. Evolution is not random, and neither does it depend totally on mutation. It also works on natural variations. 4 billion years is enough time to design flight independently in birds, bats, insects, flying fish, flying squirrels, Etc. Obviously, there were environments that provided avenues for complexity. If the variation did not result in an improvement in survival rates, it would not be preserved. Scientists often do not agree on things. Doubt and uncertainty are avenues for scientific advancement, not necessarily flaws in the entire endeavor. So what? Darwin was unaware of DNA and modern gene studies. Nonsense. Not only is the Earth not a closed system, but life is a tiny, tiny percentage of matter everywhere. Strawman. Evolutionary biologists do not have a problem with convergent evolution. Kangaroos took up the niche of plains grazers because of the nature of Australia as an island continent. There were no antelopes. In fact, Kangaroos bounce around not unlike a gazelle. Convergent evolution DOES NOT mean that the animals will look identical. Evolution is no accident. It is in fact the opposite of random forces. It makes no sense to say that if eyes provide a survival benefit, they would only evolve once. If they confer a benefit, it makes more sense that it would evolve alot. The oceans are more hospitable than space, since they shield organisms from radiation. There is no evidence that life did not evolve here, although perhaps some of the building blocks were formed in space, as was the Earth itself. Good question. I should point out that even if we don't know what all this information is for, it does not disprove evolution. Some say it is to protect certain parts of the genome from mutation, by the mechanism of redundancy. Also, repetition is as much of a coding as a single series of code. Our traits could be driven by the number of repetitions as much as the quality of each series. Perhaps that has to do with the evolution of evolvability. I bet blind cavefish still have the genetic code for eyes. Genes are often used for more than one purpose. Sounds like a kind of mutation. The sun is bright when reflected from snow. Besides white people aren't white either. Culture evolves faster than the body. Even so-called primitive humans have all the capacity for advanced civilization that any member of a modern society has. We interbred. Some species of homo died out, some combined with us. It's very complex, and still being figured out. We probably killed many of them due to racism. That is not precisely true. We just observe a different thing depending on what we are looking for. Boats, rafts. Ancient humans were clever. Also, there were changes in sea level. You are incredibly mistaken. While it is costly, it also gives a species incredible benefits in terms of predicting where food can be found, how to hunt, predicting weather, curing disease, etc. Same as with apes. But they lack stamina. Yes it can. Reputation. If you have a reputation for generosity, when you need help, it will be returned. It is to the mutual benefit of everyone in the long term. Any species that competed too vigorously with it's own offspring would not survive, and so that trait is not selected for. Rather, caring for one's young is selected for. To show off. There are genes for behavior, they are called instinct. There are also genes for senses like a magnetic sense. Also, some of this behavior is learned. I didn't answer all of these questions, because some of them are boring, or require a thread of their own. Alot of them reveal a lack of understanding about evolutionary biology.
Spidergoat: I have two major corrections to make. Et Cetera is the Latin phrase that means And Other-Things. Et Alia means And Other-People. The former is abbreviated Etc. The latter is abbreviated Et al. Also; relevant, not relevent. Watch it next time.
You might remember that "et" means "and" from Julius Caesar's famous last words, "Et tu, Brute?" (And you, Brutus?) that he uttered as his good friend Brutus joined in stabbing him to death in the Roman senate building.
Be good enough to retract that unwarranted, unfounded, libelous falsehood. Rober_js's Point 2: Abiogenesis - spontaneous generation. Darwin called his book “Origin of Species” but it is not about the origin of anything. It only put forward a theory about how life forms change from one species into another. Darwin’s theory of evolution does not explain how that first life got started. I mean you claim to be well educated and intelligent, yet you display the lack of logic more commonly associated with undernourished, senile echinoderms. Let's just dissect this for you one more time. a) Darwin did not call his book "Origin of Species". Do you understand that. He called it "On the Origin of Species". Do you think it might make some sense to try to be accurate? b) His book, contrary to your foolish statement, is about the origin of something: specifically (deliberate pun) it is about the origin of species. It does not matter whether the theory is correct or not, the fact that it considers the origin of species, means that your statement is simply wrong. Can you at least concede that, or will your grandiose arrogance prohibit even such a simple act? c) As has been pointed out to you by myself and others on repeated occassions, of course it does not deal with the origin of life. That was not its subject area. Nor does it deal with the origin of chocolate desserts, or the origin of planetary systems, or the origin of political parties, or the origin of dumbasses such as yourself. Why the **** would you expect it to deal with a topic that is not the topic of the book? Your intransigent stupidity on this point enrages me to the extent I am almost glad you have had a difficult life. Please wise up before it is too late.
Based on your logic if you find a spelling error in your bible you should give up your faith -- the entire thing must be a croc! I have to say though, I laughed when I read your post Ice -- I just imagined you taking a sheep home to your parents saying "We're in love! Don't say anything bad because, as we all know, species is a meaningless term!"
I suppose you could also call Darwin's book; on the origin of the variety of animals, plants, and fungus that we observe on the planet, including the divergence of classes of animals that do not reproduce with each other.
Strictly speaking, the ancestor of all mammals was not a tree shrew, as they did not yet exist. There is plenty of evidence that all mammals are related, since they all share unique patterns of DNA. I know you are religiously biased against that notion, but scientific evidence abounds.
Yeh, the Darwinists are embarrassed to flat out say tree shrews as the supposed common ancestor of monkeys and men, so they say a tree shrew ancestor, they should be lawyers.
