Design:All faith aside.

Well, they did. Some of them evolved the ability to swim. All life on Earth came from these first kinds of cells. That's the basic premise of evolution, that more complex beings came from simpler ones.

Are you are saying that bacteria changed into every single life form on the planet?
 
Spidergoat,

In your estimation how long would it take for bacteria to evolve into an elephant?

Can you explain the process?
 
The point is a dog is a dog and nothing points to it once being a cat or microbe.

Your ignorance of biology is astounding.
There is an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence of cats and dogs, and yes, even microbes, sharing common ancestors. In the case of cats and dogs, they share so many similarities that the only way to explain why a dog isn't more doglike and a cat more catlike, is evolution.

But because you haven't taken any biology courses since highschool, it's understandable that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
 
Yes, I agree.

It would seem that I would be easily persuaded but when you only point to tiny adaptations of the same creature, common joe can't be expected to believe everything on earth came from bacteria..please help me!
 
Spidergoat,

In your estimation how long would it take for bacteria to evolve into an elephant?

Can you explain the process?

I would estimate about 2-3 billion years. It was like an arms race. First the bacteria evolved movement, then they ate each other and defense against eating provided some advantage. Eventually, they discovered how to go on land to escape predators...
 
Yes, I agree.

It would seem that I would be easily persuaded but when you only point to tiny adaptations of the same creature, common joe can't be expected to believe everything on earth came from bacteria..please help me!

Not from bacteria exactly, but from single celled organisms that resembled bacteria. Bacteria are actually quite advanced, they are like little chemistry factories. They first discovered how to turn sunlight into food. They evolved to live in extreme environments...
 
Roman, insults will not help you. Your just not presenting anything new or even a good argument.

Is it an insult if it's true?

Here are some questions you are unable to answer:
Why do seemingly dissimilar organisms share so many similarities? Why has one structure, the vertebrate limb, been adapted to fly, swim, walk, burrow, and run, rather than having unrelated, more efficient designs for say, a, ostrich vs.a mole?

Explain a whale's vestigial hip.
Explain the double membrane of mitochondria, and triple membranes of some chloroplasts. Why do organisms with as diverse metabolisms as archaea (of which some reduce with iron and produce magnetite), protists (some that photosynthesize), and humans share so much rRNA? Why conservation of core molecular machinery across such vast phyla? Why do we repeatedly see maladapted structures based on old, ancestral traits, rather than completely different and better functioning ones?

Why does each Hawaiian island have different types of flies on them, found only on those islands, and nowhere else in the world?
 
I could be wrong, but I believe we are seeing evolution in action with bacteria. In a biology class I took we grew cultures of bacteria and placed antibiotics in the culture. The more deadly the antibiotic was to the bacteria the farther away they would move from it and leave a clear circle around the drug, but when we placed penicillin in the culture by the next day the bacteria hadn't avoided it they just crawled all over it, had absolutely no effect. We might have overused penicillin and now the bacteria have developed an immunity to it. They reproduce faster than other animals so you can more readily see changes in their characteristics from generation to generation. Although I am studying to become a neurobiologist I entirely accept the concept of evolution. You have to take all scientific theory with several grains of salt because when it comes to biology the rules are in a constant state of change.

Yes! That's why we need a new flu vaccine every year.

Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals?

No.... Because it never happened?

You will never see a whale turn into a tiger. Evolution happens very, very gradually. With one mutation, it's not quite a different species; a number of mutations need to occur. As with humans: we mutated to have blue eyes, but the blue-eyed population is not a different species, because if a blue-eyed person mates with a brown-eyed person they can still produce fertile offspring. How many mutations? Well, how similar is a donkey to a horse? They both evolved from the same ancestor (which was neither a donkey nor a horse).

(someone correct me if my memory of bio classes betrayed me.)
 
No.... Because it never happened?

You will never see a whale turn into a tiger. Evolution happens very, very gradually. With one mutation, it's not quite a different species; a number of mutations need to occur. As with humans: we mutated to have blue eyes, but the blue-eyed population is not a different species, because if a blue-eyed person mates with a brown-eyed person they can still produce fertile offspring. How many mutations? Well, how similar is a donkey to a horse? They both evolved from the same ancestor (which was neither a donkey nor a horse).

(someone correct me if my memory of bio classes betrayed me.)

You've got it right.
Johnny and iceage don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, so it leads to a little confusion.
 
Again, nothing in your post proves evolution of species. If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process.

wooden wheel
rubber wheels
no wheels.

DESIGN. The whole process does not just say design it screams DESIGN.
 
Again, nothing in your post proves evolution of species. If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process.

wooden wheel
rubber wheels
no wheels.

DESIGN. The whole process does not just say design it screams DESIGN.

Can you answer a single one of those questions, using your design paradigm?
 
Again, nothing in your post proves evolution of species. If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process.

wooden wheel
rubber wheels
no wheels.

DESIGN. The whole process does not just say design it screams DESIGN.

Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.
 
Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. 'Course, no one outside of science cares about them because Dawkins is such a loudmouth, and no one likes math.
 
john said:
Are you are saying that bacteria changed into every single life form on the planet?
Probably not Archaea. Otherwise, the evidence is that yes, most of the living things around here have "bacteria" in their evolutionary history.

Keep in mind that "bacteria" covers a hell of a range of organisms, from some kinds of multicellular pond scum to flagellate dwellers in midocean trenches.

john said:
If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process
I believe 3 and 6 wheeled cars are not that rare - from the very beginning of the "design" process. The ubiquity of the four wheeled variety is not a designed feature of the car system - it's what survived, as being fit.
roman said:
You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories.
Their own stories haven't been that much better, on average.

It's an important point of view, but it fails to explain a great deal, and its claim to be the default assumption at all times is not reasonable.
 
Back
Top