Friarspam
Posts:
12,363
Registered:
Jan 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,619
User ID: 1,200,702
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Bear with me on this.
Ok, so it seems the common consensus among the evolution theorists that somehow a bacteria or some other thing managed to come to life on the ball of lava. They cite the critters that can live and reproduce near underwater volcanoes.
Ok, let's say that there IS a bug that started it all, living in the hot conditions or maybe it came along afterwords when water formed.
It was a tiny bug...just a single celled organism. Uh, WHAT did it eat? I mean, there were no OTHER things for it to munch on. Maybe it ate water or dirt or chemicals. HOW did it get a digestive system? I mean, it was first, right? It's not like it "adapted" to the environment.
Now, let's zoom forward 8 gajillion years to when this thing suddenly turned into something else. WHAT did it eat? I mean, eventually this thing is going to be a fish, right? There had to be a first fish. WHAT did that thing eat? How did it reproduce? I mean, being the first fish and all is probably a cool thing, but it's not like there's a lot of action in the romance area when you're the ONLY one.
Hey, how did this fish (which had nothing to mate with or eat...although the first fish probably had a digestive system which it didn't need before...you get the idea) turn into OTHER kinds of fish? I'd also like to know, how did the first carp, shark, bluegill, tuna and etc EAT? I mean, they must have been pretty hungry and all. Since they "evolved", there had to be a "first one" of them, too. HOW did they fertilize their eggs?
Now, at some point the first fish becomes a frog or something and it has to eat too. Now, as we know, fish and animals can live on plants. Uh oh, another question. HOW did the thing that was "evolving into" all these fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, other single celled organisms, mammals and birds.....wait for it....
HOW DID THEY TURN INTO PLANTS?! Did they "know" that they would need to feed the progeny of evolution that would eventually come along and crawl around on the ground (you know, that place where they weren't AT)? How did they "know to evolve" so that they could support the wide range of things such as omnivores, carnivores and herbivores? How did they manage to "evolve" into such tight nit, inter-being bio-systems? You know, like the lamprey or the flower and the bee...
I'd sure like all you guys that know so much answer all this stuff. Especially how the first "whatever" didn't starve to death. Or how a fish turned into a plant.
-----signature-----
My folks went on vacation and all I got was this lousy sig.
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
All I know is massive amounts of time was involved.
Just because we dont understand something doesnt mean its necessarily a miracle
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Friarspam
Posts:
12,363
Registered:
Jan 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,619
User ID: 1,200,702
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Uh, I didn't say it was a "miracle". I'm just asking some questions.
Maybe it's time for the THEORY of evolution to be considered for replacement with some NEW theory. (I don't know what that is, btw)
-----signature-----
My folks went on vacation and all I got was this lousy sig.
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
 This thread is more proof.
http://vnboards.ign.com/outpost/b22180/116093513/p1/?24
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
Friarspam
Posts:
12,363
Registered:
Jan 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,619
User ID: 1,200,702
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Well if THAT'S the case it should be EASY for some liberal with their superior brain to come along and explain it all very nicely!
-----signature-----
My folks went on vacation and all I got was this lousy sig.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
Uh, I didn't say it was a "miracle". I'm just asking some questions.
Maybe it's time for the THEORY of evolution to be considered for replacement with some NEW theory. (I don't know what that is, btw)
Or, maybe, you should try this new-fangled thing called Google and see if there are answers to your questions out there.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Urk_VN
Title: Orderly Randomizer
Posts:
8,320
Registered:
Oct 30, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,922
User ID: 733,088
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
Bear with me on this.
Ok, so it seems the common consensus among the evolution theorists that somehow a bacteria or some other thing managed to come to life on the ball of lava. They cite the critters that can live and reproduce near underwater volcanoes.
Ok, let's say that there IS a bug that started it all, living in the hot conditions or maybe it came along afterwords when water formed.
It was a tiny bug...just a single celled organism. Uh, WHAT did it eat? I mean, there were no OTHER things for it to munch on. Maybe it ate water or dirt or chemicals. HOW did it get a digestive system? I mean, it was first, right? It's not like it "adapted" to the environment.
I think the early Earth was too hot for anything to live since the excess heat/radiation would've kept the various proteins/chemicals floating around from combining and sticking together long enough. But once it cooled down enough that liquid water could form and stick around, then those proteins, combined with other elements around that time (lightning, particles/chemicals in the air) formed.
As for what they ate, I think that there was a lot of chemicals around the first organisms that they simply absorbed into their cell and utilized. My guess is that some organisms gradually began to mutate so as to absorb those chemicals better than their neighbors, and some others evolved in a way to absorb chemicals by "eating" the other ones, via releasing chemicals/enzymes to break down said neighboring cells. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, said organisms began to adapt to changes being made on the early Earth.
In the process, those organisms released oxygen as a byproduct, which was pretty lethal to those lifeforms, until other forms changed in a way that could utilize oxygen to release energy. Anaerobic bacteria usually die if they're exposed to oxygen since it's pretty caustic (look at how water, H2O, causes iron to rust for an example).
Some organisms can thrive in the harshest (by human standards) places on Earth, such as the geothermal vents deep in the ocean. Since sunlight can't penetrate down there, the "plants" down there use chemicals released by the Earth to make their energy. And the animals down there eat whatever they can, whether its other creatures that live down there, or stuff that falls down from above them. They adapt to the environment as best as they can, or they die off.
I remember watching a documentary once where they were filming two baby birds (I think eagles). One of them started to attack the other one in an attempt to kill it, and the narrator mentioned that either one of them will have to die, or both will due to lack of food available to them. So yes, it looks cruel to us humans, but if both of them die, they won't be around to make more birds. If food were plentiful, they'd be able to thrive, but survival of the fittest in this case. It was pretty heartbreaking to watch, but it made sense to me.
Friarspam posted:
Now, let's zoom forward 8 gajillion years to when this thing suddenly turned into something else. WHAT did it eat? I mean, eventually this thing is going to be a fish, right? There had to be a first fish. WHAT did that thing eat? How did it reproduce? I mean, being the first fish and all is probably a cool thing, but it's not like there's a lot of action in the romance area when you're the ONLY one.
Hey, how did this fish (which had nothing to mate with or eat...although the first fish probably had a digestive system which it didn't need before...you get the idea) turn into OTHER kinds of fish? I'd also like to know, how did the first carp, shark, bluegill, tuna and etc EAT? I mean, they must have been pretty hungry and all. Since they "evolved", there had to be a "first one" of them, too. HOW did they fertilize their eggs?
Now, at some point the first fish becomes a frog or something and it has to eat too. Now, as we know, fish and animals can live on plants. Uh oh, another question. HOW did the thing that was "evolving into" all these fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, other single celled organisms, mammals and birds.....wait for it....
Plants likely evolved from simple organisms that were able to absorb sunlight and use water/various chemicals in the water in order to produce energy, aka photosynthesis. And like the example I gave above, some organisms evolved to eat those plant cells/organisms.
Reproduction was likely asexual at first, but over time, some organisms began to randomly recombine their genes, some of which helped their offspring to better survive (such as fins to help swim around), some which was neither good nor bad (think earlobes on humans, some are attached, some aren't, but it doesn't necesssarily affect a person's survival), and some which were bad (think cancer or a terminal disease which kills a person while they're young).
This stuff probably went on for millions of years as well, and each organism had ways of defending itself from others (since if you're dead via getting eaten, you can't pass off your genes to the next generation). They just ate whatever was around at the time, so sharks ate whatever fish was around at the time, and as said fish began to change into other types of fish, the later generation of sharks continued eating them. A plant which is poisonous to one animal may be vulnerable to another animal which has an adaptation that allows it to breakdown the plant's poison and nullify it. For instance, if you ate poison ivy, you'd be in the hospital and in a world of hurt. But deer can eat them okay due to enzymes available in their stomachs. Humans can't break down cellulouse easily, but multi-stomach animals such as cows can. Birds often swallow stones to help them break plant matter down as well.
Humans lucked out because our ancestors learned how to create and control fire, which allowed for cooking to help break complex proteins up to make it easier to digest (in addition to killing harmful parasites that might be living in it). That's why it's much easier to eat a steak that's been thoroughly cooked as opposed to a completely raw one. Most meat eaters lack the ability to get to the bone marrow from the animals they kill, but human's ancestral apes learned to do that (not like they had much choice anyway, since they couldn't exactly take down a zebra like a lion can).
Again, those changes were gradual. A giraffe didn't just appear out of nowhere, it had an ancestor that likely had a short neck, and some were born with slightly longer necks, which enabled them to reach food higher up on trees that their short-necked brethren couldn't reach. And as those things survived to pass on their genes, gradually the short-necked giraffes died out. I think I may have used this as an example in the other post, but its happening even now. Poachers are killing elephants with long tusks, while leaving the short tusked elephants alone because it's not worth killing them to get the tusk. Therefore the short tusked ones survive to reproduce, while the long tusked elephants get killed off. Given a few more decades/hundreds of years, long tusked elephants will likely be extinct.
Friarspam posted:
HOW DID THEY TURN INTO PLANTS?! Did they "know" that they would need to feed the progeny of evolution that would eventually come along and crawl around on the ground (you know, that place where they weren't AT)? How did they "know to evolve" so that they could support the wide range of things such as omnivores, carnivores and herbivores? How did they manage to "evolve" into such tight nit, inter-being bio-systems? You know, like the lamprey or the flower and the bee...
Again, plant ancestors probably evolved alongside "animal" ancestors, and because they both had different ways of obtaining food (plants make food from sunlight/water, animals eat the plants, some other animals eat those first ones, then they die and get broken down by microbes to provide nutrients for new plants), they were able to coexist. All living things compete with each other for resources, even plants (if you ever cut one tree down when there's 2 growing really close to each other, you'll see that the trees sort of grow away from each other because they're both trying to get as much sunlight/water/minerals as possible)
The answers to these would require semester-long classes to fully answer, but that's sort of the cliff-notes version of how life gradually evolved and changed.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Urk_VN posted:
Friarspam posted:
Bear with me on this.
Ok, so it seems the common consensus among the evolution theorists that somehow a bacteria or some other thing managed to come to life on the ball of lava. They cite the critters that can live and reproduce near underwater volcanoes.
Ok, let's say that there IS a bug that started it all, living in the hot conditions or maybe it came along afterwords when water formed.
It was a tiny bug...just a single celled organism. Uh, WHAT did it eat? I mean, there were no OTHER things for it to munch on. Maybe it ate water or dirt or chemicals. HOW did it get a digestive system? I mean, it was first, right? It's not like it "adapted" to the environment.
I think the early Earth was too hot for anything to live since the excess heat/radiation would've kept the various proteins/chemicals floating around from combining and sticking together long enough. But once it cooled down enough that liquid water could form and stick around, then those proteins, combined with other elements around that time (lightning, particles/chemicals in the air) formed.
As for what they ate, I think that there was a lot of chemicals around the first organisms that they simply absorbed into their cell and utilized. My guess is that some organisms gradually began to mutate so as to absorb those chemicals better than their neighbors, and some others evolved in a way to absorb chemicals by "eating" the other ones, via releasing chemicals/enzymes to break down said neighboring cells. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, said organisms began to adapt to changes being made on the early Earth.
In the process, those organisms released oxygen as a byproduct, which was pretty lethal to those lifeforms, until other forms changed in a way that could utilize oxygen to release energy. Anaerobic bacteria usually die if they're exposed to oxygen since it's pretty caustic (look at how water, H2O, causes iron to rust for an example).
Some organisms can thrive in the harshest (by human standards) places on Earth, such as the geothermal vents deep in the ocean. Since sunlight can't penetrate down there, the "plants" down there use chemicals released by the Earth to make their energy. And the animals down there eat whatever they can, whether its other creatures that live down there, or stuff that falls down from above them. They adapt to the environment as best as they can, or they die off.
I remember watching a documentary once where they were filming two baby birds (I think eagles). One of them started to attack the other one in an attempt to kill it, and the narrator mentioned that either one of them will have to die, or both will due to lack of food available to them. So yes, it looks cruel to us humans, but if both of them die, they won't be around to make more birds. If food were plentiful, they'd be able to thrive, but survival of the fittest in this case. It was pretty heartbreaking to watch, but it made sense to me.
Friarspam posted:
Now, let's zoom forward 8 gajillion years to when this thing suddenly turned into something else. WHAT did it eat? I mean, eventually this thing is going to be a fish, right? There had to be a first fish. WHAT did that thing eat? How did it reproduce? I mean, being the first fish and all is probably a cool thing, but it's not like there's a lot of action in the romance area when you're the ONLY one.
Hey, how did this fish (which had nothing to mate with or eat...although the first fish probably had a digestive system which it didn't need before...you get the idea) turn into OTHER kinds of fish? I'd also like to know, how did the first carp, shark, bluegill, tuna and etc EAT? I mean, they must have been pretty hungry and all. Since they "evolved", there had to be a "first one" of them, too. HOW did they fertilize their eggs?
Now, at some point the first fish becomes a frog or something and it has to eat too. Now, as we know, fish and animals can live on plants. Uh oh, another question. HOW did the thing that was "evolving into" all these fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, other single celled organisms, mammals and birds.....wait for it....
Plants likely evolved from simple organisms that were able to absorb sunlight and use water/various chemicals in the water in order to produce energy, aka photosynthesis. And like the example I gave above, some organisms evolved to eat those plant cells/organisms.
Reproduction was likely asexual at first, but over time, some organisms began to randomly recombine their genes, some of which helped their offspring to better survive (such as fins to help swim around), some which was neither good nor bad (think earlobes on humans, some are attached, some aren't, but it doesn't necesssarily affect a person's survival), and some which were bad (think cancer or a terminal disease which kills a person while they're young).
This stuff probably went on for millions of years as well, and each organism had ways of defending itself from others (since if you're dead via getting eaten, you can't pass off your genes to the next generation). They just ate whatever was around at the time, so sharks ate whatever fish was around at the time, and as said fish began to change into other types of fish, the later generation of sharks continued eating them. A plant which is poisonous to one animal may be vulnerable to another animal which has an adaptation that allows it to breakdown the plant's poison and nullify it. For instance, if you ate poison ivy, you'd be in the hospital and in a world of hurt. But deer can eat them okay due to enzymes available in their stomachs. Humans can't break down cellulouse easily, but multi-stomach animals such as cows can. Birds often swallow stones to help them break plant matter down as well.
Humans lucked out because our ancestors learned how to create and control fire, which allowed for cooking to help break complex proteins up to make it easier to digest (in addition to killing harmful parasites that might be living in it). That's why it's much easier to eat a steak that's been thoroughly cooked as opposed to a completely raw one. Most meat eaters lack the ability to get to the bone marrow from the animals they kill, but human's ancestral apes learned to do that (not like they had much choice anyway, since they couldn't exactly take down a zebra like a lion can).
Again, those changes were gradual. A giraffe didn't just appear out of nowhere, it had an ancestor that likely had a short neck, and some were born with slightly longer necks, which enabled them to reach food higher up on trees that their short-necked brethren couldn't reach. And as those things survived to pass on their genes, gradually the short-necked giraffes died out. I think I may have used this as an example in the other post, but its happening even now. Poachers are killing elephants with long tusks, while leaving the short tusked elephants alone because it's not worth killing them to get the tusk. Therefore the short tusked ones survive to reproduce, while the long tusked elephants get killed off. Given a few more decades/hundreds of years, long tusked elephants will likely be extinct.
Friarspam posted:
HOW DID THEY TURN INTO PLANTS?! Did they "know" that they would need to feed the progeny of evolution that would eventually come along and crawl around on the ground (you know, that place where they weren't AT)? How did they "know to evolve" so that they could support the wide range of things such as omnivores, carnivores and herbivores? How did they manage to "evolve" into such tight nit, inter-being bio-systems? You know, like the lamprey or the flower and the bee...
Again, plant ancestors probably evolved alongside "animal" ancestors, and because they both had different ways of obtaining food (plants make food from sunlight/water, animals eat the plants, some other animals eat those first ones, then they die and get broken down by microbes to provide nutrients for new plants), they were able to coexist. All living things compete with each other for resources, even plants (if you ever cut one tree down when there's 2 growing really close to each other, you'll see that the trees sort of grow away from each other because they're both trying to get as much sunlight/water/minerals as possible)
The answers to these would require semester-long classes to fully answer, but that's sort of the cliff-notes version of how life gradually evolved and changed.
Friarspam posted:
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
Manegarm
Title: European Imperialist Good Guy
Posts:
33,712
Registered:
Aug 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 32,596
User ID: 829,780
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
I'M OUTRAGED AT THE EARLIER POSTERS BLATANT TRIES TO EXPLAIN OUR REALITY USING SUCH A PETTY THINGS AS LOGIC, INFORMATION AND REASONING! WE ALL KNOW A WIZARD DID IT, IT SEZ SO IN THE GOOD BOOK! 
-----signature-----
Europa Eternita!
"Damn, Manegarm; you are HAWT!! " - Taolynn
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry, Shines the name Shines the name of Rodger Young"
ALWAYS ANGRY, ALL THE TIME!
Nein mann ich will noch nicht gehen
|
|
Link to this post
|
illmyrin
Posts:
16,612
Registered:
Dec 25, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,815
User ID: 574,488
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
Well if THAT'S the case it should be EASY for some liberal with their superior brain to come along and explain it all very nicely!
Hey bro! Not a liberal but I have the other requirement locked so here goes.
What did the first thing eat?
Nothing.
How could that be possible?
It's birth was a byproduct of chemical reactions which higher evolutionary forms internalized.
A quote I'll make up to help explain my answers.
"Give a stone someplace to fall and it will fall. The reasons why govern all the heavenly bodies in the Universe."
-----signature-----
Hold up your opinions and I'll tell you which one is my favorit.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Scarne
Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts:
27,710
Registered:
Jul 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,798
User ID: 272,061
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
The first cells "ate" chemicals. They don't have a digestive system or anything. The cell wall lets whatever the chemical that is food to go through and enter the cell. Inside the cell, a chemical reaction is performed that releases energy. The cell stores the energy in some other form (modern cells store it as ATP) and releases whatever the result of the chemical reaction was as waste.
There was plenty of food around by the time of the first fish.
The first fish mated with whatever its ancestor species was. Its ancestor would have been like 99% of a fish and would have been reproductively compatible. Evolution is very gradual.
The plant/animal split occurred was before animals got as complex as fish. Remember that the much simpler plankton is composed of both plants and animals.
HTH
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
Link to this post
|
Friarspam
Posts:
12,363
Registered:
Jan 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,619
User ID: 1,200,702
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
So as easy as all this is, there should be life on about EVERY rock floating around in space, got it.
-----signature-----
My folks went on vacation and all I got was this lousy sig.
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
So as easy as all this is, there should be life on about EVERY rock floating around in space, got it.
Yep, pretty much...
But keep in mind - according to our predominate Religious Dogma. We are the center of it all and 'special'...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
So as easy as all this is, there should be life on about EVERY rock floating around in space, got it.
Every rock with liquid water. That's the tricky part so far.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
SirGarth
Title: Moderator
iMod
Posts:
26,497
Registered:
May 17, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,841
User ID: 680,156
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
So as easy as all this is, there should be life on about EVERY rock floating around in space, got it.
no, because the conditions on every rock floating around in space don't match the way life likely originated on Earth, which is sort of the ultimate case of right place, right time. it's certainly plausible that life exists in some for somewhere else in the universe, but way less probably that the exact same conditions occurred in exactly the same way, so who knows what form it could take?
check out abiogenesis, along with evolution, it's more related to the question you're asking.
https://www.google.com/search?q=abiogenesis
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Manegarm
Title: European Imperialist Good Guy
Posts:
33,712
Registered:
Aug 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 32,596
User ID: 829,780
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
-----signature-----
Europa Eternita!
"Damn, Manegarm; you are HAWT!! " - Taolynn
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry, Shines the name Shines the name of Rodger Young"
ALWAYS ANGRY, ALL THE TIME!
Nein mann ich will noch nicht gehen
|
|
Link to this post
|
Urk_VN
Title: Orderly Randomizer
Posts:
8,320
Registered:
Oct 30, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,922
User ID: 733,088
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
ZigmundZag posted:
Friarspam posted:
So as easy as all this is, there should be life on about EVERY rock floating around in space, got it.
Every rock with liquid water. That's the tricky part so far.
This. If a planet is too close to its parent star that water can't remain in liquid form, it doesn't give those chemicals enough time to settle and form stuff. Conversely, if it's too far away, the water will instead be ice, which also kind of makes it hard for life to form/evolve.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Colwynne
Posts:
????
Registered:
????
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 0
User ID: 0
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
It's funny that some posters here post adamantly exactly how it happened. When Dawkins himself admits that "the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself". Science experiments have never synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life. There is no doubt evolution occurs, but origin of life and the mechanism is unproven.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
illmyrin
Posts:
16,612
Registered:
Dec 25, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,815
User ID: 574,488
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
ZigmundZag posted:
Friarspam posted:
So as easy as all this is, there should be life on about EVERY rock floating around in space, got it.
Every rock with liquid water. That's the tricky part so far.
Time is the tricky part, from our perspective on reality. Lots has passed. Not every rock had the conditions needed for specific chemical reactions that chained into STABLE chemical reactions(lifeforms). Even those that did, might not have stayed that way and the odds are pretty slim such conditions lasted throughout any evolutionarily useful time frame in most places.
But yea, there "could" have been life(of a sort)blasted into existence along with the rest of these mysterious bits space time and matter tossed into the universe. But I'd bet most of it never got past the pre digestive stage.
-----signature-----
Hold up your opinions and I'll tell you which one is my favorit.
|
|
Link to this post
|
RHWarrior
Posts:
5,026
Registered:
Sep 30, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,021
User ID: 1,372,077
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Hard to tell millions of millions of years after, but most ideas are along the lines of:
The most primitive life probably used what we today call non-organic chemicals and compounds to sustain itself and keep going. Eventually variants and other deviations of the most basic life came to be, to adapt to new environments, etiher by chance or by directed mechnisms. But afaik the process isn't exactly known fully (evolution attempts to cover some things - you may want to look into the works of Darwin etc.).
So by the time you're thinking about "fish", "trees" and so on already 100s of thousands of different species existed in complex systems and co-dependance, they never lived in isolation.
But the thing is the most basic life forms probably existed in parallell all the time with the more advanced forms; see Plankton today, plankton are very primitive and also exist in both animal and plant form, and eat eachother and are eaten by higher forms. Bacteria and other single cell organisms still exist, and are still part of the eco-systems, and so on.
-----signature-----
"Drink coffee - do stupids things faster with more energy! ...and I'm all out of beans..." -me
"You guys need to stop dick riding wow and compare everything to it. It never invented a godamn thing, just made it popular. " -tinkly
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
Bear with me on this.
Ok, so it seems the common consensus among the evolution theorists that somehow a bacteria or some other thing managed to come to life on the ball of lava. They cite the critters that can live and reproduce near underwater volcanoes.
Ok, let's say that there IS a bug that started it all, living in the hot conditions or maybe it came along afterwords when water formed.
It was a tiny bug...just a single celled organism. Uh, WHAT did it eat? I mean, there were no OTHER things for it to munch on. Maybe it ate water or dirt or chemicals. HOW did it get a digestive system? I mean, it was first, right? It's not like it "adapted" to the environment.
Possibly fatty acids and monomers.
One way how it might have happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
(Fast forward to 2:50 if your Creationist ego doesn't like to be trolled)
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
My smarter alt SKONK answered the question. No magic is needed!
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Didn't read the whole thread. IMO the most difficult component of evolution for most people to grasp is the time factor. Earth was undoubtedly a lucky planet in terms of its size, composition, relative position and orbit to our sun and again lucky to get a moon which to my limited understanding acts as an additional agitator upon the Earth. (But these things weren't so lucky as to indicate a guiding hand, just lucky from our perspective.)
The time factor is where people really get hung up, it is as equally important as all the other factors that led to life on this world. In the great depths of time countless galvanochemical and biochemical reactions can occur. If you want to be grateful for our happy accident that is fine but I think it is a little more than too much fantasizing to imagine more than that.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
It just seems lucky. The conditions necessary for life here might not be the only formula. Perhaps this is just the Earth's condition for life. Other planets might be different. Humanity needs to get out there and take a look at more places
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Phlegm573
Posts:
14,133
Registered:
Jun 12, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,216
User ID: 687,948
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
I don't think this thread turned out the way Friar had hoped.
-----signature-----
"I try to make men-only kinship?" - bstulic "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." - actual Republican voter http://tinyurl.com/6p8a7rp - summary of Israel vs. Palestine
|
|
Link to this post
|
Corky_Aloof
Posts:
10,689
Registered:
Jun 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,854
User ID: 929,737
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Had this evolutionary theory been true we would have uncovered fossilized versions of very early humans or other animals in odd looking evolving forms.
Fact is, science theorizes humans had early adaptive forms but all fossilized humans found suggest we suddenly appeared on earth with little or no variation from our human form today. Nothing excavated so far suggest humans evolved in such a way.
-----signature-----
 > 
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Had this evolutionary theory been true we would have uncovered fossilized versions of very early humans or other animals in odd looking evolving forms.
Fact is, science theorizes humans had early adaptive forms but all fossilized humans found suggest we suddenly appeared on earth with little or no variation from our human form today. Nothing excavated so far suggest humans evolved in such a way.
wow - that's a lot of stupid and ignorance rolled up into a single post.
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Thats not an evolution question you are askng.. Youre asking an origins question.
That stuff is still unknown and smewhat up in the air.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Had this evolutionary theory been true we would have uncovered fossilized versions of very early humans or other animals in odd looking evolving forms.
Fact is, science theorizes humans had early adaptive forms but all fossilized humans found suggest we suddenly appeared on earth with little or no variation from our human form today. Nothing excavated so far suggest humans evolved in such a way.
You mean something that looks like half way between early mammals and modern humans? 
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Had this evolutionary theory been true we would have uncovered fossilized versions of very early humans or other animals in odd looking evolving forms.
Fact is, science theorizes humans had early adaptive forms but all fossilized humans found suggest we suddenly appeared on earth with little or no variation from our human form today. Nothing excavated so far suggest humans evolved in such a way.
We were built upon what worked, not what didn't work..
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
RHWarrior
Posts:
5,026
Registered:
Sep 30, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,021
User ID: 1,372,077
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
I want to mention that evolution theories are by a couple of magnitudes less full of shit than the Bible, not the final word.
If you were thinking about looking into archaic religious (=random, non-factual) texts for alternatives.
-----signature-----
"Drink coffee - do stupids things faster with more energy! ...and I'm all out of beans..." -me
"You guys need to stop dick riding wow and compare everything to it. It never invented a godamn thing, just made it popular. " -tinkly
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Yes its extremely gradual and most changes die off.. Those genetics (the ones that die off) dont make it into the commn gene pool/become dominant. Fossils will most likely only remain for the most common creatures, not for the 1 in a billion things.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Phlegm573
Posts:
14,133
Registered:
Jun 12, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,216
User ID: 687,948
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Creationists have such funny little minds.
-----signature-----
"I try to make men-only kinship?" - bstulic "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." - actual Republican voter http://tinyurl.com/6p8a7rp - summary of Israel vs. Palestine
|
|
Link to this post
|
Rosaria
Title: They call me Mellow Yellow, quite rightly.
Posts:
46,983
Registered:
Aug 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 44,486
User ID: 832,524
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Yez, there has been little change in physical structure over the milleniums. 
I'm sure you believe this because there is likely little differences in the skull of Australopithecusafarensis and some of you.
-----signature-----
"Them Bollinger Bands on the DJIA are starting to look like columns of projectile vomit." ~ Red Pill
|
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Had this evolutionary theory been true we would have uncovered fossilized versions of very early humans or other animals in odd looking evolving forms.
Fact is, science theorizes humans had early adaptive forms but all fossilized humans found suggest we suddenly appeared on earth with little or no variation from our human form today. Nothing excavated so far suggest humans evolved in such a way.
Wow, I never suspected that Corky was a dumbass creationist.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Colwynne posted:
It's funny that some posters here post adamantly exactly how it happened. When Dawkins himself admits that "the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself". Science experiments have never synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life. There is no doubt evolution occurs, but origin of life and the mechanism is unproven.
Check out Wiki on "origin of life". There are about a dozen different hypotheses.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Groucho48 posted:
Colwynne posted:
It's funny that some posters here post adamantly exactly how it happened. When Dawkins himself admits that "the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself". Science experiments have never synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life. There is no doubt evolution occurs, but origin of life and the mechanism is unproven.
Check out Wiki on "origin of life". There are about a dozen different hypotheses.
Or Abiogenesis
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Colwynne
Posts:
????
Registered:
????
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 0
User ID: 0
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
I have read all of them extensively. They all have serious flaws. Grahm Cairns-Smith pushes the clay hypothesis and criticizes these other chemical evolution explanations, but admits his own model has its shortcomings as do all models of origin of life. They are all interesting, but I would like to see some more experimental support.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Getting polymers to form is one thing... getting that to turn into "life" is another story and has yet to be demonstrated.
Evolution makes no comment on the origin of life.
The big bang theory as well makes no comment on the origin of the energy cloud that started the big bang either.
Christianity (I can't comment on other religions) also makes no comment on the origin of God - it just says at one point there was nothing, then bam! there was God.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
dae_trist
Posts:
25,414
Registered:
Jun 5, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 24,553
User ID: 809,124
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Its amazing how some people can be such utterly uniformed pond scum-like mental dwarves. Creationists need to have their citizenship revoked on account of not being of human intelligence.
-----signature-----
"templars heal for like 300-400 a heal"
"wardens do waht 40 dps at most? friars do 600 dps"
"well maybe the aoe taunt that bains had..."
"Eck theurg pets are unstunnable..." -- bryldan
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
dae_trist posted:
Its amazing how some people can be such utterly uniformed pond scum-like mental dwarves. Creationists need to have their citizenship revoked on account of not being of human intelligence.
Now Now - we have to give everyone a chance to catch up.
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Onslaught.
Title: I've always wanted a title.
Posts:
56,272
Registered:
Feb 13, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 55,112
User ID: 68,094
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Had this evolutionary theory been true we would have uncovered fossilized versions of very early humans or other animals in odd looking evolving forms.
Fact is, science theorizes humans had early adaptive forms but all fossilized humans found suggest we suddenly appeared on earth with little or no variation from our human form today. Nothing excavated so far suggest humans evolved in such a way.
Not sure if stupid or just trolling...
-----signature-----
"Mmmmrmmrrrmrrmrmrrrrmrmrrmrmrmrrmrr"
-GinsuWife
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
That's the beauty of the Internet universe, you never know!
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Friarspam posted:
Bear with me on this.
Ok, so it seems the common consensus among the evolution theorists that somehow a bacteria or some other thing managed to come to life on the ball of lava. They cite the critters that can live and reproduce near underwater volcanoes.
Ok, let's say that there IS a bug that started it all, living in the hot conditions or maybe it came along afterwords when water formed.
It was a tiny bug...just a single celled organism. Uh, WHAT did it eat? I mean, there were no OTHER things for it to munch on. Maybe it ate water or dirt or chemicals. HOW did it get a digestive system? I mean, it was first, right? It's not like it "adapted" to the environment.
Now, let's zoom forward 8 gajillion years to when this thing suddenly turned into something else. WHAT did it eat? I mean, eventually this thing is going to be a fish, right? There had to be a first fish. WHAT did that thing eat? How did it reproduce? I mean, being the first fish and all is probably a cool thing, but it's not like there's a lot of action in the romance area when you're the ONLY one.
Hey, how did this fish (which had nothing to mate with or eat...although the first fish probably had a digestive system which it didn't need before...you get the idea) turn into OTHER kinds of fish? I'd also like to know, how did the first carp, shark, bluegill, tuna and etc EAT? I mean, they must have been pretty hungry and all. Since they "evolved", there had to be a "first one" of them, too. HOW did they fertilize their eggs?
Now, at some point the first fish becomes a frog or something and it has to eat too. Now, as we know, fish and animals can live on plants. Uh oh, another question. HOW did the thing that was "evolving into" all these fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, other single celled organisms, mammals and birds.....wait for it....
HOW DID THEY TURN INTO PLANTS?! Did they "know" that they would need to feed the progeny of evolution that would eventually come along and crawl around on the ground (you know, that place where they weren't AT)? How did they "know to evolve" so that they could support the wide range of things such as omnivores, carnivores and herbivores? How did they manage to "evolve" into such tight nit, inter-being bio-systems? You know, like the lamprey or the flower and the bee...
I'd sure like all you guys that know so much answer all this stuff. Especially how the first "whatever" didn't starve to death. Or how a fish turned into a plant.
im sure you also wonder why monkeys arent still evolving in their cages at the zoo, right?
photosynthesis is a chemical reaction involving sunlight and other common environmental chemicals.
it doesnt need to evolve, it just kind of starts to happen when the right chemicals are mixed together.
eventually, as simple single celled chemical bags become more advanced, they start to develop the ability to directly absorb the needed chemicals right through the bag walls. this is called osmosis.
some of those chemical bags developed the ability to absorb one chemical while other absorbed other chemicals. one day, 2 cells discovered that they each excreted chemicals that the other needed so they started hanging out together or, maybe even, partially osmosifying one another untill they were indistinguishable from one another.
when one cell (read: chemical bag) split, the other one did too untill they started dividing as one single, complex, multibagged organism.
asking how chemicals evolved into higher, more complex chemicals seems like its an easy to understand process, but it seems that a lot of simpletons still dont really get it.
how did water, evolve into the multi-molecular chemical that it is? how did hydrochloric acid evolve and "learn" to consume other chemicals?
petroleum? thats a very complex chemical that seems almost impossible to evolve without some higher power designing it.
animals and plants are just big bags of multiple chemical reactions all going on at the same time.
stop reading into it and trying to make it be more than it really is
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
|
Link to this post
|
illmyrin
Posts:
16,612
Registered:
Dec 25, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,815
User ID: 574,488
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
eodoll posted:
Getting polymers to form is one thing... getting that to turn into "life" is another story and has yet to be demonstrated.
Who's to say life isn't just another "thing" like light and matter or gravity? A universal law of sorts. Just one more element in the mix. Our problem is we think our thoughts are more than what they are. As if we're here to "think" when "thinking" is just a side effect of language which ultimately traces it's roots back to "Food-get it".
-----signature-----
Hold up your opinions and I'll tell you which one is my favorit.
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
sweeny_comodore posted:
stop reading into it and trying to make it be more than it really is
That doesn't leave enough left over for God to play with now does it...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Anywho, I'm reminded of this. It's really pretty cool and might be some food for pondering stuff.
http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology.html
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Corky_Aloof
Posts:
10,689
Registered:
Jun 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,854
User ID: 929,737
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
-----signature-----
>
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Prolly more white noise because that's either an incredibly stupid thing to say or a brilliant troll...
Can you elaborate a bit more in regards to what kind of fossils you are expecting to see? Do you mean fossils of primates before we branched off or are you talking some other types of fossils?
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
You're apparently in denial of dead ends which is an answer you got several times already.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
in our recorded history, we have 1, maybe 2 truly ancient human skeletons and you wonder why there arent more and varying ancient skelletons laying around in the streets?
do you understand the process of decomposition?
you know, where one group of chemicals consumes another and returns things to base compounds/dust to dust...
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
uhh.. they are millions of years old, they are not easy to come by. And what do you mean by drastically different body forms?
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Thugoneous
Title: Watching Caliente, BRB.
Posts:
6,060
Registered:
Nov 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,795
User ID: 734,292
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
God is either fake or lazy. Either way I don't want to be associated with him.
-----signature-----
Lady, people aren't chocolates. D'you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
When you take into consideration the concept of infinity and the fact that there are stars that make our own star look microscopic - we are tiny -- and then at a fundamental level under an electron microscopic the smallest particles seem to be full of lots of empty space... my point, we are so tiny and small that we might as well not even really exist. If there are some beings that are scaled at the size propotionate to the giant stars then we are so small that we are probably not even noticable to it.
In the big picture, we are smaller than a dust cloud.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Your original statement showed such a striking lack of critical thinking that it's pretty clear that real answers are not what you seek. You've already seen the evidence and dismissed it. Therefore all you are worthy of is ridicule.
To put it another way, even dumbass Intelligent Designers won't try the tack you're on because they know the evidence is against them. You're position is so dumb even fundie Christian scientists couldn't support it.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
RHWarrior
Posts:
5,026
Registered:
Sep 30, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,021
User ID: 1,372,077
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Here's a recent picture of your ancestor, happy now.
-----signature-----
"Drink coffee - do stupids things faster with more energy! ...and I'm all out of beans..." -me
"You guys need to stop dick riding wow and compare everything to it. It never invented a godamn thing, just made it popular. " -tinkly
|
|
Link to this post
|
Corky_Aloof
Posts:
10,689
Registered:
Jun 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,854
User ID: 929,737
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Prolly more white noise because that's either an incredibly stupid thing to say or a brilliant troll...
Can you elaborate a bit more in regards to what kind of fossils you are expecting to see? Do you mean fossils of primates before we branched off or are you talking some other types of fossils?
There have never been fossils found that draws any direct lineage between humans and apes. They are proven distinctly human or distinctly ape in every case, only a hypothesis has been formed by science suggesting they are linked. They are drawing assumptions with the facts they know wich is no better than a creationists leap of faith.
-----signature-----
>
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
RHWarrior posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I pose a valid and critical question in the theory of evolution especially where humans are concerned. Instead of anyone offering answers all I hear are jokes and white noise.
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Here's a recent picture of your ancestor, happy now.
You will notice it has two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, a mouth, an orifice for pooping and another for pissing and procreation... it has 4 limbs and a back bone and ....
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Prolly more white noise because that's either an incredibly stupid thing to say or a brilliant troll...
Can you elaborate a bit more in regards to what kind of fossils you are expecting to see? Do you mean fossils of primates before we branched off or are you talking some other types of fossils?
There have never been fossils found that draws any direct lineage between humans and apes. They are proven distinctly human or distinctly ape in every case, only a hypothesis has been formed by science suggesting they are linked. They are drawing assumptions with the facts they know wich is no better than a creationists leap of faith.
Well yeah assumptions and um DNA but yeah - lets go with assumptions and ah faith...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Scarne
Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts:
27,710
Registered:
Jul 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,798
User ID: 272,061
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Transition fossils for all (or just about all) the primate family tree have been found. So you can go back roughly 55 million years of primate fossils. So other than the more unique human features for walking upright and such, the basic form and anatomy has been set for a long time. So you can map out those changes as they went from tiny tree climbers to humans, but none of the changes will be really drastic.
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Scarne posted:
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Missing Link What Do You Mean By Missing?
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Onslaught.
Title: I've always wanted a title.
Posts:
56,272
Registered:
Feb 13, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 55,112
User ID: 68,094
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/human-lineage-through-time
here. I hope that helps.
-----signature-----
"Mmmmrmmrrrmrrmrmrrrrmrmrrmrmrmrrmrr"
-GinsuWife
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof is correct.
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
RHWarrior
Posts:
5,026
Registered:
Sep 30, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,021
User ID: 1,372,077
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
...
There have never been fossils found that draws any direct lineage between humans and apes. They are proven distinctly human or distinctly ape in every case, only a hypothesis has been formed by science suggesting they are linked. They are drawing assumptions with the facts they know wich is no better than a creationists leap of faith.
Really man you need to educate yourself about science, it's hardly a gentlemans club where people sit down to pat eachothers backs all the time, that's not how ideas and concepts survive.
Creationism on the other hand is essentially Christianity with a very thin facade of trying to be something reasonable and factual, "on equal terms" with scientic ideas, but brutally failing when put through the most cursory examination.
-----signature-----
"Drink coffee - do stupids things faster with more energy! ...and I'm all out of beans..." -me
"You guys need to stop dick riding wow and compare everything to it. It never invented a godamn thing, just made it popular. " -tinkly
|
|
Link to this post
|
illmyrin
Posts:
16,612
Registered:
Dec 25, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,815
User ID: 574,488
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
Evolution suggests subtle changes over a long period of time. Starting off as organism A, gradually changing fundamentally over a long period of time into organism B, correct? Then much like stop motion photography where each picture cell changes slightly over a long distance of time, we should have seen evidence as such from such drastic transformations. Where are the early fossils of humans in ANY FORM OTHER THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF OUR CURRENT ANATOMY? I am not talking subtle changes such as skull structure or body mass. Where are these drastically different body forms we have supposedly evolved from?
Any honest answers? Or more white noise.
Corky I don't think there is a good answer for that. The question, for me, hinges on the TIME span involved and how we can't possibly know it. I mean.. There are elements we've found with half lives in the BILLIONS of year range and we know the universe's time table is beyond our comprehension so how many elements have vanished completely? We have no idea what things could be like. We can't measure. We can only apply our imagination so there is never going to be a correct answer. I like the mystery. I don't like being taught as if law, crap we cant know and reject Evolution and Religion for the same reason.
So what are you really looking for?
-----signature-----
Hold up your opinions and I'll tell you which one is my favorit.
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
C'mon Coriolus, back us up.
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
Kordirn
Title: Pirate Prince
Posts:
23,453
Registered:
Apr 19, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,192
User ID: 915,876
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Perhaps I am in the minority, but whats the big deal of believing in evolution. Does that somehow disprove the existence of God? Is God somehow too incompetent to have made evolution? Seems stupid to argue.
-----signature-----
ooOooo oOoOO OOo
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
illmyrin posted:
There are elements we've found with half lives in the BILLIONS of year range and we know the universe's time table is beyond our comprehension so how many elements have vanished completely?
Pretty sure the standard model pretty much covers the possible elements within the natural laws we find ourselves in within this universe. If you are suggesting there used to be, or are other elements for which we can not conceive based on the natural laws we are governed by, you are mistaken.
Also in regards to vanishing completely, I'd like to point out that 98% of all species that have ever existed are in fact extinct.
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Evolution doesnt disprove God. You can believe in both. If you believe the Bible is literal in every way you cant
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Kordirn posted:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but whats the big deal of believing in evolution. Does that somehow disprove the existence of God? Is God somehow too incompetent to have made evolution? Seems stupid to argue.
From a religious standpoint you have to accept that God put evolution in motion...
Rejecting evolution on any basis, especially religious, is just blind ignorance and serves absolutely no purpose.
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Evolution proves the existence of God.
BUT was it evolution or newer versions?
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
IMHO posted:
Evolution proves the existence of God.
See - that's at least an intelligent and thoughtful position to take...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Onslaught.
Title: I've always wanted a title.
Posts:
56,272
Registered:
Feb 13, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 55,112
User ID: 68,094
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Kordirn posted:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but whats the big deal of believing in evolution. Does that somehow disprove the existence of God? Is God somehow too incompetent to have made evolution? Seems stupid to argue.
If you can not reconcile your faith with science, your faith is pretty damn weak. People can manipulate scripture to mean a thousand things other than the literal translations, but the moment it's suggested that the whole creation process takes longer than 7 days people lose their shit. It's hilarious.
-----signature-----
"Mmmmrmmrrrmrrmrmrrrrmrmrrmrmrmrrmrr"
-GinsuWife
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
There have never been fossils found that draws any direct lineage between humans and apes. They are proven distinctly human or distinctly ape in every case, only a hypothesis has been formed by science suggesting they are linked. They are drawing assumptions with the facts they know wich is no better than a creationists leap of faith.
Please proceed to define criteria which are sufficient to fulfill your definition of a direct lineage between humans and apes. And while you're at it give us your definition of apes. Please something other than "all apes that aren't humans".
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Corky_Aloof
Posts:
10,689
Registered:
Jun 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,854
User ID: 929,737
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom. We are distinctly different, yet bound by the same laws of nature as all other carbon based life of the earth.
-----signature-----
>
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well that's incredibly dumb. What do you think separates us from other animals?
If God literally created us whole as is 6k years ago, why would he? Why not just sit back and let evolution do what it was doing? It was clearly working, evolution had produced us, and then what, God destroyed that and started over from scratch whole cloth? Also what did God do with the primates that were destined to evolve into us? Did he just wtfpwn them 6k years ago? Why would he do that to them after they made such great progress what with the stone age and agriculture and everything else...
You are basically saying flight 93 landed, the passengers were let off the plane and then the plane took off again and then was shot down and blah blah blah blah blah
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well that's incredibly dumb. What do you think separates us from other animals?
If God literally created us whole as is 6k years ago, why would he? Why not just sit back another and let evolution do it? It was clearly working on it and would have gotten there without his help. Also what did God do with the primates that were destined to evolve into us? Did he just wtfpwn them 6k years ago? Why would he do that to them after they made such great progress what with the stone age and agriculture and everything else...
humans have souls and are allowed into heaven for eternal life.
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Humans in many ways are very similar to other animals but in other ways humans are a quantum leap above them in many ways. There is nothing close to human on this planet.
You might find animals which are smart as humans possibly like whales but they arent tool users. The combination which is humanity is amazing and nearly a miracle.
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
sweeny_comodore posted:
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well that's incredibly dumb. What do you think separates us from other animals?
If God literally created us whole as is 6k years ago, why would he? Why not just sit back another and let evolution do it? It was clearly working on it and would have gotten there without his help. Also what did God do with the primates that were destined to evolve into us? Did he just wtfpwn them 6k years ago? Why would he do that to them after they made such great progress what with the stone age and agriculture and everything else...
humans have souls and are allowed into heaven for eternal life.
If humans have souls - then all living creatures have souls...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Corky_Aloof
Posts:
10,689
Registered:
Jun 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,854
User ID: 929,737
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well that's incredibly dumb. What do you think separates us from other animals?
If God literally created us whole as is 6k years ago, why would he? Why not just sit back another and let evolution do it? It was clearly working on it and would have gotten there without his help. Also what did God do with the primates that were destined to evolve into us? Did he just wtfpwn them 6k years ago? Why would he do that to them after they made such great progress what with the stone age and agriculture and everything else...
You seemed convinced we derived from apes because our DNA is similar? Well breaking news, we share DNA similarities with most animals of the earth from chickens to whales. Apes may be most similar, but there is still a distinct difference between the two and the correlation between the two drawn are simply hypothesis.
-----signature-----
>
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Animals have souls, they however didn't commit the original sin.
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
__Bonk__ posted:
Humans in many ways are very similar to other animals but in other ways humans are a quantum leap above them in many ways. There is nothing close to human on this planet.
You might find animals which are smart as humans possibly like whales but they arent tool users. The combination which is humanity is amazing and nearly a miracle.
Animals aren't tool users?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=animals+using+tools
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well that's incredibly dumb. What do you think separates us from other animals?
If God literally created us whole as is 6k years ago, why would he? Why not just sit back another and let evolution do it? It was clearly working on it and would have gotten there without his help. Also what did God do with the primates that were destined to evolve into us? Did he just wtfpwn them 6k years ago? Why would he do that to them after they made such great progress what with the stone age and agriculture and everything else...
You seemed convinced we derived from apes because our DNA is similar? Well breaking news, we share DNA similarities with most animals of the earth from chickens to whales. Apes may be most similar, but there is still a distinct difference between the two and the correlation between the two drawn are simply hypothesis.
ding ding ding ding
we have a weiner, folks!
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
reesescups posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
I dont think anyone in this thread is dismissing evolution. The differential is humans, however, as creationists believe mankind was begotten and not made like the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well that's incredibly dumb. What do you think separates us from other animals?
If God literally created us whole as is 6k years ago, why would he? Why not just sit back another and let evolution do it? It was clearly working on it and would have gotten there without his help. Also what did God do with the primates that were destined to evolve into us? Did he just wtfpwn them 6k years ago? Why would he do that to them after they made such great progress what with the stone age and agriculture and everything else...
You seemed convinced we derived from apes because our DNA is similar? Well breaking news, we share DNA similarities with most animals of the earth from chickens to whales. Apes may be most similar, but there is still a distinct difference between the two and the correlation between the two drawn are simply hypothesis.
Denial is strong in this one...
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
sweeny_comodore posted:
ding ding ding ding
i liek his weiner, folks!
fixt
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
reesescups posted:
__Bonk__ posted:
Humans in many ways are very similar to other animals but in other ways humans are a quantum leap above them in many ways. There is nothing close to human on this planet.
You might find animals which are smart as humans possibly like whales but they arent tool users. The combination which is humanity is amazing and nearly a miracle.
Animals aren't tool users?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=animals+using+tools
They are to a limited extent but nothing like humans who have super charged brains, great communication ability, imagination, and the ability to use tools. The level humans have all these things are a quantum leap above anything else in nature.
Humans actually walked on the moon.
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Manegarm
Title: European Imperialist Good Guy
Posts:
33,712
Registered:
Aug 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 32,596
User ID: 829,780
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
lots of stupid in this thread..
-----signature-----
Europa Eternita!
"Damn, Manegarm; you are HAWT!! " - Taolynn
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry, Shines the name Shines the name of Rodger Young"
ALWAYS ANGRY, ALL THE TIME!
Nein mann ich will noch nicht gehen
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
You seemed convinced we derived from apes because our DNA is similar? Well breaking news, we share DNA similarities with most animals of the earth from chickens to whales. Apes may be most similar, but there is still a distinct difference between the two and the correlation between the two drawn are simply hypothesis.
Really funny coincidence that we would be created with custom made DNA yet share endogenous retro-viruses that are distributed amongst it in a way that makes it look exactly as if we had a common ancestor with apes. God is such a kidder.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
eodoll
Posts:
17,153
Registered:
Feb 14, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,943
User ID: 645,592
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
NuEM posted:
Corky_Aloof posted:
You seemed convinced we derived from apes because our DNA is similar? Well breaking news, we share DNA similarities with most animals of the earth from chickens to whales. Apes may be most similar, but there is still a distinct difference between the two and the correlation between the two drawn are simply hypothesis.
Really funny coincidence that we would be created with custom made DNA yet share endogenous retro-viruses that are distributed amongst it in a way that makes it look exactly as if we had a common ancestor with apes. God is such a kidder.
Well even creationists agree we have a common ancestor - God.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
SirGarth
Title: Moderator
iMod
Posts:
26,497
Registered:
May 17, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,841
User ID: 680,156
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Evolution 101: Speciation
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
It is not surprising many people have problems understanding this. I didn't properly learn what a species really is until after high school. Looking at it with through the eyes of set theory makes it obvious. Intuitively one would assume that "species" is an equivalence class, but it isn't. For example the "can procreate with" relation isn't necessarily transitive.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
feelips
Posts:
783
Registered:
Jun 1, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 781
User ID: 1,358,972
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
The Jellyfish species Turritopsis Nutricula is immortal.
The platypus is an absurd looking collection of parts from many different species.
Species that have always been color blind can have bright multi-colored skin, fur, or scales.
Some herbivores that have been prey to specific species of carnivores for countless generations have never evolved to be harder for that particular species to prey upon them.
Why have some species evolved so that the female kills the male after procreation?
Evolution can some times make as little sense to some as creationism does to others.
-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people."
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
Scarne
Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts:
27,710
Registered:
Jul 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,798
User ID: 272,061
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
You seemed convinced we derived from apes because our DNA is similar? Well breaking news, we share DNA similarities with most animals of the earth from chickens to whales. Apes may be most similar, but there is still a distinct difference between the two and the correlation between the two drawn are simply hypothesis.
The fossil record of how species diverged matches the how much DNA has diverged. What a strange coincidence.
And some very strange coincidences in the DNA record itself. Virtually all mammals have the ability to create Vitamin C and thus don't require it as part of their diet the way humans do. One of the other species that doesn't is the chimpanzee. In both humans and chimps, the gene that makes Vitamin C has the exact same mutation that broke it. On the other hand, the guinea pig also cannot make Vitamin C. However, the mutation on the Vitamin C gene for the guinea pig is in a different location.
The most likely explanation for why humans and chimps can't make Vitamin C is that it was a common ancestor that had the mutation that broke it. But yeah, it could just be some designer having fun mutating the gene in the same spots in some seemingly related species and then in a different spot in a distantly related species.
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
Link to this post
|
reesescups
Title: //Captain America
Posts:
47,567
Registered:
May 26, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 805,977
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
IMHO posted:
-----signature-----
"man up, you wimp." - Groucho48
"I'm not racist at all." - dae_trist
|
|
Link to this post
|
Onslaught.
Title: I've always wanted a title.
Posts:
56,272
Registered:
Feb 13, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 55,112
User ID: 68,094
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Btw... the whole "gradual change over time" thing... lol
Look in to Punctuated Equilibrium. kthx
-----signature-----
"Mmmmrmmrrrmrrmrmrrrrmrmrrmrmrmrrmrr"
-GinsuWife
|
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
what i find most interesting about discussions like these is that mankind thinks its special for some reason.
how do you know that trees dont share some form of airborn chemical as an external memory.
it has been proven that trees communicate over great distance through the use of airborne chemicals. they can warn each other of invading insects/diseases so that others can release antibodies in advance.
why is it so far fetched to think that they communicate in other ways as well?
is it only human arrogance? do we assume that they would want to try to communicate with us if they could? i know i woldnt want to communicate with most of you.
maybe they are trying to communicate with us but we dont speak their language and arent even trying to look for clues?
have you every tried to learn to speak in tree? how bout dolphin?
maybe its not so much a language barrier as it is an idea barrier. if the two languages and concepts for communications just arent compatible and we are trying all the wrong ideas to communicate then it will never happen.
and yet, every single one of you assumes that ours is the only possible form of "intelligent communication" available.
maybe its not the only one available but just the only one available to us.
and, no, im not corianus. im just pointing out flaws in your way of thinking and looking at things.
all of you assume and form base ideas from those assumptions.
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
|
Link to this post
|
Corky_Aloof
Posts:
10,689
Registered:
Jun 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,854
User ID: 929,737
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
What I find most perplexing with evolutionists theories is the total absence of any consideration regarding human mental/intellectual capacity. The most profound difference between man and animal, yet it is ignored in favor of trivial clues such as a vitamin c gene. Our intellectual abilities are so radically different than anything before it, it begs the question...why?
Why did natural evolution evolve a completely new level of understanding exclusive to humans? For what purpose? Before anyone suggests it is merely an evolved set of survival tools no different than a scorpions stinger, I ask what is the practical application for the ability to appreciate art, reciprocate love, the practice of worship or even the contemplation of thought? Did natural evolution also intend for humans to overpopulate and have total dominion over the entire earth overshadowing all other species? We as humans seem to have broken the mold of how life on this planet evolves and prospers. Evolution is a pattern and I see no pattern where humans are concerned. It is illogical to assume Humans are of normal, natural consequence to evolution when we are so unorthodoxed from all other creations.
-----signature-----
>
|
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
What I find most perplexing with evolutionists theories is the total absence of any consideration regarding human mental/intellectual capacity. The most profound difference between man and animal, yet it is ignored in favor of trivial clues such as a vitamin c gene. Our intellectual abilities are so radically different than anything before it, it begs the question...why?
Why did natural evolution evolve a completely new level of understanding exclusive to humans? For what purpose? Before anyone suggests it is merely an evolved set of survival tools no different than a scorpions stinger, I ask what is the practical application for the ability to appreciate art, reciprocate love, the practice of worship or even the contemplation of thought? Did natural evolution also intend for humans to overpopulate and have total dominion over the entire earth overshadowing all other species? We as humans seem to have broken the mold of how life on this planet evolves and prospers. Evolution is a pattern and I see no pattern where humans are concerned. It is illogical to assume Humans are of normal, natural consequence to evolution when we are so unorthodoxed from all other creations.
what makes you think the level of understanding is differnet or that much more evolved?
just because you can pick a booger and contemplate the awesomeness of said booger makes you a deeper thinker or more complex?
how much time do you devote to the complexity of smells in your front lawn? do you even have the brain power to comprehend such a large volume of data?
just because your focus is different doesnt it mean it is larger.
get over your arrogance and stop blaming god for your inabilities. he doesnt give a shit about you.
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
The usual right wing thread. OMG!!! Things can't really be complicated, because I can't understand complicated. Therefore, anything too complicated for me to understand in 10 seconds has to be due to God. I know this is true because all the liberal arguments are called "theories" Heh...theories? That means it's made up by those elitists who actually spent years and decades studying that stuff. They get paid to do so, so, that proves anything they say is a biased lie.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Crackdoc
Posts:
6,681
Registered:
Oct 7, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,609
User ID: 1,082,910
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
There are possibilities, as evidenced from sites like this -> http://www.lifesorigin.com/ ; the issue is choosing one that matches your personal degree of 'belief'.
Me, I could care less where we came from - I am more concerned with where the teeming masses are heading, and it seems to be down the drain.
-----signature-----
People in the Middle-East: They Are ALL Crazy as BedBugs!!!
Erich Fromm: “There is only one meaning of life: the act of living itself.â€
Toss aside the paradigms of civility you hold - welcome the social dysfunction of tomorrow.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Moe_Nox
Title: In Moe We Trust
Posts:
22,319
Registered:
Feb 4, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,181
User ID: 1,203,840
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
|
Amen Doc
-----signature-----
The Nanny State cometh Currency should be bacon cheeseburgers and blow jobs... - Reese Life at the Outpost: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
feelips posted:
The Jellyfish species Turritopsis Nutricula is immortal.
Under what definition are they immortal? Using the right definition us humans are immortal too. Every single one of us has grown out of living cells that were once a part of our parents body. The chain of life has never been interrupted. Without looking it up that's probably similar to the kind of immortality that jellyfish enjoys.
feelips posted:
The platypus is an absurd looking collection of parts from many different species.
Animals living in the same environment can adopt similar features without one of them inheriting those features from the other.
feelips posted:
Species that have always been color blind can have bright multi-colored skin, fur, or scales.
Oh come on that one is just dumb.
feelips posted:
Some herbivores that have been prey to specific species of carnivores for countless generations have never evolved to be harder for that particular species to prey upon them.
Can you give an example? Btw just because some animal is being hunted by predators doesn't mean the selective pressure is big enough to cause major changes.
feelips posted:
Why have some species evolved so that the female kills the male after procreation?
The question is worded in a way that almost implies purpose. That's not how evolution works. Let's take a closer look.
The species we talk about is a predator. They hunt, kill and eat. (Not necessarily in that order.) And they have to mate. Often these animals are small and relatively simple. So their prey would be anything that moves and that is of a certain size. Like for example their own "partner". What happens when they eat their partner before they can mate? No procreation. This is some major selective pressure. So there will be ways in which they can avoid that. The ones who didn't died out. Maybe a certain rhythm in their movement. Maybe some pheromones. Whatever, the only thing that matters is that it works. They successfully mate. After this selective pressure no longer applies. So when the female eats the male there is no disadvantage for their offspring. In fact since it's a fairly good and nourishing meal for the mother it will likely give their offspring a little boost. That would act as pressure towards eating the male.
feelips posted:
Evolution can some times make as little sense to some as creationism does to others.
Only if you're lacking a decent understanding of it.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Scarne
Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts:
27,710
Registered:
Jul 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,798
User ID: 272,061
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Corky_Aloof posted:
What I find most perplexing with evolutionists theories is the total absence of any consideration regarding human mental/intellectual capacity. The most profound difference between man and animal, yet it is ignored in favor of trivial clues such as a vitamin c gene. Our intellectual abilities are so radically different than anything before it, it begs the question...why?
Evolution doesn't select for intelligence, it selects for survival. Brains are very expensive calorie-wise so growing a brain bigger than the species needs is usually negatively selected against. We just got lucky that our brains got just big enough to be able to master fire which them provided lots of extra calories allowing a lot more brain growth.
And humans weren't the only smart species produced by evolution. There are others like Neanderthans and Homo floresiensis.
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
Evolution questions (part 2)
|
Scarne posted:
We just got lucky that our brains got just big enough to be able to master fire which them provided lots of extra calories allowing a lot more brain growth.
Americans grow the biggest brains!
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg
He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude
many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
Link to this post
|
