Recommended Posts

Quote:


Quote:


It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time.

That seems more improbable to you than an omnipotent being just coming to exist by chance?

Given the nearly infinite size of the universe and a nearly infinite amount of time for it to happen, it doesn't seem that unlikely to me that conditions that are condusive to the creation of life would happen eventually somewhere, sometime. And they've done experiments to show how the conditions of early earth generated organic compounds.

The amount of evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming. If people weren't afraid of the ramifications on their beliefs (i.e. if there was no religion), no one would be arguing it. Hell no one really does in most of the rest of the civilized world.

You have to understand that the timescale of evolution is in the thousands or millions of years. And I believe they have found examples of evolution that have happened pretty recently although I don't recall the species off the top of my head.

I think human evolution will be pretty slow if not non-existing from here on out because we thing we're smarter than we are. When babies have mutations we try to "fix" the babies, hence altering their fitness. Maybe siamese twins are supposed to take over the world! But we'll never know, because we split them all.

You can't get life from NON Life. You can put all the UREA and Carbon you want into a lightning storm and you will never get life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


The assumption of humans at the end-point of evolution is a Cartesian falacy that no biolgoist would ever say. What you can say, is that currently humans are the current line of Homo. That is it. But you can say that about any currently alive specie.

Further, I know some argue that H. sapien sapien (modern humans) have stopped evolution. I find that to be a poor statement. Evolutionary pressures opperate on differentials in off0-spring survival. The more copies that a gene puts into future generations is the more fit. It really is that simple in Darwinian terms. The notion of "only the strongest survive" is garbage. Its only the the best reproducers survive, as long as those offspring also reproduce. Evolution is not an end-point game. Its a process that describes the changes in genetic and phenotypic structures through time.

When talking about species... There haven't been the formation of a new species in our lifetime or in any lifetime in I would say the past 2000 years. I would say many species have gone extinct in that period, however, you can't find evidence of a species of animal coming out of another species of animal during that time. Maybe there's that bottleneck you speak of... or maybe it just doesn't happen.

Also, when you look at life from a evolutionary perspective, you just totally ignore "life's origin". You have to say it must be chemically possible. I disagree. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. Therefore it must be chemically impossible to have life happen on it's own.

In regards to chemical combinations giving rise to life. Let me go through the probablities with you. Very simply, the Earth is 4 billion years old. Now the number of chemicals needed to interact the right way for life to occur is relatively small. But over 4 billion years, the probability of that interaction occuring is astronomical. I remember the lotto odds discussion so I am not going to work through the mathmatical proof of this. Again, READ A BOOK and you'll have a much better understanding of the process. I would suggest Climbing Mount Improbible by Richard Dawkins.

I don't have the numbers, but they can be looked up... However, it's very improbable!! UNLIKELY.. WONT HAPPEN. It doesn't matter how long it's allowed to sit around. The Chemistry won't support it. Chemical reactions are very simple and predictable things. They follow laws. What you're suggesting is that it's possible for these chemicals that are governed by laws to one day decide to do something different than what is in their nature.

Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new! Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment such as being camouflaged, more fierce, or a faster runner are more likely to leave behind more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations. This may be true, but it does not cause any biological changes in the genesis kind and is not evolution.

The most obvious weakness of the theory of evolution are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.

2. The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


You can't get life from NON Life. You can put all the UREA and Carbon you want into a lightning storm and you will never get life.

The fact that there is life means that somehow, somewhere, life emerged from non-life. Unless you believe life to have always existed and that there was no beginning ... ever. The Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old, and we only figured out that the Earth orbits the sun about 500 years ago. We haven't been very scientifically knowledgeable for very long at all. The fact that scientists have not been able to actually create life from non-life in such a short amount of time does not mean that it can't be done. The first experiments to even attempt this (Miller-Urey) were 50 years ago.

I don't see what is so unbelievable. Either you think life just happened, or you think it was created by an outer-worldly being. If you think it was created by a God-figure, then either he just was, or he was created by someone/something else. At some point, something just was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new!

That is true of natural selection but not of evolution. Changes occur through gene mutations, gene transfer. Then natural selection favors the changes that lead to survival and better reproduction over very long periods of time. There is a reason that genetic algorithms are very powerful in AI, this stuff actually works very well for some purposes.

Quote:


The most obvious weakness of the theory of evolution are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.

Evolution doesn't claim to have an explanation for the origin of life. It is a scientific observation of the way in which species have evolved, as supported by a large amount of evidence. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answer. It aims to take an unbiased look at evidence to explain what can be explained about the universe. Not knowing exactly how everything started doesn't change the fact that we pretty much know how things evolved after that.

Quote:


2. The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

That is in no way conflicting with evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new!

That is true of natural selection but not of evolution. Changes occur through gene mutations, gene transfer. Then natural selection favors the changes that lead to survival and better reproduction over very long periods of time. There is a reason that genetic algorithms are very powerful in AI, this stuff actually works very well for some purposes.

Quote:


The most obvious weakness of the theory of evolution are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.

Evolution doesn't claim to have an explanation for the origin of life. It is a scientific observation of the way in which species have evolved, as supported by a large amount of evidence. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answer. It aims to take an unbiased look at evidence to explain what can be explained about the universe. Not knowing exactly how everything started doesn't change the fact that we pretty much know how things evolved after that.

Quote:


2. The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

That is in no way conflicting with evolution.

Without a starting point, there's no theory of evolution.

To say that something just evolved means that it evolved from something. I might be wrong, but I remember reading about a primeval soup or abiogenesis... that Darwin contrived. Evolutionists have to stay away from the question of life from non-life because it's fact that our oxygen tent called earth would not have supported the organic chemical reactions necessary to form those building blocks (Oparin).

Now, adaptation is a different issue than evolution. They are not the same because adaptation doesn't need an origin it needs a cause. Just like a blind man who has better hearing. However, does that mean his children will have better hearing?? Probably not. NOt unless they are born blind too.

Moreover, I'm always leary of people who point to a scientist with an agenda (Dawkins) as a source. True Science has only one agenda, to answer the question. Dawkins has tainted himself in the scientific community because his main agenda is to disprove God. In his eagerness to do so, he has misrepresented Science with his own views rather than a true study. Since you say read, you may read Orr and McGrath for starters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Without a starting point, there's no theory of evolution.

To say that something just evolved means that it evolved from something. I might be wrong, but I remember reading about a primeval soup or abiogenesis... that Darwin contrived. Evolutionists have to stay away from the question of life from non-life because it's fact that our oxygen tent called earth would not have supported the organic chemical reactions necessary to form those building blocks (Oparin).

No these are really two separate issues. It's like saying scientists should stop claiming that gravity exists if they can't prove how gravity started. All of the evidence shows that gravity exists and is governed by equations. All of the evidence available indicates that species have evolved from one another as guided by natural selection. That's part I.

Part II is the origin of life on earth. An entirely separate set of evidence indicates to most scientists that life probably arose with the conditions of early earth with the primordial soup and lightning and so on. Most scientists see this as the most likely scenario even though it is not entirely proven. However it is really outside of the scope of evolution. You can believe that God created life and that evolution exists, they are not mutually exclusive.

To put things simply, evolution has basically been proven and is well understood. And while the scientific consensus at this point is that life came out of the primordial soup etc... it is clearly not a fully understood process. That doesn't change the fact that evolution has happened.

Quote:


Now, adaptation is a different issue than evolution. They are not the same because adaptation doesn't need an origin it needs a cause. Just like a blind man who has better hearing. However, does that mean his children will have better hearing?? Probably not. NOt unless they are born blind too.

What?? Oh man you have a way of always throwing mud in the water and confusing things. I don't know what you mean by adaptation, exactly. Evolution is basically when species change over time and the better suited ones survive more. A blind guy developing better hearing has absolutely nothing to do with evolution because it is not passed on through his genes. Acquired skills are not evolution.

Maybe read this, it's pretty short. A couple quotes:

-"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."

-"Individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next."

Quote:


Moreover, I'm always leary of people who point to a scientist with an agenda (Dawkins) as a source. True Science has only one agenda, to answer the question. Dawkins has tainted himself in the scientific community because his main agenda is to disprove God. In his eagerness to do so, he has misrepresented Science with his own views rather than a true study. Since you say read, you may read Orr and McGrath for starters.

Forget Dawkins, he's one loud guy. Again it's off topic. The entire scientific community recognizes evolution and has for quite some time. All of the evidence is there. The entire civilized world recognizes this except for parts of the US where people are so afraid of things that challenge literal interpretation of their religion. I'm not religious, but most of my friends in grad school who were believed that God created life and evolution. They are not exclusive just because nuts around here have "evolution vs creationism" lawsuits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new!

That is true of natural selection but not of evolution. Changes occur through gene mutations, gene transfer. Then natural selection favors the changes that lead to survival and better reproduction over very long periods of time. There is a reason that genetic algorithms are very powerful in AI, this stuff actually works very well for some purposes.

Quote:


The most obvious weakness of the theory of evolution are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.

Evolution doesn't claim to have an explanation for the origin of life. It is a scientific observation of the way in which species have evolved, as supported by a large amount of evidence. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answer. It aims to take an unbiased look at evidence to explain what can be explained about the universe. Not knowing exactly how everything started doesn't change the fact that we pretty much know how things evolved after that.

Quote:


2. The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

That is in no way conflicting with evolution.

Without a starting point, there's no theory of evolution.

To say that something just evolved means that it evolved from something. I might be wrong, but I remember reading about a primeval soup or abiogenesis... that Darwin contrived. Evolutionists have to stay away from the question of life from non-life because it's fact that our oxygen tent called earth would not have supported the organic chemical reactions necessary to form those building blocks (Oparin).

Moreover, I'm always leary of people who point to a scientist with an agenda (Dawkins) as a source. True Science has only one agenda, to answer the question. Dawkins has tainted himself in the scientific community because his main agenda is to disprove God. In his eagerness to do so, he has misrepresented Science with his own views rather than a true study. Since you say read, you may read Orr and McGrath for starters.

Do actually understand what Oparin was saying? He is saying that Earth has the EXACT chemical, heat, and molucular properties for life to arrise! Oparin's work is the basis for much of the molecular biology being conducted currenlty, but that doesn't mean his stuff is infalible. The guy did his work in the 20s throug the 50s. But the point is, Oparin SUPPORTS evolution and the emergence of life on Earth through chemical processes.

Quote:


Now, adaptation is a different issue than evolution. They are not the same because adaptation doesn't need an origin it needs a cause. Just like a blind man who has better hearing. However, does that mean his children will have better hearing?? Probably not. NOt unless they are born blind too.

This shows me you have no understanding of evolution. Go and read something from the scientific literature on evolution, please. The "Red Queen" is a good starting point for beginners. I mention Dawkins becuase his work is designed to be read by lay people not scientists. Just because Orr and McGrath don't like what he did in the "God Delusion" in no way invalidates his understanding of evolution nor his ability to explain the processes. There are many scientist that I know that support Dawkin's work to counter-act the religious hysteria that is erupting around the world.

D, I know you like to argue, but you are really out of your league in this argument. When you have a real understanding of evolution then we can debate the finer points. If you want to argue for a God or God-like being(s) that is fine. I won't agree with you, but I will respect a well laid out argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present-it cannot change or create anything new!

That is true of natural selection but not of evolution. Changes occur through gene mutations, gene transfer. Then natural selection favors the changes that lead to survival and better reproduction over very long periods of time. There is a reason that genetic algorithms are very powerful in AI, this stuff actually works very well for some purposes.

Quote:


The most obvious weakness of the theory of evolution are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from non-living elements or chemicals.

Evolution doesn't claim to have an explanation for the origin of life. It is a scientific observation of the way in which species have evolved, as supported by a large amount of evidence. Science doesn't pretend to have all the answer. It aims to take an unbiased look at evidence to explain what can be explained about the universe. Not knowing exactly how everything started doesn't change the fact that we pretty much know how things evolved after that.

Quote:


2. The fact remains that even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

That is in no way conflicting with evolution.

Without a starting point, there's no theory of evolution.

To say that something just evolved means that it evolved from something. I might be wrong, but I remember reading about a primeval soup or abiogenesis... that Darwin contrived. Evolutionists have to stay away from the question of life from non-life because it's fact that our oxygen tent called earth would not have supported the organic chemical reactions necessary to form those building blocks (Oparin).

Moreover, I'm always leary of people who point to a scientist with an agenda (Dawkins) as a source. True Science has only one agenda, to answer the question. Dawkins has tainted himself in the scientific community because his main agenda is to disprove God. In his eagerness to do so, he has misrepresented Science with his own views rather than a true study. Since you say read, you may read Orr and McGrath for starters.

Do actually understand what Oparin was saying? He is saying that Earth has the EXACT chemical, heat, and molucular properties for life to arrise! Oparin's work is the basis for much of the molecular biology being conducted currenlty, but that doesn't mean his stuff is infalible. The guy did his work in the 20s throug the 50s. But the point is, Oparin SUPPORTS evolution and the emergence of life on Earth through chemical processes.

Quote:


Now, adaptation is a different issue than evolution. They are not the same because adaptation doesn't need an origin it needs a cause. Just like a blind man who has better hearing. However, does that mean his children will have better hearing?? Probably not. NOt unless they are born blind too.

This shows me you have no understanding of evolution. Go and read something from the scientific literature on evolution, please. The "Red Queen" is a good starting point for beginners. I mention Dawkins becuase his work is designed to be read by lay people not scientists. Just because Orr and McGrath don't like what he did in the "God Delusion" in no way invalidates his understanding of evolution nor his ability to explain the processes. There are many scientist that I know that support Dawkin's work to counter-act the religious hysteria that is erupting around the world.

D, I know you like to argue, but you are really out of your league in this argument. When you have a real understanding of evolution then we can debate the finer points. If you want to argue for a God or God-like being(s) that is fine. I won't agree with you, but I will respect a well laid out argument.

Just about Dawkins.

As was stated by Orr who is an evolutionary biologist.... with no dog in the fight about god or no god... Dawkins tries to force the scientific answers to fit his agenda... when they don't.... usually by adding things that are not there or taking away things that are there.

My point was the same. Science answers a question. However, when somebody tries to ask a question with a preconceived agenda, science becomes clumsy and usually wrong. Basically if I was trying to prove that the world was flat... I could give statements about the earth having a horizon... The sun falling over the horizon every day. blah blah blah.. However, if I leave out known facts (like we have orbited the earth or seen it from the money) as Dawkins does... then my science is bad science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Without a starting point, there's no theory of evolution.

To say that something just evolved means that it evolved from something. I might be wrong, but I remember reading about a primeval soup or abiogenesis... that Darwin contrived. Evolutionists have to stay away from the question of life from non-life because it's fact that our oxygen tent called earth would not have supported the organic chemical reactions necessary to form those building blocks (Oparin).

No these are really two separate issues. It's like saying scientists should stop claiming that gravity exists if they can't prove how gravity started. All of the evidence shows that gravity exists and is governed by equations. All of the evidence available indicates that species have evolved from one another as guided by natural selection. That's part I.

Part II is the origin of life on earth. An entirely separate set of evidence indicates to most scientists that life probably arose with the conditions of early earth with the primordial soup and lightning and so on. Most scientists see this as the most likely scenario even though it is not entirely proven. However it is really outside of the scope of evolution. You can believe that God created life and that evolution exists, they are not mutually exclusive.

To put things simply, evolution has basically been proven and is well understood. And while the scientific consensus at this point is that life came out of the primordial soup etc... it is clearly not a fully understood process. That doesn't change the fact that evolution has happened.

Quote:


Now, adaptation is a different issue than evolution. They are not the same because adaptation doesn't need an origin it needs a cause. Just like a blind man who has better hearing. However, does that mean his children will have better hearing?? Probably not. NOt unless they are born blind too.

What?? Oh man you have a way of always throwing mud in the water and confusing things. I don't know what you mean by adaptation, exactly. Evolution is basically when species change over time and the better suited ones survive more. A blind guy developing better hearing has absolutely nothing to do with evolution because it is not passed on through his genes. Acquired skills are not evolution.

Maybe read this, it's pretty short. A couple quotes:

-"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."

-"Individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next."

I'm glad you dropped that url. It's interesting but I have one thing to add to it. The reason why non-scientist are confused about evolution is because the scientist keep changing definitions as they go.

For instance, Darwin came out with Natural Selection and when asked about origin of everything he said primeval Soup. This is where you get the idea (among non-scientist) that we all exsisted as one celled living species (that came about from atmospheric excitations and the coming together of amino acids)...some real Frankenstien kinda stuff. On up to Chimps, Apes..

In this primordial soup which is still found in some 1st year college Biology textbooks...

Quote:


Several billion years ago, when the earth was vastly different from what it is today, the primeval seas became rich mixtures of organic molecules. Probably a chance combination of molecules produced a larger molecule (similar to the DNA of today?) that had a chemical structure giving it a pattern for exact duplication. Slowly, the duplicating molecules became parts of more complex systems, until - perhaps after one or two billion years - they could be called "organisms." From these humble beginnings life spread over the earth and evolved into its innumerable species - each an experiment in living in a particular way.

This is from a biology textbook. Published in the 70's.

It's a joke!!!

Now..

What here's how I discuss it:

microevolution: Small changes over a small amount of time.

Macroevolution: Changes over a large amount of time.

Adaptation: Changes that happened based on something added or taken away from the system.

Micro and Macroevolution would have to follow a natural selection. I don't believe in natural selection. Like I have been saying, it has no catalyst. If there were natural selection, then we'd be superbeings. Even in microevloution, we would have evolved to conqueor our environment. Because if it has no catalyst, then you're evolved all the time. That means that as you get older, you get better. However, it's just the opposite with man. As we get older, we start to oxidize and die out.

Adaptation does make you better... but like you mentioned it's not passed on through genes (I concur).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm not a member of an organized religion - but I'm certainly not against them. I would described myself as an agnostic or probably more of a Deist. But the bending of scientific knowledge to the theory of the world being created 6000 years ago or so is annoying to me. It's obviously not the case (the fossil record shows that) so why not just give up on it. That doesn't mean religions are wrong - only mistaken in that regard.

As far as our known world - we are kind of stuck due to distances and technology from exploring much futher than our moon or maybe Mars in our lifetimes due to technology. So I tend to look the other direction. Lets take ants as a fer-instance. Organized social insects that can use their environment (within their limitations) to build, secure food and shelter, reproduce, etc. Now an ant colony lives and forages in a very small area. Ants have no idea that humans exist. For all we know (if they could think) they might think that they are the most advanced species. They don't know that humans have put men on the moon. So if you take that the other direction, who are we to say that there isn't another species of life just as far advanced from us as we are from ants? Obviously, one would have to look past the boundaries of our planet for that to be the case. Anyway, it's fun to think about sometimes. Man has always sought knowledge and hypothesized.

But hey...it's just about game time. The Knicks game tonight is almost a "must win" IMO if we want to make the playoffs thumb3d.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Personally I'm not a member of an organized religion - but I'm certainly not against them. I would described myself as an agnostic or probably more of a Deist. But the bending of scientific knowledge to the theory of the world being created 6000 years ago or so is annoying to me. It's obviously not the case (the fossil record shows that) so why not just give up on it. That doesn't mean religions are wrong - only mistaken in that regard.

As far as our known world - we are kind of stuck due to distances and technology from exploring much futher than our moon or maybe Mars in our lifetimes due to technology. So I tend to look the other direction. Lets take ants as a fer-instance. Organized social insects that can use their environment (within their limitations) to build, secure food and shelter, reproduce, etc. Now an ant colony lives and forages in a very small area. Ants have no idea that humans exist. For all we know (if they could think) they might think that they are the most advanced species. They don't know that humans have put men on the moon. So if you take that the other direction, who are we to say that there isn't another species of life just as far advanced from us as we are from ants? Obviously, one would have to look past the boundaries of our planet for that to be the case. Anyway, it's fun to think about sometimes. Man has always sought knowledge and hypothesized.

But hey...it's just about game time. The Knicks game tonight is almost a "must win" IMO if we want to make the playoffs
thumb3d.gif

It's interesting that every attack on evolution must come from a creationsit? At least, that's your response. I attack evolution and it's "origin of life" from a scientific viewpoint with no agenda. Mainly, can somebody explain to me how life came from non-life. I believe that biologically, we have the ability to adapt, but I don't believe in natural selection.

Natural selection states that our eye evolved from some simple light sensative spot. However, it doesn't really give an origin. Darwin's suggestions came on a comparitive analysis of different species and what could be. However, when you really think about the eye, there are far too many moving parts. Far too much "biotechnology" that is interdependent on each other for it to have been evolved in parts or pieces over generations. Darwin had to recognize this and that's why in his theories there are no origin. Only comparative analysis.

Well hell, I can tell you that our eyes are different from a cat eyes... and suggest that somehow our eyes must have evolved from that. But that's not suggesting anything really. The conclusion is simple but not totally correct. Without an origin, the talk of evolution dies. It may take centuries for a better construct of "evolution" to come about. However, for right now, evolution is just a theory. It has many unanswered questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to try and clear up your misconceptions D, please take a look at the following. Your understanding of natural selection and evolution needs to evolve as you have your terms confused and/or poorly defined.

I will start off with a quote from an award winning web site devoted to Evolution and the teaching of Evolution:

“Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.”

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Thus, natural selection refers to the process of a given genotype becoming more common in a given population. Over time, populations diverge and with that separation, you get speciation. What is there not to believe about this?

In terms of this catalyst that you keep trying to get, the answer is simple: reproduction in the face of competition. Organisms face two basic tradeoffs- investments in self and investments in reproduction. Any given unit of energy can only be expended in one of these categories. In humans we spend about 15 to 20 years investing in self. This is seen in such biological phenomena as body growth, immune system development, and brain growth. Around age 20 (depending upon the population and the era), humans begin reproductive investments. These include mate attraction, mate retention, sex, birth, and investments in children. Not all people do it this way, of course, but I am using generalizations that match the vast majority of the 6.5 billion people on the planet.

You ask the question why aren’t there superbeings? The answer comes from the second part of my discussion above: competition. For every adaptation, other organisms will react. The evolutionary pressures on humans can include: food, mate competition, defense, and immune function. That last item should not be taken lightly. Immune functions take up a significant proportion of daily energy use. As we use our immune system, the organisms (bacteria, viruses, and micro-organisms) also are under evolutionary pressures to match our adaptations. Thus, for every move our immune system makes, those that it is made against are also making moves.

Now lets go back to the idea of energy. Humans are an open energy system, meaning that we must take in energy to survive. Since we do not have access to unlimited energy, we cannot have unlimited biological functions. We can only take in so many calories in a day. Our guts can only digest so much food. Furthermore, if we only bothered with getting food, then we would have no time for reproduction.

Reproduction is ultimately the engine that is driving the whole system. There are asexually reproducing organisms, but they are not nearly as common as sexually reproducing organisms. The reason is that with sex, you get a mixing of genes. This mixing of genes allows for different genotypes to propogate in the environment. Why is this beneficial? Because environments don’t stay the same. With environmental change, the rules of the game are changed. Food may be more difficult to acquire, or easier. Temperatures may change by a degree or two. Any environmental change, MAY lead to a change in the way organisms go about their daily lives. Those organisms that have a mutation that allows them to out reproduce others then set the gene pool for subsequent generations.

Thus, Natural Selection is the term used to describe the process of changing gene frequency over time.

Again, I hope this clears up confusion and sets the table more properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


...It's interesting that every attack on evolution must come from a creationsit? At least, that's your response. ..

Interestingly...I don't see where I said that at all? But I have no desire to argue with somebody who puts words in my mouth. It's not worth my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


...It's interesting that every attack on evolution must come from a creationsit? At least, that's your response. ..

Interestingly...I don't see where I said that at all? But I have no desire to argue with somebody who puts words in my mouth. It's not worth my time.

My point was that the conversation had nothing to do with religion until you brought it into the equation. My attack on evolution was strictly upon it's science and more specifically the science of it's definition of the origin of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - I think we both missed each other's point to a degree - and I may have been a little off-base bringing in the 6000 year thing. That was OT.

I try to look at the question the same way...meaning...could you do thousands and thousands of controlled experiments - providing the building blocks of life in a life-sterilized environment - and expect to see life emerge? I seriously doubt it. We probably agree more than we disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


OK - I think we both missed each other's point to a degree - and I may have been a little off-base bringing in the 6000 year thing. That was OT.

I try to look at the question the same way...meaning...could you do thousands and thousands of controlled experiments - providing the building blocks of life in a life-sterilized environment - and expect to see life emerge? I seriously doubt it. We probably agree more than we disagree.

To answer your question (slightly)... UV radiation, insolubility in salt water, and the levels of CO2 at the time would not have sustained life... But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life. In fact, it's almost a miracle to get life from life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Quote:


But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life.

Do the facts identify the life that generated the life on this planet or is it an assumption that some unidentified form of life kicked off life on this planet? It seems to me that there is not a good answer to the question of how life originated on Earth at this point and that we are pretty far away from knowing real "facts" regarding the origin of life on this planet. Am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


OK - I think we both missed each other's point to a degree - and I may have been a little off-base bringing in the 6000 year thing. That was OT.

I try to look at the question the same way...meaning...could you do thousands and thousands of controlled experiments - providing the building blocks of life in a life-sterilized environment - and expect to see life emerge? I seriously doubt it. We probably agree more than we disagree.

To answer your question (slightly)... UV radiation, insolubility in salt water, and the levels of CO2 at the time would not have sustained life... But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life. In fact, it's almost a miracle to get life from life.

According to your own sources, this is flat wrong. My gosh, just make it up as you go along. First off, viruses were more than likely the original life-forms. Viruses can do all sorts of fun things, like self replicate and survive in increadibly harsh environments, including no oxygen. Next, we don't have the full data set on what the first bactirium or other single-celled creatures looked like, so how can you possibly make such a statement. For example, Orr's work is very clear that the primordial conditions gave rise to single cell life forms. More recent work in deep sea biology is cleary showing that the deep sea vents provide all the necessary conditions for the creation of life: pressure, warmth, and a rich blend of nutrients. The deep sea work is showing that life does occur when conditions are correct. By the way, the deep sea vents aren't exposed to UV radiation. Third, you keep (mis) quoting scientists, yet you disparage the work.

People, D has NO IDEA what he is talking about in this thread. He is making stuff up out of whole cloth.

If anyone else is really interested in learning about evolution, please take it upon yoruself to look up information. I can point you to some good sources as well. This is part of my field and I think I have a good grasp on the topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin

please, post some links. In all honesty this was probably one of the most interesting threads I've ever read on this site. It was made more interesting by the fact that while there was disagreement, civility has prevailed! BRAVO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


OK - I think we both missed each other's point to a degree - and I may have been a little off-base bringing in the 6000 year thing. That was OT.

I try to look at the question the same way...meaning...could you do thousands and thousands of controlled experiments - providing the building blocks of life in a life-sterilized environment - and expect to see life emerge? I seriously doubt it. We probably agree more than we disagree.

To answer your question (slightly)... UV radiation, insolubility in salt water, and the levels of CO2 at the time would not have sustained life... But more interesting is the fact that you can't get life from non-life. In fact, it's almost a miracle to get life from life.

According to your own sources, this is flat wrong. My gosh, just make it up as you go along. First off, viruses were more than likely the original life-forms. Viruses can do all sorts of fun things, like self replicate and survive in increadibly harsh environments, including no oxygen. Next, we don't have the full data set on what the first bactirium or other single-celled creatures looked like, so how can you possibly make such a statement. For example, Orr's work is very clear that the primordial conditions gave rise to single cell life forms. More recent work in deep sea biology is cleary showing that the deep sea vents provide all the necessary conditions for the creation of life: pressure, warmth, and a rich blend of nutrients. The deep sea work is showing that life does occur when conditions are correct. By the way, the deep sea vents aren't exposed to UV radiation. Third, you keep (mis) quoting scientists, yet you disparage the work.

People, D has NO IDEA what he is talking about in this thread. He is making stuff up out of whole cloth.

If anyone else is really interested in learning about evolution, please take it upon yoruself to look up information. I can point you to some good sources as well. This is part of my field and I think I have a good grasp on the topics.

So you are saying that an earth with no ozone layer would have supported life...

OH Wait..

You're saying that because there was no ozone layer, life had to begin in the deepest portion of the sea.

Come on Frosgrim.

Don't you see Science conforming to itself here?

Science should indeed answer a question.

The first question asked is can life have existed on primitive earth.

The first answer is no! UV and CO2 could not sustain it.

Moreover, your discussion of viruses have one problem... Larger viruses are parasitic. That means that they have to have a host to leech from. IF there is no host, the virus cannot live. We know this to be true for viruses that exist now. They have very short lifetimes. So how is it that a virus could be sustained without a host??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.