evolution
Moderator: Moderators
-
rapture101
- Student
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:30 pm
- Location: Ameila Island
evolution
Post #1Evolution.....I know that some people think that we evolved from apes or what ever. But my question is how did they get here if not by God.How did the earth get here? How did everything get here? from what I see everything got here by evolving.(thats the argument that some present me) But how did the first little spec of life get here?
To QED and Jos:
Post #91To QED and Jos:
Nice post you both made, very interesting. I tend to agree that as new discoveries happen we are getting a more valid of insight into the mystery of life itself. It seems very plausible that as we split the hair of life, the hair will stop to exist. But I would like to know at point that would be. I think it is important that science should never stifle itself, and also that evolution is on going, we are not an end unto ourselves, evolution is not over till life is over. Intelligent life on earth (if we are intelligent ) may be just another wild and wacky natural experiment of oddities.
Getting to the first life I bet there were many false starts, many failures, trial and errors so to speak. There is a growing body of evidence that suggest life is common in the universe, but without first hand observation it will not be a fact. I tend to think life is common wherever there is an environment for it to exist. As the earth cooled, or warmed up, life was an inevitable happening, this is my belief.
Are the same natural forces/chemicals at work now that were in existence 3.5 billion years ago as to how life got its start on earth? We have plenty of speculation, and a growing body of evidence, however, it is on this speculation that some theist try to capitalize on. So I think it is very essential that we do not blur the lines on what evolution defines.
I fond this article that is a very common argument against evolution. More than likely it is the strongest argument against evolution that they have. I have faced this argument many times, and is classic religious propaganda. Some how theist believe that discrediting evolution validates their bible god beliefs, that is truly silly, I can use their own bible for that.
http://www.etcsa.org/GJackson/PtsOfOrigin20010426.html
This is a very typical argument against evolution and why I think it is necessary to establish the definition of evolution.
To make some quotes from this article:
" Evolutionists want to explain where life came from. But first, they have to explain were the atoms came from, to make the molecules that make up living things.”
Don:
NO evolutionist DO NOT have to explain where molecules come from nor atoms, Evolution does NOT go there, and is not part of the definition of evolution. Evolution picks up with life being on this earth and deals with life, not how it got here. Evolution is not contingent on how atom were formed in an exploding star. Remotely related? Yes, but that is not what evolution explains, evolution explains the biological changes of a species.
“Because nobody has been able to figure out how these chemicals could ever form here on earth, many evolutionists claim that they must have come here from outer space. But then, they have to figure out how these chemicals could have evolved into proteins and DNA.”
Don:
NO evolutionist do not make any such claim how the chemicals arrived on earth, as that is not relevant to evolution. “Life exist on earth” is one of the founding premises that evolution is built on, not how these chemicals survive a trip to earth, nor their composition when they did arrived.
“..evolutionists still have the problem of figuring out how simple amino acids could combine to make proteins, which are essential to life. And how could you get nucleotides, in order to make DNA and RNA? And how could other chemicals come together to make cell membranes, which make up the very complex "skin" on the surface of every cell of living things? Membranes are more than just grease bubbles.”
Don:
Evolutionist do not have to know the entire secrets of the cosmos in order to establish a few facts.
1) Life exist on earth
2) Life has existed on earth for about 3.5 billion years, so we have the time for changes to take place.
3) No two offspring are an “exact” duplicate, there are variations
4) Life is subject to natural selection i.e. those life forms with the best survival characteristics (change that are an advantage) “and” can pass on those traits to the next generation are the ones that persist from generation to the next. Those life forms that fail, for any reason, are the ones that go extinct as a species. This has nothing to do with knowing the totality of RNA or DNA, other than a mechanism of transferring genetic information.
All of this can be easily shown, (and much more) and is NOT dependant on how life arrived on this earth, only that did, nor is evolution dependant on what atom came from what star at what time.
I an not saying, by any means, that we do not need to know all we can down to the very last detail, NEVER; I am saying that the definition of evolution has limits and boundaries and within those limits facts can be, have been, established to such a high degree that evolution is a “material fact”, and because we do not know it all, that does not mean we should change the boundaries of the definition of evolution.
“That's why some evolutionists are now looking to the stars. Others are still betting on the sea. Harold Morowitz and Robert Hazen, of George Mason University, have suggested that metal catalysts around hot geysers on the ocean floor could have caused the chemical reactions that could make the starting chemicals of life. So it goes on.”
Don:
Again this is expanding the definition of the word evolution beyond its application. Evolution does NOT go into how life started be it from angel poop to geysers. We can show life is on earth, has been on earth, and the changes to the bio-structures over time. This is the foundation, not very scientific, but none the less the foundation that evolution is built on.
“But then, where did the RNA come from? Evolutionists still have the "chicken and egg" problem. Each of the "answers" to the problem so far, have still been nothing but wishful thinking that never answers the original question. There is an alternative explanation.”
Don:
No evolutionist do have the chicken and the egg problem. We have not created such a scenario. The who, what, where, and why life started on earth is not even address in evolution.
As an example: We do not have to know everything about water to know that water runs down hill on earth. How water got on earth is not related to the fact that water is here, and it runs down hill.
Is how life got on earth ignored? NO, not at all; but when we are talking about houses, why should any one throw cows into the mix and then say houses do not exist?
That is the stupidity and blatant deceptiveness of some theist, and they know it. Evolution does not address the gods, nor the star XYZ in galaxy 9. Is everything related in this universe—OF course, but some relationships are not overly relevant to the facts that we do have as defined as evolution.
We can just as easily demand that theist tell us where their godless god came from, or how many gods does it take to create a godless god. I would even settle for a definition of a god that can hold water. Failure to show a universal designer, not having exclusivity of the evidence, they have nothing at all, and they do not even have a definition of their word g-o-d.
Don
Nice post you both made, very interesting. I tend to agree that as new discoveries happen we are getting a more valid of insight into the mystery of life itself. It seems very plausible that as we split the hair of life, the hair will stop to exist. But I would like to know at point that would be. I think it is important that science should never stifle itself, and also that evolution is on going, we are not an end unto ourselves, evolution is not over till life is over. Intelligent life on earth (if we are intelligent ) may be just another wild and wacky natural experiment of oddities.
Getting to the first life I bet there were many false starts, many failures, trial and errors so to speak. There is a growing body of evidence that suggest life is common in the universe, but without first hand observation it will not be a fact. I tend to think life is common wherever there is an environment for it to exist. As the earth cooled, or warmed up, life was an inevitable happening, this is my belief.
Are the same natural forces/chemicals at work now that were in existence 3.5 billion years ago as to how life got its start on earth? We have plenty of speculation, and a growing body of evidence, however, it is on this speculation that some theist try to capitalize on. So I think it is very essential that we do not blur the lines on what evolution defines.
I fond this article that is a very common argument against evolution. More than likely it is the strongest argument against evolution that they have. I have faced this argument many times, and is classic religious propaganda. Some how theist believe that discrediting evolution validates their bible god beliefs, that is truly silly, I can use their own bible for that.
http://www.etcsa.org/GJackson/PtsOfOrigin20010426.html
This is a very typical argument against evolution and why I think it is necessary to establish the definition of evolution.
To make some quotes from this article:
" Evolutionists want to explain where life came from. But first, they have to explain were the atoms came from, to make the molecules that make up living things.”
Don:
NO evolutionist DO NOT have to explain where molecules come from nor atoms, Evolution does NOT go there, and is not part of the definition of evolution. Evolution picks up with life being on this earth and deals with life, not how it got here. Evolution is not contingent on how atom were formed in an exploding star. Remotely related? Yes, but that is not what evolution explains, evolution explains the biological changes of a species.
“Because nobody has been able to figure out how these chemicals could ever form here on earth, many evolutionists claim that they must have come here from outer space. But then, they have to figure out how these chemicals could have evolved into proteins and DNA.”
Don:
NO evolutionist do not make any such claim how the chemicals arrived on earth, as that is not relevant to evolution. “Life exist on earth” is one of the founding premises that evolution is built on, not how these chemicals survive a trip to earth, nor their composition when they did arrived.
“..evolutionists still have the problem of figuring out how simple amino acids could combine to make proteins, which are essential to life. And how could you get nucleotides, in order to make DNA and RNA? And how could other chemicals come together to make cell membranes, which make up the very complex "skin" on the surface of every cell of living things? Membranes are more than just grease bubbles.”
Don:
Evolutionist do not have to know the entire secrets of the cosmos in order to establish a few facts.
1) Life exist on earth
2) Life has existed on earth for about 3.5 billion years, so we have the time for changes to take place.
3) No two offspring are an “exact” duplicate, there are variations
4) Life is subject to natural selection i.e. those life forms with the best survival characteristics (change that are an advantage) “and” can pass on those traits to the next generation are the ones that persist from generation to the next. Those life forms that fail, for any reason, are the ones that go extinct as a species. This has nothing to do with knowing the totality of RNA or DNA, other than a mechanism of transferring genetic information.
All of this can be easily shown, (and much more) and is NOT dependant on how life arrived on this earth, only that did, nor is evolution dependant on what atom came from what star at what time.
I an not saying, by any means, that we do not need to know all we can down to the very last detail, NEVER; I am saying that the definition of evolution has limits and boundaries and within those limits facts can be, have been, established to such a high degree that evolution is a “material fact”, and because we do not know it all, that does not mean we should change the boundaries of the definition of evolution.
“That's why some evolutionists are now looking to the stars. Others are still betting on the sea. Harold Morowitz and Robert Hazen, of George Mason University, have suggested that metal catalysts around hot geysers on the ocean floor could have caused the chemical reactions that could make the starting chemicals of life. So it goes on.”
Don:
Again this is expanding the definition of the word evolution beyond its application. Evolution does NOT go into how life started be it from angel poop to geysers. We can show life is on earth, has been on earth, and the changes to the bio-structures over time. This is the foundation, not very scientific, but none the less the foundation that evolution is built on.
“But then, where did the RNA come from? Evolutionists still have the "chicken and egg" problem. Each of the "answers" to the problem so far, have still been nothing but wishful thinking that never answers the original question. There is an alternative explanation.”
Don:
No evolutionist do have the chicken and the egg problem. We have not created such a scenario. The who, what, where, and why life started on earth is not even address in evolution.
As an example: We do not have to know everything about water to know that water runs down hill on earth. How water got on earth is not related to the fact that water is here, and it runs down hill.
Is how life got on earth ignored? NO, not at all; but when we are talking about houses, why should any one throw cows into the mix and then say houses do not exist?
That is the stupidity and blatant deceptiveness of some theist, and they know it. Evolution does not address the gods, nor the star XYZ in galaxy 9. Is everything related in this universe—OF course, but some relationships are not overly relevant to the facts that we do have as defined as evolution.
We can just as easily demand that theist tell us where their godless god came from, or how many gods does it take to create a godless god. I would even settle for a definition of a god that can hold water. Failure to show a universal designer, not having exclusivity of the evidence, they have nothing at all, and they do not even have a definition of their word g-o-d.
Don
Post #92
Incredulity is always there to bolster fears as well. That every living thing could be a product of a process devoid of the sort of will and intelligence that we're so familiar with (our own) requires a certain effort to understand the process. Jose makes this easier when he says
When people reject evolution I always wonder if they have understood this process and seen the inevitability of it in natural systems containing less than perfect replicators. At what point do they come to a halt if they follow the logical path from this general principle to the variety seen in the biosphere? It's simply not sufficient to look from the top down and declare that such a simple principle could not be capable of building all the diversity and complexity we see around us. Nature's laws are simple to express yet their outcomes are invariably complex. This characterises the key difference between the physical sciences and social sciences for example.
Most people already know that a beautiful home, garden, painting or other creative project does not spring into existence fully formed overnight. Instead humble beginnings are frequently transformed over time into interesting and impressive results that people become proud of. Patience and a continued accumulation of features is a process that really delivers. Given the extraordinary contrast in our lifespans and the age of the earth, I have no problem at all seeing how natural selection can have delivered as well. The only question in my mind is who, if anyone, should be proud of it all.
This is a very general statement and is demonstrably true. Not only can we model it using computers we can see it in our minds if we try. Jose helps by mentioning that perfect replication would be a dead end. I think that's a great observation for people to contemplate.Jose wrote:Once there is replication, there will be evolution of the things that replicate. The only ways to prevent evolution are either to destroy the replicating things totally, or endow them with absolutely perfect replication. Anything in between--a replication system that can make errors--will create diversity upon which selection will act.
When people reject evolution I always wonder if they have understood this process and seen the inevitability of it in natural systems containing less than perfect replicators. At what point do they come to a halt if they follow the logical path from this general principle to the variety seen in the biosphere? It's simply not sufficient to look from the top down and declare that such a simple principle could not be capable of building all the diversity and complexity we see around us. Nature's laws are simple to express yet their outcomes are invariably complex. This characterises the key difference between the physical sciences and social sciences for example.
Most people already know that a beautiful home, garden, painting or other creative project does not spring into existence fully formed overnight. Instead humble beginnings are frequently transformed over time into interesting and impressive results that people become proud of. Patience and a continued accumulation of features is a process that really delivers. Given the extraordinary contrast in our lifespans and the age of the earth, I have no problem at all seeing how natural selection can have delivered as well. The only question in my mind is who, if anyone, should be proud of it all.
Post #93
I am far inferior on this then QED and José, but would you consider plants life?
The answer to that is an obvious YEAH!, so defining life as breathing, or walking, or even thinking is silly alltogether. We as humans can look at a rock (regular rock) and for us, it would be ´dead´, inanimate, but there is millions of bacterias and natural chemicals on this rock, they are all ´alive´ in any decent definition.
To see a creation (pun intended) from a ´a soupl´ of a earth cooling down is not hard, all it needs is more time then us mere humans can comprehend. Am i not right?
The answer to that is an obvious YEAH!, so defining life as breathing, or walking, or even thinking is silly alltogether. We as humans can look at a rock (regular rock) and for us, it would be ´dead´, inanimate, but there is millions of bacterias and natural chemicals on this rock, they are all ´alive´ in any decent definition.
To see a creation (pun intended) from a ´a soupl´ of a earth cooling down is not hard, all it needs is more time then us mere humans can comprehend. Am i not right?
T: ´I do not believe in gravity, it´s just a theory.´
-
thenormalyears
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:39 pm
- Location: Kentukie
Re: evolution
Post #94rapture101 wrote:Evolution.....I know that some people think that we evolved from apes or what ever. But my question is how did they get here if not by God.How did the earth get here? How did everything get here? from what I see everything got here by evolving.(thats the argument that some present me) But how did the first little spec of life get here?
The earth got here when a second generation super nova went off and shot out iron, carbon, silicone and hydrogen and all that mess and earth formed by gravity. We got a few major impacts that altered out axis and contributed water and possibly got us our moon. That story is kind of boring compared to how life got started. Life is obviously more rare than planets.
*warning, extreme oversimplification for the benefit of the readers not falling asleep*
The beginning of life is a tough question, it depends on your definition of alive. We had a few chain carbon molecules capable of making crude copies of themselves for awhile being powered passively. The first active ones were simply by accident, because after a billion years of this carbon molecules rearranging themselves they finally hit paydirt, and a set of amino acids produced some crude rna. Even with rna Its a far cry from even the simplest surviving creature today however.
See.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Episode 2, One Voice in the Cosmic Fugee
(pbs. 1980)
Miller-Urey Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
Woese, Carl The Genetic Code
(New York: Harper and Row, 1967)
Hope this helps ya out mate
Re: evolution
Post #95This sounds awfuly alawt like evolutionism (communism). im no damn ape, but you cain öf course say that. I WAS MADE BY MY GOD.thenormalyears wrote:rapture101 wrote:Evolution.....I know that some people think that we evolved from apes or what ever. But my question is how did they get here if not by God.How did the earth get here? How did everything get here? from what I see everything got here by evolving.(thats the argument that some present me) But how did the first little spec of life get here?
The earth got here when a second generation super nova went off and shot out iron, carbon, silicone and hydrogen and all that mess and earth formed by gravity. We got a few major impacts that altered out axis and contributed water and possibly got us our moon. That story is kind of boring compared to how life got started. Life is obviously more rare than planets.
*warning, extreme oversimplification for the benefit of the readers not falling asleep*
The beginning of life is a tough question, it depends on your definition of alive. We had a few chain carbon molecules capable of making crude copies of themselves for awhile being powered passively. The first active ones were simply by accident, because after a billion years of this carbon molecules rearranging themselves they finally hit paydirt, and a set of amino acids produced some crude rna. Even with rna Its a far cry from even the simplest surviving creature today however.
See.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Episode 2, One Voice in the Cosmic Fugee
(pbs. 1980)
Miller-Urey Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
Woese, Carl The Genetic Code
(New York: Harper and Row, 1967)
Hope this helps ya out mate
HALLELULJA
*Spelling mistakes intentional
T: ´I do not believe in gravity, it´s just a theory.´
-
thenormalyears
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:39 pm
- Location: Kentukie
Post #96
I don't believe in no EVILUTION either. Those are evil science lies the devil made me type. 
Post #97
Welcome to the forum thenormalyears. Hope you enjoy yourself.
I think the best answer to the OP is 'we really don't know'. We have some good hypotheses about how life might have started, but we still have too little data to make conclusive statements.
Of course, it needs to be pointed out that not knowing how life began in no way nullifies what we do know about how life evolved from many hundreds of millions of years ago.
I think the best answer to the OP is 'we really don't know'. We have some good hypotheses about how life might have started, but we still have too little data to make conclusive statements.
Of course, it needs to be pointed out that not knowing how life began in no way nullifies what we do know about how life evolved from many hundreds of millions of years ago.
-
thenormalyears
- Newbie
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:39 pm
- Location: Kentukie
Post #98
Well I think that even what I posted doesn't eliminate God. The theists that I can stand believe that God just set the laws of the universe so it would unfold the way it has.micatala wrote:Welcome to the forum thenormalyears. Hope you enjoy yourself.
I think the best answer to the OP is 'we really don't know'. We have some good hypotheses about how life might have started, but we still have too little data to make conclusive statements.
Of course, it needs to be pointed out that not knowing how life began in no way nullifies what we do know about how life evolved from many hundreds of millions of years ago.
Post #99
I personally think our knowledge is such that we can state this in a much stronger way. Actual data showing the process as it happened is probably always going to remain unobtainable. But does that doesn't have to mean that all hypothesis are equally likely to be true. If we knew of no natural selection processes (necessary for picking and choosing "design" configurations) then we might have reason to suppose the intervention of some as-yet not understood intelligent agency. But we are not in that position. Natural selection has virtually unlimited scope as a selection mechanism and operates under a wide range of conditions. I think this much alone is sufficient to rule out the direct intelligent intervention hypothesis and I doubt if mainstream science disagrees.micatala wrote:I think the best answer to the OP is 'we really don't know'. We have some good hypotheses about how life might have started, but we still have too little data to make conclusive statements.
