|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/25/2005 9:56:14 PM | Whats all this crud about science having no clue to as how evolution started? Its fairly simple actualy.
Firstly you nead a planet, one thats not too hot and not too cold, has a medium size so that grazity is within a tolerale range, and an atmosphere... think that sounds unliklely? Well we have already found several that are of similar size and distance from thier respective sun as we are and those are just on our nearest neighbours.
Next you nead some simple sugar complexes. These are easily created as carbon will tend towards creating long chain hydrocarbons under most circumstances, even in space we find sugars floating around frealy.
After sugars we require the four bases TAGC. Again these are found comonly throught the universe as they are created through the interaction of sugars and acids. We also nead long chain protiens, now these are not so easy to come by, they require a liquid medium to develop in. Howeve space be so vast as it is, this still means that even the long chain protiens join up in the inky vastness of space.
Now we have the building blocks of life, we can create a simple strand of RNA. This again, is know to hapen in the big black beyond. Now, RNA creation is one of those lovely special chemical reactions that we like to call. A SPR or Self Perpetuating Reaction. What this means is that a small section of RNA acts as a catalyst providing the ideal conditions for more RNA. as long as there is suficent fuel to do so.
This however is not yet life, although capable of reproducing itself. it is only a chemical reaction at this stage, no more sentient than the nclear fusion that is self perpetuationg at the heart of the sun right now. However it will soon become we call life, when two sections of RNA come together along the TAGC bases and creat a strand of DNA. So far this has not been observed as a cosmic event, but there is no reason that it canot happen, we just haven't seen it happen.
So now we have DNA from a start of simple chemical reactions. But we still don't have life. This is where its starts to get a little bit complex. Firstly the DNA, under presure and heat, starts to unravel into RNA, as it dose so it grabs free bases from the surounding soup of chimcals to creat a section of mRNA identical to one half of the DNA.
After this the DNA sheds the mRNA it has just created and "rezips". This step provides a twined copy of mRNA that codes for the creation of other simpler chemicals and as such provides the DNA with a surounding of simple sugars, bases and protiens. These protiens and sugars are free to interact as they will and eventualy form Lipids. Lipids are VERY important as they are a ball and chain shapped protien that has a ball that is atracted to water and a chain that is repeled from water. When you put several of these lipds together, they form tiny beads as they stic to each other and to a small droplet of water.
If the DNA strand, and its mRNA copies are on the inside of this ball of lipids. You get a stable chemical enviroment, where a strand of DNA is able to control its enviroment by altering the levels of chemical protiens, acids and fats (all made from simple sugars) it creates. It dose not change its enviroment diliberately, but dose so by a siple process of Homeostasis. when there is two much of one chemical, no more of it can be produced because it just cant interact with its DNA or mRNA hosts.
This is the basic cell. The building block of all life. To develop to this stage has not required direct intervention but a simple proces of random chemical reactions.
If you have any questions about this please don't hesitate to ask. I will endevour to answer all valid questions to the best of my ability. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 8:31:20 AM | CountIbli & B1R, It all makes perfect sense to me, but I think you will have trouble convincing the true believers, unless you can come up with a system that can be completed in 6 days, (because you need to rest on the 7th)...lol | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:39:08 AM | Well i dont count the six days thing at all as the bible in the old Hebrew can be taken to say Day or taken to say an indefinate period of time. The symbol for day (looks a bit like a box folowed by a fractured letter P) means simply a period of time, if taken as meaning a long period of time, it could be taken that god created the world in 6 ages!
As for the flood, I don't know enougth about that to comment, but I do belive the flood was imposible so...  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 5:42:58 PM | | The flood was a holdover form Greek mythology. It was the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha - a guy and his wife who were warning of an implending flood devised by Zues to destroy all man. A lot of the bible is formed around the concepts described in greek mythology. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 6:11:52 PM | | Mari2010, I believe you are right... Recently Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) was on a search for a well preserved wooden shipwreck in the Black Sea, seems that the toxic salt content, coupled with extreme depth, makes it the perfect place to preserve wood...During the voyage they discovered evidence of the Mediterranean spilling over its banks violently and flooding the then freshwater lake (now the Black Sea)...Incidentally they found evidence of settlements under water dated to approximately 7,500 years ago...Noah’s flood is only dated back about 4500 years...So scientists conclude the Noah’s flood was probably regional folklore passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years before being recorded... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 6:33:03 PM | Well the Greek myths do substantially predate the bible. they do not necessarily predate the Jewish scrolls but the Jews were such a small part of the recorded volumes at the time, I don't think it's likely that they would have great bearing on this tale.
It's very likely that landmasses shifted and eroded the way they do currently. 7000 years is not a lot of time for continental drift but it is for erosional processes. Certainly those poor fools had to explain shifting waters somehow. - especially those that links major inland lakes with flood planes.
I think Bob Ballard may have discovered such a thing but I think he's far more interested in using radar reflections to locate sunken treasures. That sea is free picking for those things. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 6:51:24 PM | I'm not arguing with any of you that evolution takes place. As I understand it, Darwinism is the theory that evolution goes all the way back to the very beginning. The problem with Darwinism is that there are too many diversities. If everything started out as the same proto-fish, shouldn't most of evolution look like protofish ?
I will buy into varied environments making minor "preferred" changes in creatures, but it doesn't explain how one species becomes carnivore while another, REACTING TO THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULUS, grows a double stomach and eats hay. Why does one become a shark while another becomes a dolphin in exactly the same oceanic conditions ?
It becomes obvious that not every creature could have come from the same primordial ooze. There had to be a starting point somewhere up the road, with several hundred basic creatures which then continued to evolve.
If the Darwin theory is right, and things continue to evolve, explain why any number of species have basically stopped evolving ? Sharks and the larger reptiles (alligators, crocs, Komodo dragons, etc) have not changed in millions of years (probably about the same time they quit talking ).
The Bible itself never states that man was created fully evolved, but that only two were originally created. This would be consistant with your examples of records of fossil history with decreasing human prescence. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 6:57:33 PM | | Actually archeoligists have found cities under what appeared to be floods | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 7:15:27 PM | Let me just state this, it is a misconception that sharks and other anchient animals have not evolved. There have been many varitions of shark for example that have come and gone as new enviromental nices have opened and closed, Megalodon for example was a Giant shark, about half the size of a blue wale. It could have swalowed most types of wale in one gulp, but its gone now because it evolved to feed of the giant reptiles that swam the oceans eons ago. There was once a species of shark that had teeth on its dorsal fin for some unknown reason.
The reason sharks still look like sharks after all this time, is that the body plan worked. There is no nead for sharks to change to adamt to new conditions if there body plan is already adapted to those conditions. Look at like this, you can put as many diferent topings as you want on a piza, but you still use the same basic desighn over and over again, because that desighn works.
Evoltionary changes happen because of presure. if there is no presure to change, then species simply grow more diverse in there characteristics but remaining the same basic desighn. Again you can see this with sharks. Hamerhead sharks are hugely sucesfull hunters and have filled the same roll for millions of years, but in the hammerhead species, there are thousands of sub groups, golden hamerheads, white hamereads, black hamerheads, ect ect... all capabe of interbreading because they are the same s[ecies and the difrences in them are just cosmetic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 7:34:35 PM | | It's amazing just how rapidly the human species is evolving...A few years ago I rented a flat in Germany, the house was built in 1680, one of the most annoying things about the place was the doorways were all about 6'...Well I'm 6'1" which isn’t extremely tall by today’s standards, but it is obviously 6 or more inches taller than the “norm” a few hundred years ago... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 8:06:57 PM | | Unfortunately hedonistdrifter, though I may be on the pro evelotion side, that is not an example of evelotion. Although it is true that evelotion tends towards size increase when there are no external factor limiting it, but the reason we are on average a half foot taler than our ancestors is due to better ntrtion rather than changes in our genes. Genitic change from drift (a slow gradual change over time as each generation is slightly difrent to the previous) dosn't happen that quickly. It takes thosands of years to happen. Most majour changes are the result of change by mutation or change by catacylism. (see previos post for how mutation works, and as for catacylism, this is similar to dift in that it usses the three slow methods of genetic change {Sex,Society,Enviroment} but it hapens under presure to adapt. an example of change by catacylism is MRSA, the bug existed in nature, but as a stand variant of SA. Then we started ussing chemicals to kill off the Staf bacteria and those few that were resistant were more likely to survive, preferential selection ment that they were best suited to cope with the new preure and they rose up as a new strain of SA.) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 8:19:34 PM | Here's a few questions I was hoping you all that are so enlightened might be able to answer.
Is evolution the same thing as "survival of the fittest"?
Someone pointed out that there had been any species of sharks. Huge ones, little ones, funky looking ones, ones with teeth on their fin, etc. This I believe because we have found fossils.
But because they are no longer here does that mean that they "evolved" or just simply ceased to exist because it was a bad mutation that couldn't stand the test of time?
Why is it that when evolutionists are stating their "facts" that they say that evolution and the creation of life are two different subjects?
Wouldn't it be one of the same? If you clearly do not believe in creationism, then evolution has to include life actually becoming alive from some primordial ooze, by a random situation, that resulted in life, which evolved, and became everything we see here today.
Within the "science" of evolution is plausibility accepted as being equivalent to evidence?
I hear that what "might" have happened is equivalent to what "did" happen. But yet it is really just an idea of how it could have, how it might have happened. But not what "did" happen.
Do things evolve? I believe they can and do. Did DNA just happen through some "chance"? I'm not sure I can buy that one. There is absolutely no proof of that, only theories. If it was fact, then scientists should be able to reproduce it in the lab. Right?
I don't know how it happened, but neither does anyone else. Thats why it's a theory, maybe a really good one, but the facts are the jury is still out on this one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 8:36:14 PM | BrightRaz, your argument defeats itself. You can't say that sharks quit adapting because their basic shape works, then say that apes evolved into man because of environmental pressures. Apes appear to be quite capable of survival... why then would they feel the need to continue to adapt ? If it is just random genetic mutation causing humans also to form in addition to the apes that are there, it brings us back to the question of where are the sharks with the DVD players and the barcaloungers....
If evolution is environment-driven, you should only have apes and sharks with no barcaloungers. If evolution is random genetic mutation, then we should have humans AND sharks with barcaloungers.... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:13:15 PM |
Apes appear to be quite capable of survival... why then would they feel the need to continue to adapt ? If it is just random genetic mutation causing humans also to form in addition to the apes that are there, it brings us back to the question of where are the sharks with the DVD players and the barcaloungers....
We are not the same as the other great apes. We are the species Homa-sapien, sapiens, not the species Gorilla, Gorilla. Our genetic evolution from the great apes is well documented in fosil record, and those species that did adapt into Homo sapiens sapiens are extinct now. Wether because of enviromental presure or because Homo sapiens, sapiens forced them out is unknown, but we know they existed from the remains they left behind.
You also miss understand the Purpose of evoltion, the pupose of evelotion is to provide the fitest helthiest offspring, most capable of surving and passing on there Genes to the next generation, it is not to evolve into man and create word processors. Evolution is about survival. There is no such thing as being more evolved, only being better evolved to cope with a certain factor.
By your resoning, there sould not be any animals except for humans because every other species would have evolved to be exactly like us. Your resoning simply dosent work in reality. Things do not behave that way in the real world and so we will never see sharks with pc's because evelotion is not driving towards that, it is driving towards survival.
If evolution is environment-driven, you should only have apes and sharks with no barcaloungers. If evolution is random genetic mutation, then we should have humans AND sharks with barcaloungers....
Again you do not understand what I have writen in previous posts. Evelotion is both driven by Enviroment/Sex/Society AND by Mutation. Both are going on at the same time and there is evidence for both in the world today. You also do not seem to understand the word random.
random
adjective
Having no particular pattern, purpose, organization, or structure: chance, desultory, haphazard, hit-or-miss, indiscriminate, spot, unplanned.
What makes you think that if something ocurs randomly to one species than all species should be the same way? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:15:39 PM | | I would also like to point out that the great apes are, with the exception of man, ALL on the endagered species list because they are dying out. which would sugest would it not that they are under presure to survive? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:31:57 PM | | So how did life randomly become life from a puddle of primordial ooze again? Can you give me a link where scientists have replicated that in a lab? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:43:20 PM | Great apes are dying because man is killing them. It has nothing to do with evolution. Human rebels in this or that equatorial jungle have realized they get alot of publicity in the world's press by killing endangered species. These so-called "rebels" are not even doing it to feed themselves. It's flat out sick. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:46:55 PM | | Actually in this evolution of apes to man isn't even true.In all the links(which are about 8-10 stages) they have only found 2 to be close.Then when they put the bones together they only found that two bones in two of the links even came close.So out of thousands of bones in the human body they found two that came close to matching.Hey if you buy that as being evolution than I got a pet dinosaur in my back yard.Wanna buy it? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 9:48:04 PM | also evolution:
E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N
please try to learn to spell what ever it is you are arguing for.... it makes your arguments less trivial.
I'm going back to the same bet I made CountIbli. I'll give you five amoebas.. you give me five Michelle Pfieffers.... only in your case, I'm upping the ante to one Michelle Pfieffer, one long-haired Siamese cat, one dolphin, a grizzly bear, and a scorpion (it being all "random" and all). Then I might believe in full-blown evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 10:49:52 PM |
So how did life randomly become life from a puddle of primordial ooze again? Can you give me a link where scientists have replicated that in a lab?
For details of how life started from nothing, see my earlier posts.
Scientist have not yet replicated it in the lab, that is true. But we have very primitive tools at present, there are many things science has not yet managed to do, like travel to other galaxies, but the possibility exists that we may one day. Its like trying to swat a fly with a blade of grass, very difficult to do.
Great apes are dying because man is killing them. It has nothing to do with evolution. Human rebels in this or that equatorial jungle have realized they get a lot of publicity in the world's press by killing endangered species. These so-called "rebels" are not even doing it to feed themselves. It's flat out sick.
Whilst this may be true of some rebels and of some great apes, it is not true of them all. Nor is it true that the great apes are being hunted just for sport, or just for food. Still my point is valid whatever species is hunting and killing the great apes. Humans are a predator just like any other and when we hunt a species we put pressure on that species to survive just like any other species dose or any environmental factor would.
Actually in this evolution of apes to man isn't even true. In all the links(which are about 8-10 stages) they have only found 2 to be close. Then when they put the bones together they only found that two bones in two of the links even came close. So out of thousands of bones in the human body they found two that came close to matching. Hey if you buy that as being evolution than I got a pet dinosaur in my back yard. Wanna buy it?
This is a big crock of she ite. Comparative pathology of shows a very clear and gradual progression from apes to humans. If I was to put the skull of Neanderthal man or Homo-habilis in front of you, you would not be able tell them apart from a human skull. The phylogenetic tree of human ancestry shows 15 different evolutionary stages, all of which have their own unique differences and similarities. But all are obviously similar to each other in most ways.
please try to learn to spell what ever it is you are arguing for.... it makes your arguments less trivial.
A) I am dyslexic and so my spelling is poor. If you have a problem with this I’m sory but its not my fault.
B) How dose my spelling make any difference to the validity or invalidity of my claims?
I'll give you five amoebas.. you give me five Michelle Pfieffers.... only in your case, I'm upping the ante to one Michelle Pfieffer, one long-haired Siamese cat, one dolphin, a grizzly bear, and a scorpion (it being all "random" and all). Then I might believe in full-blown evolution.
I’ll do that as soon as you explain what point of eve lotion you believe is capable of magically transmuting one creature into another in your lifetime. Do please remember that evolution takes millennia to reach its present stage. I could PERHAPS in my lifetime present you with an entirely new species of ameba if I work diligently at it, but I cant be bothered just to prove a point. Asking for me to produce Michelle Pfieffer from an ameba is nothing to do with evolution, more like cloning. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 10:53:50 PM | | Well I could take all the birds and compare them.So that doesn't prove anything.I have seen this "comparing done".And they could only find 2 comparisons that came close. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 10:55:02 PM | | And I thought 2 out of 10 wasn't bad but 2 out of 15.Ok got me convinced. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 224 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 10:55:14 PM | Hi Evanism,
I posted this in an other thread, not a complete answer to your question but…
No one really knows exactly how life got started. Well, some claim to know. But, I’m with Socrates on this one… at least I know I don’t know. However there’s some neat work being done trying to mimic the beginnings.
Evolution needs to be separated from the origin of life, because evolution is really about how the allele frequency in the genetics of populations change over generations, [well established actually]… not what got the ball rolling.
We’ve never been able to duplicate life yet (although I suspect the ‘experiments’ in people’s fridges have come close a number of times). Of course until Dolly we’ve never been able to clone mammals either. Humans are pretty much in the infancy of discovery.
Miller Experiment:
• Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey (1953), tried to recreate an early earth in a test tube (water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen). Added a few electrical sparks through the mix and presto about 12% of the carbon formed organic compounds and 2% formed amino acids. Now, amino acids are not forms of life, they’re key ingredients of proteins. But keep in mind previously scientists estimated that the chances of amino acids forming this way was so remote as to be impossible (impossible in science is more like improbable by a factor of >10^50:1… give or take, too much stats grinding today, my mind’s going). Over the years the experiment has been refined; many more organic molecules found in living things have been made.
• Problems with the Miller experiment; recent evidence suggests that early earth atmosphere had more oxygen (which is harsh on organic molecules). This pretty much makes the tidal pool idea very unlikely. Other possibilities include life developing around oceanic vents (lots of energy and low oxygen).
• Some neat work is being done by Szostak’s lab (1991- ongoing). He followed up the Miller experiments and created a ribozyme that could copy about 14 nucleotides from RNA with an accuracy of roughly 97%. They found that membrane bubbles made of fatty acids could grow and divide when they were forced through tiny pores - simulating rock pores in hydrothermal vents. What’s really neat is if you mix the nucleotides of RNA and the fatty acids in the presence of a type of clay, the nucleotide assemble themselves into RNA trapped inside the membranes. Not life yet, but their plan is to introduce the ribozyme and see what happens.
• Basically, remember for life we’re looking for something pretty simple, the ability to copy, grow, divide and evolve. If we’re able to make something that’s alive, does it prove god(s) didn’t create life? Nope, but it does mean that a natural origin of life is taken out of the realm of the impossible. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2005 10:57:19 PM | Even Darwin knew that it is not possible there has to be Intelligence to create something from nothing
God created the world we see and the heavens and stars, Earth is the centre of the universe. from God's eye too. Think about this one for a bit. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
