Evolution?

[Xanikk999]

Ever hear of organisms reproducing asexually? Life could easily have started from a single organism.

But wouldnt it make more sense over the first billion years that life evolved that life spontaneously occured several times over those few hundred million years?

Im saying that there were probably several ancestors. But not everyone is related to the same ansestoral ancient bacterium.

 

[Underseer]

Meh. I misread. I should've clicked on the last one.

 

[nc-1701]

I don't like the notion that I descended from an ape.

Well Boo-Hoo you can't deny reality just because it embarressas you bro...

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Why did people rush to option 5?

Option 4 makes much more sense.

Life did probably did not start from one organism but from several spontaneously generated organisms in several locations at different times.

Simple: all organisms today share quite a few similarities (one of these similarities being the usage of DNA to store information). Perhaps life did originate at multiple points, but the decendents of all but one of those organisms have died out.

 

[thescaryworker]

Lets face it:

With hundreds, thousands, and millions of creation/evolutoin threads going around, no one can win, especially with all the misinformation flying around. All we need to do is seperate fact from fiction (aka "Humans must have evolved from fish because of gill slits in the embryos!"(not true) from "All dogs had the same ansestors"(almost100%proved)) After we do this, we can get real scientific debates going.

No one is ever going to be convinced because

It said so on the internet!

If we just cover science in one thread, and religion in another, we can easily work this out:

I propose two threads:
Evolution: How much of it really DID occour (science ONLY - includes facts that SUPPORT, but are not based (aka, use science to get scripture, not scripture to get science) on something in the bible/torah/koran/etc.
Religion: Should the bible/torah/koran/etc. be taken literally (should we use scripture to get science)?
This way, we end up with two, seperate, focused conversations without each getting in the way.

 

[thescaryworker]

Simple: all organisms today share quite a few similarities (one of these similarities being the usage of DNA to store information). Perhaps life did originate at multiple points, but the decendents of all but one of those organisms have died out.

All posts (in english) on this forum are written in the same 26 letters (not including smilies, quotation marks, and pictures), but that does not neccesarily mean they all had a common ancestor.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

All posts (in english) on this forum are written in the same 26 letters (not including smilies, quotation marks, and pictures), but that does not neccesarily mean they all had a common ancestor.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Language itself is a great example of how similarities indicate descent. English is similar to German, Spanish is similar to Portugese, and all four are similar to Latin, and thus each other.

Lets face it:

With hundreds, thousands, and millions of creation/evolutoin threads going around, no one can win, especially with all the misinformation flying around. All we need to do is seperate fact from fiction (aka "Humans must have evolved from fish because of gill slits in the embryos!"(not true) from "All dogs had the same ansestors"(almost100%proved)) After we do this, we can get real scientific debates going.

No one is ever going to be convinced because If we just cover science in one thread, and religion in another, we can easily work this out:

I propose two threads:
Evolution: How much of it really DID occour (science ONLY - includes facts that SUPPORT, but are not based (aka, use science to get scripture, not scripture to get science) on something in the bible/torah/koran/etc.
Religion: Should the bible/torah/koran/etc. be taken literally (should we use scripture to get science)?
This way, we end up with two, seperate, focused conversations without each getting in the way.

Well, this thread was never intended to be about religion (and I don't think it has more than a passing relation to it). About a specific religion thread, I think that would be difficult to do because there are so many aspects of it. There's the definition of logic and how it applies to faith. There's the validity or lack thereof in mysticism and magic. There's the circumstances regarding the creations of and the relationships between the OT and the NT. Plenty of little subtopics that might deserve their own threads.

But evolution is comparatively simple. Sure, people might disbelieve it because of religion, but discussing it doesn't necessarily lead to a religious debate.

 

[Yuri2356]

All posts (in english) on this forum are written in the same 26 letters (not including smilies, quotation marks, and pictures), but that does not neccesarily mean they all had a common ancestor.

But the thing is, the first organisms didn't have all of the organelles, protiens and structures that exist in modern life. Initial energy-harvesting, data storing, and reproductive processes had to take much simpler forms, that were later built on and enhanced by later generations. (Just look at the differences between Procaryotes and Eukaryotes)

Each time one of these new add-ons became usefull, the new cell would either outcompete its former brothers (Driving them to extinction and spreading its genes) or slipped off into a new niche where it could now thrive. Either way, it still leaves a clear chain of common ancestors that comes back to the species which first started down these paths.

 

[Bill3000]

I propose two threads:
Evolution: How much of it really DID occour (science ONLY - includes facts that SUPPORT, but are not based (aka, use science to get scripture, not scripture to get science) on something in the bible/torah/koran/etc.
Religion: Should the bible/torah/koran/etc. be taken literally (should we use scripture to get science)?
This way, we end up with two, seperate, focused conversations without each getting in the way.

Already done. See Perfection's KO Creationism thread. Evolution has always won there, by the way. This thread really isn't about debating evolution, though, only about where people 0bject in evolution.

By the way, your signature is false, and entirely against the scientific method. You can't "prove" a theory, nor is it the point of them.

"Humans must have evolved from fish because of gill slits in the embryos!"

I have never, ever seen someone make such a claim.

 

[mdwh]

Nope religion is designed to be unprovable and undisprovable. I dont believe in God, but it is logically facile to assert that God certainly does not exist.

But note that not all atheists do make such an assertion. I don't.

 

[Atlas14]

But wouldnt it make more sense over the first billion years that life evolved that life spontaneously occured several times over those few hundred million years?

Im saying that there were probably several ancestors. But not everyone is related to the same ansestoral ancient bacterium.

I am pretty sure we are all related to the same ancestoral ancient bacterium or whatever you want to call it. This is explained by the commonality in our modes of inheritance and genotypic/phenotypic expressions.

The origin of life did not go immediately from baren earth to spontaneous life. It was chemicals, then simple molecules, then proteins, carbohydrates, and more complex molecules. Then from that, RNA and DNA could form, and then life as we know it slowly evolved.

 

[Yuri2356]

I have never, ever seen someone make such a claim.

Sounds like a Strawman of the comparison of various animal embryos (Which as near-indentical in the early stages of formation)

 

[Lithgon]

Why did people rush to option 5?

Option 4 makes much more sense.

Life did probably did not start from one organism but from several spontaneously generated organisms in several locations at different times.

I would agree with this since it makes the most sense. There had to be multiple kinds of bacteria in the beginning converting gases to create the atmosphere. I could not see one organism converting dihydrogen monoxide to oxygen and also converting nitrogen compounds to just straight nitrogen (Just two examples. I'm sure there are many more.).

 

[JohnRM]

I don't take issue with the Theory of Evolution whatsoever.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I would agree with this since it makes the most sense. There had to be multiple kinds of bacteria in the beginning converting gases to create the atmosphere. I could not see one organism converting dihydrogen monoxide to oxygen and also converting nitrogen compounds to just straight nitrogen (Just two examples. I'm sure there are many more.).

Of course there were eventually multiple kinds of bacteria converting water to oxygen and such. However, do you believe that they couldn't have all evolved from one basic form? After all, it was only a bit later in the Earth's history that the building blocks of life were rare enough to require the complex chemical reactions to harvest. Before that, it was just a matter of collecting it.

 

[theimmortal1]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up Darwin's Black Box yet...

 

[Atlas14]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up Darwin's Black Box yet...

Is that a book by Michael Behe?

 

[theimmortal1]

Sure is.........

 

[Atlas14]

Sure is.........

It is a load of donkey poo, he attempts to manipulate science/biology to his purposes. To anyone ignorant of elementary biology, it may appear quite convincing though. I can't believe he actually has a degree from Harvard...

 

[theimmortal1]

Care to explain? Because ad homs aren't good for any argumentation..