Login

Join for Free!
119308 members


Who did we evolve from?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby kiekyon » Fri May 05, 2006 4:35 am

Leben24 wrote:PREDICTIONS key word. A prediction, that is my point. Evolution has a lot of predictions and guesses. Not actual proof.


in fact, there are some level of evolution that we can observe. (eg human heights increase more than 2cm in the century) however this is at inter-species level.

When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

so, it would be hard to notice such gradual changes
kiekyon
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:10 am
Location: Malaysia

Postby Leben24 » Fri May 05, 2006 5:34 pm

That is an asumption, an asumption that these small changes will eventually lead to a new species.

Also, if man did evolve why is it that we have colour vision? There is no need what so ever for colour vision. So if we did evolve then why did we evolve to have colour vision?
Leben24
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 3:40 am

Postby alextemplet » Sat May 06, 2006 12:15 am

kabuto wrote:yeah, do that and earn urself $10,000

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm


I'm not even going to begin to comment on this . . . :roll:
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)


Postby alextemplet » Sat May 06, 2006 12:26 am

Here I go repeating things that have already been said . . .

Okay yes SOME parts of evolution is able to be studied, BUT has a new creature evolving from a preivious creature been studied?


Observed Instances of Speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And are there ANY fossil records of the actual progression.


Yes.

Oh also, one thing that I have forgotten to mention before. Were are all these dates coming from? How can any scientist come up with these 65 million years ago, or all that jaz?


It's called radioisotopes.

Carbon dating only goes back what? 2000 years?


About 45,000.

True that you can not prove a negative, but for those who say that we do not have a creator I would like to see how they can prove that scientifically.


Scientifically, no one can prove or disprove God.

Kabuto, you may be surprised what can be proved. And I am not giving any garenties on this but I will definatly try to prove the identity of our creator. And my being a Christian I will not use that as the basis of my argument, or avoid stuff that may seem to contradict my beliefs. I will take a clean slate and work from their.


I'd love to see this proof.

Alex, can you show me the tests and stuff, and the records plz. I would very much like to read them.


In the "Origins of Life" thread, I mentioned studies where evoluiton had been observed at a rate several thousand times faster than in the fossil record. Read back if you want, I'll have to dig out my books this weekend and post references.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby alextemplet » Sat May 06, 2006 12:30 am

Leben24 wrote:That is an asumption, an asumption that these small changes will eventually lead to a new species.

Also, if man did evolve why is it that we have colour vision? There is no need what so ever for colour vision. So if we did evolve then why did we evolve to have colour vision?


Color vision: It's easier to spot fruit in trees with color vision, which is why fruits are brightly colored and why primates have color vision. It's an example of coevolution.

As for the new species, let's say you have a ray of light. Now change it's wavelength by 1nm per minute. At first you won't notice anything because the change is so gradual. After a while you'll notice a different color of light. Keep watching, until the light changes to a wavelength outside the visible spectrum, and you won't see anything. This visible ray of light will have changed into either ultraviolet or infrared. Small changes accumulate into big changes. Simple enough.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby David George » Sat May 06, 2006 10:59 am

Alright Leben if you say evolution is only an assumption what other proof do you have for the origin of life hope it is not a worser one than evolution :wink:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Postby Linn » Sat May 06, 2006 1:13 pm

posted with permission from the writer:

"Messages, languages and coded information never,
ever come from anything else besides a mind.
No one has ever produced a single example of a message
that did not come from a mind."

Nature can create fascinating patterns - snowflakes,
sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalagtites. Tornados
and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They
*cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they
cannot talk. And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose
naturally from the "primordial soup," the early ocean which
produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to
answer the question, 'Where did the information come from?'

DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a "pattern."
Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals
are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way
that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar
to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise
instructions.

To the person who says that life arose naturally,
you need only ask: "Where did the information come from?
Show me just ONE example of a language that didn't come
from a mind."

As simple as this question is, I've personally presented it
to many hundreds of people who say that life arose without the
assistance of God. But to a person, none of them have ever been
able to explain where the information came from. This riddle is
"So simple any child can understand, yet so complex,
no atheist can solve."

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone
can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere,
too! Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and
energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books
and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all
living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every
dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read,
every packet of information that zings across the Internet,
is proof of the existence of God. Because information
and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life - where it came
from and how it was possible - do we not at the same time
ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?"

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall
"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

~ George washington Carver
User avatar
Linn
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby alextemplet » Sun May 07, 2006 3:43 pm

We should keep in mind that even though we interpret genetic "codes" as a language, it's really just chemical reactions. It's just plain natural for those molecules to behave the way they do when they exist together. Certainly we interpret it as a language, because that's something familiar to us, but we also see patterns in the stars and in clouds when in fact it's just our imaginations.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Leben24 » Mon May 08, 2006 5:20 pm

If you took all the nessessary elements for DNA and RNA to exist and put it into a jar would it form a code for a new species?

I do not know enough about it to do the math but it seems to me that if you just put all the nitrogen bases, along with the phosphate group, deoxyribose, and whatever else make up DNA into a jar or something you would come out with (if anything) a really deformed piece of DNA, or multiple pieces.
Even if you did get a strand that looked good, what are the possibilities of it able to creat an actual cell.

Curious, even if a strand of DNA came about what would it take for it to bring together the right elements to enable it to build itself a cell? Does that even sound plausible? I mean look at it, you somehow get the correct amount of building blocks in the same area to make a nucleotide, then you come out with enough nucleotides to come to gether in the correct order to creat an actual cell. Then that strand happens to have all the nessessary elements around it to build itself a real cell.

Genetic codes may not be a real language but is it not still information? Something that tells something how to creat something?
Leben24
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 3:40 am

Postby alextemplet » Tue May 09, 2006 12:20 am

Leben, you're making an unnecessary assumption that life has to begin with cells.

RNA is a simpler molecule than DNA, and thus more likely to form randomly. RNA can also perform the functions of itself, DNA, and of proteins, and it can replicate itself. Thus, any self-replicating strand of RNA would be able to survive and reproduce. We don't know how many nucleotides are needed to make this happen, but tests have been done in labs in which self-replicating RNA strands were cultured with (I think) sequences around 100 nucleotides long. I'm sure you can do the math yourself, so you don't need me to tell you that's very possible.

RNA can also replicate its information into DNA, which is how retroviruses work. And it can also build proteins, as it does in protein synthesis. So RNA, not DNA, is the crucial ingredient to get life started, and it's very much within the realm of possibility.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Tue May 09, 2006 1:07 am

Oh my gosh, where to start??

@Leben: About Color Vision
It's funny that you would choose one of the elements of our evolution that can still be clearly demonstrated. Like Alex said, homonids retained color vision as it allowed them to more accurately identify edible fruits and dangerous predators or toxic organisms. Furthermore, color was important in developing homonid mating behaviors. The ischial callosities (butt cheeks), labia, and sometimes clitoris of some species of homonids will become swollen with blood and turn bright red when they're in heat. There's a reason you get all hot and bothered when you see a good looking girl dressed in a seductive red/pink dress. Look at any commercial or ad for things like clothes, perfume, cosmetics, pornography, etc and you'll see a pattern of vivid colors. Marketing experts have keyed into our particular susceptibility and responsiveness to things like color. So, it is my argument that color has persisted in our lineage as a major function of sexual selection.

About your DNA soup: You need to get an understanding of thermodynamics and enzymes to understand this issue.
Do a search for "primordial soup" or "RNA world hypothesis" or "proto-cells".
Also, look up previous discussions on this exact topic in this forum. I know I've discussed this in some detail at least twice in this forum.

@Linn: First of all, a disclaimer: I'm not arguing against a creator or creation (I think you know that by now).
The article you posted is interesting, but it makes a sad assumption. As alex said, DNA is not necessarily a "language". We use the metaphor of language, or blueprint to describe it's function in a replicating cell, but ultimately it is a molecule. Now there is an important point in the article, and that is that modern DNA must have been made by something. It exists BECAUSE it is capable of storing information and does so. It is incredibly unlikely - to impossible that something like DNA would assemble on its own (take notes Leben). That's not the theory though. It would have started with a protein or basic nucleic acid capable of self-replication.
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html
Modern DNA is (probably) the result of millions of years of evolution, just as the amazing complexity and diversity of modern organisms is. The complexities of the two are irreversibly linked.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Tue May 09, 2006 2:23 am

Thank you, Astus, for going into more detail than I am willing to go on a workday. :wink:

And to think, I might be going back to my old job as a part-time/temp on weekends soon, so I'll have even less energy to think up intellectual things to post in the forums! But I've done two jobs before and the extra money certainly won't hurt, so . . .
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest