How do you define evolution?

[Nimos]

So I wonder if you think that humans, said by scientists to have existed in a similar form as today for hundreds at least thousands of years -- why was their "development" so slow during that time?

I think the estimate is that homo sapiens are around 200-300 thousands years old. Im not sure what you mean with our evolution being so slow? We as all animals adapt to our environment.

Which is why you will have Africans normally having shorter, but wider noses, because of hot temperatures, whereas you in the Europe and lets just take the Nordic countries like Denmark, Sweden etc. will have longer narrower noses, so the air can be easily heated. At least that is what I have heard. Also the darker skin helps protect against the sun. So I mean if we assume that humans originated in Africa, then we have change skin color etc. in those 200 thousand years. Now another thing why homo sapiens evolution seems more slow, is because we "breed" with everyone, so white people with black, black with Asians etc. so we don't really live all that isolated in specific environments as we used to.
But 200 thousand years is not a lot in evolutionary terms, looking at Homo erectus they lived for a lot longer than we currently have, before they went extinct.

P.S. Language development is not the same as biological development, let's say, from -- what is supposed to have evolved into apes, by the way?

Im not saying it is the same. Simply that if you asked a person, when exactly did for instance modern Danish evolve it would be impossible to answer, because its not a fixed date, the language evolved over time, with new generations adding words, some getting changed etc. That was my point.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it's not ridiculous. Because again -- a dead bird has elements and genes but -- is not 'alive' and cannot function. It stays dead, even though it came from a living egg of sorts. Could have built nests. But the bird is no more once it's dead. WHY, can you answer? What happened to its "life"? Gone?

When something like a bird dies, the oxygen required to drive metabolisms doesn't make it to the places where metabolism would occur. That means that *other* chemical reactions become preferred and those tend to be irreversible.

That is what death is: irreversible reactions that prevent the 'normal' metabolic chemical reactions.

Back to evolution? Non-living matter? Something you don't want to answer by calling the question ridiculous. If I recall correctly, someone else alluded to here about you, you just want to deny.

The difference between 'living matter' and 'non-living matter' is primarily a matter of whether certain irreversible chemical reactions have occurred. In living animals, the oxygen prevents those reactions from happening by favoring the reactions of metabolism.

Life is simply a sustained complex collection of chemical reactions.

It's there in your posts. The matter goes back to 'the ground' in general.

Well, that is what soil tends to be: decomposed things that were previously living together with various rocks and minerals.

I hope you come to your senses and answer where and how 'evolution' (the theory but perhaps in your terms not a theory, and of course I dare not say 'fact') started.

When reproduction with mutations first happened, the basic conditions for evolution were there.

Did life come from non-liiving matter? I venture to guess that's what you must think. 'Life' (necessary for the theory of evolution or -- in your terms -- evolution) started somehow.. . Even the branches of the evolutionary history say they started somewhere. Where? and how? And with what? proof?

Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. The defining property of life is the ability to maintain internal state, grow, and to reproduce. We know a good deal about the chemical basis this. The only question is how the chemicals that we know existed on the early earth together with the conditions (UV light and electrical discharges) produced a self-replicator that was able to maintain internal state. That is what life *is*.

The point is that the difference between 'living matter' and 'non-living matter' isn't nearly as great as you seem to think. The atoms involved in life are the same as those for non-living matter. The fundamental reactions they engage in are the same as for other molecules made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The main questions are chemical: how polymerization was encouraged and how the stereorchemistry went the way it did.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm beginning to think that while there are evidences of structures (like cells) in many venues, there truly is no evidence of evolution by "natural" occurrences, as if it all just happened. And here's one reason why -- despite the claim that evolutionists keep saying that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, it absolutely does, and must. Because a dead sparrow can't fly.

Huh? What does that have to do with it? Seriously.

A dead sparrow was previously alive (and a sparrow). Evolution happens in living things. Once something dies, it is usually too late to pass on its genes to the next generation.

Or do you think that abiogenesis means that dead sparrows will suddenly become alive? because if that is what you think, you misunderstand a great deal about it. First, the conditions now are not at all the same as when life first started (partly because living things have changed a great deal). Second, in a dead sparrow, there is already much more complexity than existed when the first single celled organisms appeared.

When talking about abiogenesis, we are talking about how simple bacterial cells (the simplest cells around) came from previously existing chemicals that already included most of the basic chemical pieces in living things. And we know that cell-like structures spontaneously form from lipids (one of those basic chemical types). We know that amino acids (that make up proteins) spontaneously form and even polymerize to make basic proteins. We know that nucleic acids will spontaneously form and produce simple strands of RNA.

Evolution, on the other hand, is what happens once life has gotten started: once there is a collection of chemicals that can reproduce itself while maintaining internal state and where the reproduction is imperfect.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then, again -- it brings up the question as to where did it come from? Did it start in water? Soil? Rock?

Good question. First, soil as we know it didn't exist (since it is a product of living things).

The basic chemicals are water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, probably hydrogen cyanide. Whether the first life happened in tidal pools that were repeatedly dried out then washed over with water again, OR if life started in hydrothermal vents, or some combination, is unknown. How much different clays were involved to produce stereochemistry is unknown.

But we know that those basic chemicals are common in the universe. We know they existed in the early Earth. We know that there was enough UV light and electrical discharge to promote more complex chemistry in them, for example, the formation of amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, etc. We also know that these are the basic pieces of all living things today.

This is not abiogenesis, it is if everything (supposedly) comes from a common ancestor (maybe), Right now it doesn't make sense, even though there are common elements to -- almost -- everything. It still does not mean that it all just came about, I mean evolved to what is known as life forms. Or living matter. You say at the beginning, can you elucidate a bit as to what you say is the "beginning." Or -- is it yet conjecture.

Well, we can start at the formation of the Earth. That is about 9 billion after the universe got going with the Big Bang, and there was a generation (or two) of stars before the Earth, Sun, and solar system appeared. ALL of the atoms in our bodies were there when the Earth formed. The Earth has only been around for about 1/3 of the age of the universe.

We know the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that simple life (bacterial) existed by 3.8 billion years ago. It wasn't for another 1.8 billion years or so that complex, single celled life appeared (eucaryotes). And it wasn't for another billion years that multicellular life appeared.

So, most of the time that there has been life on Earth, it has been single celled, first simple (bacterial) and later more complex (eucaryotes).

So, if ANY question concerns anything that is more than one cell, you are talking about events LONG after the first life. Birds, for example, only appeared around 140 million years ago. That is less than 1/30 of the age of the Earth. But it is still over 500 times longer than humans have been around.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. The definition of biological evolution has been given here a few times, and nobody mentioned that. It always consists of a mention of change in living populations over generations. Darwin suggested a mechanism (natural selection working on genetic variants leading to changes in living populations) and some implications (common descent of all life).

Maybe you should find a different word for unicellular life than amoeba. The theory does not predict that amoebas were ancestral to dinosaurs, just that unicellular life of some sort was..

So are you saying that an amoeba can't become a dinosaur? Or didn't eventually after lots and lots of time evolve to a dinosaur?

 

[YoursTrue]

Huh? What does that have to do with it? Seriously.

A dead sparrow was previously alive (and a sparrow). Evolution happens in living things. Once something dies, it is usually too late to pass on its genes to the next generation.

Or do you think that abiogenesis means that dead sparrows will suddenly become alive? because if that is what you think, you misunderstand a great deal about it. First, the conditions now are not at all the same as when life first started (partly because living things have changed a great deal). Second, in a dead sparrow, there is already much more complexity than existed when the first single celled organisms appeared.

When talking about abiogenesis, we are talking about how simple bacterial cells (the simplest cells around) came from previously existing chemicals that already included most of the basic chemical pieces in living things. And we know that cell-like structures spontaneously form from lipids (one of those basic chemical types). We know that amino acids (that make up proteins) spontaneously form and even polymerize to make basic proteins. We know that nucleic acids will spontaneously form and produce simple strands of RNA.

Evolution, on the other hand, is what happens once life has gotten started: once there is a collection of chemicals that can reproduce itself while maintaining internal state and where the reproduction is imperfect.

OK, I am going back to 'the beginning.' Not as abiogenesis, but the 'beginning' of the process of evolution. Yes, I maintain that a dead sparrow can't fly. But forget that -- a dead sparrow is not alive. It's dead. Soooooo what was 'alive' at the beginning (of evolution), and -- aside from conjecture -- what happened?

 

[We Never Know]

Good question. First, soil as we know it didn't exist (since it is a product of living things).

The basic chemicals are water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, probably hydrogen cyanide. Whether the first life happened in tidal pools that were repeatedly dried out then washed over with water again, OR if life started in hydrothermal vents, or some combination, is unknown. How much different clays were involved to produce stereochemistry is unknown.

But we know that those basic chemicals are common in the universe. We know they existed in the early Earth. We know that there was enough UV light and electrical discharge to promote more complex chemistry in them, for example, the formation of amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, etc. We also know that these are the basic pieces of all living things today.



Well, we can start at the formation of the Earth. That is about 9 billion after the universe got going with the Big Bang, and there was a generation (or two) of stars before the Earth, Sun, and solar system appeared. ALL of the atoms in our bodies were there when the Earth formed. The Earth has only been around for about 1/3 of the age of the universe.

We know the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that simple life (bacterial) existed by 3.8 billion years ago. It wasn't for another 1.8 billion years or so that complex, single celled life appeared (eucaryotes). And it wasn't for another billion years that multicellular life appeared.

So, most of the time that there has been life on Earth, it has been single celled, first simple (bacterial) and later more complex (eucaryotes).

So, if ANY question concerns anything that is more than one cell, you are talking about events LONG after the first life. Birds, for example, only appeared around 140 million years ago. That is less than 1/30 of the age of the Earth. But it is still over 500 times longer than humans have been around.

"But we know that those basic chemicals are common in the universe. We know they existed in the early Earth. We know that there was enough UV light and electrical discharge to promote more complex chemistry in them, for example, the formation of amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, etc. We also know that these are the basic pieces of all living things today"

And like Humpty Dumpty, try as we may and try all we can we just cant get life to arise again.

Now that doesn't mean it didn't happen naturally, it simply means we don't know.
Same as we don't know if it came from a meteor, a comet, aliens, a god, or whatever.

 

[Polymath257]

So are you saying that an amoeba can't become a dinosaur? Or didn't eventually after lots and lots of time evolve to a dinosaur?

No. Amoeba are too specialized. They are not the ancestors of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs had OTHER single celled ancestors, but not amoeba.

The single celled creatures that evolved into animals are ones that tended to form colonies. Those colonies, over the generations, developed special parts that had different roles in the colony (specialization). We see this, for example, in slime molds today. Again, not the exact ancestor, but much closer than amoebas.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good question. First, soil as we know it didn't exist (since it is a product of living things).

(Sometimes I do ask good questions, thanks.)

The basic chemicals are water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, probably hydrogen cyanide. Whether the first life happened in tidal pools that were repeatedly dried out then washed over with water again, OR if life started in hydrothermal vents, or some combination, is unknown. How much different clays were involved to produce stereochemistry is unknown.

So...now that you brought that up, from what I've been reading, 'life' cannot exist without water. And from most accounts, water itself is not alive. But!-- life as we know it cannot exist without it. At least that's what I've been reading.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I am going back to 'the beginning.' Not as abiogenesis, but the 'beginning' of the process of evolution. Yes, I maintain that a dead sparrow can't fly. But forget that -- a dead sparrow is not alive. It's dead. Soooooo what was 'alive' at the beginning (of evolution), and -- aside from conjecture -- what happened?

What was alive? Single celled organisms. That's all. Nothing with more than one cell, although some did form large mats that left fossils.

For the first few billion years, the only living things were single celled.

 

[Polymath257]

(Sometimes I do ask good questions, thanks.)

So...now that you brought that up, from what I've been reading, 'life' cannot exist without water. And from most accounts, water itself is not alive. But!-- life as we know it cannot exist without it. At least that's what I've been reading.

There is some conjecture that there can be ammonia based life, but few people think it is a real possibility.

So, yes, life as we know it requires liquid water. It serves as a type of solvent for the chemicals of life. And the interaction of those chemicals with water often determines their properties and is required for them to do their jobs.

Did you have a question?

 

[Polymath257]

"But we know that those basic chemicals are common in the universe. We know they existed in the early Earth. We know that there was enough UV light and electrical discharge to promote more complex chemistry in them, for example, the formation of amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, etc. We also know that these are the basic pieces of all living things today"

And like Humpty Dumpty, try as we may and try all we can we just cant get life to arise again.

Now that doesn't mean it didn't happen naturally, it simply means we don't know.
Same as we don't know if it came from a meteor, a comet, aliens, a god, or whatever.

Well, some of the basic chemicals came from comets and meteors. A good part of the water did, for example. Gods and aliens are a rather less likely possibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

"But we know that those basic chemicals are common in the universe. We know they existed in the early Earth. We know that there was enough UV light and electrical discharge to promote more complex chemistry in them, for example, the formation of amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, etc. We also know that these are the basic pieces of all living things today"

And like Humpty Dumpty, try as we may and try all we can we just cant get life to arise again.

Now that doesn't mean it didn't happen naturally, it simply means we don't know.
Same as we don't know if it came from a meteor, a comet, aliens, a god, or whatever.

I believe scientists say that water itself is not 'alive.' But life on the earth is dependent upon water. Therefore -- may I ask what you conclude about that?

 

[We Never Know]

Well, some of the basic chemicals came from comets and meteors. A good part of the water did, for example. Gods and aliens are a rather less likely possibility.

Nothing is solid enough to bet our life on,,, so the safe bet is we don't know.

I don't know why people of religion and people of science just can't admit we don't know. Each will try to explain their side and claim its was a god or naturally but yet neither one knows. I guess maybe both feel if they admit they don't know that maybe its a sign of I might be wrong.
Who knows....not me.

 

[We Never Know]

I believe scientists say that water itself is not 'alive.' But life on the earth is dependent upon water. Therefore -- may I ask what you conclude about that?

Water may be at a level of life we don't understand.
What is life? You and I are life but a virus isn't(though I think that is debatable).

If alien life was something other than carbon based life, would we recognize it?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is some conjecture that there can be ammonia based life, but few people think it is a real possibility.

So, yes, life as we know it requires liquid water. It serves as a type of solvent for the chemicals of life. And the interaction of those chemicals with water often determines their properties and is required for them to do their jobs.

Did you have a question?

Not really about the above. Except, now that I look more closely at your comment, you're talking about the chemicals of life? Water has chemicals, doesn't it? I mean that's one of the first things I learned in chemistry. Water is H2O. So, using that idea that life cannot exist without water, ok, this is not my question but a statement and you are welcome to comment on it: Life is dependent upon water. Water was here on the earth before life. I am not sure, but I think that's about right in that point. Water was here first, then -- something happened that made living organisms come about. (And of course, to start the process of Newtonian type evolution.)

 

[We Never Know]

I believe scientists say that water itself is not 'alive.' But life on the earth is dependent upon water. Therefore -- may I ask what you conclude about that?

 

[We Never Know]

Well, some of the basic chemicals came from comets and meteors. A good part of the water did, for example. Gods and aliens are a rather less likely possibility.

Both comets and meteors that brought water here in the form of ice, could have had life frozen in that ice that could survive the travel being frozen.

Tardigrades, Frozen for 30 Years, Spring Back to Life

 

[YoursTrue]

Water may be at a level of life we don't understand.
What is life? You and I are life but a virus isn't(though I think that is debatable).

If alien life was something other than carbon based life, would we recognize it?

The problem in my mind now is that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen. And so from what I've read, neither hydrogen or oxygen are 'alive.' OK, I can go to uranium, which can affect other things, but is it 'alive'? So now I guess 'life' might need to be defined, rather than just mere evolution. (You know like "survival of the fittest.") The combination of 2 elements (hydrogen and oxygen) isn't said by some to be alive. But it seems that life as we know is dependent upon water, so you can't have animals without water, can you? I won't declare that as fact yet, but -- to repeat, maybe we should define what is alive and what is not alive -- or possibly dead. If we can come to a fundamental. However, we're really still on the process of evolving -- without backward tracking -- moving on -- irreparably, irresistibly -- inexorably -- maybe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gotta tell you -- I'm glad I wasn't in a movie theater watching this, because I would probably have disturbed the audience by laughing...right from the beginning --