Evolution question

[Taureaux bleus]

Look around you; there is.

Watch a movie on the growth of a human from the egg stage; watch the tail bones develop in the early stage, count them, then count how many there are when born.

the miracle development from 2 single celled life's (sprem/egg) and become a person; is sharing evolution right in front of you. Who cares what people say about 'it ain't so' ......... see it for yourself. Did a human come from a single cell and develop into a 100lb + life form ....

we take for granted what is right in front of us; believe existence (God) not the isolating doctrine of people.

So watch nature, inquire with nature and your studies or simply allow your experience and knowledge combine to open up reality. Use what you have absolute control over, your own integrity. and if you have questions, ask them or use the internet and research them.

time to forget what other believe

I question your actual understanding of evolution... a fertelised egg, the DNA in that cell contains all the information required to develop into a 100lb or heavier man...
That is not evolution...

Evolution teach that the simple cell from which complicated life developed did not contain that information in the DNA.
Via natural selection and mutation the very complicated DNA that is the fingerprint of a man were created over 100's of 1000's of years... Do you really believe it?

Regards
TB

 

[logician]

That's my point, evolution calls for a very gradual process so I would expect to see finer genetic resolution between existant complex sub-species.

You obviously haven't read Gould or Eldridge's theory of "punctuated equilbria", which essentially says most evolution happens in sudden bursts (geologically speaking), not in very gradual increments over time. When you think about it, this makes sense. A species will remain in relative stasis until outside pressures demand change(disasters, disease), thus evolution will occur in big jumps, not little steps. There have been a number of intermediate forms found of many species, of course, but this explains why many new species seerm to "spring up" quickly quite different from the old, because few intermediate species had time to be preserved in the fossil record.

 

[3.14]

one of these survived but both were alive at one point in time, just because it was alive longer then the other doesn't mean it isn't a evolutionary offspring,

we were just lucky nature prefered our build over there build els they would have been the ones asking themselfs these qeustions

 

[Riverwolf]

[/color]So thousands of progressively human-like subspecies, who all managed to thrive for thousands of years at some point, have all just gone extinct? Seems odd to me, I would expect at least a few of them to still exist somewhere.



God's will, possibly through evolutionary processes. I'm not flat out denying evolution, I'm open to the possibilty. It has its share of compelling evidence, but it also has its share of unanswered questions.

I've only read the thread up to this point.

First part. Early humans were out-competed by more evolved humans, thus they went extinct after a long period of time. And they might still live somewhere in a spot of un-uncovered land. We haven't mapped the entire planet yet, except from space, or at least high altitudes.. And try discovering a tiny animal from space.

Second part. I agree. The evolutionary theory does leave a lot of unanswered questions, but I still believe it. The unanswered questions are being asked by scientists as well as skeptics, and the questions spawn from a very small amount of physical evidence. Don't forget that time erodes anything. There are aspects of the past, recent or far, that we will never understand.

 

[Halcyon]

Evolution teach that the simple cell from which complicated life developed did not contain that information in the DNA.
Via natural selection and mutation the very complicated DNA that is the fingerprint of a man were created over 100's of 1000's of years... Do you really believe it?

I think you're thinking of abiogenesis, evolution can only function in organisms with an already established genetic code.

It took 500,000,000 years for life to arise from non-living chemistry, it took a further 3,000,000,000 years for life to become multicellular, hundreds of thousands of years in comparison is but a moment.

 

[Bishadi]

I question your actual understanding of evolution... a fertelised egg, the DNA in that cell contains all the information required to develop into a 100lb or heavier man...
That is not evolution...

To a 'fly' colony how many generations does it take for that egg to reach man? So if a whole group of flies sat at a computer terminal, watching a human fetus develop all the while making babies, generation after generation of more fly babies; would they not call that the weirdest evolution they ever saw... from a little round cell, to this tadpole with a tail, to this big old ugly thing that farts a beautiful scent (to a fly), as they document the progression to their grandchildren.... could they not call it the evolution of the big magical scent making humanisaurs.... they probably think we roar too...

Evolution teach that the simple cell from which complicated life developed did not contain that information in the DNA.

First 'evolution' does not have a place in DNA definitions without comprehension to the molecular interaction of each structure. (Sanchez an Grau) Meaning Darwin was sharing in the species world about the 'origins of species' and did not even use the word evolution in the book/

Via natural selection and mutation the very complicated DNA that is the fingerprint of a man were created over 100's of 1000's of years... Do you really believe it?

Science has 'mutated' a gene for tomatoes to increase the skins durability so not to be damaged in the packing process. Most all tomatoes we eat are genetically altered.

SO man.. in the environment of that 'species' altered the genetic code. 100 years ago man could not do that because his knowledge had not evolved to that point yet.

as well, without sickel cell anemia, many in other countries may have been whiped out by malaria.....

the point is to observe 'what is' and then think about the possibilities as you combine knowledge.......... even you can evolve.....

maybe change the world by understanding a little more and sharing to your family, your children.... maybe by your compassion for other be a teacher and really make a difference for the mind of our future....

evolution be a pretty good thing as it 'supports life to continue'..

 

[painted wolf]

To a 'fly' colony how many generations does it take for that egg to reach man? So if a whole group of flies sat at a computer terminal, watching a human fetus develop all the while making babies, generation after generation of more fly babies; would they not call that the weirdest evolution they ever saw... from a little round cell, to this tadpole with a tail, to this big old ugly thing that farts a beautiful scent (to a fly), as they document the progression to their grandchildren.... could they not call it the evolution of the big magical scent making humanisaurs.... they probably think we roar too...

What???

Science has 'mutated' a gene for tomatoes to increase the skins durability so not to be damaged in the packing process. Most all tomatoes we eat are genetically altered.

Most of all tomatoes we eat are 'genetically altered' by cross breeding... not 'genomic manipulation'
The tomato you refer to the "Flavor-Savr" was a business failure and is no longer in production.
The tomatoes you eat are the 'old fashioned' kind.

wa:do

 

[Bishadi]

What???

it seems even a simple scenario would go right over your head

Most of all tomatoes we eat are 'genetically altered' by cross breeding... not 'genomic manipulation'

maybe read a little more

USPTO Application #: 20060037112
Title: Tomatoes having reduced polygalacturonase activity caused by non-transgenic mutations in the polygalacturonase gene.
Abstract: A series of independent non-transgenic mutations found in the fruit PG gene of tomato; tomato plants having these mutations in their fruit PG gene; and a method of creating and identifying similar and/or additional mutations in the PG gene by screening pooled and/or individual tomato plants. The tomato plants of the present invention exhibit reduced PG enzyme activity and fruit that soften more slowly post harvest without having the inclusion of foreign nucleic acids in their genomes. (end of abstract)

COMPANY NEWS; Tomato Gene Is Submitted For Approval

By LAWRENCE M. FISHER,
Published: January 6, 1993
Bowing to pressure from consumer advocates and celebrity chefs, Calgene Inc. said today that it had asked the Food and Drug Administration formally to approve as a food additive a gene implanted in tomatoes to retard spoilage. The request came in spite of a May ruling by the F.D.A. that genetically engineered foods do not require special approval or labeling.
But that ruling, and the imminent marketing of Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato, created a storm of protest, including a petition signed by 1,500 chefs across the country, and a threatened boycott of bioengineered foods



2. Development of the GM tomato and GM tomato puree
Calgene, a small biotechnology company in California, decided to genetically modify a tomato that could be picked when ripe and transported without bruising

sure the original company fell, but the genetically altered tomato that doesn't bruise and has almost 5 times the yeild is still in production and you be eating them like the rest of us.....

most every large production fruit, grain or vegetable in the US markets are genetically altered....

 

[painted wolf]

it seems even a simple scenario would go right over your head

Actually a silly "scenario" confusing embryonic development with evolution had me baffled as to its supposed usefulness.

The flavr-savor went out of production and the last GM tomato product was sold in 1999. Do try to keep current with biotechnology.
Briefing Sheets

Monsanto bought Calgene to make use of their cotton genetic work... a significant amount of the worlds cotton is GM'ed to make it pest resistant.

wa:do

 

[Bishadi]

Actually a silly "scenario" confusing embryonic development with evolution had me baffled as to its supposed usefulness.

It shares how man evolved in his lineage with a tail as well how the evolution of development can be observed in watching an embryo grow.

meaning; every child of the future will be observing these realities before creation ever ruins their minds.

remember... this thread is on evolution and just because you like arguing in areas you are not well versed; please leave these kind of threads to the people who care about our future minds (the childrens) development over reflecting what you clearly do not understand.

Or simply wait for the revelation that shares; when the truth exists...'the young will begin to teach the old' ........


as for the tomato issue; it was only to show you how little you know about not only what you eat but also that you are not up to speed in scientific research as it seems your knowledge is media based rather than of research and development.

 

[Nero777]

It is nearly impossible to explain why science has failed to ever truly find all the missing links necessary to link monkey to man, or any other major form of macroevolution;however, the problem here isn't found in the missing pieces so much as it is found in the original question: for macroevolution to be real, what caused the birthing of the first single celled organism. If you look back on Crick and Watson's work, their discovery of DNA proves that 4 simple nitrogen based chemicals have developed an extremely complicated genetic code not just for humans but for simple things such as viruses, bacteria, and amoebas. The process of natural selection simply can't explain the sheer complexity of the any creatures genetic code because the time frame for all this to happen could very well have exceeded the time frame that life has existed on this planet. We have never seen the spontaneous birth of anything in all our years on this world; why haven't we seen it in today's world? The only real form of evolution seen today is microevolution, minor tweaks to the genetic code of a given species. This form of evolution is the only kind observed up to date because we have seen how the same species might diverge in genetic structure to meet the demands of their new environments; beyond this what evidence is their to undeniably link us to monkeys or any other creature? As far as I have learned, there really isn't anything concrete.

This information can be found in Norman L. Geisler's and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

I know my input was derived from a Christian source, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what is mentioned above is any less accurate than any other author's work.

 

[Autodidact]

It is nearly impossible to explain why science has failed to ever truly find all the missing links necessary to link monkey to man,

The very use of the term "missing link" and for that matter "monkey to man" reveals a profound ignorance of the subject you are about to address. There are no missing links. Human beings are a species of ape. Many other species have been identified, all closely related to us. Other species have not yet been identified.

or any other major form of macroevolution;

What does this even mean?
What about macro-evolution? What are you trying to say about it?

however, the problem here isn't found in the missing pieces so much as it is found in the original question: for macroevolution to be real, what caused the birthing of the first single celled organism.

Whatever it may be, it would have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, which addresses an entirely different question.

If you look back on Crick and Watson's work, their discovery of DNA proves that 4 simple nitrogen based chemicals have developed an extremely complicated genetic code not just for humans but for simple things such as viruses, bacteria, and amoebas. The process of natural selection simply can't explain the sheer complexity of the any creatures genetic code because the time frame for all this to happen could very well have exceeded the time frame that life has existed on this planet.

Please show your math.

We have never seen the spontaneous birth of anything in all our years on this world; why haven't we seen it in today's world?

Because it doesn't happen. What on earth would it have to do with evolution if it did?

The only real form of evolution seen today is microevolution, minor tweaks to the genetic code of a given species.

Apparently you don't know what this word means.

This form of evolution is the only kind observed up to date because we have seen how the same species might diverge in genetic structure to meet the demands of their new environments;

Please explain what magic force that prevents evolution from progressing beyond micro-evolution?

beyond this what evidence is their to undeniably link us to monkeys or any other creature?

Do you really want to know? Because I'd be more than happy to help you.

As far as I have learned, there really isn't anything concrete.

And what have you studied in the field of human evolution?

This information can be found in Norman L. Geisler's and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

I know my input was derived from a Christian source, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what is mentioned above is any less accurate than any other author's work.

No, it's not wrong because they're Christian, but just because they're wrong. At least, if what they wrote is as represented here, that is.

You do know that some of the world's leading evolutionary biologists are Christian, right?

 

[Sunstone]

It is nearly impossible to explain why science has failed to ever truly find all the missing links necessary to link monkey to man, or any other major form of macroevolution;however, the problem here isn't found in the missing pieces so much as it is found in the original question: for macroevolution to be real, what caused the birthing of the first single celled organism. If you look back on Crick and Watson's work, their discovery of DNA proves that 4 simple nitrogen based chemicals have developed an extremely complicated genetic code not just for humans but for simple things such as viruses, bacteria, and amoebas. The process of natural selection simply can't explain the sheer complexity of the any creatures genetic code because the time frame for all this to happen could very well have exceeded the time frame that life has existed on this planet. We have never seen the spontaneous birth of anything in all our years on this world; why haven't we seen it in today's world? The only real form of evolution seen today is microevolution, minor tweaks to the genetic code of a given species. This form of evolution is the only kind observed up to date because we have seen how the same species might diverge in genetic structure to meet the demands of their new environments; beyond this what evidence is their to undeniably link us to monkeys or any other creature? As far as I have learned, there really isn't anything concrete.

This information can be found in Norman L. Geisler's and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

I know my input was derived from a Christian source, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what is mentioned above is any less accurate than any other author's work.

Have you ever studied evolutionary biology?

 

[Nero777]

I'm guessing not to the full extent you guys have, but riddle me this; is it or is it not crucial to understand how the very first organism came into being? We can talk back and forth all day about evolution and the theories that support it, but regardless of whether or not it is important to you in your belief system, it is important to me. My view is that if life isn't eternal then there had to be a beginning, if there is a beginning then that means something had to occur to bring about that beginning. Considering Geisler's and Turek's remark that the law of entropy would prevent life from forming because that would imply that universe is actually trying to create order from disorder, what caused life to form? Even the most devout scientists can't deny the impossibility of abiogenesis. This to me is the foundation of evolution, answer this and we can start having a talk on evolution after this point. I look forward to hearin from ya.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm guessing not to the full extent you guys have,

I take that as a "no"?

but riddle me this; is it or is it not crucial to understand how the very first organism came into being?

It's fascinating and important, it just has nothing to do with evolution.

We can talk back and forth all day about evolution and the theories that support it, but regardless of whether or not it is important to you in your belief system, it is important to me.

Evolution is a theory. What supports it is evidence. That is why the entire field of Biology is based on it.

My view is that if life isn't eternal then there had to be a beginning, if there is a beginning then that means something had to occur to bring about that beginning.

Maybe you should study abiogenesis, which seems to be what you're interested in.

Considering Geisler's and Turek's remark that the law of entropy would prevent life from forming because that would imply that universe is actually trying to create order from disorder, what caused life to form?

If they said that, they know nothing about physics, or about Biology. What "law of entropy" are you referring to? If you mean the Second law of thermodynamics, I suggest you learn what it is before applying it to abiogenesis.

Even the most devout scientists can't deny the impossibility of abiogenesis. This to me is the foundation of evolution, answer this and we can start having a talk on evolution after this point. I look forward to hearin from ya.

Sorry, you're wrong. It has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, start a thread on the subject.

It's like this: Assume, if you wish, that God--your favorite God--poofed the first complete cell into existence. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is still correct, robust, well-supported, and the foundation of modern Biology.

Now, do you want to talk about evolution, or not?

 

[logician]

I'm guessing not to the full extent you guys have, but riddle me this; is it or is it not crucial to understand how the very first organism came into being? We can talk back and forth all day about evolution and the theories that support it, but regardless of whether or not it is important to you in your belief system, it is important to me. My view is that if life isn't eternal then there had to be a beginning, if there is a beginning then that means something had to occur to bring about that beginning. Considering Geisler's and Turek's remark that the law of entropy would prevent life from forming because that would imply that universe is actually trying to create order from disorder, what caused life to form? Even the most devout scientists can't deny the impossibility of abiogenesis. This to me is the foundation of evolution, answer this and we can start having a talk on evolution after this point. I look forward to hearin from ya.

Actually, a number of scenarios could have started life on earth, recombinate RNA strains becoming a living form. LIfe forming in the oceans next to heat flumes of volcanic eruptions, life being seeded from extraterrestrial material - meteors or comets, or more esoteric possibilities such as alien seeding.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, a number of scenarios could have started life on earth, recombinate RNA strains becoming a living form. LIfe forming in the oceans next to heat flumes of volcanic eruptions, life being seeded from extraterrestrial material - meteors or comets, or more esoteric possibilities such as alien seeding.

Yes, but they all belong in a different thread, not one about evolution. Further, we don't really know yet which of these it was, whereas evolution is well established.

 

[camanintx]

It is nearly impossible to explain why science has failed to ever truly find all the missing links necessary to link monkey to man, or any other major form of macroevolution;however, the problem here isn't found in the missing pieces so much as it is found in the original question: for macroevolution to be real, what caused the birthing of the first single celled organism.

It would be equally impossible to explain exactly which roads a person took driving from Los Angeles to New York, but the fact that their car has California plates would strongly indicate that they did, and where they might have purchased the car would be an entirely separate question.

 

[Bishadi]

I'm guessing not to the full extent you guys have, but riddle me this; is it or is it not crucial to understand how the very first organism came into being?

Energy upon mass associates.

Energy upon mass resonates as well may be entangled to neighboring mass. Like resonant structures align and can maintain a greater potential combined.

Look up base lipids and find the structure composition and then look up phospholipid bilayers and remember to observe in the eyes that the energy upon the structures are resonant energy maintaining the structural integrity. (i.e... no peptide bonds between the lipids)

The reason the current sciences do not have the correct answer is that energy is not viewed as em upon mass, in which the properties of that energy are what cause mass to associate to build a living structure.

what caused life to form?

Now you know. Think of light (electromagnetic spectrum-upon mass) as energy and note the various wavelengths, then realize each structure of mass can only retain so much energy.

Even the most devout scientists can't deny the impossibility of abiogenesis.

As most of the ones you are reading from probably do not have a clue.

This to me is the foundation of evolution, answer this and we can start having a talk on evolution after this point.

I feel your pain; hence why someone had to do the homework..

peace

 

[The Voice of Reason]

[/color]God's will, possibly through evolutionary processes.

Polaris -

I would ask you this. Why would God create a species, just to have it go extinct? What sense would that make?