Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-14 at 01:08:28
it has come to my attention that christianity and other religions have been under attack... so i thought that we look at evolution for a chance.
i have several things that i do not understand about evolution if anyone will enlighten me it will be greatly appreciated. i will first start off with some things that i do know about evolution.
Charles Darwin was considered the father of the theory of evolution.
Now then lets start.
now since we have covered the topic of evolution i will now briefly cover creation or intelligent design.
like evolution creation has many differnt theories how it started and how it works.
now before you reply i ask you to not flame or spam on this topic. i want a fully intellectual debate. please respect everyones thoughts and opinions as your own no matter how stupid or ignorant it might be.
Have Fun
Edited for Visuals(arnt they sexy?)
i have several things that i do not understand about evolution if anyone will enlighten me it will be greatly appreciated. i will first start off with some things that i do know about evolution.
QUOTE
ev·o·lu·tion n.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
Charles Darwin was considered the father of the theory of evolution.
Now then lets start.
QUOTE
The Begining of the Universe
many people that believe in evolution believe in the big bang theory. this theory is that the whole universe was contained in something smaller than an atom. how did it get there? why was it so small? then it exploded. why did it explode? this explosion caused the known universe to expand sending energy and mass in every direction. scientists believe that the universe is somewhere between 8-15 billion years old. how do they know this? because of the measurement of light from other galixies. now im not an astrologer but how the hell do you find out how hold the universe is from seeing how far away galixies are?!
when we sent to apollo to the moon it had huge landing pads. this was for the moon dust that the scientists thought was deep because the moon was "billions" of years old so the moon dust that it had cumulated should be knee deep. this was not true it was infact inches deep.
many people that believe in evolution believe in the big bang theory. this theory is that the whole universe was contained in something smaller than an atom. how did it get there? why was it so small? then it exploded. why did it explode? this explosion caused the known universe to expand sending energy and mass in every direction. scientists believe that the universe is somewhere between 8-15 billion years old. how do they know this? because of the measurement of light from other galixies. now im not an astrologer but how the hell do you find out how hold the universe is from seeing how far away galixies are?!
when we sent to apollo to the moon it had huge landing pads. this was for the moon dust that the scientists thought was deep because the moon was "billions" of years old so the moon dust that it had cumulated should be knee deep. this was not true it was infact inches deep.
QUOTE
The Begining of Life
now as evolutionists think life started under super heated conditions where the gasses and the heat created a single celled organism. now how can rock and air create life?
now as evolutionists think life started under super heated conditions where the gasses and the heat created a single celled organism. now how can rock and air create life?
QUOTE
Evolution
There are many theories of how evolution exists. some thing that evolution is drastic and happens very fast from mutations. the chance of 2 mutated animals being born, having differnt sex, find each other and mate is very unlikely. This theory explains why palentologists cannot find "missing links"
Another theory is that animals evolve very slowly and over millions of years they have adapted bodies that are perfect for the environment. for animals to evolve very slowly there would have to be a stable populations of these transition species. these transition species are missing links.
well when i look at these missing links say... Lucy a homind from 3-2.7 million years ago most of the skeleton is missing and the skeleton that does remain looks like a humans.
as for the dinosuar-bird theory they think that dinosuars evolved from birds. how do they know this? from the similarities of wishbones and newly found fossils mostly in china that have an appearance of feathers around a dinosuars body. so then since birds do not have any teeth now that means that beaks are more efficient. then why dont other types of animals have beaks or feathers.
survival of the fittest is what evolution is based upon. the strong evolutions survive and the weak die out. so why do we have ancient species still living with us? such as the colacanth fish, sturgions, and crocodyles. some may say that they are already perfect and need not any evolutionary changes. well what about apes. evolution says that humans evolved from apes so according to the rules of evolution the less intelligent ape should of died out right?
There are many theories of how evolution exists. some thing that evolution is drastic and happens very fast from mutations. the chance of 2 mutated animals being born, having differnt sex, find each other and mate is very unlikely. This theory explains why palentologists cannot find "missing links"
Another theory is that animals evolve very slowly and over millions of years they have adapted bodies that are perfect for the environment. for animals to evolve very slowly there would have to be a stable populations of these transition species. these transition species are missing links.
well when i look at these missing links say... Lucy a homind from 3-2.7 million years ago most of the skeleton is missing and the skeleton that does remain looks like a humans.
as for the dinosuar-bird theory they think that dinosuars evolved from birds. how do they know this? from the similarities of wishbones and newly found fossils mostly in china that have an appearance of feathers around a dinosuars body. so then since birds do not have any teeth now that means that beaks are more efficient. then why dont other types of animals have beaks or feathers.
survival of the fittest is what evolution is based upon. the strong evolutions survive and the weak die out. so why do we have ancient species still living with us? such as the colacanth fish, sturgions, and crocodyles. some may say that they are already perfect and need not any evolutionary changes. well what about apes. evolution says that humans evolved from apes so according to the rules of evolution the less intelligent ape should of died out right?
now since we have covered the topic of evolution i will now briefly cover creation or intelligent design.
like evolution creation has many differnt theories how it started and how it works.
QUOTE
Creation
In the 6 days it took to create the universe man was created on the 6th day. since God does not follow the rules of time many people think that the 6 days could be any amount of time. while others think it was 6 literal days of 24 hours each.
Radical creationism is the belief that none of the species has changed since the creation of the universe. others think that animals have the ability to adapt but not radically evolve from one family to another. while others think that God created the universe but evolution has changed the animals and us from our original forms.
In the 6 days it took to create the universe man was created on the 6th day. since God does not follow the rules of time many people think that the 6 days could be any amount of time. while others think it was 6 literal days of 24 hours each.
Radical creationism is the belief that none of the species has changed since the creation of the universe. others think that animals have the ability to adapt but not radically evolve from one family to another. while others think that God created the universe but evolution has changed the animals and us from our original forms.
now before you reply i ask you to not flame or spam on this topic. i want a fully intellectual debate. please respect everyones thoughts and opinions as your own no matter how stupid or ignorant it might be.
Have Fun
Edited for Visuals(arnt they sexy?)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-01-14 at 02:31:36
Err, what's to debate?
Evolution is the scientifically accepted theory for how humans came to exist. That is undeniable.
Evolution is the scientifically accepted theory for how humans came to exist. That is undeniable.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-14 at 02:38:07
yes but i asked a hell of a lot of questions ~_~
evolution has a lot of holes in it and i would like to know why many people believe in it.
or.... maybe im not good at starting topics
evolution has a lot of holes in it and i would like to know why many people believe in it.
or.... maybe im not good at starting topics
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2006-01-14 at 03:31:00
What holes does evolution have in it? I don't see any.
We did not evolve from Monkeys. Anyone who says that, is retarded. We are structured like them, yes.. But look at a horse, and a donkey. Are they not structured the same, but are two completely different species?
Dogs and Wolves.
Bobcats and Cats.
Do you see my point?
We did not evolve from Monkeys. Anyone who says that, is retarded. We are structured like them, yes.. But look at a horse, and a donkey. Are they not structured the same, but are two completely different species?
Dogs and Wolves.
Bobcats and Cats.
Do you see my point?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-01-14 at 10:35:03
Before you complain about the length of this, remember, you asked for it.
Here's an article (with many pages/links) that deal with how evolution works and proof that it exists. I highly suggest reading through it all.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As a note, the first two topics you have (beginning of universe and life) is not explained by evolution; therefore, is not a "gap".
Here's an article (with many pages/links) that deal with how evolution works and proof that it exists. I highly suggest reading through it all.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As a note, the first two topics you have (beginning of universe and life) is not explained by evolution; therefore, is not a "gap".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snipe on 2006-01-14 at 10:38:26
How is this considered serious? it just some random topic about evolution. This one should go in null. It really have no relevance to anything serious.. Sure we evolved.. but you could have posted it in null.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-01-14 at 11:51:28
One word. Entropy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-01-14 at 15:27:24
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Jan 14 2006, 02:31 AM)
Err, what's to debate?[right][snapback]405317[/snapback][/right]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-14 at 17:36:04
man i cant start a topic for jack
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-01-14 at 19:33:30
QUOTE(Kow @ Jan 14 2006, 11:51 AM)
One word. Entropy.
[right][snapback]405494[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]405494[/snapback][/right]
Is that for or against?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Do-0dan on 2006-01-14 at 19:48:08
i think its for both :0
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-01-17 at 23:39:04
I personally think that evolution is as true as SEN. I believe that there was life not created by god. I am aware of the astronomical odds against this, but i believe that a living, complex cell was spontaneously generated throughout long waiting periods and became alive. There was chance, so it happened. It doesnt mean it wouldnt happen. And that organisms evolved throughout time and is now all different.
As of big bang theory, there is chance that it occured, right? It occured and happened and therefore is same with spontaneous generation; it happened period. Why? I am not that smart yet and maybe one of other geniuses in the world can find that out for us.
how do they know birds->dinosaur theory? fossils. You can google it, you can search it in library, it is there. You can't deny it.
In one of the school books that i have read (I forgot the name... It was about evolution and monkey trial), they argued that what is with the first day. What is with the first day? We must question the validity and truthfulness of religious creationism stories. How long were the days? 24 hours? there were no sun. What if it was a daylight saving time? It is too unclear in religion, so we look forward to something like this, Evolution, to expand our curiousity.nice paintings sie.. It took serious skills... I loved em...
As of big bang theory, there is chance that it occured, right? It occured and happened and therefore is same with spontaneous generation; it happened period. Why? I am not that smart yet and maybe one of other geniuses in the world can find that out for us.
how do they know birds->dinosaur theory? fossils. You can google it, you can search it in library, it is there. You can't deny it.
In one of the school books that i have read (I forgot the name... It was about evolution and monkey trial), they argued that what is with the first day. What is with the first day? We must question the validity and truthfulness of religious creationism stories. How long were the days? 24 hours? there were no sun. What if it was a daylight saving time? It is too unclear in religion, so we look forward to something like this, Evolution, to expand our curiousity.nice paintings sie.. It took serious skills... I loved em...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-01-18 at 00:21:48
Your questions in your first statement are hard to come by...
BIG BANG:
Ok, the big bang is simply a theory, let by the observations that we have seen. As you probably have heard of entropy, and how converting one form of energy into other forms, it does not lose energy, but it is converted into a less useable kind. This means that at one point in time, there must have been a date at which all or most energy was in the highest possible form. Otherwise any higher form of energy would not exsist, as it is simply a long road downhill from there.
The highest possible form of energy would be pure energy, as a famous theorist put it E = mc^2.
When you take particles into smaller and smaller bits, and you hit them at one another, it has been found that thy can be divided, and large amounts of energy are released. At one point all of these particles would have been simply that, one large amount of energy. It would not really have any defineable characterists. As it has been proven that many other forces, (gravity/electromagnetivity/strong force/weak force) Combing together when the energies of each are risen beyond certain points. It is thought of that eventually all things would convereg into one type of substance, it wouldn't really be energy or matter, but could make up either. That is the big bang. What was before that we cannot be certain of, because nothing really leads into that conclusion. (But my guess is that it has something to do with black holes, eventually eating our universe.)
It was small because that is the most likely reason behind our universe is expanding, although there are some theories floating around that it was a large thing/ there were several big bangs.
It exploded because it would have had so much potential energy, it was bound to happen. Read first paragraph.
How do thy know this, because thats what our studies and tests describe, you could be a world reknowned scientist if you can come up with a completely different explination for every test that points towards the big bang, that could be proven correct while the other theory is disproven. That is what makes anything science has to say makes sense, because that is what they think because of tests they have done. You can't test things for divine intervention, theres no way to prove or disprove anything.
BEGINING OF LIFE:
Let me ask you, how can rock and air feed life?
It would make sence if we were made out of the same things to be replenished by them.
I'm sure you've heard of some experimnets that have been done in the feild of recreating life. How scientists have indeed made amino acids using the atmosphere of the primordial age and some electricity. But does that really constitute life? You would probably agree that it is simply some PART of life that alone cannot have any function... right?
But then, what if I said to you that there are several ideas that say that life developed from several parts, slowly. There is evidence behind this.
Mitochondria are known for being the machines in our cells that take glucose and trasform it into Adenosine Tri-phosphate, ATP for short, which is what is used as energy in our every part of our cells, and body. What you might not know is that it has been found that Mitochondria, this essential part of our cells, was probably not developed inside our cells to begin with. It is coverend with a lipid layer, which is the same stuff that acts as a cell wall. This means that the mitochondria itself was once a living organism, that had the job of simply converting one form of a substance into another. One other type of cell ate this small thing, and developed with it, making the host cell a more formidible life form because it could eat whatever it was eating before as well as the glucose that the mitochondria could produce. The same thing happens with other cell organelles, such as the Chloroplasts found in plant cells. I don't wish to delve further into this as I am getting tired of typing, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.
Early life was basically a bunch of reactions that could happen. They were not living or dead, but simply did a task of converting one substance into another. These in turn could be changed by some other enzymatic being into something further. You must keep in mind that many of the tasks involved in making the most complex protien chains known are simple tasks of taking out a water molecule, forming a bond instead. This is an extremely simple task as it takes a negatively charged end of a substance and connects it to a positively charged end of a substance, which link together and release the water into the area. As I said before, scientists have been known to have made amino acids, which if you simply take out a water from two, they start the formation of a protien, which is a much more powerfull peice of micro biology.
I shall continue this debate later, I'm going to bed.
BIG BANG:
QUOTE
how did it get there? why was it so small?why did it explode?how do they know this?
Ok, the big bang is simply a theory, let by the observations that we have seen. As you probably have heard of entropy, and how converting one form of energy into other forms, it does not lose energy, but it is converted into a less useable kind. This means that at one point in time, there must have been a date at which all or most energy was in the highest possible form. Otherwise any higher form of energy would not exsist, as it is simply a long road downhill from there.
The highest possible form of energy would be pure energy, as a famous theorist put it E = mc^2.
When you take particles into smaller and smaller bits, and you hit them at one another, it has been found that thy can be divided, and large amounts of energy are released. At one point all of these particles would have been simply that, one large amount of energy. It would not really have any defineable characterists. As it has been proven that many other forces, (gravity/electromagnetivity/strong force/weak force) Combing together when the energies of each are risen beyond certain points. It is thought of that eventually all things would convereg into one type of substance, it wouldn't really be energy or matter, but could make up either. That is the big bang. What was before that we cannot be certain of, because nothing really leads into that conclusion. (But my guess is that it has something to do with black holes, eventually eating our universe.)
It was small because that is the most likely reason behind our universe is expanding, although there are some theories floating around that it was a large thing/ there were several big bangs.
It exploded because it would have had so much potential energy, it was bound to happen. Read first paragraph.
How do thy know this, because thats what our studies and tests describe, you could be a world reknowned scientist if you can come up with a completely different explination for every test that points towards the big bang, that could be proven correct while the other theory is disproven. That is what makes anything science has to say makes sense, because that is what they think because of tests they have done. You can't test things for divine intervention, theres no way to prove or disprove anything.
BEGINING OF LIFE:
QUOTE
now how can rock and air create life?
Let me ask you, how can rock and air feed life?
It would make sence if we were made out of the same things to be replenished by them.
I'm sure you've heard of some experimnets that have been done in the feild of recreating life. How scientists have indeed made amino acids using the atmosphere of the primordial age and some electricity. But does that really constitute life? You would probably agree that it is simply some PART of life that alone cannot have any function... right?
But then, what if I said to you that there are several ideas that say that life developed from several parts, slowly. There is evidence behind this.
Mitochondria are known for being the machines in our cells that take glucose and trasform it into Adenosine Tri-phosphate, ATP for short, which is what is used as energy in our every part of our cells, and body. What you might not know is that it has been found that Mitochondria, this essential part of our cells, was probably not developed inside our cells to begin with. It is coverend with a lipid layer, which is the same stuff that acts as a cell wall. This means that the mitochondria itself was once a living organism, that had the job of simply converting one form of a substance into another. One other type of cell ate this small thing, and developed with it, making the host cell a more formidible life form because it could eat whatever it was eating before as well as the glucose that the mitochondria could produce. The same thing happens with other cell organelles, such as the Chloroplasts found in plant cells. I don't wish to delve further into this as I am getting tired of typing, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.
Early life was basically a bunch of reactions that could happen. They were not living or dead, but simply did a task of converting one substance into another. These in turn could be changed by some other enzymatic being into something further. You must keep in mind that many of the tasks involved in making the most complex protien chains known are simple tasks of taking out a water molecule, forming a bond instead. This is an extremely simple task as it takes a negatively charged end of a substance and connects it to a positively charged end of a substance, which link together and release the water into the area. As I said before, scientists have been known to have made amino acids, which if you simply take out a water from two, they start the formation of a protien, which is a much more powerfull peice of micro biology.
I shall continue this debate later, I'm going to bed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2006-01-18 at 00:58:29
QUOTE
Evolution is the scientifically accepted theory for how humans came to exist. That is undeniable.
This is the only thing I disagree about with evolution.
Most everything else, undeniable.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-01-19 at 14:22:08
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Jan 18 2006, 12:58 AM)
This is the only thing I disagree about with evolution.
Most everything else, undeniable.
[right][snapback]409531[/snapback][/right]
Most everything else, undeniable.
[right][snapback]409531[/snapback][/right]
Are you disagreeing with the scientists? Their belief is that evolution occured. Look at all the fossil records, genes of other animals, and general anatomy of organisms in the world. I don't see how that is wrong... It is undeniable until we go to our "next life," when you people figure out that there are no god.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-19 at 22:16:33
almost every living thing has at least one thing in common with the other. the scientists are just putting it together. this doesnt mean that they evolved. i can say that monkeys evoled from humans and you will find that there are similarities that might suggest this is true.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-01-22 at 18:31:35
QUOTE(Sie_Sayoka @ Jan 19 2006, 10:16 PM)
almost every living thing has at least one thing in common with the other. the scientists are just putting it together. this doesnt mean that they evolved. i can say that monkeys evoled from humans and you will find that there are similarities that might suggest this is true.
[right][snapback]410992[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]410992[/snapback][/right]
Yea. That is what i exactly mean. Scientists are like kids with a puzzle in front of them. They put the lost pieces together. By figuring out similarities, they can put the evolution, the lost truth, at hand. According to fossil records, Sie Sayoka, it clearly shows the growth and change from a simple bacterial organism to more complex and thoughtful livings of today. I think that means they were evolved.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2006-01-23 at 07:03:05
QUOTE(procuress @ Jan 18 2006, 12:39 AM)
In one of the school books that i have read (I forgot the name... It was about evolution and monkey trial), they argued that what is with the first day. What is with the first day? We must question the validity and truthfulness of religious creationism stories. How long were the days? 24 hours? there were no sun. What if it was a daylight saving time? It is too unclear in religion, so we look forward to something like this, Evolution, to expand our curiousity.nice paintings sie.. It took serious skills... I loved em...
[right][snapback]409506[/snapback][/right]
I think the book you are talking about is Inherit the Wind. I read that in school as well.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-01-23 at 14:07:51
Yep That was it... Inherit the Wind...
For people who wants to further their knowledge, they should recognize other side of the view too.. I recommend book Darwin On Trial. I got pissed off during the whole book, but it was ok... It is not for evolutionism, but for creation-science. Remember that...
ADDITION:
Nice sum up Rantent. But I personally think that it is a too much of an explanation im guessing no one in here is taking time to read. But i read... Here is what I think on beginning of life:
There is an ASTRONOMICAL chance that these cells, excuse me, COMPLEX cells to develop. Spontaneous generation to form SIMPLE cells are something; it requires crazy chance to occur. But, the chance of the SIMPLE cell not being a simple cell, but being a COMPLEX cell is another thing. These are factors that supposedly contribute to creation-science. But if there is a chance of something occuring, it just means that the event is very UNLIKELY to occur. For example, if i say there is 1% chance of me becoming someone like you, Rantent, then I am unlikely to become you. But I still have the chance of becoming you. And because I have chance of becoming you, I CAN become you. This occurs with the Evolution. If there is a slight, if not none, chance of spontaneous generation for a complex cell, then it can occur in nature. Well.. It did occur after wrestling with it for billions of years after earth was formed.
Summing it up, chance created life on earth that resulted on us, human beings.
For people who wants to further their knowledge, they should recognize other side of the view too.. I recommend book Darwin On Trial. I got pissed off during the whole book, but it was ok... It is not for evolutionism, but for creation-science. Remember that...
ADDITION:
QUOTE(Rantent @ Jan 18 2006, 12:21 AM)
Your questions in your first statement are hard to come by...
BIG BANG:
Ok, the big bang is simply a theory, let by the observations that we have seen. As you probably have heard of entropy, and how converting one form of energy into other forms, it does not lose energy, but it is converted into a less useable kind. This means that at one point in time, there must have been a date at which all or most energy was in the highest possible form. Otherwise any higher form of energy would not exsist, as it is simply a long road downhill from there.
The highest possible form of energy would be pure energy, as a famous theorist put it E = mc^2.
When you take particles into smaller and smaller bits, and you hit them at one another, it has been found that thy can be divided, and large amounts of energy are released. At one point all of these particles would have been simply that, one large amount of energy. It would not really have any defineable characterists. As it has been proven that many other forces, (gravity/electromagnetivity/strong force/weak force) Combing together when the energies of each are risen beyond certain points. It is thought of that eventually all things would convereg into one type of substance, it wouldn't really be energy or matter, but could make up either. That is the big bang. What was before that we cannot be certain of, because nothing really leads into that conclusion. (But my guess is that it has something to do with black holes, eventually eating our universe.)
It was small because that is the most likely reason behind our universe is expanding, although there are some theories floating around that it was a large thing/ there were several big bangs.
It exploded because it would have had so much potential energy, it was bound to happen. Read first paragraph.
How do thy know this, because thats what our studies and tests describe, you could be a world reknowned scientist if you can come up with a completely different explination for every test that points towards the big bang, that could be proven correct while the other theory is disproven. That is what makes anything science has to say makes sense, because that is what they think because of tests they have done. You can't test things for divine intervention, theres no way to prove or disprove anything.
BEGINING OF LIFE:
Let me ask you, how can rock and air feed life?
It would make sence if we were made out of the same things to be replenished by them.
I'm sure you've heard of some experimnets that have been done in the feild of recreating life. How scientists have indeed made amino acids using the atmosphere of the primordial age and some electricity. But does that really constitute life? You would probably agree that it is simply some PART of life that alone cannot have any function... right?
But then, what if I said to you that there are several ideas that say that life developed from several parts, slowly. There is evidence behind this.
Mitochondria are known for being the machines in our cells that take glucose and trasform it into Adenosine Tri-phosphate, ATP for short, which is what is used as energy in our every part of our cells, and body. What you might not know is that it has been found that Mitochondria, this essential part of our cells, was probably not developed inside our cells to begin with. It is coverend with a lipid layer, which is the same stuff that acts as a cell wall. This means that the mitochondria itself was once a living organism, that had the job of simply converting one form of a substance into another. One other type of cell ate this small thing, and developed with it, making the host cell a more formidible life form because it could eat whatever it was eating before as well as the glucose that the mitochondria could produce. The same thing happens with other cell organelles, such as the Chloroplasts found in plant cells. I don't wish to delve further into this as I am getting tired of typing, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.
Early life was basically a bunch of reactions that could happen. They were not living or dead, but simply did a task of converting one substance into another. These in turn could be changed by some other enzymatic being into something further. You must keep in mind that many of the tasks involved in making the most complex protien chains known are simple tasks of taking out a water molecule, forming a bond instead. This is an extremely simple task as it takes a negatively charged end of a substance and connects it to a positively charged end of a substance, which link together and release the water into the area. As I said before, scientists have been known to have made amino acids, which if you simply take out a water from two, they start the formation of a protien, which is a much more powerfull peice of micro biology.
I shall continue this debate later, I'm going to bed.
[right][snapback]409515[/snapback][/right]
BIG BANG:
Ok, the big bang is simply a theory, let by the observations that we have seen. As you probably have heard of entropy, and how converting one form of energy into other forms, it does not lose energy, but it is converted into a less useable kind. This means that at one point in time, there must have been a date at which all or most energy was in the highest possible form. Otherwise any higher form of energy would not exsist, as it is simply a long road downhill from there.
The highest possible form of energy would be pure energy, as a famous theorist put it E = mc^2.
When you take particles into smaller and smaller bits, and you hit them at one another, it has been found that thy can be divided, and large amounts of energy are released. At one point all of these particles would have been simply that, one large amount of energy. It would not really have any defineable characterists. As it has been proven that many other forces, (gravity/electromagnetivity/strong force/weak force) Combing together when the energies of each are risen beyond certain points. It is thought of that eventually all things would convereg into one type of substance, it wouldn't really be energy or matter, but could make up either. That is the big bang. What was before that we cannot be certain of, because nothing really leads into that conclusion. (But my guess is that it has something to do with black holes, eventually eating our universe.)
It was small because that is the most likely reason behind our universe is expanding, although there are some theories floating around that it was a large thing/ there were several big bangs.
It exploded because it would have had so much potential energy, it was bound to happen. Read first paragraph.
How do thy know this, because thats what our studies and tests describe, you could be a world reknowned scientist if you can come up with a completely different explination for every test that points towards the big bang, that could be proven correct while the other theory is disproven. That is what makes anything science has to say makes sense, because that is what they think because of tests they have done. You can't test things for divine intervention, theres no way to prove or disprove anything.
BEGINING OF LIFE:
Let me ask you, how can rock and air feed life?
It would make sence if we were made out of the same things to be replenished by them.
I'm sure you've heard of some experimnets that have been done in the feild of recreating life. How scientists have indeed made amino acids using the atmosphere of the primordial age and some electricity. But does that really constitute life? You would probably agree that it is simply some PART of life that alone cannot have any function... right?
But then, what if I said to you that there are several ideas that say that life developed from several parts, slowly. There is evidence behind this.
Mitochondria are known for being the machines in our cells that take glucose and trasform it into Adenosine Tri-phosphate, ATP for short, which is what is used as energy in our every part of our cells, and body. What you might not know is that it has been found that Mitochondria, this essential part of our cells, was probably not developed inside our cells to begin with. It is coverend with a lipid layer, which is the same stuff that acts as a cell wall. This means that the mitochondria itself was once a living organism, that had the job of simply converting one form of a substance into another. One other type of cell ate this small thing, and developed with it, making the host cell a more formidible life form because it could eat whatever it was eating before as well as the glucose that the mitochondria could produce. The same thing happens with other cell organelles, such as the Chloroplasts found in plant cells. I don't wish to delve further into this as I am getting tired of typing, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.
Early life was basically a bunch of reactions that could happen. They were not living or dead, but simply did a task of converting one substance into another. These in turn could be changed by some other enzymatic being into something further. You must keep in mind that many of the tasks involved in making the most complex protien chains known are simple tasks of taking out a water molecule, forming a bond instead. This is an extremely simple task as it takes a negatively charged end of a substance and connects it to a positively charged end of a substance, which link together and release the water into the area. As I said before, scientists have been known to have made amino acids, which if you simply take out a water from two, they start the formation of a protien, which is a much more powerfull peice of micro biology.
I shall continue this debate later, I'm going to bed.
[right][snapback]409515[/snapback][/right]
Nice sum up Rantent. But I personally think that it is a too much of an explanation im guessing no one in here is taking time to read. But i read... Here is what I think on beginning of life:
There is an ASTRONOMICAL chance that these cells, excuse me, COMPLEX cells to develop. Spontaneous generation to form SIMPLE cells are something; it requires crazy chance to occur. But, the chance of the SIMPLE cell not being a simple cell, but being a COMPLEX cell is another thing. These are factors that supposedly contribute to creation-science. But if there is a chance of something occuring, it just means that the event is very UNLIKELY to occur. For example, if i say there is 1% chance of me becoming someone like you, Rantent, then I am unlikely to become you. But I still have the chance of becoming you. And because I have chance of becoming you, I CAN become you. This occurs with the Evolution. If there is a slight, if not none, chance of spontaneous generation for a complex cell, then it can occur in nature. Well.. It did occur after wrestling with it for billions of years after earth was formed.
Summing it up, chance created life on earth that resulted on us, human beings.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-01-28 at 01:29:14
Wait, are you saying that cells were spontaneously created?
That sort of radical change, although it does have a slim chance, is highly unlikely. That would be like having a box with a bunch of srting in it, and with a few shakes you make a shirt of of it. It's possible, but the chances of it actually occurring are astronomically slim.
That sort of radical change, although it does have a slim chance, is highly unlikely. That would be like having a box with a bunch of srting in it, and with a few shakes you make a shirt of of it. It's possible, but the chances of it actually occurring are astronomically slim.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2006-01-28 at 06:39:41
What does the origin of life have to do with evolution?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-28 at 06:43:43
well in evolution the origin of life was the evolution from rocks into bacteria like forms
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EdAi on 2006-01-29 at 04:35:47
*sigh*can't believe ima talk about science on my goddam weekend*
after the bigbang, matter collided and created planets, along with gassy "shells", their "ozone layers." Water was made as well as extremely simple single celled organisms. The cells, being so extremely simple, couldn't live outside of water, because in the water, their was food, of sorts. As time went on, unquestionably billions of years, these cells, began to develop, very, very, extremely, painfully slow. They became multi-celled organisms, bacterias, then became complex celled organims.After becoming complex celled, and after billions more years, they developed into fish that could swim, EXTREMELY simple fish. And soon, there were amphibians, and huge water-dwelling creatures. They could come out of the water, but couldn't live outside it, meaning they couldn't stay out of the water for long. As billions more years passed, they could stay out of the water longer and longer, for what we see currently as hours-days. After another few billions years, there were creatures that could actually walk, but could still not LIVE on land, such creatures as crabs and lobsters.
After another long, painful passing of billions of years, plants had moved onto the land, after becoming water-plants from algae and bacteria. There were forests and volcanoes and crap like that... Soon crabs and labsters traversed bodies of land to travel and reach other mating places. Soon after that, (soon being millions/billions of years) they were living on land.
They developed into multiple kinds of the same animal, hybrids, amphibians, adapting to wherever they were living. Breathing air, "breathing" water, doing both. Soon they adapted wings and could fly, only extremely small things, flies and other insects. Soon there were hundreds of species, living on mountains, in valleys, in forests, underwater. A group would split up into two valleys, and could be capable of mating with each other. They would adapt to their surroungings, and a decade or two later would have changed so dramatically that the 2 groups would be incapable of mating with each other.
Soon (again, soon is billions of years) there were reptiles and very simple mammals. Apes soon began to develop and grow smarter. There were now thousands of species, each one somehow, but not necessarily greatly, different from another.
Another few billion years later, apes began using simple tools, rocks to smash things with, sticks to get food. Soon apes had split into more species, orangatans, monkeys, gorillas, and, finally, the first homo sapien. the homo sapiens were simple hunter-gatherers, collecting food, hunting bison and other animals of the sort. They wouldn't stay in one place for long, but would move from place to place, this being how we evolved how we did.
We were soon living in caves, maybe a hut here and there. We grew smarter and smarter, and withing a billion years were actually intelligent, thinking, beings.
anywhooo, thats about as far as my teachers got before i went to the next grade...
but the idea of intelligent design is utterly mental... i have nothing against any believers out there... if we were indeed made from an almighty being, then that would make us "holy" artifacts, and god-like creatures
after the bigbang, matter collided and created planets, along with gassy "shells", their "ozone layers." Water was made as well as extremely simple single celled organisms. The cells, being so extremely simple, couldn't live outside of water, because in the water, their was food, of sorts. As time went on, unquestionably billions of years, these cells, began to develop, very, very, extremely, painfully slow. They became multi-celled organisms, bacterias, then became complex celled organims.After becoming complex celled, and after billions more years, they developed into fish that could swim, EXTREMELY simple fish. And soon, there were amphibians, and huge water-dwelling creatures. They could come out of the water, but couldn't live outside it, meaning they couldn't stay out of the water for long. As billions more years passed, they could stay out of the water longer and longer, for what we see currently as hours-days. After another few billions years, there were creatures that could actually walk, but could still not LIVE on land, such creatures as crabs and lobsters.
After another long, painful passing of billions of years, plants had moved onto the land, after becoming water-plants from algae and bacteria. There were forests and volcanoes and crap like that... Soon crabs and labsters traversed bodies of land to travel and reach other mating places. Soon after that, (soon being millions/billions of years) they were living on land.
They developed into multiple kinds of the same animal, hybrids, amphibians, adapting to wherever they were living. Breathing air, "breathing" water, doing both. Soon they adapted wings and could fly, only extremely small things, flies and other insects. Soon there were hundreds of species, living on mountains, in valleys, in forests, underwater. A group would split up into two valleys, and could be capable of mating with each other. They would adapt to their surroungings, and a decade or two later would have changed so dramatically that the 2 groups would be incapable of mating with each other.
Soon (again, soon is billions of years) there were reptiles and very simple mammals. Apes soon began to develop and grow smarter. There were now thousands of species, each one somehow, but not necessarily greatly, different from another.
Another few billion years later, apes began using simple tools, rocks to smash things with, sticks to get food. Soon apes had split into more species, orangatans, monkeys, gorillas, and, finally, the first homo sapien. the homo sapiens were simple hunter-gatherers, collecting food, hunting bison and other animals of the sort. They wouldn't stay in one place for long, but would move from place to place, this being how we evolved how we did.
We were soon living in caves, maybe a hut here and there. We grew smarter and smarter, and withing a billion years were actually intelligent, thinking, beings.
anywhooo, thats about as far as my teachers got before i went to the next grade...
but the idea of intelligent design is utterly mental... i have nothing against any believers out there... if we were indeed made from an almighty being, then that would make us "holy" artifacts, and god-like creatures
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-01-29 at 05:12:53
QUOTE
but the idea of intelligent design is utterly mental... i have nothing against any believers out there... if we were indeed made from an almighty being, then that would make us "holy" artifacts, and god-like creatures
it depends on your perspective of god-like. if you were reffering to the Bible where it says we were made in Gods image then you are correct. we are the dominant species on earth. although we posses no supernatural powers we do have technology.
now about the begining of the universe. what exactly was there before the "big bang" if the pure energy was there forever. what triggered the pure energy?
i would also like to bring up another good point. take our little solar system for example. and this planet we live on. its rotation tilts making seasons and keeping life sustainable. we also have a moon that controlls the tides. and we are at the perfect distance from the sun.
So if you do belive in the big bang and such we are hella lucky.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EdAi on 2006-01-29 at 05:21:11
luck has nothing to do with it, its coincidence
and before the big bang, there are theories saying its possible there was universe before this one, possibly our universe is a "copy" of a pervious one, the previous universe used itself up, much like we are doing to our earth, it would've taken trillions of years, but its possible, then energies built up and resulted in the "big bang"
they say its possible its an ongoing cycle of trillions of years
and before the big bang, there are theories saying its possible there was universe before this one, possibly our universe is a "copy" of a pervious one, the previous universe used itself up, much like we are doing to our earth, it would've taken trillions of years, but its possible, then energies built up and resulted in the "big bang"
they say its possible its an ongoing cycle of trillions of years