Nice try, but:

Chemistry can be demonstrated and repeated in the lab;

Geology can be demonstrated and repeated in the lab;

Biology can be demonstrated and repeated in the lab;

But the system of belief called evolution, cannot my friend!

Riddle me this:

Since scientists constantly revise what they think they know about organisms that they know lived long ago by only the fossil evidence that persists today, and theories change, this because we don't know everything, correct?

 

No we don't know everything or there would be no need for research. Cancer would be cured etc. But neither do preachers, whether you call them Rabbi, Reverend, Pastor, Cardinal, Bishop, or The Pope...or even Dalai Lama.

 

Because we continually find new evidence, right?

 

I suspect that you're just throwing these questions out there in an attempt to somehow lend credence to the idea that man was created from dust, and woman from man's rib? Maybe you can find me a fossil of that original dust. Of course if you can't then what does that mean?

 

What it means is that evolution is about as much "science" as is creationism.

 

I am enjoying this thread immensely. I am also formulating more discussion on it within my limited cerebrial capacity that I hope to be able to share soon.

So, it is with great trepidation that I must say that I feel this point is unassailable in a practical context, Broncozilla. I must agree with you.

It annoys me when folks do that.

<== still ain't ruling out aliens.

 

So I read the list and must ask...What is your point?

Perhaps evolution is just a fanstastical story that certain people believe. That seems to be your position. So you are suggesting that I abandon one fastastical story for another?

As for answering the questions...I could explain each of those points using scientific evidence and theories but again, I have to ask, what would be the point? Would I change your mind? Unlikely.

I think your belief is misplaced, you think the same of mine.


Whistler

 

"Aliens" are sounding better all the time.

This universe is a molucule made up of atoms. We are a "bacterial" on the atoms.

 

You speak a lot of truths here. My point is that, we have been indoctrinated and lied to in our education institutions all of our lives- evolution is merely a system of beliefs, and not science, and we have been told this because of man's great ego- especially the "intellectuals"- we hate to ever admit that there is anything that we don't know- even if we have to make something up to fill the void.
When I was agnostic, searching for the truth, the more contradictions and dead ends that evolution left me with, the more I realized that it was not an option. I was forced to move on, and continue the search.

Lastly, in all due respect, I highly doubt you could answer all of those questions using scientific evidence and theories. (theories must conform to the scientific theorem) That is why the questions are posed. I have many more that are not listed here.

Possibility cannot account for actuality. Whatever can come to be, is caused in order to be. Nothing cannot be something, I am but cannot be. My existence depends on what is but cannot be.
Every effect has a cause, principle of causality. The existance of God is, Theistic relativity. The God the hearts needs, the mind only grieves.

Whistler,
Sometimes people change their minds. I did.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

As posted on other thread.

 

Ayuh. Micro/macro. Kinda puts things into perspective.

An infinite perspective, I might venture.

"The truth is out there"...wayyyyy out there.

Oldbones

 

"When we enter the realm of possibilities all possibilities are probably possible."

That is an original quote BTW, feel free to use it.

 

I usually don't get involved, but what the heck. It can be liberating at times. Please note that I couldn't get through all the posts here and I certainly don't blame you if you don't get through this monstrosity. But he asked a heck of a lot of questions!!! I had to take out the questions to make it short enough.


1. I don't know. I would think fossilization very rarely happens. We are probably lucky it happened at all. Fossills give us a sliver of a big piture, but comparing fossil body plans and traits to those found later in the fossil record and present day animals, we can piece together the course of evolution over time. Numbers of fossils don't really matter. The first time someone found a 100 million year-old fossil with four legs, and matched it by direct comparison to modern whales, the brain just starts to think that there must of been some sort of change over time that explains the fossil evidence. So, with only one fossil, a scientific thought can start. No need for billions.

2. This is comparing apples to oranges really. The genetic code is a string of chemical residues. It's a natural product. Radio signals (those that would be coherent to us, like someone singing "White Christmas" (there seems to be natural sources of radio signals in the universe)) would have to be assumed to originate with an inteligent species. Mind you, they might be the nasty, violent type. So if the intelligent source behind the radio signals is a bunch of jerks (but real jerks with flesh and blood bodies), then by your reasoning the designer of DNA be a flesh and blood jerk jerk too.

3. Spontaneous generation is an old theory of life origins through time. I thought we were debating evolution. At any rate, organ formationis a matter of gradual change over time. The genome of an animal is constantly mutating on a small scale. Chemically, that means as DNA is replicated, mistakes are made, and these mistakes tranlate into slightly different proteins that were coded for by the original DNA. Picture a small patch of cells on an animal long ago (maybe jelly fish-like) that, through mutation, develop the capacity to respond to light. This is not far fetched because there are several bacteria living today that respond to light by virtue of having many copies of one protein called bacteriorhodopsin. So it wouldn't be unheard of if a patch of cells on an animal "come up" through mutation and by chance, the ability to respond to light. This response may trigger a chemical release by the cell that modifies the behavior of the animal. This behavior modification may give an advantage to this animal, whose progeny then inherent the ability to grow this patch of cells. The progeny, however, also mutate, and further modifications over time can produce an eye. As far as everything needing to evolve at once to produce an eye, take a look in an embryology text and see the pictures of the development of a chicks or mouse eye. You'll see how gradual changes come together to form the functioning eye. Everything just doesn't appear at once.

4. The previous post quoting of one of Newton's laws of motion covers this. Planets formed from the coalescing of dust and debris, first from the strong gravitational pull of the sun to forn the solar disk, then the coalescing of stuff in the disk into planets. You have to realize that it is a law of physiscs that as an object accumulates mass, its gravitational field gets stronger. So as planets formed, and still today, they tug on eachother, and get tugged by the sun. Throw in some massive colisions (such as the one that hit the Earth and ejected the moon) and you may see variations in rotations and orbits today.

5. Whoa, lot's here. Current theory posits that the primordial Earth probably contained "soup" of organic molecules, like acids and bases that contain carbon. It doesn't seem like a stretch in the mind of many organic chemist that this soup could contain the building blocks for ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is a facinating chemical, because it was found within the last few decades that RNA can mediate chemical reactions by itself (we used to think that only proteins could do that). So RNA, which looks alot like DNA, including being made up of 4 different bases) over time could have reacted and changed until it became a large molecule that could make copies of itself. I know that this may sound far fetched, but I can't cover it all right here. The theory is known as the "RNA world" and you can type that into Google and get more info. Anyway, RNA copies itself, makes mistakes, and evetually you get a variety of molecules that can synthesize other molecules, like proteins and fats. So you get the beginnings of self replication that can be contained by special molecules that form things like membranes. Then your on your way to a cell. This piecemeal approach to cellularity relied on the organic materials floating around from the original soup. Again, its a matter of time. No cell simply appeared, cells arose gradually, "feeding" on the rich material around them. Sexual reproduction comes into play way way down the line from the origins of the first cell. The topic is too long to debate, I'll leave that as a follow-up question.

6. There was no soil before the first cell either. The study of life dictates that it arose in water. A billion years of cooking, the primordial oceans were teeming with rudimentary cells that looked like bacteria and algea. Dry areas were rock and lava and stuff like that. Only when life first started to grow on land do you get the formation of soil. What makes you think there was soil before there was terrestrial forms of life?

7. Well, the first invaders of the land were algea-like cells. Anybody who owns a fish tank knows yu don't need soil for algea to grow on the glass-but you need water. So the first "Survivors" were algea that grew in the tidal regions and could survive periods of dryness. These eventually mutated into more tolerant forms until you got things more like mosses and lichens. These things could grow without soil, but, like today, as they died and piled up, they can decay into soil like material.

7. First, your misleading-many plants rely on insect pollination, but the vast majority do not. The fossil record shows us what species populated the earth before insects show up. Not surprisingly, they are not even flowering plants. Flowering plants arrive later in the fossil record, and before the rise of insects, they generally resemble plants today that rely on wind for pollination. Unfortunately, you hit upon one of the supports for evolution. True flowering plants really take off in the fssil record right at the time that insects develop flight and are the dominant forms of life.

8. The early atmosphere did not have molecular oxygen (O2). However, it had tons of CO2 and water. Not surprisingly, it is therorized that the first intact cells developed rudimentary forms of photosynthesis which converts CO2 to larger carbon-containing molecules by combining CO2 with water, all powered by the sun. The by product is molecular oxygen, and as a highly reactive molecule was exported. Just picture, vast seas of green, the first life on earth, spewing out tons and tons of this dangerous by-product--oxygen. The worlds atmosphere changed over a billion years. Needless to say, other small cells evolved that developed respiration, and needed the oxygen for their own biochmeical purposes. They flourished in the O2-rich atmosphere and came to rely directly on their green partners.

9. Pretty silly comment, reflecting more on social ills than science. I'll bite though, and if you read the answer to the origin of cells, you'll see that reproduction, the ability to make copies, is the first step to life. There can be no other first step. No wonder it's easy to copy yourself (and fun too!)

10. Now, in the 21st Century, do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

-Yes, under the right conditions. That means we may be alone in this whole universe of billions and billions of stars.

11. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA --- which can only be produced by DNA? --- Seems to me, the only Scientific answer is that it all had to be Created at the same time! Please explain.

-I think the "RNA world" theory offers a tenable solution to this question. I tried to describe it above. In cells today, RNA is the middle man. It can be both transcribed into DNA, and translated into protein. Cetain RNA sequences can fold up on themselves (Like putting twists in a rubber band) and actually catalyze chemical reactions. Catalyzing chemical reactions is the key to life and autonomous replication. Chemically, its an ancient molecule, so if self replicating RNA develops first, then it can derive proteins and DNA. DNA is much more stable chemically, so that is why, when we look today, DNA seems to be the center of everything. In fact, its just the "desired" medium to store information. Don't forget, every gene in your body (made of DNA) is first converted into RNA, then into protein. Is this sequence of events a relic or reminder of how the first macromolecules and cells began? Alot of people think so.

 

One of th most fascinating possibilities IMO
Much more than ET for me.

Very concise and informative discourse btw.
Thanx

 

Yea. Except that part where he answered #7 twice with two different answers. That kinda threw me at first.

But I figured it out in 45 minutes or so.