Poll: How did human life come about?

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Garth

You didn't answer my question. None of the above -- even if it were true -- has any bearing on the truth of evolution. You can't reject facts because you do not like what you think they entail for your philosophy. If I thought that the theory of gravity suggested that I should go around pushing people off of tall building so that they could follow their natural geodesics, that doesn't mean that the theory of gravity must be false. Is that seriously how you think?

Evolution has literally nothing to do with morality. Period. It is a scientific theory. It describes what is. It does not describe what ought to be.

Seriously, you need to educate yourself from a source other than Kent Hovind.

A theory is important because of the conclusions and predictions you can make based on that theory. Evolution makes no room for morality, no room for the soul, no room for imagination, and no room for God. In it's essence, evolution states that humans as well as other physical beings change in order to survive. Do you honestly think we humans are better off at surviving than we were, say, 6,000 years ago? If anything, we have devolved, not evolved.

And don't get me started on "survival of the fittest" (natural selection). That statement and philosophy is the biggest piece of bs. I have ever read. The ones who survive are the ones who survive -whether or not the individual(s) are "fit" can only be decided after the fact.

 

[Legend]

No one really knows the answer to the beginning, if there even was a beginning.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

incorrect. single celled organisms are far less complex. single celled organisms are generic. milti cellular organisms have specialized cells (tissues -> organs -> systems) a single cell is the complete living organism, capable of surviving on its own. A liver cell is dependent on other cells to help it sustain itself. Its called specialization.

You side-stepped the salient point. None of this is significant with regard to the mechanisms of evolution because they operate just the same on "simple" and "complex" organisms.

I am not talking about the micro concept of natural selection... I am talking about the macro concept of natural selection.

There is no such distinction.

Nothing that you have said offers and evidence to the opinion that natural selection is/has been the sole exclusive explanation for how life got from abiogenesis (whatever its final products were) to the life we have today. If abiogenesis as you said it produced 2 (M+F) of every species as they currently exist (as the common ancestors) ... Then natural selection would have very little to do with getting from the origin to what we have today.
In other words... the more work done during abiogenesis, the less has been done by natural selection.

I'm sorry, but that makes such little sense that I don't even know if it rises to the level of "wrong." It's just gibberish. I did not propose that abiogenesis produced 2 of every species. Such an idea is preposterous. It flies in the face of literally all the evidence at hand.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: sao123
If abiogenesis as you said it produced 2 (M+F) of every species as they currently exist (as the common ancestors) ... Then natural selection would have very little to do with getting from the origin to what we have today.

Is it theoretically possible that the first life form on earth was a rabbit? Yes. Is it likely? Definately not. The current evidence we has suggests that single-celled organisms have been around for billions of years, much longer than any other organism.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth
First, a point of order. Nobody "preaches" evolution. It is a fact observed in reality.

No one preaches evolution? What planet do you live on? Do I have to name names *cough* Richard Dawkins *cough*? Macroevolution is not fact. Facts in science are directly observable and can be demonstrated. Demonstrate macroevolution and I'll give you a I don't have a problem with microevolution. I don't have a problem with gravity. I don't have a problem even with string theory (though I honestly am not a physicist). Macroevolution is an unprovable theory that has no worth whatsoever and it serves no practical purpose (not even in biology or medicine). It's only use, apparently, is as a religion or philosophy.

Bull freaking spit. Many advances in biology simply would not have occurred if not for evolutionary theory (you can call it "macro" if you wish, I make no such distinction). I speak from personal experience, having applied the theory, done the experiments and made the observations myself.

Care to elaborate or give examples that show how macroevolution has been practically useful? If you don't believe there is a distinction between macro- and micro-, then the issue should be simply a matter of scale. So tell me, how has the "knowledge" that primates millions of years ago evolved into man been of use?

Evolutionary theory makes specific predictions about sequences in genomes. In theory, these predictions allow some very serious shortcuts to be taken in the process of gene discovery. Apply these theories... and you tend to discover genes.

Now, can you name another theory (even unscientific) that makes *any* prediction, even incorrect, about sequences of genomes?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is all you cared to comment on? What about the previous 3/4 of my post where I demolished your asinine claims. Care to acknowledge the facts resolved at those points?

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Garth

You didn't answer my question. None of the above -- even if it were true -- has any bearing on the truth of evolution. You can't reject facts because you do not like what you think they entail for your philosophy. If I thought that the theory of gravity suggested that I should go around pushing people off of tall building so that they could follow their natural geodesics, that doesn't mean that the theory of gravity must be false. Is that seriously how you think?

Evolution has literally nothing to do with morality. Period. It is a scientific theory. It describes what is. It does not describe what ought to be.

Seriously, you need to educate yourself from a source other than Kent Hovind.

A theory is important because of the conclusions and predictions you can make based on that theory. Evolution makes no room for morality, no room for the soul, no room for imagination, and no room for God.

Simply false. Evolution speaks nothing about the existence or non-existence of these things.

In it's essence, evolution states that humans as well as other physical beings change in order to survive. Do you honestly think we humans are better off at surviving than we were, say, 6,000 years ago? If anything, we have devolved, not evolved.

"Change" |= "getting better"

And don't get me started on "survival of the fittest" (natural selection). That statement and philosophy is the biggest piece of bs. I have ever read. The ones who survive are the ones who survive -whether or not the individual(s) are "fit" can only be decided after the fact.

"Survival of the fittest" is a crude sound-byte summation of evolutionary mechanisms. You cannot properly evaluate the truth of a scientific idea based on its such popular characterizations.

That you would speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Evolutionary theory makes specific predictions about sequences in genomes. In theory, these predictions allow some very serious shortcuts to be taken in the process of gene discovery. Apply these theories... and you tend to discover genes.

As much as I'd like to take your word for it, can you be more specific and provide citation?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Crono

A theory is important because of the conclusions and predictions you can make based on that theory. Evolution makes no room for morality, no room for the soul, no room for imagination, and no room for God. In it's essence, evolution states that humans as well as other physical beings change in order to survive. Do you honestly think we humans are better off at surviving than we were, say, 6,000 years ago? If anything, we have devolved, not evolved.

And don't get me started on "survival of the fittest" (natural selection). That statement and philosophy is the biggest piece of bs. I have ever read. The ones who survive are the ones who survive -whether or not the individual(s) are "fit" can only be decided after the fact.

Where to start...

A theory doesn't have to make room for anything other than the elements which concern it. Why would the theory of evolution address morality, the soul, imagination, or God? Those ideas are elements of philosophy and theology and are quite outside the scope of evolution.

Humans actually haven't changed much in terms of evolution in the last 6,000 years. We have a better adaptation which allows us to change our behavior to suit our environment more quickly than evolution can change us. Yes we are much better at surviving than we were 6,000 years ago. Look into average human life expectancy for the intervening period.

 

[dnuggett]

Amazing how many intelligent people got this one wrong.....

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Evolutionary theory makes specific predictions about sequences in genomes. In theory, these predictions allow some very serious shortcuts to be taken in the process of gene discovery. Apply these theories... and you tend to discover genes.

As much as I'd like to take your word for it, can you be more specific and provide citation?

Mammalian cells have an enzyme activity which causes a methyl group to be added to some (not all) cytosine residues. This seems to be a regulatory function. Once this methyl group is added, the cytosine becomes less stable and thus more prone to mutation. Now, assume that a Darwinian natural selection does occur and assume mammals have been around for millions of years. A few things must happen:

1 You should see a decrease in the number of of these particular cytosines (ie they should be rare).

2 If you do find these particular cytosines, they will be highly conserved between species and will be highly selected against if mutated.

3 They won't necessarily be coding regions (ORFs are more plastic than you might think), but they will be closely associated with genes, most likely in regulatory regions.

Three specific predictions, all confirmed through observation, and the last one is used constantly to find genes.

Now, could you name any other theory that makes a prediction about genome sequences? Why did you edit it out of your quote?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

incorrect. single celled organisms are far less complex. single celled organisms are generic. milti cellular organisms have specialized cells (tissues -> organs -> systems) a single cell is the complete living organism, capable of surviving on its own. A liver cell is dependent on other cells to help it sustain itself. Its called specialization.

You side-stepped the salient point. None of this is significant with regard to the mechanisms of evolution because they operate just the same on "simple" and "complex" organisms.

I am not talking about the micro concept of natural selection... I am talking about the macro concept of natural selection.

There is no such distinction.

Nothing that you have said offers and evidence to the opinion that natural selection is/has been the sole exclusive explanation for how life got from abiogenesis (whatever its final products were) to the life we have today. If abiogenesis as you said it produced 2 (M+F) of every species as they currently exist (as the common ancestors) ... Then natural selection would have very little to do with getting from the origin to what we have today.
In other words... the more work done during abiogenesis, the less has been done by natural selection.

I'm sorry, but that makes such little sense that I don't even know if it rises to the level of "wrong." It's just gibberish. I did not propose that abiogenesis produced 2 of every species. Such an idea is preposterous. It flies in the face of literally all the evidence at hand.

Lets try this from a simple unrelated example...

you originated at point A, and you are currently at point C.
You theorize that you got to point C from point A via a road which goes from A to B to C.
and If I tell you that thats impossible, because no road from A to B existed during your travels... then your theory must be wrong.


The current theory of evolution (the one being argued on this board, and from richard dawkins book) evolution says that abiogenesis got from zero life to a single simple organism. Then natural selection got us from the single simple life to millions of complex organisms. yet if it could be proven that the single simple organism did not, or could not have existed as the first intermediate stage...

then there is a fault with our current theory of how history happened, this doesnt apply a fault with what natural selection is, or that it works. It does not imply that natural selection was not operating, merely that it was not or could not be the sole principal at work.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
Amazing how many intelligent people got this one wrong.....

Are you inferring there's an known answer? Even if you take a purely scientific stance, ie what is measured and observed, you don't know. How do we know the known universe is all of it...that a "big bang" was the center of all the universe rather than just something local to us relative to an infinite amount of other space? Why does there have to be a beginning in time...doesn't it make sense for it to be infinite? How do we know that the life on earth definitely started on earth, and wasn't a result of something like panspermia?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: sao123



The current theory of evolution (the one being argued on this board, and from richard dawkins book) evolution says that abiogenesis got from zero life to a single simple organism. Then natural selection got us from the single simple life to millions of complex organisms. yet if it could be proven that the single simple organism did not, or could not have existed as the first intermediate stage...

then there is a fault with our current theory of how history happened, this doesnt apply a fault with what natural selection is, or that it works. It does not imply that natural selection was not operating, merely that it was not or could not be the sole principal at work.

It could be proven?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

The Bible says that people have been on earth for 4,000 years. Science proves that's false. The bible says the entire population on earth descended from 2 people. Science proves thats false. The Bible says that everyone except a single family was wiped out in a giant flood. Science shows that's false. The Bible is PURE CRAP. It's fake, it's fiction. Each and every day science shows just how truly offbase it is, but the truly weakminded desperately cling to each and every point that's been emphatically disproven. You can always tell a person has absolutely no clue about the real world when he relies on the Bible for his information. Grimms fairy tales are more grounded in reality than the bible is.

 

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

According to the Book of Genesis Chapter 1, the earth did even exist until at least the 2nd day. Tell us, exactly how long was that first "day" before the earth was even created?

I explained this once before, but it is obvious that it never sank in. The account of the 6 days of creation in Genesis doesn't include the creation of Earth. The only earth involved in the creation story was the dry land. The Earth existed prior to the Genesis account. Exchange the word "interval" for "day", and you have a more accurate account of time, but only for this Earth Age. Continue to ignore this, and it will be obvious that you only quote the Bible to fit your own preferences.

 

[chambersc]

Something I feel a lot of people are forgetting. Rational fallacies and tests can't be used against an irrational belief. There is no testing of an irrational belief -- it's a dead zone of logic.

 

[Seekermeister]

GagHalfrunt,

The Bible says that people have been on earth for 4,000 years

You're further off on what the Bible says that most of the others here.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Good poll. At least I know the majority of you aren't intellectually dishonest or at least you paid attention in high school science class.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

The Bible says that people have been on earth for 4,000 years. Science proves that's false. The bible says the entire population on earth descended from 2 people. Science proves thats false. The Bible says that everyone except a single family was wiped out in a giant flood. Science shows that's false. The Bible is PURE CRAP. It's fake, it's fiction. Each and every day science shows just how truly offbase it is, but the truly weakminded desperately cling to each and every point that's been emphatically disproven. You can always tell a person has absolutely no clue about the real world when he relies on the Bible for his information. Grimms fairy tales are more grounded in reality than the bible is.

How dare you speak such rational thought in a thread about religion.

 

[exdeath]

We are all created as spare parts by the artificial progenitor biological nano computer Kadomony, for use in reconstructing Deus, the biological autonomous interstellar strategic weapon system that crashed landed on this planet 10,000 years ago in the Eldridge disaster. For the eventual purpose of repairing the heavily damaged and non functional Deus core, Kadomony's core control module activated the emergency backup plan System Hawwa at that time and populated the planet with the most convienent DNA records available at the time: the original human beings that created it.

Among the first artificial human beings created were Cain, the twelve animus of the Gazel Ministry, and Miang Hawwa, the humanoid incarnation of System Hawwa and Kadomony's central OS. Their purpose was to oversee and guide the evolution of the newly created humanity from behind the scenes from there on for the next several thousand years for the ultimate purpose of resurrecting Deus and developing the means and technology to do so. But all humans are also destined to become replacement parts needed to repair Deus' biological components, and thus mankind shall one day reunite with God.

Unless we can free the true God, the -Wave Existence- from Zohar, Deus' power reactor and source of all power on this planet, and break the cycle once and for all...

 

[Seekermeister]

Leros,

How dare you speak such rational thought in a thread about religion.

To equate rational thought to certain areas of science, is the ultimate oxymoron.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

The Bible says that people have been on earth for 4,000 years. you have a chapter and a verse to back that up right? Science proves that's false. The bible says the entire population on earth descended from 2 people. there eventually had to be a first 2 procreating humans...even with evolution Science proves thats false. The Bible says that everyone except a single family was wiped out in a giant flood. Science shows that's false. Oh really? Because archeology shows that a flood did happen... The Bible is PURE CRAP. It's fake, it's fiction. and you can prove that a man named Jesus never walked the earth? because once again the archeologists show evidence that he had... Each and every day science shows just how truly offbase it is, but the truly weakminded desperately cling to each and every point that's been emphatically disproven. and every day a bunch of internet scientists who have done no real discoveries or research of their own, read books and pass off other peoples opinions as their own, without fully understanding or verifying what they're saying You can always tell a person has absolutely no clue about the real world when he relies on the internet for his information.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

you originated at point A, and you are currently at point C.
You theorize that you got to point C from point A via a road which goes from A to B to C.
and If I tell you that thats impossible, because no road from A to B existed during your travels... then your theory must be wrong.

To use your analogy, then, you can argue all you like about how we got from A to B, but we know that we got from B to C because the evidence is unequivocal. You seem to be saying that because there is controversy regarding the connexion between A and B, then we must discard our knowledge about the connexion between B and C.

The current theory of evolution (the one being argued on this board, and from richard dawkins book) evolution says that abiogenesis got from zero life to a single simple organism. Then natural selection got us from the single simple life to millions of complex organisms. yet if it could be proven that the single simple organism did not, or could not have existed as the first intermediate stage...

then there is a fault with our current theory of how history happened, this doesnt apply a fault with what natural selection is, or that it works. It does not imply that natural selection was not operating, merely that it was not or could not be the sole principal at work.

I don't think anybody is proposing that natural selection is a mechanism for abiogenesis in the first place. You seem to be battling a strawman.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Crono


A theory is important because of the conclusions and predictions you can make based on that theory. Evolution makes no room for morality, no room for the soul, no room for imagination, and no room for God. In it's essence, evolution states that humans as well as other physical beings change in order to survive. Do you honestly think we humans are better off at surviving than we were, say, 6,000 years ago? If anything, we have devolved, not evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

The number of humans who are alive at one given time is undeniably a good measure of how good we are at survivng. Notice how over time, more people have been alive? You know that without the improvements made in agricultural technology, the world population would have remained relatively static, or growing very slowly, as it did from 0AD to 1400.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

The Bible says that people have been on earth for 4,000 years. you have a chapter and a verse to back that up right? Science proves that's false. The bible says the entire population on earth descended from 2 people. there eventually had to be a first 2 procreating humans...even with evolution Science proves thats false. The Bible says that everyone except a single family was wiped out in a giant flood. Science shows that's false. Oh really? Because archeology shows that a flood did happen... The Bible is PURE CRAP. It's fake, it's fiction. and you can prove that a man named Jesus never walked the earth? because once again the archeologists show evidence that he had... Each and every day science shows just how truly offbase it is, but the truly weakminded desperately cling to each and every point that's been emphatically disproven. and every day a bunch of internet scientists who have done no real discoveries or research of their own, read books and pass off other peoples opinions as their own, without fully understanding or verifying what they're saying You can always tell a person has absolutely no clue about the real world when he relies on the internet for his information.

You realize that nothing you said there was correct, except the bit about Jesus probably being a real person at one point. But that's plausible because the romans corroborated it.