Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 433,352 views
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
XVII
You just contradicted yourself. According to you, the Earht itself is only 6000 years old, so...wtf?
And that god solution is so typical. Anything you (any particular religious sect trying to back up a point, I mean, not you personally) can't prove, you just say "oh god did it." Which is riduculous.
[edit]
And you never answered how he got IN the whale. Since baleen would have filtered him out. And a whale-shark's stomache isn't big enough (the only fish with a non-baleen mouth large enough to swallow a man whole), and a great blue whale has baleen. So answer. How did he get in there?
- 2,614
- Metroider17
sorry i didnt clarify myself, thats something in addition to the absurity to the genesis account being 6 periods of time...(aka other places in the old testament where you could say they were periods of time such as joshua)
it just says whale...could have been a whale, or even a fish
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
it just says whale...could have been a whale, or even a fish
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
- 2,614
- Metroider17
God was punishing Jonah for not going to nineveh as God commanded him to do (nineveh a city of great wickedness, beginning to sound like the USA) but Jonah changed his mind and heart in the whale...guess it took a great whale to get jonah to change his mind
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
PS
I really can't stand it when people talk like this about God. You know nothing of the bible. And if you do, then you're doing a great job of hiding it. I may not know much about the specifics of the evolutionist theory. But when someone corrects me, I accept it. Even though I don't agree with it.
Bottom line. People want to believe we created ourselves so there are no outside ties or responsibilites. It also allows them to dictate morals as they see fit. I mean think about it, do you really want a monkey for a great uncle?
And nobody has answered my question. Where does the YOU come from.
PS
BTW, you obviously don't believe in heaven so why mention hell?
Red Eye Racerreligion is like nicotien, hook 'em while their young and you'll have 'em for life, who cares if its not fact, it teaches (rather, DEMANDS) good morals right?
Amazing how rebellion is the same huh? Religion as man has created is stupid. Spirituality is how God intented it. But like EVERYTHING else, man has twisted and turned it into something to serve himself.
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
How did what all start?
I've covered the existance of the Universe. I've covered the formation of Primordial Soup, and I've covered the formation of self-replicating chemical aggregands. What else exactly do you want?
Swift
I was neither personal nor contradictory.
You said that "Creation might be presented from cold hard fact of the Bible and not have the scientific evidence to back it up. But it at least answers all the questions."
I said that not only does it not answer ANY questions, but that it throws up even more. My analogy was saying that "aliens made us" seems to answer the question of our origins, but doesn't answer where the aliens came from. Yet substituting "God" for "aliens" seems plausible to you.
And of course the bunch that believe we were put here by aliens are, sorry SCJ, the Raelians. And it's fun to see you distance yourselves from them, despite the fact that they believe the exact same thing but with aliens instead of God.
Swift
I didn't say you were a Luddite. You were wondering why science bothers to pursue Evolutionary theory - or "why people fight so hard for it". The answer is because it is a demonstrable, reproducible function which has been formed, over time, from teraquads of data - all of which points to the current theory we have today. If we took the same attitude as you to other sectors of science - things work because God said so - we wouldn't have ANY of our modern technology, because we'd have no understanding of how they actually work.
Swift
Amongst other things, that couldn't possibly happen. Given the amount of data that exists - which is vast - corroborating the current Evolutionary theory, no data can disprove the occurrence of Evolution. However, data can be presented which modifies the theory (although the data would have to be peer-reviewed and reproduced) slightly. Unless you ignore all of the previous data - which would be foolish and unscientific - one cannot simply "disprove" Evolutionary theory.
However, there is "some "discovery"" every day which "completely proves" Creation "theory" to be inaccurate. But religion ignores it, because it's obviously wrong since scientists say it.
Swift
Yes. And an earlier human.
XVII
Out of interest, were there cats in the Garden of Eden?
MrktMkr1986
You can't have it both ways. Either there WAS oxygen on primordial Earth (so, according to your earlier point, there was an Ozone Layer), or there wasn't.
I've become sort of an officianado on another forum I frequent. I'll post a few of my generic arguments, for your viewing enjoyment. 
----This was written approximately 3 years ago, and hasn't been refuted, therefore I haven't polished it up, at all---------------------------------------------------
First of all it would be VERY strange because Adam and Eve would have to have every genetic possible allele in existance in their bodies. One would have to have all dominant traits and the other have all recessive traits, or a mixture of the two. Not only that but their offspring would have to carry every allelle they possesed. Which is VERY unlikely considering how the production of gametes work and the fact that every gamete has a different variation of the parent's DNA.
Furthermore, all genes (both dominant and recessive plus others *some alleles have three or even four possibilities*) would have to be present when Noah came about. Let's just forget anything before the flood (lets assume it was 4,400 years ago..2,400 BC) From that time, humans would have to have reproduced, traveled, settled and found ways to survive. Everyone with me so far? From those few people, who HAD TO BE a "mixture" of every trait, all the races would have had to MICROEVOLVE into black, white, hispanic, asian, etc..
Not only that but in the 2400 years between Christ and Noah, the population would have to have moved and expanded to all reaches of Europe, Asia, and Africa, go through micro-evolution into their adapted forms (black in africa, whites in europe, asians in asia, and whatever middle easterners are called.), and then set up civilizations.
It is impossible for those micro evolutions to occur between the 2,400 years before Christ came along, much less by now. Hardy Weignberg problems show that it would be impossible, but Again, I will give you guys the benefit of the doubt.
Lets take a look at empirical evidence.
Here are dates of rulers and their pyramids.
-Bent Pyramid-Pharaoh Snefru (2680-2565 BC)
-The sphynx is a mythical creature and his pyramid that supposedly was built by the Pharaoh Khafre-Chephren about 2500 B.C.
-Pyramid of Pepi II (2250 B.C.)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html
This is fine and dandy. Let's assume that two people populated the earth enough to have the pyramids build in 2600BC. What about 2250BC, only 150 years after the flood? Doesn't seem possible, eh? They would have had to travel to the place where it was built, settle, reproduce exponentially, and build something that takes up to a century in 150 years? Hmm.
And according to this (it doesn't state any beleifs, I am just taking the INFORMATION and applying it to this discussion..http://searchenginez.com/2012/america_pyramids.html
Humans were in the America's as early as 800 BC and no latter than 100 AD according to the time one mound was built in Miamisburg Mound, Ohio.
quote:
Near Mexicos current capital, this city of ruins was thought to have been home to 125,000 people in 600 AD. Teotihuacan was founded in 100 BC, and deserted by 750 AD, which sounds tragic yet few civilizations manage to last 850 years.
So they spread into what is now Mexico and set up a VERY LARGE city by 100 BC.. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but cities with 125,000 people don't just spring up out of nowheres, there has to be preexistant civilization there with a base of agriculture and other things in order to sustain such a place?
So in 2,300 years, civilization spread completely to the other side of the globe. Let's not even take into account the time that that Alaska-Russia land or ice bridge was there... the last Ice Age, which was supposedly longer than that, but according to Creationists, that is science, science is right, except for evolution.... Hmm since when is Ice Ages part of evolution?
Ok this one is kinda corny because it has to do with pigs but civilizations were in asia by 2250 according to this. So in 150 years, they build the pyramids and some of them already traversed from whereever in the Middle East it is that the ARC landed to Asia? Hmm.http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/7484/time/tl-civ1.htm
ok now just look at when Mayans came to be... Not only did they start a civilization across the globe 400 years after the flood, they were a group of people which had already microevolved into one race. Let's not even get into the logistics of those people moving that great a distance, nor the amount of rapid population growth that would have been needed. Also notice there are sustained civilizations THROUGH the flood... Then Indus and China civilizations that started during if not right after the flood... http://chaos1.hypermart.net/anciv/
-----Here is my response to a quoted post. I tried to explain, on this kid's request, why he was wrong about genetics and their relation to creationism-----------------------
First of all, each allele normally has two bits of information, expressed as letters. For the most part, it is expressed as AA for Dominant-Dominant, Aa for Dominant-Recessive, or aa for Recessive-Recessive. Something you should know- think Punnett Squares. This wouldnt be a problem for the Adam and Eve story, if it werent for what follows something Ive already explained, for those of you who are paying any attention.
If every allele only had two possibilities, Dominant or Recessive, everything would be hunky dory (well, not really, but Ill get to that later). The problem is, some genes have more than two alleles. This is what causes many genetic problems, especially in bottleneck effects. If Im not mistaken, blood type has three alleles- A, b, and O- but dont quote me on that. Therefore, as Ive stated over and over, EVERY GENE THAT WE HAVE TODAY must have expressed every allele in Adam and Eve. Since certain combinations of alleles are harmful, it is statistically impossible for them to be perfect. And if they were, it would be completely impossible for their children to be normal. I can conclude that because if Adam was perfect, Eves genetic code MUST have been exactly the same, phenotypically. Therefore, it would be inbreeding (Ill tell another reason it would be inbreeding in the next paragraph). That poses many questions, regarding the genotype and phenotypes of them both. We can discern, undoubtedly, that genotypically they could be slightly different (more on why they would be genotypically the same, next paragraph) because of the same phenotypic effects AA and Aa have.
Now, why would it be inbreeding? Because, inbreeding happens when two very genetically similar organisms mate. If Adam and Eve are both perfect, they would have EXTREMELY similar genotypes, and nearly (only nearly because of theyre of the opposite sex) identical phenotypes (not that phenotypes matters at this stage). Now, brothers and sisters are only slightly similar, genetically, sharing, at most, something like 12%-25% IDENTICAL genetic make-up, in DNA. Adam and Eve, on the other hand, would cause nearly 50%, at LOWEST, identical. The result would be worse than parent/child incest. Sure, incest has happened and isnt really going to mean horrible things, but let me continue.
I contend that Adam and Eve would have been identical in genotype not only because of the implications and self obvious truths of being Perfect, but because according to Genesis, they were genetic clones. You may now be thinking to yourself, Whaaa ? I know, its a queer thought, but follow me. Genesis says that Eve was fashioned out of Adams extra rib. This is, theoretically, possible with todays medical technology, but thats not the point. The point is, it is entirely possible that God did this. Now, I could go into a whole bit about how the whole problem of Adam having an XY chromosome would make it impossible, but in reality it is entirely possible for any number of reasons:
-The Y Chromosome being suppressed somehow.
-God used Mitosis or Meiosis and simply doubled the Gamete-like cells Chromosomes (the one containing the X, of course)
-Adam was Tetraploidy. But that would create serious problems because they wouldnt be able to reproduce, at all.
-Adam was triploidy in his 23rd Chromosome- with XXY. In this case, God would have had to find some way to either discard or suppress the Y in Eve. This is possibly the most plausible explanation because nondisjunction of the sex chromosomes causes this in 1 of 2,000 births. But, it doesnt go unpunished. Adam would have probably had Klinefelter syndrome- resulting in small testes and sterileness. Opps.. Looks like God could take care of that, though.
In any event, Adam and Eve would be very similar. Their offspring would be inbreed. Their offspring would then further inbreed. A good way to think about it is dealing with dogs, found here. Sure, you can say that it was different back then, but you must show us proof that back then the physics of the universe were different and that the laws of chemistry were likewise different, along with the way traits were passed on through the generations.
I think that about covers your statement that seeing as they were the first humans god created they were perfect. Now, Ill address all can inherit different traits.
That statement is factually inaccurate. What it proposes, and implies is that there would be 60 different phenotypes for each gene. That isnt the case. The vast majority have 2- Dominant and Recessive. A few, such as blood type (Im fairly certain blood type is an example), have more than two phenotypes, but never 60. But this isnt really the problem. Genetic problems dont really arise because of two people having the same trait, but usually a combination of genes which interact together to form adverse results. I would try and explain to you why and how this happens, but that would take entirely too long and be ineffective, because each and everyone of these phenomenon is different. So, BASICALLY, Adam and Eve have two, maybe three traits that they can pass onto their children for EACH gene, but that isnt why inbreeding is bad. Its bad because they would be giving their offspring long chains of identical information- another way this is bad is because if any of the information is bad (yes, I know, they were perfect, but as I will point out, its impossible to change the genetic code so drastically) the offspring (1 out of 4 in F1 generations) have two sets of bad alleles for that gene.
I would now like to move onto genetic mutations and diseases. Ill use Downs Syndrome as an example because of its rate of occurrence, 1 out of 700 births. Downs Syndrome isnt inheritable- In fact, the law of averages dictates that if someone in your family has it, your offsprings odds of contracting the condition look better. Downs Syndrome occurs because of nondisjunction
. Nondisjunction (causing trisomy 21), which accounts for 95% of Downs Syndrome patients, occurs randomly during meiosis. In fact, my Biology textbook states that nondisjunction (of the any other, or all Chromosomes) occurs at extremely high rates and that the fetus is naturally aborted. In addition, Downs Syndrome is one of the many problems caused by nondisjunction- my guess is that this really does happen very often in humans I mean, 1 in 700 get an extra Chromosome 21, and 1 in 2,000 get an extra Chromosome 23. The point is, these things do not arise on their own from a state of perfectness- these things happen constantly. So unless someone knows of a reason why the laws of physics and how chemistry worked back then was different, let me know.
I think that is enough for tonight If anyone is keeping track, I responded to the first line and a half here, so far. I will try to finish up the rest
NOTE: I never did finish it up because the kid never responded, and everyone else just ignored it I guess. It's probably full of inaccuracies though, but I go off on tangents all the time.
-------------Someone else gave a set of links...-------------------------------------------------------------------
After a quick glance, I see numerous fallacies and falsehoods being propagated in each of these webpages.
Instead of disproving the whole thing (every peice of information), like I've probably done countless times before, I'll point out the ones that caught my eye. If you'd like to discuss any of the other things on these sites, I'd be more than willing to look at something in particular which you think is true.
In the first link, the first thing I see is a picture of Archaeopteryx. That, in and of itself is grounds for me to dismiss the entire website, but I won't. I'll dismiss the fact that they are propagating a well known falsehood (that Archaeopteryx
is a fake, or whatever new bogus explanation they've come up with to discredit this fossil that THEY have dubbed "transitional"- to be clear, there is no such thing as a transitional FOSSIL. No species has ever evolved so quickly that the entire specie change could be seen in one generation.).
I simply went to their first essay, and found this in the first three paragraphs.
Well, I'll assume many, if not all of you are not familiar with the Theory of Relativity, are you? It's something a little old Jewish chap named Albert wrote up back in the early 1900's. Since his passing it has been proven, without a doubt, that time IS DEPENDENT on space.
Second link...
I just don't know what to say about this webpage.... I would just post my usual thing about how the flood is impossible based on the way civilizations developed and that if there was any flood whatsoever, it was on a small, local scale...... But this page takes the cake.
It proposes that (and I'm not embellishing here, at all- read it for yourself) there is an ocean of water below the crust of the Earth, the crust cracked (it says that this is unusual becuase the crust doesn't crack (what the hell are fault lines then?)), the water shot out creating the fountain described in the Bible, the crack got bigger (splitting on each end at two miles PER SECOND) and as the water came up, the Earth sunk, then, as it sunk, the bottom of it (the mantle, which they CLAIM is made of BASALT) then rose up and out rapidly. They claim that this is what made the Mid-Oceanic Ridge (nevermind that the Ridge is spreading still today, and that the continents STILL move away from each other at a constant rate). So, assuming this is true, it would have split the continents thousands of miles apart in no less than a few hours (no, it didnt have 40 days and 40 nights because this couldn't have happened till the water was finished moving). It then goes on to say that it is proven by a 1 mile deep river of salt water below the Tibetan Plateau, but doesn't give any evidence to this, muchless a study or report we can look at to verify it's existance. (I don't doubt it exists, but it certainly doesn't mean the entire Earth sits on top an ocean)
Now, let me point out the many weak points that are obvious.
-Water is LESS DENSE than rock, unless the water is under pressure greater than the rock. Consequently, things in areas of low density DO NOT move to areas of high density (and yes, I know reverse osmosis is possible, but only in a reaction or under pressure). Therefore, water, in such massive quanitites cannot be residing below the surface, as oceans of free-moving water. Aquifers are not the same thing as free-moving oceans. Now, that is an important thing to accept because he is proposing that this process repeats itself, and that water is collecting down in the bowels of the Earth to happen again.
-To continue with water, there are underground rivers of salt water. We know that. They aren't evidence of an underground ocean. That's absurd. The ONLY way there can be an ocean is if the outside edges of it fully supported everything above it (this is how underground rivers are capable- the above material is supported by the side walls... but a river isn't wide like an ocean and furthermore, an underground river wouldn't be under pressure from anything but it's own weight.). BUT, that's impossible. Otherwise, there would have to be no cracks, at all in the rocks above in order to be capable of supporting the weight. Furthermore, it would mean the rocks had to be COMPLETELY inpenetrable to water... Not gonna happen.
-If this is how the Mid-Oceanic ridge came about (he draws it as it is today, as if it has been like this since that time period) and consequently the continents split, ending Pangea, then why isn't there a HUGE mountain range reaching to the heavens on the other side of the world? I mean, where is any evidence that the earth split on one side and pushed out. This would have resulted in a sudden upshift, or downshift in the crust on the other side of the world (Pacific Ocean). As an example, put your fingers together, end to end. Extend your arms out in a horizontal fashion. Then push as hard as you can together. What happens? Your fingers buckle. If you held them stiff, they buckled upwards. If you held them limp, they buckled downward. There is no evidence of this happening.
-Althought it uses some lake in the Himalayas to promote the idea of a rapid movement of the Contintents, it makes no mention of how or why would India break off of Africa, move thousands of miles, and smash into Asia, if this supposed fountain had sprung up from present day Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Perhaps he should amend his thesis to say that every faultline is where the ground cracked? Or.....
-Maybe he shouldn't.... BECAUSE, he makes no attempt to explain why there are more than one, or two, plates. Likewise, he doesn't mention that each tectonic plate on Earth has unique characteristics. That is something that puts to shame his idea of a seemless crust to the Earth. In addition, I should add, that when I say "unique characteristics", I mean that each plate is made up of different types of rocks- vastly different, they move in very different directions, have different ages, etc., etc.
-I could keep going, but lastly... how did this water disappear so rapidly?
Last link.... I couldn't agree more with this except from it.. "Creation Science is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that's enough; for it is all I have on this new PC. If anyone has any comments, questions, or thinks I'm an idiot, I would love to know.
Well, if anyone's crazy enough to read all that.... congrats. Because I know I wouldn't. then again, I wrote it.
P.S.- I'm not a complete nut, and I'm not an athiest. I very much believe in God, but I don't take the bible literally in regards to "creation." So please, refrain from attacking my faith in God, as so many have done before.
----This was written approximately 3 years ago, and hasn't been refuted, therefore I haven't polished it up, at all---------------------------------------------------
First of all it would be VERY strange because Adam and Eve would have to have every genetic possible allele in existance in their bodies. One would have to have all dominant traits and the other have all recessive traits, or a mixture of the two. Not only that but their offspring would have to carry every allelle they possesed. Which is VERY unlikely considering how the production of gametes work and the fact that every gamete has a different variation of the parent's DNA.
Furthermore, all genes (both dominant and recessive plus others *some alleles have three or even four possibilities*) would have to be present when Noah came about. Let's just forget anything before the flood (lets assume it was 4,400 years ago..2,400 BC) From that time, humans would have to have reproduced, traveled, settled and found ways to survive. Everyone with me so far? From those few people, who HAD TO BE a "mixture" of every trait, all the races would have had to MICROEVOLVE into black, white, hispanic, asian, etc..
Not only that but in the 2400 years between Christ and Noah, the population would have to have moved and expanded to all reaches of Europe, Asia, and Africa, go through micro-evolution into their adapted forms (black in africa, whites in europe, asians in asia, and whatever middle easterners are called.), and then set up civilizations.
It is impossible for those micro evolutions to occur between the 2,400 years before Christ came along, much less by now. Hardy Weignberg problems show that it would be impossible, but Again, I will give you guys the benefit of the doubt.
Lets take a look at empirical evidence.
Here are dates of rulers and their pyramids.
-Bent Pyramid-Pharaoh Snefru (2680-2565 BC)
-The sphynx is a mythical creature and his pyramid that supposedly was built by the Pharaoh Khafre-Chephren about 2500 B.C.
-Pyramid of Pepi II (2250 B.C.)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html
This is fine and dandy. Let's assume that two people populated the earth enough to have the pyramids build in 2600BC. What about 2250BC, only 150 years after the flood? Doesn't seem possible, eh? They would have had to travel to the place where it was built, settle, reproduce exponentially, and build something that takes up to a century in 150 years? Hmm.
And according to this (it doesn't state any beleifs, I am just taking the INFORMATION and applying it to this discussion..http://searchenginez.com/2012/america_pyramids.html
Humans were in the America's as early as 800 BC and no latter than 100 AD according to the time one mound was built in Miamisburg Mound, Ohio.
quote:
Near Mexicos current capital, this city of ruins was thought to have been home to 125,000 people in 600 AD. Teotihuacan was founded in 100 BC, and deserted by 750 AD, which sounds tragic yet few civilizations manage to last 850 years.
So they spread into what is now Mexico and set up a VERY LARGE city by 100 BC.. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but cities with 125,000 people don't just spring up out of nowheres, there has to be preexistant civilization there with a base of agriculture and other things in order to sustain such a place?
So in 2,300 years, civilization spread completely to the other side of the globe. Let's not even take into account the time that that Alaska-Russia land or ice bridge was there... the last Ice Age, which was supposedly longer than that, but according to Creationists, that is science, science is right, except for evolution.... Hmm since when is Ice Ages part of evolution?
Ok this one is kinda corny because it has to do with pigs but civilizations were in asia by 2250 according to this. So in 150 years, they build the pyramids and some of them already traversed from whereever in the Middle East it is that the ARC landed to Asia? Hmm.http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/7484/time/tl-civ1.htm
ok now just look at when Mayans came to be... Not only did they start a civilization across the globe 400 years after the flood, they were a group of people which had already microevolved into one race. Let's not even get into the logistics of those people moving that great a distance, nor the amount of rapid population growth that would have been needed. Also notice there are sustained civilizations THROUGH the flood... Then Indus and China civilizations that started during if not right after the flood... http://chaos1.hypermart.net/anciv/
-----Here is my response to a quoted post. I tried to explain, on this kid's request, why he was wrong about genetics and their relation to creationism-----------------------
I will try to stay away from your theory on genetics and how it relates to creation, since I don't want to step on your "moral" toes, but it will tie in at points.random user from other forum
First of all, each allele normally has two bits of information, expressed as letters. For the most part, it is expressed as AA for Dominant-Dominant, Aa for Dominant-Recessive, or aa for Recessive-Recessive. Something you should know- think Punnett Squares. This wouldnt be a problem for the Adam and Eve story, if it werent for what follows something Ive already explained, for those of you who are paying any attention.
If every allele only had two possibilities, Dominant or Recessive, everything would be hunky dory (well, not really, but Ill get to that later). The problem is, some genes have more than two alleles. This is what causes many genetic problems, especially in bottleneck effects. If Im not mistaken, blood type has three alleles- A, b, and O- but dont quote me on that. Therefore, as Ive stated over and over, EVERY GENE THAT WE HAVE TODAY must have expressed every allele in Adam and Eve. Since certain combinations of alleles are harmful, it is statistically impossible for them to be perfect. And if they were, it would be completely impossible for their children to be normal. I can conclude that because if Adam was perfect, Eves genetic code MUST have been exactly the same, phenotypically. Therefore, it would be inbreeding (Ill tell another reason it would be inbreeding in the next paragraph). That poses many questions, regarding the genotype and phenotypes of them both. We can discern, undoubtedly, that genotypically they could be slightly different (more on why they would be genotypically the same, next paragraph) because of the same phenotypic effects AA and Aa have.
Now, why would it be inbreeding? Because, inbreeding happens when two very genetically similar organisms mate. If Adam and Eve are both perfect, they would have EXTREMELY similar genotypes, and nearly (only nearly because of theyre of the opposite sex) identical phenotypes (not that phenotypes matters at this stage). Now, brothers and sisters are only slightly similar, genetically, sharing, at most, something like 12%-25% IDENTICAL genetic make-up, in DNA. Adam and Eve, on the other hand, would cause nearly 50%, at LOWEST, identical. The result would be worse than parent/child incest. Sure, incest has happened and isnt really going to mean horrible things, but let me continue.
I contend that Adam and Eve would have been identical in genotype not only because of the implications and self obvious truths of being Perfect, but because according to Genesis, they were genetic clones. You may now be thinking to yourself, Whaaa ? I know, its a queer thought, but follow me. Genesis says that Eve was fashioned out of Adams extra rib. This is, theoretically, possible with todays medical technology, but thats not the point. The point is, it is entirely possible that God did this. Now, I could go into a whole bit about how the whole problem of Adam having an XY chromosome would make it impossible, but in reality it is entirely possible for any number of reasons:
-The Y Chromosome being suppressed somehow.
-God used Mitosis or Meiosis and simply doubled the Gamete-like cells Chromosomes (the one containing the X, of course)
-Adam was Tetraploidy. But that would create serious problems because they wouldnt be able to reproduce, at all.
-Adam was triploidy in his 23rd Chromosome- with XXY. In this case, God would have had to find some way to either discard or suppress the Y in Eve. This is possibly the most plausible explanation because nondisjunction of the sex chromosomes causes this in 1 of 2,000 births. But, it doesnt go unpunished. Adam would have probably had Klinefelter syndrome- resulting in small testes and sterileness. Opps.. Looks like God could take care of that, though.
In any event, Adam and Eve would be very similar. Their offspring would be inbreed. Their offspring would then further inbreed. A good way to think about it is dealing with dogs, found here. Sure, you can say that it was different back then, but you must show us proof that back then the physics of the universe were different and that the laws of chemistry were likewise different, along with the way traits were passed on through the generations.
I think that about covers your statement that seeing as they were the first humans god created they were perfect. Now, Ill address all can inherit different traits.
That statement is factually inaccurate. What it proposes, and implies is that there would be 60 different phenotypes for each gene. That isnt the case. The vast majority have 2- Dominant and Recessive. A few, such as blood type (Im fairly certain blood type is an example), have more than two phenotypes, but never 60. But this isnt really the problem. Genetic problems dont really arise because of two people having the same trait, but usually a combination of genes which interact together to form adverse results. I would try and explain to you why and how this happens, but that would take entirely too long and be ineffective, because each and everyone of these phenomenon is different. So, BASICALLY, Adam and Eve have two, maybe three traits that they can pass onto their children for EACH gene, but that isnt why inbreeding is bad. Its bad because they would be giving their offspring long chains of identical information- another way this is bad is because if any of the information is bad (yes, I know, they were perfect, but as I will point out, its impossible to change the genetic code so drastically) the offspring (1 out of 4 in F1 generations) have two sets of bad alleles for that gene.
I would now like to move onto genetic mutations and diseases. Ill use Downs Syndrome as an example because of its rate of occurrence, 1 out of 700 births. Downs Syndrome isnt inheritable- In fact, the law of averages dictates that if someone in your family has it, your offsprings odds of contracting the condition look better. Downs Syndrome occurs because of nondisjunction
. Nondisjunction (causing trisomy 21), which accounts for 95% of Downs Syndrome patients, occurs randomly during meiosis. In fact, my Biology textbook states that nondisjunction (of the any other, or all Chromosomes) occurs at extremely high rates and that the fetus is naturally aborted. In addition, Downs Syndrome is one of the many problems caused by nondisjunction- my guess is that this really does happen very often in humans I mean, 1 in 700 get an extra Chromosome 21, and 1 in 2,000 get an extra Chromosome 23. The point is, these things do not arise on their own from a state of perfectness- these things happen constantly. So unless someone knows of a reason why the laws of physics and how chemistry worked back then was different, let me know.
I think that is enough for tonight If anyone is keeping track, I responded to the first line and a half here, so far. I will try to finish up the rest
NOTE: I never did finish it up because the kid never responded, and everyone else just ignored it I guess. It's probably full of inaccuracies though, but I go off on tangents all the time.
-------------Someone else gave a set of links...-------------------------------------------------------------------
another random user
After a quick glance, I see numerous fallacies and falsehoods being propagated in each of these webpages.
Instead of disproving the whole thing (every peice of information), like I've probably done countless times before, I'll point out the ones that caught my eye. If you'd like to discuss any of the other things on these sites, I'd be more than willing to look at something in particular which you think is true.
In the first link, the first thing I see is a picture of Archaeopteryx. That, in and of itself is grounds for me to dismiss the entire website, but I won't. I'll dismiss the fact that they are propagating a well known falsehood (that Archaeopteryx
is a fake, or whatever new bogus explanation they've come up with to discredit this fossil that THEY have dubbed "transitional"- to be clear, there is no such thing as a transitional FOSSIL. No species has ever evolved so quickly that the entire specie change could be seen in one generation.).
I simply went to their first essay, and found this in the first three paragraphs.
Well, I'll assume many, if not all of you are not familiar with the Theory of Relativity, are you? It's something a little old Jewish chap named Albert wrote up back in the early 1900's. Since his passing it has been proven, without a doubt, that time IS DEPENDENT on space.
Second link...
I just don't know what to say about this webpage.... I would just post my usual thing about how the flood is impossible based on the way civilizations developed and that if there was any flood whatsoever, it was on a small, local scale...... But this page takes the cake.
It proposes that (and I'm not embellishing here, at all- read it for yourself) there is an ocean of water below the crust of the Earth, the crust cracked (it says that this is unusual becuase the crust doesn't crack (what the hell are fault lines then?)), the water shot out creating the fountain described in the Bible, the crack got bigger (splitting on each end at two miles PER SECOND) and as the water came up, the Earth sunk, then, as it sunk, the bottom of it (the mantle, which they CLAIM is made of BASALT) then rose up and out rapidly. They claim that this is what made the Mid-Oceanic Ridge (nevermind that the Ridge is spreading still today, and that the continents STILL move away from each other at a constant rate). So, assuming this is true, it would have split the continents thousands of miles apart in no less than a few hours (no, it didnt have 40 days and 40 nights because this couldn't have happened till the water was finished moving). It then goes on to say that it is proven by a 1 mile deep river of salt water below the Tibetan Plateau, but doesn't give any evidence to this, muchless a study or report we can look at to verify it's existance. (I don't doubt it exists, but it certainly doesn't mean the entire Earth sits on top an ocean)
Now, let me point out the many weak points that are obvious.
-Water is LESS DENSE than rock, unless the water is under pressure greater than the rock. Consequently, things in areas of low density DO NOT move to areas of high density (and yes, I know reverse osmosis is possible, but only in a reaction or under pressure). Therefore, water, in such massive quanitites cannot be residing below the surface, as oceans of free-moving water. Aquifers are not the same thing as free-moving oceans. Now, that is an important thing to accept because he is proposing that this process repeats itself, and that water is collecting down in the bowels of the Earth to happen again.
-To continue with water, there are underground rivers of salt water. We know that. They aren't evidence of an underground ocean. That's absurd. The ONLY way there can be an ocean is if the outside edges of it fully supported everything above it (this is how underground rivers are capable- the above material is supported by the side walls... but a river isn't wide like an ocean and furthermore, an underground river wouldn't be under pressure from anything but it's own weight.). BUT, that's impossible. Otherwise, there would have to be no cracks, at all in the rocks above in order to be capable of supporting the weight. Furthermore, it would mean the rocks had to be COMPLETELY inpenetrable to water... Not gonna happen.
-If this is how the Mid-Oceanic ridge came about (he draws it as it is today, as if it has been like this since that time period) and consequently the continents split, ending Pangea, then why isn't there a HUGE mountain range reaching to the heavens on the other side of the world? I mean, where is any evidence that the earth split on one side and pushed out. This would have resulted in a sudden upshift, or downshift in the crust on the other side of the world (Pacific Ocean). As an example, put your fingers together, end to end. Extend your arms out in a horizontal fashion. Then push as hard as you can together. What happens? Your fingers buckle. If you held them stiff, they buckled upwards. If you held them limp, they buckled downward. There is no evidence of this happening.
-Althought it uses some lake in the Himalayas to promote the idea of a rapid movement of the Contintents, it makes no mention of how or why would India break off of Africa, move thousands of miles, and smash into Asia, if this supposed fountain had sprung up from present day Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Perhaps he should amend his thesis to say that every faultline is where the ground cracked? Or.....
-Maybe he shouldn't.... BECAUSE, he makes no attempt to explain why there are more than one, or two, plates. Likewise, he doesn't mention that each tectonic plate on Earth has unique characteristics. That is something that puts to shame his idea of a seemless crust to the Earth. In addition, I should add, that when I say "unique characteristics", I mean that each plate is made up of different types of rocks- vastly different, they move in very different directions, have different ages, etc., etc.
-I could keep going, but lastly... how did this water disappear so rapidly?
Last link.... I couldn't agree more with this except from it.. "Creation Science is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that's enough; for it is all I have on this new PC. If anyone has any comments, questions, or thinks I'm an idiot, I would love to know.
Well, if anyone's crazy enough to read all that.... congrats. Because I know I wouldn't. then again, I wrote it.
P.S.- I'm not a complete nut, and I'm not an athiest. I very much believe in God, but I don't take the bible literally in regards to "creation." So please, refrain from attacking my faith in God, as so many have done before.
- 3,425
1 ). God gave you a brain it would be shamefull and a great sin if you did not use it !
2 ). God has given you his word you choose to ignore it with your heresy's at your peril . Be carefull or you will end up in a whales ( or a big fishys ) stomache !
Pick one .
2 ). God has given you his word you choose to ignore it with your heresy's at your peril . Be carefull or you will end up in a whales ( or a big fishys ) stomache !
Pick one .
- 3,194
XVII
So, public schools...... they teach that 2+2=4; they teach that the word 'run' is a verb; they teach 1776 is the year of American independance; they teach the fundimental truths and indesputable facts that science offers............... where in all of this does your story about the guy getting swallowed by the fish and spat back out belong in that abunance of factual information that the public schools provide?
Swift
No outside ties or responsibilities?????
Have you fallen off your rocker? Religion RE-ENFORCES the notion that a person can deny their repsonsibilities and infact, cut off any and all ties they have with anything and everyone........... the only thing that matters is that a believer accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden or any other human being for that matter WILL GOTO HEAVEN AND BE SAVED FOR ETERNITY if they have accepted Jesus Christ as thier lord and savior by the time they are dead.................... where the sam-f&$#ing-hell is the responsibility in that?
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Red Eye RacerNo outside ties or responsibilities?????
Have you fallen off your rocker? Religion RE-ENFORCES the notion that a person can deny their repsonsibilities and infact, cut off any and all ties they have with anything and everyone........... the only thing that matters is that a believer accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden or any other human being for that matter WILL GOTO HEAVEN AND BE SAVED FOR ETERNITY if they have accepted Jesus Christ as thier lord and savior by the time they are dead.................... where the sam-f&$#ing-hell is the responsibility in that?
Yes, and? I'm serious. I thought we we're talking about creation not doctrine. I'm sure that by what your saying here that you don't fully understand the gospel. So there's no point in trying to go there.
Famine, I'm really confused. Before you said that the primordial ooze was NOT part of the evolutionist theory and then you put it into conjuction to prove a point. Which is it? Does it fit or doesn't it?
And if all life consists of is a bunch of protiens getting together. Where does the soul or personality come from? Again, where does the YOU come from. And how is it possible that there has been nobody just like you or will be anyone just like you in the future?
- 3,194
Swift
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Please, elnlighten me on how the most popular verse in the bible can be directly contradicted because of a technicallity.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Red Eye Racer
Again, why are you going to doctrine in a thread about creation vs evolution. Yes, I can show you other scriptures and give examples of people that followed Jesus and went to hell, specifically Judas. But that's not what this thread is about is it?
- 3,194
Swift
Judas knowingly and purposefully betrayed Jesus; hence, he did not believe IN him = damnation
On topic: theres nothing left to debate... famine's perfect explaination of evolution summarizes and supercedes anything I could possibly contribute from here. Thats the wonderful thing about debating FACTS; once they are presented accordingly there is no room for mis-interpretation or need for elaberation.
On the other hand, I'm sure you have plenty more to say simply becuase your argument is nothing more than a parabolic spiral, never evolving and always circling back around to the same basic principle,.... faith, not fact.
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
What DO you mean by "fit"? Primordial Soup is totally divorced from Evolutionary Theory. IT PLAYS NO PART IN THE THEORY AT ALL, so the notion of "fitting" is irrelevant.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by "put it into conjuction" either. I covered the basic biochemical theory behind it because MrktMkr1986 asked me to. It is still totally divorced from Evolutionary Theory.
Swift
Mathematics.
The "YOU" comes from unique interactions and neuronal connections in your brain. A new connection is made every time something is "learned" and the pathway becomes reinforced and even anticipated with use. The number of possible connections between the ~100,000,000,000 "brain cells", even if they were limited to connecting to only three other brain cells (which they aren't), is simply astronomical. When you consider that there are currently 6,200,000,000 people on Earth and 70,000,000,000 people of the species Homo sapiens sapiens have EVER existed - and you have enough brain cells in your head to give each of them one and have plenty left over...
You have, in your head, and get ready for this, roughly 2,100 MILLION MILLION (that's 2,100 trillion) neuronal connections. This exceeds the number of members of our species who have ever lived by a factor of 29,283, or a 0.0003% chance of any member of our species having ever had the exact same configuration of neurons. Of course, that's assuming the number of neurons is identical too, which is impossible since we lose neurons at differing rates depending on genetic and environmental factors.
All that notwithstanding, on a globe with a surface area of 74 million square miles (that's 8.4 people every square mile on average) how would you know that someone is identical in thought processes to you? You'd have to meet them, surely - and that event would cause an immediate difference in neuronal connections, blowing that idea out of the water.
So, broadly, the reasons that no-one has the same pattern of neural connections as you is because no-one has had the exact same experiences as you, no-one has the exact same number of neurons as you and even if they did there's an infinitessimally small likelihood of them sharing your brain pattern.
- 3,194
god-damn I missed you! 
Very nicely put 👍
Very nicely put 👍
SuperCobraJet
(Banned)
- 2,472
- Virginia USA
- SuperCobraJet1
There are a few documented cases from English maritime history of seamen being recovered alive, after being swallowed by whales during the 1800s. (Famine, being the scholarly fellow that he is, probably knows about them).PS
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
So we're all born pretty much the same and just different because of what we've gone through? So that means that if someone from china is born and immediately put into an isolation chamber and if a person from america is born and put into an isolation chamber they should be the same in 15 years or so. Given the same food and whatever. That junk. You're different from everyone else at birth. Show me two little chidlren, less then one year old that act exactly alike. It doesn't even happen with identical twins in the same family. Sure, our experiences are part of who we are. But at the same time, it's not the only defining factor of personality.
You've got a great scientific explaination for things famine. Only challenge is that you just said that the theories are exclusive. So again how does it all come together?
BTW, this is where you put all that into one sentence.
Also, if that is how life is/was created. Why aren't new species popping up all over the place? If all it takes is a few protiens coming together, that must be happening every few thousand years or so right?
- 3,194
Swift
WTF?!?!?
Are you speaking in tounges now or did you miss the 5 paragraph essay he wrote just a few posts ago?
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Red Eye RacerWTF?!?!?
Are you speaking in tounges now or did you miss the 5 paragraph essay he wrote just a few posts ago?
Do me a favor. Don't insult my faith again. As I have not insulted you. Though for some reason you seem to think so.
About that, he said before that the premordial soup and evolutionist theory were seperate. That was where he mentioned them all together. That's all.
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
If you believe that we're born with identical - or no - neural connections...
Which of course we aren't, rendering everything else you just said irrelevant.
Swift
No, I didn't. I said that Primordial Soup plays no part in Evolutionary Theory, since Evolutionary Theory deals with the process of speciation and, as far as I'm aware, Primordial Soup isn't a species.
Saying that 5+5=10 plays no part in trigonometry is accurate. Saying that 5+5=10 and trigonometry are exclusive is not. The two are united under the broad umbrella that is "mathematics". Similarly, biochemistry and ecology play no part in each others' discipline, but the two are united under the broad umbrella that is "biology".
Swift
Yes, because you asked "How did it all start?". My response was "How did WHAT all start?", seeing as I'd already covered the creation of the universe (how the universe started), Primordial Soup theory (how life started) and Evolutionary theory (how humanity started). I was wondering what else there was that you wanted explaining how "it" all started.
Swift
Of course new species ARE popping up all over the place, but not how you mean. But, let me re-cover Primordial Soup theory for you.
Famine
So...
1. The chemicals which formed "Primordial Soup" are no longer "abundant in Earth's atmosphere". Earth Chemistry notwithstanding , the Sun is now a K-Type main sequence star. Its own chemistry has changed radically in the last 3.5 million years and it isn't putting out the same wavelengths as it was then.
2. Primordial Soup was on its own. It had an entire planet to itself and didn't get stepped in by bugs every millisecond. If, by chance, chemical conditions allowed a pool of Soup to occur, last time it took about 0.7 BILLION years, with no external interference to produce basis-of-life amino acids and proteins.
3. We have NO idea what's going on at the bottom of the oceans, especially in the vicinity of sulphur-rich dark smokers.
4. Europa.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Ok Famine. Well, your mathmatical example for the umbrella concept was cool. But that really doesn't help me to understand how the primordial soup and the evolutionist theory can exist without each other. I mean if we all came from "lower" life forms they had to come from somewhere, and so on and so on till you get back to the soup of protiens swimming around that just happened to form life one day.
See what I'm getting at. All these theories are exclusive by what you're telling me. So how can they be the facts?
BTW, I'm not denying the fact that evolution happened or is still happening. Just not that man started out as a one celled organism a few billion years ago.
Also, it sounds like to me that the conditions for the primordial soup are a convieneint way out of explaining it. Just like Evolutionist claim about Devine creation.
See what I'm getting at. All these theories are exclusive by what you're telling me. So how can they be the facts?
BTW, I'm not denying the fact that evolution happened or is still happening. Just not that man started out as a one celled organism a few billion years ago.
Also, it sounds like to me that the conditions for the primordial soup are a convieneint way out of explaining it. Just like Evolutionist claim about Devine creation.
- 3,052
Famine
Now I'm totally confused...what was the makeup of the atmosphere when the Earth was first formed?
...and you can call me Brian... 👍
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Right...
I already discussed the first part of Primordial Soup - the formation of self-replicating proteins and amino acids (and nucleic acids). At that point a form of biochemical "evolution" comes into play.
Imagine, if you will, three identical self-replicating DNA strands. Due to "Brownian motion" in the Soup, they are each in contact with some proteins. Some of these proteins have an adverse effect on replication, some have no effect and some have a beneficial effect. For the sake of argument and illustration, one DNA strand is connected to proteins which have an overall adverse effect, one is connected to proteins which have no overall effect and one is connected to proteins which have an overall positive effect.
Strand 1; Bad proteins; Produces many shorter versions of original DNA strand, many short constructs/lariats and few faithful copies.
Strand 2: Benign proteins; Produces some shorter versions of original DNA strand, some short constructs/lariats and some faithful copies.
Strand 3: Benevolent proteins; Produces few shorter versions of original DNA strand, few short constructs/lariats and many faithful copies.
Which population grows fastest and becomes most dominant? The third one. More copies of the original are produced and less energy is wasted for aberrant replication.
Okay. That's pretty simple, right? Now you have a vast population of DNA strands attached to proteins which aid replication. Now, proteins are conjugated amino acids produced by RNA which is produced by DNA. I'll leave the mechanism out as it's INTENSELY dull. So pretty soon you have a population of DNA strands associated with proteins which replicate themselves AND the proteins. This is the first step to eukaryotic life - these DNA strands are associated with proteins, as the proteins have given them a natural advantage in replication and the DNA has given the proteins their own replication mechanism. They use the energy available to them more efficiently than other DNA strands around them and so are the most "Fit", to use a Darwinism, for their environment.
Stretch this out over 0.7 billion years.
Gradually you get more and more proteins associated with the DNA - proteins which shield the DNA from damage by uv (nucleus), proteins which defend the DNA against chemical agents (ribosomes), proteins which facilitate energy transfers (mitochondria). Gradually everything starts to work together, each receiving a benefit from the others that ensure their survival and which means that, after enough time, they cannot operate separately from each other - despite having started out like that. They have changed over time themselves as, with other jobs done by other proteins, they can refine their own mechanisms and become more efficient, giving a further boost to the construct as a whole.
Over time, this becomes "the cell" (and we'll stick with a Eukaryotic cell, since Prokaryotic cells formed Eukaryotic cells by this cooperative interaction process described above). The same applies - a chance mutation which gives an overall benefit to the cell, as opposed to the other chance mutations which don't (not "Hey! This'd be cool! *mutates* I am teh r0x0rZ!"), resulting in a higher population count of cells WITH the mutation (as daughters of the first). Cells cooperate with each other by the same processes, become attached, associated then symbiotic and, POW!, multicellular life forms. And so on.
Evolutionary Theory doesn't really come into it until those multicellular lifeforms are ready to knock booties. All the above is the stepping stones from the ooze to Evolution. They aren't exclusive theories - they just don't interact.
*Note that it's important not to anthropomorphise these things. Proteins don't opt to stick to other proteins because they think they'd have an advantage. Certain chance protein-protein interactions merely result in a growth in population through this advantage, resulting in them being the norm.
The conditions of early Earth have been documented from rock and ice core samples. The spontaneous formation of amino acids from these conditions has also been confirmed by Urey and Miller. So, rather than an invented "fact" as an intellectual exercise, this one has documented evidence and repeatable experimental confirmation.
Mrktmkr1986 - Mainly nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide and trace suplhates.
I already discussed the first part of Primordial Soup - the formation of self-replicating proteins and amino acids (and nucleic acids). At that point a form of biochemical "evolution" comes into play.
Imagine, if you will, three identical self-replicating DNA strands. Due to "Brownian motion" in the Soup, they are each in contact with some proteins. Some of these proteins have an adverse effect on replication, some have no effect and some have a beneficial effect. For the sake of argument and illustration, one DNA strand is connected to proteins which have an overall adverse effect, one is connected to proteins which have no overall effect and one is connected to proteins which have an overall positive effect.
Strand 1; Bad proteins; Produces many shorter versions of original DNA strand, many short constructs/lariats and few faithful copies.
Strand 2: Benign proteins; Produces some shorter versions of original DNA strand, some short constructs/lariats and some faithful copies.
Strand 3: Benevolent proteins; Produces few shorter versions of original DNA strand, few short constructs/lariats and many faithful copies.
Which population grows fastest and becomes most dominant? The third one. More copies of the original are produced and less energy is wasted for aberrant replication.
Okay. That's pretty simple, right? Now you have a vast population of DNA strands attached to proteins which aid replication. Now, proteins are conjugated amino acids produced by RNA which is produced by DNA. I'll leave the mechanism out as it's INTENSELY dull. So pretty soon you have a population of DNA strands associated with proteins which replicate themselves AND the proteins. This is the first step to eukaryotic life - these DNA strands are associated with proteins, as the proteins have given them a natural advantage in replication and the DNA has given the proteins their own replication mechanism. They use the energy available to them more efficiently than other DNA strands around them and so are the most "Fit", to use a Darwinism, for their environment.
Stretch this out over 0.7 billion years.
Gradually you get more and more proteins associated with the DNA - proteins which shield the DNA from damage by uv (nucleus), proteins which defend the DNA against chemical agents (ribosomes), proteins which facilitate energy transfers (mitochondria). Gradually everything starts to work together, each receiving a benefit from the others that ensure their survival and which means that, after enough time, they cannot operate separately from each other - despite having started out like that. They have changed over time themselves as, with other jobs done by other proteins, they can refine their own mechanisms and become more efficient, giving a further boost to the construct as a whole.
Over time, this becomes "the cell" (and we'll stick with a Eukaryotic cell, since Prokaryotic cells formed Eukaryotic cells by this cooperative interaction process described above). The same applies - a chance mutation which gives an overall benefit to the cell, as opposed to the other chance mutations which don't (not "Hey! This'd be cool! *mutates* I am teh r0x0rZ!"), resulting in a higher population count of cells WITH the mutation (as daughters of the first). Cells cooperate with each other by the same processes, become attached, associated then symbiotic and, POW!, multicellular life forms. And so on.
Evolutionary Theory doesn't really come into it until those multicellular lifeforms are ready to knock booties. All the above is the stepping stones from the ooze to Evolution. They aren't exclusive theories - they just don't interact.
*Note that it's important not to anthropomorphise these things. Proteins don't opt to stick to other proteins because they think they'd have an advantage. Certain chance protein-protein interactions merely result in a growth in population through this advantage, resulting in them being the norm.
The conditions of early Earth have been documented from rock and ice core samples. The spontaneous formation of amino acids from these conditions has also been confirmed by Urey and Miller. So, rather than an invented "fact" as an intellectual exercise, this one has documented evidence and repeatable experimental confirmation.
Mrktmkr1986 - Mainly nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide and trace suplhates.
- 3,194
Swift
Every faith questioning point of view in this discussion is an insult if your going to take that approach. 💡
Anywho, this topic has served its purpose for me; I think I'll move onto something else now.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine, so plants and animals came from the same ooze?
Well, I'm Apostolic. and that means I believe in speaking in tongues. So you just really slapped my faith in the face without even knowing it for whatever reason. And no, I have discussions with people from different "denominations" of christianity all the time and I never feel insulted or like I'm insulting them.
Ok, bye. Have a good one.
Red Eye Racer
Well, I'm Apostolic. and that means I believe in speaking in tongues. So you just really slapped my faith in the face without even knowing it for whatever reason. And no, I have discussions with people from different "denominations" of christianity all the time and I never feel insulted or like I'm insulting them.
Ok, bye. Have a good one.
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not only that, but plants and animals have a common living (as in once alive, not currently) ancestor - although without looking it up I can't remember if it's multi- or unicellular. You don't want to know how genetically similar we are to Zea mays (maize).
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
Actually, I do have a very good idea and that one of the main differences is the Cell wall vs a cell membrane.
Well, I still don't see how evolution can exist unless it stands on top of the primordial soup theory.
