Druid Bremen Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 First I would like to say: Please, if you do not agree with the idea of Evolution, and are pro-creationist, then stay out of this thread unless you have something constructive to say. Okay, so I would like to know what are the views on Evolution? How did life originate if Evolution DID happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--ZeeMan-- Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 i am a creationist, but i do feel that i can contribute something to this thread, so if it seems slightly biased, i apologize in advance Typically speaking, most people doubt evolution because something has to come from nothing. That boggles the mind. However, life is said to have originated from nothing. An experiment conducted and tested several times proves this. For some reason, if you combine several toxic gases not capable of producing life together in extreme environment of heat with a way to circulate the atmosphere, somehow oxygen does get produced. And from that oxygen, basica amino acids form. And, then follow that through whatever evolution story path you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomie Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Hmmm. well, creation and evolution are something very different. It is a fact that creatures looked different a few million years ago, but nobody is sure about how everything was created. So it's a stupid reason to doubt evolution for the fact that everything has to come out of nothing, because creation and evolution are just different things. (did that make sense?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--ZeeMan-- Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 it did...cus for some unknown reasons both creationists and evolutionists need each other :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 okay, so evolution things came out of nowhere, well.... where did god come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 This has allready turned into a creation Vs evo thread hasn't it, thanx ZeeMan! Anyways, last I remember hearing on this subject is that life didn't come from nowhere but came from space. It has been descovered that some commets contain all of the building blocks for life, billions of years ago a lot of these commets crashed into the earth and because (cant remember this part) combined to form DNA the begining of life. over the next few millions of years these chemicles evolved into single cell organisms, slugs, insects, fish, frogs, dogs, cats, monkeys and us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 it is possible that life (and i mean life as a whole) came "accidently", no matter if here or somewhere else in the "universe".. it's like a chain reaction somehow. of course not a "usual" one. maybe i thought about considering it a "evolutionary development" of death matter. perhabs because life "consists of" matter. there are also a lot of chemical reactions and physical things going on. but where does matter "come from"? i mean, will there be a "final" particle or kind wave or whatever, which everything else is "made of"? or must it be at least two? or is this a "never ending story"? is/are there no "smallest" or "biggest" thing(s)? maybe the whole thing is too complex to express it with our "stupid" language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted May 6, 2004 Author Share Posted May 6, 2004 Okay, so ermm.. Just saying it again.. IF YOU ARE A CREATIONIST, AND NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST, PLEASE DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY! I HOPE THERE WILL BE NO MORE POSTS WITH THE WORD "CREATIONIST", "GOD", "BIBLE", OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT! That said, let's continue! Maybe life was formed by accident, maybe life first originated when two chemicals... Err.. Interacted with one another? I wonder how protoplasm was formed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 (err.. no harm done yet, though.. ) so, protoplasm? protoplasm it a evolutionary step of life, i think. it came "after" life, as an "improvement" of "inner-cellular" structures. "first life" as i see it, was more likely something like a catalyzed chemical reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Aah, it's refreshing to see a serious thread on this subject. Originally posted by jon_hill987 Anyways, last I remember hearing on this subject is that life didn't come from nowhere but came from space. Which still does not answer the fundamental question of how life originated. Personally I think that the most probable scenario would be that the formation of (carbon-based) life is dictated by an underlying, fundamental law of physics, not unlike the laws of stellar evolution which shape the universe. It is possible, however, that this idea is barking up a completely wrong tree: As yet it is not known whether life exists outside the Earth. If it does exist, it would be a strong indication that life is simply a natural consequence of the same laws of physics that have shaped the universe. If, on the other hand, we are unable to find life anywhere else in the universe, we are faced with a true mystery. But that mystery will not be for our generation to solve, nor our children or grandchildren. maybe i thought about considering it a "evolutionary development" of death matter. Just to clarify: The principles of evolution do not apply to dead matter: There are no 'inherited traits' that can be 'passed on'. But I see where you're coming from. but where does matter "come from"? A truely interesting question. Personally, I assume (stress: 'assume') that the energy in the universe has always been. That seems to me to be the most obvious assumption because we know that energy is conserved today. But I'd like to stress that this is a completely unfounded assumption. At present humanity can only approach to within a fraction of a second after Big Bang. Before that, the laws of physics are up for grabs. "Theories, let alone children, are well advised not to touch anything of infinite density or mass." Maybe life was formed by accident, maybe life first originated when two chemicals... Err.. Interacted with one another? I'm betting that there would have been more than two The most convincing explanation I've heard is that a chain of chemicals each catalysing the generation of one or more of the others were enclosed in a lipid ball. Lipid balls and aminic acids have been created from inorganic substances in experiments involving conditions that were modelled to resemble early Earth oceans. But from that point there is a hole in our knowledge. It is possible that large scale experiments will be needed to close that gap (remember that the Earth had millions of cubic kilometres of proto-ocean). I wonder how protoplasm was formed.. That, AFAIK, came later. But for this kind of topic, I'd really recommend talking to C'Jais. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted May 9, 2004 Author Share Posted May 9, 2004 THIS should explain where matter comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Bremen THIS should explain where matter comes from. Interesting site. Still doesn't answer where the energy came from in the first place, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted May 17, 2004 Author Share Posted May 17, 2004 Yes that is a mind-boggling question... Since energy CANNOT be created or destroyed, maybe we are looking at a Universe that has no Beginning of Time? Like, maybe it extends infinitely back? (I know this logic is flawed, but I'm darned tired) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Bremen Yes that is a mind-boggling question... Since energy CANNOT be created or destroyed, maybe we are looking at a Universe that has no Beginning of Time? Like, maybe it extends infinitely back? (I know this logic is flawed, but I'm darned tired) Or perhaps we are simply incapable of finding a way to create energy that wouldn't basically collapse our mind. There is always possiblities in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Scientists agree that evolution happened, what they don't agree on (if they disagree at all) is HOW exactly it happened. Darwin's basic idea was it was based on Natural Selection. Not all scientists today agree with that completely. That's why the research should continue forward. Creationism is a religious belief, and so, it's not part of science. Science isn't out to prove whether God exists or not, or which religion is the "right one" or if the Bible is really divinely inspired, so it's not even the issue at all. Science is how life works and what life is, Religion is what life means and how one ought to live it. I don't know how evolution happened, I'm not a scientist. But I'm convinced after seeing so much evidence that it did happen, I'm convinced that it must have happened, even if we don't yet know 100% how it did. If it turned out that this was 100% baloney (though I doubt that will happen in my lifetime if it ever does) that won't rattle me. As a person of faith I believe in a God who created the universe without having to reject the concept of evolution, the Big Bang or any other established scientific concept. Though, the "infinite multiverse theory explains all" theory that's becoming popular now with a few fringe scientists just strikes me as nonesense, but then, I'm not a scientist. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 If any one wants MY opinion I say it doesn't MATTER if we evolved from apes or if a supreme being designed us! humans have to live and find happiness in the universe together! we shouldn't "take" at the expense of other beings! other people are our friends! we should NEVER be cruel to them! People are our fellow human beings no matter WHERE we came from! I hope THAT is any help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by kipperthefrog If any one wants MY opinion I say it doesn't MATTER if we evolved from apes or if a supreme being designed us! humans have to live and find happiness in the universe together! we shouldn't "take" at the expense of other beings! other people are our friends! we should NEVER be cruel to them! People are our fellow human beings no matter WHERE we came from! I hope THAT is any help! Err actually, apart from the first paragraph, the rest does not have much to do with the topic here, as we never stated anything about ""take" at the expense of other beings" or being cruel to them. And yes, in what we learn today, we CANNOT create or destroy energy. But perhaps, we might have overlooked a few things that can create or destroy it. As you said, Insane, there are many possibilities. Or the energy at the Big Bang (which might have been the size of a soccer ball) may have been there all along, which is why I thought there might be no "Beginning of Time"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Originally posted by Kurgan Scientists agree that evolution happened, what they don't agree on (if they disagree at all) is HOW exactly it happened. [sNIP] I don't know how evolution happened, I'm not a scientist. But I'm convinced after seeing so much evidence that it did happen, I'm convinced that it must have happened... "Happened?" Ex-queeeeze me? Saying it "happened" is like saying some atoms probably absorbed additional electrons at some point, or that gravity pulled a meteor down to earth a few million years ago. You get my point I'm sure. It's happening constantly. How it started is frankly irrelevant with regards to being convinced by it - one can see for himself that it's going on right here, right now and that's all I ask for. (I'm aware you probably made a semantic mistake here, but felt like ranting anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 This thread is moving futher and further away from its original topic... But since the Big Bang is much, much more exciting than the original topic, I'll go with that tendency. I read recently that the proponents of string theory claim that it solves a lot of questions regarding the Big Bang singularity. It does this in the simplest manner possible: By denying the existence of the singularity. They claim that these 'strings' behave in ways that put an upper limit to the density of energy, thereby killing the singularity. This model proposes that the time before the Big Bang stretches out infinitely, because of a fundamental symmetry around the 'narrow point'. Seems far fetched to me, but then again so does most quantum theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Originally posted by C'jais "Happened?" Ex-queeeeze me? Saying it "happened" is like saying some atoms probably absorbed additional electrons at some point, or that gravity pulled a meteor down to earth a few million years ago. You get my point I'm sure. Typically this "debate" only occurs because some religious people object to the idea that human beings "came from" "lower" life forms, rather than being created (as they are now) uniquely by God as described in (a literal reading of) the Bible's creation accounts. Thus, saying "evolution happened" means I'm saying that HUMANS EVOLVED FROM PREVIOUS SPECIES. Obviously it's still "going on." (I'm aware you probably made a semantic mistake here, but felt like ranting anyway) [/b] Thank goodness for small favors. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Not being a physicist, I don't fully understand the Big Bang theory either (though I try, using my imagination if nothing else), but I've read time and again how it's a misconception to think about "time before" because TIME ITSELF was supposedly created when the Big Bang "happened." Though that then raises the question for me, HOW THEN did it happen at all, if there was no "time" to happen for it to move forward. And "where did the matter come from" in the first place. Some have suggested another universe, but most admit that "we simply don't know" and "we may never know." Except for the fringe theories about infinite universes, etc. Believing that God created the "stuff" that became the Big Bang is a religious belief, but at this point, it might as well be equal to SOME of the theories out there for "before" for now (I say for now because we may eventually figure it out, so don't place your bets yet, and that still doesn't prove necessarily that God doesn't exist if it turns out it came from universe #3342432434!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 i have no problem at all with the theory that god may have created teh big bang. It is just as valid an arguement as an other. In fact the more you use science to look at the amazing complexities and probabilities involved the more you might think that there needs to be some design behind it. What i do have a problem with is people who are willing to ignore all evidence if it doesn't fit their (usualy religious) view on how things happened. Evolution is basically mutation. Small things affect dna (viruses etc..) in small ways leading to tiny mutations. Some of these mutations tend to actually benefit the species and some work against them. Those that have benefits tend to have a better survival rate, and therefor more of them survive and breed together... passing on the beneficial traits to their ancestors. You can see this if you look at some plants that have fragments of prehistoric virus dna in their dna. DNA is a pretty amazing thing that we don't really understand 1% of. Complex creatures don't always have more dna. Some creatures have "redundant duplicate dna" that means they have backups if they are attacked by viruses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Of course I'll be the first one to admit that the "God theory" doesn't automatically favor any one religion. After all, who's to say that the "God" who created the Big Bang is the one you believe in? How do we know it's YHWH, or Zeus or the Egyptian Pantheon or something else entirely? Others would argue that using an infinite being (God) to explain a finite reality is still no solution (since something could have created God, etc ad infinatum). It's still a religious belief (requiring faith). I choose to think that I can believe in God and not be forced to reject all of modern science and accept a literal interpretation of my favorite myths. That was my point. ; ) Maybe in a few centuries will figure out what mechanism caused the Big Bang with a degree of certainty. Who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Maybe in a few centuries will figure out what mechanism caused the Big Bang with a degree of certainty. Who knows... Assuming we exist in a few centuries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 The discovery that chloroplasts were once bacteria may have implications for humans Zoom in on a bacterium and you will see a small bag of proteins, sugars and other molecules mixed up with some DNA. Switch your gaze to any other kind of living cell, though, and the picture is very different. While bacteria are examples of miniature simplicity, all other cells by comparison are huge, ordered and vastly more complicated. Bacterial cells known to scientists as prokaryotes were the first living organisms to evolve, emerging some 3.5bn years ago. It would be at least another billion years before the more complex cells, the eukaryotes, arrived and paved the way for more complex life forms. The two types of cell differ in various ways, not least in how the everyday jobs inside them are carried out. ow eukaryotes gained these complex, specialised structures is an important question in evolution. One theory that has been around for decades arose when researchers noticed that the organelles resembled bacterial cells. They theorised that the organelles were the result of bacteria invading our ancestors' cells and never leaving. In exchange for a place to live they provided the host cell with something of value such as energy or food. If true, the theory suggests that evolution can sometimes happen not in tiny, gradual steps but in the kind of bursts that would occur when a whole bacterium joins forces with a living cell, bringing with it a raft of prefabricated abilities. It also suggests that we are little more than a convenient home for our bacterial squatters. The theory received a boost when, as a result of experiments in the 1960s, mitochondria and chloroplasts were found to have their own DNA, completely separate from the host cell's DNA. Scientists at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have now gone one step further by detecting within chloroplasts specific enzymes known to be made only by bacteria. This proves almost beyond doubt that chloroplasts were once bacteria. There are implications for humans too. While we may not have chloroplasts, we do have mitochondria, raising the possibility that we too may have bacterial enzymes doing important jobs inside us. If so, any new antibacterial drugs must take into account any side-effects that could arise if the drugs act on enzymes that were previously thought to be unique to bacteria. At the moment though, it looks as if drug developers can breathe a sigh of relief. "From looking at the human genome sequence and from other evidence we now think it is unlikely that humans and animals will also have a DNA gyrase," says Wall. Perhaps the biggest implication has more to do with how we see ourselves. We may like to think of our species as the pinnacle of evolution and yet, in truth, it would seem that we are little more than a collection of disparate bacterial cells that have banded together for the sake of mutual interest, making humans simply another extension of the bacterial kingdom. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1255835,00.html Seems like we are just star destroyers for crews of bacteria I hope i didn't get an evil crew, like anakin obviously did with HIS midichlorians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.