Adaptation .vs. Evolution

[lukeskywalker1]

It seemed appropriate to split the thread, since I can see the direction this is going to take. I certainly am planning a lengthy post based on the content of the cut and past Lukeskywalker1 has provided for us. I expect to point out its errors . At any rate, I took the title from the content of this post itself. ---- SkinWalker

 

(After all, it made sense. God made the universe, and Man and the world was his most loved and important creation - so it made sense it would be at the centre of the universe...)

 

Very true, but the bible doesnt say its in the center, it was man's assumptions.

 

or outright leave

 

 

hmm.. for some reason i thought you said you were ignoring me in that other thread. Sure people have gotten mad, ive gotten mad. Ive left, but havnt you gotten mad too? Havnt you closed your mind before? Havnt you believed something which had no tangible proof before?

 

Example: In trying to prove the truth of the Bible you presented a long parade of facts about historical figures mentioned in the book, somehow assuming that proving these people were recorded correctly in this book is also proving everything else in it true. My head almost exploded with frustration over such an absurd assumption. When we question the validity of your Bible, we question not the accuracy regarding people and places in time, we question the acts of divinity, for which you have no proof whatsoever.

 

I did not just expect you to believe, if youll believe at all. I know i only talked about historical figures. Proving, not ALL of the bible is false. Maybe one day the rest can be proven, right now it isnt, thats where my faith comes in.

 

Let's skip over the fact that you find issue with the theroy of evolution - one of the most proven theories in science (there is quite literally mountains of proof on it's side and quite literally nothing of real note to stand in it's way) and get to the part about homosexuality being 'wrong'.

 

I understand this, but also, back then, there were mountains of proof to say that the world was flat, and that everything evolved around the earth, but they were wrong. Check this out:

 

Evolutionary theory is based on findings in archeological digs and assumptions made from the artifacts uncovered and analyzed. It is not based on observation, as is required to prove something scientifically. In fact, it is called the "Evolutionary Theory", not fact, yet we are taught it as fact.

 

The definition of science is the study of observable phenomena . That is, it is dependent upon observations to obtain results for proof of fact. Evolution has never been observed, yet the "scientific" community has treated is as a fact. No one has ever observed one species morphing into another.

 

Adaptation .vs. Evolution:

 

"Scientists" have observed change in species, when the species has moved from one environment to another, and called this evolution. But, this is nothing more than proof of adaptation, and has nothing to do with evolution, as the basic makeup of the species remains intact. In fact, if the "evolved" species was reintroduced into its original environment, they would "evolve" back to their original form. Therefore, they never did evolve, they adapted. Evolution requires permanent change that does not allow regression back to the original state. This has never been observed nor proven by science.

 

Now, to discuss the basic evolutionary theory that life somehow survived the "primordial soup" in cellular form and regenerated itself into organized, intelligent life forms, consider the following:

 

Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, yet they maintain that this is how life began on earth. Whatever…

So, say this first cell, somehow complete with the building blocks of atomic matter and DNA intact, was produced out of the heat and sulfur of the early stages of our earth’s creation. A few questions for you:

1 – How did this miraculous cell survive in the strange, unfriendly environment when we do not of any life form today that could?

 

2 – Was there actually a life span of this living cell?

 

3 – How did DNA actually "know" to form and grow into the specialized mechanism it is today?

 

4 – How did this cell "know" to split into 2 cells and have each of it’s internal components split to be shared between the 2 cells?

 

5 – An even better question is "why" would the cell split?

 

6 – How did these cells know to stick together after splitting?

 

OK, now we have the 2 cells that somehow came out of nowhere and seem to have it together enough to share their components with each other for survival. (That’s exhibiting a LOT of "faith" in evolution.) And, since we’re already way out on a limb, I’ll give you the argument that the cells were able to continue splitting until there were many more. Let’s talk function: how did these cells become specialized? I mean, you have a bunch of cells that are exactly the same, but somehow they organized themselves in such a way as to take on different functions? How? Why? You see, there is no "purpose" in a single cell’s life, and it doesn’t "know" what it’s supposed to do. That is, unless there’s some kind of instructions "pre-programmed" into it. How can many types of cells be formed from one type? Mutations? Well, seems that an imperfect mutant would surely die in the hostile environment of the earliest days on earth. After all, it took so long for a single, perfect cell to be created, how could an imperfect mutant survive? It couldn’t.

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/skicrazer/Evolution.htm

 

lots more stuff to check out.

 

 

Another thing you may not know, with carbon dating. They find a fossile, they say its human. They use the carbon dating method on it, and find out it was around before humans evolved. Then they say, its contaminated and throw it away. Why? It would interfere with the current idea. I bet the next guy to have an amazing idea on how life began will be laughed at, just like i bet Darwin was laughed at. I also bet, his theory will be 'proven' just like evolution. Its always been like this.

 

Why hear about creation anyways? Your presented with evolution. The easy way out, when your dead, your dead. No Hell to worry about. People dont want to change there lives for Jesus. So evolution is the way out of it. You understand.

 

I'm afraid that this comment shows you have not really made any effort to look at the avaliable evidence and make up your own mind. You are simply accepting the 'truth' you have been taught by your religion.

 

I cant prove its wrong without using the bible. Theres nothing here today that says its wrong. Correct? (except christians ) I cant give any tangible evidence that its wrong except the bible. If there is a God who made us, (like i believe there is) , then i think it is up to him to decide. I cant use that as an arguement though.

 

Some stuff i read

 

In the theory of evolution, a species adapts to fit its environment, and when it amasses enough adaptations, it becomes a new species. They key to this is that the species' environment causes the changes, and the changes are helpful to the organism. A simple example would be the giraffe's growing of a long neck to help him reach leaves on tall trees, or an elephant's producing large ears to help cool him in the hot climate. The key to natural selection is that changes help further the species. Consequently, any aspects of the species that do not help with the environment or help further the existence of the species are discarded.

 

Now enter homosexuality. How does it fit with evolution?

 

Assuming that homosexuality is a recent development, evolution must have somehow produced it. But evolution produces only those things which adapt to the climate or further the existence of the species. Does homosexuality do either of those things? In fact, it is contrary to evolution. This is mainly because of the fact that homosexuals do not produce offspring. If the percentage of the population that is homosexual keeps increasing, then the number of child-producing people would decline. If the trend continued long enough, then eventually the species would cease to exist.

 

If homosexuality is not a recent development, but rather was part of the human species when we appeared, then why does it still exit? Evolution would have outgrown the useless variation and only heterosexuals would survive.

 

Would evolution bring about something that would cause the downfall of a species? The argument may be made that it would happen only if too many people were homosexual. But would evolution introduce a change in only part of a species? Homosexuality is not a change to fit the climate or geography, so any evolutionary changes should happen to all people regardless of geographical region. But not everyone is, or is becoming, homosexual. Does this mean that the homosexuals are

 

1. evolutionarily advanced compared to others, in which case the others will eventually be converted and then humans will become extinct because the lack of offspring will come into effect long before evolution could produce child-bearing capabilities in homosexuals?

 

 

2. evolutionarily lower compared to others, in which case they should be becoming extinct because they should need whatever the "higher" species has (if whatever was not needed, then evolution would not have developed it in the "higher" species)?

 

 

3. a different species, separate from the standard humans?

 

 

Hopefully, the reader picks none of those statements as being correct and instead agrees that, if homosexuality were compatible with evolution, it would be indifferent to it (i.e. not a built-in feature of the human organism but rather a choice that some people make).

 

 

http://members.aol.com/trwstrong/straight.html

 

There was a lot more, but i just posted the part about evolution, considering it is the most accepted theory there is.

 

I dont hate gay people, but I disaprove of there actions, or i love the person, hate what they do. I have to love you, but i dont have to like what you do.

 

-lukeskywalker1

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Evolutionary theory is based on findings in archeological digs and assumptions made from the artifacts uncovered and analyzed. It is not based on observation, as is required to prove something scientifically.

 

And yet, we can observe mutations in bacteria as they evolve to adapt to antibiotics. We can observe the adaptations of butterflies that mimic other butterflies. Some butterflies in nature taste nasty. A predator that eats a 'nasty' butterfly doesn't soon forget it and avoids all that look like it. Non-nasty tasting butterflies have developed the ability to mimic the nasty-tasting ones. In fact, within the 'non-nasty' ones, mimicry of several 'nasty' ones. So there you have but two simple observations of evolution out of many, some simple, others complex.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

In fact, it is called the "Evolutionary Theory", not fact, yet we are taught it as fact.

 

Much as we theorize about many things in life, which we regard as 'fact' or, more accurately, defacto. Take for instance a glass dropped on a tile floor. We can accept as fact that the end result is it will break, though this is really just a theory. Depending upon angle of fall, distance to the floor, etc., the glass might survive. I have been lucky at such accidents with breakables.. and counted myself as such.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

The definition of science is the study of observable phenomena . That is, it is dependent upon observations to obtain results for proof of fact.

 

Incorrect. The hard sciences, chemistry, physics..., they certainly develop via careful observation of testable conditions that can be created and recreated within the laboratory. But sciences such as anthropology, geology, and evolutionary biology rely upon observation as well. The observations made can be likened to that of a detective working a crime scene. In much the same way as forensic evidence and clues are put together to create a case for court, so do the 'historical' sciences work. If a jury in court could only convict based upon certainty beyond doubt and not 'reasonable doubt,' then our prisons would be virtually empty. Criminals would have little to fear.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Evolution has never been observed, yet the "scientific" community has treated is as a fact. No one has ever observed one species morphing into another.

 

Bacteria are species. Their reproductive rate is significant enough to observe mutation and, thus, evolution at work. But it is true that in regards to evolution among, say, mammals, it has not been observed. One would have to be an old, old person to accomplish this. So this argument does not hold weight. It is invalidated by the observation of species such as bacteria and by the fact that it is based upon ignorance.

 

As to the "treated as a fact" statement, I believe I've addressed it, but again, we're looking at ignorance and refusal to accept available evidence and observations. The scientific community does not contend that evolution theories are facts. They contend that they are theories. Sets of hypotheses that have withstood testing time and again. Predictions have been made based upon evidence discovered that have born out. Period.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Adaptation .vs. Evolution:

 

"Scientists" have observed change in species, when the species has moved from one environment to another, and called this evolution. But, this is nothing more than proof of adaptation, and has nothing to do with evolution, as the basic makeup of the species remains intact. In fact, if the "evolved" species was reintroduced into its original environment, they would "evolve" back to their original form. Therefore, they never did evolve, they adapted.

 

Simply put, if a gene sequence for a particular species is lost, it does not return. Unless it exists within that species somewhere else, or by chance. If the sequence is short enough, the chance of this happening isn't so unlikely, however.

 

When a person reproduces, that person offers 23 chromosomes to the sperm/egg of the other person. The new person has 23 then has 23 pairs of chromosomes (total of 46) that determine the physical makeup of the person. When it comes time to reproduce, the sperm's nucleus takes with it 23 chromosomes... some of the maternal line, some of the paternal line. In fact, a chromosome might have some genes of each in nearly any ratio... those 23 go to the egg to join with 23 more.

 

Alright... the above was a very short, abreviated course in genetics...

 

Having said all that, eventually... after many, many generations, a mistake will occur in the copying of the genes. This could be likened to copying a book and getting a letter wrong. Sometimes that letter could make a sentance meaningless, sometimes it could change the meaning all together. In animals, if this "mistake" is meaningful in a way that ensures survival where the "normal" gene can't - a leopard that is white instead of yellow in a winter environment for instance - then it is likely that the "mistake" will be passed on. If it reduces the chance of survival - a flower that is not the preferred color of the local pollenators - then it will likely die off with the individual.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Evolution requires permanent change that does not allow regression back to the original state. This has never been observed nor proven by science.

 

Incorrect. It (the ability of genes to mutate) has been proven. In many, many instances. I suggest a course in biology and/or genetics. At least read a text such as The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. You can pick it up for about 6 bucks at a used book store and it is written for the novice.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, yet they maintain that this is how life began on earth. Whatever…

 

And here's the "whatever:"

Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks - artificial similation of primordial lightning. After a few weeks of this, something interesting is usually found inside the flask: a weak brown soup containing a large number of molecules more complex than the ones originally put in. In particular, amino acids have been found - the building blocks of proteins, one of the two great classes of biological molecules. Before these experiments were done, natrually occurring amino acids would have been thought of as diagnostic of the presence of life. If they had been detected on, say Mars, life on that planet would have seemed a near certainty.

 

This was from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. He goes on to say, "more recently, laboratory simulations of the chemical conditions of earth before the coming of life have yielded organic substances called purines and pyrimidines. These are building blocks of the genetic molecule, DNA itself."

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

So, say this first cell, somehow complete with the building blocks of atomic matter and DNA intact, was produced out of the heat and sulfur of the early stages of our earth’s creation.

 

Nope. Not that simple. To say "building blocks of atomic matter" seems to imply something pre-elemental and is telling of the original author's education in the sciences: little to none. "DNA intact" is nonsensical in this context, which supports the hypothesis of his/her education level. The quotes above address this.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

A few questions for you:

1 – How did this miraculous cell survive in the strange, unfriendly environment when we do not of any life form today that could?

 

It is likely that it wasn't a "cell" as we would know it today, but rather a replicator molecule. A molecule that could replicate itself by attracting the appropriate elements and molding itself accordingly... of course... being a "historical science" this is conjecture. We will never know for sure, even if we recreate the process in the laboratory. No one was there, after all... as creationists are happy to point out. Also, define unfriendly. I know how I would define it, but I'm convinced that the original author (I remind others that lukeskywalker1 quoted another source) has little idea. I can say that the environment was probably less hostile than we might imagine... for instance, there were no bacteria to attack this molecule that would become a proto-cell.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

2 – Was there actually a life span of this living cell?

 

If it was living, then this would seem self-defining. What defines life? At what point is a molecule alive? Does it have to have DNA? A nucleus? Feed on another molecule?

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

3 – How did DNA actually "know" to form and grow into the specialized mechanism it is today?

 

This is actually a good question... one with several answers, though there are some agreed upon likely scenarios. Since we've skipped all the way to DNA, however, the answer is quite simple. DNA is by definition a replication waiting to replicate. It merely splits and continues. Over billions of years, and billions of billions of billions of splits, enough mutations occur to allow for differences that will become speciation. I understand that 'creationists' have difficulty with the term mutation and assign a negative connotation to it, but this is, again, an issue of education level, and invalid as an argument.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

4 – How did this cell "know" to split into 2 cells and have each of it’s internal components split to be shared between the 2 cells?

 

5 – An even better question is "why" would the cell split?

 

6 – How did these cells know to stick together after splitting?

 

All answerable by the sequences encoded in the DNA strands themselves. This didn't happen overnight. Another educational defect, it would seem. Creationists fail to acknowledge that the earth is quite ancient and that there has been an extrordinary amount of time for a very gradual evolution of DNA on the planet.

 

Current studies of viruses and bacterias in the field of medicine has discovered clear genetic correlations in meiosis and mitosis: when, how, why, etc.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

OK, now we have the 2 cells that somehow came out of nowhere

 

Another example of the original author's ignorance. Still, I find it interesting that he/she has a difficult time accepting that 2 simple cells can appear out of nowhere, but will probably contend that 2 people did!

 

And so ends my rant for the night... I've little patience left at 1:48 am for the rest of the original author's questions... they're so circular and telling of a lack of education in the sciences.

 

This, folks, is why I am concerned for the welfare of our students in the United States. The sciences are becoming neglected. Pseudoscience and Antiscience is slowly dominating and the industries of biotech, engineering, research, and medicine are suffering because of it. Ignorance is claiming our populace.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

You see, there is no "purpose" in a single cell’s life, and it doesn’t "know" what it’s supposed to do.

 

That's because there is no purpose. It just is. Period. It will reproduce if it can. If it does then it will try again. The genes within the organism are the true immortals. They can go on for many, many generations without significant change. I'm talking millions of years.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

How can many types of cells be formed from one type?

 

In the case of a human blastocyst, any cell the body has. A handfull of stem cells (the blastocyst) have the potential to become any cell.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Another thing you may not know, with carbon dating. They find a fossile, they say its human. They use the carbon dating method on it, and find out it was around before humans evolved.

Then they say, its contaminated and throw it away. Why?

 

It would be helpful here if you would provide a citation to reference. I'm an Anthropology major, so I can get you the answer you want, but I need more info. Where did you hear this?

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

It would interfere with the current idea.

 

Or there could be another explanation. Perhaps the radiocarbon dating was on material that was found in the vicinity of the remains (not a fossil.. seldom do we find fossils of humans, modern or early. typically they're actual remains of bones). This dating method was then superceded by another, perhaps tree-ring or Ar-Ar of the geologic strata.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I bet the next guy to have an amazing idea on how life began will be laughed at, just like i bet Darwin was laughed at. I also bet, his theory will be 'proven' just like evolution. Its always been like this.

 

Doubtful. Newton might have been scorned (don't know off the top of my head) but as physics has progressed beyond his wildest imagination, his theories are still solid.

 

Just to be sure, what, as you understand it, are Darwin's hypotheses?

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Why hear about creation anyways? Your presented with evolution. The easy way out, when your dead, your dead. No Hell to worry about. People dont want to change there lives for Jesus. So evolution is the way out of it. You understand.

 

There are those that would say that "creation" is the easy way out. Seven days, Adam & Eve... Garden of Eden... all in one chapter. The current research on evolutionary biology would fill volumes (and it does). Not really all that easy if you ask me.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I cant prove its wrong without using the bible. Theres nothing here today that says its wrong. Correct?

 

I can't fault anyone for their beliefs. In fact, I frown upon those that do, even though I've posted some very contrary information to these beliefs. I do so because of the forum. I fault the premise of the belief here, not the believer. I realize that from your perspective that can seem to be one in the same, though from mine the intent is separate.

 

But when the beliefs of the believers threatens the education of others, then I speak out. Creation is not a theory, since it is based upon myth and not a set of tested and reproducible hypotheses. Evolution is.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Now enter homosexuality. How does it fit with evolution? Assuming that homosexuality is a recent development,

 

Don't make that assumption. There is every indication that it has been around for a while. In fact, bonabo monkies engage in it as a matter of course. So do dolphins. Both species have appeared to survive, though it is difficult to discern how long it has been present in each species, one can deduce that it didn't just appear in the last few generations.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

evolution must have somehow produced it. But evolution produces only those things which adapt to the climate or further the existence of the species. Does homosexuality do either of those things? In fact, it is contrary to evolution.

 

If we're talking about people, and I think we are, then evolution won't matter. The problem with evolution in the human species is that our technology has overcome natural selection. There are those that would disagree with that hypothesis, but I stand by it. Most diseases that afflict our species to point of destruction occur beyond the fecund period. That is to say, we don't die from disease before being able to give birth. This wouldn't have been so only a few hundred years ago to the extent that it is now.

 

Still, homosexuality provides something to a species that you have over looked because of bigotted and/or ethnocentric perspective: fashion and interior design.

 

Okay... I'm kidding. But only about the fashion and design. There are other, social aspects, to homosexuality that a species might benefit from. To consider this, it might be helpful to observe the bonabos. This species of primate has very little or no aggression among the members of its groups. Correlation does't provide causation, but looking further at the species will show other social behaviors that suggest that homosexual and bisexual behaviors, particularly among females, produces female-female bonds that help counter the male dominance we come to associate with other primate species. There are a few other social factors to consider as well, but if you are truly interested, there are some studies available.

 

I can't imagine that similar social behaviors didn't exist among early man. They are certainly different among modern humans, but we also have to consider that the human genome is relatively unchanged in at least the last 10,000 years. The social behaviors of australopithecines of 100,000 to 200,000 years ago was likely a little different and more primate-like even though they used stone tools.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

This is mainly because of the fact that homosexuals do not produce offspring. If the percentage of the population that is homosexual keeps increasing, then the number of child-producing people would decline. If the trend continued long enough, then eventually the species would cease to exist.

 

That's assuming that the ratio of homosexual genes outpaced non-homosexual genes. It also assumes that those with homosexual genes did not choose to ignore their true nature because of societal pressure. It also assumes that the homosexual gene is passed as a dominant gene to all offspring. It probably assumes a lot. I suggest reading Dawkins' book. It will help you to make an informed opinion of what you think. To my knowledge, he doesn't discuss homosexuality, at least not at length, but the basic foundations of genetics he offers will give your critical thinking skills the information it needs to form an opinion.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Would evolution bring about something that would cause the downfall of a species?

 

This is possible. If a species adapts for a warm environment and then is faced with a suddenly cold one, and doesn't have the necessary intelligence or ability to adapt to it's environment, yes. This happened to many species in the last ice age. Mastadons, saber tooth tigers, etc. are all gone. That humans survived is revealing of our technology, social ability, intelligence and ability to overcome the limitations of evolution.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Does this mean that the homosexuals are

 

1. evolutionarily advanced compared to others,

 

2. evolutionarily lower compared to others,

 

Both nonsensical and irrelavant hypotheses. Humans have largely overcome the limitations of evolution (in my opinion) and there are advantages for a certain number of a species to "sacrifice" themselves for the good of the species. It is very probable that homosexuality was, indeed, socially advantageous to early hominids based on the bonabos (and other species). Consider the honey bee. It is a valuable worker for the hive, retrieving pollen for the group, etc. But when the hive is threatened it stings. The bee loses most of it's internal organs in the conflict as the stinger is ripped from the bee's body. It dies. The hive continues.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

3. a different species, separate from the standard humans?

 

An ignorant statement. It ignores the definition of "species." Find this definition in a biology book at your school or local library (or perhaps the internet) and see if you still want to ask it.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Hopefully, the reader picks none of those statements as being correct and instead agrees that, if homosexuality were compatible with evolution, it would be indifferent to it (i.e. not a built-in feature of the human organism but rather a choice that some people make).

 

If homosexuality were a choice, why would so many people choose to be persecuted, ridiculed, spit upon, cursed, beaten, killed, and otherwise oppressed? What is the gain? If the sex is that good, perhaps we (the heterosexuals) are missing something.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I dont hate gay people, but I disaprove of there actions, or i love the person, hate what they do. I have to love you, but i dont have to like what you do.

 

I, too, find homosexuality personally disagreeable. Which is why I don't engage in it. But I also don't fear it, scorn it, or ridicule it. I don't see the reason to do so. It's not like it's contagious. But it's interesting that you say "I have to love you..." You don't want to, but you have to? Is being "required" to love the same as loving? I don't like my wife's driving, but I love her. If it ever got to the point where I loved her as a requirement, I would leave... probably not before she did though.

[Homuncul]

The definition of science is the study of observable phenomena . That is, it is dependent upon observations to obtain results for proof of fact. Evolution has never been observed, yet the "scientific" community has treated is as a fact. No one has ever observed one species morphing into another.

 

That is the essence of epistemology and the main reason why such statements don't fit today. Science is deeper perhaps than it was originally ment for. That's why evolution is valid.

 

Sientific proof can not be justifyed by any observation. It just can't be that way. If we have always only seen a turtle walking straight forward, we just can't therefore conclude that it will always walk only forward.

 

Evolution is accepted with all of it flaws because it gives better explanation than anything else. We're tought as a fact because of it's fundamental explanation.

 

1 – How did this miraculous cell survive in the strange, unfriendly environment when we do not of any life form today that could?

 

The conditions which could not be yet recreated in the lab helped

 

2 – Was there actually a life span of this living cell?

 

Sure as with everything else

 

3 – How did DNA actually "know" to form and grow into the specialized mechanism it is today?

 

4 – How did this cell "know" to split into 2 cells and have each of it’s internal components split to be shared between the 2 cells?

 

5 – An even better question is "why" would the cell split?

 

6 – How did these cells know to stick together after splitting?

 

I tryed to answe it before. And I'll try again. The recent theory concerning this event is natural election. I can't yet give any reference as I was watching it on TV.

 

On the dawn of life there were actually a great many ways for life to begin. And there were many languages life spoke. The classical understanding of it was that the fittest of the languages survived and therefore we're now the most appropriate goal of evolution. But that is not trully so. Any of the languages could astablish itself. It was mere incident that it happened to be us that we know today.

 

There are 2 main properties of a cell we know (it's the language it speaks): consume and multiply. There were many formed at the dawn of life that could not consume or multiply and they dyed soon. There were many that fitted our cell with these 2 properties but were probably using different structure and different elements. Either way none of them were actually the fittest. It was mere accident that just 1 cell managed to consume all others and dominate the earth.

 

How did the cell know how to splitt? It happened accidentally that such a cell was born. Those who didn't know how to split dyed and those hwho spoke different language were accidentally consumed. Why would it splitt? Because those who didn't splitt dyed and those who used different language at all were accidentally consumed by are cell

 

How did these cells know to stick together after splitting? They didn't it happened accidenytally. There could exist a singlecell lifeform that would somehow evolve in to something alike us. But it was mere accident that it didn't happen.

 

All of this at least breaks the myth of small green men looking like us. It could actually look like anything. As we can imagine there many ways life can go.

 

I mean, you have a bunch of cells that are exactly the same, but somehow they organized themselves in such a way as to take on different functions? How? Why? You see, there is no "purpose" in a single cell’s life, and it doesn’t "know" what it’s supposed to do

 

And it speaks the language for which the most appropriate way (that's where evolution takes place) to exist among the hostile invironment is to stick with other cells and share functions.

 

As for homosexuality. I have my own opinion that it's highly relative.

 

Naturally speaking it's wrong. Nature, the way it talks and the way life undestands it doesn't want such thing to happen. If cells can't multiply they die. Our nature is to reproduce and that's it. So homosexual gene is unfavourable mutation.

 

Naturally they are lower. Let's look on facts. They speak the same biological language of genetic adapters as normal people, but they lack the instinct that will give actual offspring. Instead they have mutated instinct of reproduction which in reality doesn't work. An illusion of reproducton.

 

On the other hand we have today society which doesn't follow natural selection where an invalid person can live his full life span. And gays can adopt children if they feel the necessity in having offspring.

 

And third would be what it means for any single person. I personally feel weird when I see them. Maybe it's because it's so much different from what I have a habbit to see. Either way whether I would want it or not I must admit that I don't approve homosexuality. That doesn't mean I would bash them. That's just what I unconsciously consider way off normal. Furthermore my moral code would probably restrict me from even impolite gest. So if I meet homosexual I respect him the way I respect any person in the street.

 

In the end it only matters what a homosexual thinks about himself. And if he's ok about it, then everything's settled.

[El Sitherino]

I don't mean to praddle but isn't adaptation part of evolution? I mean to adapt is to evolve to your habitat and your life events.

[Homuncul]

No evolution is about 1 species evolving into the other. Adaptation is what between every step of it. Adaptation can happen among 1 species not resulting in another birth of the other species. Evolution is a result.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Homuncul

No evolution is about 1 species evolving into the other. Adaptation is what between every step of it. Adaptation can happen among 1 species not resulting in another birth of the other species. Evolution is a result.

that's why I said part

[Kain]

Scientists can even judge what is going to evolve or change in a specific species. Humans, for example, are evolving. The race is out growing the need of a pinky toe(it sounds ludicris but its true), and in a few generations(50 or so), humans will have 4 toes to a foot. Don't believe me? Stand up and walk around and see where the weight is distributed. It aint on the pinky toe, so there is no need for it, so we're removing it.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Thanks for making me feel welcome SkinWalker

 

All we create in arguing rationally against dogma is pointless spam, a spam that interferes with serious debate, therefore heed my words, I implore you all.

 

I symphise man, and I totally understand where your coming from

I probably will get bored of it soon - at which point I will join you.

But the thing is that I used to think like Skywalker does, so I understand the need religious people have to ignore the truth.

 

So I guess I feel a responsibility to carry on with these debates.

 

I understand this, but also, back then, there were mountains of proof to say that the world was flat

 

I understand the point you are trying to make - not all theroies are true - fair enough, I agree. But this is a trivial point which should be obvious without having to say anything. The 'theory' that the world was flat turned out to be false - fine. However, that quite obviously doesn't mean that ALL theroies are false. To use another example - this is a 'theory':

 

The bible is the word of God and everything written within it is unquestionably true ...

 

Can you accept that this theory might actually be false, in the same manner that people one believed the world was flat?

In short, your point doesn't really prove anything except one thing - never assume that what you believe is true today cannot potentially be proved false tomorrow. In fact, your point is actually more in my favour (scientific

thinking) than it is in yours (religious thinking).

 

I don't fault people who thought that the world was flat back then. Your right - you could see 'proof' this was the case if you wanted (you don't roll to one side when you stand up - right! ), and there weren't any other (sensible) opposing theories at the time - so it was quite natural to assume the world was flat. On the avaliable evidence to the average person, it was the best hypothisis.

I would have believed the world was flat back then - as would you most likely.

The only thing that is 'wrong' is stubbornly not altering your beliefs when new evidence is presented - as, Skywalker - you are CLEARLY demonstrating.

The only people I would fault are those who dis-counted Columbus when he proposed his 'theory' that the world was round. He presented people with evidence that was laughed at and ignored. There would have been nothing wrong with questioning this theory (after all, he COULD have been wrong, it's only after the fact now that we can say he was definetly right!)

But those people who closed their minds to this new theory, without even properly considering the evidence - I would say those people were a bit dumb

- kind of like how you are closing your mind to the evidence about evolution and other issues. At the time Columbus proposed his 'theory' that the world was round, it was just a theory. No-one had sailed round the world yet - so no-one had seen for themselves that the world was round - exactly in the same way that we haven't seen the 'proof' of evolution (as you put it) with our own eyes. And just the same way on-one has ever seen an atom with their naked eyes - or a black-hole.

 

No, we have not seen one species evolve into another species within the span of recorded human history - but if you understand the kind of time-scales evolution takes place over, you would realise how irrelavent this fact is.

The 'adaption vs. evolution' document you have presented contains nothing of any real merit, just somebody trying to sound like they know what they are talking about, but failing - although it obviouly impressed you, because it sounds 'scientific' (even though it uses the words "scientists" in quotes - priceless!), and it supports the bible!

They might be knowlegeable in some areas, but their understanding of the theory of evolution, at least, is either lacking, or they are 'convinently' ignoring the facts about the theory.

 

Evolution between species takes place over thousands upon thousands of years. Recorded human history (at least recorded in a proper, intelligable manner) certainly does not extend even to 10,000 years.

Why is it you expect to possibly gain any idea of the validity of evolution from this time-frame? You might as well stare at a flower for 5 seconds and then declare 'People tell me that flowers grow - but I've stared at this one for 5 seconds, and it hasn't grown one bit!'

Other posters have already commented on the cell reproduction issue - I could add more but I think what has already been written should be enough for most sound-minded individuals.

 

All the singular processes that enable evolution to happen are proven - as has been described by other encouragingly well-informed posters in this forum.

 

The historical evidence of evolution is present and verified.

 

Individual scientists may well have been throwing away fossil evidence because the carbon-dating just didn't match up to what they expected. Individual scientists are not immune to the problem of being stubborn either.

Even Einstein! (He wouldn't except quantum theories for a long time because in his words 'God does not play dice'!

He eventually overcame his religious preduces as the evidence backing quantum theories just became too strong to ignore though)

 

It's a good thing this isn't the norm for science though - as it is for religion. What you've described doesn't occur often at all in science - and any instances of it are deeply frowned upon my almost all of the scientific community. Most modern scientific research is thankfully very objective and thorough. And most scientists, once enough verified evidence is shown to them, eventually let go of their preduces and accept the evidence in front of them.

 

And yet your still saying that evolution is 'wrong'?! Well of course you are - your religious! Saying that the theory of evoltion is wrong because we haven't seen one species fully evolve into another within the relatively short span of human history is as nieve as saying that the earth can't be round because we don't roll around when we stand up, or because people in Australia don't fall off it into space!

How much evidence do you need? The answer - sadly - is that no amount of evidence will do to convince you - just the same way that there is a Flat Earth Society that still - amazingly - ignores all the evidence that the world is round!

 

Don't get me wrong - if new, significant evidence was unearthed or presented that 'properly' disputed the theory of evolution - I would be the first to study it, consider it and if nessesary either admit the theory had to be altered or even scrapped!

This is what religion finds impossible to do (alter it's perception of truth according to the latest evidence) - and you are following this pattern with text-book conformity.

 

Why hear about creation anyways? Your presented with evolution. The easy way out, when your dead, your dead. No Hell to worry about. People dont want to change there lives for Jesus. So evolution is the way out of it.

 

That's a lot to assume! About me and a 'hell' (haha) of a lot of other people. Suffice it to say this does not count for me at least. But I can only speak for myself.

However, the more solid flaw in this argument is this - the truth is the truth. I do not believe in evolution because it makes me happy (or sad) or joyous (or depressed). And it is certainly not a 'way out' of anything - as you put it. I believe it because I believe it is the truth based on the evidence avalaible. No other reason is good enough or indeed relavent - including my 'feelings'. Searching only for the truth that makes you happy is not really a search for truth - it is actually more like a search for Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny. (Who's to say Santa and the Easter Bunny DON'T exist btw?! Has anyone 'proved' this? Not that I know of)

 

<regarding my comments on homosexuality> I cant prove its wrong without using the bible. Theres nothing here today that says its wrong. Correct? (except christians ) I cant give any tangible evidence that its wrong except the bible.

 

So you fully admit your quite blatently bigoted views aren't based on anything except words written thousands of years ago. At least you being honest I guess, but that's little comfort to the homosexual community who are considered second-class citizens by a good proportion of hetrosexual society at this point - much the same way that negro's were a few decades ago (and still are in some backwards places.)

 

I dont hate gay people, but I disaprove of there actions, or i love the person, hate what they do. I have to love you, but i dont have to like what you do.

 

Homosexuals don't want or require your love - just as you don't appreciate their type of love-making! (Which is none of your business btw)

 

And they don't give a damn if you like what they do. They just want you to have the decency to admit you have no right to look down on them. Giving someone love and giving someone the respect they deserve are two completely different issues.

 

Homosexuals are a minority. So are red-headed people.

 

Homosexual partnerships don't produce children. What if a hetrosexual couple just decide they don't want kids. Are these people 'morally corrupt' too?

 

And for anybody who uses the words 'I find the thought of homosexuality disgusting':

 

A man said to his gay nephew - 'The thought of you making love to another man makes me sick'

The nephew replied - 'Well that's ok. Cos the thought of you pumping Aunt Jenny makes me want to heave too!'

 

Bottom line is - you have NO right to say homosexuality is wrong without giving proper reasons for this view. Just quoting the bible is not good enough for a lot of people - myself included.

If this was a bible-study forum, then the rules might be different. But this is a serious debate forum -where you are required to justify your argument. Quoting from the bible alone won't cut it here - and this is as it should be.

 

While were on the subject of hell, I'd like your view on whether these people are going there for an eternity of torment and whether they deserve to (I know you can't know FOR SURE in each case, but just an educated guess from what you know of their lives...)

* Florance Nightingale

* Ghandi

* Mother Teresa

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by MydnightPsion

Scientists can even judge what is going to evolve or change in a specific species. Humans, for example, are evolving. The race is out growing the need of a pinky toe(it sounds ludicris but its true), and in a few generations(50 or so), humans will have 4 toes to a foot. Don't believe me? Stand up and walk around and see where the weight is distributed. It aint on the pinky toe, so there is no need for it, so we're removing it.

While as a species, our pinky toe might be getting smaller and smaller, it's not because we're not using it - that would go against the concept of evolution. More accurately, the people with smaller pinkie toes are living to produce offspring and pass on the gene, which over time may 'mutate' and become smaller and smaller until eventually it is no longer there.

But it's not because our body takes stock of which toes keep us balanced and suddenly says, "Well, the pinky toe is pretty useless - I guess we can do without it."

 

Those with mutations that help them to survive in their environment is what keeps evolution rolling. We don't evolve as a reaction to stimuli (unless it's certain types of radiation, but that's a totally different story).

[SkinWalker]

I don't fault people who thought that the world was flat back then. Your right - you could see 'proof' this was the case if you wanted

 

Some people actually did hypothesize the spherical nature of the earth by observing the earth's shadow on the moon... it was always perfectly round. If the earth was flat, it would stand to reason that sooner or later the shadow would at least present itself as an elipse!

 

I think, though that as long as those with the "pinky toe" gene continue to live long enough to reproduce, there will be pinky toes....

 

I did want to clarify something I stated earlier... I woke up this morning thinking about it: I wasn't trying to imply that there is a homosexual gene, though by the way I worded my post, I'm sure most would infer that.

 

What I think we'll find, once the human genome has been properly mapped, is that there might be gene that could be passed that could turn on a homosexual orientation given the right conditions in the womb perhaps very early childhood. Nutrition would be a likely prime suspect as a trigger, but I'm sure that there could be a host of other things, vitamin/mineral defficiencies or abundances, stresses of the mother that cause various neural activities... etc. I'm willing to bet that the neural pathways to and from various parts of the brain play a part as do the development of these pathways.... perhaps there is some cross-, or alternate-, wiring that can be explained some day.

 

To give an idea of what I mean by alternate wiring, consider the evidence that suggests that some blind people can see, they just don't "know" it. I've read of studies where blind people where asked to point to an image on an otherwise blank computer screen and keep pointing to it after it changes position. They get it right nearly 80-90% of the time. They have difficulty believing it, but they do. What happens is that there is an unconsious, alternate neural pathway that goes from the eyes to the visual cortex.

[Homuncul]

What I think we'll find, once the human genome has been properly mapped, is that there might be gene that could be passed that could turn on a homosexual orientation given the right conditions in the womb perhaps very early childhood. Nutrition would be a likely prime suspect as a trigger, but I'm sure that there could be a host of other things, vitamin/mineral defficiencies or abundances, stresses of the mother that cause various neural activities... etc. I'm willing to bet that the neural pathways to and from various parts of the brain play a part as do the development of these pathways.... perhaps there is some cross-, or alternate-, wiring that can be explained some day.

 

So you actually lead to that homosexual orientation is some mechanism. I've never thought about it before. A mechanism like with bees por ejemplo where the queen mate can reproduce and other mates are just sterile. These are different things of course but I guess the scheme is one, or maybe chemicals are too.

 

I wonder then if it is a mechanism then a mechanism for what? What it surves to?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Some people actually did hypothesize the spherical nature of the earth by observing the earth's shadow on the moon... it was always perfectly round. If the earth was flat, it would stand to reason that sooner or later the shadow would at least present itself as an elipse!

 

Yes, this is very true SkinWalker - many individuals at least guessed that the earth was round well before Columbus. (I would have liked to mention that during my post above, but it was long enough already! )

 

Archemedies also theorised the earth was round. He mathematically proved it by placing various sticks in the ground some distance from each other and then checked the angle of the shadow cast on the ground by the sun.

Using this method, I believe he actually calculated the circumfrence of the earth to around half it's actual value -which was a remarkable achievement back then.

 

However, these observations were only found amongst his personal notes many years later. As far as I know he didn't actually try too hard to convince other people of these facts at the time.

 

I believe many others could at least guess that the world wasn't flat through simple observation. For instance - if the world was flat, why is it that when a ship is sailing in from distance - you see the mast before you see the rest of the ship?!

 

...but it wasn't until Columbus that the theroy of the earth being round gained any kind of wide-spread credibility...

 

While I would perhaps like to think I might have been amongst the clever people who worked out the world wasn't flat before Columbus - unfortunately the truth is that is very unlikely. The fact is that your average Joe just didn't question things like that back then. Most people just accepted the reality they were given and taught.

 

Of course this still happens today, as is evident from people's opinions on these forums - but it's much less common. People today are far more willing to question anything and everything.

 

What I think we'll find, once the human genome has been properly mapped, is that there might be gene that could be passed that could turn on a homosexual orientation given the right conditions in the womb perhaps very early childhood.

 

One way is known to induce homosexuality - at least in rats (So it doesn't mean this is true for humans, but it is at least maybe an indicator)

If a certain level of testosterone was introduced to female rats while they were pregnant - the testosterone was of course passed into the child rats.

Female offspring showed homosexual tendancies. (i.e. female rats would try and mount and mate with other female rats - just as if they were male)

They also checked the brains of these rats in question and as I mentioned in the other thread, the sexual orientation part of their brains were identical to hetrosexual males.

[Homuncul]

CloseTheBlastDo:

One way is known to induce homosexuality - at least in rats (So it doesn't mean this is true for humans, but it is at least maybe an indicator)

If a certain level of testosterone was introduced to female rats while they were pregnant - the testosterone was of course passed into the child rats.

Female offspring showed homosexual tendancies. (i.e. female rats would try and mount and mate with other female rats - just as if they were male)

They also checked the brains of these rats in question and as I mentioned in the other thread, the sexual orientation part of their brains were identical to hetrosexual males.

 

So if by chance in nature a certain amount of testosterone is introduced then we get natural homosexual rat. And it points to that it effects genetic structure, am I right? (if their brain structure is identical with hetrosexual)

 

And I wonder if any other hormon can effect offspring like that?

 

Why I mention natural homosexual is because of ecology I'm in no wonder why is it simplier to be born homosexual today then say 200 years ago.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Why do you think that it is 'simpler' or 'more likely' to be naturally born homosexual now than it was 200 years ago?

 

You may need to clarify what you mean by this.

 

200 years ago, social attitudes towards homosexuality were FAR less tolerant than they are today. And there was a far greater pressure on homosexuals to stay 'in the closet' as it were. So if your looking at simply the number of known openly gay people 200 years ago - that's a far different statistic than the number of naturally born homosexuals 200 years ago.

 

I for one see no reason why the rate of natural homosexual births would have altered at all over the past 200 years -although I guess their could be factors that I'm not aware of...

[Homuncul]

Woh , woh take it easy. I just forgot to put "0". It was 2000 years I was talking about. And I was comparing these times because today ecology gives a much much more greater opportunity to be born homosexual with all of its toxins and radiation and all. Just that

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Sorry Homoncul, didn't mean to come across the wrong way there

 

I wasn't trying to be confrontational at all. Just trying to clarify what you meant.

 

I'm still intreaged by this idea that people are more likely to be born homosexual at this time than 200, 2000, or 20,000 years ago. I'm not saying your wrong, I just have not heard of any such theory before.

 

Where does your data come from? And how have toxins and radiation been linked to homosexuality?! I am also aware of no such link.

 

Just to be clear - I'm not arguing with you. Just asking for more info is all...

[Homuncul]

It was an idea born from an assumption that homosexuality is genetic. Well I guess I was wrong.... (so f**king angry to admit that..... well no, I'm easy about it)

 

I suggest those who haven't already done it to read this page

 

http://centurypubl.tripod.com/Overcoming.htm

 

I think it's kind a, all everyone must know about homosexuality.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I accept very little of what is presented in this document.

There are some sections which are of note, but most of it is hideously biased. (Which should be obvious considering it is a document written by a Mormon to help strengthen Mormon 'values')

 

I will not talk though the whole document here, since we have already strayed quite far from the topic of the thread - which was 'adaption vs. evolution'.

 

If I get some time, I will start a new thread to discuss this document properly. But suffice it to say I don't accept it as a serious, objective study of homosexuality by any stretch of the imagination.

[Eldritch]

Especially since it's hosted on Tripod.

[Homuncul]

I didn't like "resolving the problem of homosexuality" section and mostly concentrated on statistics and biological aspects.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Yes - there is only a very small section in the middle which actually contained 'facts'. The rest is nothing more than quite abnoxious assumptions without any reasonable explanations for the given point of view.

 

And even these factual sections are quite out of date.

The brain study's that were mentioned were conducted back in 1991.

However, more studies have been conducted since this date which have produced far more conclusive results to indicate that - indeed - the make-up (size) of a particular part of the brain is indeed responsible for sexual preference. I will endevour to find a link to the latest data. (assuming the information is avaliable on the internet)

 

Also, the tests that refered to about testosterone are ill-founded and incomplete. They said that they introduced extra levels of testosterone into homosexual males and found no difference in behaviour of note (as far as homosexual tendancies)

However, what they DIDN'T attempt to prove was what effect testosterone might have when introduced while a child is still developing in the womb. (This is of course in relation to the studies of rats I refered to in a previous post.)

 

So I would also question the 'results' of the scientific section of this document.

Basically, the whole thing is flawed, and shouldn't be taken seriously - both because is it not an objective paper, and also because much of the scientific research quoted is either incomplete, or out of date.

[ShadowTemplar]

Evolutionary theory is based on findings in archeological digs and assumptions made from the artifacts uncovered and analyzed. It is not based on observation, as is required to prove something scientifically.

 

Firstly, it's not archeological digs, but mostly geological and paleonthological digs. Terminology aside, why would this not qualify as observation?

 

In fact, it is called the "Evolutionary Theory", not fact, yet we are taught it as fact.

 

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

 

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

 

[...]

 

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

 

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. - 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, Scientific American July 2002

 

Evolution has never been observed, yet the "scientific" community has treated is as a fact. No one has ever observed one species morphing into another.

 

False. Read "Parasitic Sex Puppeteers," Scientific American April 2002.

 

Adaptation .vs. Evolution:

 

"Scientists" have observed change in species, when the species has moved from one environment to another, and called this evolution. But, this is nothing more than proof of adaptation, and has nothing to do with evolution, as the basic makeup of the species remains intact.

 

Evolution is defined as 'permanent genetic change in a population of animals, occurring over the course of a significant number of generations'. What you cite is an example of a short generation time, leading to rapid evolution. It should be intuitively obvious that a species that can evolve from being adapted to one environment to being adopted to another over the cause of a single human lifespan, can be reasonably expected to be able to, in some cases, reverse the process within a single human lifespan.

 

Evolution requires permanent change that does not allow regression back to the original state.

 

False. I have given the correct definition above.

 

Now, to discuss the basic evolutionary theory that life somehow survived the "primordial soup" in cellular form and regenerated itself into organized, intelligent life forms

 

Regenerated? MNU. Besides this isn't evolutionary theory.

 

Scientists have not been able to generate a life form out of non-living substances, yet they maintain that this is how life began on earth.

 

Scientists have created an environment where aminic acids and lipids were spontaneously synthezised. Only scientists haven't had 10^8 years to wait for life to be synthezised spontaneously.

 

1 – How did this miraculous cell survive in the strange, unfriendly environment when we do not know of any life form today that could?

 

By being quite unlike any currently living life form. For example, this life form would not base it's metabolism on Oxygen as the primary electron carrier, but rather would use Sulpher.

 

2 – Was there actually a life span of this living cell?

 

Judging from comparible life forms today, I'd say that it would procreate every roughly 20 min, at optimal conditions. But with genderless procreation, it is absurd to talk about a natural life span.

 

3 – How did DNA actually "know" to form and grow into the specialized mechanism it is today?

 

Do you know how many DNA strings (or rather plasmides) didn't "know"? Just a few would have to appear who could (out of countless billions who could not), because they wouldn't exactly be outcompeted.

 

4 – How did this cell "know" to split into 2 cells and have each of it’s internal components split to be shared between the 2 cells?

 

See above.

 

5 – An even better question is "why" would the cell split?

 

Because it could. Imagine that you have ten primordial cells. Only one can procreate. Do you think that you could find the other nine? It is very possible, plausible even, that the vast majority of the proto-cells couldn't procreate. They became extinct.

 

6 – How did these cells know to stick together after splitting?

 

They didn't it took them roundabout 2.7*10^9 years to figure it out.

 

Let’s talk function: how did these cells become specialized? I mean, you have a bunch of cells that are exactly the same, but somehow they organized themselves in such a way as to take on different functions? How? Why?

 

Why is a question that I'll leave for your divine creator to answer, should he have the inclination to take part in this debate. But I can tell you how: Trial and error. Suppose some cells drift together in a cluster of cellular matter. Those clusters that can stick together could have a higher survival for some reason (don't pester me with what 'some reason' might be, if you want to know find someone with a ph.d. in Biology - and from a real educational institute, mind).

 

Well, seems that an imperfect mutant would surely die in the hostile environment of the earliest days on earth.

 

They keep referring to the Primordial Soup as a 'hostile' environment. Just to clear this misunderstanding up, I'll remind you all that these organisms would die virtually instantly if exposed to free Oxygen... 'Hostile' is a very relative term.

 

After all, it took so long for a single, perfect cell to be created, how could an imperfect mutant survive?

 

Actually it took more time for multicellular organisms to evolve from singlecelled ones, than for singlecelled ones to synthezise from the Primordial Soup. As far as I remember it. But you may want to look that up, just in case. Oh, and remember that most geological timelines will have between 10^3 years and 10^6 years per unit.

 

Another thing you may not know, with carbon dating. They find a fossile, they say its human. They use the carbon dating method on it, and find out it was around before humans evolved. Then they say, its contaminated and throw it away.

 

Example, please. From a credible source, for a change.

 

In the theory of evolution, a species adapts to fit its environment, and when it amasses enough adaptations, it becomes a new species. They key to this is that the species' environment causes the changes, and the changes are helpful to the organism. A simple example would be the giraffe's growing of a long neck to help him reach leaves on tall trees, or an elephant's producing large ears to help cool him in the hot climate. The key to natural selection is that changes help further the species. Consequently, any aspects of the species that do not help with the environment or help further the existence of the species are discarded.

 

This describes Larmarkian evolution (species change because the environment dictates the change), which was discarded almost as soon as it was published. What is usually understood as evolution is Darwinian evolution (species change because of mutations, and the favorable mutations (and thereby changes) accumulate because the unfavorable ones are removed by natural selection).

 

Now enter homosexuality. How does it fit with evolution?

 

Assuming that homosexuality is a recent development, evolution must have somehow produced it. But evolution produces only those things which adapt to the climate or further the existence of the species.

 

This shows a basic misconception about evolution: Evolution is not something that produces changes according to the needs of the species. Rather it can be discribed as a two-part process, in which random mutations create random traits, and natural selection weeds out those that reduce survival rates.

 

In fact, it [homosexuality] is contrary to evolution. This is mainly [] because of the fact that homosexuals do not produce offspring. If the percentage of the population that is homosexual keeps increasing, then the number of child-producing people would decline. If the trend continued long enough, then eventually the species would cease to exist.

 

Now, this is where the explanation of the processes of natural evolution that I described above kicks in: The mutation occurs, but it is not selected against, which means that it will not die out. This can be because it is a non-dominant gene, or, more likely, a combination of several non-dominant genes. Such genetic defects can accumulate and preservere simply because their effect doesn't kick in quite often enough to be a significant disadvantage, compared to other selective pressures.

 

Or in plain English: If you've got nine kids, and five of them die before they can procreate and one of the remaining four is a homosexual who doesn't procreate, and your neighbour has ten kids, and seven of them die before they can procreate, then evolution can't 'see' that your sexually normal children carry non-dominant homosexuality genes, because the one child in which they kick in could just as well have been removed from the gene pool by dying before he reached maturity. It's all about survival rates.

 

The only people I would fault are those who dis-counted Columbus when he proposed his 'theory' that the world was round.

 

Matter of fact, it wasn’t Columbus who first discovered that the world was round.

 

*getsheadbashedinfornitpicking*

 

You might as well stare at a flower for 5 seconds and then declare 'People tell me that flowers grow - but I've stared at this one for 5 seconds, and it hasn't grown one bit!'

 

I believe that the word here is: Touché!

 

Whew, this was quite a Redwing.

[Jubatus]

Skinwalker, Homuncul, Eldritch, ShadowTemplar and CloseTheBlastDo(ors), it is commendable that you have done well in the act of refuting what was presented by skywalker1, yet it is immensely sadder that with this act you most likely have made not even a dent in his determination towards religion, for are you not but the unwitting instruments of the Devil trying to mislead him?

 

But if you hold the debate as a satisfactory element in itself, as opposed to what change you might hope to bring about with it, then that be as well as it can. And this is the core of this post; to hopefully confirm that you view your debate against religion as such, for if you hope to evoke change I fear you will be sadly, maybe even frustratingly disappointed, for, as I have said before in another thread, arguing against religious dogma is futile.

 

I realize this is off the topic, but as some or all of you know by now I find it a terrible and quite serious waste of argumentative skill and time trying to refute religion.

 

I'm almost on my knees here...

[SkinWalker]

Yeah... but he's the only one that will disagree with evolution as a theory.... so if we all come together and nod our collective heads at each other, won't the discussion be boring?

 

Actually, I've a feeling lukeskywalker1 is going to be out of it for a while... even he must be shaking his head and thinking of giving up trying to "talk sense" to a bunch of godless heathens.

 

Perhaps in his absence, we can debate the likelihood of homosexuality being genetic?

 

Perhaps it is just a choice or a "conditioning" that one undergoes through exposure to an unexplained set of environmental criteria.

[Kurgan]

I don't feel that evolutionary theory (macro or micro or whatever you want to say) conflicts with my own religious beliefs.

 

Science adapts and grows, and likewise our understanding of nature adapts and grows. Faith may "evolve" in a way too. Religious myths (myths in the sense of a non-literal story meant to convey a deeper truth) do not change, however our interpretations of them may change, as we gain new insight.*

 

*I should amend that by saying that myths do change (in oral form especially) because they can be re-told with new elements, to adapt a story for a new situation. The Bible is different because it's written down and people would be upset if you just changed it, but even the stories of the bible are retold with different emphasis in movies and plays.

 

One way of interpreting the Genesis creation stories is to see that it is not about the creation of the earth or the universe per se... but rather how life came about on earth.

 

I read this somewhere else, so I apologize for copying your idea, I make no claims that this is my own, but I definately agree with it, and I have wondered about it myself, just never put it as well as they did:

 

When mankind is created, there is already a world, it is just a vast ocean (re-read the text and see if you don't agree). God just gives form to the world (which would make sense as the formation of the earth's present state from volcanic activity, weathering, atmospheric settling, etc after it was formed out of a molten ball from gases and debris in space).

 

Now wait, you say there is the fact that God puts the Stars and the sun in the sky (and we know that the Sun and stars formed before the earth, long before), but if we think of the earth being covered in dark clouds (as it most surely was in those chaotic times) and the clouds CLEARING AWAY... and look, we can see the stars and the sun!

 

So its from the point of view of life waking up on the earth. No human being was there when it happened, so they don't claim to know, but the story itself is really about human kind and our story. How the human condition came to be what it was, and how we look at ourselves in the world.

 

Anyway, that's ONE WAY to look at it, there are dozens of other ways. And you don't have to accept that creation story either, every culture has one. We can still accept scientific theories while taking important meaning from the myths of various cultures about how life began.

 

Good stories should not be allowed to fade away, but be preserved for their power to teach wisdom.