Early Man

[Rich46yo]

a breed isn't a new species. regardless of what the primitives attempt to claim, you can't get a possum after 5,000 years of dog breeding even though they are both mammals.

WTF is this guy talking about?

[SlidingHorn]

WTF is this guy talking about?

Forget it; he's rolling...

[GScholz]

a breed isn't a new species. regardless of what the primitives attempt to claim, you can't get a possum after 5,000 years of dog breeding even though they are both mammals.

You couldn't create a possum, but you could create a separate species from dogs. I.e. a dog-like animal that is no longer able to breed with the established dog species. You can't go back through evolution and take a different branch of mammalian evolution to somehow breed a dog into a possum. Well, perhaps you could, but it would take a lot longer than 5,000 years... Millions of years probably. You'd first have to devolve the dog to the point of its closest common ancestor with the possums, and then force it to evolve along the same lines as the possum did. Creationists love to ramble on about how humans couldn't have evolved from monkeys, which is true. Humans and the rest of the apes all speciated from common ancestors: the species that, for various reasons, has evolved into two distinct species. If you go back through the mammalian tree, you'll find the point at which the branch that led to horses and the branch that led to lions split, and if you go way back, you'll find the first common ancestor mammals share, or the point at which mammals essentially began to exist.

[wpeters]

(Image removed from quote.)

The simplest cells have millions of parts that have to be precisely arranged and functioning simultaneously for the cell to survive. They must all be there. There is no way that chance could do this. To give an idea of what the chances are, let’s look at a simple system of 200 parts. The chances of them all coming together in a certain order in one try are one time out of a number expressed as 1 with 375 zeroes after it. That number is many times more than how many atoms would fit in the whole would know universe!  If the chances are that small for only 200 parts, how about the millions of parts required in the simplest cell? There is no way it could happen!!!!

[GScholz]

Life didn't start with a functioning cell. Living things are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not spontaneously pop into existence fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously. Simple organic molecules are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules are just long chains of simple nucleotides.

[GScholz]

 Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

[SlidingHorn]

The simplest cells have millions of parts that have to be precisely arranged and functioning simultaneously for the cell to survive. They must all be there. There is no way that chance could do this. To give an idea of what the chances are, let’s look at a simple system of 200 parts. The chances of them all coming together in a certain order in one try are one time out of a number expressed as 1 with 375 zeroes after it. That number is many times more than how many atoms would fit in the whole would know universe!  If the chances are that small for only 200 parts, how about the millions of parts required in the simplest cell? There is no way it could happen!!!!

Personal Incredulity...again.  You're also essentially making an "irreducible complexity" argument, which is thoroughly debunked (just some examples here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html)

If these life forms appeared, fully-formed, spontaneously?  Sure, you'd be correct.

However, *random mutations* selected in a *non-random* manner by nature's course, piled on over millions of years is more than feasible.

[wpeters]

One thing that fascinates me is, more then you would think, I run into people who dont know a thing about the science of evolution. I mean not even that it exists. I tell them of the evidence of the evolving human animal and they look at me like Im nuts. Its not that they just believe in Adam, Eve at al ; Its that they never even heard about the scientific theory.

And these arent dumb people. Or completely uneducated. When I tell them we share 97% of the same DNA as chimpanzees they look at me like Im nuts.

Here is a column written by Jane Eisner in the October 13, 2005, Philadelphia Inquirer. The title is…
“Of Faith and Science”
The latest USA Today /CNN/Gallup Poll says that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe that God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible. Man, from the dust of the Earth. Woman from man’s rib.
   A scant 12 percent think that human being evolved without an assist from God. The rest seem to choose some sort of middle ground, giving God a supporting role in an evolutionary process that’s gone on for millions of years.
   But here’s the uncomfortable revelation: Opinion on evolution is broadly correlated to income. Those in the lowest income brackets are twice as likely to views the Adam and Eve story incontrovertible fact than are those at the top of the salary scaled. {Also,} college graduates are twice as likely as those with just  a high school diploma to accept the natural-selection theory of evolution.

[gyrene81]

You couldn't create a possum, but you could create a separate species from dogs. I.e. a dog-like animal that is no longer able to breed with the established dog species. You can't go back through evolution and take a different branch of mammalian evolution to somehow breed a dog into a possum. Well, perhaps you could, but it would take a lot longer than 5,000 years... Millions of years probably. You'd first have to devolve the dog to the point of its closest common ancestor with the possums, and then force it to evolve along the same lines as the possum did. Creationists love to ramble on about how humans couldn't have evolved from monkeys, which is true. Humans and the rest of the apes all speciated from common ancestors: the species that, for various reasons, has evolved into two distinct species. If you go back through the mammalian tree, you'll find the point at which the branch that led to horses and the branch that led to lions split, and if you go way back, you'll find the first common ancestor mammals share, or the point at which mammals essentially began to exist.

(Image removed from quote.)

it's about time you started saying something besides nonsense dork...    i'll get to you later...

WTF is this guy talking about?

something a lot more intelligent than you can manage and it doesn't involve swallowing conjecture as fact...

[wpeters]

Life didn't start with a functioning cell. Living things are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not spontaneously pop into existence fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously. Simple organic molecules are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules are just long chains of simple nucleotides.

You cant have a body lying around that happened by chance just to sit up and start breathing...    Same with a cell. Does't matter wether the cell is simple or complex.  The chances of it coming to be whole are not even possible.  If the chances of putting something that has 200 parts back together the right way the first time is 1:1 with 375 zeros following this one.  There is no way that a simple organism could be formed by chance...   


Ok scientist can create some simple organic molecules..  But they know what they are made of before they start the process.   There is now way that the could create a organic molecule simple or complex just by randomly butting things together.. 

Scientist can clone plants, animals, and humans, but there is no way that they could creat a human by making putting body parts together..  They cant create a Frankenstein.

Same with plants.   Life is given.   It is not made by us humans or random chance.   

There are Anomaly in this universe. BUT LIFE IS NOT ONE.

[Ardy123]

Evolution does exist and does happen. If you don't believe me, just wait and don't be surprised in 10-20 years when antibiotics no longer work as most bacteria will have evolved to be resistant.

[gyrene81]

Evolution does exist and does happen. If you don't believe me, just wait and don't be surprised in 10-20 years when antibiotics no longer work as most bacteria will have evolved to be resistant.

that is adaptation...it's the same bacteria, just adapted to insure survival. same as our immune systems.

[SlidingHorn]

that is adaptation...it's the same bacteria, just adapted to insure survival. same as our immune systems.

What, exactly do you think evolution is?? 

Correct Answer:  "The change in frequency of alleles - or inheritable traits - in a population over time" 

[wpeters]

Evolution does exist and does happen. If you don't believe me, just wait and don't be surprised in 10-20 years when antibiotics no longer work as most bacteria will have evolved to be resistant.

Adaption....     IT is adapting to the enviroment..  If you had poison ivy for grass.  Your body would eventually become immune to it... It is not like we would change in to different type of life form.

The theory of evolution says that all forms of life are descended from simpler forms, such as humans coming from monkeys. That means that there has to have been a lot of animals halfway in between, called transitional species. There are no such animals now, nor is there any evidence of these animals in the past. Scientists claim a lot of fossils are transitional, but if you ever look closely, their claims are always shaky.

[wpeters]

What, exactly do you think evolution is?? 

Correct Answer:  "The change in frequency of alleles - or inheritable traits - in a population over time" 

All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrast with the saltation theory of Bateson (1894).[6]
Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.