*sigh* Well, if you define life as having a certain set of characteristics and ascertain that you can produce things with many of those characteristics with non-living substances in a lab, that is pertinent to the question of whether life could be produced from inanimate pieces.

We're talking about having something exist from nothing by a natural process. Meaning there's nothing is this space and now suddenly there's something by some natural process. I say it's not possible. Others in this thread say it's possible.

But that's not what this thread is saying. I am saying that the earth manifactures life the same way we "manufacture" bacteria. Not that we intelligently make them but that they come from us.

I don't have the impression they were saying things could come out of nothing (as in, God decideds to create a mouse. Poof! There's a mouse).

Relating back to the original topic, I don't think the fact that Mother Earth didn't will various life forms into existence necessarily means that it is wrong to think of the earth as a living entity.

------------------
edit:
gotta go now....

What came first. The chicken, or the egg?

If everything comes from something, then what does the something that everything comes from come from?

Something, somewhere along the line, must have come from nothing.

But then again.. what is nothing? What is something? We have no idea. No matter how long we sit around creating theories about how and why we are here, we will never know.

My 2 cents.

No, they're not. They're saying that organic compounds were created from inorganic compounds, not "nothing".

I don't think you meant CREATED tee hee hee......

Yes they are. That's what the whole debate is about.

I still have seen nothing which definitely throws out the idea of the planet as a living organism of some sort totally out the window. We have not actually seen a planet for through accretion, we see places in the universe where it seems this process may be taking place, but since this is a process which probably takes millions of years, we have not actually seen it happen. Maybe non-living planetary masses form this way, but living planets form differently.



Did someone say created!?

How do you define life? When you say the Earth may be alive, what do you mean?






Creation ≠ Conscious creator.

--> Nature <--

That's fine, but think of the time involved in this. If, as you are suggesting, a species existed, evolved from bacteria (or something similar) with an unchanged genetic code but this cannot evolve given a changing environment, then we must presume that species becomes extinct when the enironment becomes unsuitable and a new species 'evolves' to assume the place in the new environment, but again, this species has to then evolve from bacteria (or some form of proto-organism) with an unchanging genetic code. Each evolution would take hundreds of millions of years (or maybe billions) and have to happen sequentially, not contemporaneously as evolution is thought to occur.

Now, if the code does not change, how does the organism evolve? Being able to express different characteristics may not only be down to a change in the genetic code, but may be a change in how much of that code is 'read' by RNA transcriptors and then expressed in the organism. So you are not ruling out evolution through mutation by stating the 'code' does not change, because the genome of the organism will.

If you are suggesting no evolutionary path from bacteria to final organism and that the final, extremely complex organism just forms spontaneously in an environment from basic building blocks then I agree with others in saying this simply will not happen. The analogy with bacteria is not the same as what you are trying to express as getting a different kind of bacteria through mutation doesn't change that it is still bacteria...not a new 'type' of organism. What you are suggesting is new 'types' of organism with each 'Earth mutation' and this would not happen without some kind of Cause directing the incredibly complex rearrangements that would have to be done.

I'm not explaining it right.


What I mean is that hmmm


Like take a fish if you put a fish in a little tank it stays little but if you put it in a big tank it grows bigger, isn't this true? Not for all fish I guess but in general.

So why does this happen? There must be some sort of code that is triggered by the environment.

The smaller fish has the potential to be the bigger fish but it won't be one unless the environment allows for it right?

So take that general concept and say I am saying that the original life forms had the same genetic code as its more sophisticated "evolved" lineage but that the environment didn't trigger the development. When it did, the creature fulfilled the potential. But until it could it didn't.

So that the code had all the data from the beginning, but that the earth triggers the evolution of it?

I'm saying that it didn't evolve from less complicated to more sophisticated over time but rather it made leaps. That's what stasis reflects too does it not?

And it would explain why those "transitional fossils" that everyone is always talking about are so hard to come by.

All fossils are transitional.

What you mentioned about fish growth being dependent on the size of the environment, I'm sure is a myth. From what I've heard, the smaller the environment the less likely it is to have ideal conditions (pH, nitrate levels etc.), and that is what stunts their growth. This is equivalent to malnourishment, it is not genetic. Correlation does not imply causation.

If what you were saying were true, there would be vast amounts of unused coding DNA in organisms. There isn't. Not to mention, there's no apparent mechanism that may trigger the expression of this non-existent coding DNA.

No fossils are transitional. That's just people using their imagination.

http://www.firsttankguide.net/myths.php


Yes it is a myth. But that's sort of the kind of thing I'm talking about. Now I know that this is a myth, but that doesn't automatically discredit what I'm saying.


Raptor you can argue that all fossils are transitional which of course is true in a sense but when you resort to semantics in a discussion its really off tangent and a waste of time.

You know full well what I am referring to. Why else is Punctuated Equilibrium being debated these days.

No. The theory of evolution requires that fossils are transitional, there is no way to prove that a fossil is transitional.

If all fossils are transitional, why don't we see all species transitioning still today?

Have you ever seen a bird hatch out of a crocodile egg?

AHA! That's a good point. Do we know that there is not unused coding DNA in organisms? Is that a fact? And no "apparent mechanism" is really sort of off base because no one has payed attention to this up till now so how do you know that's really true?

Yep. If this were the case, why don't we see thousands, if not millions, of species in transition?

You do understand what a transition means right?


Like if you take the Hulk turning into the Hulk and you filmed it and spread it out in slow motion and slowed it down to taking a week to happen, you'd get a series of images (fossils) that would each look complete at the moment it was captured. Its only when you speed up the film do you see the boggy parts of the Hulk morphing and looking odd. So actually the fossil record is the same deal over millions of years. That's why its called transitional.

You don't really think the things you are saying are what is being said by the field of Evolution do you? That whales legs fall off while they are making their way down the beach?

Pot + Kettle = Black






I actually did have a snake which was supposed to grow longer than its tank but never did until I moved her into a large room converted into a habitat for the snake then it grew quite large. which was strange.


Also truth that I clicked on your link in your signature to my dismay it turned out to be grease which I can never forgive you for but my Gf loved it.

Anyway sorry to derail topic I will leave now for you to carry on I just wanted to mention the snake thing.

Sure, but this can't even be classified are real science. You would also see these body parts in transition that are transitioning since it takes millions of years. Or are you suggesting that these new species are suddenly born with a changed body part more suitable for the environment?

This doesn't make sense.

You have a hypothesis and cited a single observation to back it up. I refuted it, now we're back at square one. A hypothesis with no observations to back it up.



A lot of people make a mistake in thinking that a species goes through absolute stasis for millions of years, evolves, stasis again, evolves again etc. What you just wrote suggested that you believed that to be the case. Forgive me for giving you a friendly pointer.



I don't mean to sound rude, but you need to go to a library and pick up a few biology textbooks. You have absolutely no understanding of the theory. You're not in a position to criticize it.



Uhhh...hence the word "apparent".

So then what's the point of mentioning it?


And here we go, its called thinking and exploring ideas. Ok I'm sorry it bothers you that I choose to think about things that don't have "evidence to back it up" but I work differently than you do. You are told what to think by the evidence which is great. But since I'm willing to think that maybe we only see what we understand I like to consider things that are outside the box.

Its interesting to me how much that seems to bother people.

No, you don't understand. You see, there is not just one theory, or hypothesis rather. A theory would suggest something a bit concrete.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's not true.

Can you give me a list of 5 animals that I can go to my local zoo and see that are currently transitioning? Maybe monkeys that are starting to develop flippers or something like that?

Yes that is what I am suggesting. That the new species are suddenly born with a changed body part more suitable for the environment.

Polar animals are a good place to look at things. Polar bears are like bears but have webbed feet since they go in the water so much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

Okay, can you give me a list of 5 animals that have been witnessed being birthed like this? Like maybe a dingo at the zoo being suddenly born with kangoroo legs so it can get to the food faster than the other dingos. Thanks.

No I can't. But I can point to fossil record to show vast changes in the lineage of an animal.

Okay, then where are the polar bears without webbed feet? Did they all die off because they couldn't swim? Why aren't there a mixture of webbed-footed polar bears and non web-footed polar bears if they didn't always have webbed feet?

Basically yes


You see in humans for example the intervention of medicine that causes things to change. But for example normally r******ed people don't have children and so their genetics get shut down.

You see that's how nature would show you survival of the fittest. The ones that are strongest are the ones that survive.

Can you show me for example lions in Africa that are weak and can't run fast? What about a gazelle, they run fast. Why do they? Because the ones with the fastest speed survived.

How about a cockroach, show me your sickly and weak cockroaches.

But that's not looking at things from a scientific perspective. The history of those animals isn't observable. It can also easily be said that those animals never evolved into one another and were always separate.

There's a theory that we were born and that we die. It's very difficult to prove, but oddly enough, people tend to associate themselves with practices that theoretically are associated with getting them through the next month... like eating food, as if they suspect they might die, and even more strange, they have sex to procreate, as if they suspect that they might have been born. But it's all just theory right now. This theory seems to bother a lot of people as they think they are something and confusing something with everything - they think they are everything. When something suggests that they might die or that they were born - this is interpreted as something coming from nothing a something becoming nothing - because absent them - everything - only nothing can exist. Well... since something cannot come from nothing, then clearly anything that suggests that people were born and die is false. Problem is, if this were true, then it seems people would be doing much more interesting things, like walking down to the bottom of a lake without breathing gear and hanging out there for 5 years playing frisbee. But people who are so sure they weren't born and won't die (because something cannot come from nothing) oddly enough, don't do these exciting things one would expect them to do they are very predictable. But then again, anyone who believes in birth and death and change - that we are a transitional species ourselves and that we have transitional bodies and consciousnesses that enter time emerge, cohere and then decohere for the rest of time - they are insane because they believe something comes from nothing at all - and their idea that a person who believes they are not born nor will die would do something different than what is expected of someone who believes the opposite is a result of their delusional minds. And there you have it. Two theories.

How did not being able to swim cause the other polar bears to die? What killed them off?

Also, how is it that other bears can swim fine without webbed feet, but the polar bears couldn't until they "evolved" webbed feet? Many bears are able to swim in lakes and rivers in order to hunt for fish and these bears do not have webbed feet.

Yes it can that's kind of how I feel about the more drastic changes. But why are you arguing evolution in this thread? This thread is not about evolution at all? I posted a topic here which you haven't addressed at all. Everyone has answered your questions so if you'd be so kind as to stop taking it Off Topic I'd appreciate it.

You and raptor started this discussion in posts 112 and 113.

Swimming in the sea is different than swimming in a lake or river for one thing. The tides are stronger in the sea and ocean. So you'd need more pull in order to hunt.

So its not that evolution PUNISHES the polar bears with crappy paws but rather the animals that have paws with webbing were more "durable" and lived longer thus produced more offspring and so on and so on.


And it developed up from small amounts of webbing to more and more. It honed it to what it has today.

*sigh*

What is the point of this discussion? You propose a hypothesis, but we're not allowed to ask for a rationale?



No.

No.

And no again.

The theory is entirely valid; your refusal to accept that doesn't make it false. Sorry.

Here's an extremely simple question that I've asked literally half a dozen times before, and no one who disbelieves in evolution has so far been brave enough to answer. If you do, you'll be the first.

A wild dog gives birth to a litter of ten puppies. They're all very similar, but due to natural variation between them (brothers and sisters are all slightly different) some are fitter than their siblings.

Do you accept that the ones which just so happen to be fittest will be more likely to survive to adult hood and reproduce?

Okay, so what are some animals that are in this same transitional process today that only have a "small amount of webbing" and have yet to develop more before they can swim?

What I expect Raptor is for you to actually address my theory rather than evolution. I know that we are trying to get WWF up to speed but its not really what I am talking about.


You say I have presented the hypothesis and you have refuted it. No you haven't. You've only refuted the fish tank example.


Fossil record doesn't disprove my theory. It actually supports it. You say we don't have unactive genetic code. Could you go into more detail about that. How does one assess that?

Polar bears, I already told you. They have some webbing between their paws not webbed paws.


You stated that bears can already swim so what does the webbing have to do with swimming?

The theory is not valid. It's not even observable.

And I'll answer your question, then you can answer mine.

We'll say 9 are fit and 1 isn't as fit. In fact, it was born without a leg, an eyeball, and has a bone disorder like osteoperosis. It may not be as fit, but as long as it can live about 12 months it can reproduce. It does not have to survive the full lifespan of a wilddog, which is about 10-12 years. Also, it will still have the potential to yield pups of equal health as its siblings.

Now let me ask you this, is it uncommon for unfit humans to reproduce? Are unfit humans somehow weeded out and kept from reproducing?

I didn't say that, I said I refuted your fish tank example, which I did. I expect you to be able to cite observable phenomena to back up your hypothesis.



Introns are unexpressed regions of DNA, they don't contain any instructions to construct proteins. If what you were saying were true, we would expect to see lots of coherent genes hanging around in the genome just waiting for a good opportunity to express themselves. We don't.



You didn't answer my question. Is the unfit individual, despite having the potential to, equally likely to procreate?

Humans are not subject to such pressures because we have medicinal technology to nurse the sick back to health, everyone is given a relatively equal shot. Skinny kids might get picked last in gym class, but they're not going to get eaten by a tiger.

But what I see you saying is that there are unexpressed regions of DNA. hmmm


I found this on Wiki

Introns may also contain "old code", or sections of a gene that were once translated into a protein, but have since been discarded. It was generally assumed that the sequence of any given intron is junk DNA with no function. More recently, however, this is being disputed

The polar bear already swims fine with its webbing. Why would it need more? I'm trying to figure out what killed off the other polar bears without the webbing. Can you explain this please?

You say it "killed off" and that's why you are struggling with this so much. Its quite simple. It didn't kill off the polar bears without webbing? Evolution doesn't kill off things, its not a force.


Really the question you are asking is so basic that you shouldn't even be asking it.


Polar bears that had a little webbing survived more than those that didn't. I can show you bears with no webbing and so we know its possible for bears to exist without webbing. Please show me polar bears with no webbing between their paws.

I'll make this simplier. Why did the polar bear need to be able to swim better? Also, something must've killed off the polar bears without webbing, or did they just stop reproducing on their own?

The polar bear didn't NEED to be able to swim better. You are looking at Evolution as a force my dear and evolution is a result. You've got it backwards. It didn't kill anything off. The polar bears didn't need to be able to swim better. It just turned out that the ones that were better swimmers were hardier than the ones that were not. So they produced hardier off spring.

An unhealthy wild dog might be more likely to be under the protection of its parents from a predator, whereas a healthy wild dog might be more likely to be out on its own where it would be more vulnerable to a predator and without the protection of its parents, so it could go either way. Do you think tigers only eat crippled wild dogs?

Everyone is given an equal shot? Since when? Do you seriously believe that everybody has the same access to health care?

The majority of DNA is unexpressed. In humans the figure is usually cited as being around 95%. The function of junk DNA is under debate, but they are not an inventory of functional alleles.