if bacteria is so simple, why can't todays well-educated, the top of the list scientists create one??





It's just hard to believe....


and again, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, but I'm just stating what I think.

They're working on it.

Might I just add to what robotroid said, that we haven't created life. WE HAVE!!!!! Ok, maybe WE haven't but we reproduce, copy cells, it is the same, when if someone is severely burnt, doctors now GROW skin, once again copying cells, but we are actually making the skin, making life, because of course, we all know that cells move, and are living. You also said some parts of bacteria are as complex as a space shuttle or something like that, well, it works both ways, you can have the most complex cell you want, that doesn't mean that life will exist because of it!! You need a mixture of complex and simple cells. Thanks for your time!



Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

you have said that we're copying cells, which means we are making life, let me comment that if I can...

Life started from nonliving material after the big bang, why don't scientists make life out of nonliving material?? that is what I meant to say in my previous post

That is something they are trying, it is not easy. That however is abiogenesis and not evolution.


If life did not form from none living chemicals, where did it come from? Abiogenesis is the most plausible outcome due to the fact that numerous natural methods are known to produce amino acids.

The biggest problems with evolution that I have is:

What was the mechanism that would take inanimate inorganic substances like carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and have them arranged in such a way as to make them come alive.

What is the mechanism that made the first strand of DNA (the coder, the decoder, the replicator) and did this all in unison, out of simple inorganic compounds, so that the first life forms could reproduce?

What is the mechanism that knew that Chlamydomonas (a genus of green algae) needs 16 chromosomes and Cladophora (a filamentous algae) needs 22 chromosomes for one kind and 24 chromosomes for another?

What was the mechanism that was responsible for the emergence of mammals after the dinosaur die off?

Why would that mechanism (assuming it is the same mechanism) give a protozoa (Radiolaria) over 800 chromosomes and man (much more advanced by evolutionary measurements ) only 46?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/...dia/15sim03.htm

Hello.

I browse these forums from time to time and this topic intrigued me enough to actually post.

I am in no way religious, nor do I associate myself with any form of organized religion, fantasy inspired or not. (Thats is a bit of an oxymoron since most religion is fantasy inspired, but I digest).

The theory of evolution (whoever said Gravity was a theory earlier was wrong also, Gravity is a law) But anyways, the theory of evolution, in my opinion, gives more credit to god then the theory of divine creation. I think that if there is a god, that he designed us to evolve over time, meaning he has a greater plan for things, one we cannot understand and one we probably won't. Now that would be if there is a god, many people view the Christian religion as *poof* magical puppet master in the sky who creates everything, but I like to view it differently as stated above.

But the fact of the matter is, if there is not a god, what is there? There has to be something driving our fate and our destiny. What causes us to be individual and have different thoughts and ideas and emotions. That same thing could be causing us to evolve, and technically do we not all evolve each and every day?

The definition of evolve is:
Verb (used with object)
1. to develop gradually

Verb (used without object)
1. to come forth gradually into being

We all really evolve, we were all once infants, we all went through puberty. We have all developed, so people saying evolution isn't possible need to look at the facts. We can turn our attention to diseases, for a long time if settlers came to the "New World" they would bring disease and plague, but as the immune system of civilizations changed and grew the disease spread less until not at all. The Black Plague, killed millions of people, the ones who survived had the immunity to the disease and passed it on.

Evolution really can't be disproved, but then again neither can the theory of a greater being, however I do believe that there is some greater force that drives us, somehow and somewhere.

! for the 50th time in this thread the origin of life appearing on Earth is not part of evolution. What you are talking about there is abiogenesis and biological molecules are proven to form in natural circumstances.
If your getting evolution information from pathlights.com then I suggest you ignore the crap they spout. Creationism is not science, it has no scientific basis and it has nothing to support it as an idea. It is merely a religious attack on something due to it contradicting their philosophy.
Mammals existed before the dinosaurs died off.
Number of chromosomes varies for many reasons. Plants for example can be hexaploid and hence have 6 copies of each chromosome. Protista can have 100's of copies. It does not provided evidence against evolution. Number of chromosomes is not associated with complexity.

Abiogenesis is an integral part of the evolution belief; so let me reword my question.

Please explain how the ‘word’ abiogenesis is the mechanism that can take inanimate inorganic substances like carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and have them arranged in such a way as to make them come alive.

I agree that there were some mammals present at the end of the dinosaur age. Please explain to me what mechanism it was that evolutionists believe caused the great speciation from the few that were present? How does science ‘know’ that they evolved from previous species? I have done a lot of research and I cannot find one bit of evidence to support it.

At this point I would settle for a plausible explanation to just these three questions.

Pardon me if I doubt that.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory at all!
Evolution is not a belief it is a scientific theory and to become a scientific theory you need lots and lots of supporting evidence!

The theory of evolution is merely about how life changes and adapts to changing climatological conditions.

Abiogenesis - A none biological formation of life. Now you want to know how such molecules can form.
Well you could make worse starts than looking at wikipedia's page. I links to the scientific papers sourced on the page (unlike the website you posted before, scientific papers are reliable sources of information).
Wiki - Abiogenesis
Then you can look up papers on the subject at Scholar.google.com

Where have you been researching? By the way there is no such thing as evolutionists. It is accepted pretty universally in biology.
Mass extinctions cause a huge number of ecological niches to be opened. The best adapted animals are the ones that take these niches. But the is clear palaeontological evidence that mammals where not the first to do this but animals that evolved after mammals took it. The birds.
Terror birds
There is great palaeontological evidence for mammal evolution as well. We have a fantastic collection of fossils showing the transition of cetaceans from land based carnivorous animals to aquatic carnivores. Wiki - Evolution of Cetaceans - Sources for the pages information are at the bottom of the page. Hence we know dolphins are very closely related to goats.
We have great fossil collections to show many different animals evolutionary progress and we have good climatological data to show how the climate has changed over periods of time. But if you want more papers to look at Evolution of Mammals - Papers listed at google scholar.

Talk Origins is also a good site to check out for information on evolution.

So how does evolution account for the origins of life on earth? In order for it to be a valid theory it has to start somewhere and end somewhere with evidence backing it, right?
Here is the definition of theory according to biology-online.org

" In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments."
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Theory

I am curious! If science definitively knows that life was not the result of Intelligent Design, then what was?
How do I know it isnt mere speculation?

Intelligent design.... No evidence. Not scientific. Requires conjecture. There is no evidence of a designer so that means that it can be completely discarded as an idea.

Evolution does not concern its self with the origins of life on earth. It is merely about the changes. We can observe micro-evolution, we can observe speciation. We can see evidence of species changing over time. That is the concern of evolution. That's all and there is plenty of evidence to support that.
As I said that is abigenesis your confusing it with and that has supporting evidence too.

No evidence!! Man is toying with creating new life forms in the laboratory right now! There is a rush to copyright every little advancement made because the field is promising.
This, my friend, is Intelligent Design!

Since evolution doesn’t concern itself with the origins of life (anymore), and man is supposed to be among the most intelligent organisms on the planet, and man is trying feverishly to create a new organism in the laboratory, and science has no other plausible explanation for how life got here; why does it have such a hard time accepting I.D. as an interim explanation? After all it accepted Darwin’s speculation with far less evidence.

NO IT IS NOT. Please do be an idiot and try and tell me about biology, it is my field and I clearly have a far greater understanding of than you. Genetic engineering is not the same as ID, attempting to make a life form from inorganic chemicals is not the same as ID, it is an attempt to show that life can form from inorganic chemicals naturally, if you thought for a second you would realise that this is the only way to show such thing.
ID is a specific pseudo-scientific idea invented by religious zealots because they they did not like evolution.
Evolution had plenty of evidence, in fact it Darwinian evolution had to show its evidence to disprove Lamarckian evolution to become accepted and it took a long time to become accept and the evidence currently supporting it overwhelming.
There is evidence of abiogenesis, I showed you it. Did you even bother to read it, did you look at the sources?
ID has NO, N - O, 0, NOTHING to support it. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. It is completely unscientific and it requires conjecture. If it requires conjecture it is not real science. It is the work of religious idiots trying to undermine good science due to a religious belief.

you have mentioned before that cetaceans evolved from dogs,

excuse me but those little bones at the back of a cetacean have , i believe, 9 muscles attached to them without which they cannot reproduce.

They have nothing to do with them walking on land.


Evolution has some serious problems, mostly all believers in evolution believe in the Big Bang:

Please answer me the following questions in a simple way, please don't use "big words" to explain it, I'm not good at vocab.

Where did matter for the Big Bang come from?
Where id energy come from?
Where did the laws come from(Gravity, etc.)
When an object that is spinning blows up, it's particles spin the same way as they fly off,
please explain retrograde motion(we have to planets spinning opposite directions)
If there was a big bang all matter should be distributed evenly, but we have giant clusters, galaxies, and a bunch of 'nothing' in between.

Big Bang produced hydrogen and helium, how do we get all the other elements??

Stellar and planetary evolution had to happen, but we have never observed a planet or a star form.

A giant step was taken when a living cell was created from boiling soup, another giant step was taken to get that cell to reproduce, how do you explain that?

it happened by chance before, but now scientists can't even get close to making one.

Who did the first living organism marry?

I'll continue later...I have lot's of hw to do now:)

May I ask to whom you're referring? Personally, I haven't seen that contention. Not in this thread, anyway. Cetaceans evolved from a land-dwelling mammal, but I don't think you're asking that. (Skeletal remnants of rear limbs in cetaceans are frequent.)

Erm I said goats........ not dogs, this is a not only shown by our fantastic collection of cetacean fossil which go all the way back to being land animals and the genetic evidence is clear.
Oh joy the evolution has problems..... It only appears to have problems to those who lack understanding. But As for your go question big bang theory has nothing to do with the big bang theory and as I am not a physicist I am not in the best position to answer that. You'll see thought that biology and physics...... not the same thing.
With regards to hydrogen and helium...... you make a nuclear reaction with these you get new elements.
Observation of stellar and planetary evolution take an extremely long, you wouldn't live long enough.
Well it only takes one cell to live and reproduce and then it can produce its self as much as need be, but again that is not evolution but abiogenesis.
Scientists are very close to producing a living organism from inorganic material.
Homo sapiens, but that has absolutely no relevance what so ever.

Maybe should turn up to a biology class or at least read you text books on it. I am not here to be your teacher.

*just stares at you in amazement*

Wow. I had no idea that strokes invented by humans were the only methods of swimming. Swimming is unaided movement in water, that is it's definition.

Throw a NEWBORN into water, and no it wouldn't swim. Stop being awkward for no reason. It couldn't hold it's head up. But once they can, they swim.

Almost all mammals swim my instinct. Interestingly, some apes are amongst the exceptions. They have been known to drown without struggle.

Kicking your legs about in water and moving is swimming. Babies have a the "mammalian dive reflex" which they loose as they grow older, which means they can hold their breath instinctively under water.

I read them over. It is all ‘speculation’. Using word like ‘resembles’ and ‘demonstrates’ are not evidence! It is conjecture. The lungs of a man resembles the lungs of a horse, so what? Does that mean if you breed horses enough times you will get a man? That is exactly what is being implied in your references.

I.D. is considered ‘unscientific’ because science refuses to give it a scientific term! That’s all!

The fact is that the Cambrian evidence clearly shows that there is no ‘evolution’ from one species to another. The new species just suddenly appear complete, intact, and whole! There are not intermediary species, no missing link species.

The evidence definitely shows that something is going on and it sure as hell isn’t evolution! True (S)cience would take in all of the evidence and systematically eliminate the improbable. It doesn’t do that! When the evidence contradicts its ‘theory’ it does two things, first it coins another word to describe the ‘anomaly’ and it changes theories.

I am starting to see that there is no more Science, there is only the Religion science.

Here is one of my reference! Dr. Colin Patterson past Senior Paleantologist for the British Museum of Natural History giving a speech at the
American Museum of Natural History, New York City Nov. 5, 1981.

http://biology.swau.edu/faculty/nclasses/c...s/patterson.pdf

And here is further evidence (Proof) that science is not Science anymore! It has been reduced to religious cult status, ignorantly and systematically refusing to consider any evidence unless it supports it own ideas.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...iew&id=3835

So if you think that I am impressed with the fact that you are a biologist, I can assure you that I am not. I may have been when I was in the second grade, but not now. Why don’t you offer me some real evidence, not conjecture, that can impress me!

I.D. does not state that life came from non-life; that is purely scientific conjecture. I.D. says that life on this planet came from other life, outside of our solar system.

You see! In all of the debates that I have concerning life on this planet, the only evidence your side has been able to provide is ‘ridicule, name-calling and intimidation’ and that is evidence of nothing but Ignorance! So if all of the evidence you have to support your side of the debate is calling me an idiot…. I guess there really isn’t any.

You think the term demonstrates is speculation, I'm sorry it is not. It means it that it has been empirically shown to a 95% confidence.
Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.
She formed a new species of fruit fly using reproductive isolation and giving each group a different food source. It lead to 2 different species.
It is repeatable, it is observed it is a fact. Feel free to look it up.
There is a superb fossil evidence showing the complete natural history of cetaceans, it shows there complete evolution from land based hooved carnivores to fully aquatic carnivores. Did you even read that? Did you look at the scientific papers it linked to? Or did you do the typiclal ID/creationist thing of ignoring what you do not like?

You must realise how rare fossilisation is, especially from a period as long ago as the Cambrian, 99% of the fossils from that period are destroyed due to plate movement so that is a false argument and it provides nothing in terms of evidence against evolution. However how about a scientific paper on Cambrian Evolution Cambrian Evolution.
And guess what, watching it in a controlled environment is evidence and it has been observed as well as plenty of other examples.

Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution
That enough evidence for you there?

So please feel free to post evidence of ID, I'll be more than happy to see it. Real evidence, attacks on evolution do not credit, affirm or support ID.
With regards to Patterson: Patterson misquoted. and the fact that SWAU teaches creation "science" means that it is not interested in science as it is willing to teach a religious belief as a science.

And the discovery institute? They I am afraid are nothing more than intellectual terrorists. They have a philosophical dislike of evolution and choose to attack it because of that dislike. They have nothing to back up there claim. There is not one shred of supporting evidence for ID. ID says life on earth was created as is, it was devised by a born again Christian lawyer. There claims have been shown to be false in court and do stand to scrutiny. The discovery institute has a religious agenda and this was shown in court. Here is the the whole court case Kitzmiller V Dover Area School District.
Abiogenesis is still not evolution. That is life from none life and has plenty of supporting evidence as I previously posted.
But here is some more:
Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis
Again though, it is very important to point out that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution and the two are independent of each other.

Thank you! I'll check it out.

Why would science give a scientific name and scientific credence to a supernatural belief? It is considered unscientific because IT IS unscientific. How can you apply the scientific method to a theory based on ID since it involved supernatural events....that clearly takes it out of the realm of science.

...wow. I wanted to comment in this thread but there are so many ignorant questions being bandied about and unreasonable claims being made by the anti-evolutionary biology side here I scarcely know where to begin.

What holes? The more i read about it the more i find there is none. lol i got in an argument with somebody and they said the same "why arnt monkeys still turning into people?" Man thats annoying. They should at least know what it is there arguing agianst

Thats not true at all. The origin of life is the single biggest part of evolution right now. It is a major part in any none specific book or article on evolution. Evolution and how it works have been proven its just working out all the detials. The origins of like is the most debated topic in evolution right now. Nobody had anything to go with on it untell recenly. Protien microspheres have been made in labs under completely natural conditions. The showed that under the exact same conditions that earth was amino acid protiens naturaly for into microspheres like look idenical to the earliest cell fossils. These structure have been show to filter in organic protiens, replicate and even form in clusters. Pretty cool stuff.

Those of you doubting Darwin's evolution, how do you account for the (to me) obvious similarities mankind shares with the large apes? My metro area has a major zoo with a gorilla interaction exhibit. I've looked adult gorillas in the eye, at close distance. A poly barrier between us. As goes the old saying,:There but for the grace of God goes me. (And, by implication, you.)

That is not evolution, that is abiogenesis.

That is not evolution

Just backing up Matt's point

The magnificents of Earth and the Universe has always shaped and facilitated life and causes evolution. A great example of this is the Basilosaurus evolving into modern day Whales. This animal was originally thought to be a marine reptile (thus the name "king lizard"), but it was found to in fact be a marine mammel. Way back in the time frame of 40-34 mya (Eocene) these animals were one of the top marine preditors. They essentially looked like very thin whales (relatively), wieghing about 7-10 tons and about 50-85 feet long. In the tail end of their reign the fish stocks and other animals that the Basilosaurus fed on was dieing out due to the climate shifting colder. But krill was abundant. The Basilosaurus ultimately ended up dieing off and evolving into modern day whales. They evolved larger and larger in order to cope with the colder oceans and the diet of most whales changed to eating the abundance of krill.

http://www.locolobo.org/whalineage.JPG
http://www.mheine.com/jpeg/basilo.jpg (basilosaurus)

Another very interesting evolutionary change was mammels beginning to evolve from reptiles. This first became obvious before the dinosaurs even came into being. One such animal was the Dimetrodon. Yes this was a reptile, but it had small traces of mammilian biology such as the teeth, inner ears, and jaw. Later down the line in the dawning of the Triassic we have an animal called the cynodont. This creature was half mammel and half reptile. It looked like a reptilian dog complete with some fur, whiskers, and mamory glands. The spine swayed side to side like a reptile when it moved but cared for it's young like a mammel. Best of all, this specie is a survivor of the P/T Extincion that wiped out about 95% of all life on the planet and hailed the age of the dinosaurs. Very resiliant and cute creature!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/images/tran-02.gif
http://www.makradafish.newmail.ru/WalkingW...od/cynodont.jpg? (cynodont)

This is not to say that I do not have some problems with Evolution. There are some things that don't really add up 100%:

The Andrewsarchus being related to modern day goats, sheep, deer, and whales. The Andrewsarchus are the largest mammel land preditors ever. They look extremely canine in every aspect except a few very small things. Thier claws and how they walk on their toes. They walk on their toes a little more so than canine type animals. Their claws are not cylindrical sickle shaped as canines but a bit flattened and have a groove going up the middle on the top. Much like a blood groove on some bladed weapons. Thus minutely resembleing hooves. These two very small traits is what ties them to the goat group along with some other slight ones. I can't really trace the lineage connecting them to goats. Maybe I just have not found it yet..... I could very much easier see the relation to goats, sheep, deer, and horses with the Calicothereium (Calicothere really IS related to horses), but not the Andrewsarchus. But the Andrewsarchus is much more believeably related to whales seeing the similar basic structuring of these two animals with the Ambulocetus. And even to some degree, similarities with the Basilosaur. The Ambulocetus looks and used to behave similarly to a crocadile or aligator. I call them fury crocs. But they did swim like otters moving their bodies undulateing virtically and not horrizontally like crocs and gators. The Ambulocetus IS within the evolutionary lineage of whales. The Andrewsarchus visiually looks very closely related to the Megistotherium, but in fact they are from two different orders. For a while I thought ther were part of the very same order and totally related directly. What a massive bummer!!

http://cgi.ncrv.nl/ncrv/walkingwithbeasts/...rchus_large.jpg (Andrewsarchus)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_...4522/html/1.stm (Andrewsarchus)
http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/piclib/webimages/0...0/45091_med.jpg (Megistotherium)
http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/stude...es/image009.jpg (Ambulocetus)
http://www.pts.org.tw/~web02/beasts/eviden...cetus_large.jpg (Ambulocetus)
http://www.avph.com.br/jpg/chalicotherium.jpg (Chalicotherium)
http://www.bluelion.org/images/sinonux_foot.png (Mesonychid foot) (Mesonychid = Andrewsarchus's Order)
http://www.bluelion.org/images/dire_wolf_foot.png (Dire Wolf Foot)

Wikipedia.com
Walking with Monsters
Walking with Dinosaurs
Walking with Prehistoric Beasts

(ya I'm a big time dork, I have the whole set)

Also I have searching for proof of mid-life evolution. I think perhapse I have found some last night. I was reading about many cases of feral children. In a few cases, particularly the children with wolf parents, the children's eyes biologically changed. The eyes became very adept to night vision. This happened to such a degree that their eye would reflect much like that of a wolf's, cat's, or deer's. Also, in most cases, feral children grew hair all over their bodies. I would believe this to be because the body would have to change to help keep itself warm. Other changes did also occur. Exreme boosts in hearing and smell. The ability to smell blood at great disances. Tracking anything by scent. There are some scientists who even call feral children homo ferus. Homo ferus being a different specie of humans. I wonder...... If feral people were to stay that way and reproduce with other ferals. Would they really evolve into a true homo ferus, a totally different human specie?

feralchildren.com

I wonder what the views of skeptsist are here? It would be interesting to find out!


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

interesting question. I would say yes mutations can be passed on.

on the whole i think its possible we came from microbes or monkeys or whatever. As a christian we are taught the whole adam and eve thing which is just too hard for me to believe cause wouldnt we be seriously inbred or something if it started with just them and their two sons?

Anyway another thing is I think man is having a greater effect on evolution its like man made evolution I mean we breed animals for certain traits lik edog breeds or cows that produce more milk. We now use genes and stuff to enhance food crops and stop disease.
Industrially we have changed the way we may evolve like we may become cyborgs or something. and through industry we have changed the way animals evolve for example the peppered moth


The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.[1] link to wiki article

who knows what will happen years from now. Theres a whole thing going on about birds being evolved from dinosaurs i think this evolution thing poses many more questions then answers

What if HUMAN evolution had been undergoing a rapid acceleration over the past 50 years....not necisarily a physical re-construction,but rather a mental and or metaphysical aspect of change. A new Virus is said to be created every 4 seconds. If a more complex organism such as a human were to undergo a generational evolution,out phase the previous species-would that not make for interesting news?
Surely we have people who can do things that other people cannot explain,why is it so hard to believe that MAN is not undergoing a rapid change,research shows that cellular evolution speeds up astronomically towards a species end at the hand of its successor,and Man is now an old creature as far as earths history goes.

I suggest that people start trying to open their minds to the reality that IS among us as a species-a reality of change.
Change is often a violent occurrence that is met with a lot of resistance from the preceding species,but the more knowledge is shed on the issue-the sake of all Humanity.

THE CURRENT SPECIES IS EXPIRING,EMBRACE THE NEXT