So what came first? | Bitcointalksearch.org

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: Rob E on February 13, 2013, 08:07:30 PM

Well then it feels like you're telling me that life is basically chemical bonds and matter ..I find this
hard to accept. .

It must be more than that or we would likely be able to make living thing from scratch. But there is no question that DNA is the code used to make all living things. With a tiny speck of your body a new you could be cloned. One could even throw in a little jellyfish DNA to make your skin glow in UV light. We are all DNA based creatures.
Maybe life is quantum? Here is what Penrose and Hameroff are looking into. They are more concerned about conciousness, but they may be onto something about all life.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: RodeoX on February 13, 2013, 09:13:51 AM

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 05:09:24 PM

No but it's good to talk about these things. And maybe look at how we've been programmed to think, through our . educational systems.

I totally agree with you. I once had my students try to fly. I asked them if they had tried to fly, or just believed they could not fly because they had been told so. You are also asking some good questions. The Cambrian explosion is somewhat of a mystery in biology. Even more inexplicable is where life itself comes from. Is it a weird quantum phenomena, is life unusual in the universe, did it even start here? I don't know, and I teach this stuff. So questioning is always appropriate in science.

We cant, however, ignore the evidence we do find. In over 150 years of tests and observation no findings contradict the theory of evolution. Indeed we now see how it works right down to the chemical process of DNA. We see that all living things are really expressions of this chemical and even contain a record of how all these forms are related. By looking at fossils we can tell something about creatures from the past and track how their bodies change and become different species over time. We can even directly observe evolution in short lived organisms like germs.

Why it happened, what it means, is a different question.

Well then it feels like you're telling me that life is basically chemical bonds and matter ..I find this
hard to accept. .

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

"You are what you've been looking for"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyf38s4pjD0

Seek no more!

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 05:09:24 PM

No but it's good to talk about these things. And maybe look at how we've been programmed to think, through our . educational systems.

I totally agree with you. I once had my students try to fly. I asked them if they had tried to fly, or just believed they could not fly because they had been told so. You are also asking some good questions. The Cambrian explosion is somewhat of a mystery in biology. Even more inexplicable is where life itself comes from. Is it a weird quantum phenomena, is life unusual in the universe, did it even start here? I don't know, and I teach this stuff. So questioning is always appropriate in science.

We cant, however, ignore the evidence we do find. In over 150 years of tests and observation no findings contradict the theory of evolution. Indeed we now see how it works right down to the chemical process of DNA. We see that all living things are really expressions of this chemical and even contain a record of how all these forms are related. By looking at fossils we can tell something about creatures from the past and track how their bodies change and become different species over time. We can even directly observe evolution in short lived organisms like germs.

Why it happened, what it means, is a different question.

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Going from single celled life form to 34 (?) different Phyla, of which all known life forms, we know of today stemmed, in a blink of an eye, without any transitionary fossil evidence; or going from hairy ape like creatures who could tear a now a day human being from limb to limb, to homo novis, without any transitionary fossil evidence.. does not boggle the mind. . Maybe we've just been programmed to believe an evolutionary theory. .

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: edd on February 12, 2013, 05:53:03 PM

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 05:39:37 PM

yeh but there is only "irrefutable" evidence in word not in actual evidence itself. And if you like to call them " transitional fossils " instead of missing links that doesn't really make a lot of difference we still know what we're talking about, actually transitional already expects that the fossil will be present which is misleading.

What I'm saying is, there will always be "missing" links unless someone can catalog each and every one of the countless ancestors that lived between you and the first strand of amino acids that began reproducing itself billions of years ago.

Irrefutable: Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible

The fossils are present. What is misleading about this?

Australopithecus sediba

Ok but that means that the theory of evolution accepts such things as missing links or Transitional fossils in it's theory.
Even if they are Huuge gap of missing transitional fossils. What if those gaps where interventions by extra-terstrial divine or some other out side force (es).

edd

donator

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 05:39:37 PM

yeh but there is only "irrefutable" evidence in word not in actual evidence itself. And if you like to call them " transitional fossils " instead of missing links that doesn't really make a lot of difference we still know what we're talking about, actually transitional already expects that the fossil will be present which is misleading.

What I'm saying is, there will always be "missing" links unless someone can catalog each and every one of the countless ancestors that lived between you and the first strand of amino acids that began reproducing itself billions of years ago.

Irrefutable: Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible

The fossils are present. What is misleading about this?

Australopithecus sediba

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

yeh but there is only "irrefutable" evidence in word not in actual evidence itself. And if you like to call them " transitional fossils " instead of missing links that doesn't really make a lot of difference we still know what we're talking about, actually transitional already expects that the fossil will be present which is misleading.

edd

donator

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Mike Christ on February 11, 2013, 01:58:17 PM

It's like the question, chicken or the egg? The chicken, of course. The egg didn't magically appear out of thin air. "But what hatched the chicken?" Whatever it evolved from.

Actually, you have it backwards. First came the egg. Within the egg was a slightly mutated version of the creature that laid it. The parents looked an awfully lot like chickens but weren't quite there yet - the offspring was.

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on February 12, 2013, 04:21:03 PM

The idea of a "missing link" is outmoded in biology. I think if you look at the latest work you will see a very complete record from tree dwelling apes to lots of upright hominids to Humans.
Humans didn't just appear. It's kinda about where you draw the line of human/pre-human. Even the skeletons of "modern Humans" from tens of thousands of years ago are noticeably different from skeletons today. Especially in the past 10k years, skeletons have become more delicate. There are other changes likely related to cooking. Our guts are WAY to small to eat uncooked food and our appendix has stopped working all together.
We were just another one of the tool using apes until our genes won the arms race. Now we are the last of the group, and still evolving and changing.

What i understand there still is this thing called the missing link they have not found it yet, they might have drawn it in, in the drawings progressing towards human beings but i can pretty much assure you that those are just drawings, there is a huge difference between the human skull and that of our last known ancestors; the ape like creatures.

Outmoded? I just found an article 2010 from a well known news paper saying the missing link has been found.

Maybe this time Roll Eyes

The term "missing link" is the creationist's way of moving goalposts. Scientists use the term "transitional species", as in:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Because of the wide range of mosaic features exhibited in both cranial and post-cranial morphology, the authors suggest that A. sediba may be a transitional species between the southern African A. africanus (the Taung Child, Mrs. Ples) and either Homo habilis or even the later H. erectus (Turkana boy, Java man, Peking man).

Every time irrefutable evidence is discovered demonstrating the existence of species "linking" us to previous species, the creationist says, "But where is the link between them and us!?" ad infinitum.

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

No but it's good to talk about these things. And maybe look at how we've been programmed to think, through our . educational systems.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Let's just all agree that religion was the original science and move on Grin

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: RodeoX on February 12, 2013, 04:21:03 PM

The idea of a "missing link" is outmoded in biology. I think if you look at the latest work you will see a very complete record from tree dwelling apes to lots of upright hominids to Humans.
Humans didn't just appear. It's kinda about where you draw the line of human/pre-human. Even the skeletons of "modern Humans" from tens of thousands of years ago are noticeably different from skeletons today. Especially in the past 10k years, skeletons have become more delicate. There are other changes likely related to cooking. Our guts are WAY to small to eat uncooked food and our appendix has stopped working all together.
We were just another one of the tool using apes until our genes won the arms race. Now we are the last of the group, and still evolving and changing.

What i understand there still is this thing called the missing link they have not found it yet, they might have drawn it in, in the drawings progressing towards human beings but i can pretty much assure you that those are just drawings, there is a huge difference between the human skull and that of our last known ancestors; the ape like creatures.

Outmoded? I just found an article 2010 from a well known news paper saying the missing link has been found.

Maybe this time Roll Eyes

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: RodeoX on February 12, 2013, 04:03:58 PM

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 03:52:56 PM

Ok well maybe you can explain the "cambrian explosion". .I find it very peculiar you do not find that there is a evolutionary gap.

I was thinking of the Human line. The Cambrain explosion is another thing. You are right about a gap there. I don't know WTF happened to kick that off, lol.
My vote for the best theory about it is sex. Before sexual reproduction evolution moved very slowly. There were occasional changes due to mutation. but things weren't changing much.
Once sexual reproduction evolved genes were mixed, and as a result there was far more DNA diversity and speciation taking place. This could have accounted for the "explosion" of new living things. Of course these are just expressions of the same living thing. There has been only one living thing ever discovered. You, me and the trees are all the same DNA creature.

Well here's the thing " They "Just" evolved. . How did they know they had to reproduce in the first place? And do you also realize that both sexes had to start of on the same time?

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

The idea of a "missing link" is outmoded in biology. I think if you look at the latest work you will see a very complete record from tree dwelling apes to lots of upright hominids to Humans.
Humans didn't just appear. It's kinda about where you draw the line of human/pre-human. Even the skeletons of "modern Humans" from tens of thousands of years ago are noticeably different from skeletons today. Especially in the past 10k years, skeletons have become more delicate. There are other changes likely related to cooking. Our guts are WAY to small to eat uncooked food and our appendix has stopped working all together.
We were just another one of the tool using apes until our genes won the arms race. Now we are the last of the group, and still evolving and changing.

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

An they still haven't found the missing link!!

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: RodeoX on February 12, 2013, 04:03:58 PM

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 03:52:56 PM

Ok well maybe you can explain the "cambrian explosion". .I find it very peculiar you do not find that there is a evolutionary gap.

I was thinking of the Human line. The Cambrain explosion is another thing. You are right about a gap there. I don't know WTF happened to kick that off, lol.
My vote for the best theory about it is sex. Before sexual reproduction evolution moved very slowly. There were occasional changes due to mutation. but things weren't changing much.
Once sexual reproduction evolved genes were mixed, and as a result there was far more DNA diversity and speciation taking place. This could have accounted for the "explosion" of new living things. Of course these are just expressions of the same living thing. There has been only one living thing ever discovered. You, me and the trees are all the same DNA creature.

Yeh but it is with humans too. . That's why there were well know cases of "missing link" hoaxes. Because they needed to fill in the gap from ape like beings to Homo novis.
.

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 03:52:56 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on February 12, 2013, 10:45:42 AM

Quote from: Rob E on February 11, 2013, 04:30:34 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on February 11, 2013, 04:25:29 PM

Quote from: Rob E on February 11, 2013, 03:58:27 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on February 11, 2013, 03:16:34 PM

At the same time, evolution does not occur in the way you describe. Cavemen were humans, and slowly evolved into what we are now. There is no simple caveman/human line you can draw. As RodeoX described (excellent insight btw, totally forgot about that), at some point in time, someone tried to describe the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars, and thus, all were assigned gods--how else would they describe it?

It could be argued god/God is born from ignorance--which isn't an insult. People back then really just didn't know, and it wasn't their fault. It's only an insult nowadays because now we do know what the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars are. We know what causes floods and what causes lightning. We know there's no tangible heaven or hell. It was easy, in the time of early man, to believe such things, because it made more sense than "I dunno." If nothing else, religion was a stepping stone, a product of man's imagination, the earliest of sciences. But a couple thousand years later and it's like beating your head on the desk, screaming, "We already figured this stuff out!"

Well that's just part of the evolutionary theory which can easily be blown full of holes, there' have been a nr of "missing links" claims for example turned out to be hoaxes. The evolutionary link between human beings and apelike creatures still has to be found one moment were dragging knuckles next thing were shaving. There's two different species, they draw in the missing bits to make it LOOk like we progressed from apes but truth is there is no evidence for two or three drawings which they show and which supposed to prove we stemmed from the apes. There's a huge evolutionary gap.

That is not as true today as it has been. We have a fairly good evolutionary tree for humans now. The thing that confuses people is that there have been so many dead end species in the human tree. In the past we have lived with at least as many as five other humanoids at the same time. It was likely only in the past 13,000 years that we were the only humans on Earth.

No there's a huge evolutionary gap and they can't explain it.

Really? I'm an evolutionary biologist and I'm unaware of any gaps. Of course we don't know all the species in the direct human line, but we do know that radiation of species started about 7 million years ago. Many species evolved and died out. Some, like homo erectus, spread out of Africa.
Then about ~120k years ago a new species evolved and a tiny group, perhaps only 100, left Africa and populated the Earth while killing off any remaining human relatives.
Everyone outside of Africa is descended from that tiny group.

Ok well maybe you can explain the "cambrian explosion". .I find it very peculiar you do not find that there is a evolutionary gap.

Well realistically it's more peculiar than that, we develop from apes along a given line . . time line .. and these all fit the ape like features and skull features. . then all off a sudden "boom" there is man- totally different in "Bone" structure alone, as you would know the ape like bones are nothing like human bones the ape like bones are much much heavier by design alone. The closest relative of man could literally rip us limb from limb. .

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: Rob E on February 12, 2013, 03:52:56 PM

Ok well maybe you can explain the "cambrian explosion". .I find it very peculiar you do not find that there is a evolutionary gap.

I was thinking of the Human line. The Cambrain explosion is another thing. You are right about a gap there. I don't know WTF happened to kick that off, lol.
My vote for the best theory about it is sex. Before sexual reproduction evolution moved very slowly. There were occasional changes due to mutation. but things weren't changing much.
Once sexual reproduction evolved genes were mixed, and as a result there was far more DNA diversity and speciation taking place. This could have accounted for the "explosion" of new living things. Of course these are just expressions of the same living thing. There has been only one living thing ever discovered. You, me and the trees are all the same DNA creature.

Rob E

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: RodeoX on February 12, 2013, 10:45:42 AM

Quote from: Rob E on February 11, 2013, 04:30:34 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on February 11, 2013, 04:25:29 PM

Quote from: Rob E on February 11, 2013, 03:58:27 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on February 11, 2013, 03:16:34 PM

At the same time, evolution does not occur in the way you describe. Cavemen were humans, and slowly evolved into what we are now. There is no simple caveman/human line you can draw. As RodeoX described (excellent insight btw, totally forgot about that), at some point in time, someone tried to describe the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars, and thus, all were assigned gods--how else would they describe it?

It could be argued god/God is born from ignorance--which isn't an insult. People back then really just didn't know, and it wasn't their fault. It's only an insult nowadays because now we do know what the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars are. We know what causes floods and what causes lightning. We know there's no tangible heaven or hell. It was easy, in the time of early man, to believe such things, because it made more sense than "I dunno." If nothing else, religion was a stepping stone, a product of man's imagination, the earliest of sciences. But a couple thousand years later and it's like beating your head on the desk, screaming, "We already figured this stuff out!"

Well that's just part of the evolutionary theory which can easily be blown full of holes, there' have been a nr of "missing links" claims for example turned out to be hoaxes. The evolutionary link between human beings and apelike creatures still has to be found one moment were dragging knuckles next thing were shaving. There's two different species, they draw in the missing bits to make it LOOk like we progressed from apes but truth is there is no evidence for two or three drawings which they show and which supposed to prove we stemmed from the apes. There's a huge evolutionary gap.

That is not as true today as it has been. We have a fairly good evolutionary tree for humans now. The thing that confuses people is that there have been so many dead end species in the human tree. In the past we have lived with at least as many as five other humanoids at the same time. It was likely only in the past 13,000 years that we were the only humans on Earth.

No there's a huge evolutionary gap and they can't explain it.

Really? I'm an evolutionary biologist and I'm unaware of any gaps. Of course we don't know all the species in the direct human line, but we do know that radiation of species started about 7 million years ago. Many species evolved and died out. Some, like homo erectus, spread out of Africa.
Then about ~120k years ago a new species evolved and a tiny group, perhaps only 100, left Africa and populated the Earth while killing off any remaining human relatives.
Everyone outside of Africa is descended from that tiny group.

Ok well maybe you can explain the "cambrian explosion". .I find it very peculiar you do not find that there is a evolutionary gap.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: Rob E on February 11, 2013, 04:30:34 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on February 11, 2013, 04:25:29 PM

Quote from: Rob E on February 11, 2013, 03:58:27 PM

Quote from: Mike Christ on February 11, 2013, 03:16:34 PM

At the same time, evolution does not occur in the way you describe. Cavemen were humans, and slowly evolved into what we are now. There is no simple caveman/human line you can draw. As RodeoX described (excellent insight btw, totally forgot about that), at some point in time, someone tried to describe the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars, and thus, all were assigned gods--how else would they describe it?

It could be argued god/God is born from ignorance--which isn't an insult. People back then really just didn't know, and it wasn't their fault. It's only an insult nowadays because now we do know what the sun, and the wind, and the moon, and the stars are. We know what causes floods and what causes lightning. We know there's no tangible heaven or hell. It was easy, in the time of early man, to believe such things, because it made more sense than "I dunno." If nothing else, religion was a stepping stone, a product of man's imagination, the earliest of sciences. But a couple thousand years later and it's like beating your head on the desk, screaming, "We already figured this stuff out!"

Well that's just part of the evolutionary theory which can easily be blown full of holes, there' have been a nr of "missing links" claims for example turned out to be hoaxes. The evolutionary link between human beings and apelike creatures still has to be found one moment were dragging knuckles next thing were shaving. There's two different species, they draw in the missing bits to make it LOOk like we progressed from apes but truth is there is no evidence for two or three drawings which they show and which supposed to prove we stemmed from the apes. There's a huge evolutionary gap.

That is not as true today as it has been. We have a fairly good evolutionary tree for humans now. The thing that confuses people is that there have been so many dead end species in the human tree. In the past we have lived with at least as many as five other humanoids at the same time. It was likely only in the past 13,000 years that we were the only humans on Earth.

No there's a huge evolutionary gap and they can't explain it.

Really? I'm an evolutionary biologist and I'm unaware of any gaps. Of course we don't know all the species in the direct human line, but we do know that radiation of species started about 7 million years ago. Many species evolved and died out. Some, like homo erectus, spread out of Africa.
Then about ~120k years ago a new species evolved and a tiny group, perhaps only 100, left Africa and populated the Earth while killing off any remaining human relatives.
Everyone outside of Africa is descended from that tiny group.

Topic: So what came first? (Read 2142 times)