I'm assuming you have a living compound . Are you referring to abiogenesis?
You were responding to br. Mustafamc's post about the absurdity of ToE, so I assumed that's what you were trying to prove.
My mistake then, you were just trying to show that cells divided over organism's life, and not to show that humans "evolutionized" from unicellular organism years ago.
You were responding to br. Mustafamc's post about the absurdity of ToE, so I assumed that's what you were trying to prove.
My mistake then, you were just trying to show that cells divided over organism's life, and not to show that humans "evolutionized" from unicellular organism years ago.
I was replying to Eric about when something grows exponentially (of course environment stops this growth) and if you have significant time (100s of millions of years), it's not absurd to think you'd see something complex.
Also, when talking about ToE, assume you have a multi-cellular organism/species that is capable of reproducing.
With that much time and that type of multiplication, you'd certainly have millions of species almost exactly the same, why is it then that humans don't have different species cousins, not as different as monkeys, it was you who stated that over such an amount of time you don't see sudden jumps
So with 6 billion humans, you'd need to have 6000 trillion almost humans right now, with your type of multiplication,
And if the ape survived, something closer to home should definitely survive
So with 6 billion humans, you'd need to have 6000 trillion almost humans right now, with your type of multiplication
If human reproduction took seconds which it doesn't . Exponential growth happens through generations ( your parents, gradparents). For us the generations occur slowly.
What I meant is that there should be multiple times the human race from the cousins of the common ancestor, and they would be nothing like apes. The diversity of species shows that it can't have been that long ago.
And if the ape survived, something closer to home should definitely survive
Aren't apes living?
format_quote Originally Posted by abz2000
What I meant is that there should be multiple times the human race from the cousins of the common ancestor, and they would be nothing like apes. The diversity of species shows that it can't have been that long ago.
Things get out of hand quite quickly so you can think of life like bruteforcing from something small to what it is today over a massive amount of time.
Sorry I forgot about division as a tool used by ToE, and I can understand the theory of exponential growth over a long period of time, as being fairly sound scientific reasoning .
But how does division make a muscle cell, a ligament, a tendon, and another one a bone cell, and what tools bring all these components together to create a simple moving skeleton?
I was replying to Eric about when something grows exponentially (of course environment stops this growth) and if you have significant time (100s of millions of years), it's not absurd to think you'd see something complex.
Also, when talking about ToE, assume you have a multi-cellular organism/species that is capable of reproducing.
So you DID try to prove ToE using cells growth division.
But there's a fallacy in your logic:
Cells stop growing when the organisms die.
And when a new organism is born, it starts from 1 cell, not from 12345678 cells.
Sorry I forgot about division as a tool used by ToE, and I can understand the theory of exponential growth over a long period of time, as being fairly sound scientific reasoning .
But how does division make a muscle cell, a ligament, a tendon, and another one a bone cell, and what tools bring all these components together to create a simple moving skeleton?
In the spirit of searching for a working big toe.
Eric
What do you mean, are you referring to how organisms developed muscle/bones etc in the historical past or how we individually go from a cell to having all those components.
For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.
I'm not a scientist but this is how I'd envision it
Say an organism has a mutation where some of it cells became what we call muscle, and lets say it helped the organism survive and it happened to reproduce as well, then if that mutation was passed on, now you have more organisms with that muscle and perhaps overtime those organisms have more with mutations that increases the numbers of these muscle cells.
Now just because a mutation happens doesn't mean it works with the rest of the body, but on a rare occasion say ti does work with the rest of the body, again if this happens over a long time then you could think of a plausible scenario where you could have a moving skeleton.
We're working backwards here, if we and other apes have a common ancestor, and suppose we find every incremental intermediary(missing link) skeleton from that ancestor to us, and in somewhere between we see a branch off were another line goes off to one of our ape cousins, then would you not say ToE is accurate?
What proof are you expecting from ToE. It's clear that we can not go back in time and there's only so much that we can use (skeleton and dna) to piece everything together. What would it require in your mind to prove evolution and not brush it off by saying how did such a complex system arise in organisms and that I refuse to believe it happened by itself. Genetics almost confirmed that evolution is exactly right because genetics is such a powerful tool, evolution came before genetics, and that it evolution only grew stronger because of genetics.
Anyways at the end of the day it doesn't matter who's right or not but I gotta defend the facts as how I see them
Cheers Eric
What do you mean, are you referring to how organisms developed muscle/bones etc in the historical past or how we individually go from a cell to having all those components.
For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.
For TOE to be scientific, it must provide a logical means for it to lead to new reproductively isolated species. My understanding is that TOE starts with a unicellular organism and does not address the presence of that seminal living creature. Given even that miraculous starting point TOE does not provide an intellectually satisfying process for the development of more complex species derived from more simple ones.
I'm not a scientist but this is how I'd envision it
Well, I am a scientist as I have a PhD in plant breeding and genetics with a minor in molecular biology. My scientific knowledge is not compatible with TOE. It is illogical and not backed by science, but rather is based on speculation that is taken for fact.
Say an organism has a mutation where some of it cells became what we call muscle, and lets say it helped the organism survive and it happened to reproduce as well, then if that mutation was passed on, now you have more organisms with that muscle and perhaps overtime those organisms have more with mutations that increases the numbers of these muscle cells.
Now just because a mutation happens doesn't mean it works with the rest of the body, but on a rare occasion say ti does work with the rest of the body, again if this happens over a long time then you could think of a plausible scenario where you could have a moving skeleton.
Do you not know that nearly all mutations are deleterious and expressed only when received from both parents who do not express the trait? Aren't you aware that incest often leads to genetic birth defects for this reason? When was the last time that a brother mated with his sister and their child was stronger, healthier and more intelligent than they were?
We're working backwards here, if we and other apes have a common ancestor, and suppose we find every incremental intermediary(missing link) skeleton from that ancestor to us, and in somewhere between we see a branch off were another line goes off to one of our ape cousins, then would you not say ToE is accurate?
No, the fossil record does not support your premise, but rather the sudden and abrupt appearance of new species without intermediary types.
What proof are you expecting from ToE. It's clear that we can not go back in time and there's only so much that we can use (skeleton and dna) to piece everything together. What would it require in your mind to prove evolution and not brush it off by saying how did such a complex system arise in organisms and that I refuse to believe it happened by itself. Genetics almost confirmed that evolution is exactly right because genetics is such a powerful tool, evolution came before genetics, and that it evolution only grew stronger because of genetics.
No, you are confusing your facts. The hereditary unit for all living organisms is the chromosome which is comprised of DNA. Even unicellular organisms have DNA. Haven't you heard of bacterial genetics?
What you are saying is that Darwin's 'Origin of the Species', which is the cornerstone of TOE, was written before Mendel's genetic principles were rediscovered and before Watson and Crick presented the model for DNA. This would be correct, but genetics definitely existed before evolution could act upon it. Muscle and bone don't just magically appear, but rather through the expression of genetic information that exists in DNA.
Anyways at the end of the day it doesn't matter who's right or not but I gotta defend the facts as how I see them
Cheers Eric
Your denial of your Creator is of primary importance. You have your religion with 'No God' at the pinnacle and I have mine with 'One God' as the most fundamental and basic belief. In the end we are left with surah Al-Kafiroon, 'deen ukum wa liya deen' or 'to you your religion and to me mine'.
I just woke up,
Didnt run away!
What I meant earlier is youd said that the process is gradual and doesn't jump from species to species in one go,
So if we multiply according to your method, 6 billion humans would mean that all other species would be similar, if we count the number of species on the planet and their diversity, (snake rat giraffe, fish elephant bird) we would not have enough space for such a diversity since the process is gradual and the different types of "cousins of humans" would have totalled above the count of other species,
So with such diversity in such a small space, it would indicate that the different species have been placed here at around the same time.
I find it difficult to elaborate while typing on a phone
I tried to stay away from yet another for/against evolution debate as a) we've done them to death already and, b) the total twaddle some people seem to regurgitate in that context (not yourself, I hasten to add) just winds me up.
I am certainly not claiming evolution by natural selection doesn't have questions remaining; it does. I don't deny the possibility it might even be totally wrong, any scientific theory by its very nature may suffer that fate. I don't even deny that creationism should be taught in schools - as long as that is in religious studies class where it belongs. But, painful as it is for some to hear, evolution is one if not the best evidenced scientific theories in history which is why it is the predominant one; there simply is no scientific alternative. There is nothing 'heretical' about questioning evolution, but in scientific terms it is futile to propose it's complete failure in the absence of any evidence that seriously supports that claim, or any sort of credible replacement theory that explains the evidence. In scientific terms, creationism is a total irrelevance because it is nothing but an 'anti-' position with no alternative to offer other than an obvious creation myth that is no different ontologically from any other creation myth, of which there are more than a few.
As I recall, and this pretty much sums it up, even Michael Behe of 'intelligent design' fame was forced to admit in Court that if ID, let alone creationism, were admitted to science class exactly the same logic would require astrology to be taught as science as well. Evolution by natural selection, right or wrong, is a product of the scientific method. Neither creationism nor astrology are or ever look likely to be, hence neither has any place in scientific debate unless that should change.
As I recall, and this pretty much sums it up, even Michael Behe if 'intelligent design' fame was forced to admit in Court that if ID, let alone creationism were to be taught as science, exactly the same logic would require astrology also be taught as science. Evolution by natural selection, right or wrong, is a product of the scientific method. Neither creationism nor astrology are or ever look likely to be, hence neither has any place in scientific debate.
This is where you're wrong and I'd venture to say you haven't a clue as to how the scientific method actually works! But there is no room for 'possibly totally wrong' or even 'partially wrong' in science. You don't want to make room for God in science then don't be teaching nonsense about the origin of life all together.. Substituting one fairy tale for an alleged fairy tale doesn't a scientific method satisfy!
This is where you're wrong and I'd venture to say you haven't a clue as to how the scientific method actually works! But there is no room for 'possibly totally wrong' or even 'partially wrong' in science. You don't want to make room for God in science then don't be teaching nonsense about the origin of life all together.. Substituting one fairy tale for an alleged fairy tale doesn't a scientific method satisfy!
I've seen less froth on a pint of beer. :rolleyes:
Back to serious debate; a timely reminder of how no scientific theory is beyond question.. particularly from contradictory experimental evidence.
For ToE you have to assume you already have a species.
I'm not a scientist but this is how I'd envision it Say an organism has a mutation where some of it cells became what we call muscle, and lets say it helped the organism survive and it happened to reproduce as well, then if that mutation was passed on, now you have more organisms with that muscle and perhaps overtime those organisms have more with mutations that increases the numbers of these muscle cells.
I often see this kind of talk with regards to ToE, so please do not think I am picking on you but- your short paragraph depends on the 5 ‘ifs’ highlighted above.
All the chemicals are available on Earth to make sharks, elephants, oak trees and a chest of draws, you just have to bring them together in some way. My problem with evolution is the tools available in the seas to create this change. There are currents to swish the chemicals around, light and dark, varying tempretures, and the ability to divide.
This is the way I see tools, with stoneage tools you could chop a tree down and do some crude carving. If you walked into a carpenters workshop in the last couple of centuries the tools available can build some wonderful furniture, the difference is in the tools.
Evolutions tools listed above might achieve something like a multi cell sponge the size of a mountain, but what other tools does evoltion have to fine tune all the body components, starting off in the seas? How else can it bring chemicals together starting off with single cell life four billion years ago.
Sorry I know that these types of conversations are fairly futile on both sides but….
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Darwins theory of Evolution? (OP)
. Are you referring to abiogenesis?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks