|
Post by griffman on Dec 5, 2006 15:24:56 GMT -5
As far as macroevolution goes I suppose you could debate some things, but when it comes to microevolution they are on two different levels and therefore uncomparable.
macroevolution - major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
microevolution - evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
yes, these are dictionary.com definitions, but I don't have time to write them out in my own words. I've got class to go to in about 10 minutes!
|
|
|
Post by AREA666 on Dec 5, 2006 21:13:15 GMT -5
Online definitions work for me. I am still not really sure why either of those would not be able to be compared. I do admit that it is harder to accept an idea along the lines of micro, but that could only be because at this point in our civilization we have not had the technology to monitor things for millions of years. Yeah we can look at fossils, but we can be putting things together wrong. I think I remember hearing a few years back that the t-rex fossils were assembled wrong all these years to the point where the other way would make a really different looking animal, but I cant seem to find anything about it online. It seems that most people do not like the idea of live evolving out of single cell organisms either, which I can totally understand since it does seem very far fetched, but since anything is possible you never know. Anyway I will stick to my method of both in one where a god placed a bunch of random things on Earth as a science experiement for their equivalent of a middle school science fair project and things were just left to evolve on their own.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Dec 6, 2006 9:00:12 GMT -5
What I was referring to was the fact that science and religion take two different approaches to explaining things. Science deals with explaining the natural world, using the scientific process (or "method") as a means of gathering and evaluating evidence. Scientific theories should aso be potentially "falsifiable" (i.e., they could be shown to be incorrect if some new EVIDENCE was obtained). In other words, a scientifc theory cannot be taken "on faith." Religion, on the other hand, addresses topics of an entirely different sort (not natural, physical-world matters). It is also perfectly acceptable to accept matters "on faith", without the need for empirical evidence. I have to say I don't mind the thought of evolving from a single celled organism. The furthest my knowledge goes back is to sponges, but sponges came from somewhere, I just haven't gotten a chance to research it. I'm studying for the biggest exam of my life right now, and this is on a break, so I can't really finish what I want to say here about evolution, but this is a start and that way I can get some replies before I finish
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 6, 2006 15:33:53 GMT -5
not my words:
LIFE WON'T "FORM" ILYA PRIGOGIN (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.
Observed In Life Of The Past
UNEQUALED BEGINNING DEGENERATED, Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "I'll say it once more, maximal diversity of structural design right at the beginning with the late history of life being the story of reduction of the initial maximal diversity by the extinction and loss of most of the lineages and the failure of any of the survivors...ever again to generate fundamental new designs.", S.M.U. Speech, Oct.2, 1990
mutations DEFINED, THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY, "....one can say that mutations are owing to incorrect copying, to occasional mistakes in the generally so remarkably accurate process of replication.... You may, if you wish, compare mutations to accidental misspellings or misprints which even the most experienced copyist makes from time to time. ...harmfulness of most mutants is just what could be reasonably expected. ....an accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or into one's radio set can hardly be expected to make it work better.", HEREDITY AND THE NATURE OF MAN, p.126
"SLIPS" PRODUCE BRAIN??, Jean Rostand, "No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these 'slips' of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding 'adaptations,...I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way; " The Orion Book of Evolution, p. 17
MUTATIONS ARE NON-PRODUCTIVE, Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species....That's a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.", Lecture, Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980
BIGGER & MORE DIVERSE, Von Engeln & Caster, "Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times.", GEOLOGY, p.19
GIANTS OF THE PAST, "Leakey...had been scouring the gorge since 1931. Over the years he has unearthed the bones of an ancient pig as big as a rhino, a six-foot-tall sheep, a twelve-foot-tall bird and the flattopped skull of the erect 'Nutcracker man'.", TIME Magazine, March 10, 1961
BIGGER BUGS, CLIFFORD SIMAK, Trilobite, Dinosaur And Man, "In general all the Pennsylvanian insects were larger than the ones we know today." p.158
Observed Throughout Universe
DEGENERATING UNIVERSE, Lincoln Barnett, THE UNIVERSE AND DR. EINSTEIN, "The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate 'heat death'.....And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way.", p.102
OBSERVED DETERIORATION, FRED L. WHIPPLE, Dir., Smithsonian Astro. Obs., "Comets tend to split in pieces, particularly when they are near the Sun or Jupiter, but also when they are quite undisturbed in space. Some comets seem to tire out and die.", MYSTERY OF COMETS, 1985, p.93
STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. BRANDT, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", The Sun and Stars, p.111
STARS UNEXPECTED, GEOFFREY BURBIDGE, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577
GALAXIES UNEXPECTED, MARTIN REES, Astrophysicist, "The most basic questions about galaxies are still not understood. If galaxies didn't exist, we would have no problem explaining that fact.", The Dallas Morning News, Aug.15, 1988
GALAXIES "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, James Trefil, Prof. Physics, George Mason U., "It seems that the more we learn about the basic laws of nature, the more those laws seem to tell us that the visible matter–the stuff we can see–shouldn't be arranged the way it is. There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ... The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientist..Despite what you may read in the press, we still have no answer to the question of why the sky is full of galaxies, although we've succeeded in eliminating many wrong answers." DARK SIDE OF THE UNIVERSE, 1988, pp.2, 55
"The Face Of God, Take 2" "Last year when it was announced that such variations had been detected for the first time by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, there was tremendous excitement among cosmologist, and even some lose talk of having seen the face of God...The variations the satellite observed occurred over areas of the sky the width of 14 full moons–areas much too large to have been the actual seeds of clusters of galaxies." Discover, 12/93, p.34.
ORIGIN OF SOLAR SYSTEM, Sir H. Jeffries, Cambridge, "I think all suggested accounts of the origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.", The Earth, 1970, p.359. Fred Whipple, Harvard "All of the hypotheses so far presented have failed, or remain unproved, when physical theory is properly applied." Orbiting the Sun, 1981, p.284. Nafi Toksoz, M.I.T., "It's far easier to explain why the moon shouldn't be there than to explain its existence.", Science 81, 3/81, p.120.
ORIGIN OF ORDER? Paul C.W.Davies, Kings College, London, "The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding toward disorder?" Universe In Reverse," SECOND LOOK, 1, 1979, p.27
Demands Beginning, A Creator
DEMANDS BEGINNING, Isaac Asimov, "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down. Yet the universe was once in a position from which it could run down for trillions of years. How did it get into that position?" Science Digest, May 1973, pp.76-77
ONE ADEQUATE CAUSE, H.J. Lipson, Physics, U. of Manchester, "I think however that we should go further than this and admit that the only accepted explanation is creation. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.", Physics Bulletin, Vol.31, 1980, p.138
POINTS TO CREATOR, G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.
|
|
|
Post by beckyh on Dec 9, 2006 10:27:07 GMT -5
Quite literally, I just took a course on Evolution from my school's Anthropology department. The thing I took away from the course, was that Evolution in the scientific world is hardly even debated anymore.
In Science, You start with a hypothesis. Once you have your hypothesis, you test it over and over again. This isn't just one person, this is a great deal of the scientific community. Then you decide that your hypothesis sticks it out even in varied experiments and tests and then it becomes a theory.
A theory is something that can be drawn from the mountain of evidence created by the rigorous testing of hypothesis. It is important to note that just one scientist can never say, "Hey fellow scientist dudes, I got a theory!" It requires far more universal approval than one scientist can provide. Examples of current scientific theories include the theory of relativity, the quantum theory and evolution.
Of course farther than that you have laws which are even more highly tested and distinctly universal. Many laws involve mathematical formulas that can be used anywhere. Of course the most frequent example here is the law of gravity.
Of the three, both laws and theories are accepted true by the scientific community. While some continued "tweaking" of theories may take place before they become laws, their fundamental principles hold true even under repeated testing. Often when supporters of Creationism or Intelligent Design speak, they often comment on the "theory of evolution" as if this implies it isn't true and just a few men's crazy concept, but in the scientific world, it means just the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Dec 9, 2006 10:41:21 GMT -5
To add on to what Becky said, they have almost completely linked mammals to evolving from sponges. They now have DNA charts that show the similarities and differences from each order in each class in each phylum from Porifera to Chordata, and probably before then too.. as I said before the earliest I have gotten a chance to study is Porifera. They are still finding more species, but they are mainly adding them into already created phyla.
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 16, 2006 7:13:55 GMT -5
supporters of Creationism or Intelligent Design speak, they often comment on the "theory of evolution" as if this implies it isn't true and just a few men's crazy concept, but in the scientific world, it means just the opposite. The problem with our language is it is one of duality. From a scientific standpoint "theory" means tested/stable hypothesis. From a layman's perspective "theory," generally, refers to the unproven. More of conjecture or speculation not scientific theory. In this way, the debate gets muddled before it begins. ( Tower of Babel anyone? ) And I'm not saying evolution has no merit, but if in science a theory is a proven hypothesis, where is the proof? Also, in science, which takes precedence: hypothesis, theory, or law? Law? Presumably, much intensive research has gone into proving it as such. Do the Laws of Science support evolution? If any "Law" is in conflict with it, would that not require a reworking of the original hypothesis? Can you think of any Law of Science that might be in conflict?
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 16, 2006 7:58:54 GMT -5
To add on to what Becky said, they have almost completely linked mammals to evolving from sponges. They now have DNA charts that show the similarities and differences from each order in each class in each phylum from Porifera to Chordata, and probably before then too.. as I said before the earliest I have gotten a chance to study is Porifera. They are still finding more species, but they are mainly adding them into already created phyla. To what do they attribute the "change" or difference in DNA? One might think that, of course, all life would contain a fingerprint or signature of God. Similar, but distinct. There seems to be a very common thread that runs through everything on this planet and it seems implausible for it to have been a cosmic accident. Earlier you mentioned macro- and micro- evolution, are there repeatable and/or demonstratable cases of either? Are there any proven naturally occuring?
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Dec 16, 2006 10:13:05 GMT -5
When reading this whole thing, please try to keep in mind that I believe God created the universe, but doesn't create any beings in it. He just created the ball for the big bang to happen. Also, these are my opinions and ideas based upon the scientific facts that have been presented to me. This will also be stated later on, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea if they don't make it through the whole thing. And I'm not saying evolution has no merit, but if in science a theory is a proven hypothesis, where is the proof? Also, in science, which takes precedence: hypothesis, theory, or law? Law? Presumably, much intensive research has gone into proving it as such. Do the Laws of Science support evolution? If any "Law" is in conflict with it, would that not require a reworking of the original hypothesis? Can you think of any Law of Science that might be in conflict? There is proof all around you. Every animal, every person, every bacteria... everywhere. I can use the bacteria as a good example for you. Bacteria, as you know, can become resistant to antibiotics if you are given enough of it over time. You may wonder how this happens.. some bacteria are born with a mutation that allows them to be resistant to it, just a freak happenstance, but that's what it is. Now, you put the antibiotic in your body, it kills many of the non-resistant types, leaving some, and also leaving the ones that are resistant. Now all of the bacteria duplicate (several times). You take another dose of the antibiotic- again kills more non-resistant bacteria, leaving the resistant type. More resistant are born, and bam, you have a resistant bacteria. That is evolution, a mutation that better fits the environment than another, so they live and the other either doesn't, or has to evolve in a different way. On a larger scale than single celled organisms, I'll propose an ant-eater for you. Ant-eaters have long noses/mouths in order to reach inside ant piles and suck up ants for food. They are resistant to many ant bites. If an ant-eater has a mutation that allows it a longer nose, or more ant bite resistance. If this mutation gets passed on (through Mendelian genetics, I'm not going there- it's basic science and everyone should know it, if not look it up) AND it is beneficial to the ant eaters survival, then again, you have evolution. There are no laws out there that I have come across that state that evolution couldn't have taken place, or that would conflict to change the theory. To what do they attribute the "change" or difference in DNA? One might think that, of course, all life would contain a fingerprint or signature of God. Similar, but distinct. There seems to be a very common thread that runs through everything on this planet and it seems implausible for it to have been a cosmic accident. Earlier you mentioned macro- and micro- evolution, are there repeatable and/or demonstratable cases of either? Are there any proven naturally occuring? To answer the DNA question, there is a new form of biology that has been thriving the last few years. I'm sorry I forgot the name, I wasn't interested in becoming one of these scientists, but it has to do with computers and biology at the same time. These scientists take the information other scientists have gathered, and plug it into computers, especially their DNA findings. The last I had heard of this they had gotten a majority of the major evolutions, and are missing about 1/2 the species, but you have to consider how many 10's of thousands of species of bugs are out there, it could take forever to do this. There is conclusive evidence about the DNA linkings between every evolved species that has been transcribed as of yet. To put this in a crude, not so nice way... Down syndrome is evidence of mutations. If you don't know what it is, it is having XXY on your 21st PAIR of chromosomes. Note the fact that it is a pair. Because of non-disjunction and other possible birth defects, this can happen. Now, if down syndrome was beneficial and helped the people with it survive better than a normal human being then slowly the amounts of people with down syndrome would creep up. This is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution would be the change between Porifera to Cnidaria. Porifera are sponges, Cnidaria is your typical jelly fish, and some not so typical animals that you may or may not have heard of. There are 3 main body types of Porifera, Asconoid, Syconoid, and Leuconoid (smallest-largest). Of course, there is evolution inside this example- I'll show you why because I am a nice guy. First off, sponge walls are made up of choanocytes, flagellated cells that make water pump through the sponge, and catch particles of food that are floating in the water. In an asconoid sponge, the walls are basically flat. Asconoid sponges cannot gather enough food to grow larger than about 10 cm. Syconoid sponges evolved from the Asconoid sponges. The syconoid body type sponge, has walls that have canals for the choanocytes. Asconoid would look like |, syconoid would look like <. Wow that was funny. In any case, syconoid sponges grow about twice - three times the size of Asconoid, because more surface area for the water/food to pump through = more food. Leuconoid are the final body type, evolving from syconoids. Leuconoids have flagellated CHAMBERS, in drawing words (wow these are bad) it would look like <<<< with each of those linking off to other chambers. Leuconoid sponges are the ones you typically see. They can grow quite massive. They are your typical bath sponges. Back to topic plz.. k thx. Sponges are single celled organisms living in a colony. Over time, the cells mutate slightly, and eventually a new species will be born. This would be a Hydrozoa, the first Class of Cnidaria. You may be familiar with them if you own a pool, they grow with your algae eating it (Hydra). Fun fun. The first evolutions of them were very very small, as you can probably imagine. They have 2 body forms, but they aren't really all that important... polyp and medusa(e). Polyp is like coral, medusa is your typical jellyfish. Hydrozoa is a majority polyp form, Scyphozoa is a majority medusa form, Anthozoa has no medusa form, only polyp. This is where you start to find the single celled beings kid of specialize and START to work as a whole body. You get gastrozooid and gonozooids here for feeding and reproduction respectively. Hydrozoa's are typically smaller, and rely more on colonial types of cells. Scyphozoa are typically larger, requiring slightly more specialization (stinging cells aka nematocysts). Anthozoa is your typical coral, there are other types of coral, but this is a main type. They are also sea anemones. It is almost all the way specialized. Cnidaria evolves into Platyhelminthes... your disgusting small worms/flukes. Of course, these evolutions were over much time, comprised of many many many micro-evolutions, but that is what macro-evolution is. It is a compilation of micro-evolutions that result in a new species. The above stated about down syndrome and the bacteria are proven to occur naturally. They are proving the mechanism for everything else. Don't get me wrong here, I don't know every single step. If I did, I wouldn't be going to school. I'd be a dang biologist by now. My very generalized ideas have come from the actual proof, but I have not studied in depth here. All of your quotes from earlier say that it is not possible for the big bang theory etc. I just want to say a few things about them. First, I understand that it is not probable, but that doesn't mean that it cannot happen. These mutations are freak happenings, something went wrong in the cell division, but it turned out to benefit sometimes and that's where these things happened. Secondly, I believe God created the ball of matter. I also believe he set forth certain laws that guide how things work, but I don't believe he had anything to do with anything else. If you are thinking of it in my way, the great ball of matter could have been created even further before our planets first arrival. Keep in mind, that with the big bang theory everything goes out, then it comes back. After it comes back where does it go? It has to go out again. Now think about it this way. It could have taken 50 million tries to come up with humans (probably didn't, but hey-probable doesn't mean anything), we can only possibly have any record of this happening once. There is no possible way to prove if it's happened before. But if it did happen 50 million times before, and it's been 6 billion years or so... that is plenty of time for mutations to have happened. Think of us as the smallest bit of history possible. If we are the perfection in God's eyes, why didn't he create us in the beginning? Why is it that the universe is still expanding? How could we have found remnance of plant life or algae on Mars if it's never happened before? Did God try to create something on Mars and fail? Wait, isn't he infallible? Doesn't that mean the universe would have been destroyed? If we are God's perfection, what does that make the rest of the animals, plants, fungi, protists etc? Not perfect? Again, he can't be proven infallible. It is natural to look for an explanation to why we are here. But just because you don't believe that evolution is completely proven doesn't mean you have to believe that a book written 2000 years ago, roughly translated, and parts removed... not to mention the fact that we are already supposed to have met the apocalypse according to the Bible. You may have questions about the theory of evolution, but do you ever stop to think how many more questions can be asked about faith?
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 17, 2006 4:36:01 GMT -5
I'm not saying that even I don't have my questions. But Faith is belief in something that you may neither be able to explain nor understand. Science is belief in what is able to be proven or it becomes Art or takes faith. In relation to the apocalypse, are you positive it has passed it's date?
I am not schooled enough to know that the bacteria in your example are ones that mutated from the ones being killed or were just dissimilar enough not to be killed. After the more prevalent/dominate ones were removed then their food supply was correspondingly enlarged to allow them to fill the "vacuum." Plausible, but definitely, not scientific. I did like your sponge example, but again my background is insufficient. Are the sponges proven to be the same sponge with evolved mutations? Or are they so similar, with how far we can currently determine, that they seem to be evolved mutations? Sorry, I know some of you -- if any besides Grif and Beck actually read my schtuff -- wish I'd shut up already! But occasionally a different perspective offered can help us more clearly define our own beliefs.
Please, keep reading, if you wish to continue dialog. Or should I be giving you a headache feel free to just reply: "go to. . . the next big bang!" lol and I'll drop it
On our Downs patients, that mutation proves mutations exist, but not that mutations lead to evolution.
|
|
|
Post by beckyh on Dec 17, 2006 19:44:07 GMT -5
In my class on Evolution, we quickly buzzed through the earlier stuff of bacteria and early forms of life, so I know little about that. However, we spent a lot of time about human origins and the direct lineage of human evolution. For this example there is a lot of fossil evidence, mainly because of human interest to find their past. Specific fossils have been found from different periods of time that show gradual changes in human characteristics until we evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens. For instance, in early primates there was a strong reliance on large teeth and sturdy jaws most likely so they could eat tough, uncooked food. In fossils, going back through time, you will see larger sagittal crests (an increase of bone mass at the peak of the skull for large jaw muscles to attach too) Just for a visual, www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/sagittal_crest.html. Through time, as humans evolved larger brain capacities and learned new techniques for cooking and preparing food, these sagittal crests were no longer necessary and therefore they slowly disappeared. This is an example of natural selection against a given trait because it is no longer useful. For an example in helpful evolution, I found it interesting the varied body sizes of humans throughout time according to climate. It is pr oven (Bergmann and Allen's Rules) that humans in colder climates have shorter appendages and a thicker small stature than those in hot climates. These changes in size affect the amount of surface area a given being has and therefore their ability to cope with heat or cold depending on their climate. Natural Selection: Charles gets Chilly Act 1: Charles and his tribe are hanging out in Africa where it is hot. Charles: "Hey my fellow Austrolpithecines, it sure is hot out here!" Random Other Austrolopithecines: "You sure are right Charles, we should go up where it's not so hot. I heard Europe is nice this time of year. Maybe if we're lucky we can make it up there in time to kill some pretty awesome bison too." Charles: "Ok! I love bison meat! Yummo!" Act 2: Charles and Random Other Australopithecine tribe go north and find themselves in Europe in mid summer. Charles: "Guys, the weather sure is nice here. I love it." ROA: "You're definitely right, let's go make some primitive tools!" Act 3: The winter is upon them in Europe. Charles: "Ok guys, I'm freezing... maybe this going north idea was bad. It's colder up here than it ever was in Africa" ROA: "Well Charles, I have to say, I'm not as chilly as you must be. You seem to have exceptionally long limbs with extra surface area, I sure do bet that makes you chilly. I am so lucky I have short limbs that help me cope with the cold." Act 4: Charles funeral after he dies from the extreme cold that his longer appendages couldn't cope with. ROA: "Man, that Charles sure was a nice dude. And he did make some wicked good primitive tools. I hate to see him go, but his appendage size just couldn't make it up here." In this example, which I got far too involved in, Charles is a victim of the vicious world of Natural Selection. Charles will never be able to pass on his genes of long appendages to any offspring because he died before he had the chance. However, other members of the tribe who could survive the cold, are able to pass on their genes of short appendages to further generations. Thus, gradually, people in northern habitats tend to have shorter limbs to support the climate there. I think it is helpful at times to think of Natural Selection and Evolution in terms of our own past. Humans evolved too, and being humans ourselves, it is easy to note differences. I also think some major studio should pick up on my "Charles gets Chilly" and produce it into a major motion picture. I was envisioning some Leonardo DiCaprio action for the role of Charles, but his limbs may just not be long enough.
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 18, 2006 3:21:45 GMT -5
lol -- about the LC action comment -- Grif you better watch out!
I need some help with an explanation of two terms. You may be able to help me with them. If you could, please:
law of biogenesis
and
biopoiesis
|
|
|
Post by griffman on Dec 18, 2006 9:36:00 GMT -5
I have only very briefly covered these ideas, it was sort of a fun thing my teacher had a lecture on.. but was never covered on a test. The Law of Biogenesis is a proven hypothesis that states that non-living matter cannot form living matter in the circtumstances today. However, before life was on the planet it was possible. This may seem a little weird, but the circumstances were very very different. The organic material that formed the first organisms would normally be consumed before it would have had a chance to form these organisms. It hasn't been duplicated, but that does not mean it is not possible. The reason it is a scientific law is because it has been proven that no living material in this day can be formed by non-living material. Biopoiesis is what the Law of Biogenesis proves doesn't happen today. Biopoiesis' definition is "the development of living matter from complex organic molecules that are self-replicating but non-living," (I had to look it up for a better definition). Basically, Biopoiesis is how science and evolutionists believe that the first living organisms were created. The Law of Biogenesis, when it was first written was slightly incorrect in saying that Biopoiesis wasn't possible, it was updated to only being not possible today. Biopoiesis is a theory... it can still be proven wrong. Scientists have created viruses from non-living material however. The only problem with this is viruses are not considered alive either. Now I know you had to have posted this because you knew that these interfered with each other. Biogenesis hasn't been proven incorrect, but scientists and evolutionists believe Biopoiesis was originally possible, before living material was around to consume the non-living material. They are getting closer and closer to being able to prove it. When it is proven, the Law of Biogenesis will be removed, if it hasn't already. Creationists believe that Biogenesis and Biopoiesis are typically wrong. Biogenesis doesn't support them because they believe the creation wasn't a spontaneous one. Otherwise they take Biogenesis as true. Then they misuse the terms to argue against Biopoiesis. Examples can be found on the internet, I will give one. "Law of Biogenesis and Creationism The narrower meaning of the term Biogenesis is the basis of Creation biology, which holds that since life cannot arise spontaneously from non-life, life must, of necessity, have been created by a "supernatural" being, typically the Christian God. Supporters of the theory of evolution argue that creationists misuse the law of biogenesis to support their arguments. For example: "The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. They also say that creationists' use of the law as an argument against theories of common descent is an example of the fallacy of false dilemma, since it is imaginable that a creator god created the LUCA or one of its ancestors, from which point on evolution occurred in a guided or unguided fashion. Creationists respond that abiogenesis is not a form of creationism, because it holds that life arises spontaneously, while creationism holds that life was deliberately created. Further, since the hypothesized development of "primitive life" from "increasingly complex molecules" has never been observed, there remains no comprehensive scientific justification for believing it has ever occurred. Finally, they argue that once it has been conceded (as is conceded by theistic evolution) that the original cell was created by a divine being, there is no reason to believe He could not have created life in a variety of forms," (Wikipedia, bottom of the page).
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 18, 2006 11:19:18 GMT -5
Very nice!
It seems though, that we have an irksome point.
If a law is a tried and tested theory and a theory is a tried and tested hypothesis, how can something be merely hypothesis and replace a law? Biopoiesis was referred to as theory and law, but without being able to prove it under current conditions ( what other conditions are there to prove it under? ) isn't it, truly, hypothesis? I thought in science hypothesis founded on hypothesis and supported by hypothesis was, well, hypothesis. If it cannot be advanced using scientific method how is science advancing it?
And actually, the argument that creationists are using this as a fallacious argument seems wrong. I would argue that Biopoiesis proves creation not disproves it. Did not God form Adam from dirt according to the Bible and then breath life into him? Sounds like Biopoiesis to me. And takes "Faith" as there is not a current way to demonstrate the hypothesis. On the other hand, how can a virus be created from something nonliving? Does not a virus have a DNA strand? Are we to believe they created a strand from nothing? If the strand came from something living, they did not complete Biopoiesis as the material was not nonliving. And should viruses be classified as nonliving, doesn't that preclude the insinuation of their dna into another cell's dna and replication? I'm, also, very confused by "self-replicating, but nonliving." It seems illogical that a self-replicating molecule is nonliving. Or am I missing something?
One more question before I take a nap: ( okay, I can't count -- proves I'm not the scientist here! lol )
Are not the above examples of bacteria, ant-eater and Charles more examples of traits of the existing genetic code exerting themselves and not mutations? I mean to say, how does a preexisting previously recessive trait constitute mutation or evolution? Adaptation by design, if it was programmed into the dna, perhaps? If a mutation leads to a new species, have any been found to be able to reproduce and continue the "mutation"?
|
|
rendclaw
Lone Wolf
[M0:7]Most common observation about me: "Sumtin not right wi' dat boay!"
Posts: 100
|
Post by rendclaw on Dec 18, 2006 11:46:30 GMT -5
And you are welcome Grif! This response puts you at 200 posts! lol I have found my purpose in life! Talk to you all after my nap!
|
|