Evolution

[ninja_lord666]

How did the first primitive cells multiply without any genetic material?

That's simple, primitive cells did have genetic material. How else could they have been alive? They may have only had a small strand of RNA, but that still is genetic material.

[Peregrine]

Care to name any of these "Scientiffic Theories"? In order for a point to be valid, you need to know its origin. For example Newton's second law F=ma ; is completely irrelevant with this topic. I am mearly stating that as you can not explain accuratly the orgin of life, with any substantial evidence, i don't believe in it. For example, i would mearly be saying F does not equal x*a ; where we don't know the origin of x. It could be displacement, pressure or some other wacked out variable, however, its unexplained.

 

Are you trying to miss the point? The point is that NO single scientific theory addresses every issue in a field, no matter what the field. Evolution deals with a specific process. How the initial building blocks of that process appeared is completely irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that they did. And that fact is essentially un-arguable.

 

The fact that you continue to make this point demonstrates beyond any doubt that you have zero real knowledge of how science works. You are completely un-qualified to give any opinion on the subject of evolution, so I have no idea why I even bother replying to you. Masochism I guess.

 

Ok, so basically you are saying that cells join together with the non-existant geetic material required to do so over millions of years. "Simple colonies", have you considered where these colonies most probobly would have been? It is extremely unlikely that the location would have simply been dosile, allowing colonies to form over long time periods simply due to the fact that their copies are directly next to them. This is because of the constant unstability of the earth billions of years ago, with volcanoes everywhere, water scarcly present if present at all, and new land being formbed by molten rock every day.

 

And you have no idea how small a colony would have to be for multicellular life to develop. Even two cells would be enough. For example, a cell with a mutation that caused its offspring cells to, under certain conditions, develop an exceptionally high movement ability (at the cost of needing energy from the parent, for example), that attribute could be favored by natural selection as it allows the cell to obtain food faster. Over time, the difference would become more and more exaggerated, and the cells would specialize in their specific roles. Repeat this process enough times, and you have modern life.

 

The evidence for this actually exists, by the way. There are colonies of bacteria (of different species though) that do exactly this. A larger central cell is the "body", and a cluster of smaller movement bacteria surround it.

 

I am not asking for some grand theory about the origins of everything. Im simply asking how you can possible say something happened with the key stage missing. For example, it would like be saing we developed electricity, and jumping from the dark ages to modern time.

 

The fact that you actually think this "key missing stage" is even relevant proves your complete ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and science in general. The key stage is NOT missing, we know that primitive forms of life exist and have existed in the past. That is all the Theory of Evolution needs to work, the exact process by which those initial life forms appeared is irrelevant.

 

I am not asking the immediate ancestor of fish, I am stating that its ancestors would have had to come from somewhere. How did the specialized cells form, from the primitive blobs of living material at the start. These cells would not have had the changeable genes present in todays organisms (eg human steam cells). Even if the cells were to join into large balls, the balls would be useless as they would not be specialized. The reason multicelled organisms "work" is because they have a series of specialized cells which form into tissues, organs and systems. This would not have been present and therefore complex organisms could not have developed from the primitive balls or clumps of single celled organisms.

 

Why is this so hard to understand? A gene for very limited and subtle specialization could appear by random mutation. Natural selection would favor this gene, and the specialization would increase over countless generations. Once again: evolution is a GRADUAL process.

 

This is where you are wrong. The example was brought up earlier by chrisb (or whatever) that we have seen bacteria and other nasty things which could once be treated by medical revolutions such as penicillin begin to change so that they are not effected by the preventative methods and therefore evolution is changing. Every exampel that can be brought un for example to wolf to the poodle follows this trend. For example, the poodle is obviously more primitive genetically than the wolf (i need not explain it), but with the bacteria, the thing the antibodies were treating was actually a specific trait common to them. The trait was lost, a new trait was not gained. Its genetics simply got more primitive, the complete reverse of evolution, proving nothing.

 

1) Penicillin is PROOF of evolution and natural selection. Some bacteria had genes that gave them resistance to the drug, and some didn't. The ones that didn't are now dead and not producing offspring. Any bacteria with an increased resistance, no matter how small, would have increased chances of survival and produce more offspring. Over time, natural selection favors an increase in drug resistance. The pre-penicillin bacteria is substantially different than its modern form, and guess what... this is evolution!

 

2) The idea that the poodle is more primitive than the wolf is just stupid. No information has been lost, the poodle is just adapted to a different environment and different selection pressures. Both animals are highly evolved, just for entirely different roles.

 

3) Looking at physical features is meaningless. Not only are the selection pressures different, but the majority of DNA in most organisms is "junk" DNA. In other words, obsolete genetic information that is ignored in the current organism. So saying an organism has only the absolute minimum of DNA required is just stupid.

 

 

Actually, you are mistaken. Plants have male and female sexual organs, just like humans. For example, if you eat an apple, you are actually eating the equivalent of the ovary of an apple tree. And to the plants not requiring muscles, you are blaitantly ignorant in this case. If you actually knew how plants reproduce, you would know they cant do it by themselves. The require plants and insects, which require muscles. Ah yes, and secondly, the birds and insects would require a need to pollinate the plants, did they have so in the beginning? I don't think so.

 

Wrong again, don't you ever think? Have you ever gone outside and noticed this thing called pollen? Guess what, that's plant reproduction at work, the pollen is spread from parent to parent by the wind, with no insects involved. Pollination by insects is effective, but it is not the only way plants can reproduce. But since it is more effective, any increase in that ability, no matter how minor, would be favored by natrual selection and tend to increase over time, producing the complex relationships you see in modern plants.

 

How did the first primitive cells multiply without any genetic material? How did the sexual system of reproduction come into play with the MALE and FEMALE reproductive systems perfectly in match? and the many others i have stated.

 

Cells were far down the line from genetic material. The first genetic material would have been free-floating. Only after it had increased in complexity would cell walls appear and the various structures begin to specialize (at least some of which have their origins in OTHER forms of primitive life which were absorbed by the ancestor cell).

 

PS: once again, i needed to delete some old quotes becaues i posted more than the allowed blocks. I have tried to include the cut quotes combined however.

 

You can make two posts, you know. Please think.

[name_not_availble]

And you have no idea how small a colony would have to be for multicellular life to develop. Even two cells would be enough. For example, a cell with a mutation that caused its offspring cells to, under certain conditions, develop an exceptionally high movement ability (at the cost of needing energy from the parent, for example), that attribute could be favored by natural selection as it allows the cell to obtain food faster. Over time, the difference would become more and more exaggerated, and the cells would specialize in their specific roles. Repeat this process enough times, and you have modern life.

 

The evidence for this actually exists, by the way. There are colonies of bacteria (of different species though) that do exactly this. A larger central cell is the "body", and a cluster of smaller movement bacteria surround it.

 

Firstly, multi-cellular beings are considered single entities for a reason, because all their little parts and pieces work together. Now, would you consider two, single cells next to eachother a single entity. No. Most people would consider it two things that are next to eachother. The difference between the complexity of a human, and the complexity of a small colony, is that all the parts of a human are necessary. A colony of five could live without one of its members, however a human can't live without a liver. This proves that a colony of cells is not a multi-cellular organism, but instead a group of single celled organisms.

 

The fact that you actually think this "key missing stage" is even relevant proves your complete ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and science in general. The key stage is NOT missing, we know that primitive forms of life exist and have existed in the past. That is all the Theory of Evolution needs to work, the exact process by which those initial life forms appeared is irrelevant.

 

The reason the beginning of the process is important is because you cant have an end without a beginning.

 

Why is this so hard to understand? A gene for very limited and subtle specialization could appear by random mutation. Natural selection would favor this gene, and the specialization would increase over countless generations. Once again: evolution is a GRADUAL process.

 

Prove it. (examples in theory don't count)

 

1) Penicillin is PROOF of evolution and natural selection. Some bacteria had genes that gave them resistance to the drug, and some didn't. The ones that didn't are now dead and not producing offspring. Any bacteria with an increased resistance, no matter how small, would have increased chances of survival and produce more offspring. Over time, natural selection favors an increase in drug resistance. The pre-penicillin bacteria is substantially different than its modern form, and guess what... this is evolution!

 

2) The idea that the poodle is more primitive than the wolf is just stupid. No information has been lost, the poodle is just adapted to a different environment and different selection pressures. Both animals are highly evolved, just for entirely different roles.

 

3) Looking at physical features is meaningless. Not only are the selection pressures different, but the majority of DNA in most organisms is "junk" DNA. In other words, obsolete genetic information that is ignored in the current organism. So saying an organism has only the absolute minimum of DNA required is just stupid.

 

1) Through the developement of 'superbugs' the bugs lost genes. This is the complete opposite of gaining genes, which evolution requires.

 

2)The poodle is genetically more primitive than a wolf. Look it up.

 

3)What is the relevence of this point? Junk DNA wouldn't have been present in primitive cells. The fact is the DNA required to be mutated, and required to multiply was not there. Simply a buch of chemicals aparantly.

 

Wrong again, don't you ever think? Have you ever gone outside and noticed this thing called pollen? Guess what, that's plant reproduction at work, the pollen is spread from parent to parent by the wind, with no insects involved. Pollination by insects is effective, but it is not the only way plants can reproduce. But since it is more effective, any increase in that ability, no matter how minor, would be favored by natrual selection and tend to increase over time, producing the complex relationships you see in modern plants.

 

Do you know the % of plants which reproduce using pollen? Less than half. If you had done 10th grade biology, you would have realized that there are only two ways for plants to reproduce. There are flowering plants and non flowering plants. The flowering plants make up the vast majority.

 

Cells were far down the line from genetic material. The first genetic material would have been free-floating. Only after it had increased in complexity would cell walls appear and the various structures begin to specialize (at least some of which have their origins in OTHER forms of primitive life which were absorbed by the ancestor cell).

 

By the way, i would just like to say that you have become hypocritical in saying this. In your very first post on this surver, you had to say that everything on this server basically had to be proven, and no assumptions based on beliefs could be made. Guess what you just did. Need i say more?

 

I'm not going to, im tired

[Switch]

Marcus Wolf's last two posts removed. Off-topic spam, please don't post until you're ready to actually debate. ;)

[ninja_lord666]

Firstly, multi-cellular beings are considered single entities for a reason, because all their little parts and pieces work together. Now, would you consider two, single cells next to eachother a single entity. No. Most people would consider it two things that are next to eachother. The difference between the complexity of a human, and the complexity of a small colony, is that all the parts of a human are necessary. A colony of five could live without one of its members, however a human can't live without a liver. This proves that a colony of cells is not a multi-cellular organism, but instead a group of single celled organisms.

All parts of a human are necessary? So all those people out there with amputated arms and legs don't realize that they're dead? Some parts are necessary, yes, but not all. Lets say there is a central cell and six smaller movement cells surrounding it. The central cell would be like our head and body, containing all the important stuff, and the six movement cells would be like six legs. If you take off a movement cell, the rest of it will still live (however that cell will die because it needs energy from the body cell). Just like a normal body, if the central body cell dies, everything dies.

Now do you see that cell colonies are multicellular organisms? Or are you still completely ignorant?

 

 

The reason the beginning of the process is important is because you cant have an end without a beginning.

That is true, but evolution hasn't ended, and the only time it will end is when every living thing on the planet dies.

 

 

Do you know the % of plants which reproduce using pollen? Less than half. If you had done 10th grade biology, you would have realized that there are only two ways for plants to reproduce. There are flowering plants and non flowering plants. The flowering plants make up the vast majority.

So? Just because the majority of plants don't reproduce with pollen doesn't mean anything. The point still is that some plants reproduce with pollen.

[Peregrine]

Firstly, multi-cellular beings are considered single entities for a reason, because all their little parts and pieces work together. Now, would you consider two, single cells next to eachother a single entity. No. Most people would consider it two things that are next to eachother. The difference between the complexity of a human, and the complexity of a small colony, is that all the parts of a human are necessary. A colony of five could live without one of its members, however a human can't live without a liver. This proves that a colony of cells is not a multi-cellular organism, but instead a group of single celled organisms.

 

Ok, listen for once: EVOLUTION IS A GRADUAL PROCESS. There is a full range of cooperation available, from very minimal, to such a high degree of specialization that the whole can't work without all of its parts. If cooperation is a benefit, natural selection will tend to enhance even small amounts of cooperation and specialization, and over time you will see the levels present in modern life.

 

 

 

The fact that you actually think this "key missing stage" is even relevant proves your complete ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and science in general. The key stage is NOT missing, we know that primitive forms of life exist and have existed in the past. That is all the Theory of Evolution needs to work, the exact process by which those initial life forms appeared is irrelevant.

 

The reason the beginning of the process is important is because you cant have an end without a beginning.

 

I've said this countless times: read the damn theory before making these kind of claims. The fact that you actually think this is a legitimate argument shows your appalling ignorance of both the Theory of Evolution and scientific theories in general. But just to be clear, the things that are required for evolution:

 

1) A self-replicating entity.

 

2) A copying process that is very accurate, so beneficial changes are not lost in the next generation.

 

3) A small error rate in that copying process. Note that because of fundamental laws of physics (entropy), this is inevitable. While various methods may have higher or lower error rates and therefore faster or slower rates of evolution, literal perfection is impossible.

 

4) Selection pressures from the outside environment. Again, fundamental laws make this inevitable. Due to the properties of exponential growth, within a relatively small number of generations, the theoretical maximum population will exceed the total number of atoms in the universe. Therefore there will be competition for the limited resources to build more replicators, and natural selection will occur.

 

 

Note that the origin of these requirements is irrelevant. If the initial replicators are organic compounds provided by inanimate chemistry, fine. If the initial replicators are primitive cells put here by god, fine. If the initial replicators are fully-developed animals put here by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine. In all of these cases, evolution will occur. The only question is exactly what point it is starting from.

 

Why is this so hard to understand? A gene for very limited and subtle specialization could appear by random mutation. Natural selection would favor this gene, and the specialization would increase over countless generations. Once again: evolution is a GRADUAL process.

 

Prove it. (examples in theory don't count)

 

Nice double standard for proof. How about you prove that it can't. We already have a model of evolution, supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence. That model easily produces a theoretical explanation for an event that would leave no physical proof (as primitve cells do not leave fossils). It might be all theory in this specific case, but it is a very solid theory.

 

On the other hand, you fail to provide any alternative explanation, with physical proof or theory. If you think you can do better than the evolutionary explanation, then provide your explanation for how multicellular life developed.

 

 

1) Through the developement of 'superbugs' the bugs lost genes. This is the complete opposite of gaining genes, which evolution requires.

 

2)The poodle is genetically more primitive than a wolf. Look it up.

 

3)What is the relevence of this point? Junk DNA wouldn't have been present in primitive cells. The fact is the DNA required to be mutated, and required to multiply was not there. Simply a buch of chemicals aparantly.

 

Please think. This is reallly a lot less embarassing for you if you bother to think about what you're saying before making arguments.

 

Junk DNA is relevant because it demonstrates that organisms do not have only the absolute minimum of genetic material required for their life. For various reasons, the amount of genetic material can increase. To "gain genes", all that has to happen is a mutation somewhere that makes use of that formerly-junk DNA, whether by activating formerly inactive genes, or simply overwriting the old junk with useful genes.

 

Also note that you have provided absolutely no evidence or theory to support your assumption that gaining genes is impossible.

 

 

Wrong again, don't you ever think? Have you ever gone outside and noticed this thing called pollen? Guess what, that's plant reproduction at work, the pollen is spread from parent to parent by the wind, with no insects involved. Pollination by insects is effective, but it is not the only way plants can reproduce. But since it is more effective, any increase in that ability, no matter how minor, would be favored by natrual selection and tend to increase over time, producing the complex relationships you see in modern plants.

 

Do you know the % of plants which reproduce using pollen? Less than half. If you had done 10th grade biology, you would have realized that there are only two ways for plants to reproduce. There are flowering plants and non flowering plants. The flowering plants make up the vast majority.

 

I see. So now you're going to dodge the argument, and go from "complex organs are required for sexual reproduction" to "not all plants can reproduce in this way". To disprove your initial statement, all I need is ONE example of sexual reproduction without the complex organs you claimed were required. I have provided it, therefore you are wrong. The fact that many organisms have moved beyond that absolute minimum is completely irrelevant.

 

Cells were far down the line from genetic material. The first genetic material would have been free-floating. Only after it had increased in complexity would cell walls appear and the various structures begin to specialize (at least some of which have their origins in OTHER forms of primitive life which were absorbed by the ancestor cell).

 

By the way, i would just like to say that you have become hypocritical in saying this. In your very first post on this surver, you had to say that everything on this server basically had to be proven, and no assumptions based on beliefs could be made. Guess what you just did. Need i say more?

 

The fact that you think this is just an assumption based on beliefs shows your utter ignorance of science. Why do you think you are even remotely qualified to participate in this debate if you don't even understand what you're arguing about?

 

I could spend a few hours yelling at you about how the scientifc method works, and why (and under what circumstances) theoretical models are valid, but it would be a waste of effort. Go pick up a basic textbook and take the time to learn this before you embarass yourself any more than you already have.

[Peregrine]

By the way, hoots7, you're not going to dodge a public debate on this by emailing me. I have removed your religious content and will address that privately as it is against forum rules, but you will not hide your other arguments:

 

Good morning Peregrine,

You wrote at the end of one of your recent post “By the way, I would

appreciate it if you would either address my comments on macro- vs.

micro-evolution, instead of being an evasive troll and pretending I never

said anything.”

 

Peregrine, I did not see the question; guess you will have to ask it

again.

You wrote about how they were inclusive of one another but I saw no

question there.

 

Note that I never said "question", I said "comments". Either provide a counter-argument to them, or concede that all of your arguments about macro- vs. micro-evolution were wrong. You will not simply pretend that this never happened.

 

You did ask me how old I thought the earth is. And I answer you about

6 thousand years, maybe more but not

4.5 billion.

 

So, to quote from my first post in this thread: Against this position is essentially all of science: all of modern biology, all of astronomy, large sections of physics, large sections of chemistry (including all of organic/biochem), and significant parts of ancient history (including continuous historical records of human civilizations older than 10,000 years).

 

Do you have any empirical evidence for this position, or have you just arbitrarily declared that all of science is wrong?

 

I commend you Peregrine you have enough guts to come right out and

admit that if the earth is too young you would have no case.

 

Lucky me then, that the earth isn't too young.

 

I asked you this: In your opinion, what is the minimum amount of years

it can take for humans to reach the evolutionary stage that they are at

now?

You answered “About 14 billion years, the age of the universe”.

14 – 4.5 = 9.5 so you are telling me we started evolving somewhere

else other than on earth, some scientist actually think we may have

started evolving on Mars and then some bacteria was transferred from it by

the meteorite ALH84001 which they say landed here about 13,000 years

ago.

Or if you believe in evolutionary miracles we evolved on the earth at

the same time it was being formed by the big bang.

 

None of the above. If the age of the universe was different, the earth would not have developed exactly as it did (if it did at all). Therefore the complex chain of events and environmental pressures that produced humans would also not have happened. While life may or may not have evolved, and may or may not have reached human-like levels of intelligence/complexity/etc, it would not be humans.

 

Now if you wanted to ask what the minimum time required to develop life of human-like complexity is, you would at least have a question that isn't complete nonsense. But even if you were able to define those minimum standards in any useful and measurable way, the answer would rely on far too many assumptions about that life and the environment it exists in. For example, the minimum time for intelligent life could be only a few years... if we assume a breeding cycle of a fraction of a second, an ideal mutaiton rate, and perfect environmental factors. Or the minimum time could be more than the age of the universe, if we assume a breeding cycle of thousands of years, and a mutation rate a tiny fraction of DNA copying in modern life.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Wait a second....

I think I've figured out how poodles can be genetically primitive compared to wolves.

 

First, you must understand that our 'refinement' (selective breeding) of dogs has often lead to incest/inbreeding, giving the poodle a small gene pool that rarely updates.

 

Then, consider the love life of wolves. They will travel dozens, even hundreds, of miles, before settling down with a mate. This gives wolves a larger gene pool.

 

Of course, one might throw in the fact that only the Alpha pair breeds in wolves, but don't we (sorta) do that with dogs too?

[ResidentWeevil2077]

Wait a second....

I think I've figured out how poodles can be genetically primitive compared to wolves.

 

First, you must understand that our 'refinement' (selective breeding) of dogs has often lead to incest/inbreeding, giving the poodle a small gene pool that rarely updates.

 

Then, consider the love life of wolves. They will travel dozens, even hundreds, of miles, before settling down with a mate. This gives wolves a larger gene pool.

 

Of course, one might throw in the fact that only the Alpha pair breeds in wolves, but don't we (sorta) do that with dogs too?

You know, I think you're absolutely right. I actually never gave it any thought, but now that you mention it, I believe many of our so-called "pure-bred" animals (including horses) are generally "weaker" when comparing gene pools and the like.

 

You might also consider the fact that many of these "pure-breeds" are much more susceptable to genetic disorders, since any mutant gene (or a really f**ked up one for that matter :wacko: ) continues to affect each individual within that breed.

 

If I can recall from Bio 30 (and forgive my lack of post-secondary knowledge for the input on this :dry: ), but because these genetic disorders are transfered down through successive generations, those disorders will eventually become a dominant trait of the breed.

 

So, all I can say is that our so-called "refinement" leads to a very f**ked up breed of animal (one more reason I hate pretentious snobs and bigots :rolleyes: ).

[Marcus Wolfe]

Of course if this mutation/flaw/genetic disorder was something we actually wanted in the animal (let's say, a camel being too dumb to try and run away)................

 

Dude, we humans can be so twisted sometimes.