Well, Darwin's theory of evolution says we evolved from different organisms, I believe in this theory, but does it actually have a base? Where did the first organisms come from?
-
True theory22% Voted for by Black-Angel-001, pwincessovfantasy, iota2208, oRis1024.
Evolution does exist. That doens't mean humans evolved from monkeys, but other creatures have evolved, for the sake of surrvival.
-
I have my doubts.11% Voted for by Crystalic, Renaldo.
I strongly believe we evolved from monkeys, I mean, we share basically the same general traits. Body shape, body hair, internal organs, etc. This is all fine evidence but I have yet to find the origin of the bacteria we originated from.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Nobody knows. Leading theories say they came from bacteria already on meteorites that bombarded our early planet, or due to the chemicals in our primordial soup combined with vast storms and heat. There was an experiment, Miller-Eurey or something, done not too long ago where they did some sort of test in something--could have been a a small vial or a room for all I know. Anyway, they used a combination of chemicals in what was believed to be early Earth and added electrcity or something. Very primitive things, like amino acids or RNA or something, were able to come from the outcome. Now last I heard (a couple years ago) we've figured maybe they weren't right as to which chemicals were in early earth...which actually serves just fine, because I don't see how those primitive things could have evolved into anything of importance. But it proved that carbonated organisms can be fromed in SOME chemicals at least. I dunno lol, I'm a little lazy right now. Google if if you're really interested, I'm sure they'll try to correct any spelling mistakes I made.
-
Evolution
weydon is correct on the fact of the amino acid creation theory and experiment, but everything evolved from bacteria including monkeys and humans. Sorry to attack you but MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS. The evolutionary chain forked; one path leading to mankind, and the other leading to simians. This is what the missing link is; the one animal that both simians and man evolved from. This meaning that man and monkeys have evolved from the same animal, one that has yet to be discovered. The fact that man and simian dna is so close is just a fact of time. Since everything evolved from bacteria or the amino acids in the primordial soup, everything shares the same dna to an extent. The contrast in the actual dna strand just depends on how long ago the dna chain split. Man and monkeys have very similar dna because our evolutionary fork was much sooner than say the missing link's dna and a rhino's dna. It is all just a matter of time. Like the fact that if you look far enough back in time all humans are related, if you look far enough back intime all species were related. I hope this helps your evolutionary philosophies. John -
-
Is this a scientific theory or one of them we think up?
-
-
...YOU may have evolved from monkeys but i didn't. Um yeah and i also wanted to ask you, why are monkeys still around if we evolved from them???
-
-
Pwincess, John has just eloquently pointed out that we didn't evolve from monkeys
-
-
oh, cool...i think i like him then...
-
-
If we evolved from them and kept evolving then they could still be around.
-
-
Why are there different types of monkeys?
-
we didn't evolve from monkeys, we were LIKE monkeys- monkeys SHARE a commonn ancestry....there was once a time when humans and another humanlike species lived together- they were called...i forget....lol
-
I believe evolution is iompossible
First of all, I would like to say genetic similarities is far greater proof for a God than evolution. If evolution was true, animals would like to become genetically different from eachother. SO that their chemistry will be different enough to kill other who try to eat it. What makes sense is that because we live in the same earth, that God would give us all similar organs. Take the yolk for example, It's perfect for feeding chicks in an egg. But using the same design (the yolk) for human babies is something an intelegent designer would do. Use the same type of organ to fufill 2 different purposes for 2 different creations. Plus if all animals were extremely different, then there would be major problems. Animals coulnd't live because they would have no food source or couldn't work interdependantly with eachother. Kind of like plants and animals. If they were all differnt from eachother, then the whole cycle of the planet's resources would be out of whack.
Hey, I wrote this topic, but because it got filled with a whole bunch of stuff I didn't like, i'm going to refine everything. into one big topic.
In order to find proof of God, you must search for it. You cannot have anyone else find it for you because you can jsut be willingly ignorant of the facts. But there is no way for our exsistance to be true if there was no creator. Here are some reason why I believe in an intellegent creator instead of evolution.
Sorry, evolution is just impossible from all angles, and this is only the tip of the iceberg
Here are my two cents.
There are 2 types of amino acids.
Right and Left handed amino acids.... They are made of exsactly the same atoms, but are mirror images of eachother. just like your right and left hand (im not being really technical right now) Thease amino acids can turn from left to right and vice versa. This occurs when an animal dies because the Dna starts breaking up allowing amino acids to change. This is when amino acids racemize. Scientists conclude that 20 million years is the MAX amount of time it takes for all the amino acids to have a ratio of 50:50 even it it started out as 100:0 (this is because of the law of chance)
All DNA in the world that produces living organisms is made of left-handed amino acids. This is very simple, yes?
Now as we go back "billions of years" we come to the promordial soup, witch is rich in.. not amino acids... TAR. Yup 85% tar. This is what happens when the chemichals needed for life are struck by lightnening and the process continues. But there is a trace of amino acids to allow life to begin! Now lets start the fun part!
Amino acids come in two forms, right and left handed (as explained earlier) In order to come up with a working protein, they must all be left handed. if not the protein curls up and becomes completely uselss untill it breaks down.
When lightning or any other form of energy causes amino acids to combine, there is a 50:50 chance that an amino acid will be right or left handed. In order for 2 amino acids to be left handed, the odds would be 1:4 (1 to 2^2) In order for it to be 3 it would be 1:8 (1 to 2^3) in order for it to be 9 it would be 1:512 (1 to 2^9). Now if we were to have the scientists conclusion of the simplest form of life possible to survive, there would be 100,000 base pairs (note the simplest one alive today has around 500,000, but I will be nice) So in order for functional DNA to begin (not life), we start of with the odds of 1:2^100,000th power.
Now Good thing we have high tech calculators. The total odds would be 1:10x30102 (10 with 30102 zeros after it) (I rounded from 9.99 to 10, just to make it easier)
Now we go to the scientists with their most conservative numbers possible. And here we have it. If the odds of somthing occuring in our universe (this includes how big it is) were smaller than 1 to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (50 zeros) It couldn't happen at all in our universe.(the odds for the DNA has more than 600 times more 0s)
But let's say that even against all odds, we come up with a good DNA sample with 100,000 base pairs. Now what? In order for DNA to function properly, It must be inside a cell to keep it from breaking down and to carry out the DNa's instructions. In order for a cell to form, The DNA must be able to make a Cell. We are in a bit of a chicken and egg argument. One we start out with a chicken who can't lay eggs. So in order for it to work properly, the 1000s of parts have to be in exsistance when the DNA forms, right next to were the DNA is forming. But the parts cannot exsist without the DNA to form them using the parts that the DNA must make. All of a sudden, the first life forms come to a complete stand-still. The odds of lighting turning the correct molecules into over 1000 different parts and the DNA right next to eachother, with a cell membrane to keep it all together, and to have the correct part for the DNA, are absolutely astronomical. In fact, we would have to start using the expression
1 to 10^#^#. The number of zeros would need to be put in scientific notation just so it would fit in a screen. But let's say that even against all odds it works. It just simply works out. Just once. We can deal with it. It's just a number right? Now we have an even bigger problem... It's too cold for thease reactions to occur billions of years ago. Here is why.
As a star ages, it gets hotter and brighter. (unlike what you are taught in textbooks) This is because when nuclear fusion takes place, 4 hydrogen nuclei turn into 1 helium nucleus, and energy. When this occurs, it gets hotter, and the nucleuses get closer together (1 helium nucleus takes less room than 4 helium, even if it is bigger, it takes less space) When atoms are closer together, and hotter, nuclean fusion can happen easier and faster. It is only common sense.
But there is a problem here. If stars get hotter as they age, then a star would be cooloer if we go back in time. If we were to go back in time billions of years, using the most conservative numbers, the planet of earth would be waaaaaaay to cold for such chemical reactions to occur.(The point were many gases would freeze) But there is still another problem with the first cell idea.
Our earth is in the most perfect place in the galaxie. Just look at it. First, our star gives off the perfect amount of energy according to how far we are from it. If it was a red supergiant, then it would engulf the inner planets.If it was a very bright star, it would emit way too much high frequency light waves. Too small, and we would experience terrible tidals waves constantly because we would have to be very close to it in order for it to support life. Most stars are in binary, trinary, or polynary orbits, this would cause extreme tempurature differences on the planets that orbit the stars. Many other stars with preferable characteristics as our own star usually have terrible coronal ejections 10-100million times worse than our own star. worse than our own. We really do have a special star. And there would be at most 100 of them in our galaxie. But at most 2 would probally have a planet that was the correct distance from it. But here is more.
In our solar system, the gas planets are far away from the sun, when rocky planets are close. This is completely contradicted in other solarsystems.
999:1 times the gas planets are close to the sun. Why didn't that happen in our solar system? Why did it happen to theirs? It just points out that something had to keep it from being a disaster. If gas planets were to rotate inwards, it would suck up the "life bearing" planet. But if it were to start close, then why didn't it happen in our solar system? Why does it just come up so that everything works for it? But here's more.
When stars rotate in a galaxie, they can either be neer the middle of a galaxie, or neer the edge. Because our sun's orbit is circular, it doesn't get very close neer the center were supernova are much more common. It also orbits paralell to the galactic plane. Crossing over this plane would be very disruptive. Plus the sun orbits at an ideal distance from the galactal center. only here does the rotation of stars match that of the spiral's arms. Crossing over an arm would expose it to tons of supernova.
The odds of our star to have the right distance from us, size, heat, stability, distance from the galactal center, with it's paralell orbit to have rock planets closer to it than gas planets, witch a plant at the right angle to allow the right distribution of seasons, at the right rotation speed to allow equal distribution of the sun's light, with a powerful enough magnetic feild to protect it, the right magnetic feild that wouldn't suck iron out of your blood, to be altering the laws of physics to start out at the right tempurature and not get hotter like what it should be, to create the correct corresponding parts for a cell with the correct DNA (all left-handed amino acids) to just randomly come into exsistance, are 1 to 10^*sideways 8*
But let's break the odd bearier for just once moment of time! just once! let's see were this first cell takes us. The cell has no food souce exept the tar.... It can only get it's energy from the sun. Ok, we just will skip all the imposibilities and go on to were it comes to work. the cell divides, copying it's genetic information. This continues. In only a few days, the bacteria would have consumed the entire earth... Kinda a drag, breaking all thease odds, and you just completely eat up the perfectly formed earth. But that isn't completely logical, the bacteria would die out turning into food for the stronger bacteria.
But lets look at it now. We have bacteria. A cosmic ray hits it causing a base pair to be destroyed, the DNA repairing agency inside the cell accidentally makes a mistake. Creating a mutation. WOO HOO! out first form of evolution... or is it? Most mutations are harmful and usually destroy data. So that specific bacteria cell just doesn't work as well as it should, but because it was only one base pair, it can still multiply.
Over the years, more genetic mutations will occur, but 99.95% of them will be harmful to the bacteria. Even if a good mutation were to occur, it would drown in the lake of bad mutations.
We don't even see evolution today. We simply see either a harmful mutation helping an organism (like sickle-celled disease, and and overworking pump in bacteria). A removal of Genetics that help the organism. Like when a baby can form lacate (I think I spelled right) in order to digest milk, but a switch in the DNA turns it off when they get older. A mutation can cause the switch to not work properly and we continue to form lacate to digest milk).When variations, like a group of tan people going to africa, were only the darker skinned people survive. and cause genetics for light skin to slowly die away as darker traits are being put in. Or were people who could digest food ok, moved up to mountain areas, were cheese was a vital form of food, people who couldn't digest cheese that well (Lactose intolerant) would die, and people who could digest it very well would be healthier.
But thats about it, variations in exsisting traits, or harmful mutations allowing some things to not happen (like chopping off your legs so you don't get athlete's foot)
But the problem is all organs would have to completely arise. Fully and wholly. If a bump were to "try" to evolve into a leg, it would be considered useless because it would get in the way of say a creeping organism. The bump would be dragging on the floor, making it infectable easier. Thus It would die. Unless the bump were to have muscles and bones in order to help the creeping animal, it would simply die, and the odds of a bump having the right muscles and bones in it are extrmely unscientific as well.
Not only that, we see absolutely no form of macroevolution. macroevolution is were you have arising complexity, but that is not true. out of the trillions of fish we see, none of them have a prmitive form of lung. Out of all the plants, none of them have growing brains, blood, or any characteristic much like an animal (even carnivorous plants digest food completely different from animals)
And if evolution was true, then we wouldn't even need a classification system. Because every single animal would be evolving. Every single animal would be a transitional form. But that is not seen. A bat is always a bat. a kangaroo is always a kangaroo, a human is always a human. There isn't anything in between them. Sure we have say like a chimp between dogs and us. But that is irrelevant. because a dog is a dog, a chimp is a chimp, and a human is a human. but if evolution were true, almost all the animals would be different filling up every single gap between them. But we don't see that. Even evolutionist say that the present is the key to the past. And if you look at the present, I see God's wonderful creation being able to adapt using the genetic diveristy that God was smart enough to give them in the beginning, ruled by man, the image of God. Nothing becoming more complex, just decaying with time as genetic mutations start to harm all the animals and humans.
Our culture is fed the lie that we are simply evolved monkeys. That is why creationist try their best to help save the people in this decaying word. Some think we are jesus freaks trying to "save" them. But it is completely your choice to have faith in the text books who lie to you, or faith in a bible written by supernatually inspired honest men.
Here are some weak arguments some people has used against me... (Words within squiggleys are written by me, words within ^^^'s are by the people against me.
^^^for starters, i am going to state that i dont know everything about science and will only state what i do know (i am a first year bio sci student and have taken courses in astronomy and psychology)
right and left handed proteins... never heard of this term and i have been doing cellular biology for three years. my guess one of your teachers used it as an example. in the primortal soup, we have molecules that had the potential to form proteins, sugars and nucleic acids. back then, the earth was much more hostile place. there was no Ozone layer to protect creatures like us, and the earth was much more violent and toxic. volcanoes and radiation provided much of the energy that it took to push chemicals into forming organic molecules. you can even do this experiment.^^
~~~~~~~~~~The reason you don't hear about them is because they are ommited in textbooks. Just ask your teacher about them. If he does know congratz for him, and challenge him with my topic. But he most likely won't kn ow because it isn't taught. And that is why evolution has such a bug hit. They just don't tell how the first chemichals form into the ight parts of a cell. And they aren't right and left handed proteines, but right and elft handed amino acids. A protene can be made with both, or only right handed ones, but it would not be suitable for life, and then curl up.
The Miller-Urey test formed mainly tar, with only trace amounts of amino acids. So chemichal evolution (also one of the 6 evolutions) is scientifically impossible to produce life. If you were to do the epiriment yourself, There wouldn't be any life, or even proteines, but just the building blods for only some proteins, witch are the building block for life
"The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.
Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2).21 The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’ The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions."
Souce "Answers in Genesis"~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^yes, it is nearly impossible for this to happen, ya its got a lot of zeros on the end but it also means that it has a chance of happening. and it did. it took millions of years, but it still happened.^^
~~~~~~~~~~~~ No it didn't, There is no chance for something, Scientists conclude that 1 to 10^50 is "impossible", or is infitismalley small enough to conclude it is impossible. And the odds of chemichal evolution is 10^600 times smaller than "what is impossible".~~~~
^^on to stars. when stars form, (like our sun) they form onto what astronomers call the Main Sequence (or MS). The MS houses most of the stars in our universe, with a few exceptions of dwarfs and giants (which were actually formed from MS stars). now, when a star forms, it finds a balance through gravity and pressure. this means that the gravity that is pulling everything into the centre of the star is equal to the pressure of those elements pushing back.^^
~~~~~~~~~~ In order for their to be a balance of gravity and pressure, The atoms have to be dense enough. But all gas that we see in space is around 400 times thinner than the gas in our own atmosphere. Not even the gas in our atmosphere can pull itself together, It would much rather separate into the vacuum of space. This is because even if an atmosphere was lightyears across, Gravity would literally have no effect. Because there is no pressure even in the middle of the gas. This is because the gas on the outside of the ball of gas moves outward, Meaning there is no chance for the gas inside it to move inward. Because if the gas inside were to move inward, it would cause a vacuum between the gas moving outward, and the gas moving inward. So the gas moving inward would just separate along with all the other gas. In order for stars to form, It must be a liquid, or solid. Liquids can't form in a vacuum, so it has to be solid. Solids aren't able to form through the condensation of light. So no matter could ever pull itself together into stars after the big bang.~~~~~~
^^the temperature to fuse H into He is around 150,000,000 K. and as chemists know, temperature is directly proportional to pressure. thus, the temperature cannot change until something happens to change the pressure in our sun. this something is the core of the sun possessing no more H to fuse into He. in a star the size of our sun, it takes 10 billion years (its only 4.8 BY old so dont worry). and yes, when the star runs out of H it does expand and will eventually consume the earth (mars may not be) and then there is a large, unnessary amount of information about red giants that i am not going to cover.^^
~~~~~~~~~~Tempurature is not directly perportioned to pressure. It is highly related, but not directly. Because I can go 9ft underwater, but I'm not twice as hot as when I was above the water. (9 ft water=earth's entire atmosphere) even though there is twice as much pressure. The same with stars. Tempurature isn't direct correlate with pressure. But highly correlated. as tempurature goes up, pressure goes up. SO you have things a little backwards. If the tempurature goes up, the pressure in the star goes up, simply because the atoms move faster. And density also plays a huge role in nuclear fusion. The denser the plasma is, the easier it is for nuclei to fuse together. That is because the Nuclei are closer already. And the increased pressure also does a great deal.~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^for starters, i did not say related i said proportional. there is a difference. read up on charles law. actually read up on everything above. obviously you believe that nothing can happen by chance, and that some god has their hand in the soup but whatever.^^
~~Lol, you believe anything can happen within 20 billion years. You simply just have faith that evolution is correct. And that means you have a religeon or evolution. Because you put your faith in something that can't happen unless something supernature were to happen. You're just being "Willingly Ignorant" (2nd Peter 3) You're not even qustioning evolution, unless you are, but you are not showing it.~~
^^im a scientist. i question it all the time. but there is also evidence for it and i have yet to prove it wrong. sure, not all of it is complete, but i am one of those people who work and think on it alot. not sure what 2nd peter3 means. i'm guessing your quoting a book.^^
~~There is no evidence for Macroevolution. And I will refute all your proof~~
~~New topic~~
^^sigh. when will at least one person on this site stat evolution as it is, and not as people think it is???
for starters, evolution does not mean that things get more complicated. it can go either way.^^
~~~~~~Tell us what kind of evolution you're talking about and it's definition. Chemical, stellar, micro, macro? there are two more, but I forgot em =P, macroevolution says things dont get more complicated, just more complex. That is required for us to have all the variety of animals we have today, and Microevolution explain variations of the genes within a "kind"~~~
^^well i will state some obvious evolutionary points in history but whether you believe me is up to you
mass dinosaur exctiction. what do we know about them?? that they were cold blooded animals right? right. when the asteroid struck the earth, and blocking out the sun, there were two kinds of animals on the planet. mammals (us) and reptillians. the reptilians needed warm weather to survive. whereas mammals did not. as the months pass by with very little warmth, the dinosaurs do not have the means of getting food to their cells, and they eventually die. mammals dont need to have sun to have their bodies workin properly. and were able to survive with the little warmth that got through to the earth.~~
~~~~ That is if you believed Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But how come we have unfosilized dinosaur bones in Australia (research reported on AiG website) (When unfosilized bones would disintegrate), How can we find soft tissue inside muscles (the animal) witch are supposedly millions of years old and still look exsactly like the muscles we have today, Can can we find Blood and soft tissue in T-rex bones millions of years old
(Direct quote from Dr. Menton)
"A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana."
How can we find amino acids in fossiles millions of years old? Amino acids should've completely broken down by now. The only explanation is that they wewre all buried and fosilized 4300 years ago. (Animals have to fossilize fast, or they will decay)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^^Evolution.
another, much more recient evolution. anti-bacterial resistant bacteria. when we use anti-bacterials, we do not kill off every single bacteria. some are resistant to this anti-bacterial. these bacteria are able to reproduce offspring with this same resistance. there is no other type of non-resistant bacteria left, so this new, stronger bacterium have evolved to suit this new world. evolution.^^
~~~~~~~~~~Define stronger. The mutations that cause bacteria to be resistant is a different type of mutation, and is not the evolution needed to make species truely stronger.
"Penicillin, a chemical extracted from a fungus, acts on the ‘body builders!’ in many bacterial cells. After exposure to penicillin, many bacteria cannot produce murein, a substance used in making and repairing the cell wall of a bacteria. This cell wall is the bacteria’s defense. Without a cell wall, water soaks into the bacteria too fast, and it bursts. Without a cell wall, the bacteria’s normal means of reproduction-splitting in two-cannot be achieved. For all intents and purposes, a bacteria exposed to penicillin is rendered dead or harmless, or at least they used to be.
Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls, it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not. These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. Some naturally observed bacteria are also without cell walls and a few of them are very dangerous to man. The pneumonia-like, wall-less bacteria contains some real pasties. Without a cell wall penicillin is of little significance to most of these organisms. It would seem likely that these pneumonia-like organisms are descendants of other bacteria that have lost the ability to make a cell wall. They are degenerate forms and their disease producing relationship to man is a degenerate relationship. Their penicillin resistance is not something they gained in the genetic sense, but something they have (in some cases) because of what they have lost."
just because a bacterium is stronger int he circumstance, doesn't mean it's stronger. It just means the chemichal has lost the ability to be effected by the chemichal. Not gain an ability to be resistant of it. If it were truely evolution, Then a gene would cause bacteria to be able to control the influx of water it is receiving. Or if it has the ability to continue multipling at the same speed even though there is penicillin atatcking it.
This is the same with all forms of "evolution". there is a loss in genetics, or something that is used to help the cell work good is damaged, but as a result, it is immune to something that would hurt it.~~~
~~New topic~~
y^^es right now we dont see evolution happening. but just think about it. there are a few humans out there that are resistant to HIV, people who do not get sick from polutants as much as we used to. we are evolving. it is a slow process, not something that happens over night to an individual.^^
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People are resistant to HIV because of a harmfuil mutation that prevents them from being effected from it. What happens is the cells of the person who has the HIV virus in them have "keyholes" in witch the HIV virus must have the key for. There are mutations that cause the "keyholes" to become deformed. It keeps the HIV virus from being able to enter the cell, but It also harms the cell because other items that the cell might need aren't able to get in as well. It's like saying if you have a mutation that makes all your bones merge, and cause you to have no joints, You can say it's evolution because you can no longer get arthritis.
Some people who don't get sick from pollutants either lost information that makes them affected by the pollutants, or they mutated a resistance against it.
My guess is number 1, simply because most mutations are harmful or remove DNA. The people resistant to the pollutants are probally weaker, or they can't take in some good chemicals as easily. And it ends up hurting the person.
But here is one thing among evolutionists. Some say evolution is a slow process. Some people say there are short "bursts" of evolution. Because evolution cannot happen fast one group says and evolution can't happen slow the other group says. But creationists believe in both. it can't happen fast or slow because it can't happen at all.
Not only that, but a God wouldn't use a process as inefficient as evolution to create mankind. If evolution was true, then it would contradict the Bible when it says "from one man came sin and death", but evolution says "from death and struggles came man", completely contradictory. And then you would just have to admit that evolution took place within 6 days.
And yes, impossible. It's impossible for water to flow uphill in liquid form when it has a path that leads downhill. That is what is happening. DNA would much rather break down than form into cells.
could you do an exspiriment that would cause 100% of flowing water to decide to flow uphill without your intervention? You're saying that amino acids can do so....
Besides, I'm not going to reply to you anymore because you're hardheaded and a sucker for impossible ideas. You bet your entire exsistance and the exsistance of the universe one stuff that is impossible simply because you don't want to have to deal with a higher authority.
I have refuted all your "proof" of evolution, and you have yet to come up with one I cannot answer. And I'm only 14.
2nd peter 3, is a bible verse that says that the world will be willingly ignorant to the owrds of the wise. And that is what you are doing. And you don't "question" evolution. You are willing to believe it till the death. And you will never change, even when all the facts are shown before you.
~New topic~
^^you obviously do not understand evolution.^^
~~I understand some of the evolutions very well. You just don't know the difference between evolution, and devolution. Because mutating into somthing that is weaker, but is unaffected by toxins because it is unable to produce the items that would cause it to be harmful, but in turn causes itself to be weaker is devolution, not evolution.
Stellar, chemical, and macroevolution is impossible. Microevolution is (specification), but too many times is proof for microevolution used as evidence for the other 3... There are 2 more evolutions, but I forgot their names.~~
~~God bless
Robert
(i'm done =P) -
La la la
"The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:
*
Similarity (‘homology’
is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’. Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
* If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18–23).
* If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
* We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans,1 so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
* Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
* What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!).
Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA.2 However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology).3 Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al.4 obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies.5 Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size.6 If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.7
* Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
Ed. note: the point of this article was to refute one widely parroted ‘proof’ that humans evolved from apes, as should be clear from the title. It was simply beyond the scope of a single Creation magazine article to deal with all other ‘proofs’ of human evolution, although, amazingly, some atheistic sceptics have attacked this article for this alleged failing! But see Q&A: Anthropology (human ancestry, alleged ape-men) for addressing issues like alleged fossil ‘ape–men’."
Quote from answersingenesis.com
-
hahaha! "how can dinosaurs fit on the bible"! You make me laugh! A dinosaur egg is the size of a football for pete's sake! It would be sad if mothers had to give birth to fully grown men! You make no sense!
-
Just curious
We say that humans and chimps are [insert number here]% related, but are humans 100% related to each other. If so, then why are there so many different types of people?
I'm just misinformed, not trying to bash anyone's theories. -
anyone read all that
..........................................................
-
-
Ha, Ha I just discovered this.11% Voted for by Carino, martyrs to trust.
The bible says their was a great flood that wiped out just about everything, correcto? yes. Here are some questions I have for you..
1. Why do people think that there wasn't a flood and 3/4 of the Earth is water.. But um Mars has 2% or something and they believer there is life on mars? Sounds like someone is hiding something!
2. I think dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. There are artifacts of dinosaurs beffore the word was invented. How can you draw or sculp something if you have never SEEN it or even HEARD of it? Hmm...
3. In the bible people lived for hundreds of years. Science proves that if you live that long, the skull grows larger and the forehead extends. I Think thats what happened.
Any answers?
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
wtf?? 1. a flood over the entire earth would mean that we would need 1/4 MORE water than we actually have... and ps most people no longer believe that there's life on mars 2. people don't *make* artifacts... there are bones and fossils etc that were left behind from when they existed. then we found the bones and created skeletans and made other assumptions from other information. your argument makes no sense 3. people in the bible didn't live for hundreds of years... most likely their system of counting was different than ours so it was recorded as more years but really wasn't. you are a strange one
-
carino.... what the heck?
"2. I think dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. There are artifacts of dinosaurs beffore the word was invented. How can you draw or sculp something if you have never SEEN it or even HEARD of it? Hmm..." first, its impossible for dinosaurs and humans to have co-exsisted. not only would we have been eaten into extinction most likely, but there are documented proven records taht prove that even the earliest human bones were much more recent than that of dinosaurs. which would only mean we came after the dinosaurs. drawing and sculpting dont necessarily come from pre-exsisting things. people create all sorts of things in their minds. im an artist... i could draw a creature and call it a blambooze. it wouldnt look like anything that anyone has seen before but its there and i created it. or how about all these movies you see: zombies, one eyed yellow monsters that talk, blue furry animals, etc... anyone could create something they havent seen, its the beauty of imagination. -
what the hell
"1. Why do people think that there wasn't a flood and 3/4 of the Earth is water.. But um Mars has 2% or something and they believer there is life on mars? Sounds like someone is hiding something!" First thing is first noah's flood didnt cover 3/4 of the modern world. It covered 3/4 of the known world at that time. Which was basically the areas surrounding the black and caspian seas. When the boundary of the mediteranean broke it caused this flood. "2. I think dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. There are artifacts of dinosaurs beffore the word was invented. How can you draw or sculp something if you have never SEEN it or even HEARD of it? Hmm..." Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. Carbon dating is explicit and exact. Secondly you dont invent an artifact. Thirdly these artifacts that show dinosaurs are real. How do you think that every culture that has ever existed had dragons in their mythology? They found a skeleton. "3. In the bible people lived for hundreds of years. Science proves that if you live that long, the skull grows larger and the forehead extends. I Think thats what happened." The people in the bible lived to 50 if they were lucky. I'm not saying we evolved from monkeys because we didnt. Man evolved from the same animal that monkeys evolved from. That is what the missing link is; the fork in the road that lead to humans and simians. -
There has been soft tissueof T-rexs that is "millions of years older than when man existed". But soft tissue can't last that long, leaving your argument of the "oldest human bones" being significantly younger then dinosaur bones null and void.
-
first of all, radioactive carbon completely decays around 5800 years. If there is carbon found in fossiles, diamonds, oil, coal, etc...(witch it is) Then it is LESS than 6000 years old.
There is undeniale evidence than men and dinosaurs coexsisted. There are human footprints RIGHT next to dinosaur footprints. There are human bones RIGHT next to dinosaurs bones. And not only about those artifacts about dinosaurs. They stuck artifacts of dinosaurs that EXSIST next to OTHER ANIMALS WE SEE TODAY! That means thease people would have seen the dinosaurs along with the other animals. You can't just make up a dinosaur that matches the framwork of the fossiles exsactly out of pure imagination, and stick it on with other animals alive today. It's unrealistic. You million years idea is void and proven wrong, yet it is still taught in textbooks. -
-
wrong
sorry dp but the HALF LIFE of carbon fourteen is 5700 years. which means that only half of the carbon fourteen that was there when the rock/fossil was made is gone (the other half is still there). C-14 is reliable in dating objects up to 60,000 years old. for periods beyond that, we have to use half lives that are much greater (i believe the longest one is 10^23 years (which is longer than our friendly neighbourhood star has been around or ever will be around)
neat eh?!
-
-
There is proof of a global flood ALL around us (literally) Look at the earths layers! Theya re stacked up EXSACTLY as they would underwater with settling sediments (Do they theatch this in textbooks, no) Because if the alyers of the earth were to layer down one by one, the geological columb would be in the correct order all aroudn the world, But it isn't (it owuld be out of order in a global flood) Plus if the layers were layers millions of years apart, trees wouldn't go through multiple layers of the geological columb, and there would be SOME erosion in between the layers. But we don't see erosion between the rock layers, much less enough to account for millions of years of erosion.
-
we cannot quantitatively measure the amount of water on mars at this time because there is an interesting feature to mars and to water in which things are perfect for.
as we all know (maybe not all of us know), below a certain pressure, water exists as a solid and as a gas. the curious thing about this pressure is that it is the exact pressure of mars' atmosphere. this is why we can see evidence of water being on mars and not actually finding evidence of it (because it is a vapour).
interesting eh?!
-
-
How Life Formed11% Voted for by creason, Oral Fixation.
In the early stages of the Earth there was thought to be large amounts of the gases methane, hydrogen, and ammonia. When scientists experimentally passed electric currents through this mixture of gases there was a spontaneous creation of amino acids, the beginnings of DNA. On premordial earth there were lightning storms that dwarf those of today. It is thought that this is the origin of life although there is yet to be a correlation between these experiments and the creation of cells as we know them today. If you are interested in this topic I suggest Wikipedia, it has lost of information on this as well as almost every other topic.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Hit the nail on the head.
Bravo! You got it right on, buckaroo!
No wonder Christians/religious folk are so doubtful...I learned on a Christian based curriculum at home, ironically...And all they said for evolution was 'one day, when the Earth appeared, a bunch of gasses came together to form life'. And that was exactly what it said! I suppose having a book say 'in the beginning the Earth was void and without life, and blah blah blah, God made Adam'.
What about the dinosaurs? I once saw a painting of Noah's ark being beached on Ararat, and there were dinosaurs walking around in the background! How do you fit two of each kind on an ark that size? Honestly!
The only reason all these religious Bible thumpers win arguments and pass gay-laws is since 'God', who is known around the world as the inspiration for the 'thou shalt not lay with another man' line, said it was right.
Finding the proof seems to some less believable than learning the proof which was found before it was unfound. If you get my drift. -
"The Miller-Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were necessary to form life& ;namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below.
Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine. The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’ The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions."
Quote from answersingenesis.com
-
-
GOd Created UsVoted for by C C Short.
What I want to know is if evolution were true why did it all of a sudden stop with us humans? And also where i nthe heck would we have gotten our sense of morals, and what is right and wrong. I know that God created each and every creature on the earth and each and every one of us and He loves us.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
stop?
first of all, evolution has not come to a sudden stop. evolution will not stop unless there is no life to evolve. don't let your lack of knowledge about evolution lead you to a conclusion of "god did it" second, where did animals get their morals from? yeah, animals have them. morals are not from god, the modern world has that well established. and last... you say that god created every creature on the earth and he loves us. i wouldnt mind seeing your evidence for that -
two things: evolution hasnt stopped, and we tended to kill our mutated babies.
-
evolution takes a very long time. it has slowed in physical features but mentally we have grown exponentially. in 60 ears we have gone from not know how radio waves work to being able to hear them over 100 light years away.
-
morals are made by humans and animals finding the easiest way to co inside with each other. The human race wouldn't be very successful if we kept killing each other. People adapted and that is why we have morals
-
-
It wasn't Darwin....Voted for by Zero98729.
Darwin didn't come up with the theory of evolution he took credit for it...the real guy who came up with it was ALFRED WALLACE. But why the heck would Wallace choose monkeys...ofcourse they look alot like us but every body part we have is the same as an animals....our hands are from monkeys, our teeth from hippos, and our spine is very similar to a cows and so on...whose to say we didn't evolve from a cow or a hippo. But I think everything formed from the big bang!...but me being Catholic I'd have to say I think God made the big bang....
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
actually when wallace wrote his first paper on evolution, darwin had already been working on his for 20 years. The publication of wallaces work just made darwin publish the things he had already had for decades, a little before he wanted too. but besides that Lamark published a theory of evolution in 1809... it was just wrong. also... are you saying because your catholic you have to say god did it... or because you think god did it your a catholic.
-
*thinks back to population genetics lecture*
It's in our DNA- the human genome is very similar to the chimpanzee genome. (About 99% identical, but maybe a little less depending on who you talk to.) Nowadays, if you want to determine how closely related two species are, you want to compare their genomes. Basically, closely related species will have similar genomes. Species that are not closely related will have very different genomes. It's actually a lot more complicated than that but I don't feel like writing a book here. :-p -
yep, and thomas Eddison didnt discover the light bulb
-
really? He didn't discover the light bulb?
-
the light bulb was a Canadian invention
but the guy who made it had no money for a patent
but it really was the progress of a hand full of english scientists that led to its creation
yay Canadiana
btw sidney crosby is an ass, luongo deserved the hart trophy
-
-
soupVoted for by Neros Decay.
premordial sooup theory. states life came from the ocean and mentions the same things Weydon and Creason were talking about.
-
ResearchVoted for by buggirl.
Umm I really have no knoledge on this topic, but if you're really interested I suggest you do a google search of 'humans evolved from bacteria' or something like that... you can be sure to find all sourts of scientific papers outlining the very long names of bacteria that we came from... lol I'm not sure if you're going to get too many definitive answers on this site
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
pwincessovfantasy
January 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
March 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
Orange seedsandpeel
June 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
Tito the Ninja
June 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free