Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Willamena]

That is very cynical... But to pass exams it is correct...at least at the lower levels.
However don't stop developing your own ideas and read widely.
But if it is not on the syllabus it is usually best to keep such things to yourself.

^ What he said.

 

[camanintx]

If evolution was so random,how can there be so much order,for instance concerning the forming of the eye alone, how can the eye both evolve randomly when it is one of the most sophisticated and percise appendages of the human anatomy.

Please go to the board and write the following sentence 100 times:

"Evolution is not random"
​

Mutation is random (usually) but evolution is guided by natural selection which is anything but random.

 

[painted wolf]

what kind am I?

and me..

how about me?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

no common ancestor?

wa:do

 

[Willamena]

I was.. :yes:
Allong with evolution that is..

Was that in public, separate or private school system, though?

The dispute in the U.S., I believe, is only with the public school system.

 

[roli]

Here's the straightest answer you're going to get: we know as far back as the root of the eukarya, bacteria and archaea kingdoms, though the original ancestors in those families don't have specific names. The section from the original ancestor to the division of life into the three kingdoms is less clear, but work is being done to fill in the gaps:


In single-celled organisms, it is relatively common for cells to acquire new genetic information by absorbing the DNA of other unrelated single-celled organisms. This makes it very difficult to trace the exact source of each bit of our genome to one single "trunk" of the "tree of life".

However, I don't see why this is such a big deal for you. Do you think people needed to visit every point on the planet before they could declare that the Earth is round? We know that from the early days of single-celled organisms to us, that evolution has governed the development of life on Earth.

Thanks ,that's what I'm looking for, a simplified answer for the simple, as "Quoth The Raven" alluded to, thanks for the insult .
By the way, to get this answer from any evolutionist or should I say," biologist" has been an interesting journey.
So what the biologist etc. are saying is we basically have common ancestory indirectly with the above, eukarya, bacteria etc kingdoms .
So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

 

[McBell]

Thanks ,that's what I'm looking for, a simplified answer for the simple, as "Quoth The Raven" alluded to, thanks for the insult .
By the way, to get this answer from any evolutionist or should I say," biologist" has been an interesting journey.
So what the biologist etc. are saying is we basically have common ancestory indirectly with the above, eukarya, bacteria etc kingdoms .
So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

Was there a time when there was no life?
If you believe so, then you have to believe that life came from no life.

If not then what is the begining of life?
If you claim God then you are saying that God is alive, therefor God had to also have a creator.
Because if life can only come from life, then God had to have been created from a life as well.

But here is where many people make an exception.
If there is an exception for God, then why can there not be an exception for other forms of life?

 

[Zeno]

Thanks ,that's what I'm looking for, a simplified answer for the simple, as "Quoth The Raven" alluded to, thanks for the insult .
By the way, to get this answer from any evolutionist or should I say," biologist" has been an interesting journey.
So what the biologist etc. are saying is we basically have common ancestory indirectly with the above, eukarya, bacteria etc kingdoms .
So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

Before derailing this thread into a debate on abiogenesis and the origin of life (which I'm sure many would be happy to do), I request on behalf of all the participants that you cede the points on evolution that you were wrong about. Be as specific as possible.

The two topics are wholly distinct, and I think this is a reasonable request before the subject is changed.

 

[Sunstone]

Before derailing this thread into a debate on abiogenesis and the origin of life (which I'm sure many would be happy to do), I request on behalf of all the participants that you cede the points on evolution that you were wrong about. Be as specific as possible.

The two topics are wholly distinct, and I think this is a reasonable request before the subject is changed.

I second the sentiment.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Thanks ,that's what I'm looking for, a simplified answer for the simple, as "Quoth The Raven" alluded to, thanks for the insult .
By the way, to get this answer from any evolutionist or should I say," biologist" has been an interesting journey.
So what the biologist etc. are saying is we basically have common ancestory indirectly with the above, eukarya, bacteria etc kingdoms .
So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

I don't believe I said you were 'simple' in any way...what I did say was that you were insistent on repeatedly asking a foolish question that had been repeatedly answered and you had no interest in taking in that information.
If I thought you genuinly lacked the capacity to understand what was being said, watching people answer the question and then seeing you go,'Yeah, but *insert same question here*' wouldn't have been anywhere near as frustrating an experience.

 

[camanintx]

So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

Biologists have a hard enough time just agreeing on what differentiates life from non-life. Everyone pretty much agrees that amino acids are not alive but bacteria are, but what about viruses, plasmids and prions?

 

[Captain Civic]

What schools and when?
Neither of my parents where taught 'creationism' in school. ( I asked them, they said no)
I was never taught creationism in school.
.

I can't remember anything specific on evolution till high school, but primary school we were taught that the creation of the universe was based on two theories; the Big Bang and God creating it.

Creationism as such wasn't taught, although I'd say it's implied if you say God created everything. I was taught evolution in science in early high school, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

Yes, the biology community ultimately supposes that life came from non-life. I don't know of anyone who believes that life has existed since the beginning of time.

Some believe that it was a consequence of chemical reactions on the surface of the early Earth, some believe that life on our planet arose from bacteria carried to Earth on an asteroid (though I admit that this just pushes back the question of how life originally arose a few more steps) some believe it was the direction action of God.

But, as has been pointed out, none of this is evolution. Evolution is concerned with how life developed; it assumes the existence of life in the first place, otherwise there would be nothing on which the mechanisms of evolution (i.e. inheritability, random mutation and natural selection) to act. How life arose in the first place is beyond the scope of evolutionary theory.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks ,that's what I'm looking for, a simplified answer for the simple, as "Quoth The Raven" alluded to, thanks for the insult .
By the way, to get this answer from any evolutionist or should I say," biologist" has been an interesting journey.
So what the biologist etc. are saying is we basically have common ancestory indirectly with the above, eukarya, bacteria etc kingdoms .
So in your opinion ,does the biology community ultimately suppose somewhere along the line that ,life came from non life and if not where did life come from.

You will need to take this matter up in another thread, as it is not relevant to the subject of this thread, which is evolution.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, I am not even going to try.
Many others have tried and you have refused to listen or learn.
Until such time as you at least know the basics about evolution, any discussion on evolution with you is futile and merely a test of patience.

..............

 

[McBell]

Before derailing this thread into a debate on abiogenesis and the origin of life (which I'm sure many would be happy to do), I request on behalf of all the participants that you cede the points on evolution that you were wrong about. Be as specific as possible.

The two topics are wholly distinct, and I think this is a reasonable request before the subject is changed.

I second the sentiment.

Agreed.
Here is a new thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/59944-life-no-life.html#post1010837

 

[Autodidact]

But fortunately, we can rectify that problem.
O.K., so that was the core piece of the theory, and it seems that no one, including roli, has any problem with it. The second piece just extrapolates that. You will remember that one species of lizard had diverged into two species. In many cases, the first species will have died out, and we will have two species that descended from it. Most species that have ever lived on earth have gone extinct, and we have to piece together the story as best we can from fossils.

Now we had gone about 1000 years, and had two different species. Now repeat that exact same process ten times, over 10,000 years. By now you might have one species that's only an inch long, spends part of its life-cycle in the water, where it eats aquatic bugs, and lays soft eggs underwater, and one species that's two feet long, buries a clutch of a dozen eggs under the sand, and eats mice. At some point, the biologists say, again somewhat arbitrarily, that one type of organism is different enough from the others to be not just another species, but an entirely new genus (the level of organization above species.) So now we have Newtius cutius, a member of a new genus.

Species that diverge from Newtius cutius will belong to genus Newtius, while those that descend from Lizardius rolius will belong to the genus Lizardius. And we should expect all descendants of the Lizardius to have certain things in common that they don't share with Newtius, and some that they do.

This extrapolation, which biologists call "macro-evolution", is the next big piece of the theory.

Questions or comments? roli?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

More fun...

99% of mouse genes have analogues in humans.

And...

Synteny between species means not only that orthologous (functionally and ancestrally identical) genes are present but that they are present in the same order on the genome, thus indicating common ancestry.

The sequencing of the mouse genome and its comparison with the previously sequenced human genome reveals that 90.2% of the human genome and 93.3% of the mouse genome lie in conserved syntenic segments. These segments consist of 217 conserved syntenic blocks with an average length of 23.2Mb (23.2 million bases) So not only do we find homologous sequences between the two genomes; the genes actually lie on the chromosome in the same order. This is powerful evidence for common ancestry. It is possible to dismiss homology as arising from similar function, but it is not possible to dismiss synteny this way.
Source

Is this why they test certain products on mice? I've often wondered why they do that and say a certain product may be safe for humans.

Additionally, has any scientist done this study on pigs? I only ask because certain doctors say certain portion of pig anatomy may be compatible with humans. I haven't really looked into it but thought some one might know the answer....

Thanks for the info...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And scientific findings throughout the years have'nt been absent of proof,full of hypothesis,assumptions and one cover up after another.please spare me the condesending remarks.
The veneer you hide behind and so vehemently defend is something I would'nt be so proud of.
If you take their position. you as well appear as they do,conflicted,confused,desperate and at best, fictional story tellers.It seems no different than what you accuse creationists of,except you take pride in your association with the evolutionary movement,as if it makes you intellectual above the masses


If anything is empty, it is the evolutionists who feel they are more driven to provide some sort of evidence, regardless of it's validity than to hold their piece until it is confirmed.
The only difference is that when scientists are exposed or confronted with conflicting stories they use their complex terminology and elaborate methodical means to defend themselves and counter it with some sophisticated reasoning ans scientific terms that sounds convincing to the general public, but apprently is only a smoke screen.

Listen ,it's so convenient for evolution scientists to shift there thinking and create another hypothesis to cover over their former findings, which are exposed as fraud or false .
Once upon a time, scientists concluded we evolved from apes,conveniently their theories changed when these findings were found to be false and fabricated ie: , Lucy, Heidelberg ,Nebraska ,Piltdown ,Peking.
I'm sure your going to tell me this never happened and it was this or that.
How embarssing that would be to evolutionary professionalsand to be publically exposed ,like they have been,who are found to be either part of a hoax or very very deceived.

RANT MUCH???????

Where is your comeback on the scientific evidence. Have theologians approached this from a scientific point of view to test the current data and disprove the theories?

 

[McBell]

RANT MUCH???????

Where is your comeback on the scientific evidence. Have theologians approached this from a scientific point of view to test the current data and disprove the theories?

More like a "I do not like what I think this implies so it is wrong and if I claim it long enough and loud enough then others will believe it is wrong as well" stance.