• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Evolution Were True

sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Sugriva said:
His question was answered here several times, and over a century ago by Darwin. Do you think this question is new? Do you think Invest' suddenly stumped the biological world on some trivial religious forum? Do you think mouthbreather questions like this are actually anything worth dealing with when the answers are accessible at the flick of a mouse?

Of course not. They'd rather remain ignorant as it maintains their preconceived dogmatic worldview.
Click to expand...
Let's see if I get this right. Asking why a whole new form of life could not have formed from the basic elements, say twenty million years ago is too ignorant of a question for a higher intellegence like yours to attempt to answer. And no one has addresed that topic yet.
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
sandy whitelinger said:
Let's see if I get this right. Asking why a whole new form of life could not have formed from the basic elements, say twenty million years ago is too ignorant of a question for a higher intellegence like yours to attempt to answer. And no one has addresed that topic yet.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not address abiogenesis. How many times do you need this repeated?
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
sandy whitelinger said:
Let's see if I get this right. Asking why a whole new form of life could not have formed from the basic elements, say twenty million years ago is too ignorant of a question for a higher intellegence like yours to attempt to answer. And no one has addresed that topic yet.
Click to expand...
Specifically, this was proposed in the OP: "Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?"
... a question that has been answered in this thread. Simply put, organisms adapt to their environment(s) thereby making it difficult for new organisms to gain a hold in the same niche. Also, as has been explained already, evolution is not linear, it is best described as an overgrown bush whose branches spike all over the place.
Answered again and again.....

And yes, it is too ignorant of a question for higher, lower, or average intelligences who have a passing understanding of biology. It's in the same category of "if we came from apes, why do chimps still exist?" or its many variations.

 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
sandy whitelinger said:
Let's see if I get this right. Asking why a whole new form of life could not have formed from the basic elements, say twenty million years ago is too ignorant of a question for a higher intellegence like yours to attempt to answer. And no one has addresed that topic yet.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's what he asked, Sandy.
 
Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Well-Known Member
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Let's see if I get this right. Asking why a whole new form of life could not have formed from the basic elements, say twenty million years ago is too ignorant of a question for a higher intellegence like yours to attempt to answer. And no one has addresed that topic yet.
Click to expand...
I believe I've discussed this already. But here it goes again.
The basic chemicals of life are monopolized by the current plethora of living organisms evolved to exploit them.
New life would need to be sheltered from all competition, as it was in the early Earth.
There is no place on Earth today that life has not already colonized.

However scientists are trying to provide that sheltered environment and have had some pretty impressive success in getting self replicating molecules going.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/75049-chemistry-beginings-life.html
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis


wa:do
 
Last edited:
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Autodidact said:
To the OP: Do you really think that you, with your limited understanding of Biology, are going to succeed in poking holes in a theory that has been prodded and questioned by thousands of the finest minds of the last century, all of whom knew more about it than you?
Click to expand...

That exactly sums up my feelings about all these threads of "here's why evolution can't be right." Frubals.
 
neves

neves

Active Member
3.14 said:
well evolutionary speaking a cockroach is much more evolved then us
evolutionary speaking were a fluke, no defencive or offencive measures, small teeth claws no speed not alot of agility needs constant food and water, needs help with giving birth etc

so from the cockraoch point of view we are the evolutionary lesser
Click to expand...

except for our secret weapon ... Brain POWER!!!11one one
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
neves said:
except for our secret weapon ... Brain POWER!!!11one one
Click to expand...

There are plenty of animals that are far better-adaptated than we humans are. We are weak, clumsy, able to survive in an extremely restricted climate without aids such as clothing or fire, and have few natural defenses or weapons. Our two claims to fame are intellect, and I'm certain that there are people that can't even claim this attribute, and the dexterity of our hands, in order to fully utilise this brainpower.

I won't argue with the dexterity of our limbs, but with brain power, I'm not even sure that we are the pinnacle, if you want to discuss attributes in this way. Look at the common house cat, for example. It gets fed, it's refuse cleaned, and we allow it to come and go as it pleases, and it does nothing for us. Or a dolphin - it gets put into captivity, where it cannot be eaten, and is cared for, and performs simple tricks in exchange, and even gets rewarded with food.
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Stellify said:
Well, as far as my understanding goes, basic building blocks are still necessary to life. For instance, amino acids.

As for other things, if something (even a single-celled organism) is thriving as it is, then it doesn't need to evolve, does it? Viruses and bacteria don't necessarily need to evolve into another life form, because they're fine the way they are. Although they do evolve to become more resistant to drugs, or to become infectious to new species.
With regression....why? What benefit would there be? Evolution is about benefiting whatever species you're talking about by slow changes over generations. If there is no benefit, then it shouldn't be taking place.

Why can't we force it to happen? Well, I would guess that it's simply because we don't know how yet.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I often use the flu virus to illustrate this.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How is a cockroach "more evolved" than us, Pi? A better design, certainly. It hasn't changed substantially for hundreds of millions of years, ie: hasn't evolved at all.

Evolved = changed from a prototype.
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Seyorni said:
How is a cockroach "more evolved" than us, Pi? A better design, certainly. It hasn't changed substantially for hundreds of millions of years, ie: hasn't evolved at all.

Evolved = changed from a prototype.
Click to expand...

I don't think that you can really say "more evolved" or "less evolved" in many circumstances at all, but the humble cockroach is far better adaptated for a wider variety of conditions, and can survive far greater trauma, than a human can.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
rojse said:
I don't think that you can really say "more evolved" or "less evolved" in many circumstances at all, but the humble cockroach is far better adaptated for a wider variety of conditions, and can survive far greater trauma, than a human can.
Click to expand...
Thus the reason I would say "better evolved" for those conditions than humans.
 
Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
Investocracy said:
Why do primitive forms of life not evolve into higher forms of life constantly through-out history?

Example: Evolutionary mechanism for eukaryote cells is that two prokaryotic cells symbiotically combined to form a single cell that had a nuclei and a mitochondria. This theoretically occurred 2.1-1.6 Billion years ago. Eukaryote are the basic building blocks "evolutionary mechanism" of all life as we know it; animals, plants, fungi, protists etc...

So why is it we don't see animals whose ancestry goes back to a prokaryotic symbiosis that occurred just 1 billion years ago and are 1 billion years behind evolutionarily compared with some other critters who evolved from older eukaryote?

We simply don't see this...AT ALL.

Everything in evolution is linear except for grey areas that are difficult to define and constantly argued over.

If Evolution were true we should see less evolved organisms repeat similar evolutions over time...this is not observed in nature.
Click to expand...
To argue whether or not evolution is "true" is silly to me. We observe evolution constantly.

For example, look at bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. Microbes go through generations much faster than we higher order lifeforms. As such, they mutate at a faster rate as well. Some mutated bacterial strains are less affected by antibiotics than others. Those strains that are easily killed by antibiotics do not prosper the way that resistant strains do. In other words, the fittest ones survive and nature selects them to prosper going forward. Do those terms sound familiar?
 
Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
3.14 said:
well evolutionary speaking a cockroach is much more evolved then us
evolutionary speaking were a fluke, no defencive or offencive measures, small teeth claws no speed not alot of agility needs constant food and water, needs help with giving birth etc

so from the cockraoch point of view we are the evolutionary lesser
Click to expand...
I have heard this before, except with a tiger as the example. "We have not evolved teeth and claws that would help us in the wild, but the tiger is a perfect killing machine so how can we say we are more evolved?"

Why then do you suppose that most of us will live out our lives without ever once worrying about being eaten by a tiger? Could it be that our brains have enabled civilization and technology that puts us lightyears ahead of any other organism on earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top