What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, I don't believe that. You may and obviously do believe that you are an ape. I no longer do. I believe you and I are BEYOND apes ... meaning we are not apes. Or evolved fish.
I checked again, and see I was wrong. They were not dogs. They are wolves. Sorry.
"Wolves in Chernobyl’s radiation zone appear to have developed a resistance to cancer after being exposed to high levels of radiation in the wake of the nuclear disaster 35 years ago, according to a new study."

Chernobyl’s mutant wolves developing resistance to cancer, study says

Wolves in Chernobyl’s radiation zone appear to have developed a resistance to cancer after being exposed to high levels of radiation in the wake of the nuclear disaster 35 years ago, according to a new study.

www.fox29.com

And that resistance could be due to high numbers that were not resistant to cancers dying off. There are usually other evolutionary costs that arise when a species changes this way.

Here is the problem, the only reason that you think that we are not apes is more due to behavior than anything else. And even many of the behaviors that you think humans have are held by other apes as well. Evolution explains biology much more than it explains society. Biologically you are an ape. Sociologically you have a valid claim to be different from other apes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm not making the mistake. Somehow all those sides came up at the same time with the ability to duplicate...come on...what you are saying is that the "original" or "ancient" prokaryotes are definitely not like present-day prokaryotes. But do you know that for a fact?

No, they did not. There is no reason to believe that they had to appear at the same time. You may be making the mistake of believing Behe's claims. But he was shown to be wrong again and again. When he brought up the bacterial flagellum as an example of "IC" scientists were just then beginning to learn what they were. We could not understand their evolution until after we fully understood how they worked. Now flagellum evolution is well understood. A lot of it was built from parts that were already functioning in the body elsewhere. The parts did not even need to evolve on their own for that, though they would have had to have evolved some time.

Have you not heard the phrase "emergent process"? That describes quite a few changes that we see in nature. They are not sudden. They are not predictable. And they are often surprising.

When it came to the formation of life we do not know the order of all of the events. Though we do know the order of some of them. Some are totally independent of each other so it does not really matter which was "first". For example one of the needs for life to even occur was the natural formation of nucleic acids. Something that we once thought was impossible and we now know happens several different ways. Another is the formation of crude cell walls. Natural vesicles of fatty acids form in various environments and that was all that the first cell walls would have been. Much weaker than modern cell walls which is one reason that any life even beginning to be form today would be "food" before it crossed the border of life and nonlife. Both of those events are always happening even today. They are independent of each other so it does not matter which one came first. But for other events to occur we would need at least those two. Someone that actually studied this could fill you in far more than I can.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they did not. There is no reason to believe that they had to appear at the same time. You may be making the mistake of believing Behe's claims. But he was shown to be wrong again and again. When he brought up the bacterial flagellum as an example of "IC" scientists were just then beginning to learn what they were. We could not understand their evolution until after we fully understood how they worked. Now flagellum evolution is well understood. A lot of it was built from parts that were already functioning in the body elsewhere. The parts did not even need to evolve on their own for that, though they would have had to have evolved some time.

Have you not heard the phrase "emergent process"? That describes quite a few changes that we see in nature. They are not sudden. They are not predictable. And they are often surprising.

When it came to the formation of life we do not know the order of all of the events. Though we do know the order of some of them. Some are totally independent of each other so it does not really matter which was "first". For example one of the needs for life to even occur was the natural formation of nucleic acids. Something that we once thought was impossible and we now know happens several different ways. Another is the formation of crude cell walls. Natural vesicles of fatty acids form in various environments and that was all that the first cell walls would have been. Much weaker than modern cell walls which is one reason that any life even beginning to be form today would be "food" before it crossed the border of life and nonlife. Both of those events are always happening even today. They are independent of each other so it does not matter which one came first. But for other events to occur we would need at least those two. Someone that actually studied this could fill you in far more than I can.

I understand what the ideas are about prokaryotes to an extent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What I DO know is that carbon monoxide and other gases can change (disturb) the atmosphere. In other words, I believe that.

I'm not just talking about the greenhouse effect; I'm talking about any one of a million things which can change a creature's habitate.

Yes...

Ok then - imagine you're a creature living in an area where some kind of catastrophe just happened: Could be an earthquake, a flood, or the local volcano just blew its top.

Maybe your food source has left the area, maybe something moves into the area that's decided you're its new food source.

Whatever the case, either you've got what it takes to roll with it, or you don't.
What do you think happens to you in each of those scenarios?

I GUESS so. I hear cockroaches will survive a nuclear war...

Unfortunately (for the cockroaches), that's not true. The little critters are pretty resilient, but they wouldn't make it.

Would cockroaches really survive a nuclear apocalypse?

University of Melbourne experts look at the cockroaches' reputation for resilience and whether they really would survive a nuclear bomb and radiation.

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au

I'll go back to your third question. I have read that dogs that survived the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl seem to be immune to cancer. (Do you think that means I think these dogs will evolve to something other than dogs? -- Gotta tell you -- I doubt it, but -- seeing can be believing.)

Let's assume that story is true - how do you define a "dog" anyway?

The variety of dogs we see is the result of artificial selection - we created all the different types of dogs you see over a few thousand years.
Fun fact: all the different breeds of dog are capable of breeding with one another - although how you'd breed a chihuahua with a great dane without the chihuahua exploding is a bit of a logistical problem.

If those Chernobyl animals were able to breed with each other, but no longer able to breed with "dogs" as you know them, would you still consider them "dogs"?

 

[YoursTrue]

And that resistance could be due to high numbers that were not resistant to cancers dying off. There are usually other evolutionary costs that arise when a species changes this way.

Here is the problem, the only reason that you think that we are not apes is more due to behavior than anything else. And even many of the behaviors that you think humans have are held by other apes as well. Evolution explains biology much more than it explains society. Biologically you are an ape. Sociologically you have a valid claim to be different from other apes.

The reason I believe humans are not apes is because the Bible separates humans (Adam) from animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not just talking about the greenhouse effect; I'm talking about any one of a million things which can change a creature's habitate.



Ok then - imagine you're a creature living in an area where some kind of catastrophe just happened: Could be an earthquake, a flood, or the local volcano just blew its top.

Maybe your food source has left the area, maybe something moves into the area that's decided you're its new food source.

Whatever the case, either you've got what it takes to roll with it, or you don't.
What do you think happens to you in each of those scenarios?




Unfortunately (for the cockroaches), that's not true. The little critters are pretty resilient, but they wouldn't make it.

Would cockroaches really survive a nuclear apocalypse?

University of Melbourne experts look at the cockroaches' reputation for resilience and whether they really would survive a nuclear bomb and radiation.

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au

Let's assume that story is true - how do you define a "dog" anyway?

The variety of dogs we see is the result of artificial selection - we created all the different types of dogs you see over a few thousand years.
Fun fact: all the different breeds of dog are capable of breeding with one another - although how you'd breed a chihuahua with a great dane without the chihuahua exploding is a bit of a logistical problem.

If those Chernobyl animals were able to breed with each other, but no longer able to breed with "dogs" as you know them, would you still consider them "dogs"?

Sorry, I did amend that -- they were wolves, not dogs. My mistake. I doubt those wolves could not breed with wolves that had not been in the area, but maybe they could not. I don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason I believe humans are not apes is because the Bible separates humans (Adam) from animals.

But we know that there were never only two people.

 

[metis]

The reason I believe humans are not apes is because the Bible separates humans (Adam) from animals.

What's in a label, and that's what "ape" and "humans" are? "Ape" is a generalized category with various components.

 

[YoursTrue]

But we know that there were never only two people.

According to your reasoning. Meantime, fish remain fish, gorillas remain gorillas. IF I believed that prokaryotes started the whole thing of becoming, I mean evolving to plants or animals, I'd say you're right. And I'd have to say that scientists who embrace the subject of evolution as true are right. But I no longer do, and part of that is based on reasoning and/or evidence (really lack of except in conjectural reasoning).

 

[YoursTrue]

What's in a label, and that's what "ape" and "humans" are? "Ape" is a generalized category with various components.

Well, evidently someone here didn't like it too much when I spoke of a Christian "ape." Insofar as I know, bonobos and chimpanzees do not buy, make, or sell crosses to wear around their necks.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they did not. There is no reason to believe that they had to appear at the same time. You may be making the mistake of believing Behe's claims. But he was shown to be wrong again and again. When he brought up the bacterial flagellum as an example of "IC" scientists were just then beginning to learn what they were. We could not understand their evolution until after we fully understood how they worked. Now flagellum evolution is well understood. A lot of it was built from parts that were already functioning in the body elsewhere. The parts did not even need to evolve on their own for that, though they would have had to have evolved some time.

Have you not heard the phrase "emergent process"? That describes quite a few changes that we see in nature. They are not sudden. They are not predictable. And they are often surprising.

When it came to the formation of life we do not know the order of all of the events. Though we do know the order of some of them. Some are totally independent of each other so it does not really matter which was "first". For example one of the needs for life to even occur was the natural formation of nucleic acids. Something that we once thought was impossible and we now know happens several different ways. Another is the formation of crude cell walls. Natural vesicles of fatty acids form in various environments and that was all that the first cell walls would have been. Much weaker than modern cell walls which is one reason that any life even beginning to be form today would be "food" before it crossed the border of life and nonlife. Both of those events are always happening even today. They are independent of each other so it does not matter which one came first. But for other events to occur we would need at least those two. Someone that actually studied this could fill you in far more than I can.

OK, I'm asking you if you know what type of prokaryote first appeared, in essence what it looked like?

 

[metis]

Well, evidently someone here didn't like it too much when I spoke of a Christian "ape." Insofar as I know, bonobos and chimpanzees do not buy, make, or sell crosses to wear around their necks.

I missed that conversation so I cannot comment.

But there is someone at our church who is quite hairy, ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I'm asking you if you know what type of prokaryote first appeared, in essence what it looked like?

Blobular. When small it would probably be spherical but as it got bigger and closer and closer to the point where it would naturally split it would look like misshapen blob based on local currents.

 

[YoursTrue]

I missed that conversation so I cannot comment.

But there is someone at our church who is quite hairy, ...

LOL, another laugh.

 

[YoursTrue]

Blobular. When small it would probably be spherical but as it got bigger and closer and closer to the point where it would naturally split it would look like misshapen blob based on local currents.

uh huh. Do you really think I believe that? Or that it happened that way? Naturally split? Never mind, let's go back to water molecules going upwards and coming down...at least that's happening. What happened to the prokaryotes, still evolving you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

What's in a label, and that's what "ape" and "humans" are? "Ape" is a generalized category with various components.

I understand that. Look, many churches use a Bible upon occasion. I guess it's evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

uh huh. Do you really think I believe that? Or that it happened that way? Naturally split? Never mind, let's go back to water molecules going upwards and coming down...at least that's happening. What happened to the prokaryotes, still evolving you think?

Everything is still evolving. And yes, one thing that happens with naturally forming vesicles is that they tend to continually accrete more fats until they get so large that they burst and make two or more smaller vesicles. The original life would not need to have an ability to make its own cell walls. The process is slower and the split is haphazard compared to modern splits. And there may have been several copies of the genetic material in each early cell. As long as at least two of the new vesicles formed had at least one copy of the genetic material, and they could easily had had several it would count as a reproduction..

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry, I did amend that -- they were wolves, not dogs. My mistake. I doubt those wolves could not breed with wolves that had not been in the area, but maybe they could not. I don't know.

Change "dogs" to "wolves" and the question still stands.

If these animals could breed with their own kind, but not with wolves from other areas, are they still "wolves"?

 

[YoursTrue]

Change "dogs" to "wolves" and the question still stands.

If these animals could breed with their own kind, but not with wolves from other areas, are they still "wolves"?

Perhaps some of us will live long enough to see what happens. Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Everything is still evolving. And yes, one thing that happens with naturally forming vesicles is that they tend to continually accrete more fats until they get so large that they burst and make two or more smaller vesicles. The original life would not need to have an ability to make its own cell walls. The process is slower and the split is haphazard compared to modern splits. And there may have been several copies of the genetic material in each early cell. As long as at least two of the new vesicles formed had at least one copy of the genetic material, and they could easily had had several it would count as a reproduction..

Now the next question and I may not be at the computer long enough now to see your answer...do you really think the ancient prokaryotes looked like what is depicted in your post?