Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[d_brennen]

imnotsayingitwasaliensbutitwasaliens.jpg

I find falling microbes more palatable than being a deities play thing but lets ignore the vacuum of space, the harsh temperature, the radiation and the likelihood of anything surviving entering earth's atmosphere, it somehow strikes me as more of a stretch than local evolution.

The Cambrian explosion doesn't explain the process of evolution. It just shows how little data there actually is for it.

What is your opinion on the Cambrian explosion and the appearance of the majority of all animal types in the fossil record? Surely the data we have only covers the end of the branches of Darwins tree and the rest is purely inference.

Maybe someone could also explain why reproduction is key, given that reproduction produces more mouths to feed and therefore makes survival more difficult.

More mouths to feed = more competition for resources = survival of the fittest. If anything is going to drive evolution it's a boom in the number of creatures in direct competition with each other as well as the predator/prey relationship.

 

[Robosapien]

(God! vs Science!)

More like Intelligent Design v. The Physical Sciences with Philosophy sitting on the fence.

I'd like to hear more about what the Social Sciences have to say about organised religion from a historical, psychological, political, sociological, criminological and economical viewpoint.

Jason2, what's your view on the theory that organized religion is simply a method of social control?
"You can't steal because you will go to hell." Sounds pretty scary.
Why does your religion even need to be organised?
What's the purpose of these rituals and practices that occur en masse at designated places/times?
Is the hierarchy due to certain individuals being closer to God?

 

[ringo747]

More mouths to feed = more competition for resources = survival of the fittest. If anything is going to drive evolution it's a boom in the number of creatures in direct competition with each other as well as the predator/prey relationship.

That would assume that there is some looking to the future whereby it is known that competition now = survival long term. I just can't understand that.

Additionally, the process is normally ascribed millions of years for minute changes to occur. The Cambrian explosion fossil record show the vast majority of animal types. Something just doesn't add up here.

 

[Robosapien]

That would assume that there is some looking to the future whereby it is known that competition now = survival long term. I just can't understand that.

If there's limited resources then by implication not everything will survive.
Those that have a predisposition to aggressive behaviour might be more likely to secure resources an thus survive.
I'm sure many species that didn't demonstrate this behaviour have not survived. Pandas?
It wouldn't be due to some prior inherent knowledge. It's a chance trait that serves to be useful.
It's not quite as simple because clearly symbiotic relationships exist too.

I don't claim to be an expert but this is the jist of the theory as I understand it. Cambrian explosion I know even less about, but, we don't have the complete picture FOR ANYTHING. It's the best possible THEORY based on currently available evidence. If Darwin himself acknowledged it himself as objection to the theory, then he was rubbish at propagating lies. More likely he was following the doctrine of science.

 

[ringo747]

If there's limited resources then by implication not everything will survive.
Those that have a predisposition to aggressive behaviour might be
I'm sure many species that didn't demonstrate this behaviour have not survived. Pandas?
It's not quite as simple because clearly symbiotic relationships exist too.

Is a creature supposed to understand the concept of resources and to determine how limited they are? It all seems incredibly far fetched to me. Surely we would observe lots of unused organs as a result of such a trial and error process, or did the process simply make the right call every time?

Do you have any input on the cambrian explosion and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

 

[LateX'Dog]

imnotsayingitwasaliensbutitwasaliens.jpg

I find falling microbes more palatable than being a deities play thing but lets ignore the vacuum of space, the harsh temperature, the radiation and the likelihood of anything surviving entering earth's atmosphere, it somehow strikes me as more of a stretch than local evolution.

Seventy-six types of unregulated micro-organisms have been detected on the International Space Station (ISS). Though many are harmless, some are already capable of causing severe damage. And no one knows how they will mutate in space.

*“We had these problems on the old MIR space station, now we have them on the ISS. The microflora is attacking the station. These organisms corrode metals and polymers and can cause equipment to fail,” Anatoly Grigoryev, the vice-president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Interfax news agency.

Despite extensive precautions, most of the microbes are accidentally brought to the space station with various cargoes.

http://rt.com/news/iss-bacteria-mir-mutation-765/

A small English fishing village has produced an out-of-this-world discovery.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

These are just everyday organisms that live on the coast in Beer in Devon and they can survive in space”

Dr Karen Olsson-Francis Open University

Bacteria taken from cliffs at Beer on the South Coast have shown themselves to be hardy space travellers.

The bugs were put on the exterior of the space station to see how they would cope in the hostile conditions that exist above the Earth's atmosphere.

And when scientists inspected the microbes a year and a half later, they found many were still alive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11039206

 

[Robosapien]

Is a creature supposed to understand the concept of resources and to determine how limited they are? It all seems incredibly far fetched to me. Surely we would observe lots of unused organs as a result of such a trial and error process, or did the process simply make the right call every time?

Concept of resources:- at the basic level some chemical reactions require energy to happen. The life around us today I would say is the successful reaction which by chance happened to develop the right mechanisms for continuing to gain energy.

So the process as it's survived up to present day and the life we see around us right now certainly 'made the right calls' (read: struck lucky). Although we're still fighting for resources so we might well have walked into a blind alleyway ourselves as a species and thus we are indeed doomed, unless some of us adapt to any future drastic changes in our environment.

As to why we don't see unused organs, I guess because a lot doesn't become fossilised but decays. We certainly see organic chemical compounds. Ironically it's these fossilized remains in the form of fossil fuels that we're currently scrounging over.

Do you have any input on the cambrian explosion and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

No. I've not studied it.

But I would say 'Ever heard of exponential growth?' and also that gaps don't necessarily invalidate a whole theory. In fact new discoveries usually don't provide ultimate answers but further questions. And what I've added to previous post.

 

[m4rk84]

Sir Francis Crick one of the co-founders of DNA and a Nobel peace price winner is famously quoted as believing in Transpermia/Panspermia .

He concluded that Transpermia was unlikely due to the lack of scientific knowledge, but that has been proven more then likely a possibility now.

Directed Panspermia is another thing indeed, but i believe that it is more then likely a possibility. This theory he proposed was that an intellectual species from outside Earth brought life to the planet.

Both of the above in my opinion is more likely then the luck of correct evolution.

There is one thing that remains consistent throughout history amongst most of our greatest minds.

C.Ptolemy - AD 150
“I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”

I. Newton - 1687
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

This is far from a rare occurrence, throughout history some of our most forward thinking logical minds have consistently pointed towards intelligent design.

What's interesting about this though is that god is always just outside the edge of their knowledge. Newton attributed a god because he couldn't work out how planet pathing around the sun worked, he couldn't get the maths to work without a super computer which of course never existed back then. So once he had tried everything he could within his realms of possibility he concluded it could only be god. Obviously this has been worked out since, but just outside the limits of Newton's knowledge was where Newton found god.

The important thing to note is that brilliant people do not like it when they can't figure something out, attributing something to being god is easier then declaring they simply do not know.

God of the gaps is a real thing, and it's a shame because lots of these brilliant minds stopped working on their problems because they had the easy get out "Must be God".

God is a hinderance to the progress of knowledge.

 

[hola_adios]

Is a creature supposed to understand the concept of resources and to determine how limited they are? It all seems incredibly far fetched to me. Surely we would observe lots of unused organs as a result of such a trial and error process, or did the process simply make the right call every time?

Do you have any input on the cambrian explosion and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?

Does seem like copy, half digested and pasted from somewhere. The evolution of species will produce sometimes useless mutations, these can be harmful or not helpful to the organism, which will result in extinction of that organism if it stops it from getting to reproductive age; innocuous, which will end up disappearing or beneficial, which will get reinforced. There are plenty of examples of each one of them, if you just do a little bit of research, tip, you just have to look into your mouth

You mention the Cambrian explosion, and that is a big puzzle, which is getting solved, and yes there is plenty of evidence of evolution, but should we just stop researching so someone else doesn't need to find a different anchor. To put things into perspective, let's such imagine that you have to map the over 30 million of animal species existing today, but not now you have to do it in 500 million years after disasters, continental drift, volcanoes, earthquakes ... your 30 million pieces 3D puzzle just got a bit shaken up.

Overall, this is the problem of this game, if you do a little bit of introspection, certain characters have been playing this game, for at least 25 centuries, against people who just want to understand how the universe around us works. So I would just say, think and read the claims done 10-20-30 ....- 200 years ago against science and look where we are now, what you would have had against science two centuries ago.

 

[ringo747]

Concept of resources:- at the basic level some chemical reactions require energy to happen. The life around us today I would say is the successful reaction which by chance happened to develop the right mechanisms for continuing to gain energy.

So the process as it's survived up to present day and the life we see around us right now certainly 'made the right calls' (read: struck lucky). Although we're still fighting for resources so we might well have walked into a blind alleyway ourselves as a species and thus we are indeed doomed, unless some of us adapt to any future drastic changes in our environment.

Is there a single ounce of evidence to support your ideas or is it just a good guess? What is the most convincing part of the theory that has caused you to support it?

No. I've not studied it.

But I would say 'Ever heard of exponential growth?' and also that gaps don't necessarily invalidate a whole theory. In fact new discoveries usually don't provide ultimate answers but further questions. And what I've added to previous post.

It doesn't take an in-depth study to understand the problem that it raises. The vast majority of animal types in the fossil record. Since Darwins theory 150+ years ago has there been any more discoveries that support the theory i.e. transitional states?

Does seem like copy, half digested and pasted from somewhere. The evolution of species will produce sometimes useless mutations, these can be harmful or not helpful to the organism, which will result in extinction of that organism if it stops it from getting to reproductive age; innocuous, which will end up disappearing or beneficial, which will get reinforced. There are plenty of examples of each one of them, if you just do a little bit of research, tip, you just have to look into your mouth

If a harmful organ is introduced then surely the species would be exstinct before it 'realises' that it was actually harmful? Where does this concept of knowing what is good or not come from?

You mention the Cambrian explosion, and that is a big puzzle, which is getting solved, and yes there is plenty of evidence of evolution, but should we just stop researching so someone else doesn't need to find a different anchor. To put things into perspective, let's such imagine that you have to map the over 30 million of animal species existing today, but not now you have to do it in 500 million years after disasters, continental drift, volcanoes, earthquakes ... your 30 million pieces 3D puzzle just got a bit shaken up.

Overall, this is the problem of this game, if you do a little bit of introspection, certain characters have been playing this game, for at least 25 centuries, against people who just want to understand how the universe around us works. So I would just say, think and read the claims done 10-20-30 ....- 200 years ago against science and look where we are now, what you would have had against science two centuries ago.

Can you share the background information on how the Cambrian puzzle is being solved? To me the Cambrian explosion seems to suggest that the idea of this all happening over millions of years is nonsense. The bigger problem is that it offers no evidence of transitional states at all!

 

[estebanrey]

So Jason2 are you bigger and more complex now than you were when you were a baby? Doesn't that mean you've broken the second law of thermodynamics under your logic?

 

[Robosapien]

Is there a single ounce of evidence to support your ideas or is it just a good guess? What is the most convincing part of the theory that has caused you to support it?



It doesn't take an in-depth study to understand the problem that it raises. The vast majority of animal types in the fossil record. Since Darwins theory 150+ years ago has there been any more discoveries that support the theory i.e. transitional states?

Well, honestly, all I did is think about it a little bit, and then came to these conclusions. I know about chemistry and physics so I filled in the obvious gaps myself on the jist of the evolutionary/abiogenesis theory and I see the universe, life and all it's complexities arising quite logically, 'naturally' and progressively as a consequence of generalised physical laws without the need for a 'helping hand'. Obviously I have been aware of the theory of evolution on general level for some time, I haven't just plucked it out of the air all by myself on my own terms, but it fits with what I know about physics and chemistry, is more plausible than a divine creator, based on some very simple observations too (like the eyes thing mentioned earlier).

Weren't the transitional states covered earlier in the thread?

 

[ringo747]

I haven't read the whole thread so not sure. As far I can see the Cambrian explosion record shows no transitional states and shows the vast majority of animal types. Surely these discoveries alone kill the suggestion that this process took all these millions of years?

As far as Darwins tree goes we surely only know about the ends of the branches, anything else is nothing more than a guess.

To the casual observer the whole thing may or may not sound convincing but at a cellular level is this all even possible in a short time given the short times involved as suggested by Cambrian.

Some organs/functions have been classed by some as irreducible complex meaning that it's impossible that they evolved.

Some fascinating questions arise which I'm sure we will never have answers. An example, did man or woman evolve first? How many millions of years would there be between the two? Man obviously wouldn't have survived without a woman to reproduce.

 

[Raikiri]

Is a creature supposed to understand the concept of resources and to determine how limited they are? It all seems incredibly far fetched to me.

No. Again, animals do not decide to evolve.

Those that have mutations which are better suited to survive with limited resources do so, they then pass on the mutation. Those that are ill equipped die out. There's no decision involved.

Surely we would observe lots of unused organs as a result of such a trial and error process, or did the process simply make the right call every time?

VOMERONASAL ORGAN
A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES
This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.

THIRD EYELID
A common ancestor of birds and mammals may have had a membrane for protecting the eye and sweeping out debris. Humans retain only a tiny fold in the inner corner of the eye.

PALMARIS MUSCLE
This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery.

APPENDIX
This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy.

FIFTH TOE
Lesser apes use all their toes for grasping or clinging to branches. Humans need mainly the big toe for balance while walking upright.

COCCYX
These fused vertebrae are all that’s left of the tail that most mammals still use for balance and communication. Our hominid ancestors lost the need for a tail before they began walking upright.

And so on, that's in humans alone.

To the casual observer the whole thing may or may not sound convincing but at a cellular level is this all even possible in a short time given the short times involved as suggested by Cambrian.

You realise the cambrian explosion took place over 70-80 million years right?

 

[aardvark]

To the casual observer the whole thing may or may not sound convincing but at a cellular level is this all even possible in a short time given the short times involved as suggested by Cambrian.

i would say 50-100 million years is quite a long time.

 

[Robosapien]

I haven't read the whole thread so not sure. As far I can see the Cambrian explosion record shows no transitional states and shows the vast majority of animal types. Surely these discoveries alone kill the suggestion that this process took all these millions of years?

As far as Darwins tree goes we surely only know about the ends of the branches, anything else is nothing more than a guess.

To the casual observer the whole thing may or may not sound convincing but at a cellular level is this all even possible in a short time given the short times involved as suggested by Cambrian.

Some organs/functions have been classed by some as irreducible complex meaning that it's impossible that they evolved.

Well, here I will admit to reaching my limit on providing explanations on the theory and the mechanisms by which they could occur (e.g. without making seemingly intelligent decisions on competitive advantage) without researching further into what you are referring to.

Some fascinating questions arise which I'm sure we will never have answers. An example, did man or woman evolve first? How many millions of years would there be between the two? Man obviously wouldn't have survived without a woman to reproduce.

Not sure what you mean. Why would either of them evolve millions of years before the other? Do you mean male and female, as opposed to man or woman? I'm intrigued by the question - you must be making some assumptions here. Evolution is a process, reproduction involves exchanging chromosones, whole species evolve gradually based on natural selection. It's a long process. A woman just doesn't pop out of a monkey and waits around for a shag for a few million years.

I'll check thread again in few hours. It certainly is interesting.

 

[Robosapien]

VOMERONASAL ORGAN

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES

THIRD EYELID

PALMARIS MUSCLE

APPENDIX

FIFTH TOE

COCCYX

And so on, that's in humans alone.

Ah that's what he meant by unused organs. I had a vision of a liver or a kidney lying on the floor that had evolved completely by itself from the primordial soup to serve no useful function and was somehow expected to have left evidence of it's failed existence for us to find millions of years later.

 

[The Running Man]

Is there a single ounce of evidence to support your ideas or is it just a good guess? What is the most convincing part of the theory that has caused you to support it?

Ringo show me the evidence of creation. The evidence to suggest genesis is the truth. What you said is effectively what genesis was, a best guess...

 

[wannabedamned]

Ringo show me the evidence of creation. The evidence to suggest genesis is the truth. What you said is effectively what genesis was, a best guess...

Careful, This is where 10 pages of "No, You prove it!" starts

Take a look at a few other threads of a similar debate, its really funny\tedious\sad

 

[ringo747]

You realise the cambrian explosion took place over 70-80 million years right?

Yes. However, in the fossil record there is no transitional states. The vast majority of animal types were discovered together.

i would say 50-100 million years is quite a long time.

Absolutely. Unfortunately the fossil record doesn't back up the theory.

Not sure what you mean. Why would either of them evolve millions of years before the other? Do you mean male and female, as opposed to man or woman? I'm intrigued by the question - you must be making some assumptions here. Evolution is a process, reproduction involves exchanging chromosones, whole species evolve gradually based on natural selection. It's a long process. A woman just doesn't pop out of a monkey and waits around for a shag for a few million years.

I'll check thread again in few hours. It certainly is interesting.

Well at some point there must have been the first male. There must have been a first exponent of sexual reproduction? Did human males always have the reproductive organs? Until the sexual organs evolved then reproduction couldn't happen obviously! The whole thing must just be magic!