[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Singh

I've just though of one error or problem with the theory. Please correct me about this since I've always wanted to find the answer. How did the trees and plants evolve? The theory dictates that life started in the deep oceans where primitive plants changed CO2 to O2, and that hence led to the formation of other life that could exist on the ocean. Thing is....where did the basis of the trees and plants on land come from? Supposedly, by the time fishes could come onto shore, their were already insects and what-not plants there. But how is this possible if the first life and the only conditions for first life existed in the oceans? Did microscopic algea scrape up from the bottom and reach the top? if so, how could they change to form fungi or the plants that we see today? This is one of the anomalies I was talking about and any clarification from an expert is much appreciated .
 

the general theory is that mutations occur randomly, and that those which are beneficial eventually get incorporated into the genetics of the species (literally, survivial of the fittest). In case of - for example - algae, moving onto land would mean there was no competition for space & resources (sunlight) and thus convey an advantage which allowed the propagation of the species, etc, etc.

there are holes in it, of course - how the mutuations occur, how they are 'selected' as better, how behaviour modifies to take into account these modifications (i.e. why move out of water in the first place?), etc......but it's still to early to expect this level of understanding, anyway.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Singh
I've just though of one error or problem with the theory. Please correct me about this since I've always wanted to find the answer. How did the trees and plants evolve? The theory dictates that life started in the deep oceans where primitive plants changed CO2 to O2, and that hence led to the formation of other life that could exist on the ocean. Thing is....where did the basis of the trees and plants on land come from? Supposedly, by the time fishes could come onto shore, their were already insects and what-not plants there. But how is this possible if the first life and the only conditions for first life existed in the oceans? Did microscopic algea scrape up from the bottom and reach the top? if so, how could they change to form fungi or the plants that we see today? This is one of the anomalies I was talking about and any clarification from an expert is much appreciated

Not all of that oxygen disolved in the sea. Plenty of it went into the atomosphere. When plants moved onto the land there was plenty of oxygen for them to use.
 Have a look at this timeline there were 2 billion years between the start of plant life in the oceans and it moving onto land. That's a long amount of time.
Most likely it started with plants moving onto the cliff sides and thus being uncovered by the oceans when the tide went out. This would be a major advantage for a plant because during the time it was out of the water it was completely safe from predators. The only thing that suprises me is that plants took so long to move out of the oceans.

[Odyssey]

Originally posted by karajorma
But it is. Almost all research on bateria, on a cure to AIDS will involve understanding how a virus or bacteria can evolve. Besides like I said no one knew that Origin of the Species would lead to genetics so who knows what research into evolution will lead to?

As for your atom bomb comments you're wrong. H-bombs are fusion. The nukes dropped on japan weren't H-bombs though. They were powered by fission as are many (if not most) small atom bombs.

[color=cc9900]We would have found it out, just we wouldn't have called it evolution. Mutation, or something. Oh wait, we do...

Okay, fair enough about the bombs, I'm not that clued up when it comes to weaponry. I would hardly class any atom bomb as small though.[/color]

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]We would have found it out, just we wouldn't have called it evolution. Mutation, or something. Oh wait, we do...[/color]

I never said they were the same thing as evolution. I said that it would take longer before we found them. If you don't care about evolution looking for the mechanism for hereditory is much less important.

I absolutely hate people who say to ignore blue skies research. Some of the greatest discoveries of all time would have been ignored unless we bothered to figure out how things work. It's just close-mindedness at its worst.

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]I never said we shouldn't participate in blue-skies research, I'm just saying one specific area - finding out where humans came from - won't really ever help us to any great degree.[/color]

[karajorma]

How do you know that? The reason why I hate people who are anti-blue sky (in any field) is that they act like they know that there is nothing worth finding there. Are you that much of an expert in biology to know that? What are your credentials?

Here's something I know that proves that it may be worth it. The discovery that RNA (and possibly DNA) have liquid crystalline properties may prove useful one day in the fields of drug research and that's a direct off shoot from people studying the conditions that DNA/RNA would have arisen under. Sure someone would have eventually noticed LC activity in RNA without that research but it might have taken years before someone tried it.

There's another reason. While people don't have a full understanding of evolution the god botherers can make stupid claims about how it's just a theory or how it's all unproven. The comments are a load of crap but if evolution can be completely explained they won't even be able to say that. We'll be able to point at it and say "Nope. Not a theory. It's a law. Proved from start to finish."

But even that arguement is moot. The simple fact is that mankind has always tried to learn everything. That's a goal I can live with. I hate it when people say "Learn everything except about this because I don't think it's worth it." Well if that's your attitude why not live in a cave, hunt deer and ignore the whole of mankind's quest to better himself as a bad idea!

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]I don't know there isn't anything worth finding there, but I do know there's probably nothing in there that I'm going to particularly care about. Sure, we might miss out finding some incredibly fascinating fact about why cats hate mice, but I can live with that.

To be honest, much as I despise them, God botherers can do whatever they feel like doing so long as it doesn't screw the system, which is unlikely now. If shouting to deaf ears is how they want to spend their lives...

Actually, I would rather like being segregated from society completely and utterly. Although I'd farm rather than hunt deer, I'm vegetarian. It'd certainly be a lot easier, but someday a tax official would track me down and ask for a few decades' worth of housing tax on my cave.[/color]

[karajorma]

I gave you the example of new drugs. Is that not worth having then?

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]Simply put, and this is going to sound awful - if the drugs save people's lives, I'm not wholly for them. There are way too many people in the world at the moment, and if everybody lived to 80 or something... ~shudder~
Look what a healthy population and high life expectancy has done to Japan. Labour shortages are getting worse and worse, with pensions getting more and more numerous.[/color]

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]Simply put, and this is going to sound awful - if the drugs save people's lives, I'm not wholly for them. There are way too many people in the world at the moment, and if everybody lived to 80 or something... ~shudder~
Look what a healthy population and high life expectancy has done to Japan. Labour shortages are getting worse and worse, with pensions getting more and more numerous.[/color]

Funny how the people who complain about there being too many people in the world aren't willing to weed themselves out of the excess population. It's only other people who need to die.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by karajorma


Aha. The agnostic view finally appears The simple fact is that you may not believe it's entirely correct and you're welcome to that belief but just because you don't understand it doesn't make something untrue and it's very rare that I hear anyone claim that evolution isn't entirely correct from someone who actually fully understands it.

Most people who complain about evolution being incorrect couldn't explain simple evolutionary concepts (like how the eye evolved).

That's not agnosticism. Agnosticism isn't about "we don't know" it's about "we have no way of knowing". There's a difference.

[karajorma]

From Mirriam-Webster online
agnostic
Function: noun
A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I was using a broader sense of the word. The one I once heard described like this.

Agnostic - one who doesn't know the nature of god except to say that you've got it wrong

[Odyssey]

Originally posted by karajorma
Funny how the people who complain about there being too many people in the world aren't willing to weed themselves out of the excess population. It's only other people who need to die.

[color=cc9900]But I don't have a life-threatening disease, do I? Faced with the prospect of staying in the hospital and/or being in pain for the rest of my life, I would kill myself, no two ways about it. I'm also planning to become sterile so I don't contribute more to the problem.
That enough for you?[/color]

[karajorma]

There's a difference between not contributing to the problem and helping to solve it. You're just not trying hard enough

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]I'm not going to advocate mass-suicides, that'd be overkill. If half the world stopped contributing though, and the other half covered their ears and sang, the problem would eventually go away. At least, I like to think so.[/color]

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma
I've never read The Origin of the Species but dispite what the creationsists believe aetheists don't believe that Darwin is god.

Eh? I never said that, and have never heard anyone else say that, either. Unless you have some other basis for that statement, don't put words in other people's mouths.

[an0n]

Morality and ethics are figments of the human imagination conjoured up by kings and priests as a means of giving a definitive point from which to base their power over the people.

Evolution has been proven. All 'creationists' are wrong. Simple as that. There's no 'unexplored angle', no 'alternate viewpoint'. They're just plainly and simply flat-out wrong.

The existence of God is a question that cannot be answered as by the very metaphysical definition of the concept of God, 'he' both exists and does not exist as this is the only way for either possibility to be true.

Some would say that God created man, that he shelters man from evil, that he protects man and nurtures man. They say that he leads man down the path of righteousness, and they're right. He does. But that does not negate the fact that there is simply no all-powerful being whose whim we are all subject to.

'God' is the all-consuming, core ideal of mankind. He is the driving belief that there is something more out there. The nagging thought in the back of your mind that whispers constantly in your ear to "Go take a look".

God is no a supreme being, but the pursuit of a supreme being. The belief that somewhere out there, there's something worth looking for. Something worth working towards. Some intangible goal that if we were to reach it, all our lives would be better.

God is the most basic part of human nature. God is 'Why?'.

But, when mankind began its eternal lust for power, the question became "Why them?" and "Why not just me?".



Happy? Right, now ****-off to bed.

[Stryke 9]

DARWIN IS TEH LOARD! BOW BEFORE DARWIN!


[cue drums]
Unga-unga unga-unga  BOOG BOOG BOOG BOOG!

[01010]

One day I will have a beard so bountiful and I will share it with all the Earths children and they shall look unto me as a God.

They shall speaketh the name of the beard man in hallowed tones.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Eh? I never said that, and have never heard anyone else say that, either. Unless you have some other basis for that statement, don't put words in other people's mouths.

Hmmm. I've noticed I wrote "the" instead of "some" in that sentence. My bad. By creationists I was refering to the creation scientists side of the scale too rather than all religious people.

 There is a tendancy amongst some religious people to nitpick Darwin as if proving he got one fact wrong means that the whole of evolutionary theory is incorrect. That's what I was alluding to. Of course not all creationists do that. Almost all creation scientists do however.