question about origins of life

[Mirabilis]

Do you think that evolution is real, and that we evolved from water, or apes, or that we came from the same family tree as apes Ryuki?

Because I thought we were created by aliens, to be the bases for other bio-weapons. lol

Edited December 15, 2008 by Mirabilis

[*Jess♥]

it's an interesting question that deserves it's own topic... so here it is.

you're asking me this at a time of upheaval.. I'm not entirely certain what i should say to be honest..

I think that evolution as science has it is the vehicle for evolution, but the driving force has to be something else.

in this way i don't think there is much difference between what guyver says and real world.

personally, I believe that the driving force behind evolution is the power of creation. YHWH, GAIA, LOVE, God, Spirits, whatever you want to call it.

"I am that I am."

and we are part of that that is. creation.

after all, the elements that make up our body are the elements of this planet. it's silly to think of us as anything other than the parts of the planets existence and not separate.

mirabilis, do you really think we were created by aliens?

I think maybe you were joking :wink:

[Mirabilis]

That is a very interesting opinion. and yup you caught me Ryuki

Edited February 12, 2011 by Mirabilis

[Guest Ashura]

Now this is a topic I've been thinking about for over a decade since I wanted to major in Microbiology (Genetics to be specific; Proteomics to be further specific).. I apologize in advance for not further backing up anything stated here with factual references; I'm just going off the top of my head here.

I think we as part of the Hominidae Family (humanoid bipedal creatures such as monkeys, apes, humans themselves) were all on Earth during the same time-frame. We did not specifically evolve from monkeys or apes because if such were true we would still be seeing evidence of evolution in the existing monkeys/apes and therefore have "missing links" walking about and socializing amongst us or with similar species. Some scientists argue the catalyst that caused evolution to occur in monkeys/apes was a psychological need for change; perhaps the need to travel beyond their native homeland/habitat. To this date no one scientist following the evolution theory has given an explanation as to what incentive these monkeys/apes would've had to venture out of their own safehaven and into the unknown and "hostile" world.

Anyway, that catalyst provoked a physiological change in their brain structure, forming a 4th layer in the cerebral cortex (which humans have but chimpanzees do not and is thought to be the reason why humans adapt mentally faster to situations than chimpanzees; although chimps are known to mimic new behaviors which eventually become skills and that knowledge occasionally can be passed on to other chimps via imitation rather than education - the infamous "100th monkey" syndrome). The 4th layer is considered to be an evolutionary change, but considering that chimpanzees exist not far from Homo sapiens' villages there is no explanation to why chimpanzees have not mimicked Human behavior and triggered that catalyst again. Perhaps the need is not there anymore.. who knows?

To get to my point:

I do not know whether we were created by an unknown force as Ryuki stated in his post

YHWH, GAIA, LOVE, God, Spirits, whatever you want to call it. "I am that I am."

I do think Homo sapiens co-existed with other species that were of the Family Hominidae, some which may account for stories of the Yeti, Sasquatch, and even supernatural beings like Angels, Demons, Titans, Asura, Deva, Rakshasa, deities of other religions. If you notice in nature, just by going outside - especially in forests, woods, etc. - you'll come across many insects and animals that appear to be similar but are not. For example, we classify Ostriches as birds knowing full well that our "accepted" definition of a Bird is a flying winged animal of various size and appearance. But an Ostrich does not fly? Probably could jump and flap its wings like a madman and gain a couple of feet while running. Penguins are classified as birds, but they do not fly either however they are agile swimmers. But we classify them as Birds.

That being said, creatures similar to us such as the aforementioned Yeti & Sasquatch are in effect "Human". Neither came from the other. It is a normal aspect of nature (biological) that there will be some species that will mimic another. If I recall correctly from college Ceraturgus cruciatus (I can't remember the proper spelling, sorry!) was a popular one with us in the lab. This one's known as the Wasp mimic "Robber Fly".. completely different Family of insects yet looks just like a Wasp.

I feel like I'm going off-track here: I know there are UFOlogists that believe we are a by-product of Extraterrestrial bioengineering. Some E.T.'s genetically engineered us (Homo sapiens - or quite possibly the entire Family Hominidae branch itself) combining their DNA with ours in order to augment their own specie to better survive. That's one theory as there are so many out there.

There is the Creationist viewpoint which Ryuki mentioned in his post and Evolution theory.

Being Human, we strive to differentiate ourselves in the universe as if to carve our niche into the fabric of time itself. Maybe we really are fragile creatures and are doing this out of fear of being lonely, knowing there really is no other lifeform like us out there in the universe. Maybe we know subconsciously that we are highly adaptive yet given such a short lease on life (not considering biblical figures like Methuselah from the Book of Genesis who lived to be 969 years old) - we are desperate in our attempt to find out who we are, where we came from, why we exist and for what purpose.

All in all, I guess that's when this topic comes up, saying "I don't know" holds immense power in the face of all the theories and biblical books.

I don't believe one has to hold an educational certificate nor does one need to be thoroughly educated to hold claim to the "answer" to the origin of humans.

- Ashura

P.S. - I think our specie through adaption is a weapon. While we are obviously not Guyver-esque, one has to admit that we are one destructive specie all our own. That said I am aware of several projects "blacklisted" for now within the U.S. government that have been working towards engineering an actual human "weapon" impervious to all known viruses, chemicals (those used in warfare) and has significant biological augmentation (enhanced stamina, strength & maybe enhanced senses)... These projects are well out in the open and are known to the public but the sum total of their purpose is not generally known.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Ashura

[Mirabilis]

Say what

LOL! Iam just kidding with you!

That was very well said. I would say you put alot of thought into this topic. Me personally, I would have to agree with the old school style. Creationism. I understand that some people out there believed they came from apes or water or other various methods, but I dont understand why they would want to. I have my own ideas as to why they think this, but I would think that a person would want to believe that someone created them specificlly to love them and care for them; then believeing that they came from an animal and theres no purpose as to why they were born.

However, I believe they think this because they are confused, and dont want the responsibility that believers caring on them. For ex: In some religion's the believers are not to do anything that would be considered worldly. Viewing pornography, haveing premaritial sex, use of drugs etc. THese people might see this and say, "I dont want to have to follow those rules." So they dont believe, so they wont have to follow the rules.

However this is just my opinion, I dont have any facts or anything like that.

[*zeo]

Ah but then how do you explain all future generations?

Evolution works pretty much on the same premise as understanding what will come is based on what was before it. Otherwise why would your child look like you? Why are our DNA effected by the life experiences of even our great grandfathers? Why is it important to diversify for a species to survive? If life simply follows the divine design?

And wouldn't a world without random change be ultimately boring? Not to mention what then of free will if we were just designed for a function? Being cared for is a comforting thought but inversely being essentially a robot is an equally disturbing thought.

However, the theory of evolution is not devoid of spiritualism. Many just believe god's plan goes down to the very atoms we're composed of that were once part of stars. Not all believe in the strictly non-spiritual interpretation, for many science is just an attempt to understand creation. So this could really be argued either way, it all depends on what you personally believe and what you consider as evidence.

[Salkafar]

And nobody answers naturalistically?

Well then, I suppose it is up to me.

I believe life, once it starts, rushes to fill every single nook and cranny it possibly can, just like a fluid - simply because of cause and effect, based on passing on qualities and traits to the offspring, in other words: Your kids will be like you.

- Individuals that produce more viable offspring than others will eventually outbreed those other bloodlines.

- If circumstances change, the individuals least compatible with the new state will die. If the critical limit for that exceeds the capabilities of every individual of the species, the species goes extinct. If there are survivors, they will be the new species, and since their extreme forms the new average, that means the species has what is commonly called `evolved´.

- For this reason, genetic variation is important. And for that reason, having lots of offspring is important especially in an environment that is hostile, changes rapidly, or if you are not particularly strong or resilient as individuals.

- Problem-solving intelligence is not a popular survival trait. This is because of the high costs developing such a specialization. Given that apes are normal animals, humans are freaks: Our enormous brains make birth very difficult, we need very long child care because of the physical adaptations needed, and we cannot stick to a wholly vegetarian diet because of the high need for proteins. Physically, we are very weak - we have sacrificed four-fifths of our innate strength to be able to walk upright to fully free our hands and locomote in a very efficient way (The one thing that humans do better than practically any other species in the world is walking - not running, walking) despite standing in an intrinsically unstable way and having a huge counterweight at the top.

Now, despite the obvious drawbacks, problem-solving intelligence turned out to be a good investment - a chain of unlikely choices, which consequently occurred only once in history so far, resulted in a physically frail species, which practically dominates the globe. We are the only species which can actively, if feebly, oppose the caste which has ruled for the last four billion years or so - the bacteria.

This being said, it is not difficult to imagine seeing an invisible hand controlling it all... but frankly, no, I disagree. We are nature´s products... and nature is blind and does not engage in retrospection.

***

It is true that several species of hominid primate coexisted, or at least existed at the same time. And also that it is not entirely clear what caused the initial trend towards increased intelligence (although there are several intriguing theories, from Elaine Morgan´s water ape theory, to the inclusion of retroviruses actually causing the changes).

But this:

We did not specifically evolve from monkeys or apes because if such were true we would still be seeing evidence of evolution in the existing monkeys/apes and therefore have "missing links" walking about and socializing amongst us or with similar species.

Seems a totally unwarranted conclusion.

***

"Me personally, I would have to agree with the old school style. Creationism. I understand that some people out there believed they came from apes or water or other various methods, but I dont understand why they would want to."

Because of the all the evidence pointing that way?

"I would think that a person would want to believe that someone created them specificlly to love them and care for them; then believeing that they came from an animal and theres no purpose as to why they were born."

What one wants is irrelevant to the facts.

"I believe they think this because they are confused,"

This is what is known as a `gotspe´.

"and dont want the responsibility that believers caring on them. For ex: In some religion's the believers are not to do anything that would be considered worldly. Viewing pornography, haveing premaritial sex, use of drugs etc. THese people might see this and say, "I dont want to have to follow those rules." So they dont believe, so they wont have to follow the rules."

Could you please try to be a bit more conceited and insulting next time?

"However this is just my opinion, I dont have any facts or anything like that."

No drenn.

[Mirabilis]

I believe life, Individuals that produce more viable offspring than others will eventually outbreed those other bloodline

***

It is true that several species of hominid primate coexisted, or at least existed at the same time. And also that it is not entirely clear what caused the initial trend towards increased intelligence

Thats because there is no evidence dictating that evolution has occured. Even before Darwin died, he said that he made up the whole concept of Evolution

We did not specifically evolve from monkeys or apes because if such were true we would still be seeing evidence of evolution in the existing monkeys/apes and therefore have "missing links" walking about and socializing amongst us or with similar species.

Seems a totally unwarranted conclusion.

How is that? please explain

"Me personally, I would have to agree with the old school style. Creationism. I understand that some people out there believed they came from apes or water or other various methods, but I dont understand why they would want to."

Because of the all the evidence pointing that way?

What evidence? There isnt a single shred of proof in the follsized record that say we evolved from some sort of animal. If there was we would have found its remains a long time ago. And their fossils would be more plentiful and easier to find then those of extinct dinosaurs, because they died before we evolved right? So then we should be able to find their bones, but we cant, and we never have before. So where is this "Evidence"? The believe of evolution is exactly that. Believe. It is really no different then the believe in religion. That is a believe. Until there is actualy proof in the fossil record, the theory of evolution will only be a theory, the same with the believe of creationism.

"I would think that a person would want to believe that someone created them specificlly to love them and care for them; then believeing that they came from an animal and theres no purpose as to why they were born."

What one wants is irrelevant to the facts.

How is that, please explain. I dont understand what you mean.

"I believe they think this because they are confused,"

This is what is known as a `gotspe´.

"and dont want the responsibility that believers caring on them. For ex: In some religion's the believers are not to do anything that would be considered worldly. Viewing pornography, haveing premaritial sex, use of drugs etc. THese people might see this and say, "I dont want to have to follow those rules." So they dont believe, so they wont have to follow the rules."

Could you please try to be a bit more conceited and insulting next time?

Not trying to insult anyone, what you believe is your own business. This is just a discussion feel free to say what you want about your believes and ideas. We arnt trying to hurt anyone's feelings or degrade anyones believes

"However this is just my opinion, I dont have any facts or anything like that."

No drenn.

Is this really nesiccary?

Edited April 22, 2009 by Mirabilis

[*zeo]

What evidence? There isnt a single shred of proof in the follsized record that say we evolved from some sort of animal.

Lines of Evidence: The Science of Evolution

Basically there is about 2 centuries of accumulated evidence, we're really only missing the actual missing link that will push it beyond an absolute doubt of what our direct lineage is.

Whether you agree with the conclusions of the scientific community is up to you but saying there is no evidence is untrue. The evidence is just not absolute!

A comparison of where we are right now with the evidence would be a murder trial in which we can see a video of the suspect holding a gun but the video skips over the actual killing and just shows the suspect holding the smoking gun over the body. Many would conclude the evidence is conclusive but still there is that gap. . . it all depends how conclusive you think the evidence is?

[*Jess♥]

nicely worded zeo.

I think what we can say is that there is evidence that strongly suggests evolutiion. this evidence is not evidence 'of' evolution because this statement is worded such that evolution is a fact and that the evidence was found because it is true, whereas if we simply provide teh evidence and say that most people conclude that evolutioon works in such a way because of how teh evidence looks, I think this makes sense?

I think what mirabilis is getting at here is the fact that this evidence supports evolution, but it doesn't prove it.

it's not evidence of evolution, it's evidence of different creature types over time that are very similar and seem to change following certain patterns.

but then, saying that... viruses and other microorganisms do offer startlingly strong support for evolution.

I think though.. the aguments for and against creationism... and intelligent design etc. it is not really somethig you can argue over since it just relies on your perspective.

after all, there is also the argument as to wether or not WE have free will. some people may say that our choice is simply an illusion and that we are all simply following an elaborate pattern. that our choices are simple cause and effect? how exactly would you prove otherwise. it's not really something you can say for definite.

[*YoungGuyver]

Salkafar, I think you have worded that perfectly. And nice backing him up Zeo.

As Einstein once said- 'Reality is what exists, even after you stop believing in it'.

We have, what is it now, four major religions, and hundreds or perhaps thousands of little ones? The odds of picking the correct religion the first time rounds are astronomically against you. So if a religion attempts to describe the universe (and not just a philosophy for coping within it), then science can be used to narrow down the list of religions as possible truths. Depending upon interpretation also, but that's really getting into it. How much poetry do you want?

I believe in evolution yes. Did aliens engineer humanity? Maybe. But ultimately, life has to start somehow. If an entity is a force of energy that interacts with the world around it, triggering reactions within chemicals, eventually building into cells, and ever increasing complexity.

What really has me though is fire. To me, it is life in its most primitive and chaotic. It is so dependent on its fuel supply; it has no reserve in most cases. Our form of life matches the energy reaction of fire, but has the reaction control and regulated. Perhaps life itself was not born in water, but in ashes, where the energy reactions could find chemicals to carry it further. A field of ashes would be required, and a medium for mixing different forms. So I guess water then comes into it again. Granted, it would have to be very polluted water in order to continue such a high energy reaction. Something like a thermal vent would probably be the closest equivalent. Who knows if Earth is even the proper chemical mix for the original start of chemical life? But a start is a start.

[Mirabilis]

Lines of Evidence: The Science of Evolution

Whether you agree with the conclusions of the scientific community is up to you but saying there is no evidence is untrue. The evidence is just not absolute!

A comparison of where we are right now with the evidence would be a murder trial in which we can see a video of the suspect holding a gun but the video skips over the actual killing and just shows the suspect holding the smoking gun over the body. Many would conclude the evidence is conclusive but still there is that gap. . . it all depends how conclusive you think the evidence is?

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you zeo. Again if your belief is your own business and I am not going to think of anyone any less or degrade your belief's but can you elborate on this please, because this is how I see your comparison.

You are comparing evolution to a picture of a man firing a gun. So saying this, are you saying that we went directly from primate to human? Please explain cause I do understand your point but I dont really see how it could be reality.

Everyone knows that a gun fires a bullet that's common since, plus their isnt anything missing cause you have THE BULLET. The Bullet would be the missing link in that case. If you just had a gun and a deadman,without a bullet, you couldnt say the gun is what killed him. But with the bullet you have all the evidence and proof you need to say this is how he died.

But here we don't have THE BULLET in evolution. In your statement with the case, the bullet would be the missing link from the gun fired, to create a dead man, you have to have something peirce him to kill him, hence the bullet. But in Evolution we dont have, the bullet, so therefore we dont have the proof to say we evolved. Their could be some evidence to suggest the we evolved, but there still inst the bullet, the proof. So I disagree with your statements and conclusion. That would be like saying, "I went to the zoo, and took a picture of a monkey. I then took a picture of my brother, though there wasnt a picture of the creature between the stages, we can conclude that we evolved from primates." Do you see my point?

I think what mirabilis is getting at here is the fact that this evidence supports evolution, but it doesn't prove it.

it's not evidence of evolution, it's evidence of different creature types over time that are very similar and seem to change following certain patterns.

Can always count on you ryuki, for your wisdom!

But yeah thats pretty much what I meant, perhaps I worded it wrong? Anyways, I know of stories of where different people tried to prove evolution by taking monkey skulls and putting human jaws on them, but those were all fonnies. If we did evolve from some sort of creature, then I am sure, no possitive! That we would have found the hybrid/missing link/ mix of of animal and human creatures.

Again this is just discussion, not degrading believes or ideas. What you believe is what you want to believe. Not making fun of and belittleing anyone

[*Jess♥]

mirbilis, I'll explain what zeo is trying to say.

oe one hand in terms of evidence that supports evolution, you have a couple of different exhibits. these exhibits are teh evidence.

the two photo's represent evidence also.

so if we use two photos as the only evidence available, the one shows the man with hte gun, the other shows the other man dead. what is missing in terms of evidence is teh critical piece that shows teh gun firing the bullet. this illustrates that the evidence that exists shows a strong probability of what happened, but ther eis teh missing vital piece, the missing link.

one would normally assume what was there. we would assume that the gun fired. but any number of unlikely things could have happened.

what this suggests in way of analogy, is that the two different pieces of evidence in support of evolution have a bit missing that would really show cocrete proof. we have enough to make teh same assumption as with hte photos. but we just have a missing link.

does this make sense now?

[Salkafar]

Mirabilis, what do you actually know about the subject?

Before I add anything more, I would like to know just exactly what you think evolution is and why we think it happened.

[Mirabilis]

Ok well I dont have like a college level of understanding. But my father taught me about it, and I learned about it in school. This is pretty much what I know:

Darwin went out on some ship and was traveling the world and came to some ilsands. He wrote in his journal his findings of similar creature's that were living in different habitats, but the islands were close to each other. He continued his studies and his travels for I think it was a period of years or months? I dont remember how long it was, but anyways he came up with the idea of evolution through his studies. However, he was afraid at the time to publish his findings because at that time the power of the church was strong and if he did he thought he might get killed. But then someone else starting thinking the same thing, and he starting to publish it, so Darwin beat him to the punch. However, my Bio teacher told us that before he died that he announced that he made the concept of evolution all up. (I dont know if thats true or not) Thats the basic background that I have on Darwin

Now as far as evolution itself.

Evolution is the process of changing over a peroid of time, through adaptation eventually resulting in a new species.

I have watched the DVD Scientific Discoveries "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution."

My dad told me that the Second Law of Thermal Dinamics "That any closed or open system tends toward disorder" would have to be broken for evolution to take place.

Micro evolution is natural selection and adaptation with limited lasting effects to the genetic code.

Macro evolution is what results in new species.

This is pretty much what I know about this subject for evolution. I've studied Darwin and his theories, and the different ideas of evolution my sophmoore year. As I said before though I dont have a phd in it or anything like that.

I am mainly curios to see ,what people belief, in the creation of life and the planet really. I am not here to tell you your wrong or to say "go read the bible you unbeleiver!" No, thats not why I opened this topic. I want to see all the different ideas on how the planet was formed and how life was created. Again as I said before what you believe is your own business, I am not here to say you are wrong or to judge you. I am only interested in all the different ideas of life's origins.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Mirabilis

[*YoungGuyver]

Innate problem-

Darwin was 200 HUNDRED years ago! Science advances. Darwin is not the end all be all of evolution. We actually have researched, and understand more about how the process actually works now. And even if he did make it up (that is a rumor, not historical fact) it wouldn't change the evidence for the theory. (Zeo, do you want to tell the tale of the lady who claimed Darwin recanted the theory on his death bed?)

Instead of getting overly preachy or high and mighty, here is some lite reading to explain more of what the -modern- theory is currently like:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1362...onceptions.html

[*zeo]

(Zeo, do you want to tell the tale of the lady who claimed Darwin recanted the theory on his death bed?)

Okay, for perspective basically the theory of evolution has always been controversial. Even more so when Darwin first proposed the theory, so of course he had those who would desperately want to discredit him... much like today's politics the truth often suffers by the leanings of whoever tells the tale.

Though the tale of Lady Hope, in which YoungGuyver is referring to, was just one of many attempts at claiming Darwin had converted and recanted his theory but is the most famous. Basic background of which is Lady Hope was born Elizabeth Reid Cotton and was the daughter of General Sir Arthur Cotton. Active evangelists in Kent, her family was very near Charles Darwin’s home. She became known as Lady Hope In 1877 when she married Admiral Sir James Hope, a title she continued to use even after remarrying subsequent to first husband's death a few years later. And it is her retelling of Darwin's last days that the rumor that he had converted was put forth and readily accepted by those who were against the theory.

The problem with her story is that the only time she could have visited Darwin was several months before his death and so she could never have heard any death bed confession. But even if you were to believe her story, she never actually said he specifically denounced evolution. Her story only stated he questioned the outcome of his theory but that was enough for rumors to abound and exaggerations there of. Though opinions will of course vary as to what was exaggerated and what wasn't.

But we also have Darwin's daughter, who was at his deathbed, and unequivocally denounces that Lady Hope was there and that her father never denounced his theory. Not to mention Darwin's wife, who was never comfortable with her husbands theories, would most certainly have been vocal if this had actually happened.

Unfortunately, as with all controversial subjects, significant misinformation has abounded in the debate on evolution to this very day. YoungGuyvers's link adeptly lists the most common.

For example, most do not know that Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution. The idea of evolution was put forth long before he was born, Darwin was just the first to research and put the idea into a evidence based conclusive format that was acceptable to the scientific community.

The Galápagos Islands was one of Darwin's first explorations, and it did provide him a wealth of evidence, but he did not officially formulate his theory until about 6 years after he had visited those islands and had time to compare with life in much of the known world at the time. And he did not publish until years later still, covering a period from when he was 22 to his fifties. He then continued to refine his theory for the remainder of his life.

And as YoungGuyver pointed out we have had quite a long time to refine the theory as new evidence, such as DNA, has come to light and added to our understanding of how life functions. . . But the problem is that people against the theory of evolution usually continue to argue it in its original form rather than what the theory has evolved to today. So it is not often that people will hear a fair and accurate argument for or against evolution. . .

As for violating laws of thermodynamics, this is an old argument which essentially deals with entropy but doesn't actually goes against evolution. Since evolution doesn't state that life works outside of equilibrium (which is also a requirement for a system to degrade into more chaos), as life must always be in equilibrium otherwise ecologies collapse and species become extinct. Rather the idea is that life uses randomness to explain the basis for the mechanisms that lead to evolution.

So the closest thing to an actual violation is the process by which life continuously renews itself. For example our DNA is constantly degrading from the moment of our birth, due to exposure to toxins and ambient radiation. But every time we procreate the DNA clock is reset and the damage repaired. However, life doesn't achieve this by violating entropy but rather working with it and simply using a system of auto-correcting as the DNA of both parents is used to make a healthy new set for the child. But even then mutations occur and is why so many insist on evolution because life has to continuously adapt to these mutations and to many evolution seems the best way to explain how this is accomplished.

Like passing along a sentence by word of mouth, as each person whispers it into the ear of the next person, around a room quickly can distort the sentence into something very different from what was originally stated. The idea is the same for evolution except now we apply it to DNA, the arguments then are over whether these mutations follow a pattern (Intelligent Design) or are truly random (evolution).

I would recommend taking your time reviewing the link YoungGuyver provided, regardless of what your beliefs are it is good to at least get the facts straight to properly and fairly argue for which ever conclusion your beliefs lead you to.

And thus ends my 1000th post

[Salkafar]

Ok well I dont have like a college level of understanding. But my father taught me about it, and I learned about it in school. This is pretty much what I know:

* Darwin went out on some ship

The Beagle. What happened was that this surveying ship was commanded by Captain Fitzroy, who was afraid he would succumb to isolation and depression (both his uncle and the previous captain of the Beagle had committed suicide), so he wanted someone else of his social class aboard. He could not fraternize with the crew, so he needed someone unconnected to keep him company. Darwin was only 22 at the time; he had already dropped out of medical school and had instead finished theology with the intention of becoming a county minister, so he could pursue his intellectual pursuits in peace.

* and was traveling the world

http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/database/zoology/images/map.gif

It was actually a surveying mission to map the coast of South America. The journey was originally supposed to last three years, but Fitzroy was neurotically insecure, so after they finished and had travelled all the way around, he sailed back to South America to recheck his findings so it took about five years in the end.

* and came to some ilsands.

In fact most of Darwin´s biological ideas came to him in South-America. When he visited the Galapagos islands, he did not really take note of the indications of evolution, being more depressed and put-off by the desolation of the islands. He thought the iguanas looked hideous.

Mind you, he still did gather specimens of the finches which were later named after him, without initially recognizing the significance of their similarities.

* He wrote in his journal his findings of similar creature's that were living in different habitats, but the islands were close to each other. He continued his studies and his travels for I think it was a period of years or months? I dont remember how long it was, but anyways he came up with the idea of evolution through his studies.

Well - no... he did not come up with evolution while at sea. That did not happen until later, back home; it is pretty universally recognized that the first indication of common ancestry was the famous `I think´ scribble.

* However, he was afraid at the time to publish his findings because at that time the power of the church was strong and if he did he thought he might get killed.

No, absolutely not. The church was not nearly so powerful, and in any case the Anglican church was not nearly so eager to burn heretics as the Roman Catholics. In any case, this was in the 1840s, when heretics were no longer killed.

He was afraid of being ridiculed, maligned, alienated, ostracized and outcast - and also of causing further social unrest. These were worrying times, with the working class moving furiously, and communism being born around the same time. Karl Marx wanted to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin, as I recall.

* But then someone else starting thinking the same thing,

Alfred Russell Wallace, who conceived of the same idea in a much different way. He knew Darwin was doing research in this area, however, and wrote to him with his findings.

* and he starting to publish it, so Darwin beat him to the punch.

Well, no. They co-published. There was no enmity between these men, and indeed they remained friends all their lives, even when they disagreed about scientific ideas.

*However, my Bio teacher told us that before he died that he announced that he made the concept of evolution all up. (I dont know if thats true or not)

Then I guess we know what side your bio teacher´s bread was buttered on. He (she?) should check the facts.

* Evolution is the process of changing over a peroid of time, through adaptation eventually resulting in a new species.

Well... yes and no. These days, it´s defined as the changing of allele frequencies, which essentially means the importance of certain gene variations in a given population changes with changing circumstances. Individual animals (or people) are not as significant in this model as are genetic strains.

But of course, they all interact.

*I have watched the DVD Scientific Discoveries "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution."

That sounds like a very scientifically sound and unbiased product.

* My dad told me that the Second Law of Thermal Dinamics "That any closed or open system tends toward disorder" would have to be broken for evolution to take place.

Then your father is wrong. For one thing, Earth is not a closed system... usable energy from the Sun is constantly pouring in in gigantic quantities.

* Micro evolution is natural selection and adaptation with limited lasting effects to the genetic code.

Macro evolution is what results in new species.

In fact, this `distinction´ does not exist. What you describe as `macro-evolution´ is just `micro-evolution´ over a longer time.

This is pretty much what I know about this subject for evolution. I've studied Darwin and his theories, and the different ideas of evolution my sophmoore year. As I said before though I dont have a phd in it or anything like that.

I am mainly curios to see ,what people belief, in the creation of life and the planet really. I am not here to tell you your wrong or to say "go read the bible you unbeleiver!" No, thats not why I opened this topic. I want to see all the different ideas on how the planet was formed and how life was created. Again as I said before what you believe is your own business, I am not here to say you are wrong or to judge you. I am only interested in all the different ideas of life's origins.

Yes, but this is always a contentious subject.

[*Jess♥]

I'm confused as to the relevance of a lot of your post salkafar.

i think the whole point of this discussion is about evolution, not the finer points of darwins travels.

I don't feel that your responce actually adequately contributes to the discussion.

although you wrote something about genetic trends, or at least that's how i interpreted it.

perhaps you could talk more about that? that could help us further understand your viewpoint.

p.s. it's only a contentious subject if you don't accept somebody elses right to hold a personal view.

no matter how 'wrong' you might believe that to be.

[Salkafar]

The point, Ryuki, was plumbing into the subject. The info Mirabilis offered seemed skimmed.

Interesting notion: is someone entitled to having a personal opinion based on wilful ignorance? He could know much more about it.

Anyway... genetic trends... individuals can be considered as vessels of genetic strains. Thus, evolution can be seen as a struggle between genetic strains rather than individuals. As in, "the gene that codes for a furry coat defeated the gene that codes for naked skin in an environment which is cold and arid". Biologically, individuals are gene packets, almost like characters in a computer game that are equipped with abilities and traits by the player.

Oh, dear. I probably should have avoided that particular metaphor, shouldn´t I?

[*Jess♥]

The point, Ryuki, was plumbing into the subject. The info Mirabilis offered seemed skimmed.

Interesting notion: is someone entitled to having a personal opinion based on wilful ignorance? He could know much more about it.

that's fair enough,

and

good point.

it is my view that a person is entitled to have a personal opinion based on anything they choose. as long as they do not harm others with this. usually if somebody is simply unaware of some factors, they can be offered more information, but it is my experience that breaking away from some personally held views can be a source of anxiety for some people.

sometimes a persons belief is their world.

you may get a lot of people who will take this personal belief and try and ram it down others throats. I would not allow that kind of behaviour on here. as long as people keep their beliefs personal and allow for others the same freedom, then that is all good.

an interesting point about nature evolution and that. basic survival leads us to trust in our own senses. they are first and foremost in our very being. if somebody witnesses something, no matter how strange, they are going to believe that over any amount of logic that any books dictate. if they do not, they will be choosing the path of insanity and i don't think anyone would choose that path. instead it formulates personal belief.

[Aether]

ha i see this thread strted a while ago but glad i caught its resurection! once again i got sucked in

Do you think that evolution is real, and that we evolved from water, or apes, or that we came from the same family tree as apes Ryuki?

Because I thought we were created by aliens, to be the bases for other bio-weapons. lol

to mirabillis' first statement is evolution real? yes because if we hadnt evolved from single cell organisms we wouldnt be here...

and youre second statement may not be so entirely bizzare as it sounds!

to me its funny how our species has evolved...

at between 14-5 million years BC we have the transition from quadrapedal to bipedal which is a fair time ago! homo erectus is about 1.6 million bc and then we have neanderthal between 500,000 and 300,000 bc which compared to a chimp is a big jump but if we take the time from the first anthropoids to then its a good 5 million years at least for evolution to occur... neanderthal was a functioning society ( not by our standards but never the less they wernt hanging around scratching their arses just exsisting) they had a degree of sentient intelligence and not just grunting cavemen, they weree akin to us BUT we are different, between 300,000 and 100,000 years ago were the beginnings of us today- homo sapiens, and at around 35,000 years ago we have the descendants of us now- homo sapien sapiens ( cro magnon).

the difference between Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, and HomoSapien is the brain and obviously its utilization. these are the missing links that need filling in- the jump from Australopitheous Afarensis to Homo erectus is feasable enough over 5million years but the transition from neanderthal to sapien sapien does, in my opinion, through up questions - and- wait for it- where aliens become feasable!?!

if you look at ancient Sumerian txts you will see that the ancient sumerians (depending on which sources you read and im not just talking sitchin here) were descended from the Nefilim or Elohim etc. who genetically manipulated the exsisting race in the Tigirs area to create a worker race - ( sound vaguely familiar anyone??? im sure Takaya knows his stuff !) this points towards the fact a superior race knew how to manipulate DNA - the implications of the exact actions or intentions of this are massive.

i think a pertinent question here is looking at the main difference between us and the animals our DNA are closest too- which is our minds - and my favourite - consciousness! the change from erectus to sapien is so apparent in the skulls and brains. were we this sentient now as we were when our brains were different? or were we more animalistic back then did we not have the mental capacity? my guess is that we were gven a big genetic gift, wether by other entities, god, evolution or the grace of chaos, that of sentient spiritual awareness, a way home if you will.

though with all positive there is negative, such is yin and yang, knowledge is power and it has two polarities. this awareness can be percieved as a curse but also a great blessing! in this day in age will the strong survive or the wise?. i dont think its always down to genetic strength our menatl abilities have agreat influence now aswell.

some sources suggest we have deevolved such as the inability to use the third eye etc. but i dont think we have necessarily, thats the catch of the 'gift', you have to work to earn the right to use it.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Eether

[Salkafar]

Um. We are not descended from Neanderthals. They are our evolutionary `uncles´.

What was the impetus for our tendency to developing larger brains and problem-solving intelligence is still a mystery. We do know walking on our hind legs came first.

A good sense of balance, keep depth perception and grabbing hands was a heritage from our tree-dwelling ancestors.

What amazes me, Ryuki and Mirabilis, is how you keep insisting that we have only circumstantial evidence for evolution, and want a sort of "Well, it may or may not be true"-admission. But any such ship sailed long before we were born. The genetic evidence bears no alternative interpretation. We and the rest of the primates (Yes, Mirabikis, we are primates) are descended from the same ancestors and that´s that.

How can I say that? How can I make such an absolute statement? Here´s why: ERV´s. Endogenous retro-viruses.

Retroviruses are different from your everyday virus in that they actually become part of the host´s DNA and are copied right along with it. So, at a certain point, the new DNA strand that was interwoven with the original genome becomes active and the cell is broken down into a whole bunch of new virus copies.

But sometimes, something goes wrong and the virus is never activated. Instead it becomes part of the host´s DNA... permanently.

Geneticists can identify such ERV´s, like a pattern of scars on the chromosomes. Now, if such a retrovirus should invade a reproductive cell and alter the DNA of a sperm cell or ovum, then of course the individual that is born from that will have a new ERV its parent did not have in his DNA.. and so will all of his offspring. It is thus possible to tell a genetic line descended from that person from another one.

You see what I mean, don´t you?

Modern great apes have many of the same ERV´s in the same loci on their DNA we do. They also have different ERV´s as well.

For them to have several - more than two dozen, If I remember Correctly - identical ERV´s on the very same spots on their chromosomes as humans by sheer chance is completely impossible... unless they and humans have the same ancestors. And thanks to something known as `the molecular clock´ we can make an estimate of how long ago that last common ancestor lived, based on the average rate at which new ERV´s join the genome.

This age is between 5 and 7 million years ago.

Anyway... fossil evidence is great. But it is not needed to prove we are descended from the same ancestors as chimpanzees, gorillas and urangutans... and, ultimately, all other life forms as well.

I suggest you read "The ancestor´s tale" by Richard Dawkins. It´s brilliant.

[*Jess♥]

What amazes me, Ryuki and Mirabilis, is how you keep insisting that we have only circumstantial evidence for evolution, and want a sort of "Well, it may or may not be true"-admission.

there is so much wrong with that sentence it is quite unbelievable.

first of all, I have not 'kept insisting' anything.

second of all, ALL evidence is circumstantial. things can always be refuted(not evidence, interpretation), it just depends what level you want to work on.

third of all, I think i made it quite clear i don't want ANYBODY to make any kind of admission their belief may be invalid "may or may not be true". it is their own belief and they are welcome to it.

at the end of the day, all of science could be some made up story that was downloaded into my brain 5 seconds before this moment and the entire world a fabrication in some kind of simulation a-la red dwarf "back to reality".

but let's not get into that now.

[Aether]

Um. We are not descended from Neanderthals. They are our evolutionary `uncles´.

Salkafar do not try and be condesending towards me like you were with Mirabilis. i like the way you have picked up on one thing in my entire post and ignored the rest ....dont worry your not the only person who suffers from this.... i never said we were directly descended from neanderthals, i said we were akin to them as in similar, not such a difference as a human and an ape!. if they are our 'uncles' as you put it we are still related, its like saying quadrapeds are our great great great auntie or something theres still a connection! in your infinite wisdom you missed the point in my post.

it really bewilders me how someone so great and learned as yourself can read and regurgitate so much scientific literature but cannot read a few hundred words on an internet thread properly.

i wont bother trying to emphasise the point of my post as i wouldnt want to patronise such a superior mind.

i'm done son.