Snowball Earth! Could Humans really evolve in 600,000,000 years.
OK! The Planet Earth is approximately 4 Billion years old, and a lot has happened until now. OK! Now the planet Earth 600,000,000 years ago was a snowball basically, so does this mean that there were no life forms other than the ones that could be frozen, like sperm.
Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years. A snowball Earth would have wiped out all Animal life if there were any there. Including the fish of the sea.
Comments welcome.
Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years. A snowball Earth would have wiped out all Animal life if there were any there. Including the fish of the sea.
Comments welcome.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
For those of you unfamiliar with this idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth
http://www.snowballearth.org/
First, "Snowball Earth" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Here's a great page that explains the difference:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Second, in addition to life forms that thrive at the deepest depths of the oceans and other seemingly inhospitable environments, some species can withstand extremely hot and cold temperatures. For example, the Tardigrade can survive temperatures of near-absolute zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada
Third, 600 million years is just about the right amount of time it is estimated that life evolved from small, simple species like the Tardigrades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
If the "Snowball Earth" idea withstands scientific scrutiny, it would only serve to further bolster the validity of evolutionary theory. The idea of 'global glaciation' has only been around since 1960, but thorough examination has only been undertaken in the last ten or so years, so it's a long way from becoming accepted theory.
Cheers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth
http://www.snowballearth.org/
First, "Snowball Earth" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Here's a great page that explains the difference:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Second, in addition to life forms that thrive at the deepest depths of the oceans and other seemingly inhospitable environments, some species can withstand extremely hot and cold temperatures. For example, the Tardigrade can survive temperatures of near-absolute zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada
Third, 600 million years is just about the right amount of time it is estimated that life evolved from small, simple species like the Tardigrades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
If the "Snowball Earth" idea withstands scientific scrutiny, it would only serve to further bolster the validity of evolutionary theory. The idea of 'global glaciation' has only been around since 1960, but thorough examination has only been undertaken in the last ten or so years, so it's a long way from becoming accepted theory.
Cheers!
ASKER
Sorry it is fact. And being fact, are you saying that we as Humans became evolved within 600,000,000 years of practicaly Amomoba.
Who says it's "fact"? Even the scientists that proposed the idea don't say it's "fact". Even the people that are studying it now don't say it's "fact".
Seriously, read up on what science defines as "fact".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
And what the heck is an amomoba?
Seriously, read up on what science defines as "fact".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
And what the heck is an amomoba?
ASKER
look! Grap her, I will leave this up to the comments. I have my opinion and I can guess what you might think that is.
I will wait for a more informed opinion, but thanx for the input. :-)
I will wait for a more informed opinion, but thanx for the input. :-)
ASKER
Sorry Graphihixer if Isounded bold, but it has been proven that the snowball Earth is true.
Horizon: A program on British Telly.
and if they are correct then god must be . :-)
Horizon: A program on British Telly.
and if they are correct then god must be . :-)
I forgot, I need to acquire some more points in this category to increase my 'street cred', so what I meant to say was that...uh, evolution is crap and Jesus is Lord!
Can I have the points now?
Can I have the points now?
'Graphihixer'??? Is something wrong with your keyboard?
And just like the Internet, if it's on television, it must be true, right?
And just like the Internet, if it's on television, it must be true, right?
ASKER
WhTeVeR!
ASKER
you like so many others.
ASKER
does it feel good to be a ?
ASKER
I know you have an opinion, but apart from that stay quiet and listen justlike me. ok.
ASKER
Graphixer: Welcome to the world of god, debate. A big but does god knoww you. If you were to walk by someone you know will they say ok mate, but not really know who you are.
well join the club. no c*(&nt gives a f*&ck OK. to me the only one is the almighty.
OK, Remember God made us we must follow jesus and is ways. :-))
well join the club. no c*(&nt gives a f*&ck OK. to me the only one is the almighty.
OK, Remember God made us we must follow jesus and is ways. :-))
Earth is not very old. Take a hard look at ground erosion; for example rivers and streams. Every year they grow wider and wider. If the earth where millions of years old then how much land would be left above water?
The whole evolution theory is based on the simple idea that everything (especially people) are getting better and better. Look around, things get worse and worse. That's a fact...
The whole evolution theory is based on the simple idea that everything (especially people) are getting better and better. Look around, things get worse and worse. That's a fact...
>>The idea of 'global glaciation' has only been around since 1960, but thorough examination has only been undertaken in the last ten or so years, so it's a long way from becoming accepted theory.
That's just the problem. You can postulate such a thing to try to cover for some missing fossiles or some other effect which is unexplainable, but you're adding another which is in another scientific domain - namely how do you get the planet so cold? First these is no astrophysical theory which covers the sun dropping so much in temperature (or energy output) after existing for at least three billion years, secondly there is no orbital precession mechanism which is know which could produce such a change - ice ages are effectively local. As far as it being true because of a Horizon program.... Well whenever they did anything on computers it was just laughable what they said. It all gets simplified for 60 minutes of entertainment.
Now onto the question: could humans evolve in 600 million years. Well current theories suggest that humans evolved in 2 million years, mamals in around 30 million years, and so on. So probably the answer is yes.
>>Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years.
I don't quite understand the word "intricate", as if somehow animal life was a sort of complex computer program. In fact I'd say that there's not a lot of difference between a man and a mouse. One thing always gets me is the "complex patterns of fractals" which they say when I look at the pictures. Yet the mathematics and the program which prints it are all quite straightforward. In fact if any of you have played John Horton Conway's Game of Life, you'll be amazed at what patterns can come from a few simple rules. The same applies to organic chemistry. Of all 90 odd elements in the periodic table, life hardly uses a dozen.
That's just the problem. You can postulate such a thing to try to cover for some missing fossiles or some other effect which is unexplainable, but you're adding another which is in another scientific domain - namely how do you get the planet so cold? First these is no astrophysical theory which covers the sun dropping so much in temperature (or energy output) after existing for at least three billion years, secondly there is no orbital precession mechanism which is know which could produce such a change - ice ages are effectively local. As far as it being true because of a Horizon program.... Well whenever they did anything on computers it was just laughable what they said. It all gets simplified for 60 minutes of entertainment.
Now onto the question: could humans evolve in 600 million years. Well current theories suggest that humans evolved in 2 million years, mamals in around 30 million years, and so on. So probably the answer is yes.
>>Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years.
I don't quite understand the word "intricate", as if somehow animal life was a sort of complex computer program. In fact I'd say that there's not a lot of difference between a man and a mouse. One thing always gets me is the "complex patterns of fractals" which they say when I look at the pictures. Yet the mathematics and the program which prints it are all quite straightforward. In fact if any of you have played John Horton Conway's Game of Life, you'll be amazed at what patterns can come from a few simple rules. The same applies to organic chemistry. Of all 90 odd elements in the periodic table, life hardly uses a dozen.
>>Earth is not very old. Take a hard look at ground erosion; for example rivers and streams. Every year they grow wider and wider. If the earth where millions of years old then how much land would be left above water?
If I were you, I'd climb Mount Everest NOW, before it goes up another ten feet when you'll be a bit older and may not be able to make it.
If I were you, I'd climb Mount Everest NOW, before it goes up another ten feet when you'll be a bit older and may not be able to make it.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
divdove > Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years.
Exactly!
The problem with so-called science of evolution is that there is not enough time to slowly evolve.
The only way to do it is to do it catastrophically, in periodic bursts, a bit too chaotic for those wanting some cute and simple theory for their MickeySoft calculator.
divdove > Sorry it is fact.
Not so methinks, a fact is only what majority currently accept, and facts change daily
> are you saying that we as Humans became evolved within 600,000,000 years of practicaly Amomoba.
It is possible with cataclisms, and the planet has surely had its share. It can also be possible that god chose to make evolution work by showering earth with fragments of ingredients useful to a growing colony. Like it or not, it was not so long ago that the planet was but 25% its current size, and someone must account for that growth in any viable conclusion.
Graphixer > it must be true, right?
Sure, just like the morning paper, if it is black on white, so be it, no need to wait for colorizations
kvnsdr > Look around, things get worse and worse. That's a fact...
Sounds like a belief of so many christians, hiding out in await of their rapture ('some' means 'not all' BTW)
BigRat> First these is no astrophysical theory which covers the sun dropping so much in temperature (or energy output) after existing for at least three billion years
Try indirectly. No planet has always been exactly the same size in exactly the same circular orbit maintaining the same tilt and polarity. Gaia also has its own way of managing temperature control, maybe freeze in upper atmosphere these days while burning to cinder below
> and so on. So probably the answer is yes.
Yeah. For the argument made the main point is rather moot.
> In fact if any of you have played John Horton Conway's Game of Life, you'll be amazed at
;-)) Love that!!!
> I'd climb Mount Everest NOW, before it goes up another ten feet
<crash>
Exactly!
The problem with so-called science of evolution is that there is not enough time to slowly evolve.
The only way to do it is to do it catastrophically, in periodic bursts, a bit too chaotic for those wanting some cute and simple theory for their MickeySoft calculator.
divdove > Sorry it is fact.
Not so methinks, a fact is only what majority currently accept, and facts change daily
> are you saying that we as Humans became evolved within 600,000,000 years of practicaly Amomoba.
It is possible with cataclisms, and the planet has surely had its share. It can also be possible that god chose to make evolution work by showering earth with fragments of ingredients useful to a growing colony. Like it or not, it was not so long ago that the planet was but 25% its current size, and someone must account for that growth in any viable conclusion.
Graphixer > it must be true, right?
Sure, just like the morning paper, if it is black on white, so be it, no need to wait for colorizations
kvnsdr > Look around, things get worse and worse. That's a fact...
Sounds like a belief of so many christians, hiding out in await of their rapture ('some' means 'not all' BTW)
BigRat> First these is no astrophysical theory which covers the sun dropping so much in temperature (or energy output) after existing for at least three billion years
Try indirectly. No planet has always been exactly the same size in exactly the same circular orbit maintaining the same tilt and polarity. Gaia also has its own way of managing temperature control, maybe freeze in upper atmosphere these days while burning to cinder below
> and so on. So probably the answer is yes.
Yeah. For the argument made the main point is rather moot.
> In fact if any of you have played John Horton Conway's Game of Life, you'll be amazed at
;-)) Love that!!!
> I'd climb Mount Everest NOW, before it goes up another ten feet
<crash>
>> so does this mean that there were no life forms other than the ones that could be frozen, like sperm.
This is a major flaw in your presumption, since there could easily have been fish and even amphibians living deep under the ocean near volcanic vents in the ocean floor, or near live volvanos on the surface. Volcanic activity would have continued regardless of the surface temperature. So human life would not have to have evolved from simple single cell creatures but could have evolved from much more complex fish or amphibian type creature in 600,000,000 years. I would have to say that yes this is definitey possible.
This is a major flaw in your presumption, since there could easily have been fish and even amphibians living deep under the ocean near volcanic vents in the ocean floor, or near live volvanos on the surface. Volcanic activity would have continued regardless of the surface temperature. So human life would not have to have evolved from simple single cell creatures but could have evolved from much more complex fish or amphibian type creature in 600,000,000 years. I would have to say that yes this is definitey possible.
kvnsdr says:
<<< Problem with evolution theory; it's all guess work yet taught in the public schools like factual science. >>>
Right, millions of volumes of text and examination, 150 years of scientific acceptance, and exponential understanding of medicine and nature because of it are all just "guess work".
I suppose gravitational theory is crap too?
How about atomic theory? Or do you not believe in nuclear weapons and energy either?
You can close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears all you want, but don't block the rest of us from trying to progress beyond your bronze age logic.
<<< Problem with evolution theory; it's all guess work yet taught in the public schools like factual science. >>>
Right, millions of volumes of text and examination, 150 years of scientific acceptance, and exponential understanding of medicine and nature because of it are all just "guess work".
I suppose gravitational theory is crap too?
How about atomic theory? Or do you not believe in nuclear weapons and energy either?
You can close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears all you want, but don't block the rest of us from trying to progress beyond your bronze age logic.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
-Mystique- > Archaea are able to survive both the highest temperatures of any life form and the lowest temperatures
So you do not need to retain it throughout five billion years, it can be dropped off by some asteroid or just travel the interstellar winds and touch down at any time, no need to start over with pea soup.
> Archaeans may be the only organisms
famous last words, thinking they are so unique for patting the author on the back for being so creative
Graphixer > I suppose gravitational theory is crap too?
ok. theory not same as fact or truth
> 150 years of scientific acceptance
er, out of five billion that is a drop in bucket, 0.000003% or 0.00000003
> How about atomic theory?
theory, about lotsa spaces that are empty and vaccuums everywhere - keep that up and next thing you'll believe in is the red shift and creating universes outta nuthin' before you can blink an eye
> to progress beyond your bronze age logic
no bronze age without the kurds
> understanding of medicine and nature because of it are all just "guess work".
medicine used to be where humans had learned over millenia how to use god's creation to maintain their welfare. Once businesses were conceived it soon became a crime to permit use or growth of god's creation, limiting people to only whatever chemicals the industry felt like marketing to them, a form of subscription plan to deny anyone a complete cure, the drive being to keep business repeating while increasing profitability for the elite 'scientists'
Nature has own way of defining freedom
So you do not need to retain it throughout five billion years, it can be dropped off by some asteroid or just travel the interstellar winds and touch down at any time, no need to start over with pea soup.
> Archaeans may be the only organisms
famous last words, thinking they are so unique for patting the author on the back for being so creative
Graphixer > I suppose gravitational theory is crap too?
ok. theory not same as fact or truth
> 150 years of scientific acceptance
er, out of five billion that is a drop in bucket, 0.000003% or 0.00000003
> How about atomic theory?
theory, about lotsa spaces that are empty and vaccuums everywhere - keep that up and next thing you'll believe in is the red shift and creating universes outta nuthin' before you can blink an eye
> to progress beyond your bronze age logic
no bronze age without the kurds
> understanding of medicine and nature because of it are all just "guess work".
medicine used to be where humans had learned over millenia how to use god's creation to maintain their welfare. Once businesses were conceived it soon became a crime to permit use or growth of god's creation, limiting people to only whatever chemicals the industry felt like marketing to them, a form of subscription plan to deny anyone a complete cure, the drive being to keep business repeating while increasing profitability for the elite 'scientists'
Nature has own way of defining freedom
ASKER
Listen, the snowball Earth is fact. So we all evolved from a lesser thing than a worm. We came about from a thing that was not intelligent enough to crap. This is what the evolutionary mob believes. Ha Ha.
We, intelligent human beings evolved in the last 6,000,000, from worms. Hee hee.
Laughable.
We, intelligent human beings evolved in the last 6,000,000, from worms. Hee hee.
Laughable.
divdove says:
<<< Listen, the snowball Earth is fact. >>>
Again, who says this is fact? You repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
But even if it is a sound scientific theory, we've all pointed out that it doesn't contradict evolutionary theory at all, and even supports it. Read the links I've provided with an open mind and hopefully all of your questions will be answered.
<<< Listen, the snowball Earth is fact. >>>
Again, who says this is fact? You repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
But even if it is a sound scientific theory, we've all pointed out that it doesn't contradict evolutionary theory at all, and even supports it. Read the links I've provided with an open mind and hopefully all of your questions will be answered.
>> So we all evolved from a lesser thing than a worm.
According to the snowball earth theory,"No snowball earths have occurred since the first appearance of bilaterian animals (above sponge-grade) in the fossil record ~555 Ma in Arctic Russia. Vascular land plants and terrestrial fauna did not evolve for another 100 plus million years.These species never had to survive a snowball earth. But a host of microscopic organisms, both prokaryotes (archea and bacteria, including prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) and eukaryotes (algae, testate amoebae and other protists), and a handfull of cm-scale organisms (the coiled Grypania, 1.9 Ga; the necklace-like colonial organism of tissue-grade organization Horodyskia, 1.5 Ga; the worm-like Parmia, 1.0 Ga), evolved before the Sturtian and Marinoan snowball earths and survived. Evolutionary rates appear to have been incredibly slow, however, compared with post-snowball times, and this has discouraged intensive investigation of the fossil record. Palynofloras were impoverished during the Cryogenian Period (encompassing the Sturtian and Marinoan snowball earths), relative to earlier and later periods, but the characteristic assemblage of simple thin-walled microspheres (leiospheres) passed through the Marinoan snowball earth without change according to Kath Grey, the leading specialist in the field, at the Geological Survey of Western Australia in Perth. "
So your apparent glee is unwarranted seeing as the snowball earth hypothesis doesn't affect the theory of evolution in any significant way.
http://www.snowballearth.org/life.html
According to the snowball earth theory,"No snowball earths have occurred since the first appearance of bilaterian animals (above sponge-grade) in the fossil record ~555 Ma in Arctic Russia. Vascular land plants and terrestrial fauna did not evolve for another 100 plus million years.These species never had to survive a snowball earth. But a host of microscopic organisms, both prokaryotes (archea and bacteria, including prokaryotes (cyanobacteria) and eukaryotes (algae, testate amoebae and other protists), and a handfull of cm-scale organisms (the coiled Grypania, 1.9 Ga; the necklace-like colonial organism of tissue-grade organization Horodyskia, 1.5 Ga; the worm-like Parmia, 1.0 Ga), evolved before the Sturtian and Marinoan snowball earths and survived. Evolutionary rates appear to have been incredibly slow, however, compared with post-snowball times, and this has discouraged intensive investigation of the fossil record. Palynofloras were impoverished during the Cryogenian Period (encompassing the Sturtian and Marinoan snowball earths), relative to earlier and later periods, but the characteristic assemblage of simple thin-walled microspheres (leiospheres) passed through the Marinoan snowball earth without change according to Kath Grey, the leading specialist in the field, at the Geological Survey of Western Australia in Perth. "
So your apparent glee is unwarranted seeing as the snowball earth hypothesis doesn't affect the theory of evolution in any significant way.
http://www.snowballearth.org/life.html
divdove
>Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a
>longer period than 6 hundred million years. A snowball Earth would have wiped
>out all Animal life if there were any there. Including the fish of the sea.
Snowball earth or not, the life is here now and evidently did evolve.
>Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a
>longer period than 6 hundred million years. A snowball Earth would have wiped
>out all Animal life if there were any there. Including the fish of the sea.
Snowball earth or not, the life is here now and evidently did evolve.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>>A snowball Earth would have wiped out all Animal life if there were any there
Just in case you missed it, according to the fossil record, there was no animal life during the last snowball earth. Just archea and bacteria,algae, testate amoebae and other protists, and a handfull of cm-scale organisms.
Just in case you missed it, according to the fossil record, there was no animal life during the last snowball earth. Just archea and bacteria,algae, testate amoebae and other protists, and a handfull of cm-scale organisms.
>>We, intelligent human beings evolved in the last 6,000,000, from worms. Hee hee.
If you are going to be rude and laugh at people's convictions, then at least get it right. The period is 600,000,000 (six hundred million years) not six million. (Offside: It reminds me of Cadbury's Cream Eggs).
SunBow: >>Try indirectly
The problem here is not one of POSSIBILITY but of PROBABILITY. It may be possible that a "Snow Ball Earth" existed at that time, but how probably is it? First a mechanism must be found to cause it, this mechanism is either a one off or recurrs and if it recurrs with what frequency. A one off must have had a trigger, so what was that? A meteor? If so there must be some evidence for that. As far as precession is concerned it is unlikely since we're pretty good on that these days. Orbital changes require massive amounts of energy to overcome momentum problems and that leaves traces.
There is a general tendency these days, probably arising from funding requirements, to publish every tin-pot theory on the internet, claim that it is so by only quoting evidence FOR the theory, and getting delighted when the popular press picks it up and regards it as the best thing since sliced bread.
>>Problem with evolution theory; it's all guess work yet taught in the public schools like factual science
It is not "guess work", it has the same "factual" basis as Quantum Mechanics.
> keep business repeating while increasing profitability for the elite 'scientists'
Has absolutely nothing to do with "scientists" (whose practices were laid down at the time of the Enlightenment) but to do with man's greed and desire for power. You only have to look at how the establishment hounded Paul Ehrlich (the inventor of Chemotherapy) after his Salvasan 606 was misused by them.
If you are going to be rude and laugh at people's convictions, then at least get it right. The period is 600,000,000 (six hundred million years) not six million. (Offside: It reminds me of Cadbury's Cream Eggs).
SunBow: >>Try indirectly
The problem here is not one of POSSIBILITY but of PROBABILITY. It may be possible that a "Snow Ball Earth" existed at that time, but how probably is it? First a mechanism must be found to cause it, this mechanism is either a one off or recurrs and if it recurrs with what frequency. A one off must have had a trigger, so what was that? A meteor? If so there must be some evidence for that. As far as precession is concerned it is unlikely since we're pretty good on that these days. Orbital changes require massive amounts of energy to overcome momentum problems and that leaves traces.
There is a general tendency these days, probably arising from funding requirements, to publish every tin-pot theory on the internet, claim that it is so by only quoting evidence FOR the theory, and getting delighted when the popular press picks it up and regards it as the best thing since sliced bread.
>>Problem with evolution theory; it's all guess work yet taught in the public schools like factual science
It is not "guess work", it has the same "factual" basis as Quantum Mechanics.
> keep business repeating while increasing profitability for the elite 'scientists'
Has absolutely nothing to do with "scientists" (whose practices were laid down at the time of the Enlightenment) but to do with man's greed and desire for power. You only have to look at how the establishment hounded Paul Ehrlich (the inventor of Chemotherapy) after his Salvasan 606 was misused by them.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>>I am missing this as not being supported.
Hmmm. The tendency to enumerate possibilities without considering their probabilities in speculative analysis is also a sin of yours, SunBow. I'm all for free uninhibited thought, all for leaving no stone unturned, but there are times when one must consider whether the possibility is probable, after all we do not have unlimited time.
>>It does for me, ... (and paragraph)
Have you fallen out with your doctor again?
Hmmm. The tendency to enumerate possibilities without considering their probabilities in speculative analysis is also a sin of yours, SunBow. I'm all for free uninhibited thought, all for leaving no stone unturned, but there are times when one must consider whether the possibility is probable, after all we do not have unlimited time.
>>It does for me, ... (and paragraph)
Have you fallen out with your doctor again?
Hmmm. The ....... <eek>
> there are times when one must consider whether the possibility is probable, after ...
they consider profitability
I understand game theory btw, at least some smidgeon of it
> after all we do not have unlimited time.
while infinite amount of time may be elusive, there can yet remain eternity
they consider profitability
I understand game theory btw, at least some smidgeon of it
> after all we do not have unlimited time.
while infinite amount of time may be elusive, there can yet remain eternity
<<<Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years. >>>>
Sweet. You have answered your own question and have gotten the answer wrong! Very cool.
Let's summarize how impressively wrong you've managed to be:
[1] You are dealing with a process that is fairly well established.
Take dogs, for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
[[[The earliest dog fossils, two crania from Russia and a mandible from Germany, date from 13,000 to 17,000 years ago.]]]
What's happened since then? Well we have huge dogs, tiny dogs, dogs with webbed feet. Take a look at this dog:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=743
So even just via a natural selection mechanism of human preference, we've gotten incredible diversity. The selective breeding probably didn't really begin in earnest until we were in an agrarian society. Most of the changes were probably withing the last (let's be generous) 6,000 years.
So if you can take a mid-sized brown dog and let it evolve over 6,000 years and breed it into a Poodle and a Mastiff, what can you do in twice as long? Three times? Four times? Five times?
No, this would be a good game but we aren't just adding units together WE ARE ADDING ZEROS.
Generic Dog-> Poodle, Mastiff = 6,000 years
Fish-> Fish that can 'walk' to next pond = 60,000 year
Fish-> Fish that can survive in moist land environment = 600,000
Fish-> Ex-Fish that has Ex-fins that serve as feet = 6,000,000
....
Ask yourself, how many times greater of a change is it to change from a [mid-sized dog -> poodle, Mastiff] to [fish -> reptile].
[2] In our discussions, you have not revealed yourself to be a scholar
To be an recognized expert in biology and paleontology generally requires:
- High IQ
- BS in hard science
- Masters in biology or paleontology
- PHd in biology or paleontology
- 10 years of field work in biology or paleontology
Let's talk about what a shoe salesman should be opining about with regard to evolution:
[A] I am superior in forming opinions about evolution because of my foot-measuring training
[B] No one has a better basis for knowledge because _________
[C] I am an egotistical idiot for thinking my opinion is not crap
[3] 600,000,000 years is far too long to have an intuitive grasp of
...particularly if your science textbook is a book of children's stories (will there be a milkshake machine inside the whale).
Sweet. You have answered your own question and have gotten the answer wrong! Very cool.
Let's summarize how impressively wrong you've managed to be:
[1] You are dealing with a process that is fairly well established.
Take dogs, for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog
[[[The earliest dog fossils, two crania from Russia and a mandible from Germany, date from 13,000 to 17,000 years ago.]]]
What's happened since then? Well we have huge dogs, tiny dogs, dogs with webbed feet. Take a look at this dog:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=743
So even just via a natural selection mechanism of human preference, we've gotten incredible diversity. The selective breeding probably didn't really begin in earnest until we were in an agrarian society. Most of the changes were probably withing the last (let's be generous) 6,000 years.
So if you can take a mid-sized brown dog and let it evolve over 6,000 years and breed it into a Poodle and a Mastiff, what can you do in twice as long? Three times? Four times? Five times?
No, this would be a good game but we aren't just adding units together WE ARE ADDING ZEROS.
Generic Dog-> Poodle, Mastiff = 6,000 years
Fish-> Fish that can 'walk' to next pond = 60,000 year
Fish-> Fish that can survive in moist land environment = 600,000
Fish-> Ex-Fish that has Ex-fins that serve as feet = 6,000,000
....
Ask yourself, how many times greater of a change is it to change from a [mid-sized dog -> poodle, Mastiff] to [fish -> reptile].
[2] In our discussions, you have not revealed yourself to be a scholar
To be an recognized expert in biology and paleontology generally requires:
- High IQ
- BS in hard science
- Masters in biology or paleontology
- PHd in biology or paleontology
- 10 years of field work in biology or paleontology
Let's talk about what a shoe salesman should be opining about with regard to evolution:
[A] I am superior in forming opinions about evolution because of my foot-measuring training
[B] No one has a better basis for knowledge because _________
[C] I am an egotistical idiot for thinking my opinion is not crap
[3] 600,000,000 years is far too long to have an intuitive grasp of
...particularly if your science textbook is a book of children's stories (will there be a milkshake machine inside the whale).
I love these circular discussions. It's a grown-up version of playing on swings and roundabouts in a park.
Sunbow [on life]
>er, but where did you say it came from?
That wasn't an issue in this question - and you'd need to define life first before you could answer it. Separate thread and it's already been done. Still fun though.
Sunbow [on life]
>er, but where did you say it came from?
That wasn't an issue in this question - and you'd need to define life first before you could answer it. Separate thread and it's already been done. Still fun though.
Bob
I agree with the first part of your text, but not [2]. One does not need to be a recognized expert in a science subject to argue convincingly, and a shoe salesman may know more on a subject than someone who has a BS in it. Universities give out BScs these days like meal tickets. I know many people who have Bsc level eductation and wouldn't last two minutes in this amateur forum.
I agree with the first part of your text, but not [2]. One does not need to be a recognized expert in a science subject to argue convincingly, and a shoe salesman may know more on a subject than someone who has a BS in it. Universities give out BScs these days like meal tickets. I know many people who have Bsc level eductation and wouldn't last two minutes in this amateur forum.
Jason210 > and it's already been done. Still [life]
well, could do it again maybe better .... with or without ice
I could think it germaine
BobSiemens > Fish-> Ex-Fish that has Ex-fins that serve as feet = 6,000,000
Fish-> Ex-Fish that are ex-tinct = 6,000,000,001
> Let's summarize how impressively wrong you've managed to be: ..... you have not revealed yourself to be a scholar ... your science textbook is a book of children's stories
er, since you don't wantum, how about then a "Gimme Points!"
> To be an recognized expert in ...
getting poinks
> Snowball Earth!
Anyone ever here of an igloo or neanderthal or a red race referred to as eskimo? <brr>
well, could do it again maybe better .... with or without ice
I could think it germaine
BobSiemens > Fish-> Ex-Fish that has Ex-fins that serve as feet = 6,000,000
Fish-> Ex-Fish that are ex-tinct = 6,000,000,001
> Let's summarize how impressively wrong you've managed to be: ..... you have not revealed yourself to be a scholar ... your science textbook is a book of children's stories
er, since you don't wantum, how about then a "Gimme Points!"
> To be an recognized expert in ...
getting poinks
> Snowball Earth!
Anyone ever here of an igloo or neanderthal or a red race referred to as eskimo? <brr>
hey divdove,
if you are interested in a science question, why did you place it here in Philosophy & Religion. yet this discussion to me sounds more than a question of opinions and personal beleives than of science.
if we beleived what theologians said, we would still think earth is a disc right .. or masturbation makes sick .. ;-)
ike
if you are interested in a science question, why did you place it here in Philosophy & Religion. yet this discussion to me sounds more than a question of opinions and personal beleives than of science.
if we beleived what theologians said, we would still think earth is a disc right .. or masturbation makes sick .. ;-)
ike
>> Sorry Graphihixer if Isounded bold, but it has been proven that the snowball Earth is true.
>> Horizon: A program on British Telly.
that is a prove to you .. ?
>> Horizon: A program on British Telly.
that is a prove to you .. ?
there is a reason that there is an area "Math/Science" and "Philosophy/Religion" .. anything is going very wrong if one from the one area tries to occupy the other area ..
i mean then, we could talk about what opinion we have about the pythagoras here .. make sense? dont think so ..
i mean then, we could talk about what opinion we have about the pythagoras here .. make sense? dont think so ..
what do you guys think, why such big efforts are put in the us (and recently in europe) to estheblish that idea/opinion about evolution?
i mean who is behind that? who profits .. who loses? who tries to control who and for what aims?
i mean who is behind that? who profits .. who loses? who tries to control who and for what aims?
i mean i wouldnt care much if this was just a scientific theory and scientists are arguing about it ..
what me concerns is the religious touch and those religious proponents of it .. can somebody explain that?
what me concerns is the religious touch and those religious proponents of it .. can somebody explain that?
for everybody who is interested, i put a new q, asking for the who and why behind this creationists-movement
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/23206297/Creation-theory-vs-darwin-who-profits.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/23206297/Creation-theory-vs-darwin-who-profits.html
I don't know about the scholarly part of things, I mean, I fell I'm entitled to make up my mind after avaluating the information that is accessible fora ny given scenario, even if I don't have a relevant degree...
Anyway, there are finds (e.g. fossils) that suggest that life on the planet has developed from one form, over several veriations, into another. There are "scientific" methods (thechical, mind you) for dating things, from straws of grass to rocks, there are artifacts in the human embryo and its development that indicates links with other types of animals.
In short, there are substantial evidence (in my mind) that evolution has taken place and that earth is a bit older than 4000 years.
To me there is NO evidence to the contrary; nothing tangible to suggest that creationists have a valid theory about earth and live on it. None. This is not a religious dilemma to me, really. I am ready to acknowledge the existence of phenomena that are not really explicable, but those are not in the same group as the ones that actually DO have an explanation. It's quite OK by me to be a creature that evolved from the slime of 599 998 000 BC or whatever.
/RID
Anyway, there are finds (e.g. fossils) that suggest that life on the planet has developed from one form, over several veriations, into another. There are "scientific" methods (thechical, mind you) for dating things, from straws of grass to rocks, there are artifacts in the human embryo and its development that indicates links with other types of animals.
In short, there are substantial evidence (in my mind) that evolution has taken place and that earth is a bit older than 4000 years.
To me there is NO evidence to the contrary; nothing tangible to suggest that creationists have a valid theory about earth and live on it. None. This is not a religious dilemma to me, really. I am ready to acknowledge the existence of phenomena that are not really explicable, but those are not in the same group as the ones that actually DO have an explanation. It's quite OK by me to be a creature that evolved from the slime of 599 998 000 BC or whatever.
/RID
ASKER
Ok I think its fact. Horizon gave me the idea for this question, but IF it is fact I think that amoeba turning into humans in 600 million years is a bit far fetched. Anyone wishing to view the horizon program here is a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVFJ1uzgPS4
>> but IF it is fact I think that amoeba turning into humans in 600 million years is a bit far fetched.
If you don't believe it, I'm convinced.
If you don't believe it, I'm convinced.
<<<I agree with the first part of your text, but not [2]. One does not need to be a recognized expert in a science subject to argue convincingly, and a shoe salesman may know more on a subject than someone who has a BS in it. Universities give out BScs these days like meal tickets. I know many people who have Bsc level eductation and wouldn't last two minutes in this amateur forum.>>>
You are sidestepping my point.
I was looking on the web a few years ago for New Earth Paleontologists. I was surprised to find such a group. They were working to interpret the OBSERVATIONS into a creationist framework. They were actually scientists. They weren't trying to distort anything. THIS is honest Christianity and it is a rare thing.
When I saw their website, they were saying that they had met little success. I've looked for their website since and haven't found it. Their basic problem is that their hypothesis was simply wrong.
This is the only honest Christian approach: Evaluate your theory by examining the facts.
The are no or very few people who are both New Earth creationists and who are also work in fields like astrophysics and paleontology. There are people who start out trying to do that but because they are wrong, something must give.
This is why there is the stupid theory that scientists are generally anti-Christian. Most American scientists ARE Christian simply because most Americans are Christian.
You are sidestepping my point.
I was looking on the web a few years ago for New Earth Paleontologists. I was surprised to find such a group. They were working to interpret the OBSERVATIONS into a creationist framework. They were actually scientists. They weren't trying to distort anything. THIS is honest Christianity and it is a rare thing.
When I saw their website, they were saying that they had met little success. I've looked for their website since and haven't found it. Their basic problem is that their hypothesis was simply wrong.
This is the only honest Christian approach: Evaluate your theory by examining the facts.
The are no or very few people who are both New Earth creationists and who are also work in fields like astrophysics and paleontology. There are people who start out trying to do that but because they are wrong, something must give.
This is why there is the stupid theory that scientists are generally anti-Christian. Most American scientists ARE Christian simply because most Americans are Christian.
divdove asks:
<<< Could Humans really evolve in 600,000,000 years. >>>
Yes, they could.
<<< Could Humans really evolve in 600,000,000 years. >>>
Yes, they could.
<<< Could Humans really evolve in 600,000,000 years. >>>
what do you think, how much time would be appropriate? 2 times, 3 times, 100 times? what is the scientific base for your assumption?
a documentation showing all aspects of it, social discussion in us and scientific background. it explains what a theory is in terms of science (its not the same as what we are used in normal life). its called "judegement day, intelligent design on trial"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
what do you think, how much time would be appropriate? 2 times, 3 times, 100 times? what is the scientific base for your assumption?
a documentation showing all aspects of it, social discussion in us and scientific background. it explains what a theory is in terms of science (its not the same as what we are used in normal life). its called "judegement day, intelligent design on trial"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
ASKER
Waterstreet
I asked the question here because I don't believe that humans evolved at all, I believe religiously that humans and all living creatures were created. So this is why I asked the question, after the Earth was frozen there would not be a lot if any animal life left, thus either other animals were created or evolved in the 600 million years since the earth was frozen.
I am asking the question could intelligent life really evolve in 600 million years from stuff like algae if not then it would reaffirm my belief that we were created, and all other viewers with the same mind as myself could see what people will post here. But I could be wrong; maybe it does belong in the science section.
I asked the question here because I don't believe that humans evolved at all, I believe religiously that humans and all living creatures were created. So this is why I asked the question, after the Earth was frozen there would not be a lot if any animal life left, thus either other animals were created or evolved in the 600 million years since the earth was frozen.
I am asking the question could intelligent life really evolve in 600 million years from stuff like algae if not then it would reaffirm my belief that we were created, and all other viewers with the same mind as myself could see what people will post here. But I could be wrong; maybe it does belong in the science section.
<<<Per your reply and the EE assignment of topic areas, I'm moving the thread to Math & Science. Per your interest in pointing out this thread, I'll put a pointer to this question in P&R later today (when I have time to do so)>>>
Math and Science? As an academic matter, this has been settled.
Personally, I prefer to believe that 1+1=3. Can I post that there too?
Math and Science? As an academic matter, this has been settled.
Personally, I prefer to believe that 1+1=3. Can I post that there too?
Yes, Bob, I agree with you, the question does NOT belong to Maths&Science.
Absolutely agree. This thread is about a relgious belief. Perhaps moving it to the Lounge would be productive <smirk>.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It helps to have a general timeline. One point on that line is the 70 MYA mark, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Humans have evolved from small rodents in that time span, so there is no valid reason to preclude that they could do so in 600 Million years.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It helps to have a general timeline. One point on that line is the 70 MYA mark, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Humans have evolved from small rodents in that time span, so there is no valid reason to preclude that they could do so in 600 Million years.
I disagree - the question is a science one: "Based on the current understanding of evolutionary theory, if there were a Snowball Earth situation ~ 600 Mya, could humans have evolved from what life survived the snowball?" And the scientific answer is "Yes, that's plenty of time to get lots of really interesting stuff evolved, like humans".
Unfortunately, I seem to be getting a feeling from the asker that there was a non-question behind the question, along the lines of "I don't believe in evolution, and I don't want to believe in evolution, so I'm looking for someone to tell me that it's wrong", which is where the philosophy/religion comes in.
And just to be really, really nitpicky about something SunBow said:
>> 150 years of scientific acceptance
> er, out of five billion that is a drop in bucket, 0.000003% or 0.00000003
Which seems to be trying to discredit something that's been accepted as scientific theory for 150 years by saying it's probably wrong because it's a theory about something that's 5 billion years old. By the same token I could say something like "proclamation X has a thousand years of acceptance by Christians, but compared to the infinite amount of time God existed that's 0.000000%". If you look, instead, at how long various scientific concepts have been around, to survive 150 years without being discredited (admittedly, the details have changed, but it's still based on the original defining concepts which have remained the same) is quite impressive. By comparison, the prevailing understandings of atomic theory and kinematics - quantum theory and relativity, respectively - are both less than 100 years old.
Unfortunately, I seem to be getting a feeling from the asker that there was a non-question behind the question, along the lines of "I don't believe in evolution, and I don't want to believe in evolution, so I'm looking for someone to tell me that it's wrong", which is where the philosophy/religion comes in.
And just to be really, really nitpicky about something SunBow said:
>> 150 years of scientific acceptance
> er, out of five billion that is a drop in bucket, 0.000003% or 0.00000003
Which seems to be trying to discredit something that's been accepted as scientific theory for 150 years by saying it's probably wrong because it's a theory about something that's 5 billion years old. By the same token I could say something like "proclamation X has a thousand years of acceptance by Christians, but compared to the infinite amount of time God existed that's 0.000000%". If you look, instead, at how long various scientific concepts have been around, to survive 150 years without being discredited (admittedly, the details have changed, but it's still based on the original defining concepts which have remained the same) is quite impressive. By comparison, the prevailing understandings of atomic theory and kinematics - quantum theory and relativity, respectively - are both less than 100 years old.
>Perhaps moving it to the Lounge would be productive <smirk>.
Yes, I think the lounge is the only place left for this mess now...
Yes, I think the lounge is the only place left for this mess now...
>>And just to be really, really nitpicky about something SunBow said:
No, not nitpicky, she's been getting like that recently. It must be the time of the month.
No, not nitpicky, she's been getting like that recently. It must be the time of the month.
Snowball or no Snowball.. Lets Science Decided.. More likely it didn't happen.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm
-Muj ;-)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm
-Muj ;-)
Sunbow, if you cut a worm in half you don't get two worms. The two parts may wriggle for a bit and the part above the saddle may re-grow but the part below the saddle dies.
I was born and schooled pretty much on the line of what most scientists consider to be the greatest extent of the ice sheet and we did soil analysis both sides of the A12 through Ipswich to prove it and it is sand one side of the road and clay the other side. We even mapped this down to where each individual kid lived in our school.
To have evidence of an even greater extent of ice you have to drill bores through the sediment layer, the obvious place to do this test is where current evidence stops and yet the Horizon film doesn't drill down both sides of the established ice-stop line so I don't think it is credible.
To have evidence of an even greater extent of ice you have to drill bores through the sediment layer, the obvious place to do this test is where current evidence stops and yet the Horizon film doesn't drill down both sides of the established ice-stop line so I don't think it is credible.
It's a fairly odd argument to say "Well I could see live evolving in 4 billion years but certainly not 600 million years.
Still, snowball or not, God also chose to put unusual life forms in undersea volcanic vents.
Still, snowball or not, God also chose to put unusual life forms in undersea volcanic vents.
>> God also chose to put unusual life forms in undersea volcanic vents. <<
Also God has a wierd mind, he bring life. Then destroys it and then bring it back again.
Then he decides everything is a mess again, so he destroys it by freezing the earth. Then he decided a few thousands years later he is bored, so he creates Man. Something new to play with ;-D
ooh yeah, also other creatures are created too..
-Muj ;-|
Also God has a wierd mind, he bring life. Then destroys it and then bring it back again.
Then he decides everything is a mess again, so he destroys it by freezing the earth. Then he decided a few thousands years later he is bored, so he creates Man. Something new to play with ;-D
ooh yeah, also other creatures are created too..
-Muj ;-|
ASKER
That's right Muj, that's what I believe. God creates life then for some reason destroys it, why I don't know that's a question in itself.
A little side question if anyone would like to tell me. What is considered the time of Earth history when life began, if it was more than 600 million years or more before the snowball then what kind of life was there when the snowball occurred.
It would be good to know when the time science thinks life began because if you can get Humans in 600 million years, then I would like to try and work out what we would have up to the snowball.
Divdove.
A little side question if anyone would like to tell me. What is considered the time of Earth history when life began, if it was more than 600 million years or more before the snowball then what kind of life was there when the snowball occurred.
It would be good to know when the time science thinks life began because if you can get Humans in 600 million years, then I would like to try and work out what we would have up to the snowball.
Divdove.
divdove says:
<<< What is considered the time of Earth history when life began... >>>
I've already answered that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
<<< What is considered the time of Earth history when life began... >>>
I've already answered that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
ASKER
Graphixer:
Sorry about that missed that one some how :-)
Sorry about that missed that one some how :-)
ASKER
Ok, so 3.5 billion years of evolution and not even an animal yet. Then possibly a snowball Earth kiiling of whatever. Then all of a sudden we we start to get animals that evolve right up to Humans in 600 million years.
I'me sorry I just can't see it the way some evolutionists see it. I will leave the question open for a while longer While I go over some of the links provided again. Thanks for everyones input so far, You are all a good bunch :-)
I'me sorry I just can't see it the way some evolutionists see it. I will leave the question open for a while longer While I go over some of the links provided again. Thanks for everyones input so far, You are all a good bunch :-)
Snowball didnt happen thats the problem.
How hard is it to understand that.
Evolution continues to Happen, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
-Muj ;-)
How hard is it to understand that.
Evolution continues to Happen, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
-Muj ;-)
ASKER
Snowball could have happened though, obviously some people think so.
People do come up with varies different Ideas, but you have realize that such things have to be investigate ONLY on a Scientific level and not Religious Motives.
I can remember watching a video on some old idea about the Earth Expanding theory. Some Muslims picked that up, got a few quotes from the Quran (half quotes, from varies parts). Put them all together and presented it a Science in the Quran! Everyone Muslim who watched the video said: "Yeah and Thank God, and we didn't know such thing existed in the Quran" etc..
That Problem with that is, they didn't understand anything about the Theory, they didn't understand the Problems with the theory. They didn't understand the Science behind it and now it is presented as a Miracle in the Holy Book. Where is the Science in that?
----
As you can see this thread was Move to Math/Science, because it was suppose to be a discussion on Science, rather it turned into P&R.
-Muj ;-(
I can remember watching a video on some old idea about the Earth Expanding theory. Some Muslims picked that up, got a few quotes from the Quran (half quotes, from varies parts). Put them all together and presented it a Science in the Quran! Everyone Muslim who watched the video said: "Yeah and Thank God, and we didn't know such thing existed in the Quran" etc..
That Problem with that is, they didn't understand anything about the Theory, they didn't understand the Problems with the theory. They didn't understand the Science behind it and now it is presented as a Miracle in the Holy Book. Where is the Science in that?
----
As you can see this thread was Move to Math/Science, because it was suppose to be a discussion on Science, rather it turned into P&R.
-Muj ;-(
>> Ok, so 3.5 billion years of evolution and not even an animal yet. Then possibly a snowball Earth kiiling of whatever. Then all of a sudden we we start to get animals that evolve right up to Humans in 600 million years.
From my understanding, that's quite possible. At least one of the leading theories regarding evolution at the moment is something like Sun Tzu's description of war: long periods of boredom followed by short periods of excitement. Put simply, lifeforms tend to evolve to fill the available niches, and once there reach a kind of equilibrium, where relatively little changes. Then something comes along, kills off a large fraction of life, completely changes the environment, and in response there is an "explosion of evolution" as the remaining lifeforms look for ways to survive in the new world.
(WARNING: The following is merely speculation on what *might* have happened. I am no evolutionary bioligist.)
If we assume Snowball Earth at around 600 Mya, then what life survived would mostly be clustered around the few sources of heat, like volcanic vents. Occasionally vents close up, and new ones open, so life would need to be able to survive long enough to make it to the next vent in order to survive. Unfortunately, it's possible that some of the things that might make an organism more hardy in cold environments could also be a liability once it's back at the vent, so it's a bit of a Catch-22.
But what if there were two different organisms, one which was good at surviving out in the cold ocean, and one which was really good at extracting the energy from the vent? And what if they could somehow share these advantages with each other? If they clustered together, then the efficient organism could extract more energy than it needed, and pass the excess to the hardy one. And then, when the vent closed, the hardy one might be able to protect the efficient one just enough that they could both make it to the next vent. Such a "cluster" of single-celled organisms, using each other's strengths to shore up their own weaknesses, could provide a basis for multi-cellular organisms.
And, at the rate that bacteria multiply, this could have happened over just a few million years. Once the Snowball melts, the new set-up would prove capable of surviving in a greater variety of environments than their counterparts, and before long it's a new industry standard, so to speak.
I admit I can already see a couple of potential problems with this little theory, but hopefully it demonstrates just a little of how mass extinction can lead to evolutionary diversity.
From my understanding, that's quite possible. At least one of the leading theories regarding evolution at the moment is something like Sun Tzu's description of war: long periods of boredom followed by short periods of excitement. Put simply, lifeforms tend to evolve to fill the available niches, and once there reach a kind of equilibrium, where relatively little changes. Then something comes along, kills off a large fraction of life, completely changes the environment, and in response there is an "explosion of evolution" as the remaining lifeforms look for ways to survive in the new world.
(WARNING: The following is merely speculation on what *might* have happened. I am no evolutionary bioligist.)
If we assume Snowball Earth at around 600 Mya, then what life survived would mostly be clustered around the few sources of heat, like volcanic vents. Occasionally vents close up, and new ones open, so life would need to be able to survive long enough to make it to the next vent in order to survive. Unfortunately, it's possible that some of the things that might make an organism more hardy in cold environments could also be a liability once it's back at the vent, so it's a bit of a Catch-22.
But what if there were two different organisms, one which was good at surviving out in the cold ocean, and one which was really good at extracting the energy from the vent? And what if they could somehow share these advantages with each other? If they clustered together, then the efficient organism could extract more energy than it needed, and pass the excess to the hardy one. And then, when the vent closed, the hardy one might be able to protect the efficient one just enough that they could both make it to the next vent. Such a "cluster" of single-celled organisms, using each other's strengths to shore up their own weaknesses, could provide a basis for multi-cellular organisms.
And, at the rate that bacteria multiply, this could have happened over just a few million years. Once the Snowball melts, the new set-up would prove capable of surviving in a greater variety of environments than their counterparts, and before long it's a new industry standard, so to speak.
I admit I can already see a couple of potential problems with this little theory, but hopefully it demonstrates just a little of how mass extinction can lead to evolutionary diversity.
>Surely if life were to evolve into the intricate forms of animal life it would take a longer period than 6 hundred million years. A snowball Earth would have wiped out all Animal life if there were any there. Including the fish of the sea.
The problem is in the first word - surely. We know that viruses evolve very quickly indeed - new variants occurring at less 6 month intervals. At that rate 600million years is one hell of a long time. On that basis I cannot see any problem with life evolving pretty quickly.
The problem is in the first word - surely. We know that viruses evolve very quickly indeed - new variants occurring at less 6 month intervals. At that rate 600million years is one hell of a long time. On that basis I cannot see any problem with life evolving pretty quickly.
Darwin didn't try to explain how the universe and life was CREATED. He even acknowledged the existence of a Creator in his writings.
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one (The Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin, 2nd and subsequent editions).
Concordance to the 1st Ed of The Origin. Paul H. Barrett, et.
al., eds. Cornell U Press (1981). . Of note, there are 7 unapologetic and positive
references to the Creator (yes, capital "C"). Pp. 186, 188, 189,
413, 413, 435, 488.
Has anybody here actually READ Darwin's works? Below is a link to pages that offers free ebooks and at least two audio books downloads of Darwin's works
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485
http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
Why do some people so hotly believe in and defend Darwin's works on evolution, while other similar Darwin works are conveniently ignored?
Darwin believed that the various races were at different evolutionary levels, all distant from the apes, with Blacks lower and whites (Caucasians/Europeans) at the top.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man (1871) p.201)
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination...
...excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (The Descent of Man (1871) p.168-169)
In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate." (Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species)
By Darwin's theory, there's no reason that life would ever have evolved past these life forms.
Among all life forms on earth, microbes have the widest range of genetic and evolutionary diversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea
Multiple archaeans are extremophiles, and some would say this is their ecological niche.[4] They can survive high temperatures, often above 100 °C, as found in geysers, black smokers, and oil wells. Some are found in very cold habitats and others in highly saline, acidic, or alkaline water. Mesophiles favor milder conditions in marshland, sewage and soil. Many methanogenic archaea are found in the digestive tracts of animals such as ruminants, termites, and humans
Recently, several studies have shown that archaea exist not only in mesophilic and thermophilic environments but are also present, sometimes in high numbers, at low temperatures as well. It is increasingly becoming recognised that methanogens are commonly present in low-temperature environments such as cold sediments. Some studies have even suggested that at these temperatures the pathway by which methanogenesis occurs may change due to the thermodynamic constraints imposed by low temperatures. Perhaps even more significant are the large numbers of archaea found throughout most of the world's oceans, a predominantly cold environment. These archaea, which belong to several deeply branching lineages unrelated to those previously known, can be present in extremely high numbers (up to 40% of the microbial biomass) although almost none have been isolated in pure culture.[70] Currently we have almost no information regarding the physiology of these organisms, meaning that their effects on global biogeochemical cycles remain unknown. One recent study has shown, however, that one group of marine crenarchaeota are capable of nitrification, a trait previously unknown among the archaea
Deinococcus radiodurans is an extremophilic bacterium, one of the most radioresistant organisms known. It can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid, and is therefore known as a polyextremophile and has been listed as "the world's toughest bacterium" in The Guinness Book Of World Records.
Several bacteria of comparable radioresistance are now known, including some species of the genus Chroococcidiopsis (phylum cyanobacteria) and some species of Rubrobacter (phylum actinobacteria); among the ARCHAEA, the species Thermococcus gammatolerans shows comparable radioresistance
No matter what kind of environment you look at, its a microbe that is the fittest to survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
No need for evolution to have proceeded any further!
In all environments, there are life forms that have thrived unchanged throughout the entire time period in which other species were supposedly evolving! Again, why would there be any necessity to evolve when life forms clearly thrive unchanged through the millenia?
There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one (The Origin Of Species By Charles Darwin, 2nd and subsequent editions).
Concordance to the 1st Ed of The Origin. Paul H. Barrett, et.
al., eds. Cornell U Press (1981). . Of note, there are 7 unapologetic and positive
references to the Creator (yes, capital "C"). Pp. 186, 188, 189,
413, 413, 435, 488.
Has anybody here actually READ Darwin's works? Below is a link to pages that offers free ebooks and at least two audio books downloads of Darwin's works
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485
http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
Why do some people so hotly believe in and defend Darwin's works on evolution, while other similar Darwin works are conveniently ignored?
Darwin believed that the various races were at different evolutionary levels, all distant from the apes, with Blacks lower and whites (Caucasians/Europeans) at the top.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man (1871) p.201)
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination...
...excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (The Descent of Man (1871) p.168-169)
In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate." (Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species)
By Darwin's theory, there's no reason that life would ever have evolved past these life forms.
Among all life forms on earth, microbes have the widest range of genetic and evolutionary diversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea
Multiple archaeans are extremophiles, and some would say this is their ecological niche.[4] They can survive high temperatures, often above 100 °C, as found in geysers, black smokers, and oil wells. Some are found in very cold habitats and others in highly saline, acidic, or alkaline water. Mesophiles favor milder conditions in marshland, sewage and soil. Many methanogenic archaea are found in the digestive tracts of animals such as ruminants, termites, and humans
Recently, several studies have shown that archaea exist not only in mesophilic and thermophilic environments but are also present, sometimes in high numbers, at low temperatures as well. It is increasingly becoming recognised that methanogens are commonly present in low-temperature environments such as cold sediments. Some studies have even suggested that at these temperatures the pathway by which methanogenesis occurs may change due to the thermodynamic constraints imposed by low temperatures. Perhaps even more significant are the large numbers of archaea found throughout most of the world's oceans, a predominantly cold environment. These archaea, which belong to several deeply branching lineages unrelated to those previously known, can be present in extremely high numbers (up to 40% of the microbial biomass) although almost none have been isolated in pure culture.[70] Currently we have almost no information regarding the physiology of these organisms, meaning that their effects on global biogeochemical cycles remain unknown. One recent study has shown, however, that one group of marine crenarchaeota are capable of nitrification, a trait previously unknown among the archaea
Deinococcus radiodurans is an extremophilic bacterium, one of the most radioresistant organisms known. It can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid, and is therefore known as a polyextremophile and has been listed as "the world's toughest bacterium" in The Guinness Book Of World Records.
Several bacteria of comparable radioresistance are now known, including some species of the genus Chroococcidiopsis (phylum cyanobacteria) and some species of Rubrobacter (phylum actinobacteria); among the ARCHAEA, the species Thermococcus gammatolerans shows comparable radioresistance
No matter what kind of environment you look at, its a microbe that is the fittest to survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
No need for evolution to have proceeded any further!
In all environments, there are life forms that have thrived unchanged throughout the entire time period in which other species were supposedly evolving! Again, why would there be any necessity to evolve when life forms clearly thrive unchanged through the millenia?
>Again, why would there be any necessity to evolve when life forms clearly thrive unchanged through the millenia?
There is only need to evolve when lack of ability so to do would result in extinction. So it all comes down to need.
There is only need to evolve when lack of ability so to do would result in extinction. So it all comes down to need.
>>No need for evolution to have proceeded any further!
"Evolution" is NOT the correct word for the process, since "to evolve" means to "unroll" from the Latin, and suggests some sort of development leading to something improved. Even the FreeDictionary uses the term with respect to "speices development".
Darwinism implies "change for the better"
Modern "Evolution" means "change for survival" where here "change" means difference without any connotation regarding quality.
One really needs to find a better word for it.
"Evolution" is NOT the correct word for the process, since "to evolve" means to "unroll" from the Latin, and suggests some sort of development leading to something improved. Even the FreeDictionary uses the term with respect to "speices development".
Darwinism implies "change for the better"
Modern "Evolution" means "change for survival" where here "change" means difference without any connotation regarding quality.
One really needs to find a better word for it.
>> One really needs to find a better word for it. <<
Moving forward ;-D
Moving forward ;-D
It's a common anti-evolution argument:
Why is the world not entirely populated with *only* microbes, since
they are clearly the "fittest" ???
It's not too hard to think of reasons for complexity to develop. For instance, when the microbe dies, it leaves a smudge of useful proteins that have already been processed from the raw materials. Any "larger microbe" that could use that bounty would thrive; it would not need to spend all of its time and energy doing the initial raw-material processing.
Now imagine a single-celled organism that can process say, nitrogen, well and another that can convert sunlight to mechanical energy, but is not particularly good at processing nitrogen. It's easy to imagine the two microbes bumping together and being useful to each other. Over time, the two-celled combination would thrive better than the two individuals and if they somehow develop a way to stick together, they have better chances of survival than the simpler one-cell version.
If some chance combination of cells allows a multi-celled organism to move from place to place, it will have the tremendous survival benefit of being able to leave a location where there is a shortage of whatever it needs to survive and travel (even a few inches) to a location where that resource is available.
It's really a pretty stupid argument. There are several other arguments put out by the I.D. folks that are more difficult to counter.
Why is the world not entirely populated with *only* microbes, since
they are clearly the "fittest" ???
It's not too hard to think of reasons for complexity to develop. For instance, when the microbe dies, it leaves a smudge of useful proteins that have already been processed from the raw materials. Any "larger microbe" that could use that bounty would thrive; it would not need to spend all of its time and energy doing the initial raw-material processing.
Now imagine a single-celled organism that can process say, nitrogen, well and another that can convert sunlight to mechanical energy, but is not particularly good at processing nitrogen. It's easy to imagine the two microbes bumping together and being useful to each other. Over time, the two-celled combination would thrive better than the two individuals and if they somehow develop a way to stick together, they have better chances of survival than the simpler one-cell version.
If some chance combination of cells allows a multi-celled organism to move from place to place, it will have the tremendous survival benefit of being able to leave a location where there is a shortage of whatever it needs to survive and travel (even a few inches) to a location where that resource is available.
It's really a pretty stupid argument. There are several other arguments put out by the I.D. folks that are more difficult to counter.
"Over time, ..."
That's the key phrase. It's just to mindbogglingly much time to visulaize. I have problems with a week, not to mention my own 54 years. The 600.000.000 years mentioned, well, who has a grasp? Who knows what can happen in that amount of time...
/RID
That's the key phrase. It's just to mindbogglingly much time to visulaize. I have problems with a week, not to mention my own 54 years. The 600.000.000 years mentioned, well, who has a grasp? Who knows what can happen in that amount of time...
/RID
ASKER
The 600.000.000 years mentioned, well, who has a grasp? Who knows what can happen in that amount of time...
rid: That's what I mean, people are saying that if there were a snowball Earth then IF there were any animal life then it probably would have been wiped out. Some are saying that animal life didn't start till about 600,000,000 years ago.
What gets me is that what they are saying (microbs to animals in 600,000,000 years) could happen. But what I don't get is the three and a half billion years before, and not an animal in sight.
rid: That's what I mean, people are saying that if there were a snowball Earth then IF there were any animal life then it probably would have been wiped out. Some are saying that animal life didn't start till about 600,000,000 years ago.
What gets me is that what they are saying (microbs to animals in 600,000,000 years) could happen. But what I don't get is the three and a half billion years before, and not an animal in sight.
divdove says:
<<< But what I don't get is the three and a half billion years before, and not an animal in sight. >>>
The Earth was an extremely inhospitable place to be for its first couple of billion years. It hasn't always been pleasant and temperate, with palm trees swaying in the oxygen-rich breeze.
Even if we had microbial life in that CO2 saturated, solar irradiated, volcanic hellscape that was the early Earth, those conditions likely didn't permit complex animal life other than the hearty beasties that we described earlier in this thread.
Geologica-time-USGS.gif
<<< But what I don't get is the three and a half billion years before, and not an animal in sight. >>>
The Earth was an extremely inhospitable place to be for its first couple of billion years. It hasn't always been pleasant and temperate, with palm trees swaying in the oxygen-rich breeze.
Even if we had microbial life in that CO2 saturated, solar irradiated, volcanic hellscape that was the early Earth, those conditions likely didn't permit complex animal life other than the hearty beasties that we described earlier in this thread.
Geologica-time-USGS.gif
ASKER
Why not, if evolution does its thing then it could do its thing in any enviroment.. life is life and to the evolutionist it does its thing where ever it happens and whatever occurs.
Can anyone point to a monkey turning into a human, or even anykind of thing turning into anything else in the fossil record.
A dog is a dog, no matter what shape it comes in, it is still a dog. There isn't anything like us (Humans) in the entire universe, How someone can say that we were not created is beond me. But how someone can say that all animal life came from a single celled thing in a lousy 600,000,000 years is beond me.
3 1/2 Billion years of evolution, microbes. 600 million years years of evolution, Human beings. Crap.
Can anyone point to a monkey turning into a human, or even anykind of thing turning into anything else in the fossil record.
A dog is a dog, no matter what shape it comes in, it is still a dog. There isn't anything like us (Humans) in the entire universe, How someone can say that we were not created is beond me. But how someone can say that all animal life came from a single celled thing in a lousy 600,000,000 years is beond me.
3 1/2 Billion years of evolution, microbes. 600 million years years of evolution, Human beings. Crap.
>> There isn't anything like us (Humans) in the entire universe
that might be true or not .. nobody knows .. but you realize that you can say the same thing for dogs or cows?
> There isn't anything like dogs, monkeys or cows in the entire universe < .. well, true or not .. it doesnt say anything about where all that came from ..
>> How someone can say that we were not created is beond me. But how someone can say that all animal life came from a single celled thing in a lousy 600,000,000 years is beond me.
its just as simple as trial and error .. billions of years .. not very hard to understand if you look at the underlying chemistry and self-organising structures ..
there is a algorithm in programming which simulates this process, its called "genetic algorithm" .. its basically a very smart way of trial and error and mutation .. you wouldnt believe how quick problems can be solved with this algorithm ..
that might be true or not .. nobody knows .. but you realize that you can say the same thing for dogs or cows?
> There isn't anything like dogs, monkeys or cows in the entire universe < .. well, true or not .. it doesnt say anything about where all that came from ..
>> How someone can say that we were not created is beond me. But how someone can say that all animal life came from a single celled thing in a lousy 600,000,000 years is beond me.
its just as simple as trial and error .. billions of years .. not very hard to understand if you look at the underlying chemistry and self-organising structures ..
there is a algorithm in programming which simulates this process, its called "genetic algorithm" .. its basically a very smart way of trial and error and mutation .. you wouldnt believe how quick problems can be solved with this algorithm ..
>> How someone can say that we were not created is beond me.
well thats easy to explain, you shouldnt wonder about that. it just says something about you and your state of mind. the only thing it says is that for whatever personal reasons you cant imagine it .. i guess its for religious reasons .. its as easy as that, so this can hardly be an argument .. its just your religional education that makes you want to beleive that ..
btw. nobody could imagine time was not static before einstein .. nobody could believe the effects of the quantum theory ..
well as i said, you shouldnt wonder its beyond you .. thats actually normal in science
well thats easy to explain, you shouldnt wonder about that. it just says something about you and your state of mind. the only thing it says is that for whatever personal reasons you cant imagine it .. i guess its for religious reasons .. its as easy as that, so this can hardly be an argument .. its just your religional education that makes you want to beleive that ..
btw. nobody could imagine time was not static before einstein .. nobody could believe the effects of the quantum theory ..
well as i said, you shouldnt wonder its beyond you .. thats actually normal in science
divdove, it is abundantly clear that you don't want to understand how life really works. You have your own view and you're sticking to it no matter what anyone says or demonstrates, which is apparent from even your second post:
<<< OK! As A Christian and somewhat a scientist, I will wait for other comments. But I must say BOLLOCKS. >>>
You need to stop considering yourself a "scientist". Scientists don't start with conclusions based on mythology and exclude all other reasonable information, they start with *questions* and try to determine reasonable conclusions based on the observable and testable world...not faith, hope, dreams or visions.
<<< OK! As A Christian and somewhat a scientist, I will wait for other comments. But I must say BOLLOCKS. >>>
You need to stop considering yourself a "scientist". Scientists don't start with conclusions based on mythology and exclude all other reasonable information, they start with *questions* and try to determine reasonable conclusions based on the observable and testable world...not faith, hope, dreams or visions.
divdove,
"Can anyone point to a monkey turning into a human, or even anykind of thing turning into anything else in the fossil record."
As I understand it, it is statistically very unlikely to find transitional fossils because their living forms occupied a relatively short period of time compared to fossils of the other living forms that have been found so far. The following quotes show the kind of thinking behind this notion.
"The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species." From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#summary
"PE [Punctuated Equilibria] explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. The splitting of lineages (1 above) in the mode of allopatric speciation (2 above) followed by ecological dispersal and succession (5 above) would result in geologically abrupt appearance of the daughter species everywhere except the limited geographic area where the speciation took place. Most speciation takes place as peripatric speciation, which is confined to a limited geographic region, and after which ecological principles argue for relatively rapid reintroduction and spread into new habitats for the daughter species. Since the critical change occurs in such a small region and in such a limited population, the probability of finding specimens which document the transition from ancestral to daughter species is very low." From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg
"For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment." From http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/272/5269/1802
"Can anyone point to a monkey turning into a human, or even anykind of thing turning into anything else in the fossil record."
As I understand it, it is statistically very unlikely to find transitional fossils because their living forms occupied a relatively short period of time compared to fossils of the other living forms that have been found so far. The following quotes show the kind of thinking behind this notion.
"The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species." From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#summary
"PE [Punctuated Equilibria] explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. The splitting of lineages (1 above) in the mode of allopatric speciation (2 above) followed by ecological dispersal and succession (5 above) would result in geologically abrupt appearance of the daughter species everywhere except the limited geographic area where the speciation took place. Most speciation takes place as peripatric speciation, which is confined to a limited geographic region, and after which ecological principles argue for relatively rapid reintroduction and spread into new habitats for the daughter species. Since the critical change occurs in such a small region and in such a limited population, the probability of finding specimens which document the transition from ancestral to daughter species is very low." From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg
"For more than two decades there has been intense debate over the hypothesis that most morphological evolution occurs during relatively brief episodes of rapid change that punctuate much longer periods of stasis. A clear and unambiguous case of punctuated evolution is presented for cell size in a population of Escherichia coli evolving for 3000 generations in a constant environment." From http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/272/5269/1802
I've never understood why creationists claim that there is no fossil record to support evolution. For instance, intermediate stages in the evolution of the horse are well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
I think it's one of those things that the myth believers say loudly and often in hopes that nobody will check it out. It sounds like a convincing argument, like "the earth is flat" until somebody actually looks into it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
I think it's one of those things that the myth believers say loudly and often in hopes that nobody will check it out. It sounds like a convincing argument, like "the earth is flat" until somebody actually looks into it.
I agree with the last two posters, but arguments based on incoherant classification "A dog is a dog, no matter what shape it comes in, it is still a dog." are not subtle enough to understand the necessary mechanisms required for such development. One can almost parady Oscar Wilde :-
"When I see a dog", said Cecily, "I call it a dog".
"Thankfully, I've never seen a dog in my life", retorted Gwendolin.
"When I see a dog", said Cecily, "I call it a dog".
"Thankfully, I've never seen a dog in my life", retorted Gwendolin.
ASKER
@ Dan rollins
Evolution of the horse.
Its like saying evolution of a human. Its like saying because a monkey has 2 arms 2 legs and a head, the same as a human then we had to have evolved from a monkey.
Because the first thing looks like the last thing, does not mean they have some kind of evolutionary link. A horse is a horse, but who is to say a Hyracotherium is a horse. Just because I have fingers and toes dosn't mean I am a monkey.
Evolution of the horse.
Its like saying evolution of a human. Its like saying because a monkey has 2 arms 2 legs and a head, the same as a human then we had to have evolved from a monkey.
Because the first thing looks like the last thing, does not mean they have some kind of evolutionary link. A horse is a horse, but who is to say a Hyracotherium is a horse. Just because I have fingers and toes dosn't mean I am a monkey.
>> Its like saying because a monkey has 2 arms 2 legs and a head, the same as a human then we had to have evolved from a monkey.
its not only that, but your right, its a good first guess .. how do you explain the genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
"The complete mapping of the common chimpanzee genome in the summer of 2005 showed the genetic difference with humans to be 1.23% (ie 98.77% similarity)."
god was lazy that day or what ..
just ridiculous ..
its not only that, but your right, its a good first guess .. how do you explain the genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
"The complete mapping of the common chimpanzee genome in the summer of 2005 showed the genetic difference with humans to be 1.23% (ie 98.77% similarity)."
god was lazy that day or what ..
just ridiculous ..
divdive,
The point is that a progression -- from an animal with multiple toes to an animal with just the one -- is clearly identified. That is what you said was missing. It is not missing.
One might argue that God made each of the separate animals, but He made newer ones very similar to older ones but with certain changes that improved them... then He killed off all of the earlier ones. But that's a stupid, illogical argument.
On the other hand, logic has never been the strong point of Creationsts. The ones that use logic soon switch to accepting evolution.
The point is that a progression -- from an animal with multiple toes to an animal with just the one -- is clearly identified. That is what you said was missing. It is not missing.
One might argue that God made each of the separate animals, but He made newer ones very similar to older ones but with certain changes that improved them... then He killed off all of the earlier ones. But that's a stupid, illogical argument.
On the other hand, logic has never been the strong point of Creationsts. The ones that use logic soon switch to accepting evolution.
ASKER
So why dont I look like a horse, Why is there so many differamt creatures. I f we all started off with an original peice of life then why the differences. If it took 3,5 billion years to turn into a microb, then from the microb how can we get such diversity in 600 million years.
It does not make any sence to me. Sorry.
It does not make any sence to me. Sorry.
>> It does not make any sence [sic] to me. Sorry
You should be. One problems is your "innumeracy" -- you simply cannot envision how long 600 Million years is. This might help:
Think of 6,000 years.
It's a really, *really* long time. It's all of the time recorded in the bible. Your great great ... 250 times ... great grandparents were alive then. All of recorded human history has occurred in that period. It's way longer ago than World War II, discovery of the New World, the Dark Ages, the Roman Empire, the Pyramids, the invention of agriculture, all of the things that you you can think of that happened a really, really long time ago.
Now think of a standard clock with 12 one-hour divisions. Imagine that it represents 600,000,000 years instead of 12 hours. That 6000 years that you can, with effort, think about takes up a tiny slivver of the LAST SECOND before midnight on that clock.
That is, compared a full 12 hours, all of that 6000 years of human history takes place in less that an eyeblink.
In 12 hours, you might wake up in the morning, go to work, cook hundreds of batches of frenchfries, come back home, walk the dog, watch TV, watch your favorite show, watch a commerical near the end of it, and in it, somebody tries to sell you some soap, and the last word spoken in the commerical is "soap." And compared to 600,000,000 years, that 6000 years is the same as the end of the "p" sound at the end of that word at the end of 12 hours.
If you can't imagine 600,000,000 years, don't feel too bad. Not many people can.
You should be. One problems is your "innumeracy" -- you simply cannot envision how long 600 Million years is. This might help:
Think of 6,000 years.
It's a really, *really* long time. It's all of the time recorded in the bible. Your great great ... 250 times ... great grandparents were alive then. All of recorded human history has occurred in that period. It's way longer ago than World War II, discovery of the New World, the Dark Ages, the Roman Empire, the Pyramids, the invention of agriculture, all of the things that you you can think of that happened a really, really long time ago.
Now think of a standard clock with 12 one-hour divisions. Imagine that it represents 600,000,000 years instead of 12 hours. That 6000 years that you can, with effort, think about takes up a tiny slivver of the LAST SECOND before midnight on that clock.
That is, compared a full 12 hours, all of that 6000 years of human history takes place in less that an eyeblink.
In 12 hours, you might wake up in the morning, go to work, cook hundreds of batches of frenchfries, come back home, walk the dog, watch TV, watch your favorite show, watch a commerical near the end of it, and in it, somebody tries to sell you some soap, and the last word spoken in the commerical is "soap." And compared to 600,000,000 years, that 6000 years is the same as the end of the "p" sound at the end of that word at the end of 12 hours.
If you can't imagine 600,000,000 years, don't feel too bad. Not many people can.
divdove: What exactly do you mean when you say "a horse is a horse"?
(Sounds like Dorothy Parker!)
(Sounds like Dorothy Parker!)
a rose is a rose .. i consider this evidence .. ;)
You said this a while a go, and I'm surprised no-one pulled you up on it:
>> There isn't anything like us (Humans) in the entire universe
Really? Have you looked everywhere?
But seriously, a few hundred years ago we only knew about one planet. A hundred years ago we still didn't know all the planets in the Solar System. Fifty years ago we'd never stepped foot on the Moon. Twenty years ago we didn't know whether there were any planets outside the Solar System, and we'd barely looked past the surface of most of those (in fact even now we haven't gotten close enough to most of the large objects in the Solar System to say with any kind of certainty that there's no life there). A month ago we hadn't detected organic compounds on a planet outside our Solar System. As it is, the only planets we can make out are the ones as large as Jupiter orbiting closer to their suns than the Earth does. We are still a *long* way off saying that there is nothing in the Universe that even vaguely resembles humans.
Not to mention, there's the time delay involved in looking at interstellar objects as well. If you look at something that's 600 million light years away, you're seeing it as it was 600 million years ago - so if we found an "Earth-like" planet at that distance, we may well see it going through its snowball phase, but in the present it's filled by a sentient civilisation like ours.
I have had some thoughts on points more related to your main gripe, but I'll save them for later.
>> There isn't anything like us (Humans) in the entire universe
Really? Have you looked everywhere?
But seriously, a few hundred years ago we only knew about one planet. A hundred years ago we still didn't know all the planets in the Solar System. Fifty years ago we'd never stepped foot on the Moon. Twenty years ago we didn't know whether there were any planets outside the Solar System, and we'd barely looked past the surface of most of those (in fact even now we haven't gotten close enough to most of the large objects in the Solar System to say with any kind of certainty that there's no life there). A month ago we hadn't detected organic compounds on a planet outside our Solar System. As it is, the only planets we can make out are the ones as large as Jupiter orbiting closer to their suns than the Earth does. We are still a *long* way off saying that there is nothing in the Universe that even vaguely resembles humans.
Not to mention, there's the time delay involved in looking at interstellar objects as well. If you look at something that's 600 million light years away, you're seeing it as it was 600 million years ago - so if we found an "Earth-like" planet at that distance, we may well see it going through its snowball phase, but in the present it's filled by a sentient civilisation like ours.
I have had some thoughts on points more related to your main gripe, but I'll save them for later.
RAmen Confusing.
Consider the Drake equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
It estimates that, factoring the likelihood of the conditions needed to foster life on any given planet, there could be between 10 to 5000 intelligent civilizations currently in existence in OUR galaxy alone.
If you think 600,000,000 years is hard to comprehend, try multiplying that by the 125,000,000,000 galaxies that exist in the universe (according to NASA estimates). Talk about a mind-bender.
I always recommend watching the first few minutes from the movie "Contact" to get a pretty good representation of just how big our universe is.
Consider the Drake equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
It estimates that, factoring the likelihood of the conditions needed to foster life on any given planet, there could be between 10 to 5000 intelligent civilizations currently in existence in OUR galaxy alone.
If you think 600,000,000 years is hard to comprehend, try multiplying that by the 125,000,000,000 galaxies that exist in the universe (according to NASA estimates). Talk about a mind-bender.
I always recommend watching the first few minutes from the movie "Contact" to get a pretty good representation of just how big our universe is.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
> speeding up the second half of the timeline,
Two major factors: increasing competition, and increasing oxygen
Two major factors: increasing competition, and increasing oxygen
ozo:
That was kind of my point in the second half - that conditions were right for things to move faster. I thought about oxygen, but admit I had forgotten the increasing competition, which of course is a major driving factor in evolution. The first half (this has now become the tl;dr version, obviously) was to explain that in terms of pure genetics not as much happened, but the efficiency in how they worked led to lots of physical changes.
That was kind of my point in the second half - that conditions were right for things to move faster. I thought about oxygen, but admit I had forgotten the increasing competition, which of course is a major driving factor in evolution. The first half (this has now become the tl;dr version, obviously) was to explain that in terms of pure genetics not as much happened, but the efficiency in how they worked led to lots of physical changes.
I could quite easily pose a question on this forum asking believers in the OT to justify the Noah's Ark myth - and blatantly refuse any evidence they might supply as being acceptable PURELY because I don't happen to believe in the myth.
Would you consider that to be a reasonable position, divdove?
Well, would you?
Because it's exactly what you've done with this thread.
That aside, we have seen evolution in action. Both in the labs and in the wild (although I lost the reference to the example in the wild - nevertheless). It happens. It is a fact.
Similarly, we have very good evidence to suggest the universe is expanding - so much that it is also fact. It does not require much ability in logic to take that back in time and see that the universe must have began very very very small.
Returning to evolution, it is not difficult to infer from our observations of evolution occuring, and the patterns the fossil record (every instance of which is "transitional") demonstrate, that ALL life must have ultimately originated from the very very simple.
Would you consider that to be a reasonable position, divdove?
Well, would you?
Because it's exactly what you've done with this thread.
That aside, we have seen evolution in action. Both in the labs and in the wild (although I lost the reference to the example in the wild - nevertheless). It happens. It is a fact.
Similarly, we have very good evidence to suggest the universe is expanding - so much that it is also fact. It does not require much ability in logic to take that back in time and see that the universe must have began very very very small.
Returning to evolution, it is not difficult to infer from our observations of evolution occuring, and the patterns the fossil record (every instance of which is "transitional") demonstrate, that ALL life must have ultimately originated from the very very simple.
Just to clarify something in the above:
Evolution happens - it is a fact.
Evolutionary theory deals with HOW evolution happens.
Biologists have seen that from generation to generation a species can slowly change into different species (that are unable to produce offspring with members of the original species - "macroevolution", if you will). The whys and wherefores of that change are theoretical.
Evolution happens - it is a fact.
Evolutionary theory deals with HOW evolution happens.
Biologists have seen that from generation to generation a species can slowly change into different species (that are unable to produce offspring with members of the original species - "macroevolution", if you will). The whys and wherefores of that change are theoretical.
ASKER
Although I don't believe in evoluion, Confusings answer best fitted the question. If evolution occured after a theoretical/factual snowball Earth, then this answer could be what happened.
You have to believe it first though. :-)
Thanks for everyones input, cheers.
You have to believe it first though. :-)
Thanks for everyones input, cheers.
Thanks very much. And thank you also for being both honest and open-minded in saying that while you don't personally believe in it (and I'm not going to force you to), you do understand how it *could* happen.
I also don't blame you for being critical - finding possible holes in theories is how they get tested in the scientific world, after all!
I also don't blame you for being critical - finding possible holes in theories is how they get tested in the scientific world, after all!
Confusing - do have a link to something about that ant thing? I'd like to see it :-)
ASKER
I personally havn't got a link. I am sure that one will be provided, it was something I learned when I was about 12, it is wierd but ineresting.
I read about Langton's Ant in "The Science of Discworld", and programmed a version in BASIC. There's a fair bit on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_Ant and on Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Langton's_Ant
ASKER