Evolution

2008-03-13 15:59:25

#26

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|7121|San Francisco

Evolution Isn't used as an "explanation" of the origins of humans, at least not it the way that you phrased your original question. People who Don't know what Evolution is seem to think that it's a take on our Origins, but it isn't. It's part of the process of how we are here today, but it's by no means an actual explanation of how life came to be.

As for our actual origins, I'm a fan of the idea that a comet with complex organic compounds struck the Earth, and the environment of the forming Earth kickstarted life into gear. The compounds formed together, turning into simple-celled organisms, then evolving into multi-celled complex forms, eventually evolving to higher and higher forms based on their location and the mutation of their genes through reproduction.

2008-03-13 16:00:35

#27

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7071

why does it have to be a comet? could it be an asteroid or meteor?

2008-03-13 16:01:25

#28

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6918|Northern California

Or a God?

2008-03-13 16:02:42

#29

daddyofdeath: A REAL Combat Engineer in the house; +187|6680|UK Bradford W,Yorks. Age 27

I think probably the same question applies to ....Is space infinite? My mind really boggles at these kind of questions. They reckon GAS started the big bang, but then where did GAS come from? it is never ending is the cycle.

2008-03-13 16:02:58

#30

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7028|132 and Bush

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why does it have to be a comet? could it be an asteroid or meteor?

water http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.as … mp;id=4100

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-03-13 16:03:37

#31

geNius: ..!.,; +144|6869|SoCal

hurricane2oo5 wrote:
God created Adam and Eve , not Adam and Steve.

Not only did you not make that up, but it is also unfunny and unrelated.

https://srejects.com/genius/srejects.png

2008-03-13 17:56:09

#32

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7059|949

It all started 6000 years ago. Don't believe me? Go ask Jack Chick.

2008-03-13 18:00:57

#33

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6388|Washington DC

I'm not a denouncer of evolution and the big bang, on the contrary, but I want to know where that "tiny bit of energy" that blew up and created our universe came from.

2008-03-13 18:21:55

#34

Gawwad: My way or Haddaway!; +212|7112|Espoo, Finland

Havok wrote:
ATG wrote:
Photosynthisis ( sp ) was the beginning, and as these basic life forms began to adapt and transform the energy from the sun they mutated into more complex forms requiring more complex energies.
Not true at all. Photosynthesis requires chloroplasts, which are membraned structures. Membraned structures didn't appear in prokaryotes, only eukaroyotes. The first bacteria were extremeophiles, meaning they lived in incredibly intense environments, such as volcanic rock or acid baths. They probably survived by chemosynthesis.

Not to mention, with all the volcanic activity of the primordial earth, there probably wasn't much sunlight seeping through the clouds, which aided in cooling the earth, but also removed the possibility of photosynthesis.

The first life forms appeared in the seas, because water blocks ultraviolet radiation. Life on land was possible only after photosynthesis brought oxygen to the atmosphere (O₂ + ultraviolet radiation -> O₃ -> protection from radiation)

Last edited by Gawwad (2008-03-13 18:22:32)

2008-03-13 18:35:17

#35

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6997|Portland, OR, USA

Gawwad wrote:
Havok wrote:
ATG wrote:
Photosynthisis ( sp ) was the beginning, and as these basic life forms began to adapt and transform the energy from the sun they mutated into more complex forms requiring more complex energies.
Not true at all. Photosynthesis requires chloroplasts, which are membraned structures. Membraned structures didn't appear in prokaryotes, only eukaroyotes. The first bacteria were extremeophiles, meaning they lived in incredibly intense environments, such as volcanic rock or acid baths. They probably survived by chemosynthesis.

Not to mention, with all the volcanic activity of the primordial earth, there probably wasn't much sunlight seeping through the clouds, which aided in cooling the earth, but also removed the possibility of photosynthesis.
The first life forms appeared in the seas, because water blocks ultraviolet radiation. Life on land was possible only after photosynthesis brought oxygen to the atmosphere (O₂ + ultraviolet radiation -> O₃ -> protection from radiation)

Right, but photosynthesis was by no means the start of life. It is an incredibly complex system that involves transportation of electrons moving up and down energy levels, different complexes and pigments. The first forms of life likely obtained energy through something much less complex.

2008-03-13 19:13:57

#36

Schittloaf: not fulla schit; +23|6330|MN

someday you can ask the creator that question .

2008-03-13 19:20:45

#37

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|7121|San Francisco

Kmarion wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why does it have to be a comet? could it be an asteroid or meteor?
water http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.as … mp;id=4100

Exactly. Bacteria and complex organic compounds can exist frozen in ice better than being crushed into rock and metal. Meteorites definitely gave us a good helping of metal and rock/inert compounds from which organisms can get nutrients, so they are not entirely discredited.

2008-03-13 19:30:42

#38

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6751|New Haven, CT

Marconius wrote:
Evolution Isn't used as an "explanation" of the origins of humans, at least not it the way that you phrased your original question. People who Don't know what Evolution is seem to think that it's a take on our Origins, but it isn't. It's part of the process of how we are here today, but it's by no means an actual explanation of how life came to be.

As for our actual origins, I'm a fan of the idea that a comet with complex organic compounds struck the Earth, and the environment of the forming Earth kickstarted life into gear. The compounds formed together, turning into simple-celled organisms, then evolving into multi-celled complex forms, eventually evolving to higher and higher forms based on their location and the mutation of their genes through reproduction.

In my experience, the two typically go hand in hand.

2008-03-13 19:30:50

#39

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|7117|Tampa Bay Florida

herrr_smity wrote:

How can living forms develop after a billion years when the Earth is only 6000 years old?

That guy knows everything....

jkjkjkjk. But its pretty scary these people are out there. Almost as bad a scientology tbh. Its a cult.

2008-03-13 19:52:02

#40

PeoNinja: Ninja Fart - Silent but Deadly; +31|6626

I recommend Discovery Channel

2008-03-13 20:43:09

#41

Reciprocity: Member; +721|7008|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Spearhead wrote:
How can living forms develop after a billion years when the Earth is only 6000 years old?

That guy knows everything....

jkjkjkjk. But its pretty scary these people are out there. Almost as bad a scientology tbh. Its a cult.

that is a disturbing video.

2008-03-13 20:55:46

#42

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|7108|Disaster Free Zone

experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life"

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/creation-of-life.htm

Yes the experiment was flawed, but the theory still has credibility. The problem is no can accurately simulate the exact variables from which life was actually started.

2008-03-13 21:39:49

#43

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|7121|San Francisco

What type of experience is that, nukchebi0? I mean, seriously, the only people who think that way prove to not know a thing about Evolution. I've never used it as an explanation of life's origin, nor have I heard it used as such except in the case that I just described. Lamarck, Lyell, and Darwin himself didn't use it in that sense, nor does Richard Dawkins or any of the current proponents of Evolution. It's just not synonymous with Creation.

2008-03-13 21:43:09

#44

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6751|New Haven, CT

Marconius wrote:
What type of experience is that, nukchebi0? I mean, seriously, the only people who think that way prove to not know a thing about Evolution. I've never used it as an explanation of life's origin, nor have I heard it used as such except in the case that I just described. Lamarck, Lyell, and Darwin himself didn't use it in that sense, nor does Richard Dawkins or any of the current proponents of Evolution. It's just not synonymous with Creation.

Kids in school, mostly, and Biology classes as well. The book presented evolution as the explanation for humanity's development along with its hypothesis on how life originally started.

2008-03-14 05:20:02

#45

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|7121|San Francisco

Huh, well something must be wrong with the book, unless it just blurred the difference between the two ideas. Oh well...

2008-03-14 13:05:43

#46

Lai: Member; +186|6578

FORTY-TWO

2008-03-14 14:57:01

#47

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6341|Glendale, CA

HurricaИe wrote:
I'm not a denouncer of evolution and the big bang, on the contrary, but I want to know where that "tiny bit of energy" that blew up and created our universe came from.

So it makes more sense that God clapped his hands together and said "universe, on!"?

2008-03-14 15:31:29

#48

Nappy: Apprentice; +151|6656|NSW, Australia

i know this is d&st but that pretty much explains it

2008-03-15 01:15:08

#49

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7102|Canberra, AUS

CommieChipmunk wrote:
Spark wrote:
ATG wrote:
different compounds from space bombarded the Earth. They mixed, and under pressure and exposure to our elements the morphed into new compounds.

Photosynthisis ( sp ) was the beginning, and as these basic life forms began to adapt and transform the energy from the sun they mutated into more complex forms requiring more complex energies.
Probably not. Photosynthesis didn't come until mitochondria.

Not true at all. Photosynthesis requires chloroplasts, which are membraned structures. Membraned structures didn't appear in prokaryotes, only eukaroyotes. The first bacteria were extremeophiles, meaning they lived in incredibly intense environments, such as volcanic rock or acid baths. They probably survived by chemosynthesis.

Not to mention, with all the volcanic activity of the primordial earth, there probably wasn't much sunlight seeping through the clouds, which aided in cooling the earth, but also removed the possibility of photosynthesis.
You don't need chloroplasts to photosynthesise, that's just one way of doing it. Any process which involves creating energy from food by using sunlight is photosynthesis.

---

I don't like panspermia purely because it's a copout.
Mitochondria secure energy through a completely different pathway than chloroplasts and have nothing to do with photosynthesis. Chloroplasts probably entered the scene as single celled structures that were absorbed by cells, but not destroyed.. because creating your own food using the sun would have been advantageous

I think you're using too narrow a definition of photosynthesis. What about cyanobacteria? They have nothing to do with cholorplasts, yet they, by all accounts, photsynthesise.

HurricaИe wrote:
I'm not a denouncer of evolution and the big bang, on the contrary, but I want to know where that "tiny bit of energy" that blew up and created our universe came from.

First off, you're saying that the universe is a result of an inbalance in energy.

There is no inbalance. The total amount of energy in the universe is zero - negative energy doesn't exist (don't expect me to expand. This was only explained to me in the context of there being zero-sum energy in the universe)

Second, there are lots of theories dealing with the pre-Big Bang state. Cosmons, strings, extra dimensions, big crunches, all are theories. The problem is almost all involve concepts that are beyond the understanding of modern science. So we'll have to wait.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-03-15 14:51:50

#50

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6997|Portland, OR, USA

Spark wrote:
I think you're using too narrow a definition of photosynthesis. What about cyanobacteria? They have nothing to do with cholorplasts, yet they, by all accounts, photsynthesise.

True, but it has nothing to do with mitochondria. They still use a complex array of internal structures and use pigments to photosynthesize.

Photosynthesis, doesn't really have much to do with mitochondria, as mitchondria do not require light to produce energy.

BF2S Forums Evolution

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

hurricane2oo5 wrote:

Havok wrote:

ATG wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Havok wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Marconius wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Marconius wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Spark wrote:

ATG wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer