Evolution Again!

[_Nightlion]

If someone found a better and more satisfactory scientific explanation to biodiversity than evolution, that would be the most exciting moment in science we've had in 50+ years. Nothing would be more exciting that discovering a new universe of biological laws to work with.

How about the loving artistry of God's handiwork. What artist is content with only one? So he makes lots of dogs, cats, and birds flowers and trees. If you could, what preventeth thee?

We know God tweeks DNA as per the dark skin of the Cannanites who first committed genocide, the confusion of languages was a tweek, the Lamanites darker skin was a tweek so the inhabitants of an island would have a more healthy gene spectrum.

Want to experience the DNA tweek of God for yourself? Submit to Christ with full purpose of heart and receive the promise of the Father the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost whereby you are RAISED TO A STATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Our DNA gets a tweek from God making us new creatures.....hmmm?

Perhaps science might catch God in the act someday. Possibly down in the Amazon....hmmm?

[_Harold Lee]

Hey Ren!

Ceeboo,

I know you said you might be leaving this wonderful thread behind.

But if you did feel like popping back, I'd be interested in getting an idea of what you think of this particular graphic:

Sure!

Now - of course - I understand you don't believe that the creatures at the bottom of the picture had ancestors 55 million years ago that looked like the creatures at the top.

I sure don't!

What I'm really interested in is what exactly you 'disbelieve' in the image.
Assuming you trust that the appropriate skeletons have been found (i.e. those evil scientists aren't literally 'making them up')...
...then specifically - do you disbelieve / discount:

* The ages assigned to them?

I don't have a clue (I simply don't "know" and I would propose that nobody else "knows" either, no matter how many times it is suggested that they do "know")

* The 'artists renditions' of them?
* The descriptions on the left, based on the skeletons?
* The assigned 'relationships' based on their comparative anatomy?)

No comment!

...or is it that you accept that all these creatures did exist, and at the times specified - but that all were created 'as they were' and none of the populations are related to each other in any way...

Clearly, there is a ton of evidence concerning adaptation and variety within creatures of life (as well as plants, bacteria, etc) and I do not reject the apparent "relationship" that is seen throughout "life". As far as the question concerning all of these creatures existing and at the time specified, I will simply say that I do not know (And again propose that nobody else knows either)

Honestly interested in your answer simply for the sake of hearing it - and not to try and rip it apart etc.
I'm more interested in just understanding where you are coming from...

I believe you!

Look, I understand that I am looking at a 1 to 100 jump when it comes to this racoon to whale evolution (Just making up the number 100 for the purpose of discussion) and I understand that 2 to 99 plays a significant role in the attemp to wrap the mind aroud this BUT at the end of the day one (at least this one named Ceeboo) needs to look at the following that is being proposed. (Read this the other day)

1. Single cell organism is spontateniously formed from non-living matter
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
3. Marine organism of some type evolved a spinal cord
4. Fish with spinal cord evolved legs and began crawling out of water
5. Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head (fur evolved and legs extended) Result is 30 pound racoon-like creature like predator who kills and eats other animals.
6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water
7.Legs shrink to tiny bones
8. Fins evolve
9. Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole, flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out
10. Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away and become internal
11. Fur that previously evolved, evolves away
12. Eyes previosly migrated to the front migrate back to the side of head
13. 30 pound racoon evolves into 200,000 pound whale, the largest oraganism on earth
14. Diet goes from killer/predator to krill and plankton


Peace,
Ceeboo

Number one is too big a leap for anyone. It wasn't even a bacteria back then. What makes sense to me is just a self- replicating chain of nucleic acids in a microscopic bubble that lipids had enough time to encapsilulate. That might even be too complicated.

To me the biggest leap in evolution isn't the jump from non living matter to a reproducing set of molecules. I have trouble understanding the leap from single celled organism to multi. And likewise from asexual to sexual reproduction. Hoping to learn more about that one day.

[Guest]

Wehey!
Thanks for coming back to the thread Ceeboo.

OK - I have a much better idea of where you are coming from.

I get the feeling that me posting that image was roughly equivalent to you posting a Bible verse to me.

I don't trust the 'authority / veracity' of a Bible verse just because it exists.
And you don't trust the 'authority / veracity' of a bunch of dates and creature images / relationships just because 'some scientists say that's how it went down...'

I'm sure in the end it's more complex than that (on both our sides), but maybe that's a reasonably accurate summary of the situation.

...ok... I get it :)


So, moving on, I'll comment on the last bit of your post:

1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
3. Marine organism of some type evolved a spinal cord
4. Fish with spinal cord evolved legs and began crawling out of water
5. Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head (fur evolved and legs extended) Result is 30 pound racoon-like creature like predator who kills and eats other animals.
6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water
7.Legs shrink to tiny bones
8. Fins evolve
9. Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole, flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out
10. Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away and become internal
11. Fur that previously evolved, evolves away
12. Eyes previously migrated to the front migrate back to the side of head
13. 30 pound racoon evolves into 200,000 pound whale, the largest organism on earth
14. Diet goes from killer/predator to krill and plankton

First, let me say that there are a few general inaccuracies in this summary. (Naughty Ceeboo!!)

I don't say that in the sense that I'm claiming I know exactly what happened.
I say that in the sense that evolutionary theory doesn't propose it.

But I don't want to go pedantically listing all of them one by one and trying to shove them down your throat! ;)
I'll just list a couple so that you get a general idea of what I'm talking about.
(If you want me - or others - to go into more detail on more points of course we can do that, but let's only go there if it makes sense in the flow of the discussion...)

1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter
Evolutionary theory doesn't propose this. In fact, evolutionary theory takes you back much further than single celled organisms and even any kind of cell at all.
The starting point for evolutionary processes are simple self-replicating molecules.

Past that, evolutionary theory has nothing to say.

2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
Well technically the single celled organisms were 'marine organisms' as well. (It all started in the sea).
It might also be informative / interesting for you to appreciate the proposed time-scales too.
One of the more informed on the board can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the time to reach point 2 is greater than the time for 3 - 14 combined.

I could go on for each of your points, but I'm going to leave that to one side for the moment...
(After all, there's only so much point going into all these details when you wouldn't beleive the evidence I would provide to support them ;) )


But let's be clear...
Just because some of the details are off, doesn't mean that your summary is completely bogus either.
In fact, I would say a lot of it is on point.
Specifically, looking at the 'grand nature' of it and the sheer scope of the proposal could be considered (I freely admit) at first glance...
...ermm - let's say 'hard to swallow'/. (Even with an evolved mastication system!!)


So let's shift gears here a little and try and tackle the big picture...

If I told you "A man walked from New York City to New Brunswick"
...you might say "That's nice Ren. I like the way you mention random things for no reason...!!"

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to Philadelphia
...you might say "You should probably try and come up with more entertaining stories Ren, but - ermm - fine. OK"

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to Baltimore"
...you might say "Wow. I guess that took a long time. Maybe days or weeks? But - ermm - fine."

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to Nashville"
...you might say "You like walking stories don't you!! So this guy walked for months and months? He couldn't get a bus, or the train? Well - ok. If you say so Ren. But I'm starting to think you must have some phunky-arse drugs over there in the UK..."

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to San Francisco"
...you might say "Oh - I beg you.. stop talking about this bloody guy walking! I've seen Forest Gump already..!"


Ok - what does this have to do with evolution?

Well, if I'm to convince you that it's possible for a man to walk from New York City to San Francisco, I first have to convince you that the man can walk to Nashville, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Brunswick.
If I can't do that, then there is no point in any further discussion, and the deal is off.


Let's relate this back to evolution:

To even start convincing you that the 'general impression' of your 14-point summary is correct, I have to first convice you that a creature like this:



Could look back at it's ancestors for thousands / millions of years until it found a creature that looked like this:




..in the same manner that a creature like this:



Could look back at it's ancestors until it found a creature that looked like this:



I'm not saying it definitely happened...
But do you at least accept it's "possible"?

If your answer is: "Yes", then we have plenty to discuss.

If your answer is: "No", then fair enough - but then there is not much more I can say.

If your answer is (as I think is likely):
"I don't know / Nobody can know / I don't care / It just all seems crazy / Piss off you silly Brit....!"
Then - ermm - I guess let's just shoot the breeze and enjoy life...? (However it got here...) :)

[_Harold Lee]

It was racoon SIZED goddammit! :D. Think "otter" if that helps despite the fact that an otter is a complicated organism and the shared ancestor of all marine mammals whales included was very primitive.

[_DrW]

It was racoon SIZED goddammit!

Thank you.

(Whew.)

[_Ren]

Harold Lee and DrW,

Yes - thanks for making that clear :)
Ceeboo - you get another point docked on your test...!

6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water

It wasn't a racoon...
Now write 'It wasn't a racoon' 100 times and see the headmaster!

[_Ceeboo]

Wehey!
Thanks for coming back to the thread Ceeboo.

You're most welcome!

In addition to always enjoying these kinds of discussions, I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion.................so far!

OK - I have a much better idea of where you are coming from.

Awesome!

I get the feeling that me posting that image was roughly equivalent to you posting a Bible verse to me.

Perhaps and I fully understand the point!

I don't trust the 'authority / veracity' of a Bible verse just because it exists.

Don't tell anyone (if you do I will deny it) but as a believer, I find that there are quite a few "Bible verses" that I struggle with.

And you don't trust the 'authority / veracity' of a bunch of dates and creature images / relationships just because 'some scientists say that's how it went down...'

It's not that I don't trust them, my new British friend, I just have a real difficult time digesting the kinds of numbers being tossed (wildly and freely tossed in my estimation) about as solid factual evidence.

I'm sure in the end it's more complex than that (on both our sides), but maybe that's a reasonably accurate summary of the situation.

I agree on both accounts!

So, moving on, I'll comment on the last bit of your post:


1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
3. Marine organism of some type evolved a spinal cord
4. Fish with spinal cord evolved legs and began crawling out of water
5. Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head (fur evolved and legs extended) Result is 30 pound racoon-like creature like predator who kills and eats other animals.
6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water
7.Legs shrink to tiny bones
8. Fins evolve
9. Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole, flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out
10. Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away and become internal
11. Fur that previously evolved, evolves away
12. Eyes previously migrated to the front migrate back to the side of head
13. 30 pound racoon evolves into 200,000 pound whale, the largest organism on earth
14. Diet goes from killer/predator to krill and plankton



First, let me say that there are a few general inaccuracies in this summary. (Naughty Ceeboo!!)

That's sounds fair.

I don't say that in the sense that I'm claiming I know exactly what happened.
I say that in the sense that evolutionary theory doesn't propose it.

But I don't want to go pedantically listing all of them one by one and trying to shove them down your throat! ;)
I'll just list a couple so that you get a general idea of what I'm talking about.
(If you want me - or others - to go into more detail on more points of course we can do that, but let's only go there if it makes sense in the flow of the discussion...)

Fair!

1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter
Evolutionary theory doesn't propose this. In fact, evolutionary theory takes you back much further than single celled organisms and even any kind of cell at all.

Rather than stray from the discussion, I would simply say that whether or not the theory proposes it or not does not mean that I believe it ought to be considered, discussed and contemplated if we are going to digest the origins of life and the evoltion of this life. (After all, it is the very foundation of what is being discussed)

The starting point for evolutionary processes are simple self-replicating molecules.

Past that, evolutionary theory has nothing to say.

Okay, the theory of evolution is silent on this front.
Does Ren have anything to say?

2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
Well technically the single celled organisms were 'marine organisms' as well. (It all started in the sea).

That is exactly where things with Ceeboo and Mrs. Ceeboo all started (Jamaica - 1997)

It might also be informative / interesting for you to appreciate the proposed time-scales too.
One of the more informed on the board can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the time to reach point 2 is greater than the time for 3 - 14 combined.

If you don't mind, for more than a few reasons, I'll pass on commenting on the time-scales (One reason being that I have already made a brief comment above on this time thing)

I could go on for each of your points, but I'm going to leave that to one side for the moment...
(After all, there's only so much point going into all these details when you wouldn't beleive the evidence I would provide to support them ;) )

Okay!

But let's be clear...
Just because some of the details are off, doesn't mean that your summary is completely bogus either.
In fact, I would say a lot of it is on point.
Specifically, looking at the 'grand nature' of it and the sheer scope of the proposal could be considered (I freely admit) at first glance...
...ermm - let's say 'hard to swallow'/. (Even with an evolved mastication system!!)


So let's shift gears here a little and try and tackle the big picture...

Gears switched!

If I told you "A man walked from New York City to New Brunswick"
...you might say "That's nice Ren. I like the way you mention random things for no reason...!!"

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to Philadelphia
...you might say "You should probably try and come up with more entertaining stories Ren, but - ermm - fine. OK"

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to Baltimore"
...you might say "Wow. I guess that took a long time. Maybe days or weeks? But - ermm - fine."

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to Nashville"
...you might say "You like walking stories don't you!! So this guy walked for months and months? He couldn't get a bus, or the train? Well - ok. If you say so Ren. But I'm starting to think you must have some phunky-arse drugs over there in the UK..."

If I then told you "A man walked from New York City to San Francisco"
...you might say "Oh - I beg you.. stop talking about this bloody guy walking! I've seen Forest Gump already..!"


Ok - what does this have to do with evolution?

I don't know but I did enjoy the story!

Well, if I'm to convince you that it's possible for a man to walk from New York City to San Francisco, I first have to convince you that the man can walk to Nashville, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Brunswick.
If I can't do that, then there is no point in any further discussion, and the deal is off.


Let's relate this back to evolution:

To even start convincing you that the 'general impression' of your 14-point summary is correct, I have to first convice you that a creature like this:



Could look back at it's ancestors for thousands / millions of years until it found a creature that looked like this:




..in the same manner that a creature like this:



Could look back at it's ancestors until it found a creature that looked like this:

Still here and listening/reading.

I'm not saying it definitely happened...
But do you at least accept it's "possible"?

Yes, I accept it's possible!

If your answer is: "Yes", then we have plenty to discuss.

Cool, I look forward to it!

If your answer is: "No", then fair enough - but then there is not much more I can say.

If your answer is (as I think is likely):
"I don't know / Nobody can know / I don't care / It just all seems crazy / Piss off you silly Brit....!"
Then - ermm - I guess let's just shoot the breeze and enjoy life...? (However it got here...) :)

Wait, can I change my previous answer?
I didn't know one of my options was "Piss Off You Silly Brit"
Too late?

On a mre serious note, bloke:
Good stuff!
I appreciate all the contributions!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bazooka]

Ceeboo, what place could reincarnation have within evolution?

[_Ceeboo]

IT WAS NOT A RACOON
IT WAS NOT A RACOON
IT WAS NOT A RACOON
IT WAS NOT A RACOON
IT WAS NOT A RACOON
IT WAS NOT A RACOON
IT WAS NOT A RACOON




















But. whatever this furry, small, predator, 4 legged land creature was................ it did indeed evolve into a whale!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[Guest]

Hey Ren!

Ceeboo,

I know you said you might be leaving this wonderful thread behind.

But if you did feel like popping back, I'd be interested in getting an idea of what you think of this particular graphic:

Sure!

Now - of course - I understand you don't believe that the creatures at the bottom of the picture had ancestors 55 million years ago that looked like the creatures at the top.

I sure don't!

What I'm really interested in is what exactly you 'disbelieve' in the image.
Assuming you trust that the appropriate skeletons have been found (i.e. those evil scientists aren't literally 'making them up')...
...then specifically - do you disbelieve / discount:

* The ages assigned to them?

I don't have a clue (I simply don't "know" and I would propose that nobody else "knows" either, no matter how many times it is suggested that they do "know")

* The 'artists renditions' of them?
* The descriptions on the left, based on the skeletons?
* The assigned 'relationships' based on their comparative anatomy?)

No comment!

...or is it that you accept that all these creatures did exist, and at the times specified - but that all were created 'as they were' and none of the populations are related to each other in any way...

Clearly, there is a ton of evidence concerning adaptation and variety within creatures of life (as well as plants, bacteria, etc) and I do not reject the apparent "relationship" that is seen throughout "life". As far as the question concerning all of these creatures existing and at the time specified, I will simply say that I do not know (And again propose that nobody else knows either)

Honestly interested in your answer simply for the sake of hearing it - and not to try and rip it apart etc.
I'm more interested in just understanding where you are coming from...

I believe you!

Look, I understand that I am looking at a 1 to 100 jump when it comes to this racoon to whale evolution (Just making up the number 100 for the purpose of discussion) and I understand that 2 to 99 plays a significant role in the attemp to wrap the mind aroud this BUT at the end of the day one (at least this one named Ceeboo) needs to look at the following that is being proposed. (Read this the other day)

1. Single cell organism is spontateniously formed from non-living matter
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
3. Marine organism of some type evolved a spinal cord
4. Fish with spinal cord evolved legs and began crawling out of water
5. Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head (fur evolved and legs extended) Result is 30 pound racoon-like creature like predator who kills and eats other animals.
6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water
7.Legs shrink to tiny bones
8. Fins evolve
9. Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole, flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out
10. Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away and become internal
11. Fur that previously evolved, evolves away
12. Eyes previosly migrated to the front migrate back to the side of head
13. 30 pound racoon evolves into 200,000 pound whale, the largest oraganism on earth
14. Diet goes from killer/predator to krill and plankton


Peace,
Ceeboo

Have a little more time right now.

1-3 sure, for very crude purposes.
4. No amphibians did. Fish did not. There is a big difference between salamanders and fish. But not so much between fish and amphibians, and amphibians and reptiles. Big step that's missing, as it's the change from salt to fresh water and respiration, and it likely took a long time.
5. The fact that birds have spaced eyes and repitles makes me think the whale and seal ancestor's did as well. The eyes making bifocal vision possible might have evolved much later congruently on land. I think it's very possible that birds and mammals evolved from the same small ancestor very long ago, and fur evolved from feathers instead of just scales. That's just an opinion.
6. That's according to one fossil. We have no clue what whales evolved from. A shared ancestor with seals that bypasses the otter-SIZED mammal if that's easier to visualize.
7. Yes, this part of evolution can happen very very quickly. Not only is there a huge cost in developing such legs, but if they also make the animal more inefficient in water it'll take much less mutations than you might think for it to be a survival advantage.
8. Sure.
9. This one I'd like to research a bit more also. The move from nostrils and the upper respiratory tract from in front of the brain transitioning around to behind the brain is extraordinary. Might be misunderstanding it in the same way though, a little occupied ATM though.
10. I don't understand this one at all. You mean they sink into their sockets a little? That phenotypic variability is even apparent in humans.
11.Yes losing fur can happen very, very quickly as well.
12. The eyes moving in location is not a really significant change.
13. Oh my god, if you say racoon one more time... Size is not that hard to evolve. Anatomy is. But even humans have evolved in phenotypic expression of mean size in 100 years. You'd better believe that's been translated into the genome as well. Going from giant to tiny is not as big a problem as going from nostrils in front of the head to a blowhole on the neck. It'd be interesting to see what it says. Ceeboo could you find articles on that? PLEASE no circus act scientists.
14. Otters eat shellfish, that's not too different from shrimp or krill. EDIT: fallacy, sorry wasn't thinking straight. Otters have nothing to do with this, only as an example of size. To me I'd much sooner believe the first mammals that lived mostly in the sea and evolved from that 'racoon-sized' fossil that used the water to escape, were more scavengers than hunters- maybe eating dinosaur eggs, crabs, or an unknown form of life that was easier to hunt. If they were purely predators/killers that'd be a little stretch based on the examples of marine life we see today, but again we don't know much about what their dietary habits were. Also that's not all whales either, you're specifically talking about a blue whale here (when you mentioned the size previously). Orcas (not technically whales) eat fish. Toothed whales eat fish.