Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_Res Ipsa]

Then you know the answers.

[_Themis]

I concur with Bigfoot and Loch Ness, not to say I'm close minded that something of legend is valid. I don't believe in Bigfoot, and I sort of disbelieve in Bigfoot, but some of it could true. But, as you know, just because I see a big shadow and call it Bigfoot, doesn't actually make it Bigfoot, but I did see a big shadow.

There are aspects of the stories that spark the imagination. That effect, sort of like Santa, has real influence on the world. Some here would caution me to say, "the Legend of Bigfoot is real" without confusing the phrase "Bigfoot is real." But, I don't spend time looking for Santa or Bigfoot, but I believe in the power of Santa, I use it every year.

To me, the universe is more then just 3 dimensional. The stories add influence and dimension thus are part of the universe. I have experienced incredible connection to nature and Mother Earth just from being in the woods and living things. Nothing in our science would come close to explaining it. It was experienced, it is a memory, not to be faked or called unreal. But it isn't something I can share.

So, did someone actually see Bigfoot? Maybe. Mostly, I don't care, but I don't have to disbelieve it.

We are not talking about the affect mythical legends may have on us, but whether these creatures exist. Merpeople show no good evidence they ever existed. Your problem is extreme ignorance and lack of understanding what constitutes good evidence, and lack of rational clear thinking.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I’m fairly certain that blubber also stores proteins, whereas our adipose tissue is for the most part lipids.

I took the time to internet spelunk, to make sure I wasn't just making stuff up (my brain is rascally), and blubber does indeed store protein, in the form of collagen.

The reason this is a pretty significant difference from humans in general, and more specifically our fat tissue, is that we don't really have a way to store protein in our bodies. About the best storage (if it can be called that) that we have is our muscle tissue.

[Guest]

So where does the predators come from? I mean, like did one moss decide that it was extra hungry and eat its brother moss?

What you are really asking (whether you realize it or not) is when did multi-cellular organisms arise that could feed off of smaller, mainly single cell, organisms (thus making the multi-cellular guys predators).

Having lived in Oman and at MIT, I found the following answer to your question of interest (from http://news.mit.edu/2009/nature-sponges-0204):

Our earliest animal ancestors, it appears, were sponges -- multicellular animals that feed by passing seawater though a complex system of internal channels. And these earliest sponges may predate the Ediacarian period by as much as 80 million years, this new evidence shows.

[SNIP]

Studying an unusually well preserved long sequence of strata found in Oman, the research team was able to extract these "chemical fossils" from a large number of samples spanning a range of tens of millions of years -- before, during and after the Ediacarian period. This provided clear evidence that sponges must have evolved long before the great variety of multicellular organisms that proliferated at the dawn of that period

This latter passage is referring indirectly, or in part, to the "Cambrian explosion". You might want to look it up.

And next time you take a shower with a natural sponge, think about the fact that the two of you are distantly related and show some respect.

[_Lemmie]

And next time you take a shower with a natural sponge, think about the fact that the two of you are distantly related and show some respect.

Thank you DrW. You made my day with that.

[_EAllusion]

DrW -

He's asking where hetereotrophs come from if all species start out as autotrophs. Looking at the evolution of sponges is way, way too late. His question turns on the logic of, "How does something evolve to eat something else when it can already make its own food?" He's supposing this creates a lack of selective pressure, but this is incorrect, since there are myriad ways we can imagine that the resources necessary for photosynthesis are in shorter supply than the byproducts are in surrounding populations.

He's got it backwards, though. The dominant theory is that heterotrophs came first. He's probably confused by this because he thinks that heterotrophs have to be consumers of producers like most species he is familiar with. But that's not the case. Heterotrophs are defined by consuming energy from the the surrounding environment because they cannot synthesize it themselves. This can be other organisms, or it can simply be taking in organic compounds. Pre-autotroph, heterotrophs are likely to have fed on each other or molecules in their environment preceding their origin.

[_DrW]

DrW -

He's asking where hetereotrophs come from if all species start out as autotrophs. Looking at the evolution of sponges is way, way too late. His question turns on the logic of, "How does something evolve to eat something else when it can already make its own food?" He's supposing this creates a lack of selective pressure, but this is incorrect, since there are myriad ways we can imagine that the resources necessary for photosynthesis are in shorter supply than the byproducts are in surrounding populations.

He's got it backwards, though. The dominant theory is that heterotrophs came first. He's probably confused by this because he thinks that heterotrophs have to be consumers of producers like most species he is familiar with. But that's not the case. Heterotrophs are defined by consuming energy from the the surrounding environment because they cannot synthesize it themselves. This can be other organisms, or it can simply be taking in organic compounds. Pre-autotroph, heterotrophs are likely to have fed on each other or molecules in their environment preceding their origin.

EA,

No argument. However, which of the two responses (if either) do you think SPG is more likely to recall, or use as an example for teaching his kids, in two or three years ?

[_SPG]

DrW -

He's asking where hetereotrophs come from if all species start out as autotrophs. Looking at the evolution of sponges is way, way too late. His question turns on the logic of, "How does something evolve to eat something else when it can already make its own food?" He's supposing this creates a lack of selective pressure, but this is incorrect, since there are myriad ways we can imagine that the resources necessary for photosynthesis are in shorter supply than the byproducts are in surrounding populations.

He's got it backwards, though. The dominant theory is that heterotrophs came first. He's probably confused by this because he thinks that heterotrophs have to be consumers of producers like most species he is familiar with. But that's not the case. Heterotrophs are defined by consuming energy from the the surrounding environment because they cannot synthesize it themselves. This can be other organisms, or it can simply be taking in organic compounds. Pre-autotroph, heterotrophs are likely to have fed on each other or molecules in their environment preceding their origin.

LIKE
LIKE
LIKE

Thank you, EAllusion, for a wonderful talent of telling someone, "hey, you got it backwards but understandably." Implying that "light eating creatures" might have gotten a little shady isn't something I really had considered.

Part of my model evolution is that Live isn't just in the Life Forms, but also the environment. Is a warrior just automatically a warrior, or is he a product of the environment as well? To postulate that Mother Earth intentional created shade to create hungry light eaters is way over the top, yet, you are saying that is basically what happened.

When I consider an electrical circuit, it sort of reminds me of God. The electricity is very predictable and completely necessary, but isn't trainable. So you make a circuit board to make the electricity do what you want it to do. We are using the exactly same electricity that was on earth a billion years, but it's shaped and channeled by manipulating the environment.

The life energy that creates a doctor is the same as which creates a warrior, we just form it differently. Energy design however, doesn't seem to really follow the form in humans, it comes in a cultural information packet passed down by the elders. Just because you were sired by a warrior doesn't mean you will be a warrior. Turtles on the other hands, pass all of their knowledge and abilities down through DNA.

Humans, in a sense, have taken the powers of the gods. They have learned to make spiritual forms and pass them down outside of the DNA. Man has learned to shape the environment that shapes him. Man can shapes with metadata, form those shapes in a virtual world, then manifest them.

I'm impling that with the first forms of life, that someone/something was intentionally messing with the environment because it's what we do. We are shaped by things out that not part of the human code, but rather the environment.

I find God as much is the environment, or even most so, then do in a mysterious cloud, or descending bright light.

[_SPG]

DrW -

He's asking where hetereotrophs come from if all species start out as autotrophs. Looking at the evolution of sponges is way, way too late. His question turns on the logic of, "How does something evolve to eat something else when it can already make its own food?" He's supposing this creates a lack of selective pressure, but this is incorrect, since there are myriad ways we can imagine that the resources necessary for photosynthesis are in shorter supply than the byproducts are in surrounding populations.

He's got it backwards, though. The dominant theory is that heterotrophs came first. He's probably confused by this because he thinks that heterotrophs have to be consumers of producers like most species he is familiar with. But that's not the case. Heterotrophs are defined by consuming energy from the the surrounding environment because they cannot synthesize it themselves. This can be other organisms, or it can simply be taking in organic compounds. Pre-autotroph, heterotrophs are likely to have fed on each other or molecules in their environment preceding their origin.

EAllusion,

No argument. However, which of the two responses (if either) do you think SPG is more likely to recall, or use as an example for teaching his kids, in two or three years ?

I will remember EAllusion's response. It seems useful and well informed. Well informed isn't always useful, as DrW and some others demonstrate all the time. "I'm smart, so go read a book" is completely not helpful.

[_Lemmie]

Well informed isn't always useful, as DrW and some others demonstrate all the time. "I'm smart, so go read a book" is completely not helpful.

The 'I'm smart' is obviously your projection, because it didn't come from DrW.

Well-informed is ALWAYS useful. Period. As for 'read a book' being 'completely not helpful'??? Your surface expositions include so many egregious inaccuracies, mistakes and insupportable beliefs that 'read a book' should be your daily mantra.