Origin of Creation

[johannhowitzer]

What underline?  My post doesn't have any.  Did you mean to quote me and underline something?

[OldTrees]

What underline?  My post doesn't have any.  Did you mean to quote me and underline something?

Yeah I noticed it took too much space. It edited my post to refer to the first word where you went wrong.
" evolution occurs when a mutation introduces a new characteristic ... " was the start of the incomplete image of evolution that seemed to be causing some misconceptions.

[johannhowitzer]

OK, what I've been describing is a disparity between what fossils show and what we observe today... and I'm very skeptical whenever I hear someone say stuff about humans being a "major contributor" to extinction of species, because the only time we can observe is when humans have been around.  A lot of the recorded extinctions have been in areas we don't have any more presence in than other species.

So, yes, I did leave out migration and genetic drift, which are important factors.  But your post doesn't really address what we observe in the world today - a net downturn in sophistication.  Perhaps there were some small peaks, but genetic degradation and mutation being what they are, it's no surprise that our observable history shows something contrary to what fossils tell us.  The "human component" sounds more like an excuse for some major conflicts in data.  We do change the ball game in certain localized areas, but look at rural America (let alone the Australian Outback or deep Africa) - vast fields, conditions largely unchanged, more nonhuman presence than human presence.  It really sounds to me like the "human component" is being referred to by people who are only looking at highly developed urban areas which, geographically speaking, are tiny.

[OldTrees]

OK, what I've been describing is a disparity between what fossils show and what we observe today... and I'm very skeptical whenever I hear someone say stuff about humans being a "major contributor" to extinction of species, because the only time we can observe is when humans have been around.  A lot of the recorded extinctions have been in areas we don't have any more presence in than other species.

So, yes, I did leave out migration and genetic drift, which are important factors.  But your post doesn't really address what we observe in the world today - a net downturn in sophistication.  Perhaps there were some small peaks, but genetic degradation and mutation being what they are, it's no surprise that our observable history shows something contrary to what fossils tell us.  The "human component" sounds more like an excuse for some major conflicts in data.  We do change the ball game in certain localized areas, but look at rural America (let alone the Australian Outback or deep Africa) - vast fields, conditions largely unchanged, more nonhuman presence than human presence.  It really sounds to me like the "human component" is being referred to by people who are only looking at highly developed urban areas which, geographically speaking, are tiny.

First I should apologize, I assume by the lack of mentioning genetic drift that you had not had sufficient knowledge on the topic (although you obviously had more than most).

The concept that humans might be causing another mass extinction is still controversial (and was presented accordingly). However none of the examples of human caused extinctions were related to urban development. It was things like, invasive species (rats/snakes) killing island bird species, logging of specific types of forests like the Madagascar lowland forests and the global infection network caused by shipping lines. However it did also provide details that whatever the cause of these deaths it has not reached the mass extinction mark yet.

[johannhowitzer]

Nah, no apology necessary.  I appreciate the information you've provided, whether it turns out to be accurate or no... it's a while since since I kept abreast of happenings in the scientific realm - I am a musician.  I concern myself with the "why" of life, not the "how."  Still, I know and grasp enough about various sciences to see when apparent conflicts arise... I get the sense that, despite the accountability provided by peer-reviewed journals, the practice of science has become a bit spectacle-oriented lately.  It seems almost like there are large questions arising in areas, and nobody's stepping forward to run experiments to resolve them because maybe it would be a risky move for their careers.  I don't know enough about this to draw any concrete accusations.

I am often dismayed by the tendency of the average person to accept what Science! says without question.  Seems we too often forget that scientific methods are being practiced by humans, and however brilliant they might be, they are still prone to error, and perhaps even corruption (remember the peppered moth fiasco?).  I tend to evaluate most things I'm told before I accept them, and to be skeptical until I am convinced.

[Flayne]

I always thought as a distinct possibility and as another theory says (can't remember which):

We evolved from a Meteor that came crashing down on earth, years after dinosaurs (it was even contemplated that it was the same meteor that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct).
Basically, at that time, there was huge amounts of chain chemical reactions after the impact, alongside with the already roaming sulfuric and nitrogen gases that were reacting with the environment.
Over time, This caused the first micro-organism to be created, this micro-organism (perhaps along with other different ones) then began to evolve through its cycle, eventually coming to the divergent path of Natural Selection/mutation, where it began to undergo dramatic alterations in its biological form.
Thus evolution.
However, where did the meteor come from?
and so, with the theories, come the questions, and then more and more questions to have some kind of exact/precise knowledge of the subject, which is a long way, away from our lifetime.

just my 

[Nepycros]

However, where did the meteor come from?

That's like asking where a grain of wheat came from. One would suspect a wheat field... To put it bluntly, you're asking about a common occurrence. The meteor itself is nothing special. The cargo it carries is probably nothing special either. The only important part is how it reacted with other chemicals.

[Flayne]

However, where did the meteor come from?

That's like asking where a grain of wheat came from. One would suspect a wheat field... To put it bluntly, you're asking about a common occurrence. The meteor itself is nothing special. The cargo it carries is probably nothing special either. The only important part is how it reacted with other chemicals.

It would be important however to know the origins of the meteor, for all we know it could be from another galaxy despite the ridiculous possibility, still a possibility nevertheless.
it may not be important in terms of evolution but from where the ingredients came from is still quite major imo. It could be from far away, or from mars itself, many possibilities.

[johannhowitzer]

Only that would be one bellini of a coincidence, what with humans having so much in common genetically with other Earthican creatures.

[Flayne]

Only that would be one bellini of a coincidence, what with humans having so much in common genetically with other Earthican creatures.

as i said "Over time, This caused the first micro-organism to be created, this micro-organism (perhaps along with other different ones) then began to evolve through its cycle"
humans may not have been the only micro-organisms to have evolved at the same time.
there is also the theory of divergent evolution on microscopic level that can be associated with the evolution cycle of the micro-organisms.

[OldTrees]

There is a slight problem with the Meteor AFTER the dinosaurs. We can demonstrate that the rate of mutations in humans and in micro organism is too slow to account for the genetic difference between the two during only the time after the dinosaurs. Such a meteor could have happened long before the dinosaurs but not after.

[Flayne]

There is a slight problem with the Meteor AFTER the dinosaurs. We can demonstrate that the rate of mutations in humans and in micro organism is too slow to account for the genetic difference between the two during only the time after the dinosaurs. Such a meteor could have happened long before the dinosaurs but not after.

Or could have been the same meteor, taking the micro organism many years to even have its own structure.
multiple possibilities.