Evolution and Intelligent Design

[BluePriest]

@ratcharmer So would you say it brings any valid points to the table on questioning the liability of mutations?
@daytripper There are other sections on there as well for the flood. The article I went to was basically saying I was wrong, so without previous knowledge of the canopy theory it wouldnt make any sense. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one is something that talks about geological evidence. Click on the topics of each point it covers to get more in depth answers.

[Daytripper]

Ok,

To stay well within the realms of evolution, let me roughly account for the world starting at the mesozoic era. You will have to allow me some shortcuts, because I won't look everything up. You can, if you're interested.

We shall call the mesozoic era the time of the super reptiles and super dinosaurs. It was warm, there was quite a bit of biodiversity, so it was ok to be big. Lots of animals were also big after all. You could eat those if you had to.

It became colder, and also 2 meteorites probably hit the north sea and the sea near Mexico. This must have blocked the sun for months. The mammals had just started to kick off by then, but were much smaller. Possibly those pesky mammals even ate the eggs of the hapless dinosaurs looking for food in the dark. Only some small dinosaurs and reptiles made it, and these must have been the ancestors of the birds.

Result: Dinos said bye bye. We enter the Kenozoic era, rife with oppurtunities. The mammals started to radiate and in turn reached mega sizes. This was not so practical, so again many of the oversized mammals kicked the bucket. (Size makes you visible, you need a lot of food, and you can imagine why being large has a price for many reasons.)

We make a big leap towards present times, just a couple a million years ago. Humans entered the scene, and wiped out the mammoths with some help of an ice age.

What is left is the life of today. Only few really large species remain and most are cut back to size. Still, new life evolved after all these extinctions, or life would have been completely wiped out by now!

That's it. Now account for the world using a global flood. Good luck. Remember to account for some extinctions/returns of life. When did the flood happen and what did it kill?

 

[ratcharmer]

@BP: Not really . . . the differences between an English sentence and a gene are pretty big.

As a quick example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, a gene will still make perfect sense if you turn it completely backward, whereas a sentence will not. There's a bunch of other things like that I could go into.

[falconbane]

Ok,

We shall call the mesozoic era the time of the super reptiles and super dinosaurs. It was warm, there was quite a bit of biodiversity, so it was ok to be big. Lots of animals were also big after all. You could eat those if you had to.

We make a big leap towards present times, just a couple a million years ago. Humans entered the scene, and wiped out the mammoths with some help of an ice age.
...
What is left is the life of today. Only few really large species remain and most are cut back to size. Still, new life evolved after all these extinctions, or life would have been completely wiped out by now!

That's it. Now account for the world using a global flood. Good luck. Remember to account for some extinctions/returns of life. When did the flood happen and what did it kill?

Just a quick note, atmospheric oxygen were a lot higher then according to the latest research (otherwise creatures could not maintain their size without the necessary oxygen within their bloodstream to maintain their high metabolism to digest their food intake).  This is theorized to be up to 70% at the extreme end (but 40% would be the average).  Which caused a lot of wildfire (only need 10-12% atmospheric oxygen to start if I remember correctly), which likely caused the increase in biodiversity and the primary+secondary cause of die-offs.  Our cutback in size can be attribute to that.

But, according to some ID groups, fossils can't be used as evidence since "they were made up to messed with our mind"  .


@BP, the "articles" on that site is highly questionable (to put it politely), I have read better sci-fis and fictions >.<.  That would explain why none of the articles has been peer-reviewed.  I'm not saying peer-reviewed papers are always superior (there have been some scary exception, like in the medical journal, Lancet, for example), but at least it shows that the researchers are not afraid of scrutiny and can have a forum to advance their research even if their hypothesis is incorrect.     

[Daytripper]

Just a quick note, atmospheric oxygen were a lot higher then according to the latest research (otherwise creatures could not maintain their size without the necessary oxygen within their bloodstream to maintain their high metabolism to digest their food intake).  This is theorized to be up to 70% at the extreme end (but 40% would be the average).  Which caused a lot of wildfire (only need 10-12% atmospheric oxygen to start if I remember correctly), which likely caused the increase in biodiversity and the primary+secondary cause of die-offs.  Our cutback in size can be attribute to that.

Ah, I hadn't heard that. It puzzles me though. I always heard the atmosphere was different, possibly very thick, but I didn't know there was more oxygen. Plants and trees have had millions of years to pump more oxygen in the air, so what is the explanation for there being more in the mesozoic era?

The food intake of large animals is indeed problematic. It doesn't seem as if a large endotherm Brachiosaur could eat enough through his tiny head. Maybe some of the large dinosaurs were megalotherm, but not truly endotherm. That would drasticallly reduce their consumption and they wouldn't need that much oxygen.

Another thing I don't understand: Why does a large animal need a higher percentage of oxygen in the air? Elephants are doing just fine and let's not forget the whale. The whale is still larger than anything we know and it is warm blooded. Of course a whale is well equipped to take in large chunks of food.

[SeddyRocky]

Just a quick note, atmospheric oxygen were a lot higher then according to the latest research (otherwise creatures could not maintain their size without the necessary oxygen within their bloodstream to maintain their high metabolism to digest their food intake).  This is theorized to be up to 70% at the extreme end (but 40% would be the average).  Which caused a lot of wildfire (only need 10-12% atmospheric oxygen to start if I remember correctly), which likely caused the increase in biodiversity and the primary+secondary cause of die-offs.  Our cutback in size can be attribute to that.

Ah, I hadn't heard that. It puzzles me though. I always heard the atmosphere was different, possibly very thick, but I didn't know there was more oxygen. Plants and trees have had millions of years to pump more oxygen in the air, so what is the explanation for there being more in the mesozoic era?

The food intake of large animals is indeed problematic. It doesn't seem as if a large endotherm Brachiosaur could eat enough through his tiny head. Maybe some of the large dinosaurs were megalotherm, but not truly endotherm. That would drasticallly reduce their consumption and they wouldn't need that much oxygen.

Another thing I don't understand: Why does a large animal need a higher percentage of oxygen in the air? Elephants are doing just fine and let's not forget the whale. The whale is still larger than anything we know and it is warm blooded. Of course a whale is well equipped to take in large chunks of food.

I'd be happy to explain that part: Inefficient lungs and/or bloodstream system. For example, this is the reason for us not having giant bugs and arachnids, their simply cannot supply themselves with enough oxygen in an effective ratio (aka, using energy to breathe vs oxygen gained) to survive, if they had been larger. Things that work on a small scale may not work on a larger one. An amphibian has a less developed heart than a mammal, and thusly cannot grow to the same size with our current oxygen levels because their ineffeicent little blood pump doesn't scale well.

Both elephants and whales are mammals by the way, which to this day have the most efficient bloodstream system (that's probably bad English, but you get my point). And both can take in amazing amounts of food (=energy for pumping oxygen-rich blood!).

[Daytripper]

I'd be happy to explain that part: Inefficient lungs and/or bloodstream system. For example, this is the reason for us not having giant bugs and arachnids, their simply cannot supply themselves with enough oxygen in an effective ratio (aka, using energy to breathe vs oxygen gained) to survive, if they had been larger. Things that work on a small scale may not work on a larger one. An amphibian has a less developed heart than a mammal, and thusly cannot grow to the same size with our current oxygen levels because their ineffeicent little blood pump doesn't scale well.

Both elephants and whales are mammals by the way, which to this day have the most efficient bloodstream system (that's probably bad English, but you get my point). And both can take in amazing amounts of food (=energy for pumping oxygen-rich blood!).

Hmmm, thanks. I guess I have to look some things up when I have time. How long was there more oxygen exactly? The megalodon shark was about 18 metres long. A quick peak would say it only became extinct a few million years ago. How is that possible, since sharks or fish have a 2 chambred heart, where as an amphibian has 3 chambers and a mammal has 4?

In short, I think there has to be something more to the story. An animal with a primitive biovascular system can still be large, though it is true dinosaurs probably had a very advanced biovascular system, comparable to birds or mammals.

[BluePriest]

Im no longer tired of this debate, and since It has been a while for a post, and virtually every single other topic about this has been riddled with bias starting with the very topic title, Im going to necropost.

Im curious as to how life existing came come to pass. We have to imagine earth how it *probably* existed. First off, we have to remember, there was no plant life at all. No grass, no micro-bacteria, or anything of the sort. Just rocks, dirt and water. The water also didn't have seaweed. There would have been no oxygen. How could life have come to existence i such an environment? I want to critically take a look at this, for the beginning is just as important as the end.

[Kamietsu]

Im no longer tired of this debate, and since It has been a while for a post, and virtually every single other topic about this has been riddled with bias starting with the very topic title, Im going to necropost.

Im curious as to how life existing came come to pass. We have to imagine earth how it *probably* existed. First off, we have to remember, there was no plant life at all. No grass, no micro-bacteria, or anything of the sort. Just rocks, dirt and water. The water also didn't have seaweed. There would have been no oxygen. How could life have come to existence i such an environment? I want to critically take a look at this, for the beginning is just as important as the end.

As it probably existed when it was first formed, it wasn't just rocks, dirt, and water. There were many other elements involved in the formation of the planet. The core of the earth is composed of various metals, mostly nickle if I remember correctly, and water is composed of H2O, so there was the possibility of oxygen being able to be formed. Don't forget, different chemical combination from elements found in nature can produce and give of various elements.

One such reaction, Potassium and water, create hydrogen gas. Such materials were present on the earth when it formed, with the possibility water didn't originate on earth, but was later crashed into by a comet, meteorites, asteroids, or whatnot that was carrying ice on it. Once it impacted with the earth, the blast melted the ice, and naturally melted over time, which could very well explain why we have an abundance of water. And thanks to out position in the solar system, we don't suffer from over evaporation or all of it freezing.

Aside from life, all materials that the earth currently has, were most likely present at the time of Earth's creation. When a sun explodes, it gives off some material from mostly every element. That blows outwards until there is enough celestial dust made up of a lot more of a trillion tons of various materials, for it to start clumping together and eventually forming a new star. Due to that new star, the left over dust begins forming new planets revolving around that sun. Not all stars have planets, some have many more than 8, and many less than 8.

Now the question of life springing forth on this planet is highly debated, thus why there are so many discussions and arguments about this topic. There is the possibility that the beginning elements that formed the earth had been able to form into amino acids, which eventually built up and chained together to form some of the first single cell microbial life forms. And evolution happens to end up with us today over a very long time.

[QuantumT]

Im no longer tired of this debate, and since It has been a while for a post, and virtually every single other topic about this has been riddled with bias starting with the very topic title, Im going to necropost.

Im curious as to how life existing came come to pass. We have to imagine earth how it *probably* existed. First off, we have to remember, there was no plant life at all. No grass, no micro-bacteria, or anything of the sort. Just rocks, dirt and water. The water also didn't have seaweed. There would have been no oxygen. How could life have come to existence i such an environment? I want to critically take a look at this, for the beginning is just as important as the end.

The question of where the first life arose from isn't really a question of evolution anymore, but of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with how complex life can arise from simple life, abiogenesis deals with how simple life can arise from non-living things.

That aside, it's a fascinating topic. There have been various experiments performed to try and solve this question, but research is still ongoing.

One of the most important experiments in this area is the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment). It showed that spontaneous generation of amino acids was possible under conditions were probably present in the times of the early Earth.

One thing to note is that the lack of oxygen in the environment is actually very important. Oxygen actually serves to block many of the reactions from occurring, so the fact that early Earth had no free oxygen is one of the things that made life forming possible.

[ratcharmer]

Im no longer tired of this debate, and since It has been a while for a post, and virtually every single other topic about this has been riddled with bias starting with the very topic title, Im going to necropost.

Im curious as to how life existing came come to pass. We have to imagine earth how it *probably* existed. First off, we have to remember, there was no plant life at all. No grass, no micro-bacteria, or anything of the sort. Just rocks, dirt and water. The water also didn't have seaweed. There would have been no oxygen. How could life have come to existence i such an environment? I want to critically take a look at this, for the beginning is just as important as the end.

The question of where the first life arose from isn't really a question of evolution anymore, but of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with how complex life can arise from simple life, abiogenesis deals with how simple life can arise from non-living things.

That aside, it's a fascinating topic. There have been various experiments performed to try and solve this question, but research is still ongoing.

One of the most important experiments in this area is the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment). It showed that spontaneous generation of amino acids was possible under conditions were probably present in the times of the early Earth.

One thing to note is that the lack of oxygen in the environment is actually very important. Oxygen actually serves to block many of the reactions from occurring, so the fact that early Earth had no free oxygen is one of the things that made life forming possible.

I'm actually in 100% agreement with the vast majority of this. The one thing I do feel the need to point out is that the Miller-Urey experiment was based on a model of the early earth that is now outdated.

Stanley Miller himself (the guy the experiment is named after) has since publicly stated that generation of amino acids is not possible in newer models.
Here's a link: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/461/primordial-recipe-spark-and-stir
(it starts discussing the newer findings about halfway down the page)

Sorry I've been much less active on this section of late, it's finals. I'll get back to you in the other topic soon.

[QuantumT]

Im no longer tired of this debate, and since It has been a while for a post, and virtually every single other topic about this has been riddled with bias starting with the very topic title, Im going to necropost.

Im curious as to how life existing came come to pass. We have to imagine earth how it *probably* existed. First off, we have to remember, there was no plant life at all. No grass, no micro-bacteria, or anything of the sort. Just rocks, dirt and water. The water also didn't have seaweed. There would have been no oxygen. How could life have come to existence i such an environment? I want to critically take a look at this, for the beginning is just as important as the end.

The question of where the first life arose from isn't really a question of evolution anymore, but of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with how complex life can arise from simple life, abiogenesis deals with how simple life can arise from non-living things.

That aside, it's a fascinating topic. There have been various experiments performed to try and solve this question, but research is still ongoing.

One of the most important experiments in this area is the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment). It showed that spontaneous generation of amino acids was possible under conditions were probably present in the times of the early Earth.

One thing to note is that the lack of oxygen in the environment is actually very important. Oxygen actually serves to block many of the reactions from occurring, so the fact that early Earth had no free oxygen is one of the things that made life forming possible.

I'm actually in 100% agreement with the vast majority of this. The one thing I do feel the need to point out is that the Miller-Urey experiment was based on a model of the early earth that is now outdated.

Stanley Miller himself (the guy the experiment is named after) has since publicly stated that generation of amino acids is not possible in newer models.
Here's a link: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/461/primordial-recipe-spark-and-stir
(it starts discussing the newer findings about halfway down the page)

Sorry I've been much less active on this section of late, it's finals. I'll get back to you in the other topic soon.

I didn't really see anywhere in the article where he said that (and the page won't load anymore for some reason), but more recent experiments (http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348) using the newer models for early earth still produce amino acids.