Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the first life
dandon83
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 138 (126201)
07-21-2004 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Jack
07-21-2004 6:58 AM


Re: natural selection
okey
then why are we all humans? why there is not some creature that did not come into complete? why there is not some life has just been originated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 6:58 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 7:11 AM dandon83 has replied

  
Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 138 (126202)
07-21-2004 7:10 AM


What is an incomplete creature?
The "why are we human" can be anwsered by your parents or analogy nr 1 by (he whose name I forgot right now), but chance is a good enough anwser. You could have been a cow, or most probably a beetle (since god seems to like beetles so much), but by an (un)lucky chance, you were born human.
Lucy
This message has been edited by Prince Lucianus, 07-21-2004 06:11 AM

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 7:59 AM Prince Lucianus has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 48 of 138 (126203)
07-21-2004 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by dandon83
07-21-2004 7:03 AM


Re: natural selection
then why are we all humans?
Because 'we' is defined in such a way.
why there is not some creature that did not come into complete?
Not sure what you mean. There are other primates.
why there is not some life has just been originated?
The origin of life is not part of Darwin's theory. That aside, the answer to question is that any proto-life that appeared now would be instantly out-competed by the existing and highly evolved life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 7:03 AM dandon83 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 7:55 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 138 (126206)
07-21-2004 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dandon83
07-21-2004 6:35 AM


Re: what is the"surely yes"?
quote:
I said "surely no" as an answer of the question"do we feel any life on other planets?" and you reply "surely yes"
what did you mean? do feel another existance of life?
As I said, we do not KNOW, but we have every reason to EXPECT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 6:35 AM dandon83 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 8:03 AM contracycle has not replied

  
dandon83
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 138 (126209)
07-21-2004 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
07-21-2004 7:11 AM


I am sorry!!!
I am so sorry .I can not speak english very well ,so you do not understand what do I mean .
I mean :
darwin said that humans have been developed from other things in stages . my question is why we do not find any speicies in the prvious stages?or why we still humans?since the history begins,humans still humans .is not there a following stage?
And sorry again for my weak language!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 7:11 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 8:06 AM dandon83 has replied

  
dandon83
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 138 (126210)
07-21-2004 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Prince Lucianus
07-21-2004 7:10 AM


lucy!!
have you followed the disscussion from the bigining?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Prince Lucianus, posted 07-21-2004 7:10 AM Prince Lucianus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Prince Lucianus, posted 07-21-2004 8:20 AM dandon83 has not replied

  
dandon83
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 138 (126212)
07-21-2004 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by contracycle
07-21-2004 7:25 AM


contracycle!!!!!!
our main topic is to prove whether there exist a creater of the universe or not?why are you insisting to jump to next step? this point will be disscused after finishing the most important point.
This message has been edited by dandon83, 07-21-2004 07:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by contracycle, posted 07-21-2004 7:25 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 53 of 138 (126213)
07-21-2004 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by dandon83
07-21-2004 7:55 AM


Re: I am sorry!!!
Gotcha.
First, you need disabusing of the notion that evolution is directed. It didn't set out to create us, it just did. So, why don't we still find earlier homonids around (note: we do find them in the fossil record)? For the same reasons we no longer find every other extinct animal around - either the environment changed in a way to which they could not adapt or they were outcompeted by another species (in this case, us - homo sapiens). Hominids evolved to fill a new environmental niche - big brained, bipedal savanna dwellers - to which we are better adapted. We outcompeted them and drove them to exitinction.
why we still humans?since the history begins,humans still humans .is not there a following stage?
History began a very short time ago in evolutionary terms, we wouldn't expect to see significant changes in that time scale. Nowadays we've radically altered the selective pressures on our species so who knows how we'll turn out in a couple hundred thousand years.
And sorry again for my weak language!!!
That's OK, you write much than I can in any foreign language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 7:55 AM dandon83 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dandon83, posted 07-22-2004 6:04 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 76 by dandon83, posted 07-22-2004 6:15 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 138 (126217)
07-21-2004 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by dandon83
07-21-2004 7:59 AM


Re to statement that I didn't read all.
Indeed.
I can cope with 4 pages thank you.
Lucy
This message has been edited by Prince Lucianus, 07-21-2004 07:21 AM

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dandon83, posted 07-21-2004 7:59 AM dandon83 has not replied

  
Nasa
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 138 (126230)
07-21-2004 9:42 AM


"You answered this in the first part of your paragraph - the ocean protects it, if it's deep enough."
lol....
So now a cell can be produced without sunlight, (Out-side energy) and under great pressure, and violent activity.
Many living cells we examine today apart from some, need direct sunlight, or the chemical reaction's produced by the involvement of the sun's-LIGHT.....All cells need an out side energy input. Tell us what type of cell was it. There are organism's alive in the deep that need no sunlight, but all still need stable temperature ranges.
Boiling water...evaporating water???....= No atmosphere?
Umm ...what's that Red planet called?......
I believe the probability is dropping........
This message has been edited by Nasa, 07-21-2004 08:48 AM
This message has been edited by Nasa, 07-21-2004 08:55 AM
This message has been edited by Nasa, 07-21-2004 08:56 AM
This message has been edited by Nasa, 07-21-2004 08:58 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Prince Lucianus, posted 07-21-2004 9:46 AM Nasa has not replied

  
Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 138 (126231)
07-21-2004 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Nasa
07-21-2004 9:42 AM


Just like their are many organismes who live in pitch darkness, or in envirenmonts without oxygen or inside rocks or in boiling temperatures..
The only basic necessity for live is water (or maybe another liquid substance), after that, anything seems to be fair game.
Lucy
This message has been edited by Prince Lucianus, 07-21-2004 08:46 AM

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Nasa, posted 07-21-2004 9:42 AM Nasa has not replied

  
Nasa
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 138 (126232)
07-21-2004 9:50 AM


Tell us how?

  
Nasa
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 138 (126233)
07-21-2004 9:52 AM


Let me help you:
"'It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how an amoeba (Single cell) evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a brain cell!'
-Dr Jerome J. Lejeune, discoverer of the cause of Down's syndrome, Institute de Progenese (Paris), formerly Professor of Fundamental Cytogenetics.
Science please, and they complain about me posting out of topic....lol

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 10:01 AM Nasa has not replied

  
Prince Lucianus
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 138 (126234)
07-21-2004 9:59 AM


Sure, if you tell me where god came from.
Why is a lucky chance so hard to grasp while believing that out of nothing came a supreme being who suddenly decided to make all this seems to make a lot of sense. Since this makes much less sense than a big bang universe (with all the other theories), the argument always returns to faith.
I'll chickenly leave the defence of why creatures became the way they are to others. Several lengthy posts about chemical, biological and other ways to explain the why are already on this page. If not, I'll send a link to one of them shortly.
Lucy

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.
Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 60 of 138 (126235)
07-21-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nasa
07-21-2004 9:52 AM


It is futile to pretend to the public that we understand how an amoeba (Single cell) evolved into a man, when we cannot tell our students how a human egg produces a skin cell or a brain cell!
Does the fact we cannot produce a complete path from an egg to a skin cell or brain cell imply that we are wrong that it does so? (Answer: no) Why then should the lack of a complete path imply that humans did not evolve from a single organism?
Oh, and please use the little red 'reply' button under the post you are replying to rather than the big reply button at the bottom. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Nasa, posted 07-21-2004 9:52 AM Nasa has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024