How did food evolve?

That really has nothing to do with my question. I asked how organisms developed this ability. I'm also not going to read the entire ATP article!

The question isn't whether it's simple or complex. Water forming intricate, unique ice crystals is the result of complex interactions between electrons in water molecules; but it just happens when it gets cold. In that sense, it's very simple. You still don't get it. Chemical reactions aren't converted into life; chemical reactions are life. What we mean when we say that something is "alive" is that a bunch of chemical reactions are all happening inside of bags (which we call "cells"). You're just a trillion little bags where chemical reactions are happening inside of water. You're not using them for life; your life is what those reactions are.Life didn't have to evolve the ability to to use energy. Life is using energy. That's what life is - chemical reactions that use available energy sources and materials to perpetuate themselves. The laws of physics and chemistry. Life is the inevitable, if rare, result of certain conditions - that just happened by random, in one planet in one galaxy in the whole universe, that we know of. (Suggesting that it's fairly rare indeed.)Just like a chemical reaction is inevitable when certain chemicals are put together, life is inevitable under the right conditions.

The laws of physics. Combustion is chemistry. When a forest burns down because a tree was struck by lightning, would you ask "where did this chemistry come from?" When iron, left out in the elements, combines with oxygen to form rust, would you ask "where did this chemistry come from?"No, of course not. Chemistry is what happens when atoms follow the laws of physics, and they all do. (That's why we call them "laws.") They don't have to be made to do so. It's just what happens. Chance creates randomness. A chance process creates random output. When you take that output and separate the good from the bad, the adapted from the maladaptive - the fittest from the weak - you have evolution. I guess you're completely unaware how many truly great inventions - vulcanized rubber, the telephone, spirits, vaccines, medicines, matches, the microwave, explosives - were invented by accident.Have you never heard of someone solving a problem by "trial and error"?

Ah, I see, your view of life is skewed. We are alive. We have chemical reactions going on inside our bodies. But life [I]is not{/I chemical reactions. When you mix an acid and a base, you have a chemical reaction--but you don't have life by any means. Because we are alive, we can think, feel, etc. No chemical reactions can cause cognition or consciousness. You can't live without taking available energy sources and materials and converting them into usable energy, but life is immeasurably more than that. You know, you think, you feel, you sense, but that isn't caused by chemical reactions. The chemical reactions and electrical pulses inside us are caused by life, not vice versa.The widely accepted notion that life was caused by mass and energy being under the right conditions is just as ridiculous as spontaneous generation. It never happened, and it doesn't happen. Even humans trying to make the conditions necessary have failed, as we can see from the Miller-Urey experiment. They made some proteins, but nothing near life. (And look, to make the proteins, it took intelligent intervention!)

Where did the laws of physics come from? Of course you would! Not wondering things like this is not having a scientific state of mind is having a closed mind. And I have yet to see any of these come to life and/or evolve. You see, when you have an accident happen to a living being, it doesn't get new good traits. Genetic mutation doesn't create arms, lungs, brains, the ability to think or see. Mutation generally causes cancer and death. You can't have trial and error like that. What do you think happens when you get error?

No, it is. There's no such thing as life that isn't chemicals, reacting.When you life your spoon? Chemical reaction. When you see a sunset? Chemical reactions occur in your eyes in response to light. When you think? Chemical reactions occurring in and between neurons in your brain.It's all chemistry. See "all dentists are doctors, but not all doctors are dentists" for the repudiation of this idiotic reasoning. I said life was chemistry. I didn't say all chemistry was alive. Those things are chemical reactions occurring in the body. The reason you don't know this is because you don't know anything about bodies, so life seems like magic to you. It seems like bodies are animated by some "life force", but this is a false view of living things. This is called "vitalism" and it has been discredited for centuries. There's no such thing as life force or life energy. It is. When I feel, it's because cells in my fingertips undergo reactions in response to pressure. Those reactions cause neurons to undergo reactions, and those reactions cause other reactions; a whole chain reaction that ends with neurons in my brain undergoing reactions, and since that's why my consciousness is - chemical reactions - I'm conscious of feeling something.It's all chemistry. I don't know how you could be ignorant of that. That's 100% wrong. You have to know that. If that's true, what is life if it can cause chemistry?If life isn't chemistry, what is it? How can we measure it? Where can it be seen?Nowhere, because we know that life is chemistry. All scientists accept this; it's one of the most fundamental facts. Why don't you? They never set out to create life - just amino acids - so the experiment was a complete success. And it proves that the chemistry of life is the same as the chemistry of anything else. The Miller-Urey experiment, in fact, proves the exact opposite of what you're saying. It proves that there's nothing special or different about what's going on in living things - it can be done in test tubes just as well as in cells.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Nowhere. They've always been part of the universe for as long as there's been a universe. It's not possible to have a universe that doesn't have laws of physics.It's like asking "when did circles evolve roundness." It's not evolution's problem that it doesn't address nonsensical questions. It's a stupid question, though. We don't have to ask why the laws of physics apply to wood in a forest just as they do to iron in the rain; they apply everywhere. That's why they're called "laws." It's like asking how gravity knows to pull you down into your seat. It's a nonsense question that only someone deeply immature would find profound. It's a way of fooling yourself into thinking that foolishness is wisdom. I never said that they had. Are you capable of responding to my arguments, or must I grapple with your extreme disingenuousness all night long? It does and has, in experiments and under observation. And those mutations are selected against. Mutations that are beneficial are selected for. If you have a big pile of mutations, most bad and some good, and you take away all of the bads one, surely even you can imagine what must be left?100, or even 1,000,000 to one is good odds if you know that the 999,999 others will be eliminated before they even play. The organisms dies. Are you saying that no organism has ever died, ever?

"I guess you're completely unaware how many truly great inventions - vulcanized rubber, the telephone, spirits, vaccines, medicines, matches, the microwave, explosives - were invented by accident."I think you'll find these were CREATED by someone who knews how to make them. a pool of chemisty did not do it. we all know it couldn't. A machine is something with a purpose. Which don't arise by chance. You try it and see. If you think by shaking a pool or proteins, amino acids and all the rest of it, put some electrical currents in it that you'll get out a car, with the important parts correct down to a millimeter which they have to be, or a telephone, much less a human body with emotions that can think, feel love and pain, replicate, speak. You try teaching a man-made machine to speak. A scientists job is to find out what the purpose is in things. And if theres no purpose in the whole universe, theres no science. it's out.

If you think that thinking is caused by chemical reactions, you're lying to yourself. Why do neutrons fire? Why do they fire when they do? By feeling, I wasn't referring to the sense of touch, I was talking about emotions. Can you truly believe that your consciousness is simply caused by electric pulses? Thought, emotions, consciousness, and personality are beyond the physical world. These things can't evolve. Identical twins have the same DNA, but they can have insanely different personalities. Different personalities aren't completely caused by the environment, either. People from totally different environments can have very similar personalities. Where did the universe come from? How would you know if it's possible to have a universe without laws? You're never tried one without them!No, asking why iron and oxygen make rust is not a stupid question. Why do electrons have orbitals? Why are negatively charged particles attracted to positive ones? How can particles have a charge? If you'd really stop lying to your self and think about this stuff, you'd find that it's really amazing. I'd like to see that.If living organisms came from chemicals, (sorry, I'm using the real meaning of "life", yours doesn't make sense) how many organisms do you get per "perfect chemical condition"?Where did the chemicals come from?The thing about mutations is that the bad ones get played, and there aren't any good ones. In a multicellular organism, how do you get mutation without death? How do you think some mutations can be good?I'd hoped that you'd be an evolutionist that doesn't insult his opponent, but you've shattered that. After all, I could insult you for not thinking like I do, too.

You're 100% wrong, though. Look it up. These are examples of things that were created by people who didn't know how to make them - they were made by accident, usually as they were trying to make something else.That's what I meant by "created by accident." Trial and error works. Sometimes you get lucky. Sometimes you spill some lead into the rubber and drop it on the stove. If you wear shoes or drive on tires, be glad that's exactly what happened to Charles Goodyear.Like I said if you think I'm lying you can look it up. Are you saying nothing was ever invented by accident? You would have to be extremely foolish to think so. True, but living things aren't machines. They're living things. They're like machines, in some ways - like in the way they work according to the laws of physics, not by magic - but very different in other ways, like the way that living things are the result of evolution. No need, someone did it for me: Sayz Me - free text-to-speech reader - make the computer talk - accessibility software - page magnifier - reading on screenYou keep saying all these things can't be done, and then I go and look and they've been done already. Why are you so relentlessly negative?

Your proving my point for me. I'm afraid your speech reader was programmed, coded up by a person. It didn't arise on it's own by chemisty randomness. How could it? it doesn't understand any english language. or any language for that matter. And the human body is a machine. your heart does a purposeful job of pumping blood around the body. We can replace them with man made ones to do the same job. it's a machine. same with the kidneys, but not as good of course. Liver poses a problem, such a super machine it is. God can though however, I don't feel so confident for you though with your billion year old primeval slime.

Um, "neutrons" don't fire; neurons send each other chemical signals in response to signals they receive.Why do they fire when they do? A neuron fires its axon when its recieved enough impulses in its dendrites to exceed its "excitation threshold". It's another chemical reaction. Which we know are controlled by the brain and influenced by hormones. Haven't you ever met a woman with PMS? What do you think causes all that disruption to her emotions? Her hormones.Why do you think we can treat depression with pills? Because it's chemical reactions. It should be stupendously obvious that feelings, emotions, and thinking are all chemical reactions - which is why they can be affected chemically. If thinking isn't chemistry, then why can drugs change how you think? How could you possibly get drunk or high if chemistry wasn't involved?I could go on all day. There's a million examples to show how stupendously wrong you are right now. Nonsense. Of course they're not. Psychological pharamcology wouldn't exist if they were "beyond the physical." Brain damage wouldn't change your emotions if they were "beyond the physical", but it does. There's never been one that we know of. Which is why I think it's basically impossible. Either way, though, we're both arguing from a position of ignorance. You don't know that you're right, and you don't know that I'm wrong. I don't think questions with no answers are very interesting, but I can see how you might be obsessed with pointless questions like "why is there a universe." I can't think of anything less interesting than a question where we have to just make up the answer. It's the laws of physics. Pure iron in oxygen can't not rust. At some point, you need to get over fake mysticism and get some work done - don't you think? That you can find the commonplace amazing isn't proof against evolution - it's proof that I'm talking to someone who doesn't have a rational mindset. I don't know. Probably just one, which begins to catalyze the same reaction over and over again, making more of itself.We may never know for sure how it works because the fossil evidence is long gone, and the very presence of living things on Earth prevents those initial conditions from ever happpening again. Once abiogenesis happens, it never happens again - living things gobble up all the chemicals the process needs. There's always chemicals. Everything is a chemical.But the inorganic origin of organic chemicals was what the Miller-Urey experiment was designed to study, and that's just what they got - organic chemicals from inorganic processes. It was a complete success in that regard. Nonsense; there are plenty of good mutations. Less than the bad ones, but there are less bad ones than neutral ones. Why don't you ask yourself? You have between 5 and 50 mutations of your very own - and those are just your germline mutations. If you've ever gone outside in the sunlight, there are millions of mutations in the cells of your skin and the layers just underneath.But you're still alive, aren't you? Because I've observed good ones. I've read about more. I've seen organisms evolve beneficial features through mutation. I've been involved with the research.Have you done anything except read creationist websites? I haven't ever insulted you. I've just pointed out where you've been dishonest. I haven't even called you ignorant, despite the obvious fact that you're well out of the depth of your knowledge.

Right. Something you said couldn't be done. Machines couldn't speak, you said, but there's one of a thousand different programs that will make your computer speak anything you tell it to.How many times do you have to be wrong before you understand what I'm trying to tell you? It has machine-like qualities, as I said. "Having been designed", though, is clearly a quality that it does not possess.

Teaching a machine to speak, not coding it. A baby does not know the english language until you speak to it and teach it. Try doing that to a computer.If you say the human body does not appear to have been designed I don't believe you. Most evolutionists even admit it looks like that. But they try to tell you that all design is a dillusion. The human body is incredible, and incredibly efficient and complex. Like food digestion for example. it wastes absolutley nothing. To have an efficient design you have to have a designer.

And flawed: blindspot in the eye, sharp ridge on the inside of the skull, spine poorly adapted to bipedalism And who designed that designer?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor