Further evidence of a relation to chimp

[kingsmith]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3197916
If growing legs is proof of development, according to Darwin, how can once having legs show proof of development? I think snakes once had legs because scripture tells us that the serpent beguiled Eve and was put on his belly by G-d. So now all the descendants of snakes slither.

Evolution is the development and continuation of mutations that benefit the survial of a species. It can be growing or losing legs whatever better suits the issue, I just wanted to clarify it is no cut and dry quick change hard to grasp as humans because when compared to the life of planets and the many many generations of species our lives are but a blink of an eye or grain of sand in a hourglass

 

[reef_dart21]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3197909

It is not IMO, proof of evolution. I think proof of evolution would be to find a cobra growing legs, or an alligator starting to walk on two legs. Maybe an ape losing all its hair and then putting on cloths to stay warm, or starting a fire. Then I would believe a monkey is developing into a human.
Evolution needs proof of a physical change up the scale of development.
The chimp and octopus stories show that animals think in greater terms than we expected. They are smarter than we give them credit. Proof that zoo’s housing apes are cruel perhaps.
First of that is false, evolution does not need to be a physical change, second i already said this is NOT PROOF just supporting evidence and a look into our early years of our lives as hominids.
You will never see this large scale of change in your lifetimes, evolution is a small meticulus process. Performing only minor tweaks at a time.
The chimpanzee were not in a zoo, they were on a reservation to protect them from poachers. The octopus were in the wild and monitored by scuba divers and scientists alike without interfering.
As i said before you can see evolution in fast breeding population such as virus, bacteria, and some insects. But even so they are minor changes.
If you wanna see evolution's drastic change, find a picture of the original do, which was a wolf. Then through selective breeding, a process in which the breeder selects traits he wants them to have and control the evolution (basically natural selection but instead of nature choosing valuble traits, we do) , the dogs now come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and breeds. Large dogs such as Great Danes or smaller dogs such as chihuauas would do very poorly in the wild and die off due to the extremes in their body size, however since we as breeders provide care for them, they can live with these traits.
Another example everyone here will be familiar with are ORA raise ocellirus (cant spell). B & W, platinum, picasso, n-a-k-e-d and misbars bars were purposeley made to evolve with those traits through slective breeding, However they are only variations of a false clown which is why any in this variation are able to breed with one another.

 

[reef_dart21]

Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/3197919
Evolution is the development and continuation of mutations that benefit the survial of a species. It can be growing or losing legs whatever better suits the issue, I just wanted to clarify it is no cut and dry quick change hard to grasp as humans because when compared to the life of planets and the many many generations of species our lives are but a blink of an eye or grain of sand in a hourglass

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3197916
If growing legs is proof of development, according to Darwin, how can once having legs show proof of development? I think snakes once had legs because scripture tells us that the serpent beguiled Eve and was put on his belly by G-d. So now all the descendants of snakes slither.

Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
No one is trying to turn your faith, like many other modern christians they have accepted evolution but not a product of chemicals/etc, rather the product of God.
I am not trying to ignite a discussion on God or no god, I was trying to recieve comments on how the study will help discover our begginings.

 

[mastertech]

Micro evolutions are changes within a species while macro evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro evolution is a fact that has been plainly observed in nature. Macro evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Creation is fact, "Cogito, ergo sum"
the debate of evolution is unavoidable that is the reason of my first few post.

 

[reef_dart21]

Originally Posted by mastertech
http:///forum/post/3197965
Micro evolutions are changes within a species while macro evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro evolution is a fact that has been plainly observed in nature. Macro evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Creation is fact, "Cogito, ergo sum"
the debate of evolution is unavoidable that is the reason of my first few post.
eh no problem but you explained the two major conepts of evolution really well

 

[beth]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3197916
If growing legs is proof of development, according to Darwin, how can once having legs show proof of development? I think snakes once had legs because scripture tells us that the serpent beguiled Eve and was put on his belly by G-d. So now all the descendants of snakes slither.

Snakes did have legs, but because they used to be lizard-like, not Satan-like. Mutations resulting from whatever reason forced a very gradual change in snakes, resulting in the need for no more legs. Obviously, many lizards still kept their legs. Thus a new species. That is evolution. Doesn't mean the lizard is more evolved, but that rather, conditions dictated that animals evolve in a certain way.
And just a little interest here: Remnants of the snake's legs can be seen in the "spurs" of this ball python.

 

[pezenfuego]

Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3197923
Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
No one is trying to turn your faith, like many other modern christians they have accepted evolution but not a product of chemicals/etc, rather the product of God.
I am not trying to ignite a discussion on God or no god, I was trying to recieve comments on how the study will help discover our begginings.
Most scientists don't subscribe to abiogenesis. For those who don't know...we tear apart the word. A=not, bio=life, gen=origin
Abiogenesis is the theory that the origins of life came from something inorganic. The theory basically goes that when lightning struck atmospheric gases, amino acids formed. These amino acids combined in such a way as to create DNA or RNA. This DNA evolved over millions of years and now I'm typing on a computer.
Before I include my opinions and thoughts...I leave you with one statement. Abiogenesis is a possible theory.
Now, you're probably thinking that we can easily test this. All we have to do is get a sterile environment, add some gases that are readily available and zap them. Unfortunately life has never been created from inorganic matter. If you can do this, there's a million bucks waiting for you. It is borderline impossible. Using estimates including the size of the Universe, the amount of time it has existed, and the the number of planets/moons that can support life...we find that this probability is something like 1 in 10 to the 89,900 power. The problem with this not being proof is that we can't prove that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. Secondly, we can't really find a reliable number for the amount of planets that can support life. Third, we can't prove that this is impossible, but we can prove that it is possible. I don't believe in this though. 1 in 10 to the 89,900 power is almost 0%.
Some scientists say that the only way abiogenesis can occur is by some kind of natural force that no longer exists or creates life abiogenetically. Hmm...what does that sound like???
Anyway...
That's only my opinion/belief and even if you are pro-abiogenesis this post shouldn't anger you. What do you guys think?
Before you guys

me for not citing sources. Here are a few http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/...iogenesis.html
and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Now, I'm not sure if all of the information I've included is in these links.

 

[reef_dart21]

Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3198020
Most scientists don't subscribe to abiogenesis. For those who don't know...we tear apart the word. A=not, bio=life, gen=origin
Abiogenesis is the theory that the origins of life came from something inorganic. The theory basically goes that when lightning struck atmospheric gases, amino acids formed. These amino acids combined in such a way as to create DNA or RNA. This DNA evolved over millions of years and now I'm typing on a computer.
Before I include my opinions and thoughts...I leave you with one statement. Abiogenesis is a possible theory.
Now, you're probably thinking that we can easily test this. All we have to do is get a sterile environment, add some gases that are readily available and zap them. Unfortunately life has never been created from inorganic matter. If you can do this, there's a million bucks waiting for you. It is borderline impossible. Using estimates including the size of the Universe, the amount of time it has existed, and the the number of planets/moons that can support life...we find that this probability is something like 1 in 10 to the 89,900 power. The problem with this not being proof is that we can't prove that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. Secondly, we can't really find a reliable number for the amount of planets that can support life. Third, we can't prove that this is impossible, but we can prove that it is possible. I don't believe in this though. 1 in 10 to the 89,900 power is almost 0%.
Some scientists say that the only way abiogenesis can occur is by some kind of natural force (God is supposedly supernatural) that no longer exists or creates life abiogenetically. Hmm...what does that sound like???
Anyway...
That's only my opinion/belief and even if you are pro-abiogenesis this post shouldn't anger you. What do you guys think?
Before you guys

me for not citing sources. Here are a few http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/...iogenesis.html
and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Now, I'm not sure if all of the information I've included is in these links.
Abiogenisis is not rejected by the scientific community many believe that through chemical bonds and etc that this would be possible however christains tend to belive in Spontaneous generation aspect of abiogenesis which was basically ment an organism growing out of nothing such as lice, grew from sweat.
Abiogenisis and biogenisis can actually support one another if you think about it.
Carbon, sulfur, iron isotopes as well as other forces, could have combined to create a more complex molecule because all organic orginism have a carbon backbone in their DNA. But thats where, too me, abiogenisis stops because one the intial organism was created biogenisis takes over in which organism evolve from other organisms.

 

[reef_dart21]

Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3197992
Snakes did have legs, but because they used to be lizard-like, not Satan-like. Mutations resulting from whatever reason forced a very gradual change in snakes, resulting in the need for no more legs. Obviously, many lizards still kept their legs. Thus a new species. That is evolution. Doesn't mean the lizard is more evolved, but that rather, conditions dictated that animals evolve in a certain way.
And just a little interest here: Remnants of the snake's legs can be seen in the "spurs" of this ball python.

another example is the hip/leg bones in a whale which dont do anything, these left over body parts are often reffered to as vestigial organs (organs that are remenants of our past evolution that we have little no use for them)

 

[reef_dart21]

Ok before we start getting into a large debate, again, let me explain the basic of evolution. Evolution is the theory that every animals has a common ancestor in which they branched away from at certain points in time, created new species, and subspecies (look up taxonomy to understand what i mean). Evolution, by no means, explains or shows evidence of HOW the common ancestor was made, only that we had one and evolved from it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ - please read all it has to offer this is a site meant to explain evolution in a very detailed but simple manner.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/re...iscuss_01.html - THIS IS THE LINK TO SHOW YOU EVOLUTION DOES NOT CONTEND WITH CREATIONISM.

 

[pezenfuego]

Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3198266
Abiogenisis is not rejected by the scientific community many believe that through chemical bonds and etc that this would be possible however christains tend to belive in Spontaneous generation aspect of abiogenesis which was basically ment an organism growing out of nothing such as lice, grew from sweat.
Abiogenisis and biogenisis can actually support one another if you think about it.
Carbon, sulfur, iron isotopes as well as other forces, could have combined to create a more complex molecule because all organic orginism have a carbon backbone in their DNA. But thats where, too me, abiogenisis stops because one the intial organism was created biogenisis takes over in which organism evolve from other organisms.
Exactly. I wasn't disproving abiogenesis and I said that the mass of the scientific community accepts this as possible. Possible and probable are two completely different things. Since it is not currently possible to calculate the probability...we are able to have a debate.
We can't 100% prove evolution...there is always some loophole in which we can discredit it. I do believe that we have way more than enough evidence to teach it in schools. Unfortunately some disagree.
Here's a cool idea to wrap your mind around.
Let's pretend that the Big Bang theory is completely wrong for a moment. Let's take it a step further and say that not only is space infinite, but matter is infinite. That is to say that there is no such thing as antimatter. Just matter and lack there of. Before I get too crazy, I'd like to let the record show that I believe that matter is finite. Anyway, with infinite matter not only would abiogenesis be possible, but it would be very probable. As a matter of fact, with infinite matter it is likely that there would be a planet that is completely identical to ours. It would be identical in every way: every cell, every molecule, and further more right down to every decision every person makes every second of every day.
This sort of goes with the idea that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite amount of type writers for an infinite amount of time would eventually type up the entire works of Shakespeare.
Of course it doesn't go exactly like that, there are variations of this idea.
Anyway, I managed to get way off subject.

 

[reef_dart21]

Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3198334
Exactly. I wasn't disproving abiogenesis and I said that the mass of the scientific community accepts this as possible. Possible and probable are two completely different things. Since it is not currently possible to calculate the probability...we are able to have a debate.
We can't 100% prove evolution...there is always some loophole in which we can discredit it. I do believe that we have way more than enough evidence to teach it in schools. Unfortunately some disagree.
Here's a cool idea to wrap your mind around.
Let's pretend that the Big Bang theory is completely wrong for a moment. Let's take it a step further and say that not only is space infinite, but matter is infinite. That is to say that there is no such thing as antimatter. Just matter and lack there of. Before I get too crazy, I'd like to let the record show that I believe that matter is finite. Anyway, with infinite matter not only would abiogenesis be possible, but it would be very probable. As a matter of fact, with infinite matter it is likely that there would be a planet that is completely identical to ours. It would be identical in every way: every cell, every molecule, and further more right down to every decision every person makes every second of every day.
This sort of goes with the idea that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite amount of type writers for an infinite amount of time would eventually type up the entire works of Shakespeare.
Of course it doesn't go exactly like that, there are variations of this idea.
Anyway, I managed to get way off subject.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed within a system.
Again nothing is 100% known for a fact in science everything is considered a theory or lower.
I understand what your saying but nothing in evolution claims to indentify how the world was made, let alone the universe.
IMO we do not near enough information too even suggest how the universe was created or other planets because we never left our milky way galaxy.
Are you familiar with the choas theory?

 

[pezenfuego]

Originally Posted by Reef_Dart21
http:///forum/post/3198529
Matter is neither created nor destroyed within a system.
Again nothing is 100% known for a fact in science everything is considered a theory or lower.
I understand what your saying but nothing in evolution claims to indentify how the world was made, let alone the universe.
IMO we do not near enough information too even suggest how the universe was created or other planets because we never left our milky way galaxy.
Are you familiar with the choas theory?
I was merely making an example as to how I can make up crazy things and nobody can prove me wrong (yet).
Chaos theory...I've heard of it. Isn't it basically the butterfly effect?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3198334
Exactly. I wasn't disproving abiogenesis and I said that the mass of the scientific community accepts this as possible. Possible and probable are two completely different things. Since it is not currently possible to calculate the probability...we are able to have a debate.
We can't 100% prove evolution...there is always some loophole in which we can discredit it. I do believe that we have way more than enough evidence to teach it in schools. Unfortunately some disagree.
And you will never be able to "prove" evolution. It is the logical property of a theory that it cnnot be proven, only disproven.
Here's a cool idea to wrap your mind around.
Let's pretend that the Big Bang theory is completely wrong for a moment. Let's take it a step further and say that not only is space infinite, but matter is infinite. That is to say that there is no such thing as antimatter. Just matter and lack there of. Before I get too crazy, I'd like to let the record show that I believe that matter is finite. Anyway, with infinite matter not only would abiogenesis be possible, but it would be very probable. As a matter of fact, with infinite matter it is likely that there would be a planet that is completely identical to ours. It would be identical in every way: every cell, every molecule, and further more right down to every decision every person makes every second of every day.
This sort of goes with the idea that an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite amount of type writers for an infinite amount of time would eventually type up the entire works of Shakespeare.
Of course it doesn't go exactly like that, there are variations of this idea.
Anyway, I managed to get way off subject.
The probability of life developing is, by definition, 100% since I do see signs of life on this planet. It doesn't matter how many monkeys are typing, if one recreates a Shakespearian play, then it happened, and the probabilities are a moot issue.

 

[pezenfuego]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3199601
And you will never be able to "prove" evolution. It is the logical property of a theory that it cnnot be proven, only disproven.The probability of life developing is, by definition, 100% since I do see signs of life on this planet. It doesn't matter how many monkeys are typing, if one recreates a Shakespearian play, then it happened, and the probabilities are a moot issue.
Are you somehow disagreeing with me about something?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3199655
Are you somehow disagreeing with me about something?
Not at all. I was just pointing out the logic of theories.

 

[pezenfuego]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3200140
Not at all. I was just pointing out the logic of theories.
Okay. It was just the way you posted. For some reason it felt as though you were trying to prove me wrong. No worries though, I agree with you completely.