What do you believe?

[Himse]

Technically, it depends if you mean a chicken egg or just an egg.

Dinosaurs layed eggs way before chickens came about i thinka!

 

[tris-]

stephen hawkings and other top scientists decided the egg would of come first and not the chicken.

 

[Genedril]

Wasnt it Karl Marx?

Indeed, but iirc it was 'Religion is the opiate of the masses'. Been a while since I read his stuff as I've given up sitting in coffee shops with a dog eared copy, a coffee & a cigarette.

 

[Zede]

Go post that shit over at www.iidb.org and see it torn apart by evolutionary scientists, who actually KNOW their stuff. I am by no means claiming that i know how, just that i am pretty sure there is an explanation, and these guys will give you one if you ask them.

google "abominable mystery, charles darwin" please

THERE IS NO EXPLANATION.

Read up on your topic before posting on forums m8zor

 

[Huntingtons]

Did the chicken come before the egg?

the egg with a chicken inside came first

 

[crispy]

google "abominable mystery, charles darwin" please

THERE IS NO EXPLANATION.

Read up on your topic before posting on forums m8zor

Problem is you are claiming that the plant couldnt have evolved (and thereby claiming that evolution is impossible) on the basis that we dont know/dont have fossils, which is quite a long stretch.

It is a huuuge step to say that because we dont know this or that then the theory doesnt work.

And as you can see there are alot of different theories of how the evolution could have happened, but there is simply not enough evidence (yet) to conclude what happened. From that to saying that evolution doesnt work is quite a leap of faith.

 

[Zede]

Problem is you are claiming that the plant couldnt have evolved (and thereby claiming that evolution is impossible) on the basis that we dont know/dont have fossils, which is quite a long stretch.

It is a huuuge step to say that because we dont know this or that then the theory doesnt work.

And as you can see there are alot of different theories of how the evolution could have happened, but there is simply not enough evidence (yet) to conclude what happened. From that to saying that evolution doesnt work is quite a leap of faith.

Evolution works in most cases, but it is far from conclusive. The fact still remains no transitional fossil exist at all, science can offer no explanation. The theory if evolution primarily uses fossils as its hard evidence, in this case the evidence amounts to 0%. I dont know the answer, but such a massive hole in this theory cannot be denied. My own theory is that spores from outer space arrived here and caused this " blip" in evolution.

ps....your " lots of theories" link amounts to just one theory, that flowering plants first developed on a Island. Problem with this is, most of the earth was one giant land mass ( Pangaea) not to many islands about... and yer, zero fossils to indicate this yet again !

 

[tris-]

My own theory is that spores from outer space arrived here and caused this " blip" in evolution.

id believed that to tbh.

its not more fruity to think life is in other areas of the universe compared to thinking that things evolved.

its possible some bits of rock landed with new amino acids or w/e. at least i cant see why it wouldnt be possible.

 

[crispy]

Evolution works in most cases, but it is far from conclusive. The fact still remains no transitional fossil exist at all, science can offer no explanation. The theory if evolution primarily uses fossils as its hard evidence, in this case the evidence amounts to 0%. I dont know the answer, but such a massive hole in this theory cannot be denied. My own theory is that spores from outer space arrived here and caused this " blip" in evolution.

ps....your " lots of theories" link amounts to just one theory, that flowering plants first developed on a Island. Problem with this is, most of the earth was one giant land mass ( Pangaea) not to many islands about... and yer, zero fossils to indicate this yet again !

I have made a little link in your quote to point you to some translational fossils.

You also claim that evolution make use of fossils as it main evidence, which is partly true, but it also backs it up with a great pile of evidence from DNA analysis.

And lets explore the idea about your 'space theory'. Lets say there actually came in extraterrestial DNA to make the flowers bloom. What does this disprove about evolution?

And what do you think is most likely? Flowers evolving in a way we cant explain just yet, or that DNA came from space and did the handiwork? Which is most likely?

---

And oooo what is this? Seems like some scientists actually have an explanation. As far as i can see from the summary they have partly explained what has happened by looking at DNA evidence. Now they might not have found fossils yet to make the evidence even more convincing, but who says they wont?

 

[crispy]

id believed that to tbh.

its not more fruity to think life is in other areas of the universe compared to thinking that things evolved.

its possible some bits of rock landed with new amino acids or w/e. at least i cant see why it wouldnt be possible.

Well you are right about the high possibility of life evolving somewhere else (why shouldnt it be able to?), but you are stretching the possibilities a little by saying that life evolved somewhere else AND got here to earth instead of saying like evolved here. However life could have evolved many many times on other planets making the chance of it being brought here by a comet or smth more possible, the question is just how much more, which is quite hard to tell.

But to claim that life first evolved here, and then explain why we see some gaps in evolution between some species (which now appear to be solved) with 'life evolved else where AND got to earth after life was evolving here' as Zede claims. Unless he's claiming something else?

 

[Zede]

I have made a little link in your quote to point you to some translational fossils.

You also claim that evolution make use of fossils as it main evidence, which is partly true, but it also backs it up with a great pile of evidence from DNA analysis.

And lets explore the idea about your 'space theory'. Lets say there actually came in extraterrestial DNA to make the flowers bloom. What does this disprove about evolution?

And what do you think is most likely? Flowers evolving in a way we cant explain just yet, or that DNA came from space and did the handiwork? Which is most likely?

---

And oooo what is this? Seems like some scientists actually have an explanation. As far as i can see from the summary they have partly explained what has happened by looking at DNA evidence. Now they might not have found fossils yet to make the evidence even more convincing, but who says they wont?

Im beginning to think you dont even spend 20 seconds looking at the hyperlinks you include. Some scientists at imperial college collated a feckin CHART, again absolutely zero hard evidence, just conjecture. Your other link....Duuuh is about the transitional fossil of VERTEBRATES...which I have no problem with.

The thing your not grasping...its the timescale involved with the sudden appearance of flowering plants, it goes against everything evolution stands for. Did flowering plants come from space spores ? I think so. Take every grain of sand on the planet, times it by 10 - thats the amount of stars in the known universe. Im happy to think Panspermia is the answer.

 

[crispy]

Im beginning to think you dont even spend 20 seconds looking at the hyperlinks you include. Some scientists at imperial college collated a feckin CHART, again absolutely zero hard evidence, just conjecture. Your other link....Duuuh is about the transitional fossil of VERTEBRATES...which I have no problem with.

The thing your not grasping...its the timescale involved with the sudden appearance of flowering plants, it goes against everything evolution stands for. Did flowering plants come from space spores ? I think so. Take every grain of sand on the planet, times it by 10 - thats the amount of stars in the known universe. Im happy to think Panspermia is the answer.

Actually the fecking chart is made from pretty comprehensible DNA evidence. Now what is that? Think he just looked at some plants today and said 'ahh this one looks pretty, and so does this one' and then assembled the chart? If you question the method he used to make the chart maybe you should read the paper he made, and make some research on the methods he used.

You made the claim 'no translational fossils had been found' i responded with some to prove you wrong. What do you want translational fossils of? Fish making their way onto land? I can find some if you need. (edit probably of the flowers, wasnt clear from the context, but as you correctly state there are none, but that still doesnt mean they didnt evolve here on earth.)

And why is it so incredible that a new trait can evolve and then show up to be such a great advantage that the species spreads so quick and evolves even faster? Evolving faster as in large population of the species tries to adapt to new environments around the world, and with a great new trait it would meet little resistance.

I am not the one to discuss HOW this happened, but you are clearly interested in the subject which is good (and i find it interesting too), but i suggest you discuss this matter with a person who actually know a lot about evolution as he/she can clarify matters much better than me. For example make a thread here.

---

edit: panspermia might have happened, we cant know for sure. But it might also have been abiogenesis. I cant give an answer on which is right, but i dont favor one over the other as an explanation to how life started here on earth. However to claim that blooming flowers came from space is VERY far fetched.

 

[Zede]

Actually the fecking chart is made from pretty comprehensible DNA evidence. Now what is that? Think he just looked at some plants today and said 'ahh this one looks pretty, and so does this one' and then assembled the chart? If you question the method he used to make the chart maybe you should read the paper he made, and make some research on the methods he used.

You made the claim 'no translational fossils had been found' i responded with some to prove you wrong. What do you want translational fossils of? Fish making their way onto land? I can find some if you need. (edit probably of the flowers, wasnt clear from the context, but as you correctly state there are none, but that still doesnt mean they didnt evolve here on earth.)

And why is it so incredible that a new trait can evolve and then show up to be such a great advantage that the species spreads so quick and evolves even faster? Evolving faster as in large population of the species tries to adapt to new environments around the world, and with a great new trait it would meet little resistance.

I am not the one to discuss HOW this happened, but you are clearly interested in the subject which is good (and i find it interesting too), but i suggest you discuss this matter with a person who actually know a lot about evolution as he/she can clarify matters much better than me. For example make a thread here.

---

edit: panspermia might have happened, we cant know for sure. But it might also have been abiogenesis. I cant give an answer on which is right, but i dont favor one over the other as an explanation to how life started here on earth. However to claim that blooming flowers came from space is VERY far fetched.

Why do you think these scientists at Imperial College are even attempting to give an answer ?
Why ? because their is no answer !

My posts from the very first post, and in every other post has been purely to do with flowers, at no time have I ever mentioned animals. Transitional fossils in animals is documented and proven across the globe, no explanation needed.

Will try and explain your "new trait" hypothosis. Id use the interwebs and find out just how plants reproduce !

According to Darwins Theory, it happended when lets a Fern mutated. Over many generations the fern eventually formed into a fully functional flowering plant. In flowering plants, the transfer of pollen from the male anther to the female stigma must occur before the plant can reproduce sexually. So now we need 2 plants, both mutating at the same time, both independantly for no reason at all. So Generation after generation, these 2 plants are mutating , massive amounts of the plants rescources being directed into this flower, which is totally usless. This goes totally against Survival of the Fittest - take away 50% of any animal/plants resources, and other species WILL take over your spot - as you are not the fittest, your wasting all your energy on a flower that has no use...

 

[Huntingtons]

well - thats not very hard since they previously to gender specified reproduction had a very simple type of reproduction which they must've sprouted roots to create another plant, the plants will have been clustered closely together and if they had luck 2 would have mutated around the same time (i have no idea of the lifespan of ancestral plants), either different sex or a plant with both organs to reproduce would make it quite simple. but thats just a lame theory.
in case of survival of the fittest plants with sexual reproduction have a greater chance of survivng a change of the biological and abiological factors since they can adept easier than plants who reproduce by simple cell-whatever its-called-in-english

 

[crispy]

Why do you think these scientists at Imperial College are even attempting to give an answer ?
Why ? because their is no answer !

My posts from the very first post, and in every other post has been purely to do with flowers, at no time have I ever mentioned animals. Transitional fossils in animals is documented and proven across the globe, no explanation needed.

Will try and explain your "new trait" hypothosis. Id use the interwebs and find out just how plants reproduce !

According to Darwins Theory, it happended when lets a Fern mutated. Over many generations the fern eventually formed into a fully functional flowering plant. In flowering plants, the transfer of pollen from the male anther to the female stigma must occur before the plant can reproduce sexually. So now we need 2 plants, both mutating at the same time, both independantly for no reason at all. So Generation after generation, these 2 plants are mutating , massive amounts of the plants rescources being directed into this flower, which is totally usless. This goes totally against Survival of the Fittest - take away 50% of any animal/plants resources, and other species WILL take over your spot - as you are not the fittest, your wasting all your energy on a flower that has no use...

Still im no evolutionist or biologist, but i know a little. If you want definite answers go to iidb. They will give you very good answers. Actually I can answer one of the questions you asked. The way to having two plants/animals/etc being needed for reproduction came after plants/animals/etc were hermaphrodites. Meaning they could 'mate' with themselves, or others, before they could only mate with others. It actually may be so ancient that this technique was developed by an ancestor to both the animals AND plants.

Now it cant be so hard to imagine that some plants spread pollen to other plants. Then later evole into making some sugar for the bees or w/e insects that were back then, who then spread the pollen instead of the wind. Imagine this plant later evolving colored leaves to attract insects, and then later to the flower we know today.

Now thats my take on the situation. Again make a thread at iidb and see what real evolution scientists will say, im sure they will have a very well backed explanation, mine is just a little handwaving...

And sorry Huntingtons, but that explanation is very unlikely

Out of a million (probably ALOT more) mutations, a collection of two specific mutations would be like a 1/1^12 chance

 

[Huntingtons]

well actully the ancestors of plants and animals (alges) did do singular cell reproduction (just like some plants do still abiet more developed)

 

[Roalith]

If you actually want to learn anything half useful about evolution/Darwinism whilst still being entertained, it's very worth picking up Terry Pratchett's "Science of Discworld" trilogy.

 

[Rookiescot]

One thing I will say is this. There are NO athiests in a foxhole. When you believe death is immanent you will pray to everything and anything.

 

[gohan]

im belive i may be the second coming, i should stop palying with myself really

 

[Olgaline]

havent we been through this discussion already ?
Evolution is satans work.....
Repent! repent i say, embrase jesus, halleluja! praise the lord!

 

[kirennia]

So what was around before the big bang, ie, where did the matter etc come from that created the big bang, and before that, the matter that created the matter that created the big bang and before that, the matter that........

The scientists answer?

It has always been there

In other words, "we dont know, but we will never entertain the thought of a supreme being".

And before anyone starts, im not forcing my beliefs on anyone, or trying to change their way of thinking. I believe in God, but I am also open minded.

And the religious answer to where God came from? He's always been there!



Personally I really really hope there is a God but I simply cannot beleive in something that there is no evidence of other then a book from a time made up to control the masses...and Christianity is still going today because of it.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

 

[Gorbachioo]

Whether evolution is true or not is irrelevant. Just because we cant give a scientifical explanation for something doesnt mean that the bibles version about it is right.


There is absolutely no reason at all to believe in any religion but still people do. Now theres something to discuss.

 

[Raven]

you can see evolution happening in bacteria, it evolves to become resistant to medicine. anyone who says evolution does not exist is clearly a spaz. Whether there is a god or not is different from believing in the bible (which for the most part is horse shit) Anyone who demands that i pray to him/her can take a nice long suck on my dick.

Personally I couldn't care less if there is a god or not, not as if it makes any difference to my life.

 

[liloe]

Ye you guessed it, I had to join that "discussion" aswell

Even scientists doubt Darwin's theory nowadays. Saw a very intersting argument about this and the central question is, how the first bacteria started to exist. No DNA = no reproduction, that's not hard to understand, cause without a certain key, amino acids can't become proteins, which are at the base of life. A mixed bunch of amino acids is just a fluid and they don't link in a way to become proteins. At this stage you cannot talk of "fittest species" aswell, cause it's just a soup of fluid, nothing more.

On the other hand, most christians don't deny the existance of a certain evolution cause even in the last 500 years it happened, so it would be kinda retarded to deny the fact that animals/plants change. Even selective breeding of animals is some kind of evolution. The question is just, to what extent it can happen.

Oh and just to add, I see Olgaline and Gorbachioo are "discussing" on a very mature level again and I bet they both have no clue what they're talking about…such a surprise.

 

[swords]

Bit presumptious to say most scientists doubt darwins theory, it is more a case of modified, adapted, malleable. Science is an iterative process where ideas are constantly scrutinised, argued and whatnot until we are almost certain about something. But its still better to think in terms of probability, when dealing with any science. We can be 99.9% sure about something but in 0.01% of these cases future work will bring a previous idea into doubt. Although if you look at someone trying to disprove a scientific dogma you'd notice some interesting similarities with the way the church rolls...

 

[Gorbachioo]

Ye you guessed it, I had to join that "discussion" aswell

Even scientists doubt Darwin's theory nowadays. Saw a very intersting argument about this and the central question is, how the first bacteria started to exist. No DNA = no reproduction, that's not hard to understand, cause without a certain key, amino acids can't become proteins, which are at the base of life. A mixed bunch of amino acids is just a fluid and they don't link in a way to become proteins. At this stage you cannot talk of "fittest species" aswell, cause it's just a soup of fluid, nothing more.

On the other hand, most christians don't deny the existance of a certain evolution cause even in the last 500 years it happened, so it would be kinda retarded to deny the fact that animals/plants change. Even selective breeding of animals is some kind of evolution. The question is just, to what extent it can happen.

Oh and just to add, I see Olgaline and Gorbachioo are "discussing" on a very mature level again and I bet they both have no clue what they're talking about…such a surprise.

So what part of what i said was not true?

But dont waste your time on me. I think your time will be better used worshipping god. So off to church you go.

 

[swords]

Aaah don't waste your time worshiping god! don't even know if he/she/it exists anyway. Worship Microsoft (you all know Bill Gates exists).

And I just noticed Crispy: Out of a million (probably ALOT more) mutations, a collection of two specific mutations would be like a 1/1^12 chance.

Highly unlikely in the short term, but of you see how quickly a population of E.coli can replicate (doubling time of say 20 minutes, though they can replicate faster in some cases), you would know that generating a population of 1^12 bacteria is actually pretty easy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

A priest tells you that "there is a god", and you believe it 'cause he showed some pictures and talked really really convincingly.

A scientist tells you there's these "atoms" that things are made of, and you believe it 'cause he showed some pictures and talked really really convincingly.


So the difference is?

 

[swords]

When you put it like that, none, because you are free to make up your own mind. However, we both know that life is all about those shades of grey, not black or white.

I guss a simple answer to the title question is ''whatever you want''.

If people spent less time with the question of where we came from? and more with where are we going? we may be a little bit more productive as a species... of course, that is only speculation and you're free to argue against what I just said.

 

[liloe]

So what part of what i said was not true?

But dont waste your time on me. I think your time will be better used worshipping god. So off to church you go.

You said believing in a god isn't something one should do, but trying to discuss that with you has been rather one-sided in the past, so I'm not really gonna bother.