Theory of evolution.

Dirty Dragon

Dirty Dragon

Well-Known Member
very spiritual of you. but so far we have only encountered organic life form and we have no clue whether or not different life forms do exist.
I'm a spiritual man. Check out my chakras :)

My point exactly. That doesn't mean we can assume all life is organic or similar in characteristics to the observed.
If we did encounter another form of life, can we even recognize it ?

If the building blocks of life as we know it are, as per your words 'all about encoding, messaging, decoding and reconstruction of precise information', isn't it reasonable to assume any system capable of the above as being "alive" or having the potential to yield life? Perhaps and perhaps not.

But the fact remains, there is no rigorous universal definition of life, consciousness or self awareness. Rendering even the best mathematical models no more than speculation or a thought exercise.

the impossible randomness i was referring to relates to the synthesis, transcription translation and replication, which implies that all the intricate and very sophisticated components of the different information processing machines inside the cell have been conceived and implemented simultaneously at the same very same time.
This process follow the basic rules of chemistry, with the different molecules and their arrangement encoding genetic information. It is a stable chemical structure, not being held together by any metaphysical dynamic.

You are saying it is near impossible for this chemical process to form and come together naturally ?
Is the above even prerequisite for all major branches of modern evolutionary theory?
Are there no other natural 'inanimate' chemical processes that show similar complexity in nature?

These aren't rhetorical questions, do you or anyone know?
 
  • Advertisement
  • Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    DNA of an organism changes via mutation, which either affects the offspring immediately or several generations down the line. The change is either brought on by a mutation that is beneficial, harmful, or neutral. If the change is harmful, it is unlikely that the offspring will survive long enough to reproduce, so the mutation dies off. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and thus will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads through a population. The more genetic variation a population has, the more likely that population is to survive should an abrupt change in environment occur (like rapid climate change). Less genetic variation might lead to extinction. The process by which beneficial mutations spread and harmful mutations die off is called natural selection. As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form, which explains diversity of life all around us. That explains how evolutionary change occurs.

    As for evidence for common ancestor, review the following page: Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
    Everything you said here, is cute, but only the figment of the evolutionists imagination. Disproved by everyone's admission, evolutionists included, when challenged with the science of mathematics and genetics.

    And you're confusing too much between the concept of mutation, and the potential of adaptation. The first has never been proven to create viable life forms, let alone in quantities and sequences that would give substance to diversity, issued from mutation and natural selection. And the second has never been proven to create new species.

    And don't even get me started on the fossil material. If anything, and despite all evolutionists efforts to make a fossil here or there, fit their theory, fossils not only do not help this theory get solid grounds, but to the contrary, prove the opposite so far, at least those of the Cambrian Explosion.

    To keep it short, @Dark Angel addressed it quite eloquently in his last reply, so no need to put more of the same.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What do you think about the theory of evolution? Do you think it is logical?
    How about the religious version of adam and eve?
    I was having a discussion couple of days ago with some of my friends on how we came to exist as human beings. It got me more curious about that why I would like to read your opinions about this particular subject.
    Here is my what I think, slightly out of evolution of human only to an understanding about where does this human actually exist in time and space.

    Materialism and the beginning of space and time started with the big bang, before this there were non material existence. There were no objects of measurement of time and space.

    The central planet in the universe is Earth. It is a living planet that feeds into the cosmos. This is the center of life in the cosmos. Its life exists because it has water. Water is the only reason why Earth is alive. Earth existed before humans. Dynasource functioned on Earth before humans.

    Humans play a function in the process of keeping Earth alive by producing waste, and becoming waste, as when they die they become food for the Earth which is also the source of matter in universe.

    Do we have souls. Yes. Is there a spiritual world. Yes. But it has to do with a process of maintaining a universe continue into existence. Man is not detached from Earth in which he dissolves or from the universe where dust flies continuing its expansion. Earth produces the universe as it inflates into the cosmic microwave background beyond the the universe itself. This is there exists something beyond the universe that makes this universe keep inflating by the centrality of the living Earth. The only planet capable of production and reproduction.

    The process of the evolution of the human species is not separable from the process of the universe coming into existence and its inflation. They are connected. This is because man is the organism with the function of production and reproduction on Earth. The Earth produces dust from life on it is a fact. The universe and the planets and the stars are made of dust also. Earth is alive because of man a producer of dust after his death.

    The figure below demonstrates the centrality of planet Earth in the universe according to the Big Bang theory in which man is nothing but an organism with a function to play in the process of cosmos expansion.

    It also explains the its alternatives. The eternal inflation theory which we may also call star war theory, assumes that a multi universe exists outside the cosmic background microwave, but no evidence exists of such a claim because it is not possible for an observer on Earth to see anything beyond the Hubble Volume surrounding the Earth. While the cosmic microwave background is evidence of the Big Bang inflation of a universe centered on Earth and observable only within the Hubble Volume of the universe, what we see beyond is the cosmic microwave background and not other universes in an eternal inflation.


    The harmony between evolution of the species and the Big Bang is the claim that it all started with one cell.

    This does not mean there is no god, it just means there is no religion that mad can design and impose as law of god. Big Bang is the law.
    universe.jpg
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I was thinking about Satan, and if he may coexist with the theory of evolution. In fact, there is no Satan, Satan does not exist.

    God created a sperm, This is a cell called Adam. He created an egg. This is a cell called Eve. Probably a few of them were there being created. They produced complex cells evolving into the human being.

    In this picture there is no place called heaven or the angles including Satan.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    [article]
    Who created the world? The solution is not in science
    Physicist Stephen Hawking argued that recent revelations in science provide a good explanation for the creation of the world and make God superfluous. Dr. Yigal Pat-El disagrees with him and proposes separating the question of God's existence from scientific discoveries

    Yigal Pat-El Published: 12.09.10, 19:11 / Israel News Share on Twitter Share on Facebook share
    Stephen Hawking: God did not create the universe

    There is no question that Stephen Hawking is one of the great scientists who have recently risen to mankind in particular and in general. Precisely because of this fact, one must wonder about his assertion as a man of science about the need or absence of God for the creation of the universe.

    The preoccupation with the existence of God is not new, and in recent centuries these discussions have focused mainly on philosophical questions concerning the essence of God (see Descartes, Spinoza and others). But in the case before us, the considerations made are purely scientific, and stem from the fact that we have reached a state in which we understand the universe in such a perfect way that it leaves the existence of God.

    For more than three decades I have been lecturing on astronomy, with some of the lectures dealing with cosmological matters.You hardly have a lecture in which you will not ask the eternal question of the correlation between the description of creation in the Book of Genesis and what we know today.

    It is no wonder that most of the great scientists of the past century have chosen to ignore, elegantly, this hot potato.To this day, Einstein's position on the existence or non-existence of God and his very role in the world is unclear.

    Without involving God

    One of the scientists involved in the topic that was published in Hawking was Jacob Bekenstein, Israel Prize laureate for physics in 2005. From Bekenstein's article on the preservation of entropy of black holes, the conclusion was that black holes should have temperature, a hypothesis that was not accepted in the scientific community at that time, and not by Hawking.

    It was not until two years later that Hawking discovered that black holes did radiate radiation, a discovery that was directly related to Beckenstein's assumption. This radiation is now called Hawking radiation (though some readers call this radiation Beckenstein-Hawking). Well, Bekenstein, who is known in Israel less than the stars of a born star or a hero of survival, is one of ours. A prominent Israeli scientist, one of the most important scientists involved in cosmology.

    And one more thing. Bekenstein is a believing Jew, wearing a skullcap. There are other examples of astronomy, astrophysics, and solar system studies that are Jewish, religious, and some of what we call ultra-Orthodox Jews when their position on faith is clear and they see no contradiction between their faith and their attempt to understand the laws of nature.

    Do they, despite their great scientific knowledge, come to the conclusion that God is superfluous? From my acquaintance with many of them they will argue the contrary. Their faith is strengthened as they understand the beauty of the laws of nature.

    But there are the other side - many scientists, secular, who do not see the need for the existence of a Supreme Being to explain the laws of nature that they claim spontaneously, from nothing. Common to both camps that neither of them involves God in their mathematical equations.

    Faith is irrefutable
    The attempt to connect God to science is superfluous and foolish in the first place.Belief in God can not be refuted or confirmed in the accepted way of scientific assumptions, as opposed to scientific theories and models committed to the test of refutation.The existence of God derives, first and foremost, from the very belief in its existence.

    True, logical logical systems have been built in the past that try to contradict the possibility of God's existence, but for a believer they will not rise or fall.The debate over whether or not there is a contradiction between Genesis and the creation of the world is unnecessary for several reasons:

    First and foremost, the fact that science is constantly renewed. It seems that we will never get a definitive answer to the nature of the universe and the other questions that science poses to us. This is the essence of scientific inquiry.

    What will happen if we prove signs and wonders that there is a complete contradiction between what we know about the creation of the world and what is described in our sources of faith and tomorrow a great scientist will come to see that what we knew is not accurate?

    This situation serves as a double-edged sword for those who seek to find a contradiction between Genesis and our cosmological knowledge and, surprisingly, those who wish to show that there is a complete parallel between the scientific "truth" and the Book of Genesis.

    If the scientific "truth" changes, what is the conclusion about the "truth" described in the sources of faith that only a generation or two ago we proved to be parallel to that scientific "truth"?If the scientific "truth" is proved wrong, then the description in the holy books will also be incorrect.

    The Bible is not a recipe book


    I have found myself answering them - do they believe in faith? Did Solomon create the world with his hands, hammer, chisel, and effort in six days?

    If I were a believer, I would have demanded God's punishment.Is it no more simple to claim that God created in six days, or in four days or for two seconds, the laws of nature that motivated creation?Which of God is bigger?It is the creator of the world with his own hands and goes to rest or is this Creator elegant laws that drive nature and everything therein, including the processes according to which the human brain thinks?

    This last argument also dispels Hawking's strange argument that we have reached a situation where we understand a complete or almost complete understanding of the Big Bang procedure so that there is no need to involve God.is that so?

    Where does the human intellect come from?
    One of the verses in the Book of Genesis states that man is created in the image and image of God.I suppose the author's intention was not his outward appearance.I believe that the intention was that we were created with the ability to understand the nature that according to Scripture was created by God.We have been given the great gift of mathematical and scientific thinking that distinguishes us from animals.

    Mathematics, which is also the creation of humanity, succeeds in predicting physical phenomena, that is, the laws of the universe.For example, the existence of elementary particles resulting from pure mathematical considerations.This was best expressed by Marie-Gal-Mann, Yuval Neeman's partner in particle research.

    One can go so far as to say that human ability to understand mathematically the physical behavior of the universe is derived from the way the brain works.That is, being the creatures of this universe, but it is clear that we will be able to think in the way the universe itself works.

    And we will go so far as to say that if so, is it not possible that this attribute is shared by all the intelligent entities in the universe as such?And then those who put those golden disks in the Pioneer spacecraft were not mistaken, describing some of our mathematical knowledge bases, lest someone, somewhere, find it?


    Religion and God
    The Pope and Stephen Hawking met
    Avital Lahav and Reuters

    The leader of the Catholic world met this weekend with one of the world's most famous scientists at a conference of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.The two discussed the relationship between the Catholic Church and science, 400 years after the Galileo affair and 150 years after the presentation of the Darwinian theory

    The Pope and Stephen Hawking met

    It can be argued that just as the human mind created - as the product of this universe - the mathematical ability to understand the universe, it created the ability and need to recognize the existence of God or the existence of a Supreme Being.

    Secularists who claim that God is a product of human thought and not the other way around, have to contend with the argument that human thought derives precisely from that human brain, which is always capable of creating a mathematical model that explains the universe.

    Therefore, let us leave the existence of God to the matter of faith as the famous saying saying - no one in his faith will live.It is a mistake to give up or prove the existence of God for purely scientific reasons, and it is a greater mistake to pretend that we have reached a state where we understand nature so perfectly that we know that God is superfluous.

    Theories and physical models change over the course of history, but belief in the existence of God or another supreme being - true or false - is only human faith, scientifically unfeasible, probably eternal, and will live as long as the human mind continues to think and try to understand nature and its laws .

    A rotating map of stars and more information on moon observation and planets and other astronomical events can be found on the Astronomical Calendar .

    Dr. Yigal Pat-El, Cosmos Telescopes , Director of the Givatayim Observatory, Chairman of the Israel Astronomical Society and Director of the Astronomy Forum at Ynet.
    [/article]
     
    H

    Holaco

    Well-Known Member
    What about horse, donkey and Zebra or tiger and lion ? Do creationists believe that these species are related or each one created magically by god ?

    ALso, what about ring species ? Ring species - Wikipedia

    Oh...And by the way: "Evolution is only a theory"- Richard Dawkins.
    Richard dawkins quote is taking out of context. Google it

    Creationists websites/sources often lie and they take a lot of evolution scientists words out of context
     
    RyanGo

    RyanGo

    New Member
    Now what I think about evolution, I find it just fascinating! Literally if you observe your immediate surroundings, plants, trees, small insects, animals etc. How everything moves is just fantastic! It makes you value this fly that keeps hitting the window in your living room, and that small creature you normally swat becomes a source of compassion, you start rooting for it to make it to the open window, eventually it manages to do it and you feel a brief moment of joy! Now imagine that brief moment of joy, except on a much bigger scale! Small animals escaping predators adapting to their surroundings by growing wings, or changing colors! Bigger predators developing a more aerodynamic body in order to keep up with their preys who became faster!
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Now what I think about evolution, I find it just fascinating! Literally if you observe your immediate surroundings, plants, trees, small insects, animals etc. How everything moves is just fantastic! It makes you value this fly that keeps hitting the window in your living room, and that small creature you normally swat becomes a source of compassion, you start rooting for it to make it to the open window, eventually it manages to do it and you feel a brief moment of joy! Now imagine that brief moment of joy, except on a much bigger scale! Small animals escaping predators adapting to their surroundings by growing wings, or changing colors! Bigger predators developing a more aerodynamic body in order to keep up with their preys who became faster!
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    yes yes all past, present and future species' genetic code is already created and saved into a pokeball, just waiting for the almighty creator to activate a new species for black friday sales :)

    we can keep running in this circle as much as u guys want
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    yes yes all past, present and future species' genetic code is already created and saved into a pokeball, just waiting for the almighty creator to activate a new species for black friday sales :)

    we can keep running in this circle as much as u guys want
    you didn't get the joke.

    but in all cases, and overlooking the oddity of your phrasing, and based on the evidence in our possession so far, the probability of the functional protein encoding/decoding process being a random outcome is simply infinitesimal, practically null. and that's just for one protein. deriving the probability of life from that yields that it is smaller by an infinite order.

    every single venue that you take will lead you to similar results, each time reducing that number by an infinite order of magnitude.

    tuned universe? check..
    reverse entropy? check..
    information layering? check..
    protein transcription, encoding, translation, transport, decoding? check..

    so there is no circle. there is simply denial.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    you didn't get the joke.

    but in all cases, and overlooking the oddity of your phrasing, and based on the evidence in our possession so far, the probability of the functional protein encoding/decoding process being a random outcome is simply infinitesimal, practically null. and that's just for one protein. deriving the probability of life from that yields that it is smaller by an infinite order.

    every single venue that you take will lead you to similar results, each time reducing that number by an infinite order of magnitude.

    tuned universe? check..
    reverse entropy? check..
    information layering? check..
    protein transcription, encoding, translation, transport, decoding? check..

    so there is no circle. there is simply denial.
    I did get the humor attempt, it just didnt do anything to me.

    Thx for overlooking the oddity of my phrasing, and telling me about it :)

    Now back to the point, practically 99% of all life that has ever been on earth is extinct today, almost a billion different species, each shaped and sized according to the ressources and temperatures found on earth during each geological era are no more because they couldn't adapt.

    am not gonna recycle everything that has already been said on subject, people can go and read on their own.

    but i'll leave u with this for further contemplation :)

     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I did get the humor attempt, it just didnt do anything to me.

    Thx for overlooking the oddity of my phrasing, and telling me about it :)

    Now back to the point, practically 99% of all life that has ever been on earth is extinct today, almost a billion different species, each shaped and sized according to the ressources and temperatures found on earth during each geological era are no more because they couldn't adapt.

    am not gonna recycle everything that has already been said on subject, people can go and read on their own.

    but i'll leave u with this for further contemplation :)

    ktir mahdoum :) bass you still have to address the subject objectively from a scientific perspective.
    probability of a single protein chain forming ~ 10^360
    probability of the protein encoding, copying, messaging, decoding coming together at the same time, is much greater than 1 in 10^1000

    to put that into perspective the number of atoms in the universe ~ 10^83.

    yet you would rather believe, without evidence, but rather based on your faith alone, in the infinitesimally small probability 1 in 10^1000 simply to discard the possibility of a creator?

    adaptation is arguably a separate topic.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    ktir mahdoum :) bass you still have to address the subject objectively from a scientific perspective.
    probability of a single protein chain forming ~ 10^360
    probability of the protein encoding, copying, messaging, decoding coming together at the same time, is much greater than 1 in 10^1000

    to put that into perspective the number of atoms in the universe ~ 10^83.

    yet you would rather believe, without evidence, but rather based on your faith alone, in the infinitesimally small probability 1 in 10^1000 simply to discard the possibility of a creator?

    adaptation is arguably a separate topic.
    Dude its very simple, lets go back to the first steps of life on earth:
    - there was aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in the early oceans.
    - in these minerals rich ocean cyanobacteria, using photosynthesis, started releasing oxygen, a process that lasted fir millions if years untill all the oxygen sinkholes were satured in the oceans and then on land.
    -which leads us to the great oxygenation event, which saw an increase of oxygen levels in the atmosphere and led to th first mass extinction of all aneorobe life which was poisoned by these high oxygen levels and the first climate change shock.
    - oxygen was a bounty for all aerobic life forms that used this new energy source to try and form new complex chemical structures.
    - from that point on earth was never the same with life trying and failing or succeeding in various models that used this oxygen, both fauna and flaura tried to form new structures according to what kind of ressources they could access.

    This is called adaptation, evolution, trial and error whatever you want to call it.

    There was a creator in som sense, more like a catalyst than a creator, which is oxygen.

    you keep going back to the mathematical formula and extremly low probabilty of the process to be successfull. Yes it a low chance of success but it is not null or else why are there over a billion different life forms that trued to live on this planet? Did the creators not hav a clear idea of what kind of creatures they wanted to see roaming the land?

    I am a strong believer in randomness, from everything we know about our universe. Chaos and imperfections are the definition of the universe we live in.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If we scale all of planet earth's existence onto a 12 hour clock, we'll see that all of humanity's existence take up a fraction of the last second of the 12-hour clock. To conclude that the planet was created by a creator for us isn't just illogical, it is also extremely self-centered and tunnel-visioned.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Dude its very simple, lets go back to the first steps of life on earth:
    - there was aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in the early oceans.
    - in these minerals rich ocean cyanobacteria, using photosynthesis, started releasing oxygen, a process that lasted fir millions if years untill all the oxygen sinkholes were satured in the oceans and then on land.
    -which leads us to the great oxygenation event, which saw an increase of oxygen levels in the atmosphere and led to th first mass extinction of all aneorobe life which was poisoned by these high oxygen levels and the first climate change shock.
    - oxygen was a bounty for all aerobic life forms that used this new energy source to try and form new complex chemical structures.
    - from that point on earth was never the same with life trying and failing or succeeding in various models that used this oxygen, both fauna and flaura tried to form new structures according to what kind of ressources they could access.

    This is called adaptation, evolution, trial and error whatever you want to call it.

    There was a creator in som sense, more like a catalyst than a creator, which is oxygen.

    you keep going back to the mathematical formula and extremly low probabilty of the process to be successfull. Yes it a low chance of success but it is not null or else why are there over a billion different life forms that trued to live on this planet? Did the creators not hav a clear idea of what kind of creatures they wanted to see roaming the land?

    I am a strong believer in randomness, from everything we know about our universe. Chaos and imperfections are the definition of the universe we live in.
    what you think of as randomness is actually nothing but a layer of abstraction floating on top of extreme precision. there is nothing chaotically random in the universe. everything follows exact physical laws that can be precisely expressed with mathematics.

    the universe thus is not governed by chaos but rather by abstract Truth.

    with that out of the way, you use terms so lightly. "using photosynthesis". can you please explain photosynthesis to the rest of us in detail? ie on the molecular and atomic levels, without reverting to abstraction the sorts of "photosynthesis converts sun light water and carbon dioxide to reserve energy and in the process releases oxygen".

    here, i will save you the trouble :)


    inno eh, "using photosynthesis"...
    وما أدرانا ما الفوتوسينتسس
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    If we scale all of planet earth's existence onto a 12 hour clock, we'll see that all of humanity's existence take up a fraction of the last second of the 12-hour clock. To conclude that the planet was created by a creator for us isn't just illogical, it is also extremely self-centered and tunnel-visioned.
    bayyan sinnak? :p shta2na shta2na :)
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    what you think of as randomness is actually nothing but a layer of abstraction floating on top of extreme precision. there is nothing chaotically random in the universe. everything follows exact physical laws that can be precisely expressed with mathematics.

    the universe thus is not governed by chaos but rather by abstract Truth.

    with that out of the way, you use terms so lightly. "using photosynthesis". can you please explain photosynthesis to the rest of us in detail? ie on the molecular and atomic levels, without reverting to abstraction the sorts of "photosynthesis converts sun light water and carbon dioxide to reserve energy and in the process releases oxygen".

    here, i will save you the trouble :)


    inno eh, "using photosynthesis"...
    وما أدرانا ما الفوتوسينتسس
    What does explaining photosynthesis have to do with anything i said?? my point was abt oxygen..

    yes i know we can boil down most systems into mathematical models, but that doesnt mean chaos doesnt exist. Any system can be in a state of order or chaos. A small example of a chaotic system is your heart beating. Anyway this is not the topic, but saying that chaos is just an abstraction is a phallacy and am sure you know that.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    What does explaining photosynthesis have to do with anything i said?? my point was abt oxygen..
    photosynthesis is a very complex process, if dealt correctly it favors my position, not yours. so you cannot simply abstract it to announce that "through photosynthesis" the aerobic prevailed. what you can do however is present how the process of photosynthesis itself came about randomly chaotically. :p

    yes i know we can boil down most systems into mathematical models, but that doesnt mean chaos doesnt exist. Any system can be in a state of order or chaos. A small example of a chaotic system is your heart beating. Anyway this is not the topic, but saying that chaos is just an abstraction is a phallacy and am sure you know that.
    what you are trying to refer to as chaos is actually a precise probabilistic outcome that follows well known distributions. the laws of physics though they give rise to randomness in many fields, do not allow for chaos.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    photosynthesis is a very complex process, if dealt correctly it favors my position, not yours. so you cannot simply abstract it to announce that "through photosynthesis" the aerobic prevailed. what you can do however is present how the process of photosynthesis itself came about randomly chaotically. :p
    should i also explain all the bio-chemical reactions that happen throughout the digestive system that allow us to extract nutrients from organics? :)
    trial and error and time, lots and lots of fricking time.. you see what resources you have around you and try and extract energy from them. in the case of cyanobacteria it was water and sunlight as a catalyst.

    what you are trying to refer to as chaos is actually a precise probabilistic outcome that follows well known distributions. the laws of physics though they give rise to randomness in many fields, do not allow for chaos.
    if we're gonna keep going down this path we'll be discussing the butterfly effect pretty soon and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand so lets drop it.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    should i also explain all the bio-chemical reactions that happen throughout the digestive system that allow us to extract nutrients from organics? :)
    everything that is relevant should be discussed. if you think it is relevant, by all means, discuss it from all perspectives. :chicken: including what came first, the chicken or the egg :p
    trial and error and time, lots and lots of fricking time.. you see what resources you have around you and try and extract energy from them. in the case of cyanobacteria it was water and sunlight as a catalyst.
    can evolution occur by trial and error given the established fact that the overwhelming majority of said errors destroy functionality, structure, and consequently life, and that the ratio of functionally positive random changes to their counterpart the destructive change, is infinitesimally small?

    the rate at which these changes should occur in order to produce new functionalities necessarily implies the destruction of all life before the implementation of new features.

    if we're gonna keep going down this path we'll be discussing the butterfly effect pretty soon and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand so lets drop it.
    o_O
    unfortunately for you, you do not get to choose the starting point for this discussion :p this is one topic where the cumulative knowledge of mankind in its entirety needs to be summoned. i summon thee. heik shi.
     
    Top