Heaven and Hell...

[Ravenbomb 0]

<<<Believes in reincarnation. I just can't imagine not existing. I mean, how would you know you're not existing? I mean, what is it like?

 

 

And as for the animal thing, I know someone at school who believes that human weight changes upon the moment you die, so humans have a soul and the weight changes when the soul leaves. He also believes that since animal weight DOESN'T change, animals have no soul. So there ya go, guys, I hath delivered wisdom from some guy from school to you.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I believe in an afterlife. There's gotta be more than this right? It's kinda sad if we just 'stop being'.

It's more than sad. It's immensely tragic. Which is why some guy a few thousand years back decided to create "Heaven and Hell". And I'm not talking about God.

Ozzy Osbourne?

That was only about 30 years ago, but yes.

You totally cut down my old man joke.

Not at all. 30 years of being coked up, drunk, and doddering around the house in a state of confusion is about the same as 1,000 average years.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

It is feasible that the human heart evolved, first as a muscle to pump blood (or whatever it was at that time) through the body, evolved into a single chamber (because this allowed greater efficiency) and then evolved into a double chamber (because it also allowed greater efficiency). All it takes is for a double chambered heart to evolve once in a form that allows greater functionality (an on the genetic blueprint, so that it can be passed down through succesive generations) for it to take a hold upon a population.

Indeed, but my question is how the double chambers come about in the first place, and in such a way so that the valves can selectively allow blood in or out.

 

As for your later question, about God creating animals, my theory has been that he created them to see how humans would interact with lesser beings - some humans are kind to animals, some humans are cruel to them. I've heard from many people that the true mark of a man is not how they treat their equals but how they treat their inferiors, and I'd assume that the human interaction with animals is essentially God's way of putting us to that test.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Deve...t_evolution.htm

 

This is the best explaination I could find on-line. There's a "next" button at the bottom to scroll through it. If you're interested, http://www.talkorigins.org/ also has a lot of good pieces about evolution.

 

Personally, I still don't understand how someone can read up on evolution and decide that creationism is more likely than evolutionary theory. I'm not saying for one second that current evolutionary theory is 100% correct, but it's logical, has a root in scientific fact and the majority of predictions made based on these theories that can be measured have proven correct (for example, feathered dinosaurs were predicted for years before they were found, based on this theory)

 

Also, your explaination for that part of creationism, while a good moral, doesn't make much sense. Why did God put a series of animal, increasingly like man on the planet? Why did God create animals that died out years before humans arrived upon this planet?

 

The problem with a lot of Creationism is that it's based upon Creationism is that it is based upon assumptions as opposed to facts. While the same is true of Evolutionary theory, this has been backed up with facts where as Creationism never has. If I found one compelling reason why Creationism occured, I would be more likely to believe it.

[caboose 0]

Seeing as I'm not Chirstian and do not believe in Creationism, I'd like to throw my two pence out there...

 

Is it possible that there is a god but rather than have an appearance, he or she is merely an entity like, for lack of a better example, the Force from Star Wars.

This god therefore could have created many species to live on his/her earth and due to being best suited to Earth, humans have evolved to be the most advanced of all the species.

I know this makes god 'faceless' as it were, but because of my Hindu upbrining I am inclined to believe that all living creatues have a soul. Therefore all species can pass into Heavan or they can be continously reincarnated until they lead a life good enough to be deemed 'Heavan Worthy'.

[Guest Ten Ton Lid]

I believe in an afterlife. There's gotta be more than this right? It's kinda sad if we just 'stop being'.

It's more than sad. It's immensely tragic. Which is why some guy a few thousand years back decided to create "Heaven and Hell". And I'm not talking about God.

Ozzy Osbourne?

That was only about 30 years ago, but yes.

You totally cut down my old man joke.

Not at all. 30 years of being coked up, drunk, and doddering around the house in a state of confusion is about the same as 1,000 average years.

Given Sharon's overall tenacity and Ozzy's apparent physical indestructibility, I'm genuinely concerned that the Osbourne kids represent the next evolutionary step - the one that will leave us all obsolete. I just hope they decide to kill us lower apes off en masse, because that's not a world I want to live in.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Deve...t_evolution.htm

 

This is the best explaination I could find on-line. There's a "next" button at the bottom to scroll through it.

I went through the entire walkthrough (save for the additions portions), and while the descriptions of the hearts are very helpful, nowhere in there does it provide a bridge that allows the fish's two-chambered heart to the amphibian's three-chambered heart, nor an explanation for how the fish's single-circuit circulatory system evolves into the amphibian's pulmonary circulatory system. Furthermore, if we are to go back to the very roots of the evolutionary theory, how did a single-celled organism become so advanced that it required blood, much less a muscle to pump it with?

 

Personally, I still don't understand how someone can read up on evolution and decide that creationism is more likely than evolutionary theory. I'm not saying for one second that current evolutionary theory is 100% correct, but it's logical, has a root in scientific fact and the majority of predictions made based on these theories that can be measured have proven correct (for example, feathered dinosaurs were predicted for years before they were found, based on this theory)

 

But your genetics get in the way of your own discovery. If a dinosaur has feathers, it has to have the gene for feathers, and where does that gene come from? I don't believe (and I could be mistaken) that one can suddenly grow feathers if they so desire, nor can a mutation in genes cause this.

 

Also, your explaination for that part of creationism, while a good moral, doesn't make much sense. Why did God put a series of animal, increasingly like man on the planet? Why did God create animals that died out years before humans arrived upon this planet?

 

At least I have good morals, then.

 

The problem with a lot of Creationism is that it's based upon Creationism is that it is based upon assumptions as opposed to facts. While the same is true of Evolutionary theory, this has been backed up with facts where as Creationism never has. If I found one compelling reason why Creationism occured, I would be more likely to believe it.

 

The only reason (I wouldn't even call it "compelling") I can give you for creationism is the design theory, which I'm sure you've heard many times before. Like I've stated earlier, the odds against amino acids developing from the primordial oceans, and then becoming proteins, which would then become cells, are astronomical (one to the two-hundred sixtieth power, according to Tornado in a Junkyard). Personally, I lean towards the belief that there was a God who created Earth, but for whatever reason (probably better things to do) left us on our own to evolve and grow, but he's never coming back to check on us. Can I give you compelling evidence for that? No, but according to the arguments I've heard against evolution and the current state of the world, I'd say it'd the most likely theory.

[EricMM 0]

All that we can say in response to "How did it happen" is a LONG LONG LONG LONG time.

 

Every time an organism mutated to have new and different features, it may or may not have reproduced. If the feature was useful it made it slightly more likely that the organism would reproduce. If it reproduced, there's a chance the trait could be passed on.

 

Do you know how many generations of single celled creatures there are in a single day, a single year? Yeah it took millions of years for this stuff to evolve. I'm sure there were failed mutations that if they had flourished life would be much different today.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Women should be happy to serve their husband as their god?

Yes. And men should do the same for their wives.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

Yes, but the truth is could a single celled organism even be produced if there was no cellular life on earth to begin with? Again, the answer is yes, but the odds that out of nothing came amino acids, and there were enough amino acids to produce proteins, and that there were enough proteins to produce a single cell, and that this single cell had already perfected cellular respiration in its first generation and could reproduce, are so astronomical that scientists have said that it's out of the realm of theory.

 

Do organisms mutate to produce new and different features? Yes. Do they produce better features? Again, yes. Has an organism ever been shown to reproduce so that their heart went from having two chambers to three? Not to my knowledge. Has a plant that could not perform photosynthesis evolved into a plant that could? Again, not to my knowledge. To sum up: Organisms can mutate new and different features, but these features are not so radically different as to produce significantly more advanced creatures - in fact, most mutations hurt the creatures they happen to.

 

As for your comments on it being a long long time ago, my response is this: Why is it we've found the fossils of these ancient fish, and the fossils of these ancient amphibians, but we've never found a link between the two? The best answer is that there is none. It's possible, but it's one of those things that I'll believe when I see. It's much easier, to me, to believe that these creatures were put onto earth in these forms.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Yes, but the truth is could a single celled organism even be produced if there was no cellular life on earth to begin with?  Again, the answer is yes, but the odds that out of nothing came amino acids, and there were enough amino acids to produce proteins, and that there were enough proteins to produce a single cell, and that this single cell had already perfected cellular respiration in its first generation and could reproduce, are so astronomical that scientists have said that it's out of the realm of theory.

 

Do organisms mutate to produce new and different features?  Yes.  Do they produce better features?  Again, yes.  Has an organism ever been shown to reproduce so that their heart went from having two chambers to three?  Not to my knowledge.  Has a plant that could not perform photosynthesis evolved into a plant that could?  Again, not to my knowledge.  To sum up: Organisms can mutate new and different features, but these features are not so radically different as to produce significantly more advanced creatures - in fact, most mutations hurt the creatures they happen to.

 

As for your comments on it being a long long time ago, my response is this: Why is it we've found the fossils of these ancient fish, and the fossils of these ancient amphibians, but we've never found a link between the two?  The best answer is that there is none.  It's possible, but it's one of those things that I'll believe when I see.  It's much easier, to me, to believe that these creatures were put onto earth in these forms.

Photosynthesis will never evolve again, at lest on a noticeable scale. There's no reason for it to. Unlike when they first evolved and were beneficial enough to plants to give them a significant advantage.

 

Feathers evolved from fur, when increased surface area showed a benefit, either for gliding or insulation.

 

Mutations are not always detrimental. If they are, they don't progress any further through the food chain. The majority of speciation is seen to have occured at times of great environmental changes (for example an ice age) when environmental niches are emptied, and new ones created. At the moment, despite what Greenpeace may say, there isn't this large scal environmental change.

 

In answer to your point about fishes, http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/fi...-transition.htm gives a good sequence of transitional forms. While the fossil record is poor at this point, it's mainly due to the Geology of that age, with few areas of exceptional preservation or abundance being found. However, I am confident if you found a suitable area, then those fossils would be present. If amphibians were placed onto the earth fully formed, why did this happen so long after fish were placed there. And why did they exhibit such (relatively) rapid speciation soon afterwards.

 

You say the chances of single celled life forming in the first place is astronomical. Yes, but not impossible. Amino acids or single celled organisms may have had extra-terrestrial origins. It may just be a one in infinity chance, and we're the lucky results. Don't forget, we're yet to find any other signs of life in the universe, so it can't be that common anyhow.

 

I still don't understand how it's more likely that creatures were placed onto this planet fully formed, by some unseen force. It may be easier for you to believe, but more likely? Not by a long way.

[Chuck Woolery 0]

Photosynthesis will never evolve again, at lest on a noticeable scale. There's no reason for it to. Unlike when they first evolved and were beneficial enough to plants to give them a significant advantage.

 

Feathers evolved from fur, when increased surface area showed a benefit, either for gliding or insulation.

 

Mutations are not always detrimental. If they are, they don't progress any further through the food chain. The majority of speciation is seen to have occured at times of great environmental changes (for example an ice age) when environmental niches are emptied, and new ones created. At the moment, despite what Greenpeace may say, there isn't this large scal environmental change.

 

In answer to your point about fishes, http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/fi...-transition.htm gives a good sequence of transitional forms. While the fossil record is poor at this point, it's mainly due to the Geology of that age, with few areas of exceptional preservation or abundance being found. However, I am confident if you found a suitable area, then those fossils would be present. If amphibians were placed onto the earth fully formed, why did this happen so long after fish were placed there. And why did they exhibit such (relatively) rapid speciation soon afterwards.

 

You say the chances of single celled life forming in the first place is astronomical. Yes, but not impossible. Amino acids or single celled organisms may have had extra-terrestrial origins. It may just be a one in infinity chance, and we're the lucky results. Don't forget, we're yet to find any other signs of life in the universe, so it can't be that common anyhow.

 

I still don't understand how it's more likely that creatures were placed onto this planet fully formed, by some unseen force. It may be easier for you to believe, but more likely? Not by a long way.

In response to your photosynthesis point:

 

"Where did the photosynthetic ability, with chlorophyll and chloroplasts, come from? ... They have existed as long as plants have existed, or at least three billion years, according to evolution. Moreover, evolutionists think that the "multi-cellular" forms of plants evolved from green algae (phylum Chlorophyta) about the time of the Cambrian period, 600 million years ago. This is pure speculation, because there is no fossil evidence to support this idea, nor can it be shown how it plausibly could have happened. Furthermore, regarding the origin of flowering plants, the late Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History said in 1993 that, "The origin of angiosperms, an `abominable mystery' to Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today." There is simply no clue as to how this exceedingly complex cellular mechanism for capturing light and using it to make oxygen and sugar evolved. As is always the case, macroevolution is assumed, but not proved."

 

David Demick, M.D.

 

Now, you say that feathers came about from fur. However, the early dinosaurs that the feathered dinosaur is said to have evolved from had scales, not fur. There's a very in-depth piece relating to the entire anatomy of the feathered dinosaur here.

 

Mutations are not always detrimental, I've stated that before, as they allow a species to survive better under certain conditions. I agree with your statement on the current environment not supporting great changes to speciation as well. However, I must question what you mean when you say that new environmental niches are created. Do new species fill the niches, or does the current species evolve out of necessity to fill the niche by itself?

 

In response to your report on fish/reptiles - there is no defined link between each animal there, merely several fish with crudely formed appendages. Thus I'd be more apt to classify them as early salamanders and newts than as transitions between fish and reptile.

 

Obviously I can't show you a definite creator. Like I said before, I don't think there is one anymore, but I do find it much easier to believe that we were put here, every animal and plant and human, for some sort of reason. Or maybe it just makes me feel better about myself.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Now, you say that feathers came about from fur. However, the early dinosaurs that the feathered dinosaur is said to have evolved from had scales, not fur. There's a very in-depth piece relating to the entire anatomy of the feathered dinosaur here.

Yeah, that's my bad. I meant fur-like structures. I had to do a piece about bird evolution last year, and completely forgot about it. Although what I was reading up on were newer journals, this is a decent site I found: http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm. Incidently that site you quoted is from 1989, and a lot of new intermediary species have been found since then. This is what I wrote back then:

 

The other major question surrounding feathers is how they evolved. The first feathers were apparently straight single filaments as opposed to the branched filaments of modern birds. However their origin is still uncertain, with the most likely hypothesis being that they evolved from scales of reptiles. However, studies by Hongyan and Niswander (1996) have suggested that scutes are evolved from feathers and not the other way round, with feather formation being the primitive form of scutes (but not scales) on the legs of birds. As a result, it may be that feathers pre-dated scutes (which are found on the majority of dinosaurs with well preserved skin) or that scutes evolved into feathers, before becoming secondarily featherless on birds legs.

 

Basically it's likely that poorly preserved feathers were around for a lot longer than they are shown in the fossil record, evolving first as a hair-like structure, then becoming increasingly complex over a period of years. Incidently, by ecological niches, I mean species evolve in order to fill different environments. For example, insects evolved powered flight to escape predators easily, birds evolved powered flight to escape predators and catch flying prey/reach higher trees. Those animals filled that particular environmental niche (the sky), Alternatively, if all land life died out suddenly now, then land would be a newly habitable environmental niche and it would be beneficial for marine life to be able to exploit this. At the moment, there's no reason for marine life to crawl out of the water, because that particular niche is inhospitable to them, and they would be killed by more highly evolved organisms.

 

There are two main problems with vertebrate palaeontology:

 

1) The fossil record is very poor, with fossils having a low chancee of preservation, far lower of being well preserved and then a low chance of being found. The same is true with your chlorophyll question, theres no way of working out how chlorophyll evolved, simply because there's no adequately preserved fossils from millions of years ago that you can carry out micro-biology on.

 

2) Most palaeontologists are stupid arrogant cocks.

 

It's therefore unlikely that the questions you've asked can ever be answered without a time machine. However, there are enough examples of evolution that I've seen, along with a coherent evolutionary lineage for all known animals, for me to have faith that evolution occurs, despite a few questions which remain unanswered, but do not disprove evolution. Heh, it all comes down to faith...