Plants may have a single ancestor

Discussion in 'Science' started by OldMercsRule, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then, using your list, it's safe to assume that the 'accidental combining of inanimate objects in a primordial pool' millions or billions of years ago...that resulted in 'us'. actually occurred 6 or more times? Accidentally?
     
  2. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since clearly I'm not going to get anything but childish, emoticon filled replies, I thought I could do more to stamp out ignorance with some links to people who explain this topic far better than I.

    Evolution 101 brought to you by Berkeley. The various sub-topics are covered in a language that even someone who can't spell 'really' or 'pretty' can understand.

    I also stumbled upon another gem from Harvard - Dept of Molecular and Cellular Biology - it has links to several articles that delve into the topic.

    The thing that also perplexes me is how someone can talk out of one side of their mouth about heredity and genetics and never realize that if you believe in either of those then you cannot deny evolution, from a molecular perspective the topics are inseparable.
     
  3. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not accidental, it's random and the objects aren't inanimate, their cells, so quite the opposite. These cells contain, the earliest ones contained genetic material in RNA, as these cells produced offspring and the nucleotides in RNA were recombined, it was done so randomly, hence why we're similar to our parents, but not clones of them, we inherit a random recombination of chromosomes from both of our parents, this random recombination over the course of billions of years resulted in the diversity of life we have today.
     
  4. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You answered my question as well. I suppose I haven't entertained the thought of life starting multiple times.
     
  5. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks... and the cells and genetic material came from where again? [​IMG]did the RNA molecule that randomly formed (mind you, not accidentally...I bin schooled) into this neat pattern; what was the purpose in the grand scheme of things? To go on and create life? Where did that motivation come from?....sorry I forgot...it was 'random'.
     
  6. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nucleic acids, we can replicate in laboratories nucleic acids spontaneously joining to form structures akin to RNA.

    Without getting too deep into the cellular biology, inorganic molecules bonded and were able to metabolize and replicate.

    The double helix is something that we won't see for a billion years or so from the time we're discussing. That is DNA, we're talking about RNA and the structures would be incredibly less complex than the human genome.

    It's emergent, there's no goal or purpose.
     
  7. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ya luv ta pick on a slow feller with only one functional brain cell don't ya? :eyepopping: :fart:

    Who ever said I "denied" the theory of evolution? Not me. :eye: :roll:
     
  8. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Chaos begets more chaos: never order. As I said: yer religion takes a lot more faith then does mine.
     
  9. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
  10. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
  11. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    en·tro·py   [en-truh-pee]
    noun
    1.
    Thermodynamics .
    a.
    (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
    b.
    (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S

    Not reading any of the links provided? I'm not the least bit surprised.

    That's fine, I don't let the willfully ignorant such as yourself drag me down. I'm here to encourage learning and help those who aren't willfully ignoring the facts to gain a better understanding of our world. Your attempts to obstruct that are duly noted and easily observed.
     
  12. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Prior to the current universe that the best theory states sprang from a "singularity" there was no space/time/matter/energy: Einstein.

    In fact: yer law of relativity and yer bud Planks' quantom mechanics breaks down as does thermodynamics. Imagine that.... duh yup... duh yup... burp...

    Sounds a whole lot like a creation event to a foolish hill billy like me.

    BTW: did ya know that if Jesus had picked a slightly slower or faster rate of initial expansion after the "big bang", (out to 40 plus zeros), we would have collapsed into another singularity or the sub neutron/proton/electron particles would have never corndensed into proton/neutron/electrons ta form momma hydrogen..... burp....

    As I said it takes lots more faith to believe in yer godless religion then my belief in Jesus Christ.
    :thumbsup:
     
  13. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So now you've abandoned evolution and moved on to the creation of our planet/universe.

    Incredibly uninteresting, I could claim it was set in motion by a band of flying heavy metal unicorns and you couldn't disprove it.

    Let's try to get back on the topic of life having a common ancestor, the concepts of decent with modification and speciation are important and support the common ancestor theory.
     
  14. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So ya wanna talk about yer religion eh? :eyepopping:
     
  15. krunkskimo

    krunkskimo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what excatlly is taken on faith in science?

    one doesnt need faith for emperical data or observation. neither does one need faith to theorize.
     
  16. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If ya know anything about the theory of evolution or Darwinism you would know the "faith" in those theories by a lot of folks has very little ta do with science.

    True.
     
  17. krunkskimo

    krunkskimo New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0

    seems to me all of it's based on observation, an observation which has been made over and over again. Also an observation which has yet to be contradicted by a competing observation.

    Do you have any examples where faith in evolution is required?
     
  18. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would suggest that many people 'believe' in evolution as if it were carved in granite. They couldn't explain it and probably can't even correctly describe what it entails and means...but they 'believe'. They 'have faith' that the 'theory' is correct.
     
  19. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's based on obseravtion.
     
  20. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Lordy....... I sure wish I could spell...... (only one functional brain cell)..... :roll:

    *observation*
     
  21. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Lots of folks have the same faith in gravity, they can't explain why it exists but they know that it does. We don't decry believers in gravity though because they can't explain the phenomenon.

    Anyone who understands evolution knows it's not carved in stone, but they do know that there is a lot of evidence to support it and that there's been no other theory that is as broadly accepted. There have been other theories presented, but the data simply doesn't support them.

    Again, there is no faith needed to believe the theory of evolution is correct. Observations and evidence eliminate the need for faith.
     
  22. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It is not the same "faith" as the EXPERIENCE OF GRAVITY, as Commie kool aid doesn't need ta tell them about gravity: they ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE IT.

    True, not that it has anything ta do with the price of beans in Boston.... burp...

    NOT due to their own EXPERIENCE, butt: the flavor of and their "faith" in the kool aid they drink. :sunnysideup:

    MMM...mmm...mmm tastes good: (that Commie kool aid stuff, yowza...) burp..... :eye:

    Kool aid... data.... kool aid.... who knows.... butt: that kool aid... er ah.... burp... data... surely tastes great.... :roll:

    Translation: if ya drink enough Commie kool aid you will even believe Obamaprompter is one of the four greatest Presidents in American history.... burp... n' yasureyabetcha.... evolution... data... duh yup... duh yup...

    burp.... pffffffffffffft.... a little green house gas... (fer some man made global warmin') wink... snark.... burp...
    :fart:
     
  23. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We do experience aspects of evolution. We can see micro evolution, such as the example of the finches and the pine cones. We also observe and experience natural selection, outside of humanity the laws of nature still apply and the weakest of the flock are the most likely to be eaten by predators or die of starvation.

    Evolution is not only an observed and observable event, but it's supportable on a cellular level, if you accept that heredity exists and that we inherit traits from our parents you're accepting a tenant of evolution ie The laws of independent assortment and segregation.

    The only aspects we can't experience are those that occur over a duration much longer than our life times, do you also deny plate tectonics for the same reason? Do you not believe in the ice age because you didn't experience it?
     
  24. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I accept plausible theories, (some aspects of evolution are plausible n' I do accept those aspects). That said: intelligent design fits our observations far better then does pure evolution, as God very likely uses evolution as part of the design.
     
  25. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm a man of faith, there's no reason whatsoever that God couldn't have created all of these processes and set the whole thing in motion. That's just not something that can be tested or falsified so can't fit into a scientific framework.
     

Share This Page