evolution

[ThaChozenWun]

But doesn't cloning take away what natural selection is suppose to do? Natural selection allows some random change to happen and selects what is good and rejects what is not. Chances are scientists know what it is they are changing and whether or not they should accept this change. How can natural selection do the same thing? And if evolution is a slow process, then why is there a rush to make the theory a law? So far, no one has been able to observe and identify with accuracy what happens when one species becomes a totally different species or a variant of the same species. We can draw pictures and compare the fossil record, but it doesn't precisely show the process in which those changes happen.

Well we are still evolving, it's just to us its hard to notice because we live but a mere 70-80 years on average so we dont get to see it. I brought up cloning as a point that they could create a single celled organism, seperate it from all aquired traits it may have, create a prehistoric enivorment for it, allow it to live in that area for millions of years, and it will evolve. As to why they are rushing it I dont think they are. I think it has such a strong belief within the scientific community that to them its enough evidence to make it law so they are trying to. Evolution has shown enough evidence to prove our bone structure has evolved over time and has show DNA evidence that we are linked through chromosones with animals. There is absolutely zero evidence that we were made this way by a great creator. None at all, even people with Ancient Alien theories have better evidence to support its claim. To be honest people with an Ancient Alien theory have even more evidence to support its claim than evolutionist do.

 

[alissowack]

Well we are still evolving, it's just to us its hard to notice because we live but a mere 70-80 years on average so we dont get to see it. I brought up cloning as a point that they could create a single celled organism, seperate it from all aquired traits it may have, create a prehistoric enivorment for it, allow it to live in that area for millions of years, and it will evolve. As to why they are rushing it I dont think they are. I think it has such a strong belief within the scientific community that to them its enough evidence to make it law so they are trying to. Evolution has shown enough evidence to prove our bone structure has evolved over time and has show DNA evidence that we are linked through chromosones with animals. There is absolutely zero evidence that we were made this way by a great creator. None at all, even people with Ancient Alien theories have better evidence to support its claim. To be honest people with an Ancient Alien theory have even more evidence to support its claim than evolutionist do.

Does cloning suppose to take an existing cell and duplicate it? I don't know if scientists are still trying, but there was a failed attempt to try to make a single-cell organism from elements they believe were on the earth. There is the fossil record and DNA similarities, but there has to be more to it than that. And when someone says that something is created, is right to assume that someone thinks "God" did it; that maybe they are not saying that a deity is the source?

 

[whar67]

This is what I see from natural selection: You go and you observe various types of species. You compare bone structures and if there is DNA you compare it too. If there are similarities, then there is common anscestory. Natural selection should tell us to do more than just look at the evidence. Science tells us to do more than that. There ought to be ways of putting quantitative numbers to this. Natural selection says that variation, inheritence, high population, and survival rate are factors. What other things have been done to show that they are. What tests have been ran to re-create what natural selection does? Is it possible to take an existing species and let natural selection determine what it should adapt to?

Most of what you are asking is found in biology classes. Biology 101 might not delve into it but people have been testing and experimenting with natural selection for over a century. It has an enormous body of work supporting it.

Several experiments have been run on species placed into an environment where a known change would be selectively advantageous testing to see how long the trait would take to arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

These bacteria are an example.

If you are genuinely interested in finding this information college level biology courses are a must. You will not get any kind of quality answer here.

 

[Hyde Parke]

If you are genuinely interested in finding this information college level biology courses are a must. You will not get any kind of quality answer here.

Did you just deem the entire thread, posters included, irrelevant? lol, wow.

 

[whar67]

Did you just deem the entire thread, posters included, irrelevant? lol, wow.

Just the post from Alisswack seem to ask question best suited to genuine study. No offesne was meant :0

This site has a great amount of evidence for common descent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[alissowack]

Most of what you are asking is found in biology classes. Biology 101 might not delve into it but people have been testing and experimenting with natural selection for over a century. It has an enormous body of work supporting it.

Several experiments have been run on species placed into an environment where a known change would be selectively advantageous testing to see how long the trait would take to arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

These bacteria are an example.

If you are genuinely interested in finding this information college level biology courses are a must. You will not get any kind of quality answer here.

My issue isn't whether evolution happens for it does and the bacteria is one example. But does evolution accurate account for all of life? If all of life came from a single cell, what has been shown to say that it has? What did nature do in which that single cell came to be; what are the elements involved? And if the elements comprised of components itself, what are those?

 

[TheCATthatdidntDIE]

^ There you have it lol

dude, wtf? are you sarcastic? or a racist sheep?

 

[TheCATthatdidntDIE]

Does cloning suppose to take an existing cell and duplicate it? I don't know if scientists are still trying, but there was a failed attempt to try to make a single-cell organism from elements they believe were on the earth. There is the fossil record and DNA similarities, but there has to be more to it than that. And when someone says that something is created, is right to assume that someone thinks "God" did it; that maybe they are not saying that a deity is the source?

if we can clone a lamb, who's to say a single cell organism isnt in store for the future?

 

[TheCATthatdidntDIE]

and as to whether this thread is irrelevant, its only because i enjoy watching people argue and i dont feel like bringing all the information i have gathered to the table. really, i just wanted to see a decent debate that didnt lead to insults, and it sort of worked. but, this thread is kind of useless. but no one else made one on evolution so i felt like it was about time. or if they did it was before i got here

 

[alissowack]

if we can clone a lamb, who's to say a single cell organism isnt in store for the future?

Maybe...if that cloned lamb was not a product of the original lamb. If scientists are able to assemble what nature did to come up with the first lamb, then you got something. If all of life started with a single-cell, what was the formula that nature used and the ingredients?

 

[TheCATthatdidntDIE]

Maybe...if that cloned lamb was not a product of the original lamb. If scientists are able to assemble what nature did to come up with the first lamb, then you got something. If all of life started with a single-cell, what was the formula that nature used and the ingredients?

do you mean the primordial oooze thing? if you really want to know ill talk to some scientists again. it has been awhile since i caught up on the recent research.

 

[whar67]

My issue isn't whether evolution happens for it does and the bacteria is one example. But does evolution accurate account for all of life? If all of life came from a single cell, what has been shown to say that it has? What did nature do in which that single cell came to be; what are the elements involved? And if the elements comprised of components itself, what are those?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This link is broad exploration of the very question you raised. Though I believe they would say a single specie of cells rather than a single cell alone.

The rest of your question regard abiogenesis which is not part of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis as a field in rather new and does not have a theory developed but has made several interesting discoveries lately.

For instance in the right conditions (similar to those on early earth) amino acids will naturally form. They also found that nucleuic acids and lipids naturally form in these conditions. They have also seen lipid shell surround these acids. Several of the early steps needed for life to arise.

 

[alissowack]

What I've learned so far is that the study of evolution seems to be strictly about observing. But want I want to know that in the observing phase is anyone trying to do any calculations as far as the number of changes that takes place that allows some species to evolve. The universal common descent model is alright in showing genetics, but it doesn't explain what changes takes place when species become something else. I would think that if we humans had something in common with fish that maybe there are a lot of changes that happen in the process. How does nature take on such a task. Is it immediate or does it take some millions of years to do so. And if it does take a while, then is it possible to find a whole lot of transitional evidence out there for that?