The meaningless Orgins theory.

[Technosoul]

I am trying to interrupt where you are not understanding what genes are.

When you say genes in the womb, I can only help but think you did not understand my description of Meiosis.

Your body is made of cells. Within a cell contains information that controls what a cell does. The way cells reproduce is by splitting in half and creating a replica of itself. So the only way to replicate itself is by replicating its genes.

The way sex cells reproduce is key to understanding the variation that occurs within a species. When I say variation in the gene pool I say that I have different looks then you, and you have different looks then gallo etc. Some people have big necks, and some people have small noses.

When sex cells reproduce your fathers genes combine with your mothers genes forming a new type of gene that has never existed before. Please note this happens only in your body, I am referring to your sperm. Sex cells do not contain 2 sets of 23 genes/46 genes they contain 1 set of 23 genes/23 genes. The idea is that the genes you got from your mother and father form into one sex cell (sperm) and then can be used in a new generation, which requires that sex cell to connect with another sex cell (sperm connects with the embryo)


This is an ongoing process that may have been going on for 4.6 billion years on this earth. Now compare that amount of time to the amount of time humans were around and you will see that it is an extremely short period of time.

With these simple facts (maybe gallo could correct me or articulate some things I said better) in mind, there is no way you can deny evolution.

So can you see how a wolf like creature can turn into a dolphin? Many years of reproducing...

Spread the genes out as much as possible or reproducing is the first step in understanding how looks change over time.

The second step in understanding how looks change over time is by learning how the environment effects the spread of genes as well.




and because the environments of nature are the same as the womb? Are you still connected to what I said?

[/QUOTE]

Yes I do understand.

Allow me to demonstrate his in my own words for your review. The body has many cells and divide to reproduce, here we see that somehow those thousands of cells have collected together to form a larger (more or less) self-contained single unit - the human body ( or animals body -etc.). These single cells have internal instructions and together they make up the total 'mass' of the body. These cells are involved in a network system that is inter-connected with other cells that work together to form the sinular purpose of that body. (or purposes). The oganization is supervised by other factors but the other factors are still part of that singular system of operation - the total body. The larger complexity.

The cells formulate as different organs within the body that perform diffeent purposes for the networking system of the body. Cordinated by a communicational network of electronic like signals or energy, nerves, chemicals, and even actural thoughts. Changes and growth takes place relative to the totality of the body and partly due to cell replacements and that can be evidenced as age and biologically timed.

In reproduction from generation to generation most of the system is reproduced in order and is effected as that total organization. The lungs are in the same place as in the piror generation. Not much in the way of randomness happens because the next person does not have a heart where the big toe belongs. However the nose might be bigger or the legs longer. Or shorter. But it is still a nose and it is where it should be located. The nose of a dolphin does not operate just like the nose of a dog nor is it in the same location. That is a "big jump" in change.
But possible. The nose (gills) of a fish are designed for one particular environment - water. The nose of a dog is designed for it's enviroment, as well as with smelling senses to detect food and so forth. The dolphin nose is designed to breath air from above the surface but also designed not to chock on the water by strong exhale. The dolphin has no reason to sniff around at trees for scents. Therefore. If the doggie Dolphin did change is is because it was adapting to a new environment and somehow the genes would have to sense that such a change was urgent or predicted to be urgent for the sake of the survival of future generations, hardly a random accident. But it is also logical that they always lived along the coast and took advantage of interchangable environments. Perhaps at one time venturing onto beaches to reproduce like seals but later evolved ways to do that underwater and so they no longer needed feet (or even lippers). We have lizards that share two environements of land and sea. And off Caifornia we have snakes that live in the ocean.
Animals that enjoy multi environments is not all that uncommon. The african catfish can walk on land and if one pond dries up it simply walks over to another pond. Other catfish cannot do that. But the point is that environments influence the changes if such transfomations are happening. However environments do not directly control growth and so I did not agree with Gallo the the womb is an environment that can cause changes as an infant is transformed from one 'shape' of creature into another 'shape'. Starting off as a microscopic sized being. One idea in evolution is that single cells evolved into higher froms of animals but the fact is that they "collected in units" to make up the larger identity.
A single cell reproducing more of it's own to form a community of cells that then operate as a more complex system as a dog, or what have you.
Like our culture as a unit would have reproduced more people until we had lots of people who then had different tasks for that single-unit culture - plumbers, brick layers, computer operaters, chemists, scientists, lawyers, doctors, and housewives. Each representing an organ for the total system of united operation. (as a anology). Was a plumber effected by random accidents or because he filled a need that became evident as the total environmental culture advanced? Now a tree has no heart to pump sap up and down from root to outer branch, that is controled by environemental temperatures. Where as a human has an internal temperature our "sap" remains warm blooded. So we need a pump to keep the cirulation going. (and a plumber would be handy if you get a heart attack). point being - we have lots of factors to concider and options to study to formulate our opinons about evolution or adaptation. Like comparing social science facts with biological facts and seeing if some common denominator sheds any light on our understanding about life, growth, and change. And to question 'are environments also the products of evoluton'? Or is evolution the side effect of the environment? Or do both influence the other? Are both the same thing? Not just as an abstract philosophy or 'belief' but as something realistic and logical.

We would need to comprehend how randomness can effect logical order, that is the basic key to the so-called mystery. logical order would mean that eliminaiton of pointless directions would happen until only the most workable directions survived.

Now about the sex genes you talked about. It is true that to insure connection a lot of them are produced and it would seem by random chance only one of many would join one of many to produce the conception. And based on that we assume that one of many potentials would be passed on by that random chance. The math is the math but the theory would be hard to test. To do so you would have to use the same female egg and have different sperms connect with it to see if they all came out as different individuals or as clones. Being you could not re-use the egg which is also part of the growth process the theory of diversity cannot be factually tested under lab conditions. Otherwise you can speculate the chances favor potential diversity.

Now the combination is in fact a new individual identity unlike any other but that does not prove that if another sperm had reached the egg that it would be unlike the one that did - result wise. As they are produced under the same conditions from the same source at the same time. And also, this is not proof that the reproduction of one couple could change the whole speices. Anology - it rains form a cloud and the water forms fozen particles of snow, each flake has it's own design like no other flake in history. However that does not effect the over all image of snow as snow, nor does that cause any kind of evolution in the nature or make up that process. If snow is always snow then people are always people no matter what individual designs might be noticed among them.

[ZNFYRH]

This is allowed to illustrate what I was claiming in the O.P. which asked why do people conduct these "silly" debates about "orgins". At least your observation is on the right track relative to the topic of the OP statements.

If you wanted to show that all sides of the origins debate are meaningless, you should probably have said "theories" instead of "theory."

I do agree... since no one "knows" anything about this stuff, opinion is fine but rational debate is pointless.

[Technosoul]

If you wanted to show that all sides of the origins debate are meaningless, you should probably have said "theories" instead of "theory."

I do agree... since no one "knows" anything about this stuff, opinion is fine but rational debate is pointless.

Logically science should have one theory unless they think that the universe has many orgins which would require theories.

And you are correct - it is an opinion about proposed ideas, and an interpretaion of one community attempts to offer evidence.

[ryanatau]

Logically science should have one theory unless they think that the universe has many orgins which would require theories.

And you are correct - it is an opinion about proposed ideas, and an interpretaion of one community attempts to offer evidence.

Science does not need one theory and it does not follow from science having more than one that they believe in more than one origin. What it means is that science, collectively, does not know what happened at the beginning and instead is just postulating possibilities.

Also, it sound like you think science is this linear organism that can only say one thing, when in actuality science is made up of a bunch of individuals, following a general outline, that postulate about possibilities. Eventually, these possibilities, or hypothesis, are ruled out and one may remain. In any case, it is not over at that point, if another possibility is found then it too is considered. The hope is that over time we will move closer and closer to the actual truth, probably in small incremental steps, with short limited periods of great growth. Sound a bit like evolution?

[Technosoul]

Gallo - I checked out the webpage about the history of whales again. The doggie creature has ear bones simular to the whale, which has not be found in any other fosils of other potential whale anscesters. The webpage said they could not date how old that doggie fosil is. But they SPECULATE it lived on earth about 50 millions years ago.

Another whale ansester, the Basilosaurids, are dated to be a about 35 to 41 million years ago in age.

The oldest whale fosil indicates whales lived here about 50 million years ago.

Not sure how the whale exsisted before it's ansester but facts are facts.

Apparently the doggie guy and the dolphin guy adopted some of the same designs for survival at about the same time in evolutionary history.

The evolution from one to the other had to happen in a short time frame of about a million years. I am not debating that such would not be long enough to get the job done.

The teeth of the doggie guy are simular to the teeth of prehistoric whales.
sort of anyway.

But because they cannot date how old the doggie guy is relative to how old the first whale is we lack the most important proof needed, as to whcih one might have evolved the other one - or even if with sureness that they can be linked progressively or not. They are comparing a fosil with an unknown age with one they can date. For all I know the doggie guy exsited only 2 million years ago, not 55 or 60 million years ago.
As it was undatable.

Now if doggie fosil (A) ate a whale 50 million year ago and died before all the whale was digested then DNA samples of the whale could have been disposited in the remians of fosil (A). And if they took one sample they might have by random chance collected a sample of the whale that fosil (A) doggie had ate. And then said "hey, doggie is a whale". eh? mistakes can happen.

The complete evidence is not there, no time frame to work with.
They might be two different animals that lived around about the same time in simular environmental conditions. DNA family tree stuff is not conclusive when it comes to proving evolution from one speices to another one. The human DNA is a close match to that of a Dolphin also, and the the human DNA is a close match to the common earthworm. Did one evolve from the other and do we share the same family tree? Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

Here is the scientific proof about the human-Dolphin family tree.

Human genes are helping Texas A&M veterinarians unlock the genetic code of dolphins

For more details enroll your self in this class.

West Middle School 8 Science

[gallo]

If the doggie Dolphin did change is is because it was adapting to a new environment and somehow the genes would have to sense that such a change was urgent or predicted to be urgent for the sake of the survival of future generations, hardly a random accident.

Sometimes the ignorance is so pervasive that it seems a hopeless task to educate the unknowing. How could anyone have so little understanding of biology, evolutionary theory and genetics that they make statements like the above. Lamarckism was rejected over 150 years ago, and it is still proposed as a mechanism of evolution by those who either haven't bothered to learn, or those who lack the ability to understand.

Genes do not change as a response to the environment nor in an effort to match it.

[gallo]

Here is the scientific proof about the human-Dolphin family tree.

Put on the pointy hat and sit in the corner. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Besides, you are confused by what you read. Perhaps if you actually learned some biology first.

[Technosoul]

Sometimes the ignorance is so pervasive that it seems a hopeless task to educate the unknowing. How could anyone have so little understanding of biology, evolutionary theory and genetics that they make statements like the above. Lamarckism was rejected over 150 years ago, and it is still proposed as a mechanism of evolution by those who either haven't bothered to learn, or those who lack the ability to understand.

Genes do not change as a response to the environment nor in an effort to match it.

So what? Feet are for walking around in a land envrionment and if the feet were discontinued then that was due to the ocean envrionment.
Here we see that use and non-useage would be the main factor.
The useage (of feet) for remaining mobel on land is one evolved way to get around but if the creature changed it's environment - for life in water - then feet would no longer have any useful purpose. This is not to suggest the environment "directed" the change (elimination process) but that the environment played a role in the fact the creature no longer needed feet to remian mobel.

What I (intended) to point out is that "doggie guy" could not have prepared for adapation to ocean life until after it had been deep water for a while. Not before (while on dry land) - unless coastal or in swamplands where flooding was a seasonal happening.

That would suggest adapting to a swamp environment from a dryland environment, then progressively adapting to an ocean environment totally. So the environment would indeed play a role in the changes that took place in the animal. That is just plain common sense.

A number of animals and fish lay their eggs on the beach so the sun can hatch them under the sand. Then high tide or instintive directional habits take them back to sea after birth. Now a sea turtle still has legs like it's landbased relatives, which it uses only during egg laying on the beach. But if for some "random reason" the turtle learned to do that all underwater then it would no doubt (or perhaps) loose it's feet, as they would have no more purpose. Whales often give birth is shallow bays near the coast, and perhaps in the past they gave birth on beaches like the seals do, but no longer do that and so lost the need for feet. Perhaps the relative high I.Q. of the Dolphin aided in that ability for them to give birth under water.

I know I am thinking outside the box on this, which is apparent by your reaction to my statements, and you cannot adapt to my environment outside of your box. Too bad.

Genetics might seem random because you have a number of different possible connections that could be made to consitute a conception. But each of the possible combinations all contain coded insturctions that are not alien from the sources of other potential combinations that could be concepted. The coded programing passed on from generation to generation is not just about the survival of individual genes or cells, but is programed by the totality of the animals containing those genes which is likewise programed by events of the external environment. To suggest those activities are isolated from one another is in my opion not logical at all.

[Technosoul]

Science does not need one theory and it does not follow from science having more than one that they believe in more than one origin. What it means is that science, collectively, does not know what happened at the beginning and instead is just postulating possibilities.

Also, it sound like you think science is this linear organism that can only say one thing, when in actuality science is made up of a bunch of individuals, following a general outline, that postulate about possibilities. Eventually, these possibilities, or hypothesis, are ruled out and one may remain. In any case, it is not over at that point, if another possibility is found then it too is considered. The hope is that over time we will move closer and closer to the actual truth, probably in small incremental steps, with short limited periods of great growth. Sound a bit like evolution?

I once propose that evolution in nature is the evolution of ideas. Not meaning evolution depended upon thinking gods of ideas, but rather, that ideas can ocur as potential principles in a kind of collective consciousness which can be downloaded by DNA and then manifested as physical changes. Peter Russell called it the 'global brain' theory but other scientists had coined other names that process. A kind of external memory bank for DNA modifications to gain direction form.
In that speculation the ideas or principles are stored in a collective consciousness that remains constant but can be added too. Which influences alternatives for adaptaion via the genetic coding processes.

That idea - being outside the box - was not well liked by the pro-scientists posting at this particular forum.

[rez]

If the doggie Dolphin did change is is because it was adapting to a new environment and somehow the genes would have to sense that such a change was urgent or predicted to be urgent for the sake of the survival of future generations, hardly a random accident.

Ugh, I explained this exact event in all my posts.

1.) Animal has certain characteristics and attributes.
2.)Animal lives in the environment.
3.) Animals attributes and characteristics may or may not be suitable for the conditions within the environment.
4.) If suitable, then animal sends its characteristics and attributes to its offspring.
5.) if not suitable, then animal does not send it characteristics and attributes to its offspring.
6.) Over millions of years of reproduction, watch animals characteristics and attributes change.

Genes do not sense anything nor does the animal. If the animal does not live well within the environment that it is born in then it will not survive to give its genes to offspring. The environment that the animal is born in is completely random, and so is the genes received by the parents. Like I said, not much intelligence in this design.

[Technosoul]

Put on the pointy hat and sit in the corner. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Besides, you are confused by what you read. Perhaps if you actually learned some biology first.

Actually it is a pyramid shaped hat that can focus power energy on the brain and make it as sharp as a razar.... if you want we can make you one to help out your condition - would you like a blue one with little stars on it?

Now if people can tell me that DNA matches is evidence that whales came form doggies I can use DNA matches as evidence that whales came from humans. With supporting webage as well.

Evidence based on investigations is proof enough in a court of law and good enough for debating you in front of our imaginary jury.

[Technosoul]

Ugh, I explained this exact event in all my posts.

1.) Animal has certain characteristics and attributes.
2.)Animal lives in the environment.
3.) Animals attributes and characteristics may or may not be suitable for the conditions within the environment.
4.) If suitable, then animal sends its characteristics and attributes to its offspring.
5.) if not suitable, then animal does not send it characteristics and attributes to its offspring.
6.) Over millions of years of reproduction, watch animals characteristics and attributes change.

Genes do not sense anything nor does the animal. If the animal does not live well within the environment that it is born in then it will not survive to give its genes to offspring. The environment that the animal is born in is completely random, and so is the genes received by the parents. Like I said, not much intelligence in this design.

That was the point of that argument, the doggie creature could not sense ahead of time and while still living on dry land that it must start to change it appearences to become suitable for ocean life (as a Dolphin) and the changes pictured in the drawings provided by Gallo about the evolution of the Whale & Dolphin is not good evidence, because the animal nor the genes could have known they needed to make those changes. And the link said they did it all in less then three million years and relative to the mainstream ideas about evolution that is pretty darn fast. The idea that they randomly learned how to live in the ocean by passed-downs in genetics (without being in the ocean yet) seems a bit strange and on the verge of being unbelievable. It would seem better if the genetic codeing and mutations had some sort of logical order about the processes involved, even if that logical pathway for alternative unfoldment was not supervised by what we call 'thinking and planning ahead" via a educated brain. I was not suggesting that the genes can think "gee, I think would like to live in the ocean so I better start adapting for that environment". I am not that stupid. I was pointing out that effects are the logical outcome of a cause - and environment would seem to be one of the most logical factors to use as a cause.

So we personally can think logically or we can remain unlogical due to the scientific evidence that is not proof of anything logical.