[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.
All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]
Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]
Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]
Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Doesn’t need to be the fittest, only fit enough to survive. Its harder to understand at a cellular level but bigger examples make sense. For example an animal that needs food to survive that is becoming harder to acquire. The faster/stronger one will have an advantage but a weaker/smaller one will be able to survive on less food, so it also has an advantage.
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Wrt(with respect to) evolution, fittest is a relative term that is only applicable at that moment, when the environment changes or something else changes, what was fittest yesterday may no longer be the fittest today.
For example, back on that circular diagram of the history of the earth, before the presence of atmospheric oxygen, to be fit was to be able to survive without oxygen. As oxygen levels increased, it became fit to be able to have an oxygen based metabolism in order to survive and reproduce.[/quote]
That makes sense now because life is so diverse, but back then life should have been very similiar right? So life cycles should have been ciruclar in that each generation would replicate and the strongest destory the weakest and so on and so forth. So only the apex organisms would survice each cycle, does that make sense?
I just don’t see how an organism as weak as say a grasshooper could survive against say a lion during the evolutionary process, how could it?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Obviously I don’t know the answer maybe it was (I doubt it). The thing is, did cells just all of a sudden start appearing all of the world at once or did one cell lead all cells? I always thought the generally consensus was was that one cell started it all, is that not the case? [/quote]
Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change?[/quote]
Because we know replication isn’t perfect, errors arise. Mutations. Some of these errors aren’t expressed. Some are, but have little to no influence on the organism’s thriving. Some are deadly. And here and there it’s actually beneficial. That’s an adaption Perhaps it makes better use of nutrients (especially prior to full blown photosynthesis and aerobic respiration). Consequently, it replicates more often.
Different errors, different adaptions, leading to filling of different niches in the environment. One advantageous adaption is to be able to outcompete/breed. One is to not compete in the first place. At least not with the original population. New adaptions arise in these different niches, compounded over a large expanse of time. Adaption after adaption after adaption. Rinse and repeat. Then there’s organism radiating out into different environments, with their own pressures, favoring different traits again. Some can hack it there, some can’t. Perhaps the one that can’t was top dog in it’s prior environment. Or, the environment simply changes, and the losers become the winners.
[/quote]
I guess I just don’t grasp the concept. It just doesn’t compute to me that a cell would divide and evolve into an apex predator and the other cell would evolve into a prey item.
Thanks for the explanation though. I understand what you’re saying I just don’t understand the why behind it?
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Wrt(with respect to) evolution, fittest is a relative term that is only applicable at that moment, when the environment changes or something else changes, what was fittest yesterday may no longer be the fittest today.
For example, back on that circular diagram of the history of the earth, before the presence of atmospheric oxygen, to be fit was to be able to survive without oxygen. As oxygen levels increased, it became fit to be able to have an oxygen based metabolism in order to survive and reproduce.[/quote]
That makes sense now because life is so diverse, but back then life should have been very similiar right? So life cycles should have been ciruclar in that each generation would replicate and the strongest destory the weakest and so on and so forth. So only the apex organisms would survice each cycle, does that make sense?
I just don’t see how an organism as weak as say a grasshooper could survive against say a lion during the evolutionary process, how could it? [/quote]
Do you see lions going out of their way to kill grasshoppers?
For a lion to continuing existing on consuming grasshoppers wouldn’t be a very efficient means of acquiring nutrition. A lion and a grasshopper compete for different resources and seldom(I imagine) do these paths cross.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.
All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]
Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]
Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]
Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Doesn’t need to be the fittest, only fit enough to survive. Its harder to understand at a cellular level but bigger examples make sense. For example an animal that needs food to survive that is becoming harder to acquire. The faster/stronger one will have an advantage but a weaker/smaller one will be able to survive on less food, so it also has an advantage.[/quote]
What were the original cells surviving against? Each other? The environment?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What were the original cells surviving against? Each other? The environment? [/quote]
It really depends on how competitive for nutrients a cell has to be to survive and reproduce/replicate. The scarcer that resources are, the more competitive one has to be.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess I just don’t grasp the concept. It just doesn’t compute to me that a cell would divide and evolve into an apex predator and the other cell would evolve into a prey item. [/quote]
You need think look at the bigger picture. One animal can be a predator wrt another animal, and be prey to another animal. Just take a look at a food web.
I would say that the way is that the goal of any species with a finite lifespan is to reproduce itself, and in order to do this nutrients and other things have to be acquired, and these nutrients happen to be available in surplus or limited quantities.
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Wrt(with respect to) evolution, fittest is a relative term that is only applicable at that moment, when the environment changes or something else changes, what was fittest yesterday may no longer be the fittest today.
For example, back on that circular diagram of the history of the earth, before the presence of atmospheric oxygen, to be fit was to be able to survive without oxygen. As oxygen levels increased, it became fit to be able to have an oxygen based metabolism in order to survive and reproduce.[/quote]
That makes sense now because life is so diverse, but back then life should have been very similiar right? So life cycles should have been ciruclar in that each generation would replicate and the strongest destory the weakest and so on and so forth. So only the apex organisms would survice each cycle, does that make sense?
I just don’t see how an organism as weak as say a grasshooper could survive against say a lion during the evolutionary process, how could it? [/quote]
Do you see lions going out of their way to kill grasshoppers?
For a lion to continuing existing on consuming grasshoppers wouldn’t be a very efficient means of acquiring nutrition. A lion and a grasshopper compete for different resources and seldom(I imagine) do these paths cross.[/quote]
I get that, maybe it was a bad example. What I don’t get is why one became a grasshopper and the other became a lion if they both came from the same cell via evolution.
I don’t mean in todays world. Obviosuly a lion does not compete with a grasshopper for survival.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.
All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]
Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]
Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]
Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Yes and their fitter offspring would replace them and so further and so on.
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Wrt(with respect to) evolution, fittest is a relative term that is only applicable at that moment, when the environment changes or something else changes, what was fittest yesterday may no longer be the fittest today.
For example, back on that circular diagram of the history of the earth, before the presence of atmospheric oxygen, to be fit was to be able to survive without oxygen. As oxygen levels increased, it became fit to be able to have an oxygen based metabolism in order to survive and reproduce.[/quote]
That makes sense now because life is so diverse, but back then life should have been very similiar right? So life cycles should have been ciruclar in that each generation would replicate and the strongest destory the weakest and so on and so forth. So only the apex organisms would survice each cycle, does that make sense?
I just don’t see how an organism as weak as say a grasshooper could survive against say a lion during the evolutionary process, how could it? [/quote]
Do you see lions going out of their way to kill grasshoppers?
For a lion to continuing existing on consuming grasshoppers wouldn’t be a very efficient means of acquiring nutrition. A lion and a grasshopper compete for different resources and seldom(I imagine) do these paths cross.[/quote]
I get that, maybe it was a bad example. What I don’t get is why one became a grasshopper and the other became a lion if they both came from the same cell via evolution.
I don’t mean in todays world. Obviosuly a lion does not compete with a grasshopper for survival. [/quote]
Would it be easier to understand a lion vs tiger rather than a lion vs grasshopper?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Obviously I don’t know the answer maybe it was (I doubt it). The thing is, did cells just all of a sudden start appearing all of the world at once or did one cell lead all cells? I always thought the generally consensus was was that one cell started it all, is that not the case? [/quote]
It’s open to debate.[/quote]
I can practically guarantee that no thing as complex as a cell would simply poof into existence.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.
All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]
Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]
Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]
Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Yes and their fitter offspring would replace them and so further and so on.
[/quote]
That makes sense in todayâ??s world, but not in the beginning. Life was not diverse when it first came into existence right? We are talking like 1 species a singles celled ameba. I have a hard time seeing how all the diversity that exists today came from that.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I get that, maybe it was a bad example. What I don’t get is why one became a grasshopper and the other became a lion if they both came from the same cell via evolution. [/quote]
Here’s a link but I don’t think it is all inclusive to my list
Look up these terms:
Genetic drift
Founder effect
Bottleneck Effect
Gene flow
Directional, Disruptive, and Stabilizing Selection
Habitat Isolation
Temporal Isolation
Behavioral Isolation
Mechanical Isolation
Allopatrie (“Other Country”) Speciation
Sympatric (“Same Country”) Speciation
Polyploidy
Habitat Differentiation
Sexual Selection
I know it’s kind of long but once you start to understand some you’ll see how the rest fit in.
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Wrt(with respect to) evolution, fittest is a relative term that is only applicable at that moment, when the environment changes or something else changes, what was fittest yesterday may no longer be the fittest today.
For example, back on that circular diagram of the history of the earth, before the presence of atmospheric oxygen, to be fit was to be able to survive without oxygen. As oxygen levels increased, it became fit to be able to have an oxygen based metabolism in order to survive and reproduce.[/quote]
That makes sense now because life is so diverse, but back then life should have been very similiar right? So life cycles should have been ciruclar in that each generation would replicate and the strongest destory the weakest and so on and so forth. So only the apex organisms would survice each cycle, does that make sense?
I just don’t see how an organism as weak as say a grasshooper could survive against say a lion during the evolutionary process, how could it? [/quote]
Do you see lions going out of their way to kill grasshoppers?
For a lion to continuing existing on consuming grasshoppers wouldn’t be a very efficient means of acquiring nutrition. A lion and a grasshopper compete for different resources and seldom(I imagine) do these paths cross.[/quote]
I get that, maybe it was a bad example. What I don’t get is why one became a grasshopper and the other became a lion if they both came from the same cell via evolution.
I don’t mean in todays world. Obviosuly a lion does not compete with a grasshopper for survival. [/quote]
Are you comfortable with mutations. With errors in replicating genetic material? You understand this happens? If so…
That different errors happen?
That different errors can compound on each other over time?
That the genetic ‘errors’ are expressed (not always) as actual traits?
That the environment (including predation later) can ‘edit’ out maladaptive traits, and support adaptive traits to differing degrees.
There is more than one way survive? That is, a number of differing adaptions can survive nature and thrive? That those differences can be compounded by additional adaptions over time? Until you have a divergence so profound, you’re left with your apex predator and your minnow?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]
You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.
All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]
Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]
Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]
Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]
Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]
That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.[/quote]
Yes and their fitter offspring would replace them and so further and so on.
[/quote]
That makes sense in todayâ??s world, but not in the beginning. Life was not diverse when it first came into existence right? We are talking like 1 species a singles celled ameba. I have a hard time seeing how all the diversity that exists today came from that.
[/quote]
Why?
Every new mutation that survives forms a new line.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Obviously I don’t know the answer maybe it was (I doubt it). The thing is, did cells just all of a sudden start appearing all of the world at once or did one cell lead all cells? I always thought the generally consensus was was that one cell started it all, is that not the case? [/quote]
It’s open to debate.[/quote]
I can practically guarantee that no thing as complex as a cell would simply poof into existence. [/quote]
I was referring to the possibility that there was more than one cell type in the beginning and that one may have died out.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< I was referring to the possibility that there was more than one cell type in the beginning and that one may have died out.[/quote]And you don’t find this to be a statement of faith huh? Well folks, I stopped in long enough to read the rather energetic discussion that has taken place in my absence. I must report that once again, the truism that epistemology is indeed the key to absolutely everything regarding human thought and knowledge continues to show itself to be the case.
EDIT: Not that anybody will probably care, but here is a man who earned his doctorate and left medical school as a committed atheistic evolutionist. After hearing the work of Dr. A.E. Wilder Smith, a man with three earned doctorates and numerous posts of scientific responsibility (since that’s what seems to twirl everyone’s beanie around here), on how bio informational reality is entirely inexplicable on the basis of any possible version of evolution, he eventually was subdued and redeemed by the living God. He gives some examples of how the belief that DNA coding arose without God is a straining of credulity the embracing of which requires other than any sort of adherence to the “evidence”.
I agree. You will not. Hence my unshakable conviction that epistemology must happen first. Pat, once again oblivious to the true import of his own occasional profundity, already said that. However if I were to pin him on it now he’d deny it and after I proved to him he did, he’d put me on double ignore to escape again.
And you don’t find this to be a statement of faith huh? Well folks, I stopped in long enough to read the rather energetic discussion that has taken place in my absence. I must report that once again, the truism that epistemology is indeed the key to absolutely everything regarding human thought and knowledge continues to show itself to be the case.[/quote]
What I didn’t say, and what you continue to apparently maybe even intentionally overlook, was that it was fact. USMC had a question, I provided an answer, THE END.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I always thought the generally consensus was was that one cell started it all, is that not the case? [/quote]
Stating that there is a possibility that more than one cell type(or whatever the first instance of life may have been) existed in the beginning was not a statement of fact. I clearly said it was a possibility, not that it was something that I believed to be true. Big difference Tiribulus, but I suppose you’re so used to picking and choosing what you read from a passage that it has become a fixed-action pattern.
The reason the discussion became more energetic was your absence.
I have a question for you, but I’m sure you’ll dodge it, why don’t you believe in the Gods of Hinduism?
