|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 20:33:58 GMT -5
I was watching the History channel the other day. Actually it was H2 (I guess there's more than one?) They were doing an entire series of shows on evolution/how humans came to be etc... It was very interesting and they were talking about the theory that all life forms came from the ocean. Well, I have always been puzzled about how this could be so I was very excited that someone was going to explain it to me. The shows they have are very in depth. To me, this means if they *know* something they are going to explain it. It is then up to the viewer to decide if they agree.
So I'm watching, and when the part about how humans evolved from the sea came up, imagine my shock and disappointment when they kind of just whizzed right by the explanation. This channel/show who ALWAYS describes *everything* in such great detail got to the most important friggin part and glossed right over it. Seriously, they literally *explained* it by saying (and I'm paraphrasing) something like "All mammals came from the ocean and then those mammals evolved into humans."....Well, awesome. HOW? How did that happen? Tell me what kind of organisms got together and started crawling on land and then tell me how something as complex as a human being came from that. Don't just friggin tell me this is how it happened without explaining why you think that.
Then it dawned on me as I sat there so disappointed. They aren't explaining exactly HOW it happened because they don't know. It's a theory. They don't really KNOW if it's accurate or not. This is why whenever I read about it or even watching that show it's always worded They "believe" this or they "believe" this is what happened next. They don't know that their theory is true anymore than people who believe we were created by God. It just depends on which one makes more sense to a person.
I guess my question is...how does the "All life came from the ocean" theory or the "Big Bang" theory or whatever other theories there are about how humans came to be make any more sense than the "God" theory? Nobody knows enough about any of them to explain how it actually happened. In every case they are simply stating what they "believe" to be true and what makes sense to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 22:19:16 GMT -5
Tricia, I'm no expert, but I can tell you that how the first life started (an organism able to move, consume and procreate) and how life evolved after that first creation, are two different questions. Scientists don't really have an answer as to how all the chemicals back then got together to make something living. Evolution, however, has left evidence in the form of fossils and by studying the myriad of living things and how they developed. As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason that a Creator couldn't have used evolution to create Humankind. But, of course, there's a variety of religious beliefs about that.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 22:20:32 GMT -5
The fossil record shows the evolution of the various species of life on earth. "God" is not a theory. "God" is the absence of a theory. Now, if you went beyond all that to the question of why anything exists in the first place, then you'd be in unknown territory. But the evolution of humans is fairly well understood (although there does seem to have been an acceleration in intellectual development that hasn't been accounted for). www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-fossil-record.htm#slideshow
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 22:25:00 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, the point of "theory". Yes, it is the Theory of Evolution, but what one has to understand is that the word "theory" here is used in the scientific sense, not in the vernacular sense. So, it dosen't mean that it's a "theory" because they don't know for sure. They do know for sure--in the scientific sense.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 22:29:12 GMT -5
Hi Lily,
I have a question about the evolution thing too...the show I was watching used a chimp as an example of when mammals started walking upright and then they went on and of course it looked like it eventually progressed in to humans. If monkeys evolved in to humans-how are there still monkeys? If it happened over thousands and thousands of years doesn't anyone find it odd that the monkey didn't phase out as they evolved into human beings? How would some evolve and some not after all this time?
What you said above is exactly what I was talking about. Scientists honestly don't know. They have theories and things they believe but they can't say for sure. When you look at all of the theories together, no one really knows what is true or how we truly came to be. I just find it weird that a scientist who believes in the theory of all things came from the sea or whatever could say his theory is more credible than another person who believes that the bible tells how humans came to be. Neither one can be proven any better than the other.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 22:33:55 GMT -5
Now you're being silly. Again, the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. There is zero evidence for the Biblical notion of creation (and copious evidence that it is bullshit). Are you losing the plot?
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 22:34:31 GMT -5
The fossil record shows the evolution of the various species of life on earth. "God" is not a theory. "God" is the absence of a theory. Now, if you went beyond all that to the question of why anything exists in the first place, then you'd be in unknown territory. But the evolution of humans is fairly well understood (although there does seem to have been an acceleration in intellectual development that hasn't been accounted for). www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-fossil-record.htm#slideshowThey addressed the intellectual development in the show...they said that when humans started cooking their food their stomachs were able to shrink because it didn't have to work as hard to digest. This left more room for the brain to expand...now, how someone's stomach shrinking makes their brain get bigger I don't know but that is what they said the reason was for humans being more intelligent. We're the only mammals that cook our food.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 22:35:43 GMT -5
I'm not losing the plot...I'm trying to figure out what the plot even is.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 22:41:29 GMT -5
We discussed that cookery theory here a couple of months ago. It's a nonsensical theory that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But the theory of evolution does stand up to scrutiny. There are still a few holes in it, but by and large it adds up and makes sense. Which is more than Noah's Ark does.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 22:49:25 GMT -5
It doesn't make sense to me. When you think about how complex we actually are. How all life is, really. How did that come from the ocean? I was watching that show just waiting for them to explain it and how it happened but it didn't. The only reason I can think of is because they just don't know.
I was going to say that too...someone did bring that up here about the cooking of the food and how that is what made humans evolve more intelligence wise than other mammals. I didn't understand it on the program I was watching because I don't know how a smaller stomach would make room for a bigger brain. AND...you don't use most of your brain (not *you*...you know what I mean) so why would a bigger brain necessarily make you smarter anyway?
***Edited to say-even sea life itself to me is so complex. How everything works and all of the thousands of different creatures. I don't understand how that all just *happened*.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 22:51:55 GMT -5
Triica, as I said I'm no expert and I don't feel comfortable going further than what I already posted. There are a lot of references online, however, that should be able to answer your questions, be they from the scientific viewpoint or the religious viewpoint. In the end, it's really up to you to decide how you want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 22:56:53 GMT -5
Lily,
I do read them and I watch shows about it and none make any more sense to me than the next. Like, on the surface, okay...it sounds like it could have happened but when you really *really* think about it, it just doesn't make sense. I think in the end that's what everyone kind of does...they just pick what they feel more comfortable with and what makes more sense to them.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 23:08:52 GMT -5
There's nothing incomprehensible about complexity. The earth has been here for 4.5 billion years. The first life emerged around 3.5 billion years ago. Every species evolves in response to its unique environment. It follows that, given enough time - and 3.5 thousand million years is enough time - millions of species would evolve. It would be strange if they didn't. You're just being intellectually lazy because you can't be bothered to research the subject properly. People don't "just pick what they feel more comfortable with", unless they're air-heads. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (of one kind or another). The creationist idea is uts-nay.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 23:11:43 GMT -5
And think about this: If humans didn't originate in the ocean, how is it that new-born babies are perfect swimmers?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 23:12:58 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 23:23:52 GMT -5
Lily, I do read them and I watch shows about it and none make any more sense to me than the next. Like, on the surface, okay...it sounds like it could have happened but when you really *really* think about it, it just doesn't make sense. I think in the end that's what everyone kind of does...they just pick what they feel more comfortable with and what makes more sense to them. Well, truthfully, it does make sense to me. I have read the religious apologetics on the topic, and it makes sense at the time. But when I read the science responses, that makes more sense to me. The problem about common sense is that our human senses are limited and unless one is a researcher in the field, what seems to make sense to us isn't always accurate. To me to have all creation to have happened in 7 days makes absolutely no sense to me and neither does the earth being only 8000 years old. I can however, agree with it symbollically. It's really like having one's feet in two different worlds or dimensions. It is possible to believe in both the material world and the spiritual world. There's nothing wrong in giving both their due. If some religious person says than you're just a heathen because of that, then I would run the other way, really, really, fast.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 23:26:26 GMT -5
Well, I did take in to consideration that we can all breathe water until we take our first breath of air. That to me is kind of weird. You know what/who else is weird? The guy in that video.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 23:31:01 GMT -5
But that doesn't explain how babies are able to coordinate their muscles and limbs to swim.
The question of how life appeared on earth is really a non-issue. The real question is how life appeared anywhere. The answer, in my opinion - and as I outlined in a previous post - is that life and consciousness are inherent in all matter. And that's why robots and computers have the potential to become intelligent. Among other things.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 23:32:29 GMT -5
Lily, I do read them and I watch shows about it and none make any more sense to me than the next. Like, on the surface, okay...it sounds like it could have happened but when you really *really* think about it, it just doesn't make sense. I think in the end that's what everyone kind of does...they just pick what they feel more comfortable with and what makes more sense to them. Well, truthfully, it does make sense to me. I have read the religious apologetics on the topic, and it makes sense at the time. But when I read the science responses, that makes more sense to me. The problem about common sense is that our human senses are limited and unless one is a researcher in the field, what seems to make sense to us isn't always accurate. To me to have all creation to have happened in 7 days makes absolutely no sense to me and neither does the earth being only 8000 years old. I can however, agree with it symbollically. It's really like having one's feet in two different worlds or dimensions. It is possible to believe in both the material world and the spiritual world. There's nothing wrong in giving both their due. If some religious person says than you're just a heathen because of that, then I would run the other way, really, really, fast. I think I do believe in a little bit of both. I just wish someone could say this is exactly what happened as far as how everything got here and how we came to be. I wouldn't woory about what any religious person (or otherwise) says about me. lol...I'm sure I've been called much worse than a heathen.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 22, 2014 23:35:04 GMT -5
The question of how life appeared on earth is really a non-issue. The real question is how life appeared anywhere. The answer, in my opinion - and as I outlined in a previous post - is that life and consciousness are inherent in all matter. And that's why robots and computers have the potential to become intelligent. Among other things. Did you see the new movie that either just came out or is about to called "Her"? It's about a guy who falls in love with his computer. It sounds stupid but it actually looks pretty good. What do you mean by in all matter? As in ALL material things?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 23:36:27 GMT -5
Well, talking about coming out of the ocean, here's something interestng:
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jan 22, 2014 23:56:22 GMT -5
Yes, I saw "Her". I've been immobilized for a month now with nothing else to do but watch movies (been in a lot of pain, so no sleep till Brooklyn). I think I must have seen every movie that was made in the last ten years. Including movies that haven't even hit the cinemas yet. Most of them are b-o-r-i-n-g as hell. American movies are so predictable. And moralistic. They're all about making good. ("They thought he was a coward, but he saved the world!" "They thought he was a loser, but he founded Microsoft from his garage!" "They thought he was an idiot, but he invented the water-powered car!" Etc.) But mostly I have been watching re-runs of my favourite TV comedy, "Married With Children"...
"What do you mean by in all matter? As in ALL material things?"
Yes, all matter. It's the only theory that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 24, 2014 11:17:36 GMT -5
Hi Tricia, - sorry to come into this so late. This is a very complex subject and not one easily dealt with in small chunks. Blarney and Lily have been doing well, but I wanted to add my bit.
The History Channel is crap, dealing mostly with silly shows about ghosts, UFOs, conspiracies, etc. The H2 (History 2) Channel tends to be much better. Sorry that the show you watched skipped so much.
We know that life originated in the oceans for several reasons, but mostly because the oldest life traces are found in rocks that were once the bottom of oceans. We can trace the evolution of life from single-cell critters to multi-cell critters to bigger and more complex critters over hundreds of millions of years. You can't get a proper time perspective on a TV show, but think of it like this: in a 24-hour day, life was all single-cell for 23 hours and 50 minutes. Multi-cell life appeared about 10 minutes ago. Mammals about 1 minute ago. Humans about a second ago. I just made these numbers up, but the real ones would be something like that.
We didn't descend from monkeys - no one says that except creationists. Paleontology (not the Theory of Evolution) shows that all the primates (us, chimps, apes, monkeys) have a common ancestor. Chimps and humans share something like 98-99% of the same DNA because we only split off recently (in geologic time). But we also share at least some DNA with reptiles and fish and clams and all other living things. In other words, ALL life cam from a common ancestor.
Yes, there are many gaps in our understanding. But not many important ones. We don't know exactly how life began, but we have been able to create artificial life at the viral level, and will soon be making even more complex beasties. All the chemicals that make up living things existed in ancient oceans. Essentially, if you take a soup of earth chemicals (the ocean) and subject it to intense radiation, heat, and electricity (lightening) for a couple of billion years, things are likely to happen. We don't know the exact mix, but there is considerable evidence that we're close.
Religion creation stories all have the same problems - absolutely no evidence to support them and tons of evidence that contradicts them. And they all have the same core problem - if it required gods to make the earth and us, then who made the gods? If the gods can exist without a creator, then so can we. 8-D
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 25, 2014 11:48:17 GMT -5
Hi Fred! Thank you for your explanation! Yes, I have also found the the H2 Channel has better and more informative shows than the regular History Channel which is partly why I was so disappointed. They usually do a really good job explaining things in their shows. It just wasn't the case with this particular show. We really share DNA with everything else? I had never heard that. I had heard it about monkeys/gorillas and I guess that's easy to believe as they have a lot of human tendencies when you watch them (lol and vicey versy when you watch some humans). I guess I have a hard time or maybe just don't fully understand the concept of evolution because to me if something evolves into something else over time there would be nothing left of the first something. I understand the problems with the religious creation stories. Like you said, if there is a God or Gods-who created him/them? I get that. At the same time, how did ANYTHING get created without being created? How does an ocean form with no water? What made the water? The oceans are so huge-where did all that water come from that all these lifeforms started breeding in? How does everything work so perfectly? I just don't get how all of that happened on it's own-but if it didn't happen on it's own, how DID it happen? No matter how you look at it, *something* just *was*. I am completely fascinated with the oceans, by the way. I was actually just online looking up the airfare to go back to Ft Myers Beach, Florida in April. I've actually talked my oldest daughter into getting on a plane with me to go. I think it will be good for her as she is so much like me that I think she will just be in love with the ocean! lol....I don't know what it is but that's the place I feel most calm with absolutely no anxiety. I know water, especially large bodies of it like lakes, etc...have that peaceful, serene affect on a lot of people, and they do for me as well. But not like the ocean. Way before we even started this conversation or I even thought about the fact that some believe we actually *came* from the ocean (and maybe we really did) when I'm by the ocean I feel like I'm as close as I can possibly get to God or the creator of the Universe or where everything started-I don't even really know how to put it into words. I just LOVE being there. Mind you, I can't swim to save my life but I love being IN the ocean. I'm more drawn to it than probably anything else in the world that I can think of. Maybe I was a mermaid in a past life? Anyway, it will be even more interesting to me this time around with everything I've learned about this theory of where life began and I can't wait to go!
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 25, 2014 16:13:55 GMT -5
Tricia –
I think you need to read an introductory book on evolution. That would give you a basic understanding and answer most of your questions.
Here’s a suggestion: Evolution: How We and All Lining Things Came To Be by Daniel Loxton
You can see a few pages on Amazon. Don’t be put off by the target age for this book, which is 8 to 13 years old. Something like this is a good place to start – a straightforward presentation of the fundamental ideas. You can read something more detailed later.
==========
You have asked about this twice:
In very simplistic terms --- What generally happens is that a population divides into two groups that no longer breed with each other. Both groups continue to live, but you can not say that either evolved from the other. Instead, they share a common ancestor from which they both evolved.
In the case of humans, our closest relatives are the chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor (that is, an ancestral species, not a single individual) with the chimps about 6 million years and 250,000 generations ago. That species was neither chimp nor human. Both champs and humans evolved from it.
6 million years ago, for some reason, the common ancestor population divided into two groups. The ancestors of chimps and the ancestors of humans went their separate ways, evolved into the two species we see today, and that common ancestor is long gone.
Again, this is extremely simplified.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 25, 2014 18:46:39 GMT -5
Like Raybar says.
The basic principles of evolution are that environment shapes living things and all offspring are partial mutants. That is, DNA transfer is always flawed - some part of us all is not like either our father or our mother. (There are many causes for this.)
Imagine two river valleys separated by an impassable mountain range. Let's say that all the plants and animals are the same in both valleys. Then, over time, the river in one valley drys up. The things in the wet valley continue on as normal, but in the slowly-drying valley, the things with the most drought tolerance (due to mutations) will produce more offspring. Eventually all the "wet" life will be gone and all the things in the dry valley will be different, dry-tolerant species.
Farmers and ranchers do this by selecting which plants and animals they allow to reproduce, selecting traits that they like and "breeding out" traits that they don't like. Ears of corn used to be about the size of a finger joint until the natives in Mexico messed with corn and created the monster sizes we have now.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Jan 25, 2014 21:13:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Raybar...I probably should read a book that is very basic even if it's target group is a younger audience because I just don't "get" the evolution thing the way I think it's supposed to be taken or understood.
I do have another question though. How do they know how old something is simply because of the earth or rock that the fossil was found in? The earth or rock is certainly a lot older than the bones that died there. For instance if I drop dead in the mountains tomorrow and no one finds me for 3000 years but the ground I dropped dead on is already a million years old, how do they know how long my bones have been there? I don;t know if I'm writing that well enough for you to understand what I'm asking.
I guess I don't know how they can determine how old a fossil is simply because the earth it's embedded in is a certain age. The earth the fossil is embedded in is obviously much older than the fossil itself. There...how's that?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 25, 2014 23:50:18 GMT -5
I guess I don't know how they can determine how old a fossil is simply because the earth it's embedded in is a certain age. The earth the fossil is embedded in is obviously much older than the fossil itself. There...how's that? The fossil and the rock surrounding it are the same age. When an organism dies, it falls to the ground which exists right then, at that moment, on that day. It doesn't fall to the ground that was there a million years previously. It may be fossilized if conditions are favorable. It has to be buried quickly, for instance, so that it is protected from scavengers and from the elements. And the material in which it is buried is contemporary with the organism. Over time, layers of sediment build up, the new layers on top of the old. You can see the layers exposed in canyons, and at cliffs, and where roads have been cut through hills, and so on. Geologists have studied the rocks for a long time and have developed ways to determine their ages. Anything found within a particular layer was put there when that layer was being formed, and is the same age.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 26, 2014 11:09:29 GMT -5
And to add just a little more over-simplified detail...8->
There are these things called radioactive isotopes. Basically, if a substance has the same number of protons and electrons, it's balanced and very stable. Carbon has 12 of each. If it has extra electrons, it's a radioactive isotope, out of balance and unstable. The extra electrons will break loose over time. Carbon 14 has 2 extra electrons. Radioactive isotopes are created around us every day by strong events - volcanoes, unfiltered sunlight hitting air in the upper atmosphere, etc. Scientists have figure out how long it takes each type of isotope to get back in balance and they can use that information to estimate the age of things. Carbon 14 loses about half its mass about every 5,700 years and we can use it to measure living things up to about 50,000 years ago. It's not an exact date because there are many variables, so you'll see C14 dates something like "1400, plus or minus 100 years." Other isotopes take millions of years to get back in balance. This is not a completely accurate description, but it gives you the basics - Like Raybar says, things at the bottom of a layer of rocks are almost always older than things at the top. And we can measure radiation to estimate how old each layer of rocks are. But when dealing with earth time of about 4.5 billion years, what's a million or two among friends. 8->
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 26, 2014 13:29:54 GMT -5
Sorry, Fred, but you’ve got that a little jumbled.
Carbon has an “atomic number” of 6, meaning that there are 6 protons in the nucleus. As in any element, there are normally an equal number of protons and electrons, making each atom electrically neutral.
The difference between isotopes is the number of neutrons in the nucleus along with the protons.
There exist 3 naturally occurring isotopes of carbon. Carbon-12, with 6 protons and 6 neutrons, makes up about 99% of all carbon atoms on earth. Carbon-13, with 7 neutrons, makes up about 1%. And there is a trace amount of Carbon14, with 8 neutrons at about one part in a trillion. (A bunch of other very short lived isotopes have been produced in reactors.) Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 are stable. Carbon-14 is not. Carbon-14 decays into Nitrogen-14 (7 protons and 7 neutrons) when one if its 8 neutrons turns into a proton by emitting an electron and a neutrino (or is it an antineutrino? or an electron-antineutrino? – can’t remember).
During life, living things absorb carbon, including Carbon-14, and living tissue contains Carbon-12, Carbon-13, and Carbon-14 at the naturally occurring ratios. After death carbon is no longer absorbed. Carbon-12 and -13 just sit there, but the amount of Carbon-14 decreases as it decays into Nitrogen, so the ratios change. By measuring the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in a sample, an approximate date of death can be established, up to about 50,000 years (as you said) when there is so little C-14 left that reliable measurements are not possible.
|
|