Henry Rollins On Evolution...

[skechers]

Yes, many variations and stages. They will never be found.

Maybe they will never be found, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Fossilization is very rare. Scientists speculate we know about 1% of all species of plant and animal that have existed before man based on fosilization.

Everything that dies does not become a fossil, and so, is not always preserved for us, hundreds, thousands, if not millions of years later. It takes very specific conditions.

My opinion on this is, arguing about it is like arguing about religion. Kind of pointless. No matter how sure you are, you may never know in life.


But Henry Rollins is still the effing man.

 

[skechers]

I love it when people throw around this "its just a theory" nonsense.Everything in science is a theory.Its the theory of gravity,a well proven theory just like evolution but still a theory.A lot of pain staking research and observation and experimenting goes into the evidence that backs up such theorys.

Wait, man. Isn't it the law of gravity?

As in, was a theory, was proven, and so is now referred to as law?


I wasn't an A student in science, but I think that's how it goes, right? Ah, I'm probably arguing semantics, either way. But I get your point. Yes, alot of it is just theory. The problem is, the studies being conducted, are they even the right ones? Are the ones doing the stuides biased in any way? A dozen other questions of the like.

Sometimes I think, it just doesn't really matter all that much.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Wait, man. Isn't it the law of gravity?

As in, was a theory, was proven, and so is now referred to as law?


I wasn't an A student in science, but I think that's how it goes, right? Ah, I'm probably arguing semantics, either way. But I get your point. Yes, alot of it is just theory. The problem is, the studies being conducted, are they even the right ones? Are the ones doing the stuides biased in any way? A dozen other questions of the like.

Sometimes I think, it just doesn't really matter all that much.

Gravity has been called a law but really it is just a well proven theory.And that theory still gets tweaked by people like Einstein and other physicists.If you want to read about that here is the link,but I warn ya it is heavy stuff lol.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

But law of gravity is fine by me though as it is that well documented.My point was so is evolution so we might as well call it the "law of evolution".

 

[BlueBalls]

Gravity has been called a law but really it is just a well proven theory.And that theory still gets tweaked by people like Einstein and other physicists.If you want to read about that here is the link,but I warn ya it is heavy stuff lol.

*Just to follow up on this point*

Thats why the term "theory" is still in use because as scientific knowledge and the advancment in technology continues there are always going to be new updates to scientific law to improve on what we already know. Thats what science is all about, not accepting the norm and questioning everything around you to try to further the current knowledge on the subject so that maybe one day future generations can improve on this knowledge further.

Something those on the religious side will not and cannot do.

:hatsoff:

 

[afkallthetiem]

science is dumb what is that anyway playing with chemicals all day
jesus made me in one day *shits pants*

 

[mrtrebus]

science is dumb what is that anyway playing with chemicals all day
jesus made me in one day *shits pants*

He made a mistake!! :thumbsup:

 

[afkallthetiem]

uh science and logic are clearly tools of the devil to trick you into thinking you know it all and to separate you further from god, you should embrace your one and only true bearded master in the sky on a cloud and put on these chains and this blind fold and get in my dungeon

 

[TwatDetective]

Wait, man. Isn't it the law of gravity?

As in, was a theory, was proven, and so is now referred to as law?


I wasn't an A student in science, but I think that's how it goes, right? Ah, I'm probably arguing semantics, either way. But I get your point. Yes, alot of it is just theory. The problem is, the studies being conducted, are they even the right ones? Are the ones doing the stuides biased in any way? A dozen other questions of the like.

Sometimes I think, it just doesn't really matter all that much.

Laws are usually formulas that can be applied to certain situations. Constants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

 

[nearlyinvisible]

I believe the universe is infinite. There is no beginning. There is no end. There is no creator.

 

[sporty_carr]

Here you go guys. A cat grew wings.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30967440/?GT1=43001

Is it evolution?
Nope. Just a birth defect or something like Ida had.

 

[mrtrebus]

Here you go guys. A cat grew wings.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30967440/?GT1=43001

Is it evolution?
Nope. Just a birth defect or something like Ida had.

Course its not evolution. But it is NOTHING like Ida had, that is evolution.

 

[mrtrebus]

Here you go guys. A cat grew wings.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30967440/?GT1=43001

Is it evolution?
Nope. Just a birth defect or something like Ida had.

Actually, this probably explains angels. Just humans with a birth defect!!

 

[calpoon]

As for the single organism that changed over time, again I ask, with what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

with another cell capable of sexual reproduction. That would be the obvious answer.

I don't really know that much about biology, but I think you are oversimplifying the process of sexual reproduction. Cells and organisms reproduce in a variety of different ways.

The first cellular organism didn't reproduce sexually, but through mitosis which is the process of duplicating it's sets of chromosomes to reproduce two identical genetic offspring. In this way it forms many simple cells.

 

[sporty_carr]

So if it was mitosis, how did it become different from itself. If a single celled organism kept replicating identically why is it not larger than the universe by now? It would still be expanding like the universe. And why would we have ever needed sexual reproduction at all?

 

[Mrs Jolly]

for the details see Richard Dawkins online. There are about 30.000 eggheads there just waiting to be asked this kind of question.

 

[TwatDetective]

So if it was mitosis, how did it become different from itself. If a single celled organism kept replicating identically why is it not larger than the universe by now? It would still be expanding like the universe. And why would we have ever needed sexual reproduction at all?

Any organism would if there were unlimited resources.

Sexual reproduction spreads genetic diversity.

 

[BlueBalls]

So if it was mitosis, how did it become different from itself. If a single celled organism kept replicating identically why is it not larger than the universe by now? It would still be expanding like the universe. And why would we have ever needed sexual reproduction at all?

Mutation.

The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or it has no effect whatsoever. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. This is where the term natural selection comes from.

And as the mutation continues throughout the millions of years this has been happening then it's pretty simple to see the steps you can take from single cell organism onwards.

 

[calpoon]

that is precisely what evolution is, the development of more complex organisms. The fact that we have humans and dolphins and bacteria instead of a whole universe full of identical single cells is evidence of that process.