FileFront Forums - Evolution

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Evolution (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/201115-evolution.html)

well if there's no such thing as evolution..how can a 2mm long "cell" (sperm) turn into a 6ft tall Complex human with all of these organisms? That is total MAJOR evolution there.

Quote:

heart then decide it needed the rest of the heart? By the time it evolved the heart it would have no use for it. and by heart i of course mean the bloody beating thing in your chest and not a 'soul.' Same goes with many other organs in our body, people fail to realize just how complex we are, it is insane how different we are from animals, or 'simple' single celled bacteria.

You look and one of these 'simple' single celled organism and u find out something. It is not that simple after all, very complex. It has it's own structure. And what, we came from a pre-biotic soup that just happened to exist. it created the exact number and combo of amino acids out of over a million possible combinations. My point is is that it would take far more than 4.6 billion years to even create a single-celled organism. and the chances of it even surviving are even more astounding.

Hence my stance that Evolution (macro) Is Impossible. There is no proof. There would have to be literally 1000s of transitional species in between each little change as Darwin said a number of times. We are talking Huge leaps between organism with not one transitional species found in between. There are far too many unanswered questions with macro-evolution.

I believe God always existed (no other logical way). And he created everything in 6 days (including time, or else the idea of god is flawed and impossible, he is constrained by nothing.) And without him, there would be nothing. "from everlasting to everlasting"

heart is a very good example of evolution , right from annelidans (earthworms) where a primitive heart like apparatus is present to the four chambered heart in mammals is a great example of evolution . read biology for further info

I'm an astrophysics student, so I know a bit about the universe, and I can say there certainly was a big bang, and the Cosmic Microwave Background (a small "leftover" signal detected from every direction in the sky) is proof of that. The signal from that Background is approximately 13-14 billion years old. Also, the universe is expanding, so if you trace it back then you see it was once at a single point.

As for evolution, it stands to reason plants and animals will change over time. For example, humans didn't have red hair until a few thousand years ago. Little changes like this are sometimes passed on, and over time build up until eventually an organism is completely different from its ancestor.

[QUOTE=Nordicvs]XC, evolution is a fact. You can study it, document it, test it. It's called "The Theory of Evolution" because it's a scientific premise.[QUOTE]

If that were the case there wouldn't be the need to find the 'missing link', and it would be called the 'Fact of Evolution' surely? The only odd thing i find with the theory is that where the hell are all the fossil records of the 'inbetween' stages of evolution? But yeah i do believe it occurs, albeit not as drastically as Darwin puts it.

If his theory is 100% correct then I guess you can expect to see apes and monkeys walking down the high street at some point in the future - although they won't be the same right!? :eek: Oh, that's assuming we've not managed to decimate our planet and make them extinct first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crassus

How did the first heart evolve? it is impossible, did it just spring up? no animal can live with out it.

As yod@ said: "heart is a very good example of evolution". Here is some info (theory...) about how the hearts of humans (vertebrates) have evolved:

http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/artic...09/ai_61524423

Quote:

A BRIEF GUIDE TO THE HEARTS OF VERTEBRATES

Biologists would love to know just how the vertebrate heart evolved from the simple, two-chambered organ of early fish to the complex, multichambered hearts of birds and mammals, with their two atria (which receive blood from the veins) and two ventricles (which pump blood back out through the arteries).

Unfortunately, soft tissues rarely make good fossils, so we are unlikely ever to know for certain. But we can construct a hypothetical scenario by looking at the wide variety of hearts found in animals alive today. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals have been following independent evolutionary paths for millions of years, of course, and no modern biologist would dare suggest that a frog or alligator is a step en route to an eagle or human being. However, comparing the hearts of living vertebrates--and specifically how they handle the transport of oxygen to the body's tissues (one of the organ's most important functions)--can provide insights into what the intermediate steps between one type of heart and another might be.

We start with the heart found in most fish today: a relatively simple organ, with one atrium, from which blood flows into a single ventricle. After leaving the heart, blood picks up oxygen at the gills, but by the time the blood returns to the heart, most of its oxygen is gone. With the evolution of lungs came a partial separation of oxygenated from deoxygenated blood, ensuring a steady supply of oxygen to the heart and its more efficient distribution to the rest of the body. The division of the atrium into two chambers--evident in living lungfish--was an important step toward more complete separation.

In the the heart of modern frogs and toads; we see the beginnings of distinct ventricular chambers as well. Although these animals have only one ventricle, its spongy walls help separate oxygenated and deoxygenated blood: oxygen-rich blood flowing in from the left atrium tends to get soaked up by the left ventricular wall; oxygen-poor blood from the right atrium is taken up by the right wall. When the amphibian ventricle contracts, it expels all the blood into a central artery, where the two flows are again kept largely separate by a long winding valve that spirals down the length of the artery, functionally dividing it into two channels. Most of the poorly oxygenated blood travels through the channel that leads toward the lungs and skin, where it picks up a fresh supply of oxygen (in amphibians, the skin also functions as a gas-exchange organ). Most of the oxygenated blood ends up in the channel that leads out to other tissues in the body, providing them with nourishment. Partial division of the ventricle can be seen in the lesser siren (Siren intermedia), a salamander with a ridge of muscle rising up from the floor of the ventricle.

Division of the ventricle into more than one chamber is more complete in turtles, tortoises, and snakes. In addition to two atria, these reptiles have a three-chambered ventricle, however, and so don't fit neatly on our hypothetical continuum. Enter the varanids, or monitor lizards, a group that includes the huge Komodo dragon of Indonesia. Like those of other reptiles, the varanid's heart has a total of five chambers, but one of the ventricles is little more than a small pathway for the blood that traverses the heart. There is still some mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood from the other two, larger ventricular chambers but much less than occurs in the heart of a turtle or snake.

The varanid heart introduces, for the first time, a way to deal with a vital but potentially dangerous component of the circulatory system: blood pressure. High blood pressure helps the heart pump harder to deliver more blood more quickly to working muscles and other tissues in the body. Unfortunately, these same pressures can "blow out" the lung's delicate vessels, which operate most effectively at lower blood pressures. With its two nearly separate ventricular chambers, the varanid heart can pump at two different pressures: low for blood to the lungs, high for blood heading out to the rest of the body. Perhaps not surprisingly, this efficient heart enables some of the monitor lizards to be truly frightening predators, able to capture very active prey.

We turn next to crocodiles and alligators, in which the heart has two anatomically separate ventricles. When breathing air at the water's surface, these reptiles, like monitor lizards, pump blood at two different pressures. Once they slip beneath the surface, however, they do not breathe, and their hearts produce a single, intermediate pressure. While underwater, crocodiles and alligators perform another neat heart trick: blood that would have gone to their lungs (which become less useful during a dive, as their oxygen is depleted) is shunted, via an extra aorta emerging from the right ventricle, back toward the general body circulation.

In birds and mammals, the separation of the left and right sides of the heart is complete. This allows for high-pressure distribution of blood to the body, with no risk to delicate lung membranes. (For diving birds and mammals, this is a mixed blessing. Whether resting on the beach or diving for food [when the lungs are not ventilated], a seal or penguin must pump the same amount of blood both to its lungs and to the rest of its body.)

The next steps on our hypothetical continuum have yet to be determined. The human heart is no more the ultimate in cardiac design than was that of reptiles before mammals evolved. Perhaps in the future, our descendants will inhabit other parts of the solar system. Could the vertebrate heart evolve to handle life on a planet with less gravity or less oxygen than we have on Earth? Or with more? If not, space colonizers will have no choice but to recreate Earth's environment wherever they go.

Warren Burggren, a biologist, is dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of North Texas.

COPYRIGHT 2000 American Museum of Natural History

IMO the evolution theory explains perfectly what it was designed for: the evolution of species. But not how the universe was created. THIS is a typical hen and egg problem.

Although I (being an agnostic) don't believe in a god I don't see that the evolution theory has to be a contradiction to religious beliefs (if people don't try to believe the Bible literally - a collection of scrolls written and edited by humans).

I think !moof is a very good example for a religious but rational person.

Well pretty much the creation argument has been blown out of the water here.

Look, if you study biology, even basic biology, the logic should come to you with ease. There is no way, whatsoever, that animals were created by God in the context of the bible. That he just 'made' us. If a God exist, he had to make us the hard way, which takes billions of years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by !moof

Actually, Ekips, single-celled organisms are quite complex.

not in comparison to humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by X-C

:agreed u are so right

Quote:

Originally Posted by [jobero] InCogNiTo

The only odd thing i find with the theory is that where the hell are all the fossil records of the 'inbetween' stages of evolution? But yeah i do believe it occurs, albeit not as drastically as Darwin puts it.

And why do whales have rudimentary legs? The evolution of the whales had long been criticized by creationists because there had not been enough fossils to prove it. But during the past years the collection of transitional vertebrate fossils has grown and the (creationist) criticism isn't substantiated anymore (if it had ever been).

Here are some pictures of transitional fossils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence...chus_large.jpg

http://vbeaud.free.fr/Sciences/Biolo...akicetus_2.jpg

http://www.kp-art.fi/taustaa/taustaa2/img/02_5_7.jpg

http://www.cas.cz/ziva/cisla/0405/17.jpg

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...ocetidaeA5.jpg

I suggest you follow this link to get the whole story:

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/0...-whales-tales/

I like when creationists ask questions like, well how come monkeys are still around? Or, How come the fossils aren't there to prove it? And then the evolutionists provide links to prove there point. I have not seen one creationist link, or factual information in this post besides opinionated material. I don't know, it just seems to me that creatinism doesn't hold too much water anymore.