Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

fish

fish egg

[true brit]

since everything in nature is advancing,a fish is more advanced than an egg,therefore an egg came first.(although perhaps not in the form as eggs are now)....e.g...which came first ,brit,s or canadians.

[Steelhawk]

Some awesome points Fishinfever. Interesting stuffs.  What is the name of that book?  I always thought how ridiculous some scientists could come up with the theory that life forms as complex as us humans is just a result of some pointless, unintentional, unintelligent & chaotic cosmic event cooked up by some organic soup.  Man, just think how human bio processes are so complex and using so many principles of physics & chemistry.  How the brain works, memory, emotion, thought processes, body functioning.  Every thing is so well co-ordinated and planned.  It is so unimaginable to think that the beauty that we all behold every day is just a result of purposeless chaos. Fish first, of course.

[Nina]

This subject is very interesting. I guess your answer to the question depends on whether you are religious or not. Since I am a sworn atheist and a microbiologist it is not surprising that I do not agree with what fishingfever wrote, and find it very much taken out of context and highly unscientific.

Try to come up with a fish egg by chance? I do not think any scientists will claim that the fish egg popped out of thin air, like fishingfever suggests. The fish egg is the result of many millions of years of evolution. Evolution does not explain how it all started. It tells us how life evolved since the beginning and follows very simple rules. In sexual reproduction genes from both parents get mixed up to create offsprings. This mixture is as far as we know more or less coincidental. The selection pressure will then kill off all the offsprings which do not possess the right qualities to survive in a given environment. These survivors will then pass on their slightly changed genes to their offspring and this will go on for many generations creating a cumulative change in a population. This process is not a theory but what actually happens.

Typing this up, Rodney and I just had an argument on what evolution actually is. He says it is a theory while I claim it is a fact. I guess we wont agree on that any time soon......

How it all started is of course theory from all parts. I do believe that it is pure coincidental. The micro organisms I work with are biologically very simple compared to a fish egg. It has been proven if gaseous mixtures resembling those thought to be present on primitive earth are irradiated with UV light or subjected to electric discharge (i.e. lightning) in the laboratory, a wide variety of biochemically important molecules can be made, such as sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, various nucleotides and fatty acids. All these compounds are building blocks of life. Some of these biological building blocks have also been shown to polymerize (gather) under prebiological conditions creating important macromolecules such as polynucleotides (backbone of RNA and DNA). This is of course in the lab and there is still some way to go from these macromolecules to the formation of simple RNA. One theory suggests that exposed surfaces such as clay or pyrite out in nature can have acted as support for these prebiotic polymerization reactions. Such surfaces would have provided a stable, relatively dry environment for the synthesis and accumulation of macromolecules into organic films from which primitive, self-replicating structures could have emerged. This is of course all theory and there are many more out there. But this is one of the things I like about science; you actually make an effort to find out what went on back then, instead of just brushing it of as “Intelligent Design” and thereby overlooking what could possibly be the next major medical breakthrough.

“Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution”
            Dobzhansky

[McWhackit]

The evidence supporting Darwin and Wallace's theories on the process of natural selection are so overwhelming that no credible scientist would challenge them. Evolution is indisputable. Only the actual mechanics of processes involved are in question. As for so called intelligent design perhaps fishinfever would apply his mathematical skills too calculating the odds of an omnipotent deity creating not just an egg, but the entire cosmos.

[BwiBwi]

I think mytocondria in living cell is also one sample how new 'higher' biological form is created.

[mark]

Nature itself tells you there is a GOD. Eveything is too perfect.

[Nina]

Nature itself tells you there is a GOD. Eveything is too perfect.

What is your definition of perfect? Nature is far from perfect. An organism might seem perfectly adapted to an environment, but why is that? Evolution! There is no perfect organism out there; there are always tradeoffs to each advantage. Nature is ruthless, killing off everything which does not posses the qualities to fit in a given environment. Is that what you call perfect?

[fishinfever]

The following are Quotes with a narrative.
All Quotes are from scientist that claim to be Evolutionists.
Let the facts speak.

The Primitive Atmosphere
8 In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.
9 Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”7
19 Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1040,000! “An outrageously small probability,” asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”13
20 However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”14
Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us evolutionists.”
The Remarkable Genetic Code
21 More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20100—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.”15
22 Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”17 In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”18
23 Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”19 But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”20 And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”21
24 Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

The numbers after the quote refer to references below

 4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68.
 5. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.
 6. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.
 7. The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.
 8. Ibid.
 9. Ibid.
10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.
11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.
12. The Origin of Life, by John D. Bernal, 1967, p. 144.
13. Evolution From Space, p. 24.
14. New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
15. Evolution From Space, p. 27.
16. The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 66.
17. Scientific American, September 1978, p. 73.
18. The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April 1981, p. 17.
19. Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85.
20. New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 151.
21. Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p. 71.
22. The Plants, by Frits W. Went, 1963, p. 60.
23. Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31.
24. Ibid., p. 130.
25. The Selfish Gene, p. 14.
26. Evolution From Space, p. 31.
27. Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46.
28. The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p. 200.
29. Ibid., p. 199.

This is my last post on this subject because to easy to start preaching and this is not the site to do that on.
If you really want more than PM me.

Fishinfever

[timbo]

Hi All,

I felt I wanted to put my 2 cents into this debate as I strongly believe one way but I may not be able to to get my point across as elogently as some of you. I don't believe that scientifically either side of the aurgument enough strenght to be proved either way, it would then be "fact" not theroy.
Anyways I believe in intelligent design or that someone has had a hand in the process. the biggest thing that no one has been able to explain is when and how "life" started...even an amebia is alive it just is very simple. I see the complexitiy of life and just can't believe that is is some big mistake.
The other reason I believe this is that i believe in the spiritaul world and I believe in a God. i have seen and have expirences that are unexplainable, but yet very real.
I'm not trying to win anyone over to my way of thinking, because you are entitled to your own beliefs, but the spiritual world and this argument go hand in hand and science is just a part of it.

Tim

PS. Nina you seem quite knowledgable about this and I would be curious to hear your answer to the beginning of life question.

[mark]

How do you explain evolution where did it start ? You can't get something out of nothing. Ok where did the atoms come from?

[mark]

Ok Nina what I mean is for example the rotation of the earth, earths orbit around the sun, moon controling tides, 4 seasons every year, trees giving oxygen some just to name a few.

[mark]

What no reply?

[Nina]

I have a life, you know..... 

How do you explain evolution where did it start ?

See my first post in this thread.

You can't get something out of nothing.

So true, one of the corner stones in physics. But you just contradicted yourself; something out of nothing? Isn't that what a God would have done?

Ok where did the atoms come from?

You are talking about physics and I am no expert there. If you wanna know where atoms and neutrons came from I suggest you look it up in a high school text book. There you can probably find a scientific time line stating what happened right after Big Bang and how the different parts of atoms were created. If not, go to the library or better yet, look it up on the net.

Ok Nina what I mean is for example the rotation of the earth, earths orbit around the sun, moon controling tides, 4 seasons every year, trees giving oxygen some just to name a few.

Rotation of the planets around the sun is again governed by the laws of physics. No hokus pokus there. Trees producing oxygen is a biochemical pathway called photosynthesis. No hokus pokus there either.

And, to fishinfever, I respect your point of view but I disagree with it. Everything in nature is an upgrade of something else. The same goes for the electron transporters in cell membranes and the cell membranes themselves. They didn't pop out of thin air as modern electron transporters or modern membranes, and therefore calculating what the chances are of a modern eukaryotic cell to come together by itself is inappropriate.

The only question that remains is how did life start? In my oppinion neither religion or science have answered that question satisfactorily.

[mark]

Of coarse GOD made something out of nothing because he is all power he just said the word and it came to be, it is that simple. I know about physics and even all scientific explanations have absolutly no sense. Like I said you can't get something out of nothing that simple. And it is not about being religous it is a plain fact.

[Steelhawk]

I see intelligent design even in our body organs, say, our eyes and our ears.  The eye has an organic lens which is shaped in a convex form.  At a certain point of focus, photo receptor sensory cells are located to receive the focussed light rays. I always thought why we have a convex lens in our eye. Then in physics, we study the law of refraction, in which, as a property of light, light waves converge after passing a convex transparent object and the clearest image is obtained at the point the light waves are focussed.  If we were all a product of some cosmic chao event, made up of some subatmic particles that happen to form a protein, how in the world these randomly formed molecules, even after million of years, will come to know to use a basic law of physics to design our eyes this way.

Now take the ear. The ability for us to hear sound depends on the design of the inner ear exploiting another basic law of physics in regards to sound waves - resonance, objects of the same natural vibrating frequency vibrates in resonance of each other.  For specific wavelengths, resonance occurs on violin strings, in organ pipes, etc. The inner ear is comprised of two main sections. The semi-circular canals, utricle and saccule make up the vestibular system and are involved in balance. The scala tympani, scala media and scala vestibuli make up the cochlea which is involved in hearing. Sound waves of different wave length enter the ear and through a series of hydraulic processes, trigger resonance in some organic fibres of varying length with varying natural frequency of vibration.  My point is, again, how in the world some chaotically created protein molecules eventually will, through million of years, know enough about this law of physics in sound waves, to design the ear in such a way to effect hearing.

I agree that natural selection processes do occur, and that evolution does occur among species by adaptation.  But to rule out intelligent designs in face of so much intelligence in life forms, or for that matter the biological, chemical, and physical processes of nature around us, is quite a difficult one to accept.  Like other posters say, the existence of the spiritual world is one to be experienced by those who has the faith or fortune to experience it.  I have talked to quite a few people who had near-death experiences and the consistency of their experiences cannot be ruled out simply by calling it 'unscientific'.  Perhaps science has its limitation at this stage to explain many things.  Them guys are still trying to work out the 'string theory' and the origin of the universe, and even Einstein admited that the Creater is playing joke with us with the deep mystery of how everything works in nature.

In the end, like fishing ethics, it is up to the individual how he/she wants to perceive things that make sense to the individual.  The truth will come when our time is up on this earth.