Life

[what768]

How do you think life came to earth?

I know that life needs the earth, it needs water, it needs fire (sun), and it needs the wind. I understand that small creatures could begin to live on earth but what I don't understand is how the nature could form creatures so big, like the humans. How did life proceed from these little creatures which came from mud, combined with the four elements? I have never seen a creature form into another, bigger creature! I can only imagine small '1 millimeter creatures' come from mud. But all they ever do is to duplicate themselves and they never form into a bigger creature, do they?

It's not at all weird that there are so many different creatures, because they all live under different circumstances and the 'creative power' expresses itself (life) on all stages up to man. I think Life began in the water, but almost at the same time, it came to land and air, with rain and wind. I know that God is the origin of the universe but I don't understand how all the animals came here. How did the first human come here? How? The first ape? Did it come from mud too? No... that's impossible! But maybe YOU know.

 

[Mushin]

Its called evolution...read up on it. Little things do eventually turn into bigger things.

 

[David F.]

I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.

I can't prove where life came from. There is no logical explaination. In a fit of anti-logic, scientists came up with this idea of evolution more than a century ago. The problem is that all attempts to prove evolution have actually gone the other way and disproved the theory. Thus, science has no idea at all where life came from.

I personally kind of like the creation story. There is no proof, but it looks as good as anything else, and it fits all the available facts. The problem with creation is - how can science prove that 6000 years ago, something miraculous happened? It can't - so there is no proof.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

David F.: I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.

I can't prove where life came from. There is no logical explaination. In a fit of anti-logic, scientists came up with this idea of evolution more than a century ago. The problem is that all attempts to prove evolution have actually gone the other way and disproved the theory. Thus, science has no idea at all where life came from.
*************
M*W: Science has proven evolution. I'm sorry you can't understand it.
*************
David F.: I personally kind of like the creation story. There is no proof, but it looks as good as anything else, and it fits all the available facts.
*************
M*W: Please explain what the 'available facts' are.
*************
David F.: The problem with creation is - how can science prove that 6000 years ago, something miraculous happened? It can't - so there is no proof.
*************
M*W: Science doesn't limit itself to the 'miraculous.' The proof science has given us is the Big Bang -- a remote, godless, ripple in the universe that created all.

 

[Mushin]

Ditto to everything Medicine Woman just said.

I'm not sure what you are reading but the theory of evolution is about as close to scientific fact as you can come. Creationism on the other hand isn't science at all. You can not have an idea and then go out looking for evidence to support it and then call that science. Evidence leads to theories, theories don't lead to evidence.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

david f, you seem to be the authority on evolution,
can you explain, lets say a germ changes into a stronger germ, how this happens.
or lets say a horse, has it's way with a donkey what happens.
i think you will find this is evolution in process, this is how things changed from one thing to another, and it was a lot further back then 6000 years millions to be exact.

if what you have to say, is not going to change the silence ,dont speak.

 

[spidergoat]

If you already understand how small creatures could begin to live on Earth, all you have to know is that Humans are just self-organized collections of these small creatures, we call them cells. You have seen this happen when an embryo divides from one cell into several, then hundreds, then millions, billions, etc... I don't think life began in water, land, and air at the same time. First it was water, then land, finally air, over millions of years.

 

[robtex]

I think I know where David was going was this but he may not have known the name. It is the Oparin- Haldane which both suggested the idea of spontaneous creation based on chemical reactions leading up to it.
http://graffiti.virgin.net/c.gordon-smith/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html

Because RNA and other micro biologic theories suggest sponataneous creation its not neccessarly in conflict with a divine presense that suggests the same thing it is just not congruent to biblical creation theories which suggest a disproven timeline.

http://www.azinet.com/originoflife.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/lifeorigin.html

 

[Medicine*Woman]

spidergoat: If you already understand how small creatures could begin to live on Earth, all you have to know is that Humans are just self-organized collections of these small creatures, we call them cells. You have seen this happen when an embryo divides from one cell into several, then hundreds, then millions, billions, etc... I don't think life began in water, land, and air at the same time. First it was water, then land, finally air, over millions of years.
*************
M*W: I agree with you. First, there were one-celled animals that lived in the oceans and multiplied and crawled upon the land. Then they evolved to a more complex state. Reptiles evolved into birds and other animals and mammals. Some mammals still live in the oceans. Just because we walk erect upon the land doesn't mean we didn't evolve from out of the oceans. The human race is still evolving as I am sure the reptiles and amphibians and mammals are too. We're not finished, yet.

 

[what768]

Imagine that you create a very large cage and put a group of mice into it. You let the mice live and breed in this cage freely, without disturbance. If you were to come back after 500 years and look into this cage, you would find mice. 500 years of breeding would cause no change in the mice in that cage -- they would not evolve in any noticeable way. You could leave the cage alone for 50000 years and look in again and what you would find in the cage is mice. After 1000000 years, you would look into the cage and find NOT 15 new species, but mice...

Agree?

That's the way I think it is; Species don't form to other species by reproducing.

BUT... I know that after millions of years (or a lot earlier) MANY of these animals will be dead here and new kinds of species will evolve. They will not come from ONE "ancestor", but they will form from the ground individually. Just as when dinosaurs died out, in the same way these species will die out, because the circumstances on earth changes constantly. We still have many creatures that resemble the animals (dinosaurs) that lived 65 million years ago but the exception is that the creatures of today have become smaller. Why smaller? Because the circumstances on earth has changed into that direction, and the "old" species could not stand the change.

I know that evolution exists. People will evolve, they will have a greater skull, but they will still be "humans", they will not form into totally new, different creatures, because of "reproduction".. ever. I know that rabbits have great ears because they had to use them much, but they didn't form into anything else than rabbits when they reproduced, "cloned", themselves! Things CAN form into "different" "things", but "only" on molecular level. Things will still form when they have reached, even as high state as humans, but they will not form to different species.

The "fishes" NEVER came to land and got legs! That's ridiculous! I know that alligators live in water and in land, but that's what they are! They will never form into land animals or fishes, because they never were fishes or land animals, they have always been what they are - alligators. Actually, they would die if they tried to live ONLY in the water or on earth, but they will not die, because they will live in both, because that's their purpose! Maybe they were born somehow on wet ground, but still not water.

Just because the bonestructure of the creatures are similar doesn't mean that they come from one ancestor. Everything comes from one singularity that was before the big bang, and because of this, all things are alike (in certain ways), because they have a common source. All things are for example formed from the same things, atoms, and those which are smaller than atoms; Everything is "energy", "motion", "vibration".
---
Why do you think life started from only ONE "organism" in water? The plants doesn't come from a common ancestor, rather the earth was watered; grass, trees and flowers came up from the earth, with the help of the sun and the four winds. So I think there were countless small creatures born in water and earth at the same time. This I find a LOT more convincing that all life would come from one single organism - If one organism could come to life and reproduce itself, isn't it more likely that many of these organisms came to being in the same way all over the planet. In water and earth, because the wind blows the water to land (rain). So you say life started as a simple organism in water? Why only one of these? Why not more, a lot more?

I find it hard to think that one single organism could reproduce itself so much that it would be spread all over the earth. "Living" things can copy itself, not form into another beings! All things can evolve, but they never evolve into different species.

Tell me the exact process of a reptile forming into a bird! Tell me why there are SO many different creatures on earth; insects, zebras, horses, apes, humans, parrots, miniature monkeys, butterflies, dinosaurs, snakes, beavers... why? They all come from one another? I can understand that a miniature man could've come from mud, and then he ate food and became bigger.. just as when a baby grows. Then they came bigger and reproduced themselves, until they were "big"... but that sounds a little weird... At least it might explain the "myth" of elves and small people! But if man came from apes, where did apes come from? There are many different "apes", like those miniature apes that are just 20 cm or so.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

what768: Imagine that you create a very large cage and put a group of mice into it. You let the mice live and breed in this cage freely, without disturbance. If you were to come back after 500 years and look into this cage, you would find mice. 500 years of breeding would cause no change in the mice in that cage -- they would not evolve in any noticeable way. You could leave the cage alone for 50000 years and look in again and what you would find in the cage is mice. After 1000000 years, you would look into the cage and find NOT 15 new species, but mice...

Agree?
*************
M*W: No, because every species is subject to mutations that occur.
*************
what768: That's the way I think it is; Species don't form to other species by reproducing.
*************
M*W: Mutations can occur through diet and the environment. If you put all these 'mice' in a large cage, when they multiplied beyond the capacity of their normal space, they would become homocidal mice and homosexual mice from the mutations.
*************
what768: BUT... I know that after millions of years (or a lot earlier) MANY of these animals will be dead here and new kinds of species will evolve. They will not come from ONE "ancestor", but they will form from the ground individually. Just as when dinosaurs died out, in the same way these species will die out, because the circumstances on earth changes constantly. We still have many creatures that resemble the animals (dinosaurs) that lived 65 million years ago but the exception is that the creatures of today have become smaller. Why smaller? Because the circumstances on earth has changed into that direction, and the "old" species could not stand the change.

I know that evolution exists. People will evolve, they will have a greater skull, but they will still be "humans", they will not form into totally new, different creatures, because of "reproduction".. ever. I know that rabbits have great ears because they had to use them much, but they didn't form into anything else than rabbits when they reproduced, "cloned", themselves! Things CAN form into "different" "things", but "only" on molecular level. Things will still form when they have reached, even as high state as humans, but they will not form to different species.
*************
M*W: I disagree. Mutations occur at the molecular level, and early man evolved from, say, from homo erectus to homo sapiens sapiens. Humanity is still evolving, and we still have a long way to go before we are complete to our best capacity. Then we will be called homo spirtus.
*************
what678: The "fishes" NEVER came to land and got legs! That's ridiculous!
*************
M*W: There are some extinct species of fish that have rudimentary legs as do some reptiles.
*************
what786: I know that alligators live in water and in land, but that's what they are! They will never form into land animals or fishes, because they never were fishes or land animals, they have always been what they are - alligators. Actually, they would die if they tried to live ONLY in the water or on earth, but they will not die, because they will live in both, because that's their purpose! Maybe they were born somehow on wet ground, but still not water.
*************
M*W: I thought they laid their eggs on land by digging a hole and sitting on their buried eggs? Also, do you know the crocodile is the only animal who instinctly pursues the human? There are a lot of animals that can kill humans, but the crocodile hunts humans!
*************
what768: Just because the bonestructure of the creatures are similar doesn't mean that they come from one ancestor. Everything comes from one singularity that was before the big bang, and because of this, all things are alike (in certain ways), because they have a common source. All things are for example formed from the same things, atoms, and those which are smaller than atoms; Everything s "energy", "motion", "vibration".
*************
M*W: I'm hearing some contradiction in your previous statement. I do agree with you, however that all things are formed from atoms, and everything is "energy, motion, and vibration."
*************
what768: Why do you think life started from only ONE "organism" in water? The plants doesn't come from a common ancestor, rather the earth was watered; grass, trees and flowers came up from the earth, with the help of the sun and the four winds. So I think there were countless small creatures born in water and earth at the same time. This I find a LOT more convincing that all life would come from one single organism - If one organism could come to life and reproduce itself, isn't it more likely that many of these organisms came to being in the same way all over the planet. In water and earth, because the wind blows the water to land (rain). So you say life started as a simple organism in water? Why only one of these? Why not more, a lot more?

I find it hard to think that one single organism could reproduce itself so much that it would be spread all over the earth. "Living" things can copy itself, not form into another beings! All things can evolve, but they never evolve into different species.

Tell me the exact process of a reptile forming into a bird!
*************
M*W: Reptiles came first, and when they learned to live on land, their scales turned into feather buds, and they grew reptile-looking feet. Then they flew.
*************
what768: Tell me why there are SO many different creatures on earth; insects, zebras, horses, apes, humans, parrots, miniature monkeys, butterflies, dinosaurs, snakes, beavers... why? They all come from one another? I can understand that a miniature man could've come from mud, and then he ate food and became bigger.. just as when a baby grows. Then they came bigger and reproduced themselves, until they were "big"... but that sounds a little weird... At least it might explain the "myth" of elves and small people! But if man came from apes, where did apes come from? There are many different "apes", like those miniature apes that are just 20 cm or so.
*************
M*W: Because each species reaches the ultimate maturity at different times. Apes are still evolving as are humans. There wasn't a single time when everything appeared. Every creature has his day. Humans are still evolving. I guarantee we won't be anything like we are now in the next 50,000 years. We will probably perfect OBEs, telekinesis, telepathy without using words to communicate. Science is able to prolong life as it is now. I think in 50,000 years or sooner, humanity will be able to cure all diseases so life will become eternal. That being the case, we may not even need reproduction.

 

[TheERK]

I'm not sure what you are reading but the theory of evolution is about as close to scientific fact as you can come. Creationism on the other hand isn't science at all. You can not have an idea and then go out looking for evidence to support it and then call that science. Evidence leads to theories, theories don't lead to evidence.

Actually, this is completely wrong. It can go both ways. For example, relativity was just a theory until they decided to go out and obtain evidence for it. This evidence came from testing the theory.

The problem with creationism is that it has no evidence. Evolution does.

 

[what768]

M*W: Mutations can occur through diet and the environment. If you put all these 'mice' in a large cage, when they multiplied beyond the capacity of their normal space, they would become homocidal mice and homosexual mice from the mutations.
*************
No, I don't believe in "mutations", that's the wrong word. The environment changes and thus the diet, many animals will die, and almost all lifeforms become different, but that's not mutation!
*************
M*W: I disagree. Mutations occur at the molecular level, and early man evolved from, say, from homo erectus to homo sapiens sapiens. Humanity is still evolving, and we still have a long way to go before we are complete to our best capacity. Then we will be called homo spirtus.
*************
I know that mutations occur at molecular level, that's what I said, but after the molecular level, after a new creature has evolved, the mutation stops. Everything is always "evolving" because living things constantly change, and when the environment changes, so must the species, otherwise they won't survive, and if it takes too much time, they die. It is possible that we have "evolved from" homo erectus, and yes, humans are far away from perfection, but we will come there.
*************
M*W: There are some extinct species of fish that have rudimentary legs as do some reptiles.
*************
This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.
*************
M*W: I thought they laid their eggs on land by digging a hole and sitting on their buried eggs? Also, do you know the crocodile is the only animal who instinctly pursues the human? There are a lot of animals that can kill humans, but the crocodile hunts humans!
*************
What does it mean that crocodiles hunt humans? Just that it senses its sinful nature?
*************
M*W: Reptiles came first, and when they learned to live on land, their scales turned into feather buds, and they grew reptile-looking feet. Then they flew.
*************
I will never understand how they "learned" to live on land or devolop wings, these "mutations" have nothing to do with reproduction, reproduction does only small changes but the environment changes all creatures, just as it changed the dinosaurs to these, smaller species. But that's not evolution.
*************
M*W: Because each species reaches the ultimate maturity at different times. Apes are still evolving as are humans. There wasn't a single time when everything appeared. Every creature has his day. Humans are still evolving. I guarantee we won't be anything like we are now in the next 50,000 years. We will probably perfect OBEs, telekinesis, telepathy without using words to communicate. Science is able to prolong life as it is now. I think in 50,000 years or sooner, humanity will be able to cure all diseases so life will become eternal. That being the case, we may not even need reproduction.
*************
I just think that "life" expresses itself in countless ways. I too believe that we will devolop higher psychic abilities. Moving the parts of our body is a kind of psychic ability. But who wants to live forever? Isn't it painful? People will still want things that they can't have, and this creates pain. However, I believe we will become more spiritual, we will not be so attached to our limited body, and I think we will stop reproducing ourselves, just like the "sons of God" did at their end times.

 

[one_raven]

No, I don't believe in "mutations", that's the wrong word. The environment changes and thus the diet, many animals will die, and almost all lifeforms become different, but that's not mutation!

You don't "believe in them"?
But that's what "almost all lifeforms become different" is.
Is it just a matter of semantics?
Do you not like the word mutations because it conjures up some silly 1950's SciFi big bug movie?
Fact is, mutation DOES occur.
The word may have a negative connotation due to many different reasons.
If you agree that species change over many years, then yes, you DO believe in mutation.

First you say...

I know that mutations occur at molecular level, that's what I said, but after the molecular level, after a new creature has evolved, the mutation stops.

Then...

Everything is always "evolving" because living things constantly change, and when the environment changes, so must the species, otherwise they won't survive, and if it takes too much time, they die.

The two are just not reasonably consistent.
Mutations occurring at the molecular level, which you said you DO believe in, IS evolution.

It is possible that we have "evolved from" homo erectus, and yes, humans are far away from perfection, but we will come there.

This sounds liek another misconception.
Do you think that evolution is defined as something moving towards a state of perfection?

This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.

Yes, they obviously had them from birth.
That doesn't mean anything.
A fish isn't going to just jump out of water, land on the ground and start moseying down the street.
What do you think the purpose of the legs were?

I will never understand how they "learned" to live on land or devolop wings, these "mutations" have nothing to do with reproduction, reproduction does only small changes but the environment changes all creatures, just as it changed the dinosaurs to these, smaller species. But that's not evolution.

Yes, actually, it IS.
A single seemingly simple change of a creature's tail growing a few inches longer could take many thousands of generations to appear.
The changes that happen in species are very slight and compound over the generations.
You said it is concievable that humans evolved from homo-erectus-erectus, right?
Take all those many little changes that built up on expanded upon each other over all those years and apply that to a creature that has been making these tiny little changes over millions upon millions of generations.
Does it really seem that far fetched that one species would evolve from another?
What do you think seperates the different species?
Lots and lots of little differences.
They are all based on DNA, which, as we agree, can change.
Take any living thing (even plants) down to the most base level of life, and what do you have?
DNA.
Being that Chimpanzee DNA is very similar to human DNA, and we look quite different from the outside, what really seperates us?
Perhaps a few thousand generations of little changes brought about by differing environments, combined with molecular mutation, along with pathogens and whatever else may change the DNA over time?
If not, why not?
You are a mixture of traits from both of your parents, plus your environment, right?
That is evolution of the species.

A few things.
Evolution is not limited to or bound by Darwin's theories of what happens.
Evolution is a scientific fact, the ways and means is up for debate, and there is not a single accepted theory that explains it all.



You don't believe in "mutation", but you know cells experience mutation.
You know that species are always "evolving", but you don't believe in evolution.
You argued against fish with limbs by stating that they had them from birth.

Do you think that Evolution Theory states:
One day this Lizard decides it wants to learn to fly so it can travel to warmer climates with a fresh food supply in the winter.
So, the Lizard's scales split apart and formed into feathers.
After that, the Lizard's bones lost mass and he jumped off a cliff and flew away.
Is that your idea of what scientists are trying to put out?

If so, you have some things wrong.
If not, please explain to me what you think Evolution Theory DOES state, because I am at a loss due to what I think one inconsistency after another in your arguments.
I really think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what scientists refer to when they say "Evolution".

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I have never seen a creature form into another, bigger creature!

I have a friend who's about a foot taller than both of his parents.

No, I don't believe in "mutations"

You don't have a choice, mutations aren't something you can choose whether or not to believe in, go to school.

This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.

You seem to be expecting 1 individual organism to "evolve" in front of your eyes.
Lamarck thought that was how evolution worked in the 1700s or something, you don't sound like you've been in a coma for 300 years so what is your excuse for having such an outdated, faulty and weak understanding of evolution?

Break for medicine woman;

Also, do you know the crocodile is the only animal who instinctly pursues the human? There are a lot of animals that can kill humans, but the crocodile hunts humans!

That's not true at all, please no one pay attention to that statement it is incorrect.

Back to what768;

I will never understand how they "learned" to live on land or devolop wings, these "mutations" have nothing to do with reproduction, reproduction does only small changes but the environment changes all creatures, just as it changed the dinosaurs to these, smaller species. But that's not evolution.

Medicine woman really isn't helping you.
Fish that lived in areas prone to drought developed the ability to gulp air of the surface of the water for their source of oxygen because as their ponds would dry up the water would become more and more stagnent and devoid of oxygen. There are many descendents of the original "labyrinth fish" still around today, the famous siamese fighting fish for one.
This is where the "lung" all land vertebrates possess today originally evolved.

Sometimes the ponds these lunged fish were in would dry up completely, many would die, natural selection favoured those which could riggle their way to another body of water. As time went on for some strains of fish, riggling wasn't good enough and strong boned fins that helped them drag themselves to new bodies of water were favoured in populations of fish living in drought proned areas.

As time went on eventually a creature evolved which actually exploited the vast array of food on land which there was no competition over acquiring (insects etc). It would still frequently go back to the water to remoisten itself and lay it's eggs etc, but it would spend a fair bit of time on land. This was the dawn of amphibians and indeed the dawn of land dwelling vertebrates.

There were many niches available for land vertebrates as there was none so a varied array of amphibians evolved. Eventually one ancestral line of amphibian became more and more specialised to life on land and eventully removed the shackles of needing to moisten itself in water, it developed the ability to acquire it's needed moisture by ingesting water through it's mouth. It developed a hard scaley covering which didn't lose moisture so quickly, etc, the dawn of reptiles.

Reptiles were an exceptionally successful design that ruled the earth for 100s of millions of years.
Something unusual ended the dominance of the dinosaurs, it's not clear, there are a few theories.
But one reptile developed a way to regulate it's own body temperature without relying on the sun, it also took care of it's young to increase their chances of survival, even feeding their young with "milk" from their own body. This allowed for creatures to be such that they required "learning" to fully become competent at living the lifestyle for their species. It allowed for creatures to be more complex and adaptable.
We were seeing the dawn of mammals. At this stage they were monotremes, seemingly half reptile half mammal. They still laid eggs, and they weren't quite so good at regulating their own body tempereture as modern placental mammals are.
We can see descendents of this transitional group of animals in australias echidna and platypus. Mammals which lay eggs like reptiles.
Eventually certain evolutionary lines found it beneficial to birth live young, and marsupials arose. Later a line developed the placenta method of growing young large inside their bodies, and modern placental mammals arose.
I could go on, I'll explain how mammals went from small little shrew like creatures to humans if you really want. Just ask.

Not only does the modern animal kingdom back up this history, so does the fossil record, and dna testing.
Nobody with an understanding of evolution doesn't believe in it, it's that simple.

All the most powerfull human minds on the planet "believe" (not that it requires "belief" to a rational person) in evolution. What flaws do you, as someone who doesn't understand evolution, think you are going to find that all the best minds on earth who intimately understand evolution haven't found?
It's scrutinized brutally but it's just too damn perfect.
And frankly it's an insult for you to even suggest that it "doesn't make sense", if it didn't make sense science would pay it no mind, much akin to how they treat creationism which has no scientific backing or any form of evidence whatsoever supporting it and is flagrantly a defiance of the laws of nature and reads like bad primitive fantasy.
If there was even a slight problem with evolution some university or scientist would have found that problem, and the rest of the scientific community would have acknowledged the validity of that problem and then wiped evolution off the board as something that didn't happen.
You aren't going to find a significant flaw which will render the theory invalid, anything that doesn't make sense in your head is a problem in your head, not a problem with the theory of evolution.
Please keep that in mind, as it's quite frsutrating for people who understand evolution to listen to an ignoramous carrying on.

Imagine someone saying the earth is flat, but you know it isn't, and they're saying "I don't believe the earth is round", you'd be like "you're not allowed to not believe idiot" right? Well thats exactly what it's like.

 

[Mushin]

Actually, this is completely wrong. It can go both ways. For example, relativity was just a theory until they decided to go out and obtain evidence for it. This evidence came from testing the theory.

Given I don't really know what I'm talking about but I'm pretty sure the theory of relativity came from mathmatical evidence and didn't just pop out of someone's mouth one day. Whereas creationism pretty much just came from religious texts and thus I agree has no evidence.

 

[what768]

Consider the plants, how they grow. The forest, how do you think it came into being? Do you think they all come from one tree, which reproduced itself by its seeds and sow the whole earth with trees, not its own kind, but also another kinds of trees? No, it wasn't like that. The whole earth was watered by the oceans: plants, trees and flowers came from the earth, everywhere, manifesting according to circumstances. In my country, here in north, the trees are small, but in some countries there are gigantic trees. It is like this with the animals too, they are the same kind of living things as the plants. There were born insects, animals and birds formed from the earth and water, everywhere, and they didn't have a certain ancestor.

Have you thought about how the first living thing came into being? Do you really think there was only one of these living things? If one could come into being, it is very likely that there were billions of living organisms created in the oceans at the same time. And because they were created in water, it means that they can be created in earth too, because the water ascends to heaven and the wind blows it to the land, and where ever the earth was watered, life came into being. Life emerges from the earth and water, and the wind and the sun makes it possible. Because many 'first living things' were created at the same time in the oceans, many different species were created of these, which lived under different circumstances.

Look at the rabbits ears. They have mutated, it has devoloped great ears because of circumstances, it has to listen much, to see if someone is going to eat it. Because it had to listen, it devoloped great ears. But that's the only mutation that the willpower can make. It can't form a creature to a totally different kind, and if it would, the old rabbits with the small ears wouldn't survive, because they needed the great ears. These mutations have occured because the rabbits have moved to different contries with certain different dangerous species. In the same way as the rabbit, man will create a great brain, like the ancient egyptians, because he uses his brain a lot. I don't know if apes can mutate to humans, ever, because they are so much different.

Now, there are other, greater kinds of changes of the environments and circumstances of the earth. Imagine what would happen if the earth's rotation would change a bit, or if the moon would take distance from the earth. This is how the dinosaurs died, because the circumstances of the earth changed so drastically and they didn't the natural time to change their bodies. From this, many new kinds of species evolved, but there were certain animals that didn't need to change themselves, like certain fishes, some of the animals only needed to make themselves smaller.

This has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection never makes new species, it only perfects an old species which needs completion because of small changes of environment and circumstances, in the future, it gives us a greater brain for example, when all human races have melted into one divine race.
---
Once there also lived humans on earth, which had a much bigger body than us; from this comes the myth of giants. But these humans were much higher devoloped than the people of today. Their life didn't include egoistic behaviour, and they have also played a role in devoloping the humans of today. They have created the great pyramid in Egypt with a symbolic meaning. Because we have used slaves, we also think that they used millions of slaves to make the great pyramid, but this is not true. Instead they let the natural forces to make them, for them. In a distant future we will also be able to control matter, make energy to thicker energy, any kinds of energy and also control gravity and even the life itself. But these giants, which were called the Sons of God, didn't always use machines to control the weather and other natural forces, but they knew that which resided inside themselves, the life, the self, was the greatest power, and everything else were just tools to express this.

 

[TheERK]

Once there also lived humans on earth, which had a much bigger body than us; from this comes the myth of giants. But these humans were much higher devoloped than the people of today. Their life didn't include egoistic behaviour, and they have also played a role in devoloping the humans of today. They have created the great pyramid in Egypt with a symbolic meaning. Because we have used slaves, we also think that they used millions of slaves to make the great pyramid, but this is not true. Instead they let the natural forces to make them, for them. In a distant future we will also be able to control matter, make energy to thicker energy, any kinds of energy and also control gravity and even the life itself. But these giants, which were called the Sons of God, didn't always use machines to control the weather and other natural forces, but they knew that which resided inside themselves, the life, the self, was the greatest power, and everything else were just tools to express this.

You cannot possibly be serious here. This is all complete bullshit.

 

[SnakeLord]

No, I don't believe in "mutations", that's the wrong word. The environment changes and thus the diet, many animals will die, and almost all lifeforms become different, but that's not mutation!

What are you trying to debate here? Whether you personally believe in it or not, doesn't make it any less a fact.

I know that mutations occur at molecular level, that's what I said

... You just said you didn't 'believe' in mutation.

but after the molecular level, after a new creature has evolved, the mutation stops.

Here is a lot of the problem. It's as if you think one animal mutates and thus = evolution, which is not true. Nor would it imply that once it has 'mutated', that it wont mutate further.

This doesn't mean that they were "evolving" into land animals, just that they simply had these legs from birth.

Whales also have leg bones. These are merely "left overs", just like our wisdom teeth, tail bones, and goose bumps.

But that's not evolution.

Well as you obviously know, kindly tell me: what is evolution?

Moving the parts of our body is a kind of psychic ability.

No it isn't.

But who wants to live forever? Isn't it painful?

Every single christian I've ever encountered.

People will still want things that they can't have, and this creates pain.

Or god.

 

[what768]

I have explained it, but you have not understood...