Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

Sure, germs can "adapt" or evolve quite quickly within the confines of their own structure, but that doesnt prove they're going to one day become elephants. How can we test that?

We cannot determine what they will evolve *into*, but it sure wouldn't be an elephant, since elephants already evolved from something else. The probability that they would evolve into the exact same species of animal as some other evolutionary chain is ridiculously low. Like 1/infinity.

They might evolve into some other creature, though in a few million years time. I don't know enough about the genetics of bacteria to even make an educated guess about the feasibility of such an evolution.

 

[Thalassamania]

What if, it's a self modifying code, never going back to the same thing again, which one day, will come to a final conclusion. On a much greater scale, what if all things were relative to that; the universe and all creation. That all things once in motion, not only depend on, but are defined by everything else that exists; osmosis but on a different and grandious scale. What's also interesting, is how some things have a form of "genetic" memory ... not cloned animals which dont have genetic memory, but thinking more along the lines of insects. They know what to do, and begin doing it at birth, which is unlike mammals which have to be taught. A genetic memory or specific purposeful response to stimuli built into an organism - so intracately woven as to appear alive and functional. Interesting indeed! I'm also beginning to think an "unknown" defines their actions outside of genetics.

It all part of the evolutionary process (and cloned animals have exactly the same "genetic memory" as their cell donors.). There are many things that mammals have from birth and do not have to be taught, but yes many social insects are much more fully programed from the get go.[/quote]

Wonderous in a way, and way beyond my ability to understand.
Mike.

Wonderous in many, many ways ... even more so when you understand just how wonderous.
-----

 

[Midnight Star]

Sorry, but that's a bunch of metaphysical psychobabble.

Actually, it's just another theory.

-----

Mike.

 

[Thalassamania]

To add very quickly another thought ... for a bacteria to evolve into an elephant, one thing would have to exist, that in it's genetic code is the elephant. This is not a sarcastic statment, but has anyone seen in a lab a bacterium become an amoeba? A virus can "exchange" rna within a given cell, but doesnt carry the entire genome, so that would be excluded from evolving since it doesnt have all the genetics to become something else, outside it's class or grouping.

-----

Mike.

With all due respect, you do not understand the process, I will try over the next few days to put together something reasonable succinct to help you to understand it. If you walk way from that with Collins' view of a prime mover who set it all in motion billions and billions of years ago, that fine with me, there is no data to prove or disprove that ... that is truly a matter of faith.

 

[Soggy]

Actually, it's just another theory.

I'm pretty sure you're just trying to be funny, but no, it's not a theory. It's not even close to a theory. It's a bunch of metaphysical questions that have no context. There is a huge difference between a theory in common language and a scientific theory. Scientific theory is as close to 'verified fact' as one can get. It is proven by all the evidence, but it can never be 100% fact since scientific theories, by nature, are falsifiable.

 

[Midnight Star]

...(and cloned animals have exactly the same "genetic memory" as their cell donors.)...

Sure they don't. There are some pre-determining genetic factors that make some behaviors "potentially" inherent, but not absolute. For example, certain levels of hormones could make a person prone to anger, and if to anger other forms of emotions like love and jealousy. But the knowledge in the brain is based on experences, not specific wiring through genetics. Now granted that some wiring again might pre-dispose a person to particular behaviour, but not memory. Memory is learned and experienced. That is dynamic as the organism grows, and not rewritten in genetic code ... if that were true, then all offspring would be born with the genetic memory of their parents. Which they arent. Now the real question is this, would the exact neural wiring of a brain, for the same person be the same in different circumstances? Meaning, if I could take the same person, and theoretically expose them to vastly different enviroments (like two different people experiencing seperate and unique experiences), would the hard-wiring of their brains be the same? If the answer is no, they wouldnt be wired exactly the same, then how would the brain, tell a cell in the arm, let's say, to encode the exact thoughts and experiences of the donor?

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

I'm pretty sure you're just trying to be funny, but no, it's not a theory. It's not even close to a theory. It's a bunch of metaphysical questions that have no context. There is a huge difference between a theory in common language and a scientific theory. Scientific theory is as close to 'verified fact' as one can get. It is proven by all the evidence, but it can never be 100% fact since scientific theories, by nature, are falsifiable.

I am? Maybe i'm missing something here.

-----

Mike.

 

[Bryan]

(and cloned animals have exactly the same "genetic memory" as their cell donors.)

On a side note, that is a very interesting topic... telomere length resetting at conception vs. cloning. Do you think aging will ever be "cured" by a process other than conception? PM me if you want to keep it on topic.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

I'm pretty sure you're just trying to be funny, but no, it's not a theory. It's not even close to a theory. It's a bunch of metaphysical questions that have no context. There is a huge difference between a theory in common language and a scientific theory. Scientific theory is as close to 'verified fact' as one can get. It is proven by all the evidence, but it can never be 100% fact since scientific theories, by nature, are falsifiable.

That must be why gravity was downgraded from law to theory. If it remained law it would present an obstacle to the theory of evolution. After all, gravity could fail (thus falsifying the theory) just as marble statues could wave their hands thus validating the theory.

 

[Soggy]

Maybe i'm missing something here.

Clearly, you are:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts.