Ebook

No one knows the origin of life, matter, the universe, ect, because we were not alive when these things happen. Even religion is based on the unknown.

Oh you are right, the idea that everything popped into existence with everything already as we see it today makes much more sense.
What does the theory of evolution have to do with the creation of the universe?
You are very egocentric in your questioning, you think that all these questions prove what you think is correct but in fact they do not. If I cannot answer these questions, can you? There are a large amount of theories that explain how everything came to be, and they are THEORIES. You believe in a THEORY not an absolute fact. To call other theories wrong without there being an absolute fact makes no sense and is very self-centered.
Another thing you seem not to understand is that our universe has existed for 13.7 billion years. Do you have any idea how long this is and what kind of things can occur in this amount of time? It is obvious that you, along with many other humans cannot wrap your mind around the enormousness of this amount of time.

all that questions for 10 points ?

Just one question for you
1) What is a plausible alternative?

1 - 6 are not evolution.
4 What makes you think it is perfect?

I am not going to take a stab at this because biology is waaay too complex for me. I prefer the simpler “building block” sciences of physics and chemistry. I only want to deal with things like quarks, which make up things like electrons and neutrons and protons, whick make up things called atoms and the different chemical elements. When I try to get into very complex clusters of atoms like “organic molecules” I get lost. And I hope to never have to study about when those organic molecules combine to form things like cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. Yep, waaaay to complex for my simple mindedness. “Keep it simple stupid” is my motto. Physics is elegant, beautiful simplicity.
So, all I want to provide is this possible answer to the REAL question you are asking.
In learning about and studying what I perceive to be real things up in the night sky such as other planets and bodies, stars, nebula — i.e. the universe and the pieces of matter in it, I have come to the conclusion that the only “thing” that could understand absolutely all of it is the “thing” or entity that created it. I will call this thing the “Creator”. Now you know I do believe in a “Creator”. However, I do not believe any mere mortal human has come up with an accurate, true and complete definition of the “Creator”. Nor has any mere mortal yet invented a true and correct religion.
“God created man in His image” can never be proved. I mean if “God” is so perfect how are humans so imperfect? If he is perfect, can’t he make a perfect copy? But, I firmly believe that some men created their God in their image and went on to harm or kill others who didn’t like or accept that image all in the name of their religion which I am sure preaches about kindness to and caring for others. I mean, well, Huh?!?!? How does that makes sense?

Good [yes, I realise that derived from "God"] day.

Your premise is wrong. Evolution is not about the origin of man or the universe. Your questions make assumptions that are not true. I’ll list a few of them…

1. It didn’t “come from” anywhere, it was created in the big bang (which btw, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

2. See #1.

3. Who cares where they came from, the fact is, they exist and the scientific method is the best way we have of predicting how they function. Once again, nothing to do with evolution.

4. Matter is not perfectly organized. Still nothing to do with evolution.

5. See #4

6. Still nothing to do with evolution. You’re talking about abiogenesis.

7. See #6

8. Probably similar things that parameciums reproduce with today. They don’t _have_ to exchange genetic material, but they will if there’s another paramecium around.

9. Who cares _why_ they want to reproduce, the fact is that they do. Now we need to devise a theory that explains it, perhaps because those that didn’t try to reproduce, didn’t, and they all died. Therefore, everything that’s left are the decendants of those that strove to reproduce, inheriting their predisposition to reproduction.

10. Please refer to pretty much any species alive today which descended from simpler forms of life.

11. If there was a creator, he was retarded because he copied the same design flaws from species to species. For example, the appendix in humans and monkies that serves no useful purpose except to become infected, burst, and kill us (after bringing us excruciating pain).

12. Mutation and variances within the same species.

13. This is a complicated question and has been answered already. Suffice to say that if you did a little research, you could find the answer. The short answer is, little by little. Something like an eye wouldn’t evolve from scratch. It’d start as a photosensitive cell, which would, in ensuing generations, be a clump of photosensitive cells (which would give it an advantage over it’s less gifted brothers). Then some of them might have the cells grouped inside a small indent, which would (because they have an advantage) evolve into a cavity, which then fills with fluid and viola, you have an eye.

14. Assuming you took biology in high school, there’s no way I’m going to be able to tell you in a single post what years of schooling failed to drill into your head. Take some courses and learn something.

15. See # 14.

*sigh* the theory of evolution is called the THEORY o evolution, because it has been proven to be so, if it had not been, it would be the Hypothesis of Evolution.

and evolutionists dont exist, it is not a religion you see….
evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the univers, so why bother bringing that up.

all evolution says is that animals evolve, and adapt to their surroundings.

as to your question on the origins of whales, science hasnt been able to go back that far, and there are still many missing links in teh tree that makes up life.

p.s. (2 celled lifeforms, are mutlicellular)

so plz think before you start posting nonsense, or go back to the Religion section.

1, 2, and 3 are pretty good questions. The answer(s) to them really aren’t known.

4 simply reveals a profound ignorance of entropy

5 is simply a re-hash of 1 thru 3

6 and the rest are just re-hashes of the same old, tired, worn-out questions that creationists have been asking since Darwin published ‘the Origin of Species’.

However, question 9 *does* reveal your profound ignorance of the Bible. Read Genesis 1:22 before you embarrass yourself further. And note that it does *not* say anything about ‘in your own image’.

But I have a question for you. How do you ‘know’ that evolution wasn’t ‘invented’ by the creator?

Actually, the real question is why anyone would spend time trying to explain things to you that you have, rather obviously, rejected out of hand and don’t want to understand in the first place.

Doug

The difference between scientific answers and theological answers is that the former can admit ignorance. I admit (and Einstein or any other scientists) will readily admit that they don’t know, or that some facts are still unknown at the present state of technology. Theological postulate (”Providential higher entities”) are afraid to admit there is something that “God” cannot account for.
The answers to a lot of the questions you ask are in some textbooks and / or Wikipaedia . The rest is still either questions that has no meaning in the context of science ( “Where does space come from …?”) or is meaningful but still unknown to science today.

Hmm … does this look familiar to people?
… or here:=&q_blogid=9506&blogname=alivetogod
… or here:
… or here’s the google search for this question (184 hits):=%22pagan+religion+masquerading+as+science%22&btnG=Search

Bek1221 has copied this post word-for-word from a set of “questions” written by Kent Hovind, and re-published over and over on numerous creationists web pages.

This has also been posted (and answered) many times here on Yahoo answers. Like here:

Each and every one of these questions has an answer … even the stupid ones. But (1) there are so many questions, that it becomes an enormous effort, and (2) the asker has ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN THE ANSWERS. The asker doesn’t even have the integrity to ask his own questions, much less actually listen to the answers.

So this is an exercise in complete, utter, lameness.

It’s a theory for a reason. Maybe look at all the holes in any religion and reconsider this question. For an answer to number 9 animals and plants have no idea of their own mortality and simply follow urges. One of these urges is reproduction which is in every species because they evolved from smaller mutlicellular organisms that did the same basic things.

Oh for the love of science (get my South Park quote in early). Go and read some Richard Dawkins and some Stephen Hawkins.

Every one of you points shows a MASSIVE lack of understanding, not only of biology and evolution, but of science in general. Even your statement “The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions” is flawed. A theory is not meant to provide “answers” it is meant to provide an operating paradigm within which further postulations and extrapolations can be made, while fulfilling the basic principles as laid down by other preceding theories (which in turn get overturned periodically e.g. pure Newtonian physics, it lasted centuries but relativity blew it away).

I would also suggest that you read some Karl Popper so you have a clue about the philosophy of science.

Now please. PLEASE. Go back to the theology board and pretend that it is a more reasonable hypothesis that God has always existed, that he created the world and everything in it in 6 days and that all the horrors of the world are part of some ineffeble divine plan.

I am not going to waste my time answering your points, as we both know that no matter what I say or how well I say it, I am not going to change your mind.

Tsk tsk tsk… You are getting your information about science from a conservative pundit. Doesn’t it make more sense to get your information about science from a SCIENTIST?

Let’s review what happened last time we accepted scientific assertions from a conservative radio talk show host. Remember when Rush Limbaugh said “Folks, hold on to your hats, the envirowhackos are back and they are telling us it’s getting hotter and they are telling us it is our fault for driving SUV’s. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous, so patently false?” And he wrote chapter after chapter about how the scientists were wrong and about how there were “other” better scientists who questioned the real scientists.

And look how that ended up! Daily reports of tornadoes, hurricanes, supercells, blizzards because the Great Lakes don’t freeze over any more, and the global scientific community came together and said, “These liars are wrong. If we don’t reduce our emissions, we will render the planet uninhabitable.”

So, if you have a question about the theory of evolution ask it. And ask it of a real scientist. You are repeating questions that Ann Coulter put in your head. Ann, like Rush, is a paid moutpiece for the republicans. She is paid to trick you into thinking the republicans are on your side. But they are not. They are on the side of the CEO’s. Bush’s tax cuts are cutting Hershey’s Chocolate jobs, Daimler Chrysler jobs, and that is just what is in the news TODAY.

> 1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
What does this have to do with biological evolution?
Where did God come from?

> 2. Where did matter come from?
Another non-evolution question.
Maybe the Big Bang was a real event, in which case our kind of space and matter were made in the Big Bang.
Where did the Chaos and Void mentioned in the Bible come from?

> 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Another non-evolution question.
Inherent in our kind of space, which was made “during” the Big Bang.
We were made in God’s image, … but why does God resemble chimpanzees?

> 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Another non-evolution question.
Who says it’s perfectly organized? Anyway, mass has gravity, and gravity tends to clump things together.
Can God create a lump of rock so heavy He can’t lift it with his chimpanzee-like hands?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Another non-evolution question.
Inherent in the properties of our kind of space and our kind of matter.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
Another non-evolution question.
Speculation, that self-replicating macromolecules formed as a result of physical action (e.g. lightning, UV) on the molecules present on the early Earth (”primordial soup”).

> 7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Reproduction is a property of life. Life didn’t “learn.”

> 8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Another of its kind. Look up “sex pilus” and “pilus receptor.”

> 9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
The selfish gene, buddy. I want to increase my allele set frequency in succeeding generations. I know I am not going to live forever — but my genes can live on through my descendants.
The individual has a drive to survive AND reproduce.

> 10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
a) example: people who are heterozygous for sickle cell anemia are somewhat more resistant to malaria. Therefore, someone who is heterozygous for sickle cell anemia is a new improved variety in a part of the world where malaria is prevalent.
example: dachshund breeders throw away anything with long legs. Therefore, the short legs, a mutation, is a new improved variety to a dachshund breeder.
b) recombining English letters can give you a phonetic approximation of some Chinese words. Recombining those can give you a Chinese book. Selection at work: Throw away anything that a Chinese person wouldn’t find familiar.

> 11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
No. Quite the opposite. Consider: We were made in God’s image. Why would God also do the same favor for chimps?

> 12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.
No it doesn’t. Natural selection favors those who reproduce. In a changing environment, the selection factors may also change — and thus the species may change or go extinct.

> How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
I look into our own genome and see “fossil genes” that are inactive. Imagine if some of those, through a mutation in a control sequence, became reactivated. Maybe in a different environment, some of those would be “new and improved.”

13. When, where, why, and how did:
a) Single-celled plants become multicelled?
*shrug* A long time ago!
> (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)
We have multicellular aggregates of similar algae cells. Consider some of those as indicative of what the intermediate would have been like.
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
Likely some pre-existing autotrophic eukaryotic cells lost their ability to be autotrophic.
c) Fish change to amphibians?
A long time ago.
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
A long time ago.
e) Reptiles change to birds?
Never. Birds are the descendants of certain dinosaurs.
> (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
Just fine. Changes occurred in small steps. Each new species was adapted to its environment well enough to reproduce.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve?
A long time ago, from some terrestrial mammal that liked the beach.
b) Sea horses evolve?
A long time ago. They’re fish.
c) Bats evolve?
A long time ago, probably from an animal sort of like a flying shrew (picture a flying squirrel, but an insectivore).
d) Eyes evolve?
Several times. From light-sensitive spots.
e) Ears evolve?
Can you hear me now? Lots of different kinds of vibration sensors.
f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Integument protects against the hostile environment.

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

They co-evolved. You don’t get a “one happened first, making a partial or useless critter out of its owner” situation. That only happens with Creationism — the plants being created before the sun, for example.

1) Space is, well, space… Length x Width x Depth. Asking where those dimensions come from is the same as asking how time passes. I’m not a scientist (and I don’t play one on tv), but I would have to think some concepts are indisputable.

2) Will humans ever be intelligent / enlightened enough to answer this question? We’re talking about something so astronomically old, and with our limited transportation, how can this be answered with any confidence. However I definitely prefer a scientific / mathematical explaination over “god was playing with his marbles one day, and…”

3) Why is light light. Why is the absence of light dark? It is, because it is. All those little particles and waves interact with each other and do things. Are you asking “who invented Science”? Science is nothing more than sentient beings attempting to understand the world around them.

4) It isn’t. This is why suns implode, and why nuclear bombs exist. This is why humans get cancer, and have birth defects and mutations. Perfectly organized matter would be one element (Hydrogen) existing all by its lonsome thruout the universe. If there was any matter at all in a “most organized” universe.

5) If it was organized, there wouldn’t be energy. You create electricity by DISRUPTING matter (stripping electrons). So that is an erroneous question.

6) If you’re talking about life after death and/or re-birth, that’s an unanswerable question. If you’re asking why trees grow fastest and strongest after a fire wiped out the previous “generation” that’s the simple process of nutrient enrichment. Read up on Crop Rotation for the easiest explaination.

7) When one little Amobae approached another little Amobae and said “Let’s split”.

7a) And how did this happen? Well, considering “life” has been recreated in lab settings using “primordial soup” and large doses of electricity, we’re only a few billion years away from those manufactured cells evolving into something that we would traditionally recognize as “life”.
This is basic Grade 10 Biology. As multi-cellular organisims evolved, they developd specialty cells… Digestive systems… Nerve centers… Reproductive systems. Since sexual reproduction (aka, not cellular cloning) is key to evolution (thru mutation and the passing of genetically superior traits), it stands to reason that a reproductive system that would allow the combining of genetic traits would be amongst the first cellular specialties.

9) Easy - To pass on superior geneic material. Bees spread the pollen of the best flowers to make honey with. The best hunters will procreate to develop even better hunters. Humans have to muddle things up by also relying on their offspring to improve their own lives as they age. And what’s farming (both plant and animal) besides guided reproduction. Taste good, and we’ll grow more. Taste bad, and you’re on your own.

10) English / Chinese is a horrible example, since both languages and character sets are invented. But I’ll use it anyways… The English Language may create (once translated, of course) something wildly successful in China, but not overly appealing to a large chunk of the English audience… We’ll call this the John Woo theory.

10a) How CAN’T it??? No, not every mutation works… Not even close. But let’s think about monkeys for a second (because monkeys are funny). You have big gorillas that generally stay on the ground, and are very territorial. Well, what about smaller gorillas who would get killed by the bigger ones… But because they are smaller, they climb trees easier and faster. But gorillas are clumsy, so those smaller ones who fall out of trees remove themselves from the gene pool on their own accord. Those with better balance could have longer tails. Because these ones survive, tails have become a genetically superior trait, for those smaller gorillas forced to live in trees… etc with smaller fingers, opposable thumbs, the ability to stand erect, the ability to use your thumbs to create tools to create shelter… Yadda, yadda, yadda.

10b) Sorry, but this is a question that shouldn’t have been asked. How does mutation work??? With the thousands of volumes of information out there, this just isn’t the best forum to get a valuable answer… If you legitimately don’t understand.

11) No… If a common creator wanted everything to be similar, then mutation and adaptation never would be “allowed”… Tell you what… Go swim to the bottom of the ocean and tell him he reminds you of a spruce tree and a camel. Now, I will admit that the proof of evolution doesn’t disqualify belief in a creator… But using a belief in a creator to disprove evolution? No, that doesn’t fly… Even among the most fanatical religious communities, evolution is widely accepted.

12) Natural selection works to stabilize a species??? No. Wrong. By definition, natural selection seeks to remove inferior gene pools from the system. What do you think Polio, Leprosy and AIDS are? In a few generations, assuming HIV hasn’t been eradicated, we will start to see genetically resistant people. It is in eliminating a disease that we weaken natural selection, by not losing the population that the disease would have taken. Of course, in the case of a massive plague, there needs to be survivors in order for the species to survive at all.

12b) Disease itself is the best posible example of natural selection creating change, not stability… Imagine if there was one disease in the world… That disease would be cured, and there would be no more. It’s BECAUSE of Natural Selection that diseases mutate and jump species.

13) There are few 2-3 cell species (if any at all) because there’s no advantage. Be a 1-cell, which is the simplest possible creature… Or be a fully independant multi-cellular creature, with the groups of specialty cells. Can’t have a digestive system with two cells… No nerve center… No reproductive system… And without a reproductive system, no sexual reproduction… No sexual reproduction, and the only other option is cellular division… And there’s the reason it’s one or many… How many phone books would you want to tear in half… One, or four? One is easier… Easier is more efficient… Efficiency rules… Exept in the case of survivability.

14) Every creature exists because it has a function in the current ecosystem, and has not been rendered obsolete in that function. Why do humans exist? Whales, seahorses and Bats have been around a lot longer…

14a) Eyes are nothing more than a group of specialty cells that were a mutation from probably a group of light sensitive “skin” cells, which of course were a mutation of their own. the ability to utilize light in the quest for food (and to be not food) would be such a massive genetic advantage that this particular mutation may only have to occur once in the history of all species.

14b) Hair warms, skin holds all the little specialty orgins together and protect the components vital to life from sun and phyical damage, feathers are a light way to increase air resitance, scales are a defensive measure….. ETC. Surely I don’t have to answer who these components are advantageos.

15) Digestive juices are not essential to the absorbtion of nutrients, and I highly doubt that a mutation that created stomach acid before creating the means to prevent its own body from being digested, would have been successful (natural selection, and all). Most of this question is just common sense… We didn’t develop air to be breathed into our lungs… Our lungs developed to breathe the air we are provided. That would be why fish have gills my friend. This whole question is way too end-focussed. Baby steps first. It’s not a skeletal system… It’s some stong-walled cells encapsulating some weak-walled cells… Everything else is just an advancement from that basic concept. Sharks have no bone, only cartelidge… Reason being that bone creates no gnetic advantage (in fact, it must have been a genetic disadvantage, even at a miniscule level). Immune system would be developed as soon as an organism grows large enough to be a target for a parasite.

Your first questions were much more interesting… The later ones just indicated that either you know absolutely NOTHING about evolution (and don’t want to research it properly)… Or are so focused on a creationist theory that you feel there simply cannot be any steps between A(mobae) and Z(ebra). Natural selection had a few billion years to figure things out.

Start with the Origin of Species. A little dated by todays scintific standards, but still one of the best introductory reads about the DISCOVERY of evolution that you’ll find.

- Jason Williams
Proud Darwinist and Aethest

geez… be serious

most of your questions are all about the Big Bang… you should read it and check it out somewhere. Maybe ask somebody to explain it to you if the problem’s you don’t understand the theory.

also, stupid question… why do living things reproduce? it’s not about having less resources for yourself.. if you don’t reproduce, how will your genes carry on? you’ll just die without leaving anything behind

again… check out a dictionary and look up the word mutation.. (occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to ALTER THE GENETIC MESSAGE carried by that gene).. therefore creating new stuff. Not only better, but obviously due to natural selection the bad results won’t be carried on and the good ones will.

then.. questions 13 to 15 are all in books. You want a freaking essay for an answer. At least evolution has backup.. either morphological, fossil, genetic, anatomic.. Creationism’s only answer is: god wanted it to

BEK1221,

Are you going to join smilingforever in nonsense rants against evolution and the theory of evolution by natural selection? It is not that you waste our time, because you do, but that you waste your own time with such ill posed questions. People say there is no such thing as a stupid question. Another saying that could be wrong.

1. Home Depot. God did it, they helped.

2. It doesn’t matter.

3. George W. Bush made the laws of the universe. He’s the decider.

4. You obviously haven’t met my ex-wife.

5. Energy Drinks.

6. Yes.

7. Internet ****.

8. A reproductive organ, such as a tooth.

9. All bugs are the same.

10. Watch X-Men.

11. Is it possible that if grasshoppers had shotguns birds wouldn’t eat them?

12. Forty-two.

13. With the powah of laav, babeh.

14. They all evolved from beige. You can’t go wrong with beige.

15. The blue one.

At first evolutionism is only about life, Darwin didn’t want to explain where universe come from, or matter or energy, or physic laws…..He only explained why there are different species, and why some extincted…….etc etc…
I think that evolutionism is only a theory and not a law because it’s not so complete to answer all questions…but onestly I don’t see any good alternative at the moment…..and how do you consider the fact that human beeings are getting higher and higher(in medieval castles you can see such small doors!! incredible, in only 600 years men got about 25-35 cm higher)

I can’t answer your 15 specific questions, but I’d like to ask you some questions, about a different field, but similar for mind, this will probably help you to reflect about the questions you made:
For example about Cars and machines…
- When the first machine was built if to build a machine you need another machine(let me see how can you build a drill without using any machine),and who did?

-Look at cars, they are all quite similar, 4 wheels, 1 engine usually in the front in modern cars, all have brakes, gear, lights….are all of them designed by a single designer? or are they similar because this characteristics are the best to answer to similar requests?(some different species are similar without any common ancestor, for example in Austalia there are some species similar to rest of the word, but they are marsupial instead of placentated) so similarities are determined by common needs, so 2 species can evolve in the same direction without starting from a common ancestor.

- Which car component was developped first? the engine, the brakes, the wheels, the structure, the seats?………actually the first cars had weak engines,they travelled slowly so they needed only weak brakes, being slow they had weak sollecitations so weak structures were enough, so they were quite light and they didn’t needed strong wheels……but cars evolved……the engines became more powerful, cars became faster,they needed more powerful brakes, more resistant structures,became weighter and needed more advanced wheels…..isn’t this similar to evolution? only the best solutions survive….worst technological solutions are abandoned and “die”….