|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 29, 2021 5:15:55 GMT
Pardon, I am a historian, sociologist, and theologian, not a scientist, but I will do my best. For one thing, it is impossible for life to come from non-living material because of the law of biogenesis, and, more directly related to the theory of evolution, is that mutations are never dominant, and will almost always be swamped into the gene pool unless two animals are bred with the same mutation. uhmm isn't this part of history too? Anyway doesn't all creatures which is part of Animalia Kingdom comes from Microorganism that exist after Oxygen exist on Earth? Oxygen came after life.
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Sept 29, 2021 5:19:39 GMT
uhmm isn't this part of history too? Anyway doesn't all creatures which is part of Animalia Kingdom comes from Microorganism that exist after Oxygen exist on Earth? Oxygen came after life. yes. around 4billion to 2.5 billion years ago when algae and bacteria appeared
|
|
|
Post by 曹操 on Sept 29, 2021 5:24:38 GMT
uhmm isn't this part of history too? Anyway doesn't all creatures which is part of Animalia Kingdom comes from Microorganism that exist after Oxygen exist on Earth? Oxygen came after life. Uhmmm... i mean the microorganism which reproduce and can't photosyntethic are the one who came after oxygen while Plankton and algae are the one responsible for creating Oxygen
|
|
|
Post by 曹操 on Sept 29, 2021 5:26:33 GMT
I mean several human even fear of water so physiological effect maybe anyways i only fear fish which located deep down the sea like on Mariana trench And the psychological effect comes from evolution. Maybe since usually human also fear of something big like when you still a baby you afraid of Big animals and stuff
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 29, 2021 5:28:25 GMT
And the psychological effect comes from evolution. Maybe since usually human also fear of something big like when you still a baby you afraid of Big animals and stuff Yeah, but that's because big things are dangerous and it's an evolutionary effect.
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Sept 29, 2021 8:47:05 GMT
This sounds so general, I biever there details to discuss, like the pure random mutations like Darwin describes overss completely the active part, will and live circumstances. But overall I don't know any scientifically doubts. And today, with genetical testing we pretty exactly can reconstructure the family and roots of every livings. What do you think is not 'scientifically justifiable' ? Pardon, I am a historian, sociologist, and theologian, not a scientist, but I will do my best. For one thing, it is impossible for life to come from non-living material because of the law of biogenesis, and, more directly related to the theory of evolution, is that mutations are never dominant, and will almost always be swamped into the gene pool unless two animals are bred with the same mutation. Theology or Philosophy help a lot in structured theoretical analysis. Where the initial life comes from, is a real crack point. I don't know if evolution has an explanation for beginning of life. I know evolution only as an explanation of the ongoing develpoing of life and species, not as a theory for the first life. I will keep an eye on it. Why mutations can't be dominant, I don't see it - Mendelsohn uncovered quite detailed how dominant and undominat attributes develop through the generations. It is enough to have one partner with a mutation to give this mutation into the next generations. What this monocausal 'random mutation' explanation of Darvin completly oversees are all effects of endogenetical changes. To see the random mutation as the only reason for evolution IS in fact a common lack of understanding (especially from people with the attitudine to explain something they don't get by themself). IE: 'Every' cell of your body has the same DNA, but can be different. Two bees can have the same DNA, but can be ćompletly different types of bees, depending on their food during development etc. If I understand your point of the law of biogenesis correctly, a single seed-corn of grain must be always living - even before germination - right ? (I don't ask for a virus)
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Sept 29, 2021 8:52:52 GMT
uhmm isn't this part of history too? Anyway doesn't all creatures which is part of Animalia Kingdom comes from Microorganism that exist after Oxygen exist on Earth? Oxygen came after life. The big amounts of free oxygen in the Air, came after, exactly: from life. This is correct. The Oxygen atoms were always here.
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Sept 29, 2021 9:05:14 GMT
I mean several human even fear of water so physiological effect maybe anyways i only fear fish which located deep down the sea like on Mariana trench Aquaphobia or Hydrophobia are a sign of rabbia infection. Fear before deep sea, like you describe, is called Thessalophobia.
|
|
|
Post by 曹操 on Sept 29, 2021 9:46:03 GMT
I mean several human even fear of water so physiological effect maybe anyways i only fear fish which located deep down the sea like on Mariana trench Aquaphobia or Hydrophobia are a sign of rabbia infection. Fear before deep sea, like you describe, is called Thessalophobia. The fish are kinda creepy tho
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 29, 2021 12:51:38 GMT
Pardon, I am a historian, sociologist, and theologian, not a scientist, but I will do my best. For one thing, it is impossible for life to come from non-living material because of the law of biogenesis, and, more directly related to the theory of evolution, is that mutations are never dominant, and will almost always be swamped into the gene pool unless two animals are bred with the same mutation. Why mutations can't be dominant, I don't see it - Mendelsohn uncovered quite detailed how dominant and undominat attributes develop through the generations. It is enough to have one partner with a mutation to give this mutation into the next generations. What this monocausal 'random mutation' explanation of Darvin completly oversees are all effects of endogenetical changes. To see the random mutation as the only reason for evolution IS in fact a common lack of understanding (especially from people with the attitudine to explain something they don't get by themself). IE: 'Every' cell of your body has the same DNA, but can be different. Two bees can have the same DNA, but can be ćompletly different types of bees, depending on their food during development etc. Well, sorry, mutations are almost never dominant. Mendel's tests involved two different alleles, of course, but one was not a mutation. It is incredibly hard to pass mutations down the line, even if you want to do it, notwithstanding nature doing it by itself. Yes, mutations in DNA are not the only way evolution is thought to occur, rather speciation is via natural selection, but it is still an important factor if you want to go slowly from a bird to a reptile. Birds just don't have the trigger to make scales (although they do have the instructions), so a mutation s in order to trigger that change. Also, do you believe in long-term evolution or punctuated equilibrium?
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Sept 29, 2021 13:28:07 GMT
I believe we are afraid of animals because active or dangerous animals (such as dogs) can cause harm. We fear snakes because they can cause pain. We fear active, large dogs because they can knock us over. We fear bears because both. You already know I don't believe in evolution, but this is merely common sense. Then according to such logic, Lions should fear a deer or even a cat for that matter. Even they can cause pain.
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 29, 2021 14:22:29 GMT
I believe we are afraid of animals because active or dangerous animals (such as dogs) can cause harm. We fear snakes because they can cause pain. We fear active, large dogs because they can knock us over. We fear bears because both. You already know I don't believe in evolution, but this is merely common sense. Then according to such logic, Lions should fear a deer or even a cat for that matter. Even they can cause pain. Well, lions are certainly not capable of rational thought, but lions do fear porcupines and honey badgers, who are on the savannah.
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 29, 2021 16:32:25 GMT
Then according to such logic, Lions should fear a deer or even a cat for that matter. Even they can cause pain. Well, lions are certainly not capable of rational thought, but lions do fear porcupines and honey badgers, who are on the savannah. 1. What do you mean with rational thought? Lions certainly don't write books about quantum physics, but they do have a brain. 2. You still didn't quite answer John Marston's point and isn't pain a sign of evolution itself too? Also my comment on birds' singing calming people down. How is that explainable without evolution?
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 29, 2021 17:34:43 GMT
Well, lions are certainly not capable of rational thought, but lions do fear porcupines and honey badgers, who are on the savannah. 1. What do you mean with rational thought? Lions certainly don't write books about quantum physics, but they do have a brain. 2. You still didn't quite answer John Marston's point and isn't pain a sign of evolution itself too? Also my comment on birds' singing calming people down. How is that explainable without evolution? By rational thought I mean capable of forming civilization. Yes, lions do form prides with hierarchy, but that isn't a full fledged civilization. Pain is a sign of danger, and to avoid pain is simply common sense. Birds' singing calms people down because patterned noise in general does. www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2013097118As for why all this occurs, I would argue for a God, but other than that I find no reason.
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Sept 29, 2021 18:19:45 GMT
1. What do you mean with rational thought? Lions certainly don't write books about quantum physics, but they do have a brain. 2. You still didn't quite answer John Marston's point and isn't pain a sign of evolution itself too? Also my comment on birds' singing calming people down. How is that explainable without evolution? By rational thought I mean capable of forming civilization. Yes, lions do form prides with hierarchy, but that isn't a full fledged civilization. Pain is a sign of danger, and to avoid pain is simply common sense. Birds' singing calms people down because patterned noise in general does. www.pnas.org/content/118/14/e2013097118As for why all this occurs, I would argue for a God, but other than that I find no reason. Okay, no reason to argue then.
|
|