Evolution? How?

Gosh, another christian in our midst.

Jack wrote in a earlier post:
Been here (awhile back) said that...why bother 'cause neither side will budge and the "mugwumps" will still sit on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other...I'll check back again in a few months, but it seems that it's still the same old slime mold

Then after a few minutes of thought, comes back with:
On a more serious note now... Concerning the development of one cell into whatever eventually crawled on the land, I still have a problem with this... Was that first creature an herbivore or carnivore, and what did it eat? Where did the plants come from...a variation of that first cell splitting into a plant like creation? Did the plants come first or the animals, and how did that first "living thing" exist. What nourished it? How did fertile soil with nutrients in it come to be to enable plants to grow? How did it reproduce? Was it just one creature or several and did they have different sexes or if it was just one then how did it reproduce itself? I realise some of these topics may have been covered earlier in these some 600 plus pages, but rather than read through all this again...

Jack comes on with insults, calling it a "old slime mold," then in a subsequent post wants to participate in this disucssion. Funny, I say!

On a more serious note now... Concerning the development of one cell into whatever eventually crawled on the land, I still have a problem with this... Was that first creature an herbivore or carnivore, and what did it eat? Where did the plants come from...a variation of that first cell splitting into a plant like creation? Did the plants come first or the animals, and how did that first "living thing" exist. What nourished it? How did fertile soil with nutrients in it come to be to enable plants to grow? How did it reproduce? Was it just one creature or several and did they have different sexes or if it was just one then how did it reproduce itself? I realise some of these topics may have been covered earlier in these some 600 plus pages, but rather than read through all this again...

I'm no scientist, but it would seem obvious that the process would have to begin with the establishment of the planet followed by the environment of the necessary oxygen, gasses, water, and minerals to develop into some form of protein or one cell (amoeba) life form.

We can out of hand reject the bible's six day creation, because it doesn't address evolution.

Science can only attempt to answer how it all began by what is observable today. Human records are very limited in the field of science when considered from the estimated age of earth, and asking science to provide these answers about how, when, and where, is a non-sequitur.

Trying to find answers in the bible is pure idiocy.

Jackofalltrades wrote:

On a more serious note now... Concerning the development of one cell into whatever eventually crawled on the land, I still have a problem with this... Was that first creature an herbivore or carnivore, and what did it eat? Where did the plants come from...a variation of that first cell splitting into a plant like creation? Did the plants come first or the animals, and how did that first "living thing" exist. What nourished it? How did fertile soil with nutrients in it come to be to enable plants to grow? How did it reproduce? Was it just one creature or several and did they have different sexes or if it was just one then how did it reproduce itself? I realise some of these topics may have been covered earlier in these some 600 plus pages, but rather than read through all this again...

Jack,

These are excellent questions, many of which have been studiously avoided in the past 600+ pages. If you will take a quick read thru, you will see that it's a subject that apparently many would rather not discuss.

Typical responses include 'well, the theory of evolution doesn't address the question of how life began'.

While technically true, we all know that Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution are sold as a unified, slick package in the public schools.

It should be apparent to all that the idea of a living cell generating itself from raw chemicals is way out. So far out as to be considered mathematically impossible.

First there are the multitude of various complex compounds which must be formed and in the proper configuration and amount (enough to allow use for the emerging organism but not enough to cause it's environment to be toxic).

Then there are the multitude of components on the sub-cellular level which must form themselves, (Proponents point to a few compounds which self replicate and expect us to believe that they can also form complex sub-cellular machinery by themselves. Gimme a break. ) then these components must begin to function before they are in an organism, and keep themselves functioning until they are aggregated into a cell of some kind.

These sub-cellular components must all somehow locate each other in the muck (perhaps they could use GPS?) and assemble the organism correctly.

This unlikely set of events must be followed by instant success, or instant death. If the new organism is unable to feed itself , dispose of waste, protect itself, maintain itself, repair itself and reproduce itself (these just for starters) then it is over and we must start from chemicals again to form components on the sub-cellular level.

"Civilized organisms?" Boy, that's a new one!

Actually, protohominids began to appear around 9 million years ago, give or take a million depending on where you wanna draw the line on what distinguishes a protohominid from other protosimians. At any event, protohomonids over a few million more years developed into the family Hominidae, which included among others (such as all apes extant and extinct) 2 distinct evolutionary branches, Genus Homo (us) and Genus Australopithecus (Johanson's "Lucy"). The Australopithecines and our immediate progenitors existed for perhaps a couple million years more or less side-by-side, contemporaneously, in and around Africa's Rift Valley untill perhaps 1 million years ago give or take a hundred thousand one way or the other - with some very strong evidence that Genus Homo evolved from, not coincident with Genus Australopithecus.

A very interesting morphologic difference from Genus Australopithecus begins to appear in Genus Homo while the 2 were extant and distinct; tooth and jaw structure. Genus Homo ate much more meat than did any of the other homonids (as evidenced by tooth and jaw structure - primary plant-material eaters among the homonids have differently developed bicuspids and incisors than do the more omnivorous representatives of the family). This meat most likely was obtained more by scavenging and stealing from other predators than actual hunting, and the food source played a key role in the survival of Genus Homo.

Likely also, the increased consumption of meat was the impetus for the development of tool use; hacking up large carcasses is easier with edged implements; and around a million years ago, we begin to see on the fossilized bones of animals found in relative proximity to other evidence and artifacts of Genus Homo tool marks. Something/somebody was carving meat off bones, not ripping and chewing it off. A development of the improved, higher-energy, higher quality food supply was the luxury of a larger and larger brain, which likely did lead to hunting, which likely drove even greater brain development.

Homo Habilus ("Handy Man") clearly was distinct from Australopithecus, having greater brain size and more complex brain form, more erect posture, and possessing very different dentition, clearly adapted to an omnivorous diet. And he used fire, if not actually controlling it fully, and as well he made and left tools, tools of increasing sophistication and specialization as time passed. From Homo Habilus came Homo Erectus, who we know lived in relatively large groups, controlled fire, and possessed a broad toolkit - including portable goods storage capability (baskets and bowls), hunting, fishing, and and sewing equipment (some stone, some bone, but clearly purpose-designed).

While all that was going on, Homo Neanderthalis came (perhaps a quarter million years ago) and went (around 50,000 years ago). Not much to see there, move along please.

The stage was set for Homo Sapiens, who appeared around 150,000 - 160,000 years ago or so, and who, around 80 to 100,000 years ago began to bury his dead - the first critter on the planet to do so. Culture had happened. Around 50 or 60,000 years on, cave paintings began to appear, and things were off and running.

Within a few millenia, Homo Sapiens had moved out of caves and was building his own habitats. By 10,000 years ago, there was primitive organized agriculture and the beginnings of animal husbandry, a few thousand years on writing appears, and we have civilization.

It took us millions of years to go from the forrests and savannahs to cave-dwelling, meat-hunting, funeral-holding, wall-painting culture; tens of thousands of years to get from there to cities, thousands of years to get from there to printing, hundreds of years to get from there to the internal combustion engine, and less than a century to get from there to nuclear physics, major organ transplants, the Internet, the Outer Planets and beyond. Hang on kids, the ride's barely started; the accelleration phase is just starting to really kick in.