Continued: browser accident. Sorry.
I believe in some evolution, like mutations and how a creature adapts to a new environment. And I even believe that some dinosaurs might have evolved into birds, but to say that man evolved from single cell organisms is retarded.
A. No, it's not retarded. If you actually understood something about cellular biology, you would comprehend why it's actually quite logical to move from single to multi-cellular.
Most one celled organisms are what are known as Prokaryotes. They are very early lifeforms on earth. As such, they are far simpler than Eukaryotic cells. In specific, they don't possess most of the organells and memberaneous parts of Eukaroyotes. A key thing to look at is that SOME elements of early prokaryotes are found IN and ON Eukaroyotes. For example
1. Flagella
2. Ribosomes
3. A cell membrane
4. Neucleic Acids.
See if you can follow this: Ask questions if necessary. I am not an expert, but I can give some commentary.
B. It is also important to note that many of the chemical processes we have in Eukaryotes (humans) are directly derrived from Prokaroyotic organisms. First I should give some background. Take Cellular Respiration as the example. Cellular Respiration in Humans is an offshoot of Cellular Respiration in Prokaryotes. In fact, it has to do partly with the early atmospheric composition of the environment. Prokaryotic organisms undergo a cellular respiration called "anerobic respiration." Most Prokaryotic organisms are anerobes, which means they use the former process.
Anerobic Respiration is a form of respiration (which produces ATP molecules) that does
not use oxygen in order to produce energy molecules for cellular work. Anerobic respiration, as far as I know, only uses the first stage of Respiration--Glycolosis--a stage that does not require oxygen. Furthermore, Cellular Respiration Glycolosis does not occure IN organells or on the memberane--but in the cellular cytoplasm. In glycolosis, energy is used by a cell (ATP) to break down glucose into pyruvic acid, and then pyruvid acid I think undergoes
fermentation." In such reactions, 4 ATP molecules are produced, but you get only a net gain of 2 molecules. Why is this all significant? It is also known that Prokaryotic organisms can, if given the ability, use both Anerobic and Aerobic Respiration.
Eurkaryotic Respiration is quite different. Eukaryotic respiration produces 38 + molecules of ATP becaues it uses oxygen. Oxygen intake by animals, for example, allows for a more efficient, higher energy ATP gain. Why is this entire paragraph important to evolution? I will explain following:
1. Oxygen was not, in large part, a major component of early earth. Billions of years ago, and later when life actually began in earnest when proteins and amino groups formed the first cells. THis means that when these cells formed, they had not the oxygen necessary to undergo the Oxidative Phosporylation and Citric Acid Cycle crucial in Aerobic Respiration. No Oxygen = no Eukaryotic version of respiration. As the result, they were forced to develop an early, sufficient form of energy production. This is "anarobic respiration." Instead of using oxygen to produce CO2 waste, they fermented to produce Alcohol. The Environment of the early earth was ripe with chemicals that were useful for anerobic organisms, and the atmosphere was excellent for the use of anarobic respiration.
Later, as earth changed over millions of years, the atmosphere changed with it. New elements such as Oxygen and Nitrogen started to dominate the atmosphere. When Oxygen was present, organisms (prokaryotes) that mutated or had DNA allowing for them to utilize that Oxygen in chemical reactions were extremly successful, prospered, and then survived to replicate themselves. They probably had an evolutionary advantage over the organisms that did not have the capacity to utilize oxidative phosphorylation. After a while, the prokaryotes likely started to have the capacity to use
both respirative methods of ATP production given conditions due to the proliferation of the trait.
Another evolutionary point to consider is that Prokaryotes are far smaller and less complex than Eukaryotes. This must mean they probably came before. What is the reasoning for this? The reasoning relates to cell size and energy requirements. Larger organisms desperately
need more energy. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The early earth atmosphere did
not promote the growth of macroorganisms or large, multicellular organisms because not enough energy can be gathered via Anarobic Respiration. As I mentioned earlier, only 2 net ATP molecules can be harvested from it. With the entrance of Oxygen onto the world stage, organisms now had a vast pool of resources from which to make ATP. The more ATP, the more larger, more complex organisms can be sustained. More ATP means that work can be done--organelles that were not previously within the Prokaryotic cells were able to form and finally take advantage of the mutations and traits developing. Things like vaculoes, nuclei, endoplasmic reticulum---things not in Prokaryotes--now developed in Eukaroyotes. Oxygen is a major factor, and it was not present earlier, which partly explains why there were no Eukaryotic organisms likely present and why Prokaryotic ones came before.
Note* Anarobic Respiration also can go on in Eukarotic organisms, but you don't derrive much energy from it. You tend to produce lactic acid in your muscles.
And even IF we did evolve from unicellular beings, who the Hell put them there? Huh? Can't answer that one I bet. Who caused the Big Bang? Most "scientists" agree on the Big Bang.
1. First, life did not start off as a cell. Life began because the atmosphere and the chemicals in the atmosphere happend to be present. These chemicals, along with atmospheric conditions were a breeding ground for aminoacids, which are the modern buildingblocks of all life. Without Aminoacids, you probably wouldn't exist. Aminoacids and carbon and other functional groups
naturally come together due to natural laws. They do this for the same reasons gravity works. It just is a law of nature. They do it. Could God be doing it? Hmmmmm maybe, but that's not a concern of science. THere's no evidence for it, so you cannot concern yourself with it.
2. The Big Bang does not concern Evolution. Evolution refers to a change in the frequency of allelles in a given population. It is not predicated on the existence of a big bang. However, to answer you question, no one "caused" the big bang. When the big bang occured, the nature of the universe was quite different. There was no time, as time is characteristic of the universe. Prior to the big bang, therte was no time. Reality has at least 4 dimensions, all of which came into being via the big bang. What you have to understand is that it's pointless to say "what came before" or "who did it," because there was no time. Time did not exist, time does not pass. Pretend you are in "Nexus" from star trek generations where time has no meaning. To understand this further, you would have to study Einstein's Relativism, and I am not qualified to expound on that. I am not a Physicist.
And before you rant on about "Who created God? Where did He come from?" I have an explaination, which is the best I got for now. Since God can be everywhere at once, that means that time means nothing to Him. And since God created time, He knows how to avoid it. So my guess is that He has just always existed. Which is difficult for a human mind to interpret, but it's hard for man to understand infinity anyways.
1. This is a prime example of the hypocrisy of the creationist arguments. They are blinded by the notion that
god must exist. Their common complaint about the big bang or evolution is that "it cannot possibly occure! It's incomprehensible that something could naturally come into existence that complicated! Then, on the same notion, they turn around and say what you said:
Which is difficult for a human mind to interpret, but it's hard for man to understand infinity anyways. If we must accept your position that God avoids time and that we cannot understand infinity or God being "everywhere," why do we have to tolerate your ignorance of the big bang and evolution? We could simply mimic your argument by applying it to the Big Bang. You are applying a double standard.
This problem also occures because you don't understand how Occam's Razor works. We KNOW the universe exists. We have a lot of evidence for the big bang, so we know it occured. We know there are natural laws of physics. We DON'T know God existss. As such, we cannot use him in a logical equation to explain the origin of the universe. Why? It's an unknown, unfalsifiable entity. Any argument you make for "god" making the universe I can equally make by claiming Barny the Divine Purple Dinosaur did it. Why do you not understand how hypocritical you are being when it comes to your religion in relation to nature? That's not fair, nor is it honest. If you can say "we cannot understand infinity" therefore God exists, one could equally say, you cannot understand infinity, therefore the Big Bang was the "creation." Time had no meaning, therefore, there need not "be" a before.