Evolution For Dummies (For Dummies (Math & Science)) (Paperback)
by Greg, PhD Krukonis (Author), Tracy Barr (Author)
$9.95
That is way 'cool' !
Thanks, Actorguy, Now that's a book I can afford, and will buy!....
Thank you bloc,and antimatter. I thought I understood it enough to discuss it, but I have been on some evolution websites, and I realized when the discussion got into depth, I didn't know didley! So, I thought I needed to go back through it and read parts of it that are confusing to me.
Thanks again.
Now, these thoughts that I found were interesting!
It basically says that when Earth originated about 4.5 billion years ago, the surface had a lot of volcanic action going on. Then after 2 billion years, the atmosphere contained basically 4 molecules: hydrogen, water vapor, CH4 and NH3. There were carbon compounds all over the place in rocks and stuff. then the seas formed from violent thunderstorms and the seas were formed. Chemical reactions took place in the seas that formed simple organic molecules like ones with carbon in them. Like carbon chains and stuff. nothing living yet...
Then these reactions continued and larger carbon compounds were formed. Larger organic molecules like carbs, proteins, RNA and DNA. These molecules formed clumps and boundaries formed around, sealing them from the rest of the environment. Mutations occurred and permitted the clumps (aggregates) to copy themselves. This was the first kind of simple organism called coacervates, which give off CO2.
As the atmosphere eventually started filling with CO2, those coacervates with mutations to perform photosynthesis thrived because they were the only ones that could use the CO2 to their advantage and make food from that. Since they were doing so well, they thrived and kept replicating themselves (with more mutations) and became widespread. Then the mutated ones could take advantage of this plant-like quality, and they used the oxygen that they produced to make their own food, much like animals - and us.
These organisms are actually believed to have been engulfed by other organisms and still exist in a way today - as chloroplasts and mitochondria. So they became more complex that way.
And of course, natural selection is the process which kind of singles out the organisms that have the advantage. Take a giraffe for example. I suppose giraffes originated from some horse-like animal, but if there were a whole bunch of horses out in the wild, and they ate up all the food that was on the low tree branches and were starving, those with the slightly longer necks could probably get a little more food because they can reach everything on the ground AND they have the added bonus of being able to reach stuff a little higher up - ensuring them a slightly longer life than those who would probably starve to death because they couldn't reach higher tree branches. So if they all died out eventually, and the horses with longer necks had more competition over food, then the horses with even longer necks would have more of an advantage. So like that, it repeats the process, and you end up with giraffes rather than the horses that you started with.
Hope this sort of answers your question. If you put this into a larger scale, I guess it would make sense how like bacteria eventually turned into... us.
There are discussions like this on different websites, so can you see how sometimes it gets kind of confusing?
I just re-typed this entire thing, and it still came out red....I guess because I had to have the original type there, so I would know word for word what I typed.
I did add a little editing from my original version for clarity purposes, but I can't figure why it still came out in red, when I was retyping it in black.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it hard to read when posting this, I was just trying to understand how html works with the colors inverted in.
I do so appreciate your responses because I get tired of trying to discuss this subject and somewhere in the middle get stuck, because I have some learning gaps about it.
I think what is confusing is to have been taught one way for so long, and then try to grasp it all ( because, one would certainly have to agree, it isn't exactly the way it is being taught by creationists.... not meaning to put them down, but the way they debate it has so many holes in it, that it is flat out ridiculous )....My brother for some time has been trying to straighten out the confusion with me, ( he believes it like it is taught by evolutionists ) ....but it is so hard to shake off some of the obvious fallicies I have been taught.
Sean, when my brother and I was discussing this the other day, he referred to the speed of ligh by which information travels. Am I saying that right?
It was supposed to say the speed of light.
I am standing in there while he is just finishing up a phone call, and I tell him about a website I had been on about evolution, and he proceeds to tell me points to convince me of evolution, and when he says that information that is gained is pretty advanced when studying the entire universe, and I am saying....." whoa whoa whoa, you don't have to convince me of evolution, I am just trying to reconcile it with what I have been taught on creation"..... I know I am daft on some things but, how we ever got on the subject of the speed of light, was way out of context if you ask me...
Sean---you beat me to that declaration or reminder, Thanks... See, I am yet again confused when referrng back to the big bang theory, and you said it was two different things, but I thought it was like a blueprint of DNA.
That if you had a piece of that which broke off from a bigger portion that it could start the life all over again from the oringinal planet or whatever it came from...
See how one could get confused....???
Sean I am kind of surprised at that word. I admit I know even less than I thought I knew, and am looking for answers, and you aren't calling me an idiot. Which some could since I should have been able to explain my position on evolution by now. I have heard about the theories since the sixth grade.
lfb is not calling you anything similar, unless I don't read it the way you do. Surely, you don't think that, do you?
*Trout smack* I wasn't calling you that! I was calling lbfno7 that.
bloc even quoted lbfno7.