Questions regarding macro evolution abiogenesis, and big bang theory?

Question

1. Have scientists solved the problem with the missing links in macro evolution?

2. If you put a lot of chemicals together, you don't make life. The DNA is what puts the life together. How can life form from chemicals? Wouldn't it be just a pile of goo?

3. What is the big bang theory, and what is exactly their ideas of it and what happened?

Answer 1

1. Missing Link's, are you kiddin, the whole chain is missing. Life is so diverse and specialized that there is not even the closest proof to how one kind of animal gave rise to another kind. There are varieties of animals and the evolutionists will try to put them is a size order to show proof how one formed another. It reminds me of Darwin's theory of how bears turned into whales. He observed bears walking around in the water with their mouths open skimming bugs off the surface. He concluded from this that they must have turned to whales. The current theory is not much better. Some of the "missing links" only contained a few teeth, a peice of jaw, and a small piece of skull. You have to give them cedit though. I wouldn't want to try to stand behind the theory that all the diverse life came from a rock.

2. This is very true. You can put all the chemicals together and you don't get information. You get goo. This is a scientific, mathematic, and physical certainty. Let me try to break it down to simplified terms for the people that still do not get it after 125 years of research. With out a creator you get goo goo  not you you.

3. The big bang theory says that there was nothing, then it exploded.

Sounds pretty good to me.  

Answer 2

1. "Have scientists solved the problem with the missing links in macro evolution?"

Response: There is no such animal as "macro-evolution". There's just evolution driven by way of natural selection.  It is not necessary to have in our possession every single link in the chain of a species' evolution over time. The biochemistry common to the animal and plant species we know of is sufficient to suggest common linkage between all life on the planet over time. All one has to do is look at the commonality of DNA / RNA components of life; look at the great commonality found in telomere molecular sequences found at the ends of chromosomes common to almost every species of life on earth.  Many forms of life share common metabolic pathways for the maintenance of life.  How do you think these minute molecular commonalities happen if not by way of a distant common ancestor?  Additionally, evolution can be evaluated and put to the test in the laboratory if one has the time and resources to conduct the study, not so with creation.  There are mountains of evidence from many different branches of science which supports evolution.

2. "If you put a lot of chemicals together, you don't make life. The DNA is what puts the life together.  How can life form from chemicals? Wouldn't it be just a pile of goo?"

Response: While it's true that DNA is the code of life, a living system is more than just its DNA.  Life is a complexity beyond just chemistry. Life is a multi-functioning array of matter and energy.  Life, and yes that includes human life, is an indirect function of what took place about 14 billion years ago with the Big-Bang origin of our universe. According to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, matter = energy. And the only difference between energy like that found in many subatomic particles is merely a function of speed. That traveling close to the speed of light possesse great amounts of matter but little mass, (size, for example).  The only reason that we and our universe are in its current state of observable mass and energy is becaue energy slowed down as the universe expanded and cooled. There were many phase-transitions that effected matter and energy. As energy slowed down, matter decrease, mass increased, energy decreased, entropy increased, and gravity formed clumps of mass resulting in everything that currently exists, including life and consciousness.

See: A Quantum Mechanical Model of Evolution and Consciousness

http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/st...

3. "What is the big bang theory, and what is exactly their ideas of it and what happened?"

It is not clear to me just what caused the big-bang to occur. There are a number of possibilities. The big-bang was not an explosion of the form that we normally think of.  It was the release of a huge, huge amount of energy in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a blink of an eye that spread out in all directions and dimensions. It is thus, minute minuscule undulations that got pulled along with the expanding universe, that resulted in breaking of symmetry and the formation of all matter and forces that is today, everything. If one knows what to look for, you can find the patterns in our current realm that can be traced back to their very origins at the big-bang sinularity itself.

See: Big Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Also see: Quantum phenomena in biology

http://www.psrast.org/defknquant.htm

Physics is the basic foundation of all the other sciences. I firmly believe that one cannot fully understand the other forms of science without at least a passing knowledge of classical and quantum physics.

  

Answer 3

1. Many missing links have been found.  Here's a couple of youtube videos on the subject explain which ones have been found: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=...  

Many links have been found, but not every organism fossilizes, so not finding all the links isn't proof against evolution.  Proof against evolution would be any organism with unusual development, such as a precambrian mammal or a chordate without gills during gestation.  

2. Just look up the Miller-Urey Experiment.  Google and wikipedia have enough info to give you an answer.  

3. Again, just wikipedia or google it and you'll get lots of info.  

Answer 4

1.  I'm not sure what problem you're referring to exactly.  There certainly are missing links in the fossil record, but that's not surprising considering how hard it is to create fossils: certain things have to happen just a certain way in order for a creature to become fossilized, so it would be surprising if we did have a 100% complete fossil record.  I may be missing the problem you're referring to; can you provide more detail?

2.  Not all life includes DNA, just most of it.  Some includes RNA (and it's thought by some that RNA life preceded DNA life).  DNA isn't necessary for life; it's just a really helpful assistor of reproduction and development.  It's true you don't get life by just mixing chemicals together.  What's thought is that chemicals in the early oceans combined and interacted in ways that, in some places, created proteins, and eventually more complex proteins.  Some of these proteins became capable of reproducing (crystals also reproduce, so that's not as exotic as it sounds).  Basically, the path from inanimate to living wasn't nearly as straightforward or simple as you'd imagine.  It also probably took a long time, thousands to millions of years.

3.  Most people think of the Big Bang as a giant explosion that shot matter out from what's now the center of the universe, into preexisting but empty space.  The most surprising thing I found when I read about cosmology was that it wasn't like that, that there IS nothing outside our universe.  Even vacuum isn't completely empty--there are currents, energies, vibrations (e.g. light), etc. out there.  It's really not that there's nothing outside the universe so much as that there is no outside at all.  The entire universe expanded from the point we call the Big Bang.  The analogy of a balloon is often used--everything on the skin of the balloon gets further from everything else on it as the balloon is inflated.  So there isn't a central point where the Big Bang happened; it happened everywhere in the universe, just that that "everywhere" is now incredibly vast.

Answer 5

1. Have scientists solved the problem with the missing links in macro evolution?

The fossil record is incomplete.  We will never have the whole story.  There's enough of the story there so that we can say that we do indeed share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

2. If you put a lot of chemicals together, you don't make life. The DNA is what puts the life together. How can life form from chemicals? Wouldn't it be just a pile of goo?

Over a period of about 700 million years and a lab the size of the planet Earth, there was "natural selection" among molecules and systems of molecules.

3. What is the big bang theory, and what is exactly their ideas of it and what happened?

That's cosmology, not biology.  The "universe" was once much smaller and hotter than it is today.

Answer 6

1. There really never was a problem with "the missing links". Evolution is a gradual process that occurs over many generations. Only a very tiny fraction of skeletons become fossilized because the conditions that lead to it are rare (http://paleontology.esmartstudent.com/fo... As such, it would be unreasonable to expect a complete fossil record of creatures that lived over a million years ago.

We have a number of intermediate species, such as proto-hominids, but we do not have examples of every intermediate stage and likely never will.

2. Miller's Experiment (aka the Miller-Urey Experiment) demonstrated that simple chemicals could form complex organic molecules under the conditions that are believed to have existed on the early earth. How proto-cells formed from these organic molecules is not yet understood, and there are several plausible theories.

3. The big bang theory is not related to biology or evolution. This question would be better posed in the Physics or Astronomy section.

Answer 7

Jim it is obvious that you know very litle about science and nothing abouit evolution. Evolution has more support by more lines of converging evidence that any modern theory. Creationists like you have no evidence AT ALL about your favorite idea but have the gall to try to discredit something about which you have not the slightest idea. Acually read some evolutionary theory and not get your ideas from your Sunday School teacher and then let's talk..  There are transitional forms for nearly all the macroeolved animals ...man has more than 10 transitional forms. You really need to read some scientific literature before making such absurd statements