I'm interested in your questions regarding the Theory of Evolution. [Spirituality & Religion]

@Cmstars

Well that's not strictly evolution but i think the current popular idea is the RNA World hypothesis.

I'm not very familiar with it...but this guy is lol

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

@Pikachu I know but I figured you may know all the same.

Thanks for sharing the info.

@Cmstars

Never hurts to ask. All i really know is the name of it to be honest.
I've concerned myself more with the evolution of life rather than its origin.
But i think i should probably look into that stuff. I bet it's fascinating.

Kinda disappointing that one of the only actual questions in this thread is one i can't really answer lol

@Pikachu lol sorry.

One question I would have is, what caused the insane (to me) growth of dinosaurs? They started so extremely tiny. Change in the atmosphere? Just seems not to a "smart move" to grow so large considering how much they would have to eat to maintain.

@Cmstars

No worries lol

Well it all comes down to what is a useful adaptive advantage.
When they were starting out in the Triassic, the dinosaurs had the advantage over other reptile lineages in terms of their speed, agility and adaptability. Kind of the same way mammals had that advantage over dinosaurs later on.
But size is a tremendously useful adaptation when it comes to defense and competition.
Think of the sauropods: The adults were so large that not even the biggest carnivores could pose a threat to them. But the large carnivores could still take much larger prey.
In evolution, it's always a trade off because evolution is not concerned with the "smart move". All you need to be evolutionarily successful is to survive long enough to procreate and have your progeny survive long enough to do the same.
So the big dinosaurs had to eat a lot more in order to survive, but their size offered them advantages.
Along the same lines, modern wild dogs are highly successful hunters as a result of their large packs and social structure but as a trade off, they need to hunt a lot more than solitary predators.

lol was any of that useful?

@Pikachu Yes, I understand. It was helpful though I think one can gain evolutional advantages without having to be an 80 ton leaf eater lol.

Thanks for the answer and taking the time.

@Cmstars

yeah anytime.

[quote]though I think one can gain evolutional advantages without having to be an 80 ton leaf eater lol.[/quote]

lol for sure. Because evolution is not a progression from bad to good or from good to better. It's all about what is adaptive for a certain set of factors.
Being huge protects you from predators or makes it easier to access certain resources...but during periods of extreme climate change or other disasters, nothing much bigger than a cat tends to survive.

@Cmstars [quote]evolutional advantages[/quote]

I wouldn't use the term 'evolutional advantage'. Evolution isn't teleological... it has no goals, nor does it have an 'ideal' form. Reproductive advantage is what matters, and that's only discernible in hindsight.

Environments change, so today's reproductive advantage might become tomorrow's reproductive liability.

@Cmstars [quote]too broad a word[/quote]

Without veering away into the separate topic of abiogenesis, I'd offer a definition of life as being:

a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution

Hope that helps!

Which us totally unprovable without abiogenesis ! @newjaninev2

@Speedyman [quote]totally unprovable without abiogenesis[/quote]

Did you miss the parts about abiogenesis being a separate topic to evolution?

Are you saying that there is no life on Earth?
Is that your contention... that life on Earth doesn't exist?

Evolution isn't an explanation of abiogenesis... it's an explanation of what occurred once life arose on Earth.

Or are you saying that there's no life on Earth?

No I am saying that atheists have to prove how life could have occurred spontaneously from non-living matter @newjaninev2

@Speedyman Yet again, just because you're saying something doesn't make it valid, or even germane.

Evolution is a [i]process[/i]... and all that the evolutionary process needs is for life to exist.
Or are you saying that life on Earth doesn't exist?

@Speedyman

[quote]No I am saying that atheists have to prove how life could have occurred spontaneously from non-living matter[/quote]

You can say it all you want. What you [i]need[/i] to do is explain it.
Explain why we need to know how life began in order to observe that it has since evolved.
If you can't do that and if you [i]don't[/i] do that in your next post then you unavoidably concede the point.

Well...an intellectually honest person would. I know what [i]you'll[/i] do though😏

Someone like you calling n others to be intellectually honest while remaining a complete fraud yourself is a bit rich. In fact, even being the slightest bit intellectual appears beyond you. As I say, reason is a waste of time to people like you, edpecially when it involves thinking. @Pikachu

@Speedyman [quote]No I am saying that atheists have to prove how life could have occurred spontaneously from non-living matter[/quote]

Why? Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean a belief in evolution, it simply means that one doesn't believe in a God or Gods.

It means a gelief that nothing made something @Bushranger

@Speedyman No, it means a non-belief in deities. But didn't God create everything from the void? Isn't that something from nothing?

@Speedyman I take it you are from the US, so I'll use your country's dictionary: [image=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism]

See, nothing about evolution or abiogenesis at all.

@Speedyman I'll try again, and maybe [i]this[/i] time you'll answer my question

Are you saying that there is no life on Earth?
Is that your contention... that life on Earth doesn't exist?

Evolution isn't an explanation of abiogenesis... it's an explanation of what occurred once life arose on Earth.

Or are you saying that there's no life on Earth?

@newjaninev2 I think we're going to have to wait until tomorrow. He only seems to come on here for a little while each day.

Right. Not wasting my life on things like this. You might have no other commitments but some of us have ! @Bushranger

Yes but you can't explain the second until you explain the first, assuming everything arose without any designer or creator@newjaninev2

@Speedyman No, a completely separate thing. Life does exist and it changes over time. Doesn't matter how it came about, it still exists. Newton didn't have to explain how matter came about, why should an evolutionary scientist have to explain how life came about?

@Speedyman [quote]you can't explain the second until you explain the first[/quote]

Why not?

All that is necessary is to recognise that life on Earth began.. and evolution is concerned only with the [i]process[/i] that occurred after that [i]event[/i]

Are you seriously claiming that the [i]process[/i] could not have occurred because the [i]event[/i] did not occur?

Are you saying that there is no life on Earth?