Evolutionists?

The answer to all your questions can be answered in a single word:

Co-evolution.

In other words, you are laboring under the false assumption that one thing *must* evolve to completeness before another can even begin evolving. This is not true.

For example, plants and polinating insects.

1. There are plants that exist without insects to polinate them, and there are insects that exist without the need for nectar.

2a. The members of one plant species that had flowers that attracted insects produced more offspring than those members of the same species that did not.

2b. The members of one insect species that looked in flowers for food, found more food there than those members of the same species that did not look in flowers. Thus, those members lived longer, and made more offspring.

3a. Thus those plants begin evolving flowers and nectar that attract insects.

3b. Those insects start evolving the instinct and physical appendages to look for nectar in certain flowers.

3. This continues for millions of years ... the plants getting better and better at attracting insects that polinated them, and the insects getting better at polinating activities.

4. After millions of years the two cannot do well without each other.

Summary: Neither one evolved *before* the other. Both evolved together.

Co-evolution is most commonly between two species, but it can also be between two organs, or two types of behavior.

E.g. bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply and muscles all evolve *together*. It is a fallacy to assume that one cannot begin "evolving" before the others are complete.

I can apply the same discussion to all your examples, if you like.

The DNA/RNA example is a *little* different. Scientists generally believe that RNA evolved before DNA, because RNA is both a good replicator and a good catalyst. However, RNA is not a *great* replicator ... it gets unstable and error-prone if it gets too long. DNA on the other hand is a *fantastic* replicator (very self-correcting) ... but it is an inferior catalyst ... so for storing information for an entire complex organism, DNA rocks ... but for protein synthesis, RNA is still better. So the two work very well together.

By the way ... I doubt that 'evolutionists' call you stupid because you don't believe what they believe. Those of us in the evolution camp are *really* frustrated by stupid *arguments* against evolution (like "why are there still monkeys?") ... or by people who ask questions and then totally ignore the answers ... but I for one try to answer honest question with honest answers.

Although there are intolerant people among all persuasions, for the most part, if you actually *listen* to the answers to the questions you ask, then nobody should call you stupid.

For example, you are very fair in the idea that people should only answer one of your questions. That tells me that you are planning to read the answers, and not just dumping a lot of rhetoric.

Hope that helps.

Your questions are muddled and designed to create confusion where there is none. I answer this set about once a month, but you decided to cut once and paste twice. I've copied my answers, but I wrote a new introduction to dishonor your low level question for which you desire no answer.

Food, the ability to find and eat food, the digestive system (which includes the digestive juices and resistance mechanisms), then the appetite. It's a typically disingenuous question, using components of one answer as entries in which came first.

Drive is a function of complex organisms (as is appetite). Reproduction dates to the start of life.

The throat existed in sea dwellers before they moved onto land, then the lungs. There is no "perfect exchange of gases" -- just adequate.

RNA, then DNA. RNA is sufficient for life and can be a genetic material (viruses) and possess catalytic activity (ribozymes). DNA is more stable and is better for storing genetic information which is why it is almost ubiquitous.

There were plants long before there were insects. Before insect mediated pollination, wind was the vector. Flowers developed to attract insects, and the two have coevolved since.

Muscles developed in free-living creatures with no need for a circulatory system. Open circulatory systems (blood is not well enough defined to fit on the list) allowed larger creatures. Tendons and ligaments evolved with increasing size, depending on the shape and complexity. Bones came last (sharks don't have bones.

i admit that "evolutionists" can get arrogant, and "creationists" can be the same. I'm going to try to not fuel that fire, but answer your question the best i can from an evolutionist standpoint.

"The drive to reproduce or the ability?" is the element which appeared first. This is arguably what differentiates living from non-living things (the argument is over virii, which contain genetic information and do "reproduce"... after a fashion). If you observe a virus, you will be able to see that they do not eat, or breathe, or sense, or do anything else we normally associate with "living things". However, they do pass on their genes and create copies of themselves. There is a theory that the very first life forms were something like a virus.

edit: on second thought, I'm not sure if it's reproductive drive or RNA that developed first. It could well be that "life" didn't exist until both of these elements came together.

Creationist, you are told you are stupid, because the theory of evolution is not based on belief, but on evidence. If every evolutionary biologist said on the 'morrow, " I no longer believe in evolution ". it would not make a bit of difference; evolutionary theory would still be true.

I refuse to waste time debating with someone ossified in their convictions. Some younger and fierier evolutionary biologist will probably do that.

PS I put " lungs + evolution" into my address bar and got more information than I could read in years. Also perused the usual " arguments from incredulity " put there by ID'ers and creationist. There overriding " evidence " is the usual lament; " Irreducible complexity ". You people waste reams of paper in explaining the intricacies of the birds lungs and that is your conclusion; no evidence, just pronouncement, " it must have been god, it is irreducible complex ". And you wonder why you are sometimes called stupid.

PSS Your answer to iansand98 marks you as not only stupid but arrogant in the manner that " true believers " are. What is said to you goes in one year and out the other, due to ossified belief. I have read creationist material and was always impressed by it,s irrelevance to the truth. That is what really scares you people, that the truth will be known and your parasitism will be ended.

There are no *evolutionists* per se.

There ARE modern biologists who subscribe to the theory of evolution as an intrinsic and inextricable part of the science. To present them as otherwise is a strawman that elevates nay-sayers to some sort of intellectual equal in an I-Thou confrontation, when such is clearly not the case. The overwhelming majority of PhD level life scientists and earth scientists accept evolution.

Take your question: -The lungs, the throat, or the perfect exchange of gases? Please clarify, *what* do you mean by the "perfect" exchange of gases?

Keep in mind that in science, "theory" is extremely powerful. Gravity is a theory. The wave-particle duality of matter is a theory. General relativity, including the vast amount of energy contained in atomic nuclei, is a theory. Macroeconomics is a theory. Democracy is a theory of govenment.

Two of yours are important.

1) Obviously reproduction was the very first thing to come around. It was done before even single cellular life was possible. Some type of molecule had to be able to make copies of itself. The most obvious molecule would be nucleic acids.

2) DNA and RNA are nucleic acids. This is very much a chicken and egg dilemma. All cellular life uses DNA to store and pass on all genetic, hereditary information. Viruses may use either DNA or RNA to store their information (though 99.999% of scientists don't consider viruses within their definition of "living").

It would make sense to consider DNA molecules to be the first self-reproducing molecule, but RNA actually has some reasons to back up it's claim to the throne. Some RNA's are actually able to perform self-splicing. They can cut themselves up in a very specific location. Scientists call these RNA molecules "ribozymes".

Asking about the roots of evolution is very difficult. Evolution has been built on evidence from many different disciplines - from organic chemistry, paleontology, genetics, etc. - but trying to believe in evolution by trying to learn about the very beginnings of life from the "primordial soup of creation" is not a good place to start. There is a mountain of evidence to support evolution, but you can't try to start from the beginning.

I am afraid you don't get it. Evolution is a gradual process of incremental changes. None of the things you describe came into existence as complete systems. They developed slowly. Changes in one thing gave an opportunity for changes in another. If one change was advantageous then, over time, that small advantage becomes the norm. Then another small change happens, and that change becomes the norm if it is advantageous. And so it goes. This is why it is caused evolution - things evolve. They do not arrive fully formed.

If you took the trouble to learn about what you criticise, instead of listening to lying, cheating, dissembling, misrepresenting, misquoting creationists you would not appear so stupid. For the sort of non-problems you describe I recommend "Climbing Mt Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. He describes plausible pathways for many apparently improbable biological structures. Or for small bites you could try anything by Stephen Jay Gould.

Thanks for the personal comment, turkey. Unfortunately your comment demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. I suggest you go and learn about it, then you might be capable of criticising it.

Evolution obviously went from the simple to the complex. Clearly, the cellular processes came first. How can you have a digesive tract without an organism needing to digest something. It should be possible for a reasonable, logical thinker to order the steps of evolution, at least in some over all order.

Dude, you have a choice; complain that we think you're an idiot or use Argument from Ignorance, you can't do both.