human evolution: when male and female fully developed into separate and distinct ...?

*jackson6612*

Quote by nismaratwork

It's still there, although it's true that there is no longer a literal primordial ooze (well, there is some in the seabed and in labs), but that's not what evolution is all about. Evolution is an ongoing process and I'm not sure that it's possible to be alive and "turn off the furnace". Your question is phrased in such a way that to answer without refuting your premise is impossible; evolutionary pressures change, and mutations constantly occur. This has not changed from ooze, to people. As Jon Richfield has said, it's sometimes in spurts of rapid change, and as I pointed out it can be incremental and even useless! Still, one way or the other you have the furnace alive and well as long as there is life... or maybe even simple organic molecules.

Hi Nismar

I have some questions. Please help me with them and also please also remember I'm a layman.

My question was more centered on the origin of life. I understand evolution is not about just the origins but still the origin is an important part.

I'm an English learner therefore I couldn't understand the part "turn off the furnace". Please help with it.

Would you mind telling me what was my premise?

In sum, are you saying that somewhere on earth chemicals are still combining to form living chemical beings?

Thanks for the guidance.

Jon Richfield

Quote by jackson6612

My question was more centered on the origin of life. I understand evolution is not about just the origins but still the origin is an important part.

I couldn't understand the part "turn off the furnace". Please help with it.

I assume that Nismar will not mind my contributing part of a reply?

Hm? I thought you, Jack, asked about the furnace?

Would you mind telling me what was my premise?

Well Jack, that was part of my problem as well. I (and I think Nismar) were having difficulty understanding your intention. It can be very difficult to answer a question when one does not understand what the question was intended to mean. Sometimes it turns out not to mean what the questioner thought it meant, and that leads to real difficulty.

In sum, are you saying that somewhere on earth chemicals are still combining to form living chemical beings?

I think what he meant (and certainly what I meant) was not necessarily that new living things are being formed from non-living chemicals. For one thing, it is possible that the conditions under which they formed on the ancient Earth are now too rare for life to be re-created, but if they are (it is quite possible in theory) then there are so many bacteria nowadays that any suitable new life molecules probably would get eaten up long before they got combined into new living things. Just think what happens to a new piece meat dropped into a pond! And that meat is far closer to life than any random molecules joining together.

But certainly some molecules that could be parts of living things if they got the chance, are being formed all the time, sometimes inorganically, sometimes as waste from living things.

*nismaratwork*

Quote by Jon Richfield

I assume that Nismar will not mind my contributing part of a reply?

Hm? I thought you, Jack, asked about the furnace?

Well Jack, that was part of my problem as well. I (and I think Nismar) were having difficulty understanding your intention. It can be very difficult to answer a question when one does not understand what the question was intended to mean. Sometimes it turns out not to mean what the questioner thought it meant, and that leads to real difficulty.

I think what he meant (and certainly what I meant) was not necessarily that new living things are being formed from non-living chemicals. For one thing, it is possible that the conditions under which they formed on the ancient Earth are now too rare for life to be re-created, but if they are (it is quite possible in theory) then there are so many bacteria nowadays that any suitable new life molecules probably would get eaten up long before they got combined into new living things. Just think what happens to a new piece meat dropped into a pond! And that meat is far closer to life than any random molecules joining together.

But certainly some molecules that could be parts of living things if they got the chance, are being formed all the time, sometimes inorganically, sometimes as waste from living things.

I don't mind the assist at all, and you've said everything that I would have. Jackson, if you need any help, I think it's safe to say that Jon and I can probably cover it. I might add, that for someone learning English, you sound like a native speaker; well done!

Jon, well said.

Jon Richfield

Quote by nismaratwork

Jackson, if you need any help, I think it's safe to say that Jon and I can probably cover it. I might add, that for someone learning English, you sound like a native speaker; well done!

Yes, I must say that I too have been wondering about that. Without wishing to pry, Jack, if you don't mind telling us what languages you are master of, I for one would love to know. But if you would rather not say, please don't bother.

Jon, well said.

Thanks mate! You too.

Cheers,

Jon

Similar Threads for: human evolution: when male and female fully developed into separate and distinct ...?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Fully developed flow	Mechanical Engineering	22
Fully developed flow regime	Mechanical Engineering	1
Fully Developed Flow	General Engineering	3
Fully Developed Areas in Mathematics	General Math	4