How did food evolve?

quote:

---

I asked how organisms developed this ability. I'm also not going to read the entire ATP article!

---

Look, it seems to me that you are asking college-level Biochemistry questions but don't have the educational background to be able to interpret or absorb the answers.If you aren't willing to put in the small effort it would require to read something as short and relatively basic as a Wikipedia article then it appears that you are not interested in learning what you need to know in order to have a basis for understanding the answers to the questions you pose.

This got split up into lots of different topics very quickly.As for food: What is "food"? Food is anything that supplies energy, really. Many current organisms take that from other current organisms - we eat plants, animals, fungi. All of these things evolved not to BE food, but as organisms in their own right.Some organisms use the sun as the primary source of energy. In this case, the sun again didn't evolve to BE food, but predated life.At a basic level, any way energy is put into a chemical system is, in the abstract, "food" - and there are many ways energy can be put into a chemical reaction.So, I don't believe your question "How did food evolve?" makes much sense, when you understand that ANY source of energy serves the purpose of what we informally call "food".

quote:

---

Mutation generally causes cancer and death.

---

Every single person on the planet is born, on average, with several mutations, just through copy errors.I have one.Specifically, I have a mutation in my MSX1 gene, such that my lower wisdom teeth never developed.It carries no cancer or death risk, thankfully.

I agree - let's do that topic...that juicy quoted morsel is begging for it.

quote:

---

Thought, emotions, consciousness, and personality are beyond the physical world.

---

If this is true, why then, when people have strokes or are in accidents that damage certain parts of theie brains, do we observe that the way they think changes, their emotions are altered, their consciousness is affected, and their personality changes?If such things are "beyond the physical world", why are scientists able to predict which changes will be observed as a result of damage to specific areas of the brain?

http://www.wildersmith.org- Media LibraryEvolution V CreationIs Man A Machine?These will help you my friends.

WS-JW, No, it won't. We don't debate websites. It would be nice if you actually responded point by point to our replies.This is a forum for debate, not prosetylisation. It goes like this, you make an opening post, I reply, you respond to my replies & so on.What you are not going to be allowed to do is make an OP, ignore all responses & then provide URL's for websites. THIS IS NOT DEBATE.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

WS-JW,
Thank you for the link. I am in the process of downloading everything from his lectures. He is a very engaging speaker, excellent, I would say. Beats the hell out of those like Hovind. However, if you are using him for scientific information you are in a sad position. His PhD notwithstanding, he is so wrong on so many points. I would be forgiving on some (as his area is chemistry) points on biology, but he makes statements in his own field that are so wrong that I have to wonder about his credibility.The first one I downloaded was his “The Turtle God’s Handiwork” At the beginning of that he talks about sperm whales. In the first five minutes he makes a multitude of gross errors. First ones are biological, calling giant squid giant octopuses. The two are quite importantly different. Then he says that the whale finds its prey not by sight but by a system just like radar but using clicks instead (as if this were amazing, it’s called sonar!!). Then he tells how a whale brings its squid to the surface to kill it by giving it the bends! Nitrogen does not bubble out of the blood in any organism except air-breathing tetrapods. He should know this (as a chemist), probably does but is now lying. He then says that sperm whales are immune to the bends and Shell Oil is researching how. First they are not: Cumulative sperm whale bone damage and the bends – Innovations Report Sperm whales suffer damage from quick decompression (the link explains why and how).He then proposes how sperm whales do this by suggesting that like nitrogen fixing plants they have bacteria in their blood to convert nitrogen to other forms (fix it). As a chemist he has got to see the multiple flaws with this. He also mentions that plants use the rete mirabile to do this bacterial reaction, in reality (and I am sure he knew this) the rete mirabile is the structure fishes with swim bladders use to add or lose air to their swim bladders. Nothing at all to do with nitrogen fixation. In short, if this is your source for anti-evolutionary thought, you need to keep looking. The guy is (was) a liar and a fraud.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Hi WS-WJ,You posted the exact same message at Message 61. I posted a reply there explaining the Forum Guidelines and how your responses must be composed if you're to follow them. Please follow the Forum Guidelines in the future or your posting privileges could be suspended.AbE: Happy Birthday!!!Edited by Admin, : Add good wishes.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

sorry for violating the rules in the previous posts.I hope this is classed as on topic:can anyone tell me if The God Delusion book by Richard Dawkins is a good read or not so good? And also Charles Darwin The Origin of Species? or is the Blind Watch Maker the best?Lithodid-Man:i'm glad you like the lectures, he's the best creationist scientist i know of. But I will take notes of your comments about the lecture you have watched about Whales. If you ever watch the two i pointed out I would appriciate your posts against it if you have time. "The Origin of Life" is a third one which explains about food and the digestive system.thank you for the happy birthday Admin

These just represent my own person opinions:The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: an absolutely horrible book. He's not a theologian or a student of religion or even of psychology. The book is just an extended uninformed rant. The book attempts to make the point that those who believe in God are operating under a delusion, and while there are valid ways to make this point, Dawkins doesn't manage to stumble across many of them.Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: excellent book, one of the better introductions to evolutionary theory, but it is very detailed and spends much time reviewing voluminous amounts of evidence and is not for everyone.The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins: this time the author writes about things he knows, and this is an excellent book, but Dawkins is abrasive and brusque when talking about creationism, and I wouldn't recommend this book to you, even though it's full of useful information.Perhaps someone can recommend something that's balanced and not too long or detailed.--Percy

You won't like any of them because they will deeply challange your present views (and with real evidence). My suggestion is to read all three then go to The Panda's Thumb by Gould, The Seven Daughters of Eve by Sykes and then, just for fun in a totally different direction take on The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

I'd recommend "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins over all of those.It's a fascinating look into extant life forms as well as an explanation of how we determine some of the things we "know". And it has some nice pictures too.

I've not read The God Delusion, but it's about atheism v. religion --- it's not going to explain evolution in any depth.The Origin Of Species is simply out of date. Darwin, remember, didn't know any genetics. He knew that there was heritable variation, and that's all he knew about it. For the same reason, he didn't know about the evidence for evolution from the analysis of genomes. Also, we've found lots more interesting fossils since his day. He didn't know about continental drift, which is going to make any discussion of biogeography flawed. The book also contains some incidental factual mistakes --- for example, Darwin thought that lungs evolved from swimbladders: today we know that it's the other way round. It does have the merits of being well-written and available online.The Blind Watchmaker, if I recall, is good at explaining what the theory of evolution is, but won't tell you much about how we know that evolution has taken place. For that, you'd want something like Jones' book Darwin's Ghost.The appeal of evolution, after all, is that it gives an elegant concise explanation of the facts of nature. In order to appreciate this, you need a general knowledge of what those facts are.

You say that like it's a bad thing.