Qs about Evolution?

Question

Why would any animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances for survival?

The earth’s magnetic field decreases by half, every 1,400 years. Careful measurements worldwide show that the strength of the field must have been much greater in the past. That’s fine 6,000 years ago, but if you go back 10,000 years, there’s a problem: EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD would’ve been as STRONG as a MAGNETIC STAR; that’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

How can life come from non-life? Evolution violates the LAW of Biogenesis.

Answer 1

1. Survival of the Species (it's just why we 'go' like rabbits.)
2. (Squat to do with evolution - What *were* you thinking?)
3. (Squat to do with evolution - What *were* you thinking?)

Addendum (3.): The details of OOL (abiogenesis) are exactly as unknown as the details of biogenesis - your "goddidit" is precisely as unfillfilling as our "We don't know that detail yet", but at least we're *looking for answers*. See below...

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

Answer 2

Holy crap, where to start. The earth's magnetic field changes as does it's rate of change. Sometimes it is getting bigger, sometimes smaller. It isn't a linear scale in which you can find the age of the eart.

Reproduction would be a huge advantage and very early on it would be inherent in evolution. If two animals are populating an area, the one with the most desire to reproduce will have a higher chance of taking over that area. This has been true since the beginning of life, so desire to reproduce would evolve very strongly.

Evolution doesn't say how life started. And if you feel it violates your believe, then you believe just isn't scientific.

Answer 3

Evolution is about the survival of ones genes. The more offspring a viable reproductive adult has the greater the chance is that their genes will survive.

I have no idea what the magnetic field of the earth has to do with evolution. So you must have just been rambling on during that paragraph.

As for how live-evolved from inorganic material. That's the big question that has people with very little education stumped. But the truth can be discovered if one picked up a science book or turned to the Discovery Channel once in a blue moon. For life to begin there had to the right amount of chemical in just the right quantity supplied.

Life is the result of a very involved chemistry experiment that the universe underwent.

Answer 4

There's a limit to how strong Earth's magnetic field can be. Just because it was stronger a few thousand years ago doesn't mean the farther back you go the stronger it becomes such that it becomes immensely strong.

The more of a species you have, the stronger the chances of survival of the species generally become. Few species are succesful enough to reach population collapse through overpopulation but when this does happen, the abindance of the species means that a large percentage of them can die off without threatening the existance of the species as a whole.

How can life form from non-life? We are made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. With traces of other elements. All non-life. Bring it together the right way and you get life.

What is consciousness?

Answer 5

Let's see -- since a species that did not reproduce would go extinct, reproduction's kind of a necessity.

Your figures on Earth's magnetic field fails to recognize that it does in fact occasionally collapse and reorients. This is well documented in the residual magnetic fields along the mid-oceanic ridge.

Pasteur's experiments that 'prove' biogenesis are flawed intrinsically for the purpose of exploring abiogenesis. He did not attempt to replicate the chemical and geoclimatological conditions of primordial Earth. Pasteur's experiments are only valid post-primordial.

Your emphasis of the word 'law' implies that you believe a 'law' is a proven theory. This is not true. A theory is the highest principle in science. A law is nothing more than the mathematical expression of correlation between two or more things. Maxwell's Equations, for example, are the law by which electromagentism functions, in keeping with the Theory of Electromagnetism.

Next question?

Answer 6

The Earth's magnetic field does decay, but it does so cyclically, every few thousand years, and it is constantly being renewed by the motion of the liquid core of the Earth. The "fossil magnetism" recorded in ancient rocks clearly demonstrates that polar reversals (shifts in the direction of the Earth's magnetic field) have occurred both repeatedly and irregularly throughout Earth history; the calender of these reversals was established over two decades ago, and quickly became the linchpin in the emerging theory of plate tectonics and continental drift.

Answer 7

That is just silly. The more that are born the more chance you have to survive.

Second the magnetic field flips from time to time and that is what it is setting up for. And it is only about 10% in the last 160 years: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

There is no such law. We know most of the Chemistry but haven't put it all together. That is no more evidence for a god than sickness was of demonic possession. It just means we don't know YET. And that area of research is Abiogenesis.

Answer 8

Reproducing more of your kind increases your chance of survival in the long run, believe me. I don't uderstand what the earth's magnetic field has to do with evolution, and I think you meant 14,000, not 1,400 years. What's highly unlikely?
Again, what does biogenesis have to do with evolution?

Answer 9

How can evolution violate the "LAW" of 'biogenesis'? That is like saying that math violates philosophy. Two totally different things. Lemme guess, by your lack of a basic understanding of evolution and your repeating of a common misconception of the magnetic field you are a Xian. Am I correct? I thought so....

Answer 10

animals don't want to make more of their kind. they just have the instinct to reproduce. true, having too many offspring may diminish the chances of survival, but the probability of that is happening is small, and is only a threat to certain large species that need a lot of resources. it's actually much easier to survive with a larger population, especially with predators, disease, or natural disasters.

Answer 11

1) Wrong section.
2) This question has been asked before.
3) Answer: Natural Selection.
4) Life from non-life is ABIOGENESIS not evolution.
5) Evolution violates nothing.