Actual question! What evolutionist described life on this earth.?

Actual question! What evolutionist described life on this earth.? Topic: How to write a speech summary
June 24, 2019 / By Abbi
Question: like amoebas or prokaryotes living in a mud puddle. And how just humans do here, they would look around the walls of their puddle and marvel at how perfectly the water was designed to fit the hole and how the water was the perfect temperature etc etc. I've never the read the actual analogy. I've only heard the summary. Can someone let me know who wrote that and where? Oh believe me, I know it was a crappy version. That is why I asked. Thanks.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Actual question! What evolutionist described life on this earth.?

Stacey Stacey | 9 days ago
That's a somewhat skewed version of a quote from Douglas Adams. See quote below. Speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge, UK, (1998)
👍 106 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Actual question! What evolutionist described life on this earth.? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write a speech summary

Stacey Originally Answered: Evolution / history of life on earth question?
Mass extinctions allow the suppressed species to emerge without any predators to keep their populations down. When populations increase unchecked then mutations occur which produce a fanning out of the species into sub species and later into unique species. The same thing is happening right now with humans. You need to do #2 yourself for your homework.
Stacey Originally Answered: Evolution / history of life on earth question?
Your answer to number is just restating the question. The significance of a mass extinction is that new species can then evolve in the open niche
Stacey Originally Answered: Evolution / history of life on earth question?
enable's be careful what you're implying. From what i deliver at the same time you're implying that human beings are the top of existence. in terms of evolution we aren't to any extent further particular than the different animal. keep in mind, all animals adapt to and are perfect for their interior of reach environments. it fairly is why say, polar bears are white interior the North Pole vs brown bears someplace else...they have adapted to their ecosystem. human beings suitable progressed characteristic became an superior innovations. That allowed us to proceed to exist in our interior of reach ecosystem in Africa against different predators. So intelligence is mearly an adaption to an evironment and is not any different than yet another adapted characteristic like fur color or fangs, or tooth, or peacock coloring. in terms of our species, we've had different different hominids. The final surviving one became prevalent because of the fact the Neanderthals which lived in Europe. The final which died some 30,000 years in the past. we've the bone and the DNA of this final cousin species of human beings. They have been the two as clever yet their vocal language ability became very constrained to our very own. it fairly is asserted that human beings the two interbred them out of life or wiped them out with the aid of conflict. Now the only human beings surviving on the planet are all that descended from Africa. it fairly is in our genetic code. in case you like links only digital mail me. be careful. Evolution is an invaluable ingredient.

Othello Othello
It seems to be a crappy version of Douglas Adam's example of a puddle imagining the world it is in has been made for it :) "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say. " I totally got the quote in before you Cosmo! You even got the extra bits from using the first link on google.
👍 30 | 👎 3

Othello Originally Answered: A question for evolutionist,serious replies only?
Firstly, the big bang theory doesn't say there was nothing before. Secondly, it was not an explosion like you believe. It wasn't like a bomb or gas being ignited, it was not an explosion at all. Thirdly, there is life that can survive the vacuum of space. The basis for your argument collapses on these three points you make, even just one of the three used for an argument makes it redundant. Your argument is purely personal incredulity based on incorrect education on the subject, in turn your personal incredulity on the subject is therefore redundant. There are many theories as to how biological life began I suggest you look into it. We can already create the building blocks of life, how should that alone be possible? Try studying the big bang theory and evolution and then come back. You will note that evolution is not and has never been to date an explanation for the origin of biological life. Basically it explains the transitional diversification of biological life. HUGE difference. The correct term for the study of the origin of biological life is spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis which is mentioned by someone else here. That term is scarcely used anymore but you can still search for information with this term. Before you say it, no, spontaneous generation does not say something came from nothing. Also, it has already been proven that there are biological forms of life that can survive the vacuum of space including the constant bombardment of cosmic radiation and extreme temperature fluctuations. One such experiment was carried out by the foton-m2 probe and the biological life, in this particular case Lichen which is a more advanced form of life than bacteria was exposed for 14 days. Upon return to Earth the Lichen was still alive. Initial study of this discovery suggests the lichen goes into 'a kind of suspended animation'. When you look into it it really is fascinating but all too long to recount here that is up to the individual whether to study it further. The study of life around volcanic vents also shows how life can survive and continue to reproduce in an incredibly hostile environment, without sunlight and existing within extreme temperatures.
Othello Originally Answered: A question for evolutionist,serious replies only?
A couple things. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion as such--it was a rapid expansion of the universe. Not an explosion into existing space, but in fact *space itself* expanded, and continues to expand. Think of the skin of a balloon as the fabric of the universe--as you blow it up, everything on it gets farther apart, but it's still all the same fabric. Life didn't arise in the intense heat of the Big Bang. There were a few years (around 10 billion) before that happened here. Life began (probably) on this planet, in the primordial soup of the oceans or in and around black smokers on the ocean floor. Over the eons life gradually changed the composition of our atmosphere. Science *can* create. I assume you mean biological species. Sure we haven't created a life form yet, but come on, we've only been at it for a few generations now. On Earth it took millennia or longer. Scientists did test the hypothesized primordial soup and were able to create complex, prebiotic proteins. That's a big step toward creating life.

If you have your own answer to the question how to write a speech summary, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.