Denial of evolution III

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    I have had 3 different answers to this. some say mold, some say bacteria, and some say no first organism.
    So science really doesn't know. My last post said why I think the start to life is impossible without creation.



    But lets get on to evolution, lets start at a single cell. Becasue science doesn't really know where to start.
    So we have a single cell, without DNA. So what happen with this single cell when it starts to evolve?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    DNA does NOT come from zero thing . It starts from something and that is the issue here .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    You too, read a book, not the Quran.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    When did you learn reading ?!!!.
    You should go to the junior Kindergarten level and very soon too.....:shrug:.
    We are saying science did not show a zero thing created a thing .
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,943
    All we need to get evolution started is iteration and heredity. The mechanism of heredity could be something different than DNA. It has already been proven in the lab that RNA can evolve even without a cell!
     
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Again, get your nose out of the Quran. Whatever you're saying about science is based on your silly fairy tales.
     
  10. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    You are making the assumption that the current hypotheses of abiogenesis we are working with describe the spontaneous generation of complex cellular life.

    They dont.

    Instead they describe the gradual combination and adoption of abiotic processes similar to those that take place within cells (such as abiotic RNA replication) with abiotic structures that mimic cellular structures such as micelles and liposomes.

    We know that these processes take place and these structures form both in the absence of life - however a full understanding of the process is still a very long way off and is hotly debated.
    And while scientists will make guesses and assumptions to drive their research and experiments - they dont include them in their findings.

    Another mistake you make is ascribing desire and personality to molecules and molecular processes.
    a DNA strand, doesn't "know" how to bond with an opposing strand to form a double stranded double helix or "want" do do so - it does so because inter and intra-molecular forces dictate that that is what happens, and that is what conformation the molecule will take, when the two strands meet.

    RNA doesnt self-replicate and self catalyse abiotically because it wants to - it does it because thats an inherrent property of the molecule.

    Cellular processes are the inevitable conclusion of inter and intra-molecular forces.

    So yeah - it really is just "mixing chemicals" - but thats a very dull way to look at something so fantastic.
     
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262

    ***pinches himself to make sure he's really here***

    are you sure about that Leo or are you just fucking with me?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I said in post 61: “For me, the first life was single cellular organism, that was able to produce more of it kind, … “

    Note I did not say “reproduce” mention DNA (or even RNA which probably came much earlier). Etc. I suggested that waves would roll the skum into sealed off tube and break them up to produce more, but small ones some of which could grow larger – not what most are thinking / understanding by term “reproduce”
    Highly probable as already explained and certainly life does now exist. The "God made it" "answer" has ZERO EVIDENCE and is not even and answer as it begs the question: Who made god? For more on the failure of the "god made it" logic, See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397595&postcount=48
    You are assuming the first life had complex parts (for "reproduction" etc.) but I did not. I assumed only the laborator demonstrated production and existance of naturally formed amino-acids etc. in the oxygen free early Earth. (Earth's oxygen was made by plants. If God had made man he would not have been able to breath for millions of years after the plants started to make the air oxidizing instead of reducing.)

    Read post 61 again without these assumptions of yours. The first life was very simple with none of your assumed "parts."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2009
  13. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    All these elements work together. RNA and DNA carry on character traits , but when it is the first one, in the first cell it has nothing to pass on. It must have to evolve it some how.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,445
    No scientist or careful representative of the current state of scientific knowledge will say that the "first organism" was a mold or bacterium.

    Molds and bacteria are far too complex to have been the earliest living beings, or anything like them.

    One of the consequences of Darwinian theory, the current established theory of evolutionary development and the current most likely hypothesis for the governing pattern of abiogenesis, si that there was no "first organism" - that the transition from inanimate to animate organization happened over a long time and involved thousands of intermediate, essentially unclassifiable, entities of different kinds - almost certainly very unlike anything "alive" today.

    That is all. You should, some day, acquaint yourself with the basics of evolutionary theory. It's really interesting stuff, although a bit difficult to get the hang of for most people (human brains have a hardwired bias for "cause and effect" explanations of things).
     
  15. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Why from all the religious books you mention the Qu'oran ?.
    Also why do you keep on attacking people instead of debating issues ??!!!.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    hay_you, no scientist would say such a thing, what, did a bacteria spontaneously apear out of nothing?
     
  17. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    That was the old abiogenesis. That the dictionary called disproven.

    You have to assume that these materials were not created in the first place, but you also know that science has not see or found the turning into life. and as you say it is still open for a lot of debate by science.



    I do that for a point to show that from sciences view that there is no thought about these processes. But science can not say that thought was put in these things in the first place. Because a cell divides, it does know about all of this at that level. But that is not to say that thought was not put into it for a cell to divide. That is what creation can do. Just like the bread example I gave. The bread doesn't know it has to rise, but we as the creator of the loaf of bread do. Bread is just a mixing and heating of the elements that went into it, but it took intelligence to make it happen.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    That's why you need to get yourself educated rather than making ridiculous statements about that which you have no idea.
     
  19. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I concur- I am amazed that moderators don't take action against his obvious trolling.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I was hoping that you answer the questions (at least the last two)- by explaining what a node was and what it represented...Please.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    What about your trolling?
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    The people (786) is a troll.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    nothing more than an assumption on your part.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page