Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by sifreak21, Jan 19, 2011.
post 35 doesn't disprove biogenesis either and it also doesn't deal with the topic.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
the miller-urey experiment did not recreate life, it only produced half of the amino acids needed for life.
it would be impossible for life to arise from the "broth" from the miller-urey experiment due to its racemic mixture.
"In chemistry, a racemic mixture, or racemate (pronounced /reɪˈsimeɪt/), is one that has equal amounts of left- and right-handed enantiomers of a chiral molecule."
"An enantiomer is one of two stereoisomers that are mirror images of each other that are "non-superposable" (not identical), much as one's left and right hands are "the same" but opposite."
"A chiral molecule is a type of molecule that lacks an internal plane of symmetry and has a non-superposable mirror image. The feature that is most often the cause of chirality in molecules is the presence of an asymmetric carbon atom."
You are making the claim about biogenesis. Please cite a source.
yes, i mentioned biogenesis.
life comes from life, any questions?
you are the one backing evolution, so far you have not made any posts which show it to be a fact.
A conference of scientists at the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) in October, 1980,
was convened to thrash out the issues of Darwinian evolution. The meeting considered whether the
mechanisms of micro-evolution (mutation and natural selection) gradually produced enough change to
cause macro-evolution. Their final analysis was "NO!".
-science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887
Steven Jay Gould, is an eminent evolutionist who rejects the Darwinian theory that life gradually
evolved on earth. He bases his belief on his interpretation of the fossil record.
"Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact
remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis
that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."
-Wolfgang Smith in his book "Teilhardism and the New
Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin", Tan Books & Pub. Inc: Rockford (USA), 1988 p:6
A definition is not a source.
Your turn. Cite a source.
Correct. He believes in punctuated equilibrium, events (like meteor impacts) that cause traumatic changes in environment; these drive rapid changes in organisms. Ordinarily they change much more slowly.
You mean other than the speciation we have actually seen occur, fossil records showing evolution of legs to flippers, DNA tests showing whales having the genes to encode legs, dolphins WITH legs, anatomical vestiges that show the complete elimination of former macro structures, things like that.
Gould is an ardent defender of evolution. He just doesn't think it happens gradually. Here's a link:
Wolfgang Smith (born 1930) is a mathematician, physicist, philosopher of science, metaphysician, Roman Catholic and member of the Traditionalist School. He has written extensively in the field of differential geometry, as a critic of scientism and as a proponent of a new interpretation of quantum mechanics that draws heavily from medieval ontology and realism.
He is not qualified to discuss evolution.
cite a source for what?
look around you guy, trust your eyes.
ever see life come from non-life? anywhere at anytime?
ever witness evolution in action? when was the last time you seen a tree turn into a frog?
when was the last time you even read about such a thing in a respected science journal?
the fossil record does not support evolution.
because it is evolution we use to interpret the fossil record to begin with.
doing such a thing makes a person guilty of circular reasoning.
a lot of explanations but still no proof that one lifeform changes into another.
face it, the evidence for evolution is hearsay at best.
my browser doesn't like this link for some reason.
The future exists and that is god. Free will lives in the future out side our dimensional space. We race to the information of the future in our daily lives as waves , Being pulled by existing information not yet experienced and pushed to that very future by the past, God is the future and the devil is the past . It is called rebellion. The new truth rebels against the old lies . The 2 hands of god is what I call it and God and Satan are the same. It drives evolution . The lies shake away and the new truth takes it's place , but it also displaces the old that believed the lie and counted on it being a truth . So now you have resistance phasing through the population. People with old thought and people with new though. Thats how I see it and I'm sticking to it
I'm evolving every minute, what are you talking about, I could barely spell My name . Like a cave man , Go ask around. Ask the Captain. He will tell you. Now lokok at me Keyboarding and all and how. Feel the rush Man you should evolve too. It feels so good , Come one over to the dark side you will like ie. We have beer. Lots of music too. You like music don't yea? Dude you gots to hear the music . You don't even have to denounce Jesus or nothing. He can still be your savior, All though I think I would be better at it , I don't expect you to sacrifice or be a slave to me , only if you evolve though . I would be better only if you evolve other wise you need to keep Jesus as the primary source an stay an ancient man . Your ancient man example, did they even have toilet paper then. I will be the Modern example and we like beer . Us Modern men like beer, But not to much and eat your vegetables too. Yeah that is a must rule. Eat your veggys yeah and call your mother or your sister , or what ever family you have that loves you. 2 rules , Eat veggys and call your family
I actually started typing out a rather lengthy response highlighting some observed examples of speciation but suddenly realized that I was wasting my time. You would not have been capable of recognizing the significance of any of it. This is because firstly, you don't want to. Secondly, even people who do have an open mind are typically not capable of properly comprehending the vastness of the periods of time over which evolution takes place and the relative insignificance of each individual change, at least not at first anyway. Most people end up imagining something like a fish in a puddle trying to crawl out with the half formed legs it was mysteriously born with and almost suffocating because of it's half formed lungs. This is of course nonsensical. Each organism undergoes millions of tiny changes and each individual change that is genetically adopted results in an organism that is typically virtually indistinguishable from it's immediate past and future generation. To see significant differences you'd need to observe hundreds or thousands of generations. To witness an organism evolve into a sufficiently different enough state of form and function to justify calling it a new and unique species, you'd have to observe for thousands, hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of years. That means that we could potentially be talking about tens of millions of generations. The oldest fossils that we have thus far found are estimated to be around 3.5 billion years old.
The rarity of ancient fossils finds means that it is currently impossible to adequately document the evolutionary process that way. But we can and have observed the mechanisms of evolution so we can say with absolute certainty that it does occur and is in fact occurring. This is, as far as I am concerned, the single most compelling proof. Evolution makes sense. It just takes a seemingly incomprehensible amount of time.
No - evolution is on the origin of species. It's about what happened to life AFTER it started. It is not about the origin of life... which is still somewhat of a mystery.
Here is a lengthy article covering current thinking on the origin of life:
There are lots of theories but not much evidence.
Evidence indicates that the polar bear evolved from the brown bear in only 20,000 years. However recent speciation (this happened only about 130KYA) often leaves us with unresolved ambiguity. Polar bears and brown bears can still interbreed (as is quite common between species in the same genus), but since neither can survive in the other's habitat it's not an easy phenomenon to study. The finalization of the polar bear came with the form of its molars, which happened 10-20KYA.
I have always found the distinction between a species and a subspecies rather vague. Species can interbreed, but usually do not in nature, and often do not respond to each other's courtship rituals. Subspecies are usually geographically separated populations and will usually interbreed if given the chance. That's an awful lot of weaseling for a scientific definition!
The hypothesis that the first living matter developed from non-living matter in a purely natural process is called abiogenesis.
Which confirms both my assertions, that the origin of life is NOT covered under evolution. And it is still not totally understood. (iow - it is still somewhat of a mystery.)
No other model fits.
Separate names with a comma.