Denial of evolution III

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Different answers are no doubt possible depending on one's defintion of "life."

    For me, the first life was single cellular organism, that was able to produce more of it kind, very likely by dividing into two parts. They would obviously be smaller, so not yet quite "more of it kind." Thus another atribute of "first life" is the ability to taken non-living matter into it "body" (the single cell). That would require taking some energy from the enviroment to reduce the intra cellular entropy - i.e. organize the injected non-living matter into part of functioning cell as it grows.

    To distinguish "life" from a growing crystal which does some but not all of this, I would also add that first living cells had a well defined boundary or "skin" (a cell wall).

    There are many ways that the first living cell could have been formed by natural processes. For example molecules, some what like modern detergent form naturally. They have one end that is hydrofilic and one that is hydrophobic. They spontaneously mutually align and form great sheets of "skum." Ocean waves would occasionally roll this skum into tubes, and even "pinch off" the tube ends to make a volume with well defined interior separated from exterior world. Most of our cells have cell wall made of hydrophobic and hydrofilic ended molecules, I think even today.

    Most of what would be trapped inside the pinched off skum would just be H2O but there would be some with various amino-acid molecules etc. too. Among the zillions of these closed volumes present at any one time on the primative ocean surface, most would not qualify as life, but over a few million years one did. Then evolution was off on it great adventure to see what would result.

    BTW, Last time I seriously considered this question I decided that there were other ways, which used the organizational abilities of crystal surfaces to do the creation of first life more rapidly, but explaining them is more complex. The problem in NOT to find one method by which life is expected to naturally arrise, but how to chose between the many posiblities which one is more probable to have been the origin of life.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    That it incorrect. There are several plausible scenarios about how life originated. Until these are disproven, they are more likely than any supernatural explanation.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    One word EVOLUTION which by mere happen stance is what this thread is about.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That is nonsense, and has been explained to you now several times right here.

    There is as yet no evidence - none whatsoever, zero, zilch, nada - that any aspect of living beings or life as we know it was created by an outside agency of any kind or designed by an intelligence of any description.

    There is as yet no reasonable argument for the consideration of any such hypothesis as an explanation for either the development or the origin of living beings on this planet.

    All of the evidence - and there is a fair amount - indicates self or spontaneous organization of inanimate chemical complexes.

    All of the reasonable arguments point to its development by way of some kind of evolutionary process.
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Science goes with the observed evidence.

    Which it is.

    Ah I see where you're getting confused.
    It's not an assumption.
    Science has nothing to do with god or creation since they are, by definition, outside of science's remit.
    Science is doing what science does: investigating without adding unproven, unobserved hypotheses to the picture.
    The start of life is being investigated to find out how it happened. It's that simple.
  9. hay_you Registered Member

    I have already researched this. I don't want to ask every little thing, but I don't think science has thought this through. What I mean is that science assumes way too many things as real without finding out if they are or not.
    Science will say it must have started this way or that, but that is not science. What I am asking is what science should have asked when researching this stuff.
    For example. ( you don't need to get into detail even yes or no or simple explanation is OK)
    Is this just an assumption that mold was the first life?
    Was there more than one, or did many all happen at the same time?
    What did it feed on when it was in the ocean?
    Because it can't reproduce, how did it multiply?
  10. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    congratulations for reading a book - you are already streets ahead of your contemporaries

    with regards to the question, I missed the post - sorry

    the short answer is that research continues

    read up on the iron-sulfur world hypothesis and RNA World Hypothesis for more info
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Not only that but as I mockingly pointed out in post 48, "God made life" just sweeps the question under the rug for simple minded people as it leaves open the question "Who created god?

    There is no answer known for question "What was the "first cause?"
    I gave one of many possible answers in post 61. Do you see any flaw in it?
  12. hay_you Registered Member

    Actually science has taken itself out of the ream of a creator. That is their choice. It doesn't have to be like that. Science does not conflict with creation or a creator. Some of sciences theories might, but those are only theories.
    Evolution, science says is a fact, but is it?
    Lets see!
  13. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Science doesnt do that - in fact it does almost precisely what you say it doesnt do

    remember what I said about reading a book or two?

    it seems that you are the one making assumptions - science makes observations based on evidence - it doesnt just make shit up - thats what the dangerous taliban style religious fanatics who support creationism do

    You mean bacteria not mould right? - but point taken.
    The assumption that bacterial life was the first life is an assumtption made by laypeople - not scientists.
    what science says is that bacteria is the earliest life that we have found fossilised evidence for so far - the discovery of some form of earlier proto / pre -cellular life is not precluded by this.

    Genetic evidence suggests a single originator of life on this planet

    probably the same stuff that microorganisms can feed on today - inorganic abiotic micronutrients

    bacteria can reproduce
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Actually it does have to be like that.
    God isn't testable scientifically.

    Of course it does.

    You don't actually know what theory means do you?
    Read this.

    Yes it is.

    The ONLY way that evolution will not be shown to be a fact is by you ignoring the presented arguments and evidence.
    But to be fair, you seem to have a pretty good record of doing just that anyway.
  15. mike47 Banned Banned

    It means zero thing becomes something starting from zero thing .
    The same dilemma for those who believe in God .
  16. hay_you Registered Member


    Actually science does this all the time
    Here is an example

    The bolded text shows assumptions.
    If you don't like this one use your own.

    The US dropped 2 hydrogen bombs on Japan. We don't need to get into that stuff, we just talking about evolution. And it is just a discussion. You will make what you want from it.

    OK , then assuming the dating is correct( I'm not that sure about that yet) but , so you have fossils that go back that far. So you are saying bacteria.
    You also said bacteria can reproduce. How does it know that it has to do this and how did it know how to do it? What I am asking here is that reproduction even just division is a miraculous thing. Because we see happen all the time, we may take it for granted. But the first organism, there would have been no survival instinct or capability. So where did that come from?
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No it doesn't. It shows a refusal to make assumptions.
    The evidence and arguments we have now indicate that there probably was no "first organism".

    And many organisms today (almost all organisms, actually) have no "survival instinct" - they have no instincts at all, being too small and without the necessary organization.
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    You really need to learn what the word "assumption" means:

    Is an admission that we don't know, hence it's not an assumption.
    Two more admissions that we don't know: not assumptions.
    Saying "apparently" means that it looks that way but we don't know for sure: not an assumption.
    The words "for reasons unknown" is an admission that we don't know (see how it works? Unknown = don't know). NOT an assumption.
    The closest thing to an assumption in the entire quote is the words "appeared out of nowhere" - but that is explained earlier as being UNKNOWN and hence not an assumption.

    No they didn't, the first hydrogen bomb wasn't even tested until 1952.

    What do you mean "how does it know"?
    Does a plant "know" when to grow? Or when to take in water?

  19. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Firstly we looking at at best high-school level science - so the language and terminology has been toned down.

    secondly there are no assumptions in the bolded text.

    the first 2 are merely expressions of ignorance - what they say is that we have a good idea of what happened (based on evidence) - but we lack the physics and mathematics at this moment in time to describe the process fully.
    That - in case you arent sure what an assumption is, is not an assumption.

    The third is an observation of the evidence that the universe has expanded (and continues to do so).
    That - in case you arent sure what an assumption is, is not an assumption.

    The fourth states that we dont know how or why this happened in the first place - its an odd statement as science isnt really concerned with why however, in case you arent sure what an assumption is, that is not an assumption.

    check your dictionary for a definition of assumption please.

    I'll answer the next questions once you answer the one I asked absolutely ages ago which you so far have been extremely rude to ignore

    here it is again

    give us a logical and chronological step by step list of the facts you learned that lead you to decude that creation is a valid hypothesis.
  20. hay_you Registered Member

    First off guys I am getting too many comments at a time, we got to slow this down a bit. I am missing too much stuff.
    If you have an idea how I can do this better let me know.
    I thought that I would answer in order all the posts from you guys from my last post. So make each of yours post 1 comment or question.
    I hope this helps

    Ok this is an attempt to answer this question of the start to life. ( i know this thread is about evolution so were back tracking again) but this was a serious attempt.
    In theory many of these things may have a possibly. But does it in real life? Even a single cell is complex, with many parts before it is a cell that can reproduce. ( it has to be able to do this) Now, a catch 22 situation happens here. How does a cell get( evolve) all of it's parts before it is alive, because it needs all of it's part to live? So where did all of these part come from?
    It is not just mixing chemicals, you need working parts all at the same time as life happens. You also need the cell to be able to reproduce, without dieing to do it. Also how does the cell know what parts it needs. Now are we talking DNA yet? if you are where do the instructions come to be used in the DNA? Science is trying to construct DNA from precursors, but what instructions are they putting in it. And if they succeed in doing that,can you say that the DNA was not created. Because scientists are programing the DNA. This is creation.
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    science has not proved life started anywhere under any condition.
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Why not try educating yourself first? Then, if you still have qualms about evolution, come back with something valid.

    Yes, you clearly need to educate yourself.
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Which is nothing to do with what I wrote.
    We're here, so life must have started at some point...
    Science takes life as a given as far as evolution goes.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page