Denial of evolution III

[Billy T]

...What I would like to know is where does science start evolution? I am asking assuming there is some sort of life , what was it , and did evolution start from that?

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.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes I understand that. I don't expect science to know everything. But science has made a claim that life started on it own, and evolution is a fact.
But science doesn't really know how life started at all, they only assume , there was no creation involved. With the scientific evidence they have now, creation is just as likely as non creation. But that is not what you hear from science.
Assumptions are not real science.

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

 

[Grim_Reaper]

This mold , was there just one or were there many, and if it could not reproduce, how could cell division happen, at a later time?

One word EVOLUTION which by mere happen stance is what this thread is about.

 

[iceaura]

With the scientific evidence they have now, creation is just as likely as non creation

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But science has made a claim that life started on it own

Science goes with the observed evidence.

and evolution is a fact.

Which it is.

But science doesn't really know how life started at all, they only assume , there was no creation involved. With the scientific evidence they have now, creation is just as likely as non creation. But that is not what you hear from science.
Assumptions are not real science.

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.

 

[hay_you]

The facts that confirm, and are explained by the Theory of Evolution are so extensive that we could never hope to cover them in an internet discussion - but all the facts you need are contained in your local library, museums, and even on TV.

In short - read a book pal!

a good starter for a layperson who knows nothing about science is "A Breif History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson as it gives a good explanation of how science really works, and a historical perspective of how we got to the current level of understanding in numerous fields, not just biology, and was written by someone who admits that when he set out to write it, also knew nothing about science - so its a very user friendly book in that respect

again these questions are neatly answered by the most basic study of biology and of how Darwin originally came up with the concept of how evolution had taken place (the idea of evolution was around well before Darwin - he merely figured out how it actually worked).
So once again I suggest that reading a book might be of use to you.

Feel free to come back with some intelligent questions once you have educated yourself

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?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

well i rerad THAT book.

why dont YOU answer post #32?

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

 

[Billy T]

... 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. ...

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?"

... why dont YOU answer post #32?

I gave one of many possible answers in post 61. Do you see any flaw in it?

 

[hay_you]

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.

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!

 

[synthesizer-patel]

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 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?

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.

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

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?

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.

Was there more than one, or did many all happen at the same time?

Genetic evidence suggests a single originator of life on this planet

What did it feed on when it was in the ocean?

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

Because it can't reproduce, how did it multiply?

bacteria can reproduce

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually science has taken itself out of the ream of a creator. That is their choice. It doesn't have to be like that.

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

Science does not conflict with creation or a creator.

Of course it does.

Some of sciences theories might, but those are only theories.

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

Evolution, science says is a fact, but is it?

Yes it is.

Lets see!

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.

 

[mike47]

Define non life do you mean non living and if so define that further to simple brain death or physical death like say when a heart stops that sort of thing.

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

 

[hay_you]

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

Actually science does this all the time
Here is an example
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

 

[iceaura]

The bolded text shows assumptions.

No it doesn't. It shows a refusal to make assumptions.

But the first organism, there would have been no survival instinct or capability.

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually science does this all the time
Here is an example
The bolded text shows assumptions.

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

Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure

Is an admission that we don't know, hence it's not an assumption.

Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

Two more admissions that we don't know: not assumptions.

apparently inflated

Saying "apparently" means that it looks that way but we don't know for sure: not an assumption.

appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown.

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.

The US dropped 2 hydrogen bombs on Japan.

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

How does it know that it has to do this and how did it know how to do it?

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

But the first organism, there would have been no survival instinct or capability.

Why?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Actually science does this all the time
Here is an example
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

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

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.

 

[hay_you]

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

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.

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.

 

[leopold]

It takes the start of life as a given fact.

science has not proved life started anywhere under any condition.

 

[(Q)]

If you have an idea how I can do this better let me know.

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

Because scientists are programing the DNA. This is creation.

Yes, you clearly need to educate yourself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

science has not proved life started anywhere under any condition.

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.