Denial of evolution III

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
(Q) said:
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.
Click to expand...
DNA does NOT come from zero thing . It starts from something and that is the issue here .
 
(Q) said:
You too, read a book, not the Quran.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
hay_you said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
hay_you said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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”
hay_you said:
... Ok this is an attempt to answer this question of the start to life. ... In theory many of these things may have a possibly. But does it in real life?
Click to expand...
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
hay_you said:
...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?
Click to expand...
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:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
hay said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
(Q) said:
Again, get your nose out of the Quran. Whatever you're saying about science is based on your silly fairy tales.
Click to expand...
Why from all the religious books you mention the Qu'oran ?.
Also why do you keep on attacking people instead of debating issues ??!!!.
 
hay_you said:
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?
Click to expand...

hay_you, no scientist would say such a thing, what, did a bacteria spontaneously apear out of nothing?
 
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.
Click to expand...
That was the old abiogenesis. That the dictionary called disproven.

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.
Click to expand...
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.



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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
hay_you said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's why you need to get yourself educated rather than making ridiculous statements about that which you have no idea.
 
mike47 said:
Why from all the religious books you mention the Qu'oran ?.
Also why do you keep on attacking people instead of debating issues ??!!!.
Click to expand...

I concur- I am amazed that moderators don't take action against his obvious trolling.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top