post 35 doesn't disprove biogenesis either and it also doesn't deal with the topic.The post wasn't addressed at biogenesis, it was about Wikipedia's reliability. Look at post #35.
post 35 doesn't disprove biogenesis either and it also doesn't deal with the topic.The post wasn't addressed at biogenesis, it was about Wikipedia's reliability. Look at post #35.
the miller-urey experiment did not recreate life, it only produced half of the amino acids needed for life.Recreated the origins of life (sort of)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
For one lifeform to change into another takes hundreds of thousands of years so biologists haven't observed it yet.
Biologists have observed short-term evolution:
Moths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Superbugs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/mrsa.shtml
There are lots more examples.
"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."...racemic mixture...
You are making the claim about biogenesis. Please cite a source....biogenesis...
yes, i mentioned biogenesis.You are making the claim about biogenesis. Please cite a source.
A definition is not a source.yes, i mentioned biogenesis.
life comes from life, any questions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descentyou are the one backing evolution, so far you have not made any posts which show it to be a fact.
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
Gould is an ardent defender of evolution. He just doesn't think it happens gradually. Here's a link: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.
Palaeobiology, 1977
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."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
the fossil record does not support evolution.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.
a lot of explanations but still no proof that one lifeform changes into another.
my browser doesn't like this link for some reason.
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.
a lot of explanations but still no proof that one lifeform changes into another.
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.i disagree.
what else explains the total excise of the scientific law of biogenesis?
evolution states life arose naturally, now if that isn't about origins i don't know what is.
..the origin of life... which is still somewhat of a mystery.
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.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.
The hypothesis that the first living matter developed from non-living matter in a purely natural process is called abiogenesis.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.
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.)Here is a lengthy article covering current thinking on the origin of life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
There are lots of theories but not much evidence.
the fossil record does not support evolution.
why?
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.