[labs use controlled conditions, wheres during evilution the conditions were not contrlled. also chromosmes could also mutate and 99.9% are harmful. =spidergoat;1316350]Because the chromosome is already a highly evolved structure containing DNA. The premise of abiogenesis (a separate theory than evolution), is not that a cell formed spontaneously, but that it emerged gradually from simpler steps, perhaps from RNA. The simpler steps are more probable to form than a complex structure.
Evolution - True Or False
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
- Status
Lack of imagination and falling back to leap of faith (a creator) is not an argument against evolution.
And the creation of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.
"Lack of imagination" is certainly what it takes to not buy the absurd Darwinian morphing notion, spur.
I wouldn't know what darwinian morphing is.
in evilution matter and energy came from nothng, but according to the first law of thermodinamics matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. according to the second law of thermodinamics the universe continually tends toward disorder, but energy must be spent to return the disorder to its original state, but evilution says that the universe continually increases order. the law of biogenesis states that life can only come from other living life, but in evilution life comes from non living life. probabily is used to determine the likely hood of an event, but the chance is non existent, so not you didn't answer the questions correctly. i chalenge you to give true proof!
Yes, we weren't there, and any evidence of abiogenesis would likely not have survived.Saquist said:
I would suggest that this book is another kind of speculation.Saquist said:
Yes, it had to come from somewhere, but the probability of a simpler precursor is more likely than if a chromosome appeared spontaneously. No biologist specializing in abiogenesis suggests a chromosome was the first structure in this process.Saquist said:
This experiment tested one particular facet of Earth's early chemistry. It was not intended to simulate all conditions. The molecules could have formed in space, in the atmosphere, on the surface, or under the oceans, we just don't know. As far as a hostile environment, the oceans contain a diversity of environments, and we know that some bacteria are well suited to conditions that would kill you and me.Saquist said:
From what I have read, the result of only one type of amino acids surviving was a matter of chance. Once one type of life got started, it would have prevented all further abiogenesis from occurring. Right-hand amino acids could have been the basis of life for some time, before they went extinct, we just don't know for sure.Saquist said:
Argument from authority. Argument from incredulity. So and so believes in Creationism, and he is a scientist, therefore creationism is true... not a valid argument.Saquist said:
Last edited:
Don't confuse abiogenesis and evolution, they are separate.
The first law of thermodynamics describes the behavior of a closed system. Since the Earth is not a closed system, the tiny fraction of matter on Earth leaning towards order is offset by the greater proportion of matter in the universe leaning towards disorder.
Incorrect. Abiogenesis (not a law), describes several theories about how life can emerge from non-life.
Evolution describes how life changes over time, and says nothing about how the first life emerged.
i wanted you to answer me with the truth, not with what you wanted to answer. now, if there is no creator, than why do you feel bad when you do something wrong? if there isn't a creator than why are there storys of people being killed by ghost, and actually these are true storys. what i'm asking is dones evilution create spirits?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
you have mixed your terms so badly here that I almost don't want to respond.
1) The theory of evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe. That is covered by a different theory. When discussing Evolution, do not try to counter it by agrueing against the big bang. I will try not to counter your Christian claims by showing you innacuracies in the Iroquios creation ledgend.
2) The theory of evolution does not deal with the creation of the first living things. That is covered by a different theory. When discussing Evolution, do not try to counter it by agrueing against abiogenisis. I will try not to counter your Christian claims by showing you innacuracies in the Iroquios creation ledgend.
The idea that evolution breaks Thermodynamics is so poor, and so often repeated by people who can't even state the laws correctly, that I'm just going to say "No, this is wrong. Please learn before trying to teach other people." Same thing with calling the theory of biogenisis a Law.
It really depends on what the event is. If the early oceans were really a stew of organic chemistry, the precursors of life, and if the event were rather simple, say a self-replicating molecule, then it was highly probable. You have to factor in all the chemical interactions where it might have happened and didn't, perhaps trillions every second.
Last edited:
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
He did answer you with the truth. Evolution is occuring RIGHT NOW, and if you bothered to look, you could go watch it. For humans and most large mammels, it progresses at a rate slower than you are selfishly asking for, but it can be seen in insects, bacteria and viruses every day. Go do a high-school level experiment with fruit flies, and come back when you done. Or better yet, go get last-years flu shot, and let me know how long it is before you catch the flu. map the genomes of both the vaccine source and the variety you end up puking from.
You want him to explain how people are killed by ghosts: first please show that they were killed by ghosts, instead of expecting us to believe your unfounded claim. Show me a ghost.
Guilt. This can be entirely non-religious in origin.
No one has ever been killed by a ghost. Perhaps by the fear of a ghost, but that is created by superstition, which religion only enforces.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Because archeologists study human remains and culture. Do you mean paleontologists? They have. Go read a book. (edit: make that "read a book other than the one you worship")
"Where did the first life forms come from": go read a second book on the subject, then start a thread on abiogenesis if you'd like to discuss all the possible ways; ID included.
"Where did the first life forms come from": go read a second book on the subject, then start a thread on abiogenesis if you'd like to discuss all the possible ways; ID included.
Aging is still a mystery, but we age far slower than most animals.
Things decay because if they didn't, life on Earth would not be possible. Decay is a biological process, the action of specialized life forms that evolved to take advantage of a food source.
All fossils are species in transition, some faster than others. Although I think what you are talking about is transition from what we call one species to another. There are indeed many examples of this.
The study of where the first life forms came from is called Abiogenesis, which we have been discussing. There are still gaps in our knowledge of this, but that does not support creationism. In fact, there are far larger gaps in the Creation myth.
Things decay because if they didn't, life on Earth would not be possible. Decay is a biological process, the action of specialized life forms that evolved to take advantage of a food source.
All fossils are species in transition, some faster than others. Although I think what you are talking about is transition from what we call one species to another. There are indeed many examples of this.
The study of where the first life forms came from is called Abiogenesis, which we have been discussing. There are still gaps in our knowledge of this, but that does not support creationism. In fact, there are far larger gaps in the Creation myth.
there is a true book called hugo, that descrebes in the story a misionary who goes out to a group of savage indians called the motolones. in the book there is a part where a tiger speaks and spirets attack the vilage. the misionary, a converted christian new the spirets were there when looked back and saw all the tepees shaking. he even felt more fear than he had ever felt in his life! one of the indians, who he had convert ended up singing to keep the spirits from killing anybody.=spidergoat;1316467]Guilt. This can be entirely non-religious in origin.
No one has ever been killed by a ghost. Perhaps by the fear of a ghost, but that is created by superstition, which religion only enforces.[/QUOTE]
No one has ever been killed by a ghost. Perhaps by the fear of a ghost, but that is created by superstition, which religion only enforces.[/QUOTE]
I do not argue from "Authority"
Tanaka represents an unbiased source of infomation and opinion. His and everyone else I've meant are meant to show that the components of ID have creditiblity in their fields.
The foundation of Science is not as firm as some would like to believe as too the dedication to evolution. It's only part of a large crack that is slowly building momentum.
These perspectives and their stature in their field highlight well meaning and independent thinking in the scientific community...And I will post more later.
Tanaka represents an unbiased source of infomation and opinion. His and everyone else I've meant are meant to show that the components of ID have creditiblity in their fields.
The foundation of Science is not as firm as some would like to believe as too the dedication to evolution. It's only part of a large crack that is slowly building momentum.
These perspectives and their stature in their field highlight well meaning and independent thinking in the scientific community...And I will post more later.
Last edited:
- Status