Origin Of Life - Page 2

greywolf90 · 04-01-2008, 07:44 AM

still singing that old song GI? evolution explains how lifeforms change; NOT how life began! we do not know how life began, but we have a good idea of how life evolved after it began. i do not put my faith in a weak theory. i accept the truth of a sound theory that is both reasonable and scientific. if you wish to know the mechanisms, all you need to do is simply open a text book. either things evolved over time, or they were individually formed/created. i see no third option here...

Og · 04-01-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GI

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowind

minor modifications over long time could create different things, a plant and a tiger might have the same ancestor. its an acumlative effect, every little small thing adds up, minor differentation is added to minor differentation.

Would you care to explain to us how this takes place? We are often just TOLD this happens and that we can't see it because it takes an 'eternity'....it's a nonsense and luckily it is now being questioned seriously by serious thinkers.

I challenge you to detail for example the evolution of either bird lung or bird wing, without just saying this turned into that and that turned into this. Tell us how this takes could happen please!!! I want to know the mechanism.

Have you looked at studies of genetic homology between organisms?

http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...apped-out.html

Here's a post I made some time ago. It details genetic homology between a highly conserved protein (ion channels in membranes) between organisms.

Comparisons of genetic code show a relative similarity between code for similar proteins in all organisms. It APPEARS as if they all diverged, randomly, from a common ancestor. I assume that an intelligent designer would have had to create things so they appear exactly like they had been the product of random mutation and selection.

It's real easy for the creationists to grab at higher level complex cellular processes like the bird's lung or the eye which represent a higher level integration of genetic signals. That's the perceived murky area in which they can fool themselves to continue their belief (for whatever reasons).

AB517 · 04-01-2008, 10:02 AM

GI,

Why couldn't God have done it through evolution?

Og, Four little letters for ya
A-C-T-G
It is as clear as all get out.

**WilliamBlue** · 04-01-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GI

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowind

minor modifications over long time could create different things, a plant and a tiger might have the same ancestor. its an acumlative effect, every little small thing adds up, minor differentation is added to minor differentation.

Would you care to explain to us how this takes place? We are often just TOLD this happens and that we can't see it because it takes an 'eternity'....it's a nonsense and luckily it is now being questioned seriously by serious thinkers.

I challenge you to detail for example the evolution of either bird lung or bird wing, without just saying this turned into that and that turned into this. Tell us how this takes could happen please!!! I want to know the mechanism.

The reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes. The passage from a terrestrial lung to an avian lung is impossible, because an intermediate form would serve no purpose. Reptiles have a diaphragm-type respiratory system, whereas birds have an abdominal air sac system instead of a diaphragm. These different structures also make any evolution between the two lung types impossible.

So, tell me how the the bird wing evolved. I'll start you off with the fact that the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly. So go on, tell me more please......

Consider Exogenesis and stop sweeping issues under the carpet.

Birds did not evolve from reptiles they evolved from dinosaurs and I do not believe that you have one to compare too? Feathers have been found on dinosaurs, they have even found one that could glide.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...or&btnG=Search

In a matter of speaking it is still the age of the dinosaurs as there are about 10,000 different species of birds.

They are tracing the evolution of DNA and the evolution of proteins, yet here you are hoping to deposit superstitious magic into this tree of evolution and then you say it makes more sense to have magic, all because your small mind can't grasp what 3 billion years looks like to life on this planet. This is what our ancestors did when they couldn't figure out how the little bright sky lights and the moon came to be...

http://www.livescience.com/history/t...designs-1.html

Your evidence for this superstitious belief is 'It's to complicated' or ' there wasn't enough time." If species did not evolve from other species they must of popped out of thin air and you call evolution hard to believe, talk about weak, geez.

Evolve(you might try watching this)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

**WilliamBlue** · 04-01-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GI

Precellular life must have appeared almost immediately.
There was almost no time for precellular life to evolve into the simplest bacterial cells. Precellular life has never been created in a lab.

Neo-Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life on earth - it just cannot!

Man will create cellular life in the lab soon and eventually we will understand what it took to make the first species, if we are around long enough.

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...nthetic_genome

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Wir...3499486&page=2

The original took a billion years before it formed. Yes, we don't quite yet understand the exact nature of this, but we will, have faith

.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/home.page...toverview.html

AB517 · 04-01-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamBlue

Quote:

Originally Posted by GI

Precellular life must have appeared almost immediately.
There was almost no time for precellular life to evolve into the simplest bacterial cells. Precellular life has never been created in a lab.

Neo-Darwinism cannot explain the origin of life on earth - it just cannot!

Man will create cellular life in the lab soon and eventually we will understand what it took to make the first species, if we are around long enough.

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...nthetic_genome

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Wir...3499486&page=2

The original took a billion years before it formed. Yes, we don't quite yet understand the exact nature of this, but we will, have faith

.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/home.page...toverview.html

We will not ... ever.

We will only copy at first, and then maybe make something that doesn’t use a-c-t-c-g. But that even is using the laws of this universe.

Even more amazing will be using another type of atom as the base, but that will require a different environment than our “Goldie Locks” belts. But even that is using long since established rules.

Og · 04-01-2008, 12:17 PM

The problem here is not an understanding of evolution. The problem is in people's understanding of what life is. There is no fundamental difference between dirt, clouds, stars, rocks, fish, viruses, and humans. It is a matter of organization of components.

The notion that we won't be able to create life or that life "arose" out of "non-life" is absurd. There is no real distinction of "kind" between life and non-life.

A cell phone is as much "life" as you or I or a bacteria are. It's a remnant word from a non-scientific time. It creates problems in the minds of many when trying to understand the universe. And there's not a single A-T-C-G in it other than in the skin cells and saliva cells you deposit on it through using it.

Og · 04-01-2008, 12:23 PM

There is NO difference between the behavior of a bacteria and of a cell phone on any fundamental topic except perhaps reproduction and that's easily added to their code. Signal transduction occurs. Power is consumed and replenished. It has a myriad of sensory inputs from a microphone to cameras and touch screens and accelerometers etc.. It processes these signals and causes conformational changes of internal components... It seeks out nearby electronic systems (towers) to pair with... It has memory storage and access functions.. etc..

What the hell is the difference between a cell phone and "life"? What the heck is going to be the thing that we "Create" in the lab that you will call "life" versus non-life? Does it have to be all the way up at some level of consciousness of self like we have?

Most creationists in this manner simply define life such that it can't be created in a lab. Why must we be constrained to the thermodynamics of carbon compounds? Why can't we utilize the quantum mechanical properties of silicon?

All of the behaviors of the system are IDENTICAL. The material substrate is a bit different.

Vinterland · 04-02-2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GI

Forget eyes, and think about how self replicating molecules arose, how the lung or wing of a bird could have formed. Forget intelligent design or creationism. Think about the process of RM and NS actually being the mechanism for creating all the complex structures, the difference in classes of animals and indeed the origin of life and you. Add to that the time frame in which this is all supposed to have happened and you will find it is a denial of common sense. The author proposes interesting and feasible alternative for those that have the wisdom to know that they don't know....yet. Why could self replicating molecules, 'blueprints' not have arrived from outer space? And why is the question of where they came from so damn frightening to everybody that they wish to sweep issues under the carpet and put all faith in a weak theory that only explains minor modifictaions to already existing species????????????????????????

I've been long fascinated by this question, but I have a hard time learning it. This is an article I came upon that I started reading:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...all~order=page

You can download it PDF format. I prefer this article:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...man/index.html

GI · 04-02-2008, 06:14 AM

Origins of life remain unknown and extremely debatable despite the fact that the majority of scientists will tell you that it is definataly via the Darwin model because they fear the unknown and their own job! It makes no sense at all and we should really start to face up to the fact that this model of evolution doesn't explain anything more than minor modifications.

This is interesting:

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

People blindly accept this Darwin dogma. How many of you here confuse atheism with agnosticism????