Spirituality
25 Jul 18
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhy Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Some of the evidence is summarized here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraCan you give (or illustrate) an example of how an earlier life form might reproduce if it was simpler than a single-celled organism? I'm assuming you don't mean something like a virus, seeing as how viruses are dependent on host DNA rich cells for their survival.
Cells are not the only things that might reproduce. The earliest lifeforms were simpler than single-celled organisms.
https://www.texasgateway.org/resource/virus-reproduction
"Viruses are very tiny nonliving particles. Most biologists do not consider viruses to be living because they do not fulfill all the criteria for life. Viruses do not carry out respiration. They also do not grow or reproduce on their own. A virus needs a living cell in order to reproduce. The living cell in which the virus reproduces is called a host cell."
Originally posted by @lemon-limeBy somehow making a copy of some genetic material, of course. I am not an expert on early life, so I suggest reading this article and the references therein:
Can you give (or illustrate) an example of how an earlier life form might reproduce if it was simpler than a single-celled organism? I'm assuming you don't mean something like a virus, seeing as how viruses are dependent on host DNA rich cells for their survival.
https://www.texasgateway.org/resource/virus-reproduction
"Viruses are very tiny nonli ...[text shortened]... ell in order to reproduce. The living cell in which the virus reproduces is called a host cell."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe wiki piece is declarative (re: earliest life forms) but doesn't adequately address what those life forms were or how they came into existence. I'm not sure how evidence of microorganisms in the distant past is able to prove anything other than the existence of microorganisms... I willingly conceed that microorganisms exist, but so what?
By somehow making a copy of some genetic material, of course. I am not an expert on early life, so I suggest reading this article and the references therein:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
Oh well, in any event, I'll have more time to read "the references therein" after I've finished reading another link suggested on a previous page:
https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThere are two issues I have with the theory, both are exactly what the theory claims is
By somehow making a copy of some genetic material, of course. I am not an expert on early life, so I suggest reading this article and the references therein:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
true. I get that the theory suggests that natural selection rejects the bad, builds with the
good, thus preserving the good so that it adds up into the every increasing diversity of life
and all of life's inner complexity, always taking all opportunities for improvement bla bla bla.
I just do not believe either of those are possible, and neither of them have been observed
in the manner that suggest we can go from a simple single cell living creature over
millions of years to all life today. There is nothing anywhere that suggest evolution
caused life to split down different evolutionary paths to give us flowers, whales, jellyfish,
dogs, mice, eagles, lady bugs, ants, spiders, frogs, snakes, monkeys, and the list goes on.
Modern life reproduces after its own kinds, which means it resists change, there could
be some modification within kinds, but you don't see dogs turning into eagles. You don't
see anything turning into anything else, there are modifications which we see in dog
breeding, bugs becoming resistant to pesticide. Both of those may not even be called
real evolution, since we start with dogs and we end with dogs. With respect to bugs how
would we know some portion of the bugs were already resistant to pesticide and soon
those are the only offspring left standing?
Since early life is a mystery if it were around millions of years ago, nothing about it can
actually be used to support the theory we simply don't know. We can repeat the words
"natural selection" all we want, but that does not prove anything. It certainly cannot prove
that there was some mechanism that filtered out all bad mutations millions of years ago.
The theory is faith, as much as you'd like to suggest otherwise, it is faith.
Last night I was thinking about the big bang theory and compared it to evolution. I was wondering why BB theory is not vigorously disputed whereas E theory is... and yet both enjoy universe support in most science venues.
BB is not in dispute because it didn't begin with a theory. It began with an observation, i.e. stars and galaxies moving away from one another. All of the evidence gathered over time has supported this theory. And the prediction of background radiation causing space to be a few degrees warmer than absolute zero sealed the deal when that prediction was accidentally discovered to be true.
Contrast this with evolution, which began with a theory that predicted evidence found in the fossel record would eventually provide significant proof of the theory. When this didn't happen (no evidence of transitional species) punctuated equilibrium was proposed and accepted as a reason for the lack of evidence.
So on the one hand we have a universally accepted theory because it began with real time observations and predictions that have been confirmed.
On the other hand, we have another universally accepted theory. It however began with an idea followed by a failed prediction that wasn't discarded, because it is supported by an unsubstantiated supporting theory. In other words, the evidence that should be there isn't, but we can imagine it was there because we have a supporting theory to explain away this lack of evidence...
Had more to say, but I need to stop here before my head explodes.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWhat is seen doesn't mean the BB happen I’m sure if people had half a mind they
Last night I was thinking about the big bang theory and compared it to evolution. I was wondering why BB theory is not vigorously disputed whereas E theory is... and yet both enjoy universe support in most science venues.
BB is not in dispute because it didn't begin with a theory. It began with an observation, i.e. stars and galaxies moving away from ...[text shortened]... his lack of evidence...
Had more to say, but I need to stop here before my head explodes.
could come up with other possible explanations. If everything could come from nothing,
then what rational could stand scrutiny? Predictability requires events that are constant in
nature which doesn’t happen if everything could possibly come from nothing.
With the observation of stars and galaxies moving away from each other doesn’t mean
that at one time they were all located in one place, it means they are moving away from
one another. You could sit yourself in the ocean and see things moving away from each
other, it doesn’t mean all the water at one point in time all were in a single spot. Seeing a
fireworks explosion show the contents of the fireworks moving away from each other, it
doesn’t mean that all the universe around it was in a single point. Nothing about the BB
even sounds reasonable, where was it sitting, what was going on before the BB, then
what changed? The Big bang is just another evolutionary tall tale that is all about process
and nothing about true origins.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI don't buy into the idea that 'nothing' could have been virtual particle precursors of mass and energy, because the only thing nothing can be is nothing. Reverse engineering the expansion is childs play until you get close to the singularity... where everything actually came from and what initiated the big bang is still a big mystery.
What is seen doesn't mean the BB happen I’m sure if people had half a mind they
could come up with other possible explanations. If everything could come from nothing,
then what rational could stand scrutiny? Predictability requires events that are constant in
nature which doesn’t happen if everything could possibly come from nothing.
With the observa ...[text shortened]... s just another evolutionary tall tale that is all about process
and nothing about true origins.
My point wasn't so much about BB per se, but to set two theories side by side and illustrate how the scientific method was used.
BB theory is accepted because of observable evidence and predictions confirmed. It didn't begin with wishful thinking, and doesn't rely on artificial support (unsubstantiated supporting theories)
E theory is accepted because... ?
01 Sep 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAnd you agree with the BB, because someone predicted something? It isn't a full proof
I don't buy into the idea that 'nothing' could have been virtual particle precursors of mass and energy, because the only thing nothing can be is nothing. Reverse engineering the expansion is childs play until you get close to the singularity... where everything actually came from and what initiated the big bang is still a big mystery.
My point ...[text shortened]... on artificial support (unsubstantiated supporting theories)
E theory is accepted because... ?
reliable method for factual authentication, because being right about one thing, or couple
of things, of several things, does not make one right about everything.
Originally posted by @kellyjayWhich theory has more to back it up? Evolution or Big Bang?
And you agree with the BB, because someone predicted something? It isn't a full proof
reliable method for factual authentication, because being right about one thing, or couple
of things, of several things, does not make one right about everything.
I'm not talking about "full proof" in the sense that we have eye witness testimony or other direct evidence. I get what you're saying, and understand how indirect evidence can spawn more than one theoretical narrative.
But all I'm doing here is comparing BB to Evolution. It's not an endorsement of either theory, it's a comparison. I was pointing out the difference between the two insofar as the methodology being used.
BB did not start with a 'conclusion' and then seek evidence to support that belief.
Evolution began with a belief, developed a narrative and has since striven to find evidence to support that narrative.
01 Sep 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI see what you are saying.
Which theory has more to back it up? Evolution or Big Bang?
I'm not talking about "full proof" in the sense that we have eye witness testimony or other direct evidence. I get what you're saying, and understand how indirect evidence can spawn more than one theoretical narrative.
But all I'm doing here is comparing BB to Evolution. It's not an endorsem ...[text shortened]... belief, developed a narrative and has since striven to find evidence to support that narrative.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
01 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra'Somehow' means wishful thinking.
By somehow making a copy of some genetic material, of course. I am not an expert on early life, so I suggest reading this article and the references therein:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
Originally posted by @kellyjayHow are these "kinds" encoded in DNA, and what prevents many small changes from accumulating into large ones?
There are two issues I have with the theory, both are exactly what the theory claims is
true. I get that the theory suggests that natural selection rejects the bad, builds with the
good, thus preserving the good so that it adds up into the every increasing diversity of life
and all of life's inner complexity, always taking all opportunities for improvem ...[text shortened]... s of years ago.
The theory is faith, as much as you'd like to suggest otherwise, it is faith.
01 Sep 18
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWhat "lack of evidence"? There are many examples of "transitional species" in the fossil record. Dinosaurs with feathers, for one.
Last night I was thinking about the big bang theory and compared it to evolution. I was wondering why BB theory is not vigorously disputed whereas E theory is... and yet both enjoy universe support in most science venues.
BB is not in dispute because it didn't begin with a theory. It began with an observation, i.e. stars and galaxies moving away from ...[text shortened]... his lack of evidence...
Had more to say, but I need to stop here before my head explodes.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThat would be something you have to explain! It isn’t obvious that it ever has happen, and I don’t believe it has. I not suggesting anything new can come from natural selection only that what is here can be altered.
How are these "kinds" encoded in DNA, and what prevents many small changes from accumulating into large ones?
Since it hasn’t been observed, documented, only suggested by the theory you ascribe to show your evidence! If you bring up fossils that will not work for me since you can’t prove anything fossilized millions of years ago had offspring let alone descendents that evolved into anything!
We can observe what I believe, no one has observed what that theory claims.