Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, for me, as far as the origins of the first cell(s) are concerned, I feel that they too must have come from a process of slow gradual change. I've asked this question a number of times before, but what defines life? Is it 99% of a cell? 98% of a cell? 97? 96? What are we using to constitute life? Furthermore, I'd like to say that it seems to me that a "replicator" that produces ideal "replications" to fit its' environment stands the better chance at survival. Now, with that being said, certain crystals actually replicate quite well but I don't think we'd call them living. Yet, they are able to reproduce, and the most structured of them are able to bond with other crystals and reproduce more while in the presence of certain envrionments. So, would we call the crystals on top of clay "life"?? I'd hardly think so. My point is that people refer to a cell just "popping up" much in the same way they seem to think that a monkey gave birth to a human. Neither of these seems like logical scientific explanations and I don't think they are. In order for a cell to have attained the complexities it has, it must also be the result of a period of change and adjustment to its' environment. That is, if we are to look at it from a truely scientific standpoint.
lets not forget viruses. these little babies have caused many rows on our biology classroom because no one can really tell if they should be classified as living or not
I haven't read all of Darwin's works, but I don't think that's true. It's directly contrary to the last paragraph of "On the Origin of Species", where he says:
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
This is all I could find on it from a quick search:
My point is that people refer to a cell just "popping up" much in the same way they seem to think that a monkey gave birth to a human.
I think people talk about a cell spontaneously popping up because no one has ever seen a simpler form of life. If you've never seen anything simpler, but simply state there must be anyway, what's stopping Christians from saying that you assume the existence of simpler life, we assume the existence of God.
Jesus man, that articles makes me sick to my stomach. You could start at least 100 threads on just about every sentence on it, almost equivalent number of fallacies, conveniently left out details, misinformation and blatant slander on evolution.
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so many PRATTs in one website. If you think one or more of them might have some merit let me know and I'll be happy to show otherwise.
Regarding the idea that Darwinian evolution requires cells to have spontaneously popped up, note that the website assumes that, but shows no support for it at all.
Regarding the idea that Darwinian evolution requires cells to have spontaneously popped up, note that the website assumes that but shows no support for it at all.
Such is the case with anything that christians say, they assume so much and make the truth claims. Yet they cant seem to support even one of their so called truths with any real hard evidence.
I think people talk about a cell spontaneously popping up because no one has ever seen a simpler form of life. If you've never seen anything simpler, but simply state there must be anyway, what's stopping Christians from saying that you assume the existence of simpler life, we assume the existence of God.
No, I understand what you mean. We are taught in school that cells are the "building blocks of life" and that is true. But, there are also building blocks that make up those building blocks. My point is that people have this misconstrued idea that a cell just popped up when I find that to be a mendaciously poor scientific angle to take. Seriously, in order for a simple cell (which is rather complex!) to spontaneously "arrive" is not a very far cry from the Boeing 747 argument. Therefore, although we have not evidenced it yet, I think it's reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) to suggest that it too must have come from a series of naturally selected adjustments. I'm not saying it's scientifically written in stone. I'm not saying that's what the truth is. I'm just saying that I think this is a much more rational approach to trying to figure out the beginnings of the origins of "first life".
lets not forget viruses. these little babies have caused many rows on our biology classroom because no one can really tell if they should be classified as living or not
Fantastic point! My personal opinion is that they are living... That's just my opinion though...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yuck
