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.
The only way you can continue to hold many of your views is to ignore reality (facts) and I cannot understand why anyone would want to do that...What purpose can it possibly serve?
Right because if he said we evolved from primordial soup you would have no objection.
Well if "God did it" is not sufficient enough for you, then please share with us how did this single celled organism form from primordial soup? Where did the ingredients for this primordial soup come from? How did`the single celled organism sustain all the diverse life that we see today when there where no plants, which means that there was NO OZONE to protect from UV rays which would ultimately kill any life trying to form from that primordial soup?
Your answer...."The process was slow and took billions of years but eventually it got it right". Maybe "God done it" is not nearly as fanciful as the "time god/probability god did it" argument for evolution.
I guess you do not know that there is much life on earth that lives with no sunlight at all...In any case the plant life that existed in the oceans created the oxygen in our atmosphere which in turn created the ozone layer that allowed more complicated life to develop... History of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess you do not know that there is much life on earth that lives with no sunlight at all...In any case the plant life that existed in the oceans created the oxygen in our atmosphere which in turn created the ozone layer that allowed more complicated life to develop... History of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where did those plants come from? There were no plants in primordial soup. How did life arise from primordial soup? You can't use "magic" in your explanation.
Where did those plants come from? There were no plants in primordial soup. How did life arise from primordial soup? You can't use "magic" in your explanation.
What primordial soup? That is a creationist term, not scientific.... I gave you a link that explains it all...Read it and learn something.
This thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis...If you want to discuss abiogenesis start a thread on it.
What primordial soup? That is a creationist term, not scientific.... I gave you a link that explains it all...Read it and learn something.
This thread is about evolution, not abiogenesis...If you want to discuss abiogenesis start a thread on it.
Yeah but WITHOUT abiogenesis there is no evolution (since we have to explain how we get this single-cell organism that spawned all this diverse life). You cannot avoid it. The fact that you atheist love to throw the "abiogenesis is not evolution" card exposes how weak evolution is. The fact that you do not want to even discuss it (although there are clear connections between the 2) seems to be an indirect admission of how weak this abiogenesis is (therefore weakening all that work scientist put in trying to validate evolution). So the question still stands UNANSWERED...how did we get a single celled organism that spawned diverse life (plants and other multi-celled organisms that somehow work synergistically by chance) with NO LIFE on the planet?
You can't keep trying to bash a creationist view when the TOE is so weak that it cannot even explain how the single celled organism (that spawned diverse life) came to be so it relies on another theory. But what's even worse is the made up theory is so ridiculous supporters of evolution do not even want to talk about it so they try to segregate the 2. So they wind up at a cross road. They just wont talk about abiogenesis (until they can make up something more believable). In the mean time they just focus on evolution (even though it does not have the explanation for the so called progenitor of life which is conveniently extinct BTW) and the "mountains of evidence" supporting it.
Yeah but WITHOUT abiogenesis there is no evolution (since we have to explain how we get this single-cell organism that spawned all this diverse life). You cannot avoid it. The fact that you atheist love to throw the "abiogenesis is not evolution" card exposes how weak evolution is. The fact that you do not want to even discuss it (although there are clear connections between the 2) seems to be an indirect admission of how weak this abiogenesis is (therefore weakening all that work scientist put in trying to validate evolution). So the question still stands UNANSWERED...how did we get a single celled organism that spawned diverse life (plants and other multi-celled organisms that somehow work synergistically by chance) with NO LIFE on the planet?
You can't keep trying to bash a creationist view when the TOE is so weak that it cannot even explain how the single celled organism (that spawned diverse life) came to be so it relies on another theory. But what's even worse is the made up theory is so ridiculous supporters of evolution do not even want to talk about it so they try to segregate the 2. So they wind up at a cross road. They just wont talk about abiogenesis (until they can make up something more believable). In the mean time they just focus on evolution (even though it does not have the explanation for the so called progenitor of life which is conveniently extinct BTW) and the "mountains of evidence" supporting it.
If you read the link you provided, then you must realize that science has not yet pinned down what conditions sparked the first life...But it did begin, and certainly no divine power had a hand in it....You see unlike religion, science is not afraid to say "we don't know".
Where did those plants come from? There were no plants in primordial soup. How did life arise from primordial soup? You can't use "magic" in your explanation.
This is just one of the many sites that explain how the original cells evolved into plant and animal cells.
There's also a theoretical mechanism for abiogenesis or life from the 'primordial soup' as it the process is sometime dubbed. (edited for ease of assimilation and to hopefully evade any copyright problems )
"Cells are divided into two main classes, initially defined by whether they contain a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) lack a nuclear envelope; eukaryotic cells have a nucleus in which the genetic material is separated from the cytoplasm. ... In spite of these differences, the same basic molecular mechanisms govern the lives of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, indicating that all present-day cells are descended from a single primordial ancestor.
The eukaryotes developed at least 2.7 billion years ago, following some 1 to 1.5 billion years of prokaryotic evolution. ... Therefore, a very early event in evolution appears to have been the divergence of three lines of descent from a common ancestor, giving rise to present-day archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes.
Many eukaryotes are unicellular organisms that, like bacteria, consist of only single cells capable of self-replication. ... Other unicellular eukaryotes, however, are far more complex cells, some containing as much DNA as human cells have (Table 1.2). They include organisms specialized to perform a variety of tasks, including photosynthesis, movement, and the capture and ingestion of other organisms as food. Amoeba proteus, for example, is a large, complex cell. Its volume is more than 100,000 times that of E. coli, and its length can exceed 1 mm when the cell is fully extended (Figure 1.10). Amoebas are highly mobile organisms that use cytoplasmic extensions, called pseudopodia, to move and to engulf other organisms,.."
Right because the TOE is so weak that scientists have to make up another theory just to explain how the single celled organism formed in the first place. Why do people keep changing the definition of evolution just to get others to accept it (if that doesn't work they just throw out any adjective synonymous with unintelligent)? Bottom line evolution claims that all life on earth came from a single celled organism that came from primordial soup. There's so much wrong with this line of reasoning.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly how, when and by whom the definition of the theory of evolution has been changed. Evolution has NEVER been about the origin of life. Ever. Full stop. It never even speculates much less presents evidence for the origin of life. There are other theories that cover origins, and yes we admit that they aren't fully developed. But hey, perhaps if you hadn't slept in science class, who knows how you would have turned out.
Bottom line is that all creationists have is a tautology - God, or worse, some undefined designer did it. How friggin weak is that?
Well if "God did it" is not sufficient enough for you, then please share with us how did this single celled organism form from primordial soup? Where did the ingredients for this primordial soup come from?
What, exactly, do you suppose single celled organisms are composed of? Have you ever taken a class in organic chemistry, or biochemistry? Ever?
Quote:
How did`the single celled organism sustain all the diverse life that we see today when there were no plants, which means that there was NO OZONE to protect from UV rays which would ultimately kill any life trying to form from that primordial soup?
Well, normally I say that the only stupid question is the one not asked, but I stand corrected.
Erm:
Chlorella
The name Chlorella is derived from two Latin words meaning 'leaf' (green) and 'small', referring to the unusually high content of chlorophyll (the highest of any known plant), which gives it the characteristic deep emerald green colour. The tiny creature are freshwater unicellular, microscopic algae with an ability to reproduce rapidly. These are quite distinct from Spirulina which is multicellular cyanobacteria.
This single celled alga is believed by some scientists to be among the Earth's oldest living organisms. There are two ways things generally reproduce, one is sexual reproduction and other is asexual reproduction. This cell reproduces asexuallly and divides four times every 20-24 hours. One cell reproduces 4 new cells the next day and 16 cells the day after... It seems it has been reproducing like this for billions of years.
Guess what it generates? Yep. Oxygen. Guess what oxygen can do? It can make ozone. And because it can grow all the way down to the lowest levels of the photic zone, the water can protect it from UV light.
Quote:
How did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
Well, MANY other ogranisms, plants, for instance, can do both, so there was a transition.
Quote:
What came first the chicken or the egg?
The clone, of course. Then the egg, silly.
Quote:
Your answer...."The process was slow and took billions of years but eventually it got it right". Maybe "God done it" is not nearly as fanciful as the "time god/probability god did it" argument for evolution.
That's true. It's also true that "God done it" doesn't explain anything. However, evolution does, and does it rather elegantly.
Right because if he said we evolved from primordial soup you would have no objection.
I like primodial soup. I eat it often with crackers and a cup of Joe.
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.
) 
