Origin of Life

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
It'd impossible for evolution to of created life. If life is something that can just happen then we would be able to do it now. After all, if something just sparked millions of years ago and made life then we could do it now too. and we could bring people back from the dead too. Sure if someone dies then they would of have some organ damaged and without it t ...[text shortened]... have life given to us, not formed over time.

Wow I'm going to get bashed for this >_

You surely don't understand a lot of things.
It's possible to create life from non-life -> it has been done.
As for making macro-organisms return from the dead, there are a lot more complications.

Your arguments are not very good... you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Take my word: no intelligent design is needed to explain how things got to this. It's a possible explanation, but not the most serious or probable one.
Evolution is the best theory we have to current explain things. If you don't understand it or your personal beliefs are against it, that's a completely different thing.

Evolution is nowadays what heliocentrism was 500 years ago. Religious people just had to adapt to the overwhelming evidence. It took hundreds of years to them to admit their religion was wrong and earth was not the center of the universe. Evolution will take longer, I think.

Originally posted by KellyJay
:All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved."

The only thing that is really known out of what you just said is that
all life "...seems to be RNA-DNA based." so the rest is just assumptions
on your part.
Kelly

Assumptions based on the premise that no god created life.

Originally posted by serigado
You surely don't understand a lot of things.
It's possible to create life from non-life -> it has been done.
As for making macro-organisms return from the dead, there are a lot more complications.

Your arguments are not very good... you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Take my word: no intelligent design is needed to explain how t ...[text shortened]... wrong and earth was not the center of the universe. Evolution will take longer, I think.

Uhm, technically, not even Craig Ventner claims that he created life from non-life, yeah he created the first artificial life form, but he needed to hijack the ribosomes and cell membranes and stuff from already living organisms. He is working on it though, but even in his own opinion, he didn't "create life". We have a few more hurdles just yet.

Originally posted by agryson
Uhm, technically, not even Craig Ventner claims that he created life from non-life, yeah he created the first artificial life form, but he needed to hijack the ribosomes and cell membranes and stuff from already living organisms. He is working on it though, but even in his own opinion, he didn't "create life". We have a few more hurdles just yet.

I didn't say create a completely full organism. That'll take a few more years.
But scientists created living and reproducing organisms from inanimated (dead) lifeforms.
They also have created living organisms from a completely artificially created DNA.
No one seems to doubt (except some religious radicals) it's possible to create a fully artificial organism. It's just a problem of complexity.

Originally posted by serigado
I didn't say create a completely full organism. That'll take a few more years.
But scientists created living and reproducing organisms from inanimated (dead) lifeforms.
They also have created living organisms from a completely artificially created DNA.
No one seems to doubt (except some religious radicals) it's possible to create a fully artificial organism. It's just a problem of complexity.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood
"It's possible to create life from non-life -> it has been done."
Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by agryson
In place of "you" in the above quote, I think it would be a much better if the word "we" was featured.

It is just as much of a mistake to view a fact as an assumption, if not moreso since if I mistake an assumption for a fact I can be corrected on that point.

If one mistakes a fact for an assumption, much less room is left for that mistake to be corrected.

"In place of "you" in the above quote, I think it would be a much better if the word "we" was featured. "

I agree with you, "we" would have been a better choice of words.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
You surely don't understand a lot of things.
It's possible to create life from non-life -> it has been done.
As for making macro-organisms return from the dead, there are a lot more complications.

Your arguments are not very good... you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Take my word: no intelligent design is needed to explain how t ...[text shortened]... wrong and earth was not the center of the universe. Evolution will take longer, I think.

I see what you mean by evolution being adapted. And i found it ironic how lots of scientists have said evolution will the next great hoax of idiotic reasoning. And it would be remembered as no more then science as the earth being flat. And science proves against evolution. I guess you don't understand it well enough. 55% of scientists don't believe in it. I guess the rest haven't studied it. Einstein said that it was impossible for a universe as perfect as this one to of evolved by pure chance. And Darwin said that he didn't see how evolution could of evolved something as complex as the human eye. Of coarse he went on to say that it "must of" because "we all know" that evolution is "science". And it's not science it's a religion, there's no proof that millions of years ago something blew up and making only 2 elements(which contradicts evolution right there, since where did we get the others from?) an created everything. And that rains pored on rocks for a few million years making a soup of which all life sprung from. It's a big game of lies. I could make a new theory of evolution in 10 minutes.

And it's your argument that isn't very good. you just said it's impossible for it to happen but it's been done! And if no intelligent design was needed how come our bodies have such a perfect function? If we get sick we or there's something harmful to us then we have an immune system to fight it. We have a brain that controls our bodies. Just about any organ you can name couldn't of simply evolved to suit us. Or life would never of lived on after "bubbling out of there soup".

And btw it sounds like you are saying you believe evolution because it's the "best theory". It's not. People have made complete lies to support it. I also find it funny how you said that religious people took hundreds of years to admit they were wrong. Your right. And guess what! They killed and tortured people who even believed the earth wasn't flat. And nowadays scientists who bring evidence up against evolution are fired or flamed. If a teacher says it's not true they get fired without the hope of getting another teaching job. If children in schools say it's not true they are labeled as mentally ill!!

And in the next few hundred years(if they come) evolution is going to be just like that one scientists said. A hoax feeding from ignorance.

Originally posted by agryson
Well, no you shouldn't get bashed, you just haven't understood evolution, and to clarify that point is in part what a science forum should be about, provided you're willing to attempt to clarify for yourself the arguments you are making, and ground them in good reasoning, which is something I hope you are willing to do. If your argument is based on a scriptu ...[text shortened]... rified to both of our satisfaction, which I think is a fair condition.

First paragraph:

Well i think I understand evolution quite well. I'm sure there are things i haven't heard or seen but I understand it. And for the spirituality, I do believe in God and that he created man and animals and earth, but that's not the only reason I don't believe evolution.

Second paragraph:

Hmm...I really don't know much about that. Are they actually created intelligent life and not energy? Because when they shocked that rat's heart they claimed they could make life when it's only energy. And the same when they used a human egg to create a baby in a test tube. Or can they create life without using something from a living creature?

Third paragragh:

I have a problem with saying that evolution is composed from "fact". Because it's all assumption. They assume that millions of years ago something blew up, they assume that millions of years ago rain fell on rocks and created a life form, They assume that somehow these creatures(since there had to be two to reproduce) just happened to have 2 different sexes so they could just happen to have the amazing ability to create another one of their kind. Reproduction in the first place causes a lot of questions. There had to be 2 which happened to have genital organs and reproduced and somehow they created different creatures through them having babies, which doesn't happen to day...And why would we get rid of organs? Every organs we have id for some purpose. Why would we loose any? And i'm not sure about your example. I see your point, but for generations down that person's children and grand children are going to have the same ability. they might be weaker or stronger but they will still have it, all different. And it will rise and fall in strengh but they will never loose it.

Fourth paragraph:

The eye is a very complex design(just to toss that in). Why is it a terrible design? And it's very simple why that is. See us as people have uv rays that attack the eye. That nerve actually protects it. See a octopus' eye doesn't have those, that's because uv rays don't travel through water, he doesn't need. And say a bird with have about a 200 degree field of view, they are very scared little birds which have predators, they need to see in that range. And the eye is a very good design, it have sensors that take patterns of light then send them to your brain as pulses and you see it as it is in real life. in different colors too and shapes and sizes and distances. And how come we evolved eyes that see colors but nature didn't give us one on the back of our heads if natural selection always goes toward the good? why does it always go to good designs and they never seem to go wrong?

Fifth paragragh:

And the appendix isn't a useless organ. Like you just said it fights bacteria. there's no such thing a a organ that you don't need. You can chop off your arms and legs and still live but that doesn't mean you can do without them. And just to throw it in whales don't have legs or toes... 😞 they also never had them, textbooks say they used to be legs but those bones are for the reproductive system. And using bones that belong to a whales genitals they're saying we could of evolved from them U_U

Sixth paragraph:

If there some things about evolution that you could share I'd love to hear it 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
I see what you mean by evolution being adapted. And i found it ironic how lots of scientists have said evolution will the next great hoax of idiotic reasoning. And it would be remembered as no more then science as the earth being flat. And science proves against evolution. I guess you don't understand it well enough. 55% of scientists don't believe in it. I ...[text shortened]... just like that one scientists said. A hoax feeding from ignorance.

WHAT THE F@%$!

Seriously, I hope that was all a parody? More logical fallacies than I can shake a stick at! Look, Serigado, it was addressed at you, I'm leaving this steaming pile in your lap while I take care of the one left on mine...

But Mr. Awsm, being in the science forum, this is obviously new ground for you, throw me some links to your statistics, and not a coffee room ask your neighbour type of thing, I want to know what scientists were interviewed (their field), how many scientists were in the sample set, what the wording of the question was, the nation(s) the survey was carried out in and the credentials of the people taking the survey. Welcome to a little thing called transparency.
Also if you're going to quote, I'd appreciate a link tot he whole passage being referred to, you'll find Darwin didn't say it as you did at all.
If you're not going to be coherent or in any way scientific (you can come up with a hypothesis in ten minutes, not a working theory) then get out of the science forum.

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
First paragraph:

Well i think I understand evolution quite well. I'm sure there are things i haven't heard or seen but I understand it. And for the spirituality, I do believe in God and that he created man and animals and earth, but that's not the only reason I don't believe evolution.

Second paragraph:

Hmm...I really don't know much abo me things about evolution that you could share I'd love to hear it 🙂

1: You think wrong, you confused evolution by natural selection with abiogenesis, they have as much in common as I do with my curtains. This is not simply a matter of my opinion vs. yours. You have patently demonstrated that you do not know what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually is. The only "other reasons" you've shown are personal incredulity rather than any failings with the theory itself. That does not constitute a countercase.

2: The point you're making here is ont he Craig Ventner bacterium. Neither I nor Dr. Ventner view the cell he created as artificial life, so this is not really a point of contention, certainly not with regards to evolution, since one is abiogenesis and the other evolution (I hope you're beginning to grasp the importance of the distinction between the two). Ventners team tookt he cell membranes, ribosomes and various other molecular machines from other life forms but created a completely artificial genome... from scratch. This coding then used the available machinery to become a viable lifeform which has never existed before. So they created a lifeform, but not life per se. Given your confusion between abiogenesis and evolution, this particular subtility is probably one best left alone by you until you have fully mastered the basics.

3. Despite your problems with it, it is a fact. Species and OTU's (Operational Taxonomical Units... used for bacteria due to the fuzzyness between "species"😉 have been seen to evolve, no assumptions, theories, hypotheses or guesswork, just experimental observation. The theory only comes into play to provide an explanation for the mechanism involved, it's not needed to see evolution actually occur. I have seen with my own eyes a strain of E. Coli develop resistance to an antibiotic within days! Evolution is the theory we used to explain this fact and make predictions about the future development. The predictions checked out, so the theory stood.
Furthermore, you're now talking about things "blowing up" which I can only imagine is a reference to the big bang, which has absolutely ZERO to do with evolution. Nor does your later point about the primordial soup since evolution canot have kicked in until after life shows up, by definition. Also, bacteria do not need two, they only need one, it's called asexual reproduction. You seem however to be stuck in an anthropocentric bent whereby there needs to be a male and a female to everything. Look under your fingernail... thousands of bacteria are reproducing before your very eyes without the slightest need for a girl bacteria to get jiggy with, nor do they have a requirement to have reproductive organs, by definition, being unicellular, they can't have organs in the first place.
As for organs in general, you're right, every organ we have today has some purpose, except for our appendix, vestigial tail (coccyx), the remnants of our third eyelid (plica semilunaris), various muscle tissues connected in the ear, several molecular components, the muscles which give us goosebumps... actually, you're wrong, there's plenty of organs we don't need, and that's just humans. Why do certain snakes and all whales still have rear legs under their skin? It's called vestigiality, look it up and get back to me if you're not happy with the examples I gave you. Once more this is an argument from personal incredulity, it does not constitute an argument. We lose organs because we no longer need them due to environmental changes, according to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Using that theory, the reason for these thigns is clear, using your alternative, all we can do is scratch our heads in wonder. Nice work at advancing the state of human knowledge there.
As for organs that never get lost but simply get weaker or stronger... remember when I mentioned snakes before? That bit where I said some? well there's several examples of snakes who still have the hips but absolutely no legs whatsover to slot into the hips. So yes, you can lose organs. Just because you refuse to actually learn about what you're talking about doesn't make it false.

4. The eye is indeed complex, well, the human one, though there are many examples of simpler ones, have a looka t a slug in your garden to see what I mean. I explained why it's terrible design. The optic nerve has to pierce throught he retina, giving us a blind spot, our lenses are insufficient for long term use and prone to stress (know anyone who wears glasses), susceptible to infection due to the wet surface which requires constant cleaning, it's visibel spectrum is very limited, our focusing abilities pale in comparison to other animals... the list goes on. Next point, I'm not saying that it isn't an impressive part of machinery, but it does its job and nothing more. The optic nerve does not protect us from UV, I don't know where you got that from. You're spot on as to why certain creatures have certain adaptations, but don't offer an alternative to evolutiona as to why this would be the case.
As for evolution always heading towards the good, that's the natural selection part which explained in my previous post. If an adaptation does not help the organism or hinders it, that organism will be less successful at reproducing or die before it ever even gets the chance. A good adaptation will improve its chances and thus be more likely to be passed on to the next generation. Hence evolution always tends towards what is best tuned to the environment, which is not always to say "good". Evolution by natural selection only pushes a lifeform towards better adaptation to its particular environment.

5. No, the appendix replaces bacteria. But since the liklihood of getting appendicitis is greater than getting dyssentry on a yearly basis in the modern world, then it serves no positive purpose, while I can survive without my arms and legs, they DO serve a positive purpose (unlike the appendix), Whales do have legs and rear limb structures which are not required whatsoever for reproduction, parts of the pelvis yes, since they are mammals, but not femurs and the like, you have misread your textbook or it's a very bad textbook, look up vestigial organs and a fuller explanation will be given.

6. I hope the above will suffice for now.
Quick recap: you have confused abiogenesis, evolution, the theory of evolution by natural selection, the big bang, sexual vs. asexual reproduction, unicellular vs. multicellular life, vestigiality.
None of this indicates the slightest understanding of what you are trying, and failing, to talk about.

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
First paragraph:

Well i think I understand evolution quite well. I'm sure there are things i haven't heard or seen but I understand it. And for the spirituality, I do believe in God and that he created man and animals and earth, but that's not the only reason I don't believe evolution.

Second paragraph:

Hmm...I really don't know much abo ...[text shortened]... me things about evolution that you could share I'd love to hear it 🙂

Incidentally, if you do have any questions with regards evolution, please pm me, though I have to ask that they are questions and not laden with assumed answers as in your posts. You are free to even ask leading questions, but they should hopefully follow a model of "what does the theory of evolution by natural selection have to say about x" or some variant of that.

Originally posted by serigado
All life that ever existed on earth seems to be RNA-DNA based. This definitely evidences an original life from which all life forms evolved.

I see the thread went all spiritual.

To get back to the original theme, I would be interested in whether anyone agrees, or disagrees with my claims:
1. We define life as DNA based organisms therefore life is DNA based.
2. There are known non-life replicating systems including virus', prions and parts of the cell structure. Some of these are not RNA-DNA based (prions are protiens I believe).
3. We have not identified and categorized much of the earths life forms, especially the smaller ones such as bacteria. It would be naive to think that we know whether or not a non DNA based complex replicating system exists somewhere on our planet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see the thread went all spiritual.

To get back to the original theme, I would be interested in whether anyone agrees, or disagrees with my claims:
1. We define life as DNA based organisms therefore life is DNA based.
2. There are known non-life replicating systems including virus', prions and parts of the cell structure. Some of these are not RNA-D ...[text shortened]... know whether or not a non DNA based complex replicating system exists somewhere on our planet.

I'd disagree with your first point, life is defined as several things, but basing it on DNA is a bit of a tautology.
One of the more general definitions is a system which replicates, metabolises etc,
Wikipedia puts it best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Note that there's no mention of DNA or RNA being a requirement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see the thread went all spiritual.

To get back to the original theme, ...

Thanks God 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
I see what you mean by evolution being adapted. And i found it ironic how lots of scientists have said evolution will the next great hoax of idiotic reasoning. And it would be remembered as no more then science as the earth being flat. And science proves against evolution. I guess you don't understand it well enough. 55% of scientists don't believe in it. I ...[text shortened]... just like that one scientists said. A hoax feeding from ignorance.

You are bending everything, and in the process you say some things incorrect.
I know some scientists, and none says he doesn't believe evolution is right. 55% ?? are you crazy? where did you get that number? in a christian magazine with a vendetta against evolution?
You say I don't understand it well enough? Now you're wrong... I understand it quite well.
Einstein was a deeply religious guy, and most of the thing he said outside physics are pure garbage.

Your arguments are so bad I don't have patience do dissect them. Put your stupid beliefs above science, I don't care. Evolution will sort out your species.