The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[shunyadragon]

In some cases I have read about, the age notation of writing and human fossils is strongly linked to rocks.

It is not that simple.

First, the strata often contains foot prints, tools, waste of animal kills and of course human or other primate bones. Each of these can be dated by different ways. This is often dated in the strata of a region in different locations. Human activity is often associated with lake shores and distinctive lake strata.

There are very important footprint locations, one lake deposits in America and one in lava ash in Africa, In this case specifically the footprints are dated by the rocks they were made in.

 

[YoursTrue]

Cell division is a pretty well-known phenomenon. Unless there was some evidence to think otherwise, I would expect it would have quickly evolved to what we see occurring with bacteria. It's possible it may have started through some unknown mechanism that was not sustained long by selection. More than likely though, it resulted from the advantages of budding and cleavage of natural membrane structures as @Polymath257 and @Subduction Zone have noted. This is very much a basic description of what occurs with the cell membrane in bacterial cell division. But there is no way to really know the exact details. That does not mean it did not happen, evolve or that not knowing those details means cells don't divide. The latter notion is an extension of the ridiculous logic behind this entire series of pointless threads.

Being a highly conserved essential, cell division is a fundamental feature that is logical to consider having a very early development. And all indications are that it existed prior to the first living things. It is through that division that cells grow, multiply and heritable variation enters a population. Without that variation, evolution would not occur and life would likely have ceased shortly after the first major changes in the environment that negatively effected the population.

So if I understand you correctly, no one really knows why or how the first cell (if there was such a thing that came naturally without a superior intelligent force) duplicated itself. Perhaps. I say perhaps because maybe it did not duplicate itself. Regarding the first cell, do you think many first cellS happened, or that they did not duplicate themselves but became slightly different upon multiplication?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think I told you thanks for explaining this. Thank you, it was very helpful. Especially the analogy with ants on a sphere. Good choice for explaining something to me.

Not original to me, I'm afraid. But I'm glad it made sense to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So if I understand you correctly, no one really knows why or how the first cell (if there was such a thing that came naturally without a superior intelligent force) duplicated itself. Perhaps. I say perhaps because maybe it did not duplicate itself. Regarding the first cell, do you think many first cellS happened, or that they did not duplicate themselves but became slightly different upon multiplication?

It is reasonable to expect there would be a first whether naturally or by divine origin.

If it didn't duplicate itself, then that is where it would end.

I'm not sure what you are asking in the rest of this. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not original to me, I'm afraid. But I'm glad it made sense to you.

It was very helpful. I could picture it in my head and expand it in thought to better grasp the rest. Thanks again.

 

[Polymath257]

So if I understand you correctly, no one really knows why or how the first cell (if there was such a thing that came naturally without a superior intelligent force) duplicated itself. Perhaps. I say perhaps because maybe it did not duplicate itself. Regarding the first cell, do you think many first cellS happened, or that they did not duplicate themselves but became slightly different upon multiplication?

Yes, it is more correct to talk about a first *population* of cells. Also, realistically, we are talking about development over the course of many generations with the line between 'alive' and 'not alive' being very broad.

When you say 'they became slightly different upon multiplication', you do realize that the way cells multiply is by division, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic I'm wondering why you say that I do not understand the early versions of Genesis had chapter numbers and verses. Have I ever said that? (Not to my knowledge.)
Kindly do not assume and tell me what I know or believe =. Perhaps you might ask me what I believe rather than tell me first. Because I know that chapter numbers and verses were placed in scripture long after they were originally written. Right now, however, in order to be helpful to read scripture, chapters and verses have been added. I'm sorry the conversation has turned in this direction, since I thought we had a more affable and understandable relationship. Sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it is more correct to talk about a first *population* of cells. Also, realistically, we are talking about development over the course of many generations with the line between 'alive' and 'not alive' being very broad.

When you say 'they became slightly different upon multiplication', you do realize that the way cells multiply is by division, right?

I am envisioning one cell multiplying from another, perhaps exactly alike or maybe slightly different. But the question is how would a person really know how the first cell came about and what it was. Also, if I understand you correctly, let me ask you this: are you saying you believe many cells were initially formed at the same or similar time? It doesn't make sense to me, since so many organisms came about that are different, i.e., plants and animals. But back to the first cell. Does anyone know what it was and how it certainly came about?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it is more correct to talk about a first *population* of cells. Also, realistically, we are talking about development over the course of many generations with the line between 'alive' and 'not alive' being very broad.

When you say 'they became slightly different upon multiplication', you do realize that the way cells multiply is by division, right?

You are making me think about the 'soup' I have read about -- that described perhaps as chaotic or primordial, is that right? Is that where you think these first cells came about?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, now you tagged me mentally. So can scientists explain how the first cell duplicated itself?

Easy, the first cell divided as all living archaea cells today, prokaryotic archaea and bacteria are the most primitive life on earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am envisioning one cell multiplying from another, perhaps exactly alike or maybe slightly different. But the question is how would a person really know how the first cell came about and what it was. Also, if I understand you correctly, let me ask you this: are you saying you believe many cells were initially formed at the same or similar time? It doesn't make sense to me, since so many organisms came about that are different, i.e., plants and animals. But back to the first cell. Does anyone know what it was and how it certainly came about?

So if I understand you correctly, no one really knows why or how the first cell (if there was such a thing that came naturally without a superior intelligent force) duplicated itself. Perhaps. I say perhaps because maybe it did not duplicate itself. Regarding the first cell, do you think many first cellS happened, or that they did not duplicate themselves but became slightly different upon multiplication?

The current knowledge of abiogenesis and evolution has been explained to you before, probably several times, and you refused to comprehend. He reject up front all the sciences of evolution based on an ancient tribal agenda intentionally ignorant of science and abiogenesis, and all you do is illogical arguing from ignorance to justify an ancient worldview, Your repeated redundant meaningless question when you do not even want answers..

 

[shunyadragon]

So if I understand you correctly, no one really knows why or how the first cell (if there was such a thing that came naturally without a superior intelligent force) duplicated itself. Perhaps. I say perhaps because maybe it did not duplicate itself. Regarding the first cell, do you think many first cellS happened, or that they did not duplicate themselves but became slightly different upon multiplication?

No you do not understand correctly. Your intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal agenda prohibits you from understanding.

"Arguing from ignorance" does not make a coherent argument.

 

[Polymath257]

I am envisioning one cell multiplying from another, perhaps exactly alike or maybe slightly different. But the question is how would a person really know how the first cell came about and what it was. Also, if I understand you correctly, let me ask you this: are you saying you believe many cells were initially formed at the same or similar time? It doesn't make sense to me, since so many organisms came about that are different, i.e., plants and animals. But back to the first cell. Does anyone know what it was and how it certainly came about?

No, one *type* of cell, but many individuals.

And no, nobody knows specifics concerning how it came about. There is very little specific evidence from that time. And, you see, science is based on evidence. So, we know life existed by about 3.8 billion years ago. We know it did not exist on Earth at 4.5 billion years ago. We have evidence from organisms today that *hint* at early metabolism. We have evidence of the chemistry of those chemicals we know existed and of those chemicals relevant for life.

At this point, we do not have more specific information.

 

[Polymath257]

You are making me think about the 'soup' I have read about -- that described perhaps as chaotic or primordial, is that right? Is that where you think these first cells came about?

We don't know if they first occurred in little ponds that went through cycles of drying and wetting or whether they first occurred in deep sea vents. Either way, there was a mix of chemicals relevant for life.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, one *type* of cell, but many individuals.

And no, nobody knows specifics concerning how it came about. There is very little specific evidence from that time. And, you see, science is based on evidence. So, we know life existed by about 3.8 billion years ago. We know it did not exist on Earth at 4.5 billion years ago. We have evidence from organisms today that *hint* at early metabolism. We have evidence of the chemistry of those chemicals we know existed and of those chemicals relevant for life.

At this point, we do not have more specific information.

True. like evolution abiogenesis arose in populations of archaea cells or organisms from prebiotics. Archaea is the group of the simplist possible possible species that exist today and the most likely the earliest organisms,.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

True. like evolution abiogenesis arose in populations of archaea cells or organisms from prebiotics. Archaea is the group of the simplist possible possible species that exist today and the most likely the earliest organisms,.

Can you prove all that crazy speculation?
No

 

[Eddi]

Can you prove all that crazy speculation?
No

Can you prove anything that is in your bible?
No

 

[Polymath257]

True. like evolution abiogenesis arose in populations of archaea cells or organisms from prebiotics. Archaea is the group of the simplist possible possible species that exist today and the most likely the earliest organisms,.

That isn't completely clear. At the base of the 'tree of life', the archea and the eucaryotes are on a common branch with procaryotes branching off earlier. Archea have a number of specializations that likely put them as a derived group with some sort of anaerobic bacteria as a stem group.

A new view of the tree of life - Nature Microbiology

An update to the ‘tree of life’ has revealed a dominance of bacterial diversity in many ecosystems and extensive evolution in some branches of the tree. It also highlights how few organisms we have been able to cultivate for further investigation.

www.nature.com

 

[shunyadragon]

That isn't completely clear. At the base of the 'tree of life', the archea and the eucaryotes are on a common branch with procaryotes branching off earlier. Archea have a number of specializations that likely put them as a derived group with some sort of anaerobic bacteria as a stem group.

A new view of the tree of life - Nature Microbiology

An update to the ‘tree of life’ has revealed a dominance of bacterial diversity in many ecosystems and extensive evolution in some branches of the tree. It also highlights how few organisms we have been able to cultivate for further investigation.

www.nature.com

Your correct

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you prove all that crazy speculation?
No

In this case of my post @Polymath257 is correct

Again . . . science does not prove anything.