Alternative to evolution and creationism

[EarthAlive]

Has Schwabe or anyone else presented any evidence for these "invisible little formless cells"?

That is a good question, sadly Schwabe has not written much about these proto-forms. As a chemist this is obviously not his area of expertise. "Mainstream science" won't go anywhere near this sort of thing and as users here only seem to want the "mainstream" idea, so what ever I paste in will be called "crackpot" by some of the users here so I won't even bother. But what I will mention is the closest theory to "mainstream" which I can think off would be the work of some scientists of panspermia, who believes DNA was already encoded in "genetic seeds" which contain the DNA instruction for the metamorphosis of all life, so it's already programmed, kind of similar to Schwabe's theory of pro-forms.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But what I will mention is the closest theory to "mainstream" which I can think off would be the work of some scientists of panspermia, who believes DNA was already encoded in "genetic seeds" which contain the DNA instruction for the metamorphosis of all life, so it's already programmed, kind of similar to Schwabe's theory of pro-forms.

Panspemia is another weak psuedoscientific hypothesis.

 

[EarthAlive]

Why bother? You clearly haven't read his book nor do you, by your own admission, ascribe to his view.

I have read half of his book which can be found online, and I have been in communication with one of his students so I do understand the general outline of his theory, if you want the link to this book it can be found here, you can read some chapters online:

Landes Bioscience Madame Curie Database

As mentioned the book costs over 100$, the book is only just over 100 pages, I am a big collector of books, but do you really think many people in the world own this?

There is the book Independent Birth of Organisms by Senapathy, which is only around 10$. There is no point in doing an overview of Senapathys ideas becuase that can already be found online, see here:

The Independent Birth of Organisms -- Senapathy

Dr. Senapathy's theory of independent births has two components: (1) Darwin was only half right, and (2) the primordial pond produced many millions of original organisms, not just one or two.
The part about Darwin causes the most controversy because it takes on the conventional and accepted theory. Darwin incorrectly extended his observations of short-term adaptation and artificial selection to account for long-term "natural selection" of organisms over geological time. He made this leap without any firm evidence of long-term evolution

The primordial pond (or ponds) produced not just one or two, but millions, perhaps billions of "seed cells" which are analogous to a zygote (a fertilized egg). These seed cells were formed in the pond by the random assembly of: (1) new genes, (2) parts of previously-made viable genomes, and (3) other biochemicals, all of which existed in the pond. Very few of these seed cells grew into viable creatures, and only a few that did were capable of reproducing -- and of surviving long enough to do so. The reused pieces of previously-made viable genomes accounts for the similarities we see today in supposedly "evolutionarily related" organisms.

The test of whether two creatures were born independently is: does either have any unique genes or body parts? If so, they are not related by evolution. For example, all birds might be related, but a fish and a whale are not. No new species are formed today, other than slight variations of existing organisms. Existing organisms can adapt and change, but only within a closed framework.

 

[camanintx]

That is a good question, sadly Schwabe has not written much about these proto-forms. As a chemist this is obviously not his area of expertise. "Mainstream science" won't go anywhere near this sort of thing and as users here only seem to want the "mainstream" idea, so what ever I paste in will be called "crackpot" by some of the users here so I won't even bother. But what I will mention is the closest theory to "mainstream" which I can think off would be the work of some scientists of panspermia, who believes DNA was already encoded in "genetic seeds" which contain the DNA instruction for the metamorphosis of all life, so it's already programmed, kind of similar to Schwabe's theory of pro-forms.

Until someone presents something tangible about these "pro-forms" that explains what they are and how they work, why should we consider this a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution?

 

[EarthAlive]

Panspemia is another weak psuedoscientific hypothesis.

Instead of calling everything psuedoscience which does not agree with your own belief system, why not actually explain yourself how you believe life started on earth. You have claimed the primordial soup theory is rubbish, and you have also called biogenesis and panspermia wrong, so are you invoking a deity?

 

[camanintx]

The primordial pond (or ponds) produced not just one or two, but millions, perhaps billions of "seed cells" which are analogous to a zygote (a fertilized egg). These seed cells were formed in the pond by the random assembly of: (1) new genes, (2) parts of previously-made viable genomes, and (3) other biochemicals, all of which existed in the pond. Very few of these seed cells grew into viable creatures, and only a few that did were capable of reproducing -- and of surviving long enough to do so. The reused pieces of previously-made viable genomes accounts for the similarities we see today in supposedly "evolutionarily related" organisms.

If humans were formed in this pond as they exist today, how many of these "seed cells" would there have been to ensure that of the few that grew into creatures there would be at least one male and one female?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Instead of calling everything psuedoscience which does not agree with your own belief system, why not actually explain yourself how you believe life started on earth. You have claimed the primordial soup theory is rubbish, and you have also called biogenesis and panspermia wrong, so are you invoking a deity?

That's just it. No novice of the Scientific Method, No student nor any academic can say with any certainty how life began. There is no answer for it. All there is, is speculation. What we do know is all life on the planet is related and Evolution explains the diversification.

For the record....I hold no belief in the supernatural....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If humans were formed in this pond as they exist today, how many of these "seed cells" would there have been to ensure that of the few that grew into creatures there would be at least one male and one female?

I asked a similar question along the lines of this as well.....

Just in regards to us mere humans you'd have to demonstrate how male and female humans emerged from them. Either male and female are separate or they "were" A-sexual. If they were separate then (why?) and how was this possible? Did the pool know (LOL) to produce one male and one female? If they were A-sexual at first then how and when did humans stop being A-sexual and become what we are now?

 

[idav]

Instead of calling everything psuedoscience which does not agree with your own belief system, why not actually explain yourself how you believe life started on earth. You have claimed the primordial soup theory is rubbish, and you have also called biogenesis and panspermia wrong, so are you invoking a deity?

There should be evidence of having multiple origins especially if there were millions of seeds all with diversity. It is pseudo science because the evidence for it is "invisible".

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention enough of them to provide enough genetic diversity for the species to endure.

Imagine some poor new species crawling out of the puddle only to be eaten by a predator that crawled out right before you! So much for that poor species... instant extinction!

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

And folks

thats why they call it PSEUDOSCIENCE

 

[EarthAlive]

Questions which have been asked, can find answers on this page:

Synopses of the New Theory

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH DARWIN'S THEORY

"Evolutionists say that a bacterium originally appeared on earth, but they do not have any scientific explanation of how it appeared. Even with all the modern information and knowledge of molecular biology and DNA sequences, they have never been able to explain the origin of even one gene -- because their assumptions are fundamentally wrong. They say that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, but again they are unable to give a scientific explanation for this. They say that multicellular creatures evolved from a single-celled eukaryote -- again no scientific explanation. They say that multitudes of distinct creatures, with numerous distinct systems of organs and appendages, and systems such as blood, immunity, respiration, circulation, blood clotting, and so on, evolved from that simple creature -- but with no scientific explanation what so ever!

Numerous creatures, such as the crab, snail, octopus, bivalve, earthworm, and sea starts, are all distinct, unrelated creatures. But evolutionists simply state that all these evolved from a common ancestor -- through assumed changes that never happened and through imagined missing links that never existed! All these have always been only assumed to have happened, based only on the original theory of Darwin. Long-term evolution is a total assumption, full of scientific holes, with some seemingly convincing evidence, such as gene similarity. But these observations, and observations that cannot be explained even by the modern evolutionists, all can be clearly explained by the new independent birth theory with the fullest scientifically corroborating details, evidence, and validity."

Independent Birth of Organisms has the answers which Darwinian evolution can not explain:

Questions about Darwinian Evolution

 

[outhouse]

but they do not have any scientific explanation of how it appeared.

3.6 BILLION years ago is a tall order to fill asking for details.

Even with all the modern information and knowledge of molecular biology and DNA sequences, they have never been able to explain the origin of even one gene --

False

A high school education in chemistry clears that up.


You dont attack abiogenesis if you want to try and prove speudoscience and discount evolution

but with no scientific explanation what so ever!

Wrong its all been explained.

Your posting nonsense from a position of ignorance on the subject

Independent Birth of Organisms has the answers which Darwinian evolution can not explain:

NO it doesnt, it raises questions that can never be answered because its ludicrous and has no place in modern science


say it with me boys and girls ,,,,,,, PSEUDOSCIENCE IS NOT SCIENCE

 

[outhouse]

Questions which have been asked, can find answers on this page:

Synopses of the New Theory

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH DARWIN'S THEORY

"Evolutionists say that a bacterium originally appeared on earth, but they do not have any scientific explanation of how it appeared. Even with all the modern information and knowledge of molecular biology and DNA sequences, they have never been able to explain the origin of even one gene -- because their assumptions are fundamentally wrong. They say that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, but again they are unable to give a scientific explanation for this. They say that multicellular creatures evolved from a single-celled eukaryote -- again no scientific explanation. They say that multitudes of distinct creatures, with numerous distinct systems of organs and appendages, and systems such as blood, immunity, respiration, circulation, blood clotting, and so on, evolved from that simple creature -- but with no scientific explanation what so ever!

Numerous creatures, such as the crab, snail, octopus, bivalve, earthworm, and sea starts, are all distinct, unrelated creatures. But evolutionists simply state that all these evolved from a common ancestor -- through assumed changes that never happened and through imagined missing links that never existed! All these have always been only assumed to have happened, based only on the original theory of Darwin. Long-term evolution is a total assumption, full of scientific holes, with some seemingly convincing evidence, such as gene similarity. But these observations, and observations that cannot be explained even by the modern evolutionists, all can be clearly explained by the new independent birth theory with the fullest scientifically corroborating details, evidence, and validity."

Independent Birth of Organisms has the answers which Darwinian evolution can not explain:

Questions about Darwinian Evolution

SPAM say it again childen SPAM!


:spam:

 

[EarthAlive]

False

A high school education in chemistry clears that up.

Opinion. No evidence given.

You dont attack abiogenesis if you want to try and prove speudoscience and discount evolution

Opinion. No evidence given.

Wrong its all been explained.

Opinion. No evidence given.

Your posting nonsense from a position of ignorance on the subject

Opinion. No evidence given.

NO it doesnt, it raises questions that can never be answered because its ludicrous and has no place in modern science

Opinion. No evidence given.

 

[idav]

FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH DARWIN'S THEORY

"Evolutionists say that a bacterium originally appeared on earth, but they do not have any scientific explanation of how it appeared.

How is that a problem for Darwin. Did he ever try to explain that?

Even with all the modern information and knowledge of molecular biology and DNA sequences, they have never been able to explain the origin of even one gene -- because their assumptions are fundamentally wrong.

Again how is that a problem with what Darwin thought?

They say that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, but again they are unable to give a scientific explanation for this. They say that multicellular creatures evolved from a single-celled eukaryote -- again no scientific explanation. They say that multitudes of distinct creatures, with numerous distinct systems of organs and appendages, and systems such as blood, immunity, respiration, circulation, blood clotting, and so on, evolved from that simple creature -- but with no scientific explanation what so ever!

There are scientific explanations but you obviously don't accept them. The explanation is called evolution which is supported in biology and chemistry and paleontology and any other ology you can think of.

Numerous creatures, such as the crab, snail, octopus, bivalve, earthworm, and sea starts, are all distinct, unrelated creatures. But evolutionists simply state that all these evolved from a common ancestor -- through assumed changes that never happened and through imagined missing links that never existed! All these have always been only assumed to have happened, based only on the original theory of Darwin. Long-term evolution is a total assumption, full of scientific holes, with some seemingly convincing evidence, such as gene similarity. But these observations, and observations that cannot be explained even by the modern evolutionists, all can be clearly explained by the new independent birth theory with the fullest scientifically corroborating details, evidence, and validity."

It isn't assumed it just fits the evidence. The more we look the more we find that there indeed are links that prove evolution. Darwin could have been wrong but damned if we keep finding evidence for the theory.

Independent Birth of Organisms has the answers which Darwinian evolution can not explain:

Both of those could be true but there is no evidence for multiple organisms spontaneously popping into existence. It is hard enough to explain how one organism could do it and then evolve let alone many organisms starting at once. I highly doubt Darwin really cared how many organisms we evolved from because evolution isn't in dispute.

 

[tomteapack]

Theres are loads and loads of different evolutionary theories or creationist theories, but is there anything which is completey opposed to both creationism and evolution?

There is one theory, it's called the Independent Origins theory, not many people know about it, and this is most likely the only theory which exists which doesnt include and I mean none evolution at all and no creationism either:

The theory of Independent Origins is atheistic, and materialistic yet at the same time completey opposed to evolution.

The Independent Origins Theory - Only seems to have two scientists and research teams behind this theory.

In a nutshell the theory of Independent Origins says that ALL organisms on earth have originated from primordial soups (chemical pools of acids etc) on the earth millions of years ago. So everything from frogs, to monkeys to plants, insects to snakes to humans.. etc yes everything originated from these chemical ponds independently, starting off as embryos etc in chemicals then leaving the ponds, to what we have on earth today.

The two scientists behind this theory are Periannan Senapathy a molecular biologist he has authored the book Independent Birth of Organisms, look up the book to learn about this guys theory. There much more to it, I have just summarised it in a nutshell.

The other scientist is Christian Schwabe a biochemist, he calls his theory the Genomic Potential Hypothesis, so instead of one origin like most evolutionists say.. these guys theories claim billions of independent origins.

Interesting!

Since Evolution only starts after something exists, then how that something came to exist has nothing to do with evolution. Be it Biogenesis, abiogenesis, Genomic, or Independent, it deals with ORIGINS, not with evolution.

By the way, the Independent origin theory was originally proposed to suggest origin on other worlds, by a non-spore method. Or, of original life developing on different worlds totally INDEPENDENTLY, as opposed to life through out the universe being of common origin and distributed through space via "spores". It in its original form does NOT have anything to do with evolution, since it is about ORIGIN, not what happens after life originates.

 

[EarthAlive]

It in its original form does NOT have anything to do with evolution, since it is about ORIGIN

You may be talking about an older version of the independent origins theory such as panspermia etc, im not quite sure. This thread is about the work of Christian Schwabe and Periannan Senapathy two scientists who have written books claiming all species on earth came from chemical pools independently, their theories definitely are about what happens on earth after the origin of life, it is an alternative to both evolution and creationism.

 

[EarthAlive]

There are scientific explanations but you obviously don't accept them. The explanation is called evolution

When users such as yourself do not know, all you do is say evolution did it, your answer goes no further than that. This is not a real answer is it? It is a cop out. This is no different than putting God in the gap. If you don't know just say so. Nobody for sure knows the origin of life on earth or many of the questions dealt with early life on earth, infact one user even pointed that out, science does not have the answer, also you are claiming neo-Darwinism has the answer for how and why eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, you are clearly mistaken, no answer has ever been given by neo-Darwinism or "modern evolutionary synthesis" as it's called on this subject matter and many others, it is a mystery and this will never be solved by Darwinian evolution.

 

[Photonic]

When users such as yourself do not know, all you do is say evolution did it, your answer goes no further than that. This is not a real answer is it? It is a cop out. This is no different than putting God in the gap. If you don't know just say so. Nobody for sure knows the origin of life on earth or many of the questions dealt with early life on earth, infact one user even pointed that out, science does not have the answer, also you are claiming neo-Darwinism has the answer for how and why eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, you are clearly mistaken, no answer has ever been given by neo-Darwinism or "modern evolutionary synthesis" as it's called on this subject matter and many others, it is a mystery and this will never be solved by Darwinian evolution.

Fortunately I DO know, and as I am well educated on the topic itself.

I'll simply say...evolution did it. Not a cop out, not a fallacy of any kind. Simply because you are less informed on the topic than me does not make me incorrect either.

Methinks your tactic is much the same as a creationist. Proposing hypothesis on the basis of a lack of information rather than the opposite. If things worked that way we would still be sitting in a cave with a lifespan of roughly 28-34 years.

Please do not continue to insult those users who are more knowledgeable about the theory of evolution than you are on the basis that you aren't well informed enough to come to your own conclusion.