Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely, it's all anyone haas to offer. Even God wouldn't give me a straight answer when I asked.

Ah. Good point. Certainly I can't explain everything. The book of Job has an interesting viewpoint about this where God spoke to Job about these mysteries. Later...ty for your pleasant answers, Hammer.

 

[Audie]

I am not a creationist. I'm simply reporting what the experts in science tell us.

Never said ya was.

Experts in science say nothing acellular can be alive ?

Citation svp

 

[gnostic]

Things change in science anyway. What was considered true not that long ago is no longer taken as true.

The changes in science in every sciences.

And that’s a good thing, and it is called “advances, “progress”.

That you would believe it is a bad thing, only demonstrated that you don't know or understand any science at all.

And I am not just talking about Evolution. I am talking about all Natural Sciences, that you don’t understand physics, chemistry, Earth sciences, astronomy and life sciences.

You continually and stubbornly refused to understand the differences between evidence and proof, showed that you have no wishes to learn that Natural Sciences relied on evidence, not proof. You are letting your religion and your beliefs to hinder your progress in understanding basic principle of the Scientific Method; the Jehovah’s Witnesses have made you all backward and dishonest, not just in science, but also with history.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Never said ya was.

Experts in science say nothing acellular can be alive ?

Citation svp

huh? it looks like you mistyped, acellular rather than cellular. That kind of typo flips the meaning of the remark to the opposite. My original remark was that the first life form was single celled organism that lived in water.

 

[cladking]

You continually and stubbornly refused to understand the differences between evidence and proof,

I think it's more a semantic issue but your confusion of "evidence" and "theory" is not semantics, IMO.

 

[Audie]

huh? it looks like you mistyped, acellular rather than cellular. That kind of typo flips the meaning of the remark to the opposite. My original remark was that the first life form was single celled organism that lived in water.

Yes, I know what you said. And I doubt that's so.
If you cwn produce a citation that experts
have said that no acellular- subcellular if you
like ever existed I'd like to see it.
Personally I'd say it's an absurd concept.

It's not a typo.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I know what you said. And I doubt that's so.

"The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old."

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

ucmp.berkeley.edu

That's the EVIDENCE that we have.

If you cwn produce a citation that experts
have said that no acellular- subcellular if you
like ever existed I'd like to see it.
Personally I'd say it's an absurd concept.

It's not a typo.

I never made that remark. The only person that has used the term acellular and subcellular is you. It is possible that in the future we may find fossils of subcellular life. But that is NOT in evidence today.

 

[Audie]

"The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old."

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

ucmp.berkeley.edu

That's the EVIDENCE that we have.

I never made that remark. The only person that has used the term acellular and subcellular is you. It is possible that in the future we may find fossils of subcellular life. But that is NOT in evidence today.

You said life began as "single cell(s)"

It should be obvious that really does not
make sense, and is an opinion stated as fact.

If its not obvious, well, whatevs. You figure
it out, or, dont

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You said life began as "single cell(s)"

Because at this time, that is what the evidence supports. If in the future we find evidence of subcellular life, I'll happily change my mind.

 

[Audie]

Because at this time, that is what the evidence supports. If in the future we find evidence of subcellular life, I'll happily change my mind.

Change? Maybe. But we notice you chose
option 2.

Another chance to learn, if not to think
long enough to realize "first life' couldn't
have been a cell.



How did life originate? - Understanding Evolution

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Change? Maybe. But we notice you chose
option 2.

Another chance to learn, if not to think
long enough to realize "first life' couldn't
have been a cell.



How did life originate? - Understanding Evolution

It seems reasonable that there would be some sort of more primitive version of life. But the point is not what is reasonable, but what do we have evidence for.

 

[Audie]

It seems reasonable that there would be some sort of more primitive version of life. But the point is not what is reasonable, but what do we have evidence for.

I'm far from convinced that
"reasonable" has any place in your
argument.

You made a statement of fact thar cannot
possibly be true. Simple. Get over it,
go forth and make no more such.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm far from convinced that
"reasonable" has any place in your
argument.

You made a statement of fact thar cannot
possibly be true. Simple. Get over it,
go forth and make no more such.

Sorry, but I'm going to stick with what we actually have evidence for.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, but I'm going to stick with what we actually have evidence for.

Good thinking.
It's what paleontologists
do.

When they find a partial
skeleton of a previously
unknown creature, all they actually have
evidence for is, say, some metatarsal.

So they figure that's all there ever was.

No complete creature of the species
ever existed, no ancestors relatives or descendents.
Just...came into existence.
As is.
Like magic
Curiously, that's exactly what Lucretius theorized these two
thousand years ago.

 

[metis]

Yes, competition exists and is important but it is not a defining characteristic of "life"

I never stated nor implied it was.

 

[cladking]

I never stated nor implied it was.

Darwin certainly believed it was. Species compete for food, water, and room. Individuals compete for mates and everything else. All individuals must claw or eat all others to survive and prosper in a deadly game of "survival of the fittest".

As you suggested life isn't like this. Life is cooperation to maximize life. When something doesn't work it ceases to exist either by changing or extinction.

 

[cladking]

When something doesn't work it ceases to exist either by changing or extinction.

If one species begins to take over disease (life) or lack of resources (caused by life, its own existence) will eradicate it or trim it back.

Darwin was simply wrong about everything. His beliefs have tainted history because so many believe him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin certainly believed it was. Species compete for food, water, and room. Individuals compete for mates and everything else. All individuals must claw or eat all others to survive and prosper in a deadly game of "survival of the fittest".

As you suggested life isn't like this. Life is cooperation to maximize life. When something doesn't work it ceases to exist either by changing or extinction.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one species begins to take over disease (life) or lack of resources (caused by life, its own existence) will eradicate it or trim it back.

Darwin was simply wrong about everything. His beliefs have tainted history because so many believe him.

And yet you cannot show that he was wrong about any serious problem.

The is rather peculiar.

 

[metis]

Darwin certainly believed it was.

I am absolutely certain he didn't as I did read "Origin..." decades ago.

As you suggested life isn't like this. Life is cooperation to maximize life.

It's both as I previously stated. Also, there often are differences from one form of organism to another as some are loners and some are social.