Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Try asking one well formed question at a time. This looks like wild scrabbling with disjointed ideas and poorly formed questions.

Sorry about that. So what is the idea about the evolution from the first single-celled organisms? Sorry to sound confused. I'll try to be more specific. What is the idea (theory) as to what type of single-celled organism was first formed from the water? And a follow-up question to that is: were more than one thought to have emerged at the same time? OK, it does seem too incredible, because the question arises, how long do these organisms live when they first come up from the apparent water?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an example of the "Species problem". There is no hard line as to what is and what is not a species. That is because evolution is a fact. If your beliefs were true there would be no fuzzy borders. The article that you linked is an example of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

It brought out, didn't it, that the different populations can interbreed. A bat is a mammal. Lizards are not mammals. On the other hand, bats likely cannot interbreed with lions. I could be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let's go over this again. A kind (which the Bible speaks of) is different from species.

Yes, "kind" is a nonsense term. It is undefined and cannot be. But if your myth was true it should be easily defined. That is another argument against the creation myth of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry about that. So what is the idea about the evolution from the first single-celled organisms? Sorry to sound confused. I'll try to be more specific. What is the idea (theory) as to what type of single-celled organism was first formed from the water? And a follow-up question to that is: were more than one thought to have emerged at the same time? OK, it does seem too incredible, because the question arises, how long do these organisms live when they first come up from the apparent water?

Why assume a "type" ? You want to put a modern classification on an ancient life form. It is best to simply say it was simple early single celled life.

And you do not appear to be using the word "theory" correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It brought out, didn't it, that the different populations can interbreed. A bat is a mammal. Lizards are not mammals. On the other hand, bats likely cannot interbreed with lions. I could be wrong.

That article was one that cautioned against basing species on mitochondrial DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let's go over this again. A kind (which the Bible speaks of) is different from species.

We know this.

Kind is a term that should be easy for a creationist to form a working definition of if the biblical myth was true. They cannot do that. On the other hand because the theory of evolution tells us that there are no hard walls between species the definition of species will get a bit fuzzy at times. This is what we observe in nature and is evidence against the above story and for evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

I think there may be a problem in our references as to what is a species and what is a kind. So here is a question. Since it appears that most, if not all, who believe in evolution rather than the hand of God being involved with life starting on the earth, how do you feel or believe about that? In other words, would you say that life started with one unicellular organism, or more than one coming up at the same time?

First of all, it would have been a *population* of organisms, not just aone cell that got everything going.

Second, it is quite possible that there were several tyes of initial life, but that either other lines died off or were invorporated into the only line we have evidence of today.

As for you claim about those who believe in evolution, you are wrong. For example, Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and also an evangelical Christian. He was quite outspoken in his support of evolutionary biology and clearly called creationism and ID bunk.

 

[Polymath257]

But! that wasn't my question in particular, although interesting point. Question again is: how is it that one, two, or more supposed unicellular organisms emerged from wherever they came from (I think most say water...) -- and then what do those who believe in spontaneous lifeforms say happened after that? From the beginning of the unicellular organism or organisms. What happened after that? Which leads me to my next question. And I am quite sure it does not mean abiogenesis. I mean the beginning of life on earth.
So what I am asking is, the oceans existed with their mineral content for quite a long time before the first life supposedly by spontaneous emergence (not sure of proper term) came about in the form of unicellular organisms. Do scientists agree on how many of these unicellular organisms emerged at the beginning, meaning essentially, did they emerge at the same time? And, of course, the next question is: what happened after that? But my first question is, did these unicellular organisms emerge from a lifeless ocean at the same time? Or was it one organism? And how long did it or they exist before evolving into other lifeforms?

Quite simply, we do not know. We know approximately when it happened, but we don't know the exact process.

But people are working on it.

Once you have life, which has reproduction and mutation, evolution is almost inevitable.

Also, from what we know, it was about a 2-3 billion years where all life on Earth was single-celled. The cells grew in complexity over that time, but getting multicellular life seems to have been a 'hard step'.

 

[Polymath257]

And that is what I am asking about now. Thank you for pointing out the difference between bacteria and other single-celled organisms. So it wasn't a bacteria that first emerged from water to life then, was it, even though it is a single-celled organism, is that right?

We don't know the exact characteristics of the first cells. They were certainly more similar to bacteria and archea than to the more complex cells in eucaryotes, though.

Bacteria are characterized, in part, by the structure of their DNA, which tends to be circular and not 'protected' by the histones (a type of protein) seen in eucaryotes.

 

[Polymath257]

So let's go over this again. A kind (which the Bible speaks of) is different from species.

In what way?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, "kind" is a nonsense term. It is undefined and cannot be. But if your myth was true it should be easily defined. That is another argument against the creation myth of the Bible.

You simply cannot mate a lizard with a bat. Or a lion. But among the various different bat populations, evidently you can. So sorry you don't like the fact that lizards may be near cows but they don't interbreed. Did you discuss by the way what supposedly happened after the first single-celled organism appeared? Sorry if I missed it. Please be specific.

 

[YoursTrue]

In what way?

We don't know the exact characteristics of the first cells. They were certainly more similar to bacteria and archea than to the more complex cells in eucaryotes, though.

Bacteria are characterized, in part, by the structure of their DNA, which tends to be circular and not 'protected' by the histones (a type of protein) seen in eucaryotes.

So it is unknown as to what the first single-celled organisms were. Maybe they're around, maybe they're not. What do you think?

 

[Polymath257]

You simply cannot mate a lizard with a bat. Or a lion. But among the various different bat populations, evidently you can. So sorry you don't like the fact that lizards may be near cows but they don't interbreed. Did you discuss by the way what supposedly happened after the first single-celled organism appeared? Sorry if I missed it. Please be specific.

But it isn't the case that *all* bat populations can interbreed. There are, in fact, different species of bats. For example, the fruit bats (which are not blind) are quite different than the bats that use echolocation (which are usually blind). No interbreeding there.

 

[Polymath257]

So it is unknown as to what the first single-celled organisms were. Maybe they're around, maybe they're not. What do you think?

Not likely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You simply cannot mate a lizard with a bat. Or a lion. But among the various different bat populations, evidently you can. So sorry you don't like the fact that lizards may be near cows but they don't interbreed. Did you discuss by the way what supposedly happened after the first single-celled organism appeared? Sorry if I missed it. Please be specific.

You are referring to an article that you did not understand and still ignoring the massive flaws in your myths. Once again the bat article was about why it is not a good idea to base species on mitochondrial DNA. That is not the DNA that made you who you are, that is DNA in the mitochondria, the little organelles in the cell. Right now you are demonstrating an elementary school level of biological literacy.

Let me ask you a question: If you see two different populations of animals how do you tell if they are the same kind of not?

 

[YoursTrue]

But it isn't the case that *all* bat populations can interbreed. There are, in fact, different species of bats. For example, the fruit bats (which are not blind) are quite different than the bats that use echolocation (which are usually blind). No interbreeding there.

Do you believe it is possible that after enough mutations and separation of populations that the species of similar organisms can no longer interbreed? Further, I don't know when and how each separate population emerged, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe it is possible that after enough mutations and separation of populations that the species of similar organisms can no longer interbreed? Further, I don't know when and how each separate population emerged, do you?

We know that happens we can see it in action:

Discovering a ring species

And tell me, why does your not knowing when enter into this? There is no precise date needed to know that it happens.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are referring to an article that you did not understand and still ignoring the massive flaws in your myths. Once again the bat article was about why it is not a good idea to base species on mitochondrial DNA. That is not the DNA that made you who you are, that is DNA in the mitochondria, the little organelles in the cell. Right now you are demonstrating an elementary school level of biological literacy.

Let me ask you a question: If you see two different populations of animals how do you tell if they are the same kind of not?

I do believe that lions, although mammals, do not (cannot) mate with elephants, no matter how hard you push them. There is a limit to interbreeding, is there not? And, as in the case of bats, who knows when and where the interbreeding stopped for some. Let me ask it this way: do you believe it is possible bats started as all being able to interbreed? Or don't you know? Just asking. Because when bats first started, wonder how did they start. And now I'm learning from that article, that bats make up 20% of the mammalian population! Wow. Who'd a thought it?

 

[YoursTrue]

We know that happens we can see it in action:

Discovering a ring species

And tell me, why does your not knowing when enter into this? There is no precise date needed to know that it happens.

Not even a conjecture to figure out how one bat first appeared? And then, of course, multiplying, I suppose, to make over 1,000 species (populations) of bats? Wow. Who knew.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know that happens we can see it in action:

Discovering a ring species

And tell me, why does your not knowing when enter into this? There is no precise date needed to know that it happens.

Referring to the article above, I note the following, "Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another."
OK, let me guess. It started (the gradual changes) with two lineages eventually becoming incompatible with one another. You may call that evolution, and I am not going to contest that. However, and it's a big however, they are still -- lizards if I have that correct, aren't they? Despite horror movies, humans do not turn into lizards.