How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

Both comets and meteors that brought water here in the form of ice, could have had life frozen in that ice that could survive the travel being frozen.

Tardigrades, Frozen for 30 Years, Spring Back to Life

Tardigrades springing back to life do not prove to me that these things came from outer space, but then I wasn't there. OK, so you this this as a possibility and that water is alive? Such as water that is only hydrogen and oxygen, if there is such a thing?

 

[We Never Know]

The problem in my mind now is that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen. And so from what I've read, neither hydrogen or oxygen are 'alive.' OK, I can go to uranium, which can affect other things, but is it 'alive'? So now I guess 'life' might need to be defined, rather than just mere evolution. (You know like "survival of the fittest.") The combination of 2 elements (hydrogen and oxygen) isn't said by some to be alive. But it seems that life as we know is dependent upon water, so you can't have animals without water, can you? I won't declare that as fact yet, but -- to repeat, maybe we should define what is alive and what is not alive -- or possibly dead. If we can come to a fundamental. However, we're really still on the process of evolving -- without backward tracking -- moving on -- irreparably, irresistibly -- inexorably -- maybe.

Hydrogen, oxygen, iron, zinc, etc are minerals or chemicals that are not alive but they are in living things. Life is a chemical reaction that is based on many things coming together. Of course that's my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

Tardigrades springing back to life do not prove to me that these things came from outer space, but then I wasn't there. OK, so you this this as a possibility and that water is alive? Such as water that is only hydrogen and oxygen, if there is such a thing?

I didn't say water is alive. I said it might be on a level we cant comprehend.
After all life is a chemical reaction. Water and hydrogen are two elements that are part of that chemical reaction.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is some conjecture that there can be ammonia based life, but few people think it is a real possibility.

So, yes, life as we know it requires liquid water. It serves as a type of solvent for the chemicals of life. And the interaction of those chemicals with water often determines their properties and is required for them to do their jobs.

Did you have a question?

OK, so getting back to the subject -- more or less -- not figuring the movie about invading water turning into faces -- I think water came first. Before animals. And plants.

 

[We Never Know]

OK, so getting back to the subject -- more or less -- not figuring the movie about invading water turning into faces -- I think water came first. Before animals. And plants.

Yes I agree. All life as we know it has to have water, even if its in trace amounts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hydrogen, oxygen, iron, zinc, etc are minerals or chemicals that are not alive but they are in living things. Life is a chemical reaction that is based on many things coming together. Of course that's my opinion.

While I do not believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution, all I can say at this point is therefore it makes sense that life as we see it was not here billions (?) of years ago, although water may have been here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I agree. All life as we know it has to have water, even if its in trace amounts.

Whew. We can agree on that. That's nice, and at this point I think it's likely that I will say good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't say water is alive. I said it might be on a level we cant comprehend.
After all life is a chemical reaction. Water and hydrogen are two elements that are part of that chemical reaction.

Now that you mention, I suppose water is a chemical reaction, too. OK, maybe g'night.

 

[We Never Know]

While I do not believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution, all I can say at this point is therefore it makes sense that life as we see it was not here billions (?) of years ago, although water may have been here.

Some plants and species can survive long periods of time without water.

Although most vascular plants can tolerate brief periods (hours to days) of water stress, most plants are killed by long periods (weeks to months) of drought.

Some plants, however, display the remarkable ability to survive near total desiccation (less than 5% relative water content), which causes them to appear dead. But when rehydrated, these plants can be revived. Hence, they are often referred to as “resurrection plants”.

Probably the most well-known “resurrection plant” is the species Selaginella lepidophylla (see photo above). This resurrection plant (a.k.a., Rose of Jericho and Siempre Viva) belong to a group of plants called lycopods.

Resurrection Plants – How Do These Plants “Come Back To Life” After Near Total Dehydration?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Amoeba are too specialized. They are not the ancestors of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs had OTHER single celled ancestors, but not amoeba.

The single celled creatures that evolved into animals are ones that tended to form colonies. Those colonies, over the generations, developed special parts that had different roles in the colony (specialization). We see this, for example, in slime molds today. Again, not the exact ancestor, but much closer than amoebas.

(Yeah...ok...I don't know or think I believe that speculation yet, certainly not as part of the natural selection of survival of the fittest type movement from single or multicelled organisms to those more complex.) I would tend to shrug that speculation off, but that's me. So, slime molds, do they go to something other than slime molds? Any knolwedge or verification that they evovled from non-slime molds? OK, it's getting late -- g'night and perhaps we can examine this another time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some plants and species can survive long periods of time without water.

Although most vascular plants can tolerate brief periods (hours to days) of water stress, most plants are killed by long periods (weeks to months) of drought.

Some plants, however, display the remarkable ability to survive near total desiccation (less than 5% relative water content), which causes them to appear dead. But when rehydrated, these plants can be revived. Hence, they are often referred to as “resurrection plants”.

Probably the most well-known “resurrection plant” is the species Selaginella lepidophylla (see photo above). This resurrection plant (a.k.a., Rose of Jericho and Siempre Viva) belong to a group of plants called lycopods.

Resurrection Plants – How Do These Plants “Come Back To Life” After Near Total Dehydration?

OK, but I suppose that after a long enough time they dissipate into what? dust? In other words, they still need water to 'live,' interestingly enough, like get back to a more vibrant existence. Thanks for the conversation, I'm actually enjoying it. -) OK, good night again.

 

[We Never Know]

You analogy is unbelievably ridiculous. This reflects your self imposed ignorance of science, and changing the subject and dodging the reality of the evidence.

Have you ever thought that your delivery of your message by saying they are
unbelievably ridiculous and ignorant might have anything to do with fueling their unwillingness to listen or to try to understand?

For example of you were trying to teach someone math and they weren't catching on, calling them names won't help them learn it. It will push them away from it more than anything.

That's just a thought

 

[Deeje]

The problem is that this is NOT an assumption. it is a *conclusion* based on the evidence.

The *conclusions* are an *assumption* based on what is *believed* to have occurred.....there is no way to *prove* that evolution ever happened on the scale that science *suggests* that it must have.
That is really difficult for the science buffs to admit, isn't it? I can see you cringing...

Except that magic is exactly what is required to add 'creatures'. Unless, of course, they have ancestors prior to their appearance. And *that* leads inevitably to evolution.

Where is the *magic*? How is it more *magical* than suggesting that life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and managed to come fully equipped to transform itself into every life form that has ever existed on this planet, with no intelligent action or direction whatsoever required for things that are so amazingly designed?.....lets be clear about this if you want to talk about "magical".

You need magical creation of new 'kinds' at essentially random times and places when anatomically similar species exist previously.

Since when does similarity prove relationship?
Architects can plan their constructions on engineering principles that will apply to single story houses all the way to skyscrapers. The buildings are similar because the principles they are based on are sound and proven to be successful. Why can't a Creator use the same principles when creating his creatures, implementing a basic framework that is shown to be advantageous in application to all vertebrates? Similarity is meaningless. They all had the same Maker using the same materials in similar but different creatures. Its really that simple to us. No missing links....no unanswered (or unanswerable) questions.

The invocation of magical new creations is enough to dismiss this as nonsense.

Your own believed "magic" is nonsense to us as well. Why does science imagine that it has the only truth when all it really has is a different "belief" system? If you cannot prove that evolution (on a macro scale) is even possible, then you don't have science fact....you have science fiction....you have "faith" in science, like I have faith in an Intelligent Creator.

We know that living things reproduce and that there are mutations from generation to generation. If this is enough to explain the observed diversity (and it is), then that is enough to dismiss the alternative requiring special creation of each new 'kind'.

Can you show me evidence for beneficial mutations that would explain all the different species of life here on this earth? How many mutations are ever "beneficial" compared to how many are "detrimental"? If you have to rely on beneficial mutations then I'm afraid we would never have progressed past the single celled organisms.

Google "beneficial mutations" and see how many come up and how life altering they are....?

Furthermore, the very fact that this new entity has not been and *cannot* be identified by the evidence makes this hypothesis much weaker than the simple hypothesis that living things have previous living things as ancestors.

Every living thing must have a previous ancestor....except the first life, and science can never explain how it got here, let alone how it transformed itself into millions of extraordinarily complex creatures....each fully programmed for reproduction.
Can science explain instinct? Can it explain why different species of birds all build nests to bring their young into the world when the young never saw them build it? How is this information passed from parent to offspring? Isn't it programming? Doesn't it require a programmer?

That is what death is: irreversible reactions that prevent the 'normal' metabolic chemical reactions.

Can you explain why death is not reversible? Can you tell me how a newborn of any species which has never taken a breath, knows to inflates its lungs on being ejected in to the world? Was it alive before it started breathing? Can you tell me why it started breathing?
Can you tell me where a mother's often fierce instinct comes from in the protection of her babies, even though some 'mothers' will eat the young of other creatures?

The difference between 'living matter' and 'non-living matter' is primarily a matter of whether certain irreversible chemical reactions have occurred. In living animals, the oxygen prevents those reactions from happening by favoring the reactions of metabolism.

Life is simply a sustained complex collection of chemical reactions.

Can you tell me what makes a blade of grass..."live"?....and why science cannot even make a blade of grass?

When reproduction with mutations first happened, the basic conditions for evolution were there.

Assumptions again.....mutations are a very poor back up for evolution. Most would either kill the creature, or prevent it from reproducing.

The only question is how the chemicals that we know existed on the early earth together with the conditions (UV light and electrical discharges) produced a self-replicator that was able to maintain internal state. That is what life *is*.

Or that's the theory anyway.....where did the very specific chemicals come from that made the "soup"....and who wrote the recipe, and where was the chef? Mr Nobody is very clever apparently.

The point is that the difference between 'living matter' and 'non-living matter' isn't nearly as great as you seem to think.

Tell that to a dead person.

The main questions are chemical: how polymerization was encouraged and how the stereorchemistry went the way it did.

And it all had to be achieved completely undirected by any intelligent source....because that would be "unscientific"....right?

When talking about abiogenesis, we are talking about how simple bacterial cells (the simplest cells around) came from previously existing chemicals that already included most of the basic chemical pieces in living things. And we know that cell-like structures spontaneously form from lipids (one of those basic chemical types). We know that amino acids (that make up proteins) spontaneously form and even polymerize to make basic proteins. We know that nucleic acids will spontaneously form and produce simple strands of RNA.

On that note....
"Depending on how an amino acid is put together, it can be “left-handed” or “right-handed.” The amino acids created by various gas and spark experiments include equal numbers of the left- and right-handed models. However, as evolutionists admit, except for certain special adaptations . . . all living organisms today incorporate only left-handed amino acids.

If a typical protein has 400 amino acids, the odds that all of them will be left-handed would be comparable to the odds against flipping a coin and getting heads 400 times in a row. There is less than one chance in one followed by over 100 zeros—a number many times as great as all the atoms in all the galaxies of the known universe! Yet even if an impossible random protein of 400 left-handed amino acids were to coalesce spontaneously, it would have only the slightest chance of being formed of the proper left-handed amino acids—there are 20 kinds—and in the proper order." (excerpts from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101981683?q=amino+acids+left+handed&p=par)

Can you explain this?

Evolution, on the other hand, is what happens once life has gotten started:

But how it started is of greater importance because if there is an Intelligent Creator who is responsible for putting us here and giving us a purposeful life.....then don't you think we would owe him something....at the very least some credit for his works?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So are you saying that an amoeba can't become a dinosaur? Or didn't eventually after lots and lots of time evolve to a dinosaur?

What I am saying is that amoeba is not a synonym for unicellular life. Dinosaurs have unicellular forms in their ancestry like all life, but not necessarily amoeba. I don't know any reason why amoeba couldn't evolve into dinosaurs over hundreds of millions of years, nor do I have knowledge that they did. My comment really isn't about what happened, but about the problem with using the word amoeba to mean whatever unicellular life was ancestral to dinosaurs.

 

[We Never Know]

What I am saying is that amoeba is not a synonym for unicellular life. Dinosaurs have unicellular forms in their ancestry like all life, but not necessarily amoeba. I don't know any reason why amoeba couldn't evolve into dinosaurs over hundreds of millions of years, nor do I have knowledge that they did. My comment really isn't about what happened, but about the problem with using the word amoeba to mean whatever unicellular life was ancestral to dinosaurs.

But didn't all unicellular life evolve from single cell life?

 

[exchemist]

Well then, again -- it brings up the question as to where did it come from? Did it start in water? Soil? Rock? This is not abiogenesis, it is if everything (supposedly) comes from a common ancestor (maybe), Right now it doesn't make sense, even though there are common elements to -- almost -- everything. It still does not mean that it all just came about, I mean evolved to what is known as life forms. Or living matter. You say at the beginning, can you elucidate a bit as to what you say is the "beginning." Or -- is it yet conjecture.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making here.

The question of "where did it come from" - I presume you mean life - is the question of abiogenesis.

The issue of common ancestry is indeed a different one.

It is not clear what it is that you think "doesn't make sense".

What I mean by the "beginning" is the beginning of life on Earth.

The evidence for common ancestry consists of things like the famous observation that we humans share 50% of our DNA with the banana. There is lots else besides, concerning common biochemistry processes that run through living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex. And there is no doubt that common ancestry is also consistent with the fossil record. So common ancestry is a hypothesis strongly supported by the evidence, and without any evidence to the contrary.

If you want now to talk about abiogenesis, we can I suppose, though there have already been plenty of threads about it already.

 

[ratiocinator]

Architects can plan their constructions on engineering principles that will apply to single story houses all the way to skyscrapers. The buildings are similar because the principles they are based on are sound and proven to be successful. Why can't a Creator use the same principles when creating his creatures, implementing a basic framework that is shown to be advantageous in application to all vertebrates? Similarity is meaningless. They all had the same Maker using the same materials in similar but different creatures. Its really that simple to us.

You might like to address this site: Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

On your specific point:-

One of the lines of evidence for evolution is the similar body plans that animals have. Proponents of Design object that this evidence can be equally well explained by supposing that God reuses or builds off of previous body plans. If God designs things the way human engineers do, then we might reasonably expect the intended function of the "machine" to drive the design process.

It is curious, then, that the design plan of mammals has been used for so many different functions when there were other design plans available for those functions. Mammals run on four legs, fly in the air, swim through the water, and walk upright on two legs. It seems that a human designer would have borrowed more directly from the bird body plan in designing bats, and from the fish skeleton in designing whales and dolphins. And it would have been nice to change the mammalian skeleton a bit more for us bipeds so we don’t have so many lower back problems!

The mammalian skeleton, adapted as it is to these different ways of moving around in the world, is exactly what is predicted by mammals (including us) having ancestors in common. In order for these skeletons to work as evidence for Design, you need to add some plausible reasons why God would create in a way that fits Descent so well. Perhaps one could rustle up some such reasons, but it must be admitted that Descent is a simpler, more straightforward explanation of this evidence.​

That's all before we get into genetics, where the evidence for descent is far stronger, see the other examples in the article and here (both are just tiny examples from the vast quantity of evidence that really does remove all credible doubt): Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles

The latter article looks directly at the differences (rather than similarities) between human and chimpanzee DNA (as an example) and shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the mutations we observe amongst the human population. This is exactly what we'd expect if the differences were, in fact, due to the accumulation of mutations over millions of years. Why a designer would go to the trouble of making the differences follow that distinctive pattern, is rather more difficult to explain.

These are are articles from Christian believers, too. They are not evil atheists trying to disprove god.

 

[shunyadragon]

Have you ever thought that your delivery of your message by saying they are
unbelievably ridiculous and ignorant might have anything to do with fueling their unwillingness to listen or to try to understand?

For example of you were trying to teach someone math and they weren't catching on, calling them names won't help them learn it. It will push them away from it more than anything.

That's just a thought

After presenting many references and sources 'for years' explaining the evidence in detail and being ignored. It is a mater of fact an 'unbelievably ridiculous and ignorant' responses based on an ancient mythological world view, and ignoring science.

 

[wellwisher]

Before the theory of evolution takes affect, there is an earlier time period connected to the formation of the first life; abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the period where simple chemicals like water, ions, gases begin to react and assemble into the first replicators and/or cells. After that first and final assembly; replicators, is when evolutionary theory starts. Evolution is step two in the science of life's origins. One needs to keep that in mind. It is similar to the BB, which starts at the boom, but not how the bomb came to be.

The analogy is meeting a new person for the first time, with no knowledge of their past. You try to form a mental picture of them based on now to the future, but without understanding a past that may have molded them for the present and future. There is a hidden layer of potentials that may give a different explanation.

What comes before evolutionary theory takes affect is not as certain, since nobody has been able to make a cell from scratch in the lab. Different pieces of the puzzle can be created in the lab, but not all the way to where evolution begins. The state of the art is still disjointed with a gap between itself and evolution. This limit of the state of the art in Abiogenesis is not necessarily how nature did it, but this limitation does get passed forward to evolutionary theory. It too is disjointed; missing links.

Abiogenesis is the gray area where religion becomes common to all, either as the God of Creation; preordained sense of order, or as the God of dice and cards; long series of random events. Neither offers direct lab proof but both exist based on faith in either the God of hosts, or the gods of casinos and math oracles.

The God of creation is conceptually more rational, since he is assumed to be omniscience; genius, and therefore has the smarts to create an efficient plan, using a specific hierarchy of chemical events, designed for the proper direction of free energy. The God of dice and card throws dice and when he get sevens, he wins a jackpot and the next step occurs, even if not the best in terms of free energy. Intellect is not needed to roll dice, since even the class clown can be the big winner by chance. Science seems to prefer the casino approach since it was deemed acceptable in evolution.

A rational approach makes more sense, but in the land of casino science that is called card counting, and is illegal in casinos. Casino rules for science or not, a rational approach makes more sense. The atoms of the periodic table each have specific properties. Some are acids and some are bases, some are gases and some are metals. They are designed to be stacked in specific ways.

The free energy of hydrogen and oxygen atoms are such that reacting hydrogen and oxygen always makes water. This is not random or done with dice but is designed within these atoms, to connect this very specific ways. Water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe behind only H2 or hydrogen gas. Oxygen is the third most abundant atom behind only hydrogen and helium. So why so much water? It turns out water is important to life and life as we know it, evolved in water from scratch.

The Miller Experiments ran in the 1950's, used simple gases and water, assumed to be in the infant earth's atmosphere. It also used an electric spark to simulate lightning during a thunderstorm storm. They were able to produce amino acids and other key organic compounds. At these specific conditions of water and gases, some of the building blocks for life; cause and affect, appear. The basic results were reproducible and even worked under both reduced and oxidized earth conditions. The God of creation and not the gods of dice and cards was in the lead; atomic plan.

Another way to look at Abiogenesis is that both the atomic plan of Abiogenesis and macro plan of Evolution should be following the same basic mechanisms, since the atomic and chemical potentials of abiogenesis should still be in affect within evolution. Genes and DNA, may not be the driving source since these were not always there. They are more like the hard drive instead of the CPU. Abiogenesis was evolution at the chemical nanoscale. This still drives evolution at the macro scale. This potential is also connected to the environment ,which can alters the properties of chemicals through heat and pressure and other things. It is not about the gods of dice but the preordained nature of the atoms.

 

[Polymath257]

Not really about the above. Except, now that I look more closely at your comment, you're talking about the chemicals of life? Water has chemicals, doesn't it? I mean that's one of the first things I learned in chemistry. Water is H2O. So, using that idea that life cannot exist without water, ok, this is not my question but a statement and you are welcome to comment on it: Life is dependent upon water. Water was here on the earth before life. I am not sure, but I think that's about right in that point. Water was here first, then -- something happened that made living organisms come about. (And of course, to start the process of Newtonian type evolution.)

Yes, water is a chemical. It is H2O. Carbon dioxide is a chemical. It is CO2.

DNA is also a very complex chemical. But instead of 2-10 atoms, it usually has millions. That is why genetics can be as complex as it is.

You seem to think that 'life' is something added onto chemistry. But it isn't. Life is actually complex chemistry.