@sayak83 This is what my teachers tell me......please let us know what parts of this information are incorrect.
"Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?
False. As I have demonstrated in this thread earlier, scientists have already created living cells out of non-living matter. The details of the physics and chemistry of the life processes give scientists the confidence that under the right environment, life can emerge from non-living matter as inevitably as fire from dry wood.
Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.
Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
Neither.
The scientists simulate the conditions that are expected to occur naturally on early earth in the lab. Tropical rainforests occur naturally on the planet. But you can create one artificially in a greenhouse as well in places far away from the tropics. Similarly scientists are recreating the environments that were found in early earth in a small scale in the lab.
Mimicking nature. That is all. When, such conditions produce chemicals found in life, it provides evidence that such chemicals were produced in the natural environments that these lab conditions were mimicking.
This is no different than an engineer mimicking hurricane force conditions in a wind tunnel to check if a scaled model of a bridge is going to survive it. If it does, it provides evidence that the actual bridge will survive a natural hurricane of the same strength.
Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
The latter, which is a wishful fantasy without evidence . Especially once one knows that RNA that can synthesize proteins has already been produced under conditions that are thought to be present in early earth. Evidence for a naturalistic origin of life continues to mount every day.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life
"Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue,
for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals.
What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
Given the penchant of creationist sources like this to
dishonestly quote mine scientists, you will have to provide the original source from where this quote was taken along with links.
Otherwise I will ignore such out of context and misleading quotes completely.
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence
does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
Unfortunately for you discovery of new fossils have provided those evolutionary links.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/
An ancestral form 52 million years old that was small, capable of gliding but still without the capabilities associated with echolocation, also showing clear linking to its mammalian ancestry (wing fingers end with claws).
So birds did not work, humans did not work, giraffes did not work, fish to amphibians did not work..now you are hoping that bats might do it. Sadly it does not. But do continue to try. There are millions of species and only a few thousand scientists, surely they have not covered all the species yet? Anything to justify irrational beliefs somehow...
I
n fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
False. The Cambrian period of speciation extended a
full 50 million years and very very primitive ancestors of modern animal taxa emerge quite slowly over this period. I do not know about you, but 50 million years of diversification look
gradual to me. The basic evolutionary innovation was the emergence of hard body parts, that allowed animals to form shells and skeletons. Before that animals existed as soft bodied creatures for at least 100 million years, mostly as ancestral sponges and jellyfish and softbodied worms. Once again, the illusion of sudden-ness was a false signal that has been erased as more fossils have been discovered.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...t-animals-sponges-earliest-science-evolution/
https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S28/14/71M11/index.xml?section=topstories
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear?
As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory."
Wherever the quote is from,
its completely outdated. The gradual evolution of animals spanning over
150 million years from Late Precambrian to the Cambrian has been documented well enough that all such doubts have been put to rest. Furthermore, geneticists have shown that the body form of a developing embroyo are dependent in a select few genes and that mutations in them causes body forms to alter dramatically quite easily. Thus for evolution, changing of animal's body shape is not difficult at all.
Cambrian explosion is exciting to a big group of paleontologists because they specialize in bones, and this is the first time they are finding bones. But objectively, its just another episode of evolutionary transformation like all that went before and after.
Continued in the next post............
