On Evolution & Creation

[Valjean]

I would like to start from sort of a beginning, Is there a video by scientist that explains how the early Earth, - Went from non-life to life?

Google: "chemical evolution," or "abiogenesis."

 

[walt]

Google: "chemical evolution," or "abiogenesis."

Okay thank you so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• I have watched videos from all kinds of scientists, James Tour, Michael Behe and Dr. Marco Fasoli
• I watch videos where scientists expose the lies of James Tour and Michael Behe., Dave Farina is a science communicator with a goal of explaining science to the world. He is a Evolutionist speaking against intelligent design information.
• This helps me make a more informed decision, when I listen to all the scientists that talk about the subject I am trying to understand.

Thank you for your words and information, I am just trying to get the knowledge from every scientist I can find that has a video.

Scientists do not make videos. That is not how they communicate. Educators will make videos. Scientists communicate through peer reviewed papers. I can give you those, but I doubt if that would help you at all.

 

[Valjean]

I would like to start from sort of a beginning, Is there a video by scientist that explains how the early Earth, - Went from non-life to life?

Google: "chemical evolution," or "abiogenesis."

 

[walt]

Scientists do not make videos. That is not how they communicate. Educators will make videos. Scientists communicate through peer reviewed papers. I can give you those, but I doubt if that would help you at all.

thx

 

[Subduction Zone]

• I have watched videos from all kinds of scientists, James Tour, Michael Behe and Dr. Marco Fasoli
• I watch videos where scientists expose the lies of James Tour and Michael Behe., Dave Farina is a science communicator with a goal of explaining science to the world. He is a Evolutionist speaking against intelligent design information.
• This helps me make a more informed decision, when I listen to all the scientists that talk about the subject I am trying to understand.

Thank you for your words and information, I am just trying to get the knowledge from every scientist I can find that has a video.

Sorry, but when a scientist is speaking of knowledge that is outside his area of expertise that person is not a "scientist". Worse yet the first two that you sited are known liars. Behe is a failed scientist. Tour is beginning to look like one. I have no knowledge of Dr. Fasoli, but the odds are that he is not a scientist either when he talks about evolution.

I could probably find some videos by real scientists for you. There are some that are starting to make them.

 

[walt]

Sorry, but when a scientist is speaking of knowledge that is outside his area of expertise that person is not a "scientist". Worse yet the first two that you sited are known liars. Behe is a failed scientist. Tour is beginning to look like one. I have no knowledge of Dr. Fasoli, but the odds are that he is not a scientist either when he talks about evolution.

I could probably find some videos by real scientists for you. There are some that are starting to make them.

Okay, Thanks for your help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That did not take long. Okay, this is not a scientist, but that does not mean that he cannot refute a scientist that is speaking outside his area of expertise. Dr. Marco Fasoli is not an evolutionary scientist so I have no problem refuting him with a person that is not a scientist:

 

[walt]

That did not take long. Okay, this is not a scientist, but that does not mean that he cannot refute a scientist that is speaking outside his area of expertise. Dr. Marco Fasoli is not an evolutionary scientist so I have no problem refuting him with a person that is not a scientist:

thx, I will take a look.

 

[Valjean]

I hurd you the first time, I still want to learn about the subject, Maybe someone else has a video.

Ask me specific questions.
I'll assume you watched some videos. What did you learn? What questions do you have?

 

[Valjean]

Mating creatures threw the dice. In Asexual reproduction a single creature threw the dice. Just an unintended side effect of reproduction

Yes. Sexual reproduction mixes the genes from two different creatures; it shuffles two decks together and always produces young different from either parent. Mutation is a minor factor in sexual reproduction.

Single celled organisms just make copies of themselves. Unless a copy error occurs the progeny will be identicle to the parent. Such organisms rely mostly on copy errors (mutation) to produce the variation needed to adapt (evolve) to changing or challenging environments. This works OK when you reproduce hourly. There's a lot of opportunity for copy errors.

When your generation time is twenty years, however, you need another reproductive strategy for your species to keep up with changes/challenges.

 

[Valjean]

I have just as much evidence that God does indeed Exist as you do for something existing at one billionth of a second after time did not exist at T=0 that started expanding at the speed of light.

I have just as much evidence that God does indeed Exist as you do for something becoming a living cell from non existing life.

Prove me wrong.

Enjoy,

I contend you do not. I hear this claim over and over, and the same arguments are made over and over. So far, almost all have been easily debunked -- over and over.
I'm still curious, though. Can you present some evidence you find convincing?

As for "Prove me wrong," do you understand what shifting the burden is?

 

[Valjean]

I am not sure if evolutionary theory now has it that everything (in the universe) had a beginning.

Evolution theory isn't about everything in the universe or philosophical abstractions. It has no opinion on this. It's concerned only with the mechanisms of change in populations.

As far as mutations go, someone brought up about the residents of Nepal. I had read that article earlier and found it interesting that their lung capacity (if I remember correctly) changed). Would you say that means scientifically this population is possibly evolving into another species of humankind?

Obviously not another species, just an adaptive change. It would take multiple changes to be considered a new species.
We're all evolving all the time, but speciation takes more than a single adaptation.

The high-altitude residents of the Himalayas and Andes have two different physiologic variations that increase their utilization of oxygen. Anytime a species finds itself in a changed or challenging environment, you can expect adaptive changes to occur.

 

[icant]

No, you do not. You only have a book of myths.

You mean like the bunch of science books you have to rely on. They are nothing but myths.

You could prove me wrong by supplying the source for the thingmabob that expanded into the universe and the energy required to form everything in the universe, and sustain it.

Then you could explain how the first life form began to exist from non-existence of a life form.

Nope, not a history book. No matter how many times you make that false claim, parts of it are obvious myths. Why do you keep insisting that God is a liar?

I don't make that claim you do,

I do make the claim that King David did say: "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."

Psalm 53:1 [To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

You opinion and $5.00 might get you a latte at Starbucks. That is about it. Once again, are you interested in learning so that you will not keep claiming that God is a liar?

Sorry I don't frequent Starbucks.

You must think everything recorded in the Bible is something God said. Well it is not, as the devil speaks, demons speak, Angels speak, Kings speak, common folks speak, and even fools speak.

Enjoy,

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution theory isn't about everything in the universe or philosophical abstractions. It has no opinion on this. It's concerned only with the mechanisms of change in populations.

Obviously not another species, just an adaptive change. It would take multiple changes to be considered a new species.
We're all evolving all the time, but speciation takes more than a single adaptation.

The high-altitude residents of the Himalayas and Andes have two different physiologic variations that increase their utilization of oxygen. Anytime a species finds itself in a changed or challenging environment, you can expect adaptive changes to occur.

So do you believe that life had a beginning?

 

[Valjean]

You mean like the bunch of science books you have to rely on. They are nothing but myths.

I disagree.
Scientific belief reflects the current best explanation of a series of observed facts. Science rests firmly on observation, testing, and criticism. I don't know of any mythology dedicated to disproving itself, as science does.

You could prove me wrong by supplying the source for the thingmabob that expanded into the universe and the energy required to form everything in the universe, and sustain it.

This is not yet known.

Then you could explain how the first life form began to exist from non-existence of a life form.

This is an active field of ongoing research, and a great deal has been discovered recently. Few theists seem aware of the findings, though. Exactly how the first life form was assembled remains unknown.
Even after we fully learn the mechanisms of abiogenesis, though, the specific mechanism(s) that generated Earth's current life likely will never be known.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Sexual reproduction mixes the genes from two different creatures; it shuffles two decks together and always produces young different from either parent. Mutation is a minor factor in sexual reproduction.

Single celled organisms just make copies of themselves. Unless a copy error occurs the progeny will be identicle to the parent. Such organisms rely mostly on copy errors (mutation) to produce the variation needed to adapt (evolve) to changing or challenging environments. This works OK when you reproduce hourly. There's a lot of opportunity for copy errors.

When your generation time is twenty years, however, you need another reproductive strategy for your species to keep up with changes/challenges.

You say mutations is a minor factor in sexual reproduction. It is? Are mutations themselves minor factors? (With or without sexual reproduction?)

 

[Valjean]

So do you believe that life had a beginning?

Sheesh!
Why are you constantly posting questions you know the answer to, or questions you should be able to figure out yourself from the information in our multiple responses to you?

When our planet coalesced into a ball, there was no life on it. Now there is life on it.
I'm assuming you know the definition of "beginning."
So: can you figure out what answer I'd give?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an active field of ongoing research, and a great deal has been discovered recently. Few theists seem aware of the findings, though. Exactly how the first life form was assembled remains unknown.
Even after we fully learn the mechanisms of abiogenesis, though, the specific mechanism(s) that generated Earth's current life likely will never be known.

At least you admit that the specific mechanisms that you say generated Earth's current life likely will never be known. hmm wonder why you think it will "never be known..." (likely, that is) Oh, and P.S. that Nepalese people living high up in the mountains developed lungs that have different capacity than low-lying human dwellers does not mean evolution as it stands with changing species. It means that their lungs apparently acclimated to the conditions. They are still humans. Not another species of humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sheesh!
Why are you constantly posting questions you know the answer to, or questions you should be able to figure out yourself from the information in our multiple responses to you?

When our planet coalesced into a ball, there was no life on it. Now there is life on it.
I'm assuming you know the definition of "beginning."
So: can you figure out what answer I'd give?

Just verifying what you believe...
you do believe life had a beginning...on the earth, I suppose. Of course there are those scientists who think life could have been deposited by aliens in shape ships or something like that --