Primordial Soup

[YoursTrue]

It is nice to see that I am not the only one that notices this.

But as to natural selection and abiogenesis. There may have been a different sort of natural selection involved in abiogenesis. There are competing hypotheses of what events happened when and how. It turns out some of the proposed chemicals may have competed with each other for the raw materials that were present. No intent behind it at all, but it can sometimes be shown that with limited resources some chemicals react more quickly and easily than others leading to them being selected over others as possible materials that eventually became life.

You said, There may have been a different sort of natural selection involved in abiogenesis. Now that made me laugh a little. You may ask why? A legitimate question. Because -- you posit there MAY HAVE BEEN a different sort of natural selection. Then again, maybe there was not. But your answer is as good as a scientist might think, depending on his mindset of things (natural occurrences).

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone speaking of which, I venture to say that mankind, if it is still alive since many believe the human race will perish (I don't), will never find what chemically started life, which I don't believe anyway just to make it clear -- but scientists will never ever learn how life began by reaction of a few elements by -- chance. Hope you get a good night's sleep, me too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said, There may have been a different sort of natural selection involved in abiogenesis. Now that made me laugh a little. You may ask why? A legitimate question. Because -- you posit there MAY HAVE BEEN a different sort of natural selection. Then again, maybe there was not. But your answer is as good as a scientist might think, depending on his mindset of things (natural occurrences).

Okay so you are completely ignorant about the sciences. That is all that you demonstrated.

For a scientist to even say that an event could have happened. there has to be evidence for the event happening. You unfortunately are scared ****less about the concept of evidence.

When a fool laughs they only make themselves the butt of the joke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone speaking of which, I venture to say that mankind, if it is still alive since many believe the human race will perish (I don't), will never find what chemically started life, which I don't believe anyway just to make it clear -- but scientists will never ever learn how life began by reaction of a few elements by -- chance. Hope you get a good night's sleep, me too.

Why do you say that? It appears to be a huge non sequitur. And since you have no clue as to how evolution happened, no scientists is letting chemicals just react by chance. You really really should know better by now. The odds are that they will solved the problem.

You seem to think that you understand this concept. Then please tell me what are the problems that scientists ran into? What problems have been solved and how have they solved them? What problems have not been solved and is there any possible answers on the horizon?

I would appreciate it to no end if you tried to answer those honestly.

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM you said that evolution has been proven in the laboratory. Would you say that the necessary equipment or enough time wasn't there to show that these things grew to viable matter, by that I mean like plants and animals out of the testtube?

Craig Venter the first person to create synthetic life has observed that life evolve. Adapting itself for life in a petri dish. I understand that all life (i know of 3) created in the laboratory evolves quite rapidly.

The Langkawi Island bent-toed gecko has been observed for several years now as it changed its habitat from forest dwelling to cave dwelling. It has undergone several evolutionary changes to adapt to the new habitat.
There are several gecko and lizard species being observed because they evolve to change so quickly.

The pigmy 3 toed sloth was not pigmy. The sloths on what was the peninsula of Escudo de Veraguas got trapped as sea levels rose when the ice age ended. Scarcity if food caused the sloths to shrink in size adapting to their environment. Result, in the last 10,000 years a new species of sloth has evolved.

But for microscopic cells to evolve to plants i guess more time is needed. The fossil record is a good place to learn about apes to human etc

 

[ChristineM]

uh oh. Why? Because abiogenesis wasn't "natural selection"?

Abiogenesis is a chemical reaction, evolution is change over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

There we go with the "you do not have the science background," etc. So back to "natural selection," perhaps? Or perhaps it wasn't natural selection since that is evolution and not, of course, abiogenesis? Which may or may not be natural selection, right?

Wrong, besides being a very confusing post arguing for or against evolution and natural selection requires a knowledge of science and peer reviewed references not opinions or religious agenda beliefs, and 'arguing from ignorance.'

 

[shunyadragon]

uh oh. Why? Because abiogenesis wasn't "natural selection"?

Actually they are different, but yes, both require the right environmental conditions and natural selection. I will make it simple for you: Natural selection is somethings work and somethings do not in a given environment or change in the environment.

Pre-life forms are dependent on heat sources in the environment for energy and reproduction, Evolution begins when primitive organisms like viruses create their own energy from their environment and by digesting pre-life forms and other primitive RNA life. and develop RNA and reproduce.

The vents in the spreading zones of continental drift are rich with essential nutrients and heat needed for early pre-life and life forms. Pre-life and early life forms are protected in the ocean depths from the deadly radiation and atmophere present at the surface.

 

[shunyadragon]

Never said god did it.

Never said you did, but yes your argument is very much from the non-science Creationist perspective of assertions of problems of complexity? without a basic knowledge of science and competent references.

Anyway, It took less time for dna to show up on the scene since the earth formed than it did for the evolutionary timeline between terrestrial plants and humans. I find that strange. The only thing I can think of is that the origin of life must’ve started evolving right after the Big Bang. This could make sense. That would put DNA’s evolutionary formation time to 10 billion years instead of 1 billion. 10 billion seems more plausible. You mention rna and things before but I’ve only been talking about dna and when it first showed up.

This would be impossible from the reality of the evidence and competent science perspective. Abiogenesis and evolution are environment driven and occurred on earth when the right environment was present.

When you want to discuss the evolution of life you need to address the genetic evidence for the evolution of more primitive forms of RNA life that must come before DNA life forms. DNA life forms did not 'poof!' suddenly appear. DNA life forms evolved from more primitive RNA and RNA-DNA organisms like the primitive viruses we have today.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm leavin' you alone for a while, Dan.

Without a coherent response addressing the scientific issues of evolution.

 

[Jimmy]

Never said you did, but yes your argument is very much from the non-science Creationist perspective of assertions of problems of complexity? without a basic knowledge of science and competent references.


This would be impossible from the reality of the evidence and competent science perspective. Abiogenesis and evolution are environment driven and occurred on earth when the right environment was present.

When you want to discuss the evolution of life you need to address the genetic evidence for the evolution of more primitive forms of RNA life that must come before DNA life forms. DNA life forms did not 'poof!' suddenly appear. DNA life forms evolved from more primitive RNA and RNA-DNA organisms like the primitive viruses we have today.

You’ve missed my point completely

 

[shunyadragon]

You’ve missed my point completely

You have failed to justify your assertions concerning 'complexity' and DNA in terms of scientific explanations and references.

You attack the science, and the point must be support of science with references and explanations.

Example this type of response on your part has no 'point' I can respond to:

"The origin and evolution of DNA was complex in my opinion. You can think however you want."

 

[Jimmy]

You have failed to justify your assertions concerning 'complexity' and DNA in terms of scientific explanations and references.

You attack the science, and the point must be support of science with references and explanations.

Example this type of response on your part has no 'point' I can respond to:

"The origin and evolution of DNA was complex in my opinion. You can think however you want."

Ok

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually they are different, but yes, both require the right environmental conditions and natural selection. I will make it simple for you: Natural selection is somethings work and somethings do not in a given environment or change in the environment.

Pre-life forms are dependent on heat sources in the environment for energy and reproduction, Evolution begins when primitive organisms like viruses create their own energy from their environment and by digesting pre-life forms and other primitive RNA life. and develop RNA and reproduce.

The vents in the spreading zones of continental drift are rich with essential nutrients and heat needed for early pre-life and life forms. Pre-life and early life forms are protected in the ocean depths from the deadly radiation and atmophere present at the surface.

You don't need to make it simple for me. It's simple enough for a third-grader to understand. I understand you perfectly, and your sarcastic comment in another thread did not go over my head. Educated or not. What you and others have done is make the case clear that much of the "theory" is conjectural on your part. So with all that in mind, have a nice day as you consider whether it was a soup or not a soup. Take it as you will.

 

[YoursTrue]

Without a coherent response addressing the scientific issues of evolution.

The coherent response is that I will not continue addressing certain ones with comments for the time. Perhaps that type of evolution overcame you? You know, like "cultural evolution"? That you don't want to address UFO's and demons as if some here say they communicate with UNSEEN persons, maybe see ghosts, that for you is not evidence, right? Only what you believe is evidence, right? Have a nice day. I believe God is watching.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is a chemical reaction, evolution is change over time.

without the theoretical abiogenesis you cannot have the theoretical evolution. They're inherently and unavoidably connected. Theoretically of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

Craig Venter the first person to create synthetic life has observed that life evolve. Adapting itself for life in a petri dish. I understand that all life (i know of 3) created in the laboratory evolves quite rapidly.

The Langkawi Island bent-toed gecko has been observed for several years now as it changed its habitat from forest dwelling to cave dwelling. It has undergone several evolutionary changes to adapt to the new habitat.
There are several gecko and lizard species being observed because they evolve to change so quickly.

The pigmy 3 toed sloth was not pigmy. The sloths on what was the peninsula of Escudo de Veraguas got trapped as sea levels rose when the ice age ended. Scarcity if food caused the sloths to shrink in size adapting to their environment. Result, in the last 10,000 years a new species of sloth has evolved.

But for microscopic cells to evolve to plants i guess more time is needed. The fossil record is a good place to learn about apes to human etc

OK, I'm finished. The replies I receive touting evolution and natural creation of life do not make sense. Obviously they do to you. So take care and have a good one, as the saying goes.

 

[ChristineM]

without the theoretical abiogenesis you cannot have the theoretical evolution. They're inherently and unavoidably connected. Theoretically of course.

Like without theoretical fuel you cannot have a theoretical car.

That does not mean that fuel is car

 

[shunyadragon]

The coherent response is that I will not continue addressing certain ones with comments for the time. Perhaps that type of evolution overcame you? You know, like "cultural evolution"? That you don't want to address UFO's and demons as if some here say they communicate with UNSEEN persons, maybe see ghosts, that for you is not evidence, right? Only what you believe is evidence, right? Have a nice day. I believe God is watching.

This is a thread about abiogenesis, primordial soup(?), and evolution not Demons in the other thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The coherent response is that I will not continue addressing certain ones with comments for the time. Perhaps that type of evolution overcame you? You know, like "cultural evolution"? That you don't want to address UFO's and demons as if some here say they communicate with UNSEEN persons, maybe see ghosts, that for you is not evidence, right? Only what you believe is evidence, right? Have a nice day. I believe God is watching.

@shunyadragon is one of the most patient posters here. If he gets irate at someone it is usually the fault of that person.