Primordial Soup

[Subduction Zone]

Not that I remember. Maybe you did. Or maybe what you said doesn't add up, if you know what I mean. If you don't know what I mean, oh well at this point. So then does it go back to soupy stuff? Then mush in the coffins obviously has a chemical reaction since the smell isn't so great if one gets a whiff of it. It doesn't matter. There are figurative explanations and literal explanations. Meantime, the earth (soil) is probably full of flesh that has rotted or went 'back' to soil. (Have a good one.) Water also leaches into soil and sand and the stuff that's in the soil.

At any rate your post was just a giant red herring. You cannot have a human body until ages upon ages after abiogenesis. It has nothing to to with abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with the Adam and Eve myth either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you? Besides, it has been notable that "scientists disagree about which chemical components of life came first, which of life’s processes came first, and where on Earth life first arose." Isn't that something, that scientists disagree. My, oh my, they disagree on ... what can be said to be fundamentals. I mean how life started. Fundamentally, you know in the scientific realm.

So what?

Please try to make rational arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then after dna first came on the scene it took 5 billion years for humans to develop. One would think the evolution of DNA is more complex and time consuming than the evolution of the rest. ie. Plants, animals, and humans

Your thinking seems to imply goals and that the current conditions are an endpoint. What we have today is the result of the same processes that have been at play since the beginning. I don't know that there are any established timelines native to those processes or some demand that any of it take a certain amount of time. It is all relevant to the conditions. I also am not aware of anything in all of those natural processes that precludes God or His action or that He could or couldn't use those processes to create. All that is known is that there is no evidence for or against it. The processes all can be explained by natural law. Most of what we believe about the Bible are the interpretations of men. I am told that these are inherently flawed, since we are not omniscient or dictating the mind of God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So what?

Please try to make rational arguments.

Those haven't been readily forthcoming from folks that seem to feel they know everything in absolutes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Odd that the evolution from single celled organisms to terrestrial plants took 4 billion. One would think the evolution of rna and dna would’ve taken longer than 4 billion with all its complexities. Maybe earth was seeded by a meteorite containing dna huh?

You keep referring to these things as if you are aware of a schedule or have some other similar system to compare and contrast. Yet, I know of none of these things that lead to the conclusions you are making.

Are your timelines reasonable and truly based on evidence? Why is the timing of these events so unusual? Have you witnessed this before somewhere else?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This basic timeline is sort of human-centric as it nears modern times, but it provides a more detailed series of events than your basic four level timeline that you have been using. I pulled this from the internet and use it for expediency.
CK12-Foundation

According to the evidence, the best estimate for the age of the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

About 3.5 - 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes).
3 billion years of photosynthesis.
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes).
1 billion years of multicellular life.
600 million years of simple animals.
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans).
550 million years of complex animals.
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians.
475 million years of land plants.
400 million years of insects and seeds.
360 million years of amphibians.
300 million years of reptiles.
200 million years of mammals.
150 million years of birds.
130 million years of flowers.
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out.
2.5 million years since the appearance of Homo.
200,000 years since the appearance of modern humans.
25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

Keep in mind that these are estimates based on the most recent available evidence and our best understanding of that evidence at the time the list was made.

What I see is a gradual evolution of living things and the major developments that have occurred regarding living things on Earth from the beginning based on the evidence (evidence from a multitude of disciplines including geology, paleontology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, chemistry, physics...)

I did find some indication that the first DNA may have arisen on Earth as early as 4 billion years ago, but there is no definitive timing indicated for the origin of nucleic acids, so your wondering seems largely based on concluding that DNA arrived at or about when the evidence indicates first living things. Considering that certain biomolecules like DNA had to predate that and we do not know when that is exactly, all we can say is that critical biomolecules came first and then the evidence of simple, prokaryotes are found.

Since we all start out as a single cell that has to go through gradual development over time, and we have a plethora of such examples, I do not fully understand why the timing of these things would lead anyone to use a very limited version of that timing as reason to doubt it could occur. It implies a knowledge of some "true" chronological value or expectation that I cannot see a person having.

 

[Jimmy]

Why is it odd? Now you changed your stance and are saying that it happened to slow. Earlier it was too fast. Are you an expert in these matters at all?

No I didn’t. You’re reading wrong

 

[Jimmy]

Why is it odd? Now you changed your stance and are saying that it happened to slow. Earlier it was too fast. Are you an expert in these matters at all?

Fast for dna slow for terrestrial plants

 

[Jimmy]

This basic timeline is sort of human-centric as it nears modern times, but it provides a more detailed series of events than your basic four level timeline that you have been using. I pulled this from the internet and use it for expediency.
CK12-Foundation

According to the evidence, the best estimate for the age of the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

About 3.5 - 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes).
3 billion years of photosynthesis.
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes).
1 billion years of multicellular life.
600 million years of simple animals.
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans).
550 million years of complex animals.
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians.
475 million years of land plants.
400 million years of insects and seeds.
360 million years of amphibians.
300 million years of reptiles.
200 million years of mammals.
150 million years of birds.
130 million years of flowers.
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out.
2.5 million years since the appearance of Homo.
200,000 years since the appearance of modern humans.
25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

Keep in mind that these are estimates based on the most recent available evidence and our best understanding of that evidence at the time the list was made.

What I see is a gradual evolution of living things and the major developments that have occurred regarding living things on Earth from the beginning based on the evidence (evidence from a multitude of disciplines including geology, paleontology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, chemistry, physics...)

I did find some indication that the first DNA may have arisen on Earth as early as 4 billion years ago, but there is no definitive timing indicated for the origin of nucleic acids, so your wondering seems largely based on concluding that DNA arrived at or about when the evidence indicates first living things. Considering that certain biomolecules like DNA had to predate that and we do not know when that is exactly, all we can say is that critical biomolecules came first and then the evidence of simple, prokaryotes are found.

Since we all start out as a single cell that has to go through gradual development over time, and we have a plethora of such examples, I do not fully understand why the timing of these things would lead anyone to use a very limited version of that timing as reason to doubt it could occur. It implies a knowledge of some "true" chronological value or expectation that I cannot see a person having.

Dna evolved over a billion years since the formation of earth

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fast for dna slow for terrestrial plants

Again, rates based on what? What would be an instance of a slower rate for DNA formation? What would lead to expectation that plants should have evolved sooner? I'm at a loss to understand your baselines and where they come from.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dna evolved over a billion years since the formation of earth

What is your source?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dna evolved over a billion years since the formation of earth

I couldn't find a copy of the original paper, but this is a press release from a reputable source announcing findings that DNA may have originated much earlier than previously "assumed". Note assumed, since we do not really know exactly when DNA originated, just that it would have had to have done so ahead of the origin of life.

Origin of life -- a prebiotic route to DNA.

 

[Jimmy]

Again, rates based on what? What would be an instance of a slower rate for DNA formation? What would lead to expectation that plants should have evolved sooner? I'm at a loss to understand your baselines and where they come from.

based on DNA’s complexity

 

[Jimmy]

I couldn't find a copy of the original paper, but this is a press release from a reputable source announcing findings that DNA may have originated much earlier than previously "assumed". Note assumed, since we do not really know exactly when DNA originated, just that it would have had to have done so ahead of the origin of life.

Origin of life -- a prebiotic route to DNA.

Yeah ahead of single celled organisms which was 4 billion yrs ago

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah ahead of single celled organisms which was 4 billion yrs ago

And?

 

[Jimmy]

And

Dna developed over a billion years

 

[Dan From Smithville]

based on DNA’s complexity

There are complex inorganic molecules too. If complexity is a barrier, then it is a barrier to both organic and inorganic, but I cannot see how. Perhaps you can explain that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dna developed over a billion years

Was there supposed to be something here? We do not know how long it took for DNA to form. We know the difference between the time of the formation of the Earth and the age of the evidence of fist living things, but that difference in time doesn't mean that DNA took just that long to form naturally. There is nothing to say that it didn't form earlier or that life didn't form earlier. We just don't have the evidence and given that time is critical in natural systems, with change being gradual, much must have passed between these natural events.

 

[Jimmy]

Was there supposed to be something here? We do not know how long it took for DNA to form. We know the difference between the time of the formation of the Earth and the age of the evidence of fist living things, but that difference in time doesn't mean that DNA took just that long to form naturally. There is nothing to say that it didn't form earlier or that life didn't form earlier. We just don't have the evidence and given that time is critical in natural systems, with change being gradual, much must have passed between these natural events.

Ok

 

[Jimmy]

There are complex inorganic molecules too. If complexity is a barrier, then it is a barrier to both organic and inorganic, but I cannot see how. Perhaps you can explain that.

This question doesn’t relate to our conversation