Producing life from non living matter

[FearGod]

Nobody says evolution happens due to randomness and chance. If that is your understanding, you have yet to grasp how the process works.

Randomness and chances is a major part of it.

 

[FearGod]

What stops you from making a cheeseburger from just the raw materials of carbon, sodium, nitrogen, etc.? Well? You've seen cheeseburgers, right? You know what they are made of, correct? So... go ahead. I'll give you canisters of trillions of atoms of each of the elements that compose the matter of a cheeseburger and then you "construct" one. Can you do this?

The cheeseburger itself is made by us using the raw materials given by nature.

 

[Kirran]

Randomness and chances is a major part of it.

Is it? It certainly does not define it, regardless.

 

[FearGod]

Is it? It certainly does not define it, regardless.

Don't you think that mutations is done by randomness and don't you think that good circumstances and
chances have to be a part in the process of evolution.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The cheeseburger itself is made by us using the raw materials given by nature.

And I can also mate two cows, and produce a calf - a process that uses nothing but the "raw materials given by nature." This wasn't my question... and it wasn't yours either. Your responses is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty, or a complete lack of understanding. I'm on the fence as to which.

 

[FearGod]

And I can also mate two cows, and produce a calf - a process that uses nothing but the "raw materials given by nature." This wasn't my question... and it wasn't yours either. Your responses is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty, or a complete lack of understanding. I'm on the fence as to which.

The cheese is made by milk, this is the product of nature, the same thing for meat.
the cheeseburger is made using the raw material in nature.

The living creatures including the flies and yourself are made from nature, actually your example
should enlighten you and not me.

 

[Kirran]

Don't you think that mutations is done by randomness and don't you think that good circumstances and
chances have to be a part in the process of evolution.

Mutations are in some sense random, although what mutations can occur and in what areas of the genome is often quite constrained. This does not mean that the process of evolution is random.

'Good circumstances and chances' - no, that seems like anthropomorphism.

 

[FearGod]

Mutations are in some sense random, although what mutations can occur and in what areas of the genome is often quite constrained. This does not mean that the process of evolution is random.

'Good circumstances and chances' - no, that seems like anthropomorphism.

And mutations is a part in the process of evolution, IOW mutations should occur first before
evolution takes place.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The cheese is made by milk, this is the product of nature, the same thing for meat.
the cheeseburger is made using the raw material in nature.

The living creatures including the flies and yourself are made from nature, actually your example
should enlighten you and not me.

Completely incorrect. Your initial "challenge" was that life be created from the non-living.

My challenge is for you to create the assembled from the completely un-assembled.

How can you not understand the analogous nature of this? In both instances, the task is ridiculously difficult - and one should not merely expect that another should be able to accomplish said task or else admit that they are "unworthy" of having theorizing/researching a subject (animals/evolution/abiogenesis, or, in the example "cheeseburgers"). I didn't ask if you could put together a cheeseburger from the items cheeseburgers are made of. That is, in no way, analogous to the challenge you presented.

At least you answered my quandary - it boils down to a complete lack of understanding on your part. Perhaps you are now more "enlightened" as to the meaning/purpose of my example?

 

[Kirran]

And mutations is a part in the process of evolution, IOW mutations should occur first before
evolution takes place.

Sure, yeah. Doesn't mean it is at all a random process. It's a very structured and organic process which works with the natural variation engendered by the media upon which it operates.

 

[FearGod]

Sure, yeah. Doesn't mean it is at all a random process. It's a very structured and organic process which works with the natural variation engendered by the media upon which it operates.

Prove your point in discussing the evolution of wings for flying in birds, how randomness and
chances wasn't a part of it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Prove your point in discussing the evolution of wings for flying in birds, how randomness and
chances wasn't a part of it.

It's actually not that difficult to theorize how wings may have come about. Let's imagine a creature taking to the trees to lead out its life in safety. A dominant predator enters its forests and it is forced to seek refuge somewhere in order to compensate. These creatures survive after this point by running and jumping from branch to branch within the upper portions of the trees. The ones that live the longest - long enough to reproduce - are the ones whose fur/covering and amount of fleshy/stretchy skin under the fore-legs, or lesser bone density, greater metabolism (and therefore thinner frame) allows for just the slightest amount of greater "soaring" by taking advantage of air resistance, for even just a fraction of their jumps. In turn, the beings that survive of generations beyond that are those whose bone density is even lower, whose fur/covering conforms to whatever provides the greatest aerodynamic advantage, whose flaps of skin under the fore-legs is the most "glider-like". All things covered under the variations, or mutations that naturally occur in the co-mingling and imperfect replication of DNA. Things change, and now there are predators elsewhere that cause them issues even in the trees, so they need the ability to be the quickest jumping from tree to ground and back again. Note, they don't "fly", at this stage, but each generation sees them getting closer, as the creatures whose abilities come closest to "flying" and the creatures who match the best traits for such are the ones that survive and procreate - creating more creatures that are most like themselves, and less like their forebears. Eventually, the "best" configuration - one that becomes stable enough not to need any more evolutionary changes, is a creature that CAN fly. That has wings. Whose bones are of the least density to provide less weight to carry. Whose fur/covering has morphed into something amazingly perfected toward the goal of flying. Whose metabolism is so high that it doesn't even allow them to gain weight.

 

[FearGod]

It's actually not that difficult to theorize how wings may have come about. Let's imagine a creature taking to the trees to lead out its life in safety. A dominant predator enters its forests and it is forced to seek refuge somewhere in order to compensate. These creatures survive after this point by running and jumping from branch to branch within the upper portions of the trees. The ones that live the longest - long enough to reproduce - are the ones whose fur/covering and amount of fleshy/stretchy skin under the fore-legs, or lesser bone density, greater metabolism (and therefore thinner frame) allows for just the slightest amount of greater "soaring" by taking advantage of air resistance, for even just a fraction of their jumps. In turn, the beings that survive of generations beyond that are those whose bone density is even lower, whose fur/covering conforms to whatever provides the greatest aerodynamic advantage, whose flaps of skin under the fore-legs is the most "glider-like". All things covered under the variations, or mutations that naturally occur in the co-mingling and imperfect replication of DNA. Things change, and now there are predators elsewhere that cause them issues even in the trees, so they need the ability to be the quickest jumping from tree to ground and back again. Note, they don't "fly", at this stage, but each generation sees them getting closer, as the creatures whose abilities come closest to "flying" and the creatures who match the best traits for such are the ones that survive and procreate - creating more creatures that are most like themselves, and less like their forebears. Eventually, the "best" configuration - one that becomes stable enough not to need any more evolutionary changes, is a creature that CAN fly. That has wings. Whose bones are of the least density to provide less weight to carry. Whose fur/covering has morphed into something amazingly perfected toward the goal of flying. Whose metabolism is so high that it doesn't even allow them to gain weight.

This explains natural selection, but you should explain how the wings itself had formulated and which was actually the major part for the birds to survive and reproduce and multiply? we should know what makes the wings to exist before being naturally selected.

 

[Kirran]

Prove your point in discussing the evolution of wings for flying in birds, how randomness and
chances wasn't a part of it.

Well, how was it? The evolution of wings in birds took place over a long period of time based on selective environmental pressures impacting the natural genetic variation which arose within populations.

 

[FearGod]

Completely incorrect. Your initial "challenge" was that life be created from the non-living.

My challenge is for you to create the assembled from the completely un-assembled.

How can you not understand the analogous nature of this? In both instances, the task is ridiculously difficult - and one should not merely expect that another should be able to accomplish said task or else admit that they are "unworthy" of having theorizing/researching a subject (animals/evolution/abiogenesis, or, in the example "cheeseburgers"). I didn't ask if you could put together a cheeseburger from the items cheeseburgers are made of. That is, in no way, analogous to the challenge you presented.

At least you answered my quandary - it boils down to a complete lack of understanding on your part. Perhaps you are now more "enlightened" as to the meaning/purpose of my example?

Your analogy doesn't actually make sense, if the scientists think the same as you do then they'll never even think
to create a living cell from the non living materials.

 

[FearGod]

Well, how was it? The evolution of wings in birds took place over a long period of time based on selective environmental pressures impacting the natural genetic variation which arose within populations.

Yes they survived millions of years till the wings were fully evolved.

 

[Kirran]

Yes they survived millions of years till the wings were fully evolved.

There's no such thing as "fully evolved". There is no endgoal in mind. They adapt according to present circumstances.

 

[FearGod]

There's no such thing as "fully evolved". There is no endgoal in mind. They adapt according to present circumstances.

Yes who knows what may happen next, but that needs millions of years.

 

[Kirran]

Yes who knows what may happen next, but that needs millions of years.

Yeah, straight up bro.

 

[Milton Platt]

I wouldn't disbelieve in God if some scientist found a way to create life.
Jesus is said to have replaced a severed ear, yet a good doctor could do the same, just not by miracle.

That certainly would not be a reason to disbelieve in your deity. But likewise, reading from the Bible that Jesus did the same things is not a good reason to believe. It is impossible to fact check that, is it not?