Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that your question is based on some serious misunderstanding.

There was no 'burgeoning' into 'greater' life forms.

Life is a complex collection of interactions of various chemicals. it isn't something added to atoms or molecules. It is a property of systems of those molecules.

But yes, the first life was some sort of single celled organism. It was also microscopic.

So again -- the first life forms were composed of?

 

[Left Coast]

It would demonstrate that scientists don't know but believe these were the first cell structures, perhaps? Before other things like plants and animals?

We know that microorganisms preceded plants and animals, so that isn't a guess. They are the oldest fossils on record.

The ToE is fairly well dependent upon the idea that something was "first," meaning before the adding on (?) or burgeoning or developing into plants and animals. The question is where and how did the prokaryotes and other such organisms develop? Do you think they started in the forms as described in pictures in scientific articles? Thanks.

The TOE is not dependent on knowing exactly what the first lifeforms looked like or how precisely they came about. This is a basic misunderstanding on your part. I can understand how an internal combustion engine works, and how one is put together, without knowing what the first ever engine looked like. The TOE describes the process of how generations of organisms genetically change and adapt over time. It's validity is not dependent on knowing the answer to the "first life" question.

So while the question of how life first arose is fascinating, it's not relevant to understanding how we know that evolution occurs, and has been occurring for billions of years since life arrived on the scene.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know that microorganisms preceded plants and animals, so that isn't a guess. They are the oldest fossils on record.



The TOE is not dependent on knowing exactly what the first lifeforms looked like or how precisely they came about. This is a basic misunderstanding on your part. I can understand how an internal combustion engine works, and how one is put together, without knowing what the first ever engine looked like. The TOE describes the process of how generations of organisms genetically change and adapt over time. It's validity is not dependent on knowing the answer to the "first life" question.

So while the question of how life first arose is fascinating, it's not relevant to understanding how we know that evolution occurs, and has been occurring for billions of years since life arrived on the scene.

My question is really -- how do scientists think these microorganisms came about? The problem with a mechanical combustible engine and comparing it with evolution and life seems to me to be a bit of a false dichotomy. SOMEBODY had to put the engine together. It simply did not come about without intelligence. Ooops -- I used the word intelligence. (sorry.)

 

[F1fan]

It would demonstrate that scientists don't know but believe these were the first cell structures, perhaps? Before other things like plants and animals? And so the next question is, which I suppose no one knows the answer to for sure, or maybe some say they do, how did prokaryotes and eukaryotes come about? I understand they have no nucleus. But a question is: how did these prokaryotes come to be? (come about) I guess that the answer is a guess also. The ToE is fairly well dependent upon the idea that something was "first," meaning before the adding on (?) or burgeoning or developing into plants and animals. The question is where and how did the prokaryotes and other such organisms develop? Do you think they started in the forms as described in pictures in scientific articles? Thanks.

Scientists collect samples and examine fossilized material. They make assessments from what this data suggests. As data is collected the pattern adjusts and the model by science becomes more and more accurate. None of us here are experts. All we can do is read what experts report about their work. We can't offer our inputs to any great effect.

The dilemma for creationists is that they are very eager to add their beliefs to what science reports and try to argue that science is incorrect. What these debates become is not discussion for science, but educated people explaining the knowledge errors of religious people. All the educated do is cite reputable science. The religious need to understand their error, and get science right.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that your question is based on some serious misunderstanding.

There was no 'burgeoning' into 'greater' life forms.

Life is a complex collection of interactions of various chemicals. it isn't something added to atoms or molecules. It is a property of systems of those molecules.

But yes, the first life was some sort of single celled organism. It was also microscopic.

There wasn't burgeoning into larger (greater) life forms? Procaryotes stayed as procaryotes and did not move or develop (?)evolve? into a compendium of procaryotes and more complex forms? ? ?

 

[Left Coast]

My question is really -- how do scientists think these microorganisms came about? The problem with a mechanical combustible engine and comparing it with evolution and life seems to me to be a bit of a false dichotomy. SOMEBODY had to put the engine together. It simply did not come about without intelligence. Ooops -- I used the word intelligence. (sorry.)

You're misunderstanding the analogy. The point isn't that the engine was built. It's that we can understand how it works now, without knowing how it got here. Engines still work they way they do regardless of how they were first invented.

So the TOE works the way it does regardless of whether organic compounds combined to produce the earliest microorganisms or if God magically poofed them into existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're misunderstanding the analogy. The point isn't that the engine was built. It's that we can understand how it works now, without knowing how it got here. Engines still work they way they do regardless of how they were first invented.

So the TOE works the way it does regardless of whether organic compounds combined to produce the earliest microorganisms or if God magically poofed them into existence.

I'm asking about the mechanics more or less within a procaryotic cell. prokaryotic cells - Bing images Even a membrane didn't just "put itself together." So frankly, the idea that it just happened without direction does not make sense to me. The parts of a procaryote just were???
A car engine didn't just "get here." It has parts. No matter what a person imagines, the parts of a car engine didn't just pull themselves out of air. OR magnetism. Someone had to use intelligence to invent a car engine.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're misunderstanding the analogy. The point isn't that the engine was built. It's that we can understand how it works now, without knowing how it got here. Engines still work they way they do regardless of how they were first invented.

So the TOE works the way it does regardless of whether organic compounds combined to produce the earliest microorganisms or if God magically poofed them into existence.

Organic compounds like what? Like the cell of a procaryote just putting itself over the inside parts? You think? Anyway, it's been interesting, here's where I think I'll stop. (Thanks.)

 

[Left Coast]

I'm asking about the mechanics more or less within a procaryotic cell. prokaryotic cells - Bing images Even a membrane didn't just "put itself together." So frankly, the idea that it just happened without direction does not make sense to me. The parts of a procaryote just were???
A car engine didn't just "get here." It has parts. No matter what a person imagines, the parts of a car engine didn't just pull themselves out of air. OR magnetism. Someone had to use intelligence to invent a car engine.

Again, you're misunderstanding the analogy. The point isn't about the engine being built. It's about what we can know about it without knowing where it came from. That is why the TOE's validity is not relevant to knowing what the first organism was.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're misunderstanding the analogy. The point isn't that the engine was built. It's that we can understand how it works now, without knowing how it got here. Engines still work they way they do regardless of how they were first invented.

So the TOE works the way it does regardless of whether organic compounds combined to produce the earliest microorganisms or if God magically poofed them into existence.

You couldn't possibly understand how a procaryote's membrane got there. prokaryotic cells - Bing images

 

[Left Coast]

Organic compounds like what?

I dont remember offhand, and honestly I dont feel like googling for you. Generally they're composed of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen atoms.

If you're genuinely interested, I'd suggest asking an biologist, especially an evolutionary one.

Like the cell of a procaryote just putting itself over the inside parts? You think? Anyway, it's been interesting, here's where I think I'll stop. (Thanks.)

Prokaryote*

I would recommend, if these are genuine questions, that you pursue further biology and chemistry education. Especially before drawing conclusions about what is or isn't possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you're misunderstanding the analogy. The point isn't about the engine being built. It's about what we can know about it without knowing where it came from. That is why the TOE's validity is not relevant to knowing what the first organism was.

It certainly is relevant, no matter what you say, because -- if someone says it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter what they say. Really. Unless of course one wants to insist it doesn't matter and they really believe that. Then that's their belief. It is absolutely essential to know what happened after procaryotes "came about." Of course no one knows how they came about, or where they came from, but apparently some people claim that from a procaryote came more? Reading this, From prokaryotes to eukaryotes - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)-- I am thinking the whole thing is beyond understanding. Period. One may conjecture, but it doesn't make it true. In fact, as I read it, it's not even logical. But that's how I see it, not as you evidently see it. And here again is where I sign off for a while.

 

[Left Coast]

You couldn't possibly understand how a procaryote's membrane got there. prokaryotic cells - Bing images

How did you form that conclusion? Without googling, what is a prokaryotes membrane composed of?

 

[YoursTrue]

I dont remember offhand, and honestly I dont feel like googling for you. Generally they're composed of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen atoms.

If you're genuinely interested, I'd suggest asking an biologist, especially an evolutionary one.



Prokaryote*

I would recommend, if these are genuine questions, that you pursue further biology and chemistry education. Especially before drawing conclusions about what is or isn't possible.

From what I read it's all conjecture saying that it's logical. I don't think so. I think that nothing comes from nothing. Remember the song from the Sound of Music? Nothing comes from nothing was one of the lyrics.

 

[Left Coast]

It certainly is relevant, no matter what you say, because -- if someone says it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter what they say. Really. Unless of course one wants to insist it doesn't matter and they really believe that. Then that's their belief. It is absolutely essential to know what happened after procaryotes "came about." Of course no one knows how they came about, or where they came from, but apparently some people claim that from a procaryote came more? Reading this, From prokaryotes to eukaryotes - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)-- I am thinking the whole thing is beyond understanding. Period. One may conjecture, but it doesn't make it true. In fact, as I read it, it's not even logical. But that's how I see it, not as you evidently see it. And here again is where I sign off for a while.

How much scientific education do you have? It is truly fascinating to watch you declare things impossible to comprehend simply because you don't comprehend them. Is it possible that other people maybe know more than you?

 

[YoursTrue]

How did you form that conclusion? Without googling, what is a prokaryotes membrane composed of?

without googling? You mean I have to guess without any other guesses from scientists?

 

[YoursTrue]

How much scientific education do you have? It is truly fascinating to watch you declare things impossible to comprehend simply because you don't comprehend them. Is it possible that other people maybe know more than you?

They still can't really say. It is guesswork and then claim it's logical reasoning.

 

[Left Coast]

From what I read it's all conjecture saying that it's logical. I don't think so. I think that nothing comes from nothing. Remember the song from the Sound of Music? Nothing comes from nothing was one of the lyrics.

No one claims life came "from nothing."

 

[Left Coast]

without googling? You mean I have to guess without any other guesses from scientists?

How did you conclude that scientists only guess what the membrane of a bacteria is composed of? I assume you're familiar with microscopes?

 

[Left Coast]

They still can't really say. It is guesswork and then claim it's logical reasoning.

But you don't know enough to draw that conclusion. You're assuming no one knows more than you. Which is highly unlikely.