Not in the English language
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
Not in the English language
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science says hydrogen finishes on a dimensional plane hydrogen.
I think you taught yourself conclusive one of ends and places doesn't meld anywhere else.
You talk about ideas only.
As one position living biological cell places it only as the living biological cell. Once you said a mystery ...magical....manifested not from compounds as compounds in words end as the stated each compound itself.
You said taught separation is real it's not joined it is magically supportive only.
As real Intelligence. So don't touch it manipulate it or change it. Science.
I think you took your own human reasonings and tried to extend a knowledge to it that it never owned in nature.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Eh? This is utterly uncontroversial, surely?
Daniel Nicholson
Blasphemous Pryme
It's all explained in organic chemistry. I'm not an expert but basically it's Carbon's ability to form complex chains of molecules. Life starts when these molecules form something that is able to collect energy from the sun (or another source of energy). Then there is a series of links between the simplest plant (alge?) To grass, trees, and other life. Venus fly traps are fascinating plants, an example of "thinking" plants. I don't know what the bridge between plants and single called organism, but I imagine it's something like thatIt's hard to describe in proper scientific terms (at least for me) of what happened when "life" entered into atoms or whatever was first to start the process. (of evolution - supposedly) If you have a term to describe the blast (?) of life (hard to put into words from single atoms combining if you get the point) given into these atoms combining supposedly with one another and then -- growing, evolving...
Nothing here of substance. Poor understanding of falsification.
Other scientists at the tumr proposed and supported natural evolution, but Charles Darwin was the first to propose a comprehensive hypothesis (Theory) of evolution and outline what evidence that would be needed to falsify the 'science of evolution based on his extensive research and discoveries.' The science of evolution actually involves many proposals of hypothesis and falsification based on research and discoveries involving paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy. physics, geology and stratigraphy. The reality is literally tens of thousands of scientists. have been involved since. As a result of this comprehensive research and many discoveries of evidence the 'science of evolution' has been falsified beyond any possible reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
The first life on earth were single celled organisms described in the following: It is not a single piece of evidence, but many discoveries in rocks of the early earth, and research into the possible environments involving the presence of early single celled organisms.
Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia
The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, considered to be about 3.42 billion years old.[1][2] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[2] or even 4.41 billion years[4][5]—not long after the oceans formed 4.5 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[2][3][6][7] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.
Based on recent research it has been determined that the most likely origin of life occurred in these hydrothermal vents where the earliest life forms are found, because of the ideal environment, chemistry available and a source of energy. At present the scientists are focusing their search in the rocks dated around where the previous discoveries were found. Other research focuses on the chemical and physical environments during this time.
The environments at or near the surface of the earth are considered too hostile at the time for the origin of life or the survival of the earliest life forms..
Last edited:
Individually, they grow, move, and reproduce.
As a collection, they form what is known as microbial mats.
When you ask about 'morphing' into something else, the answer depends on the time period you want to consider.
It took over one and a half billion years from the first life to the development of complex cells (eucaryotes as opposed to procaryotes). But that change did occur (likely from a type of symbiosis).
So, over the course of years, decades, and centuries, they stayed procaryotes. over the course of billions of years, they did not. The changes were quite slow and not sudden.
We know that procaryotes existed long before eucaryotes. The first life would have been single celled, but may have had a somewhat different metabolism or genetics than life today.
Plants and animals are all eucaryotes. They didn't appear until much later.
Eucaryotes seem to have come from a type of symbiosis. We can see the results even today in that our mitochondria have bacterial type DNA (as do the chloroplasts of plants).
Procaryotes came long before. We have some broad outlines of how they came about, but no specifics. There isn't a lot of evidence from that time, but we can use chemistry to understand some generalities of the process.
The procaryotes do not. Eucaryotes do.
Well, that is what the evidence actually shows. We know of procaryotes from 3.8 billion years ago. Eucaryotes developed around 2.1 billion years ago. That was also the time when there was more oxygen in the atmosphere (produced by some of those procayotes--they did change over time). Multicellular plants and animals started around 8-900 million years ago.
Depends on which pictures you are looking at. Most popular science articles get a lot of the specifics wrong (partly because they are written by journalists and partly because they simplify for those who don't know the basics).
Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, potassium, hydrogen, etc. The same elements life is composed of today.
That is the question of abiogenesis: how the chemistry of life came about from the available chemicals on the early Earth. We do not know the details, but there are several good proposals.
The chemistry itself is enough to 'put things together'. No outside intervention is required.
Over billions of years, they evolved into other forms of life. But that was after the transition to eucaryotes.
Actually, membranes *do* bring themselves together. They are made of chemical called lipids that naturally and spontaneously form spherical cell-like structures that have properties very similar to the membranes of cells.
The iron in the car engine is not very chemically active. The chemicals in life are. That is a key difference. And, yes, some chemicals *do* 'bring themselves together' because of the way they are attracted to each other.
Yes, lipids (a certain group of chemicals) do naturally form spherical containers that will spontaneously surround any chemicals in the area. This is easy to test in the lab and the result is one of the proposed pathways to life.
It is fairly basic knowledge that you should have *before* discussing abiogenesis.
Cell membranes are composed of lipids. These are organic chemicals with one end that is attracted to water and the other end repelled by water. because of that, the lipid molecules tend to line up in two layers with the water repelling parts between the layers and the water attracting parts on the outside. If there is enough of the lipid, this will spontaneously form small spherical 'vesicles' with this two layer as a membrane. This is called a bilipid layer and is common to all cells.
In other words, what happens spontaneously from the chemicals involved is precisely what we see in life.
The most interesting thing about this conversation isn't
the basic info about biology & chemistry....it's that critics
of evolution & abiogenesis aren't familiar with what they
criticize.
I wonder if this has tribal origins, ie, that "evolutionists"
are interested in, & consequently investigate these things,
but ID types tend to avoid enemy territory.
I do question the use of the term 'spontaneously,' but everything else is right on.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What arrogance and ignorance, so I'll no longer waste my time with a self-centered know-it-all.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
oooo submitted in a science journal maybe! OOOOOO - discussed on YouTube, no less!
I'd better get a new job and retract my publications on the subject right away!
I think I remember you.
You've not falsified anything.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
No scientists were present to observe Genesis, so I guess that is false, too.