The Bacteria.

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

GodObeyer;

I was talking about evolution theory about origin of life ,the most first of protein cell appears to life.ok ?

Yer but - science itself just doesnt have a clue WHAT life is OR how it began - not REALLY !!

Even before the cellular level - they are yet to account ACCURATELY for the formation of dna itself - for as shown above it simply does not happen in that "spontaneous" way they tell us it does - and simple experiments prove their basic premise to be entirely inaccurate,..

They can only tell us about things they can OBSERVE - but they dont have anything like the full picture...They are very good actually - at ignoring that which they cant explain - ridiculing it and making it seem inconsequential - this is just to deflect their own frustration and ignorance of course an dto make everyone htink they are smart and clever when actually science is mostly about ignorance and none acceptance..

This issue of life - where and how it began - cannot actually be seperated at all fromthe GREATER creation of the entire universe...it is ALL ONE EVENT - fully integral - the universe was created ON PURPOSE with the express intention of bringing about physical lifeforms...The universe is literally a FACTORY to produce these lifeforms and there is no way we are ever going to understand life itself until we fist understand how the universe itself got formed......

It ALL requires an EXTERNAL INFLUENCE - even right at the start - and science already knows this external influence is vital which is why they give us theories of a MULTIVERSE and SUPERVERSE with many MANY DIMENSIONS to existance - and they NEED such things to exist as simply they KNOW that something EXTERNAL influenced THIS universe to form the way it did - FINE TUNED it PRODUCE LIFE.. However, they cannot directly find evidence of this external influence, so they say it MUST come from OUTSIDE and BEFORE this universe began..Hence their muiltiverse theories.....

Eventually they are going to discover - the external influence is actually a SENTIENT MIND that has planned and instigated the whole schism...They get hints of this already of course - such as the fact that this "energy" that everything is comprised of - doesnt ACTUALLY exist at all and is fully abstract, IMAGINERY - fully the domain of a MIND....And also of course they even know already that their own individual mind DOES alter their own experimentations....They dont understand it yet - but they recognise that just the act of observing - PAYING ATTENTION - paying MIND - ALTERS the outcomes and brings about THAT WHICH THEY EXPECT....

They call this an "observer paradox" - and they dont quite realise how it worls - but rest assured - the influence IS real - and it happens because MIND itself is the CAUSE of all creation...They will never work out the physical process until they realise this vital first influence - MIND crates EVERYTHING !!

 

[Valjean]

If that protein cell died , how this life came to exist,
reproduce is not exist without complete system,is not?
explain to me ?

I don't understand what you mean by a "protein cell." All cells are made of different kinds of protein, plus lipids, carbohydrates, minerals and other things. No cell is just a single protein.

No, I do believe that I proved that evolution as evidence of origin of life ,is just claim and had no sense logically or scientificly.

Evolution does not explain life's origins. Evolution is the changes that occur in already established populations of living things. The origins of life are studied by a different branch of biology.

because even one cell of protein could produced by bacteria , that protein cell will died . so end of the story

Are you thinking that if the single, original cell died there would be no life on Earth? The conditions that create one cell can create more, and cells reproduce. Under ideal conditions many kinds of bacteria can reproduce every 15 minutes, and if a bacterium is not actually killed, it's potentially immortal -- it can live forever.

I was talking about evolution theory about origin of life ,the most first of protein cell appears to life.ok ?

The theory of evolution does not deal with origins, just changes.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't understand what you mean by a "protein cell." All cells are made of different kinds of protein, plus lipids, carbohydrates, minerals and other things. No cell is just a single protein.

Evolution does not explain life's origins. Evolution is the changes that occur in already established populations of living things. The origins of life are studied by a different branch of biology.
Are you thinking that if the single, original cell died there would be no life on Earth? The conditions that create one cell can create more, and cells reproduce. Under ideal conditions many kinds of bacteria can reproduce every 15 minutes, and if a bacterium is not actually killed, it's potentially immortal -- it can live forever.
The theory of evolution does not deal with origins, just changes.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I may would make new thread about this issue , to clarify my point.

It's just need some details

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Valjean;

Are you thinking that if the single, original cell died there would be no life on Earth? The conditions that create one cell can create more, and cells reproduce.

Ah but thats the whole point - the conditions to produce that FIRST life form - DO NOT EXIST NATURALLY - this process is NOT SPONTANEOUS - it REQUIRES a definate planned intervention to make even base chemicals bond correctly to form life..

DNA did NOT form in some random way - and we know that because as said we can take a LIVING ORGANISM with everything needed for life - we can end that life - mash the body down INTO that primal "soup" they insist it all arises from spontaneously - and yet - NOTHING EVER HAPPENS - no dna forms EVER - not by itself !! Therefore we know beyond any doubt that life did not arise naturally at all - it is MADE to exist...

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi Folks..

Valjean;

Ah but thats the whole point - the conditions to produce that FIRST life form - DO NOT EXIST NATURALLY - this process is NOT SPONTANEOUS - it REQUIRES a definate planned intervention to make even base chemicals bond correctly to form life..

That is just wishful thinking. You don't know that. You couldn't even hypothetically know that.

Nor is it at all likely true, either. LIfe, far as anyone can tell, is just interacion of molecules. Given the right circunstances, which may easily have existed in prehistorical Earth, there is no reason why it can't arise spontaneously.

DNA did NOT form in some random way - and we know that because as said we can take a LIVING ORGANISM with everything needed for life - we can end that life - mash the body down INTO that primal "soup" they insist it all arises from spontaneously - and yet - NOTHING EVER HAPPENS - no dna forms EVER - not by itself !! Therefore we know beyond any doubt that life did not arise naturally at all - it is MADE to exist...

That is a lie. A straight, simple lie.

 

[Valjean]

@LuisDantas
I heard once that bacteria is root of life in earth, if that true , how it's converted to cell protein ?

It's already alive. Its made of protein already.

It's weird that bacteria stop producing new creatures ,so far !

Are you saying bacteria have stopped evolving? Bacteria are evolving new species very rapidly. With ten or twenty generations in a single day it doesn't take long to establish a new species.
Or are you thinking bacteria aren't evolving into non-bacterial species? If so, why do you think they aren't?

I doubt it could live for many years, do you have evidence

Are you serious? A bacterium is potentially immortal -- it can live forever if nothing actually destroys it.
Do you understand how bacteria reproduce?

How that one cell protein could made all these different formes of life ?

By natural selection, like any other living thing. Small changes in each generation, from mutation cell conjugation, viral infection or plasmid ingestion. Beneficial changes = greater survival and reproductive rates, and with 10, 20 or more generations per day these changes can establish themselves in a population very quickly.

Again, what do you mean by "one cell protein," a cell made of just one protein? or a single cell? or ???

 

[Valjean]

Hi Folks..

Valjean;

Ah but thats the whole point - the conditions to produce that FIRST life form - DO NOT EXIST NATURALLY - this process is NOT SPONTANEOUS - it REQUIRES a definate planned intervention to make even base chemicals bond correctly to form life..

DNA did NOT form in some random way - and we know that because as said we can take a LIVING ORGANISM with everything needed for life - we can end that life - mash the body down INTO that primal "soup" they insist it all arises from spontaneously - and yet - NOTHING EVER HAPPENS - no dna forms EVER - not by itself !! Therefore we know beyond any doubt that life did not arise naturally at all - it is MADE to exist...

Why do you say this, Pete? Things do form by themselves. It's called chemistry, and self reproducing molecules, crystals &c are common.

The components of life can form naturally -- the chemicals that link to form DNA/RNA, amino acids that link to form proteins, lipids, membranes, self-reproducing membrane-encased lipids, &c.

Was there a first life form? There's not just life and no life. There's a continuum. It's unlikely "life" was any single event. There are molecules and structures with some lifelike features, but not all the features we today associate with life -- partial life, semi-life, call it what you will.

The structures or components formed spontaneously, by ordinary chemistry; some occasionally clustered or combined, some combinations persisted, complexity increased...

Why do you think a conscious, magical designer is necessary? Why is this the only alternative explanation?
And who designed the designer, what is s/he made of? How did it assemble?

 

[Demonslayer]

And who designed the designer, what is s/he made of?

Pure awesomeness.

How did it assemble?

God was made by SuperGod, true story.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Luis;

LIfe, far as anyone can tell, is just interacion of molecules. Given the right circunstances, which may easily have existed in prehistorical Earth, there is no reason why it can't arise spontaneously.

Except the LOGIC of our own experiment tells us clearly that is entirely wrong..because as said - we can get an organism now that is ALREADY FULLY ALIVE - we can kill it - we can break it down into that primordial molecular soup - and right there we have EVERYTHING that we need - all the PHYSICAL components, and we know we have ALL that we need as it was once indeed alive......

According to this "spontaneous theory" then - that PERFECT mix we just made SHOULD start to reconstitute itself into base building blocks - except of course IT NEVER DOES - not ever...We have replicated as best as we can, the original conditions - we have tampered in every conceivable way - no matter WHAT we try - we simply cannot get the process to unfold.....And that is under OPTIMUM conditions with EVERYTHING from a once alive organism present and STILL no spontaneous life arises...NEVER...The process does NOT EVEN BEGIN - until we ADD a binding agent to FORCE other chemicals to bond - it takes DIRECT MANIPULATION to even get the process kick started...

It is really REALLY naive then - ridiculous actually - to assume as science does, that somehow spread throughout the entire worlds oceans - these chemicals came together under perfect conditons and it all started from there...COMPLETE RUBBISH - for as we know - even when we gather them in the perfect ratios of a once alive animal - no matter what we try that mix of chemicals DOES NOT EVER come "back to life" of any description - not until WE intervene directly....There is simply no reason at all to believe in this spontaneous theory as direct evidence blows it right out the water so to speak - if it was true at all as the theory proposes - then all our dead rotting decomposing animals would instead miraculously start to reform as all the necassary base chemical components are already there in one place ready and waiting...lol......Think about it - logic is always our ally

All we can do - as said before - is REPLICATE - STUFF THAT IS ALREADY ALIVE.....And this shows us again - somehting EXTERNAL to the chemical mix is required - this elusive "spark of life" can NOT be directly replicated at all...If it could then we could liiterally gather these chemicals together as we already know the ratios and interactions necassary - and so we could "grow our own dna" as we saw fit and MAKE it alive - except - oops - cant do that either can we..??...

NO - all we can do is CLONE something that is ALREADY ALIVE - we cannot replicate that clone and GIVE it life it self from scratch so to speak - we must "borrow" life from dna that is ALREADY alive....Let it sink in.....

This tells us logically - again - beyond dispute really if you THINK about it - there is definately something EXTRA that the dna alone CANNOT PROVIDE - something EXTERNAL to the chemical mix CAUSES that mix to be alive....

oh - and btw - I dont tell lies - all about truth - these are just logical undeniable observations I make - everything I said here about the physical process is scientifically sound and accurate..

Valjean;

Why do you think a conscious, magical designer is necessary? Why is this the only alternative explanation? And who designed the designer, what is s/he made of? How did it assemble?

Hmm - well as I hinted at - take it right back to the SOURCE for actually we cannot seperate life process form the creation of the universe itself - one and the same event - all part of the same process....So - right back AT that Source - it is all purely ABSTRACT - a force we call "energy" - that will form "material components" that will then become stars planets etc etc and LIFE......Well - NONE of that begins at all - unless FIRST IN PLACE are a whole web of likewise ABSTRACT "natural laws" - thermodynamics gravity, speed of light etc etc etc - hundreds of parameters that all work in UNISON to affect this "energy" force that will become the solid universe.. Alter any of these natural laws and the universe formation fails - yet these "laws" have NO BASIS in anything PHYSICAL - they dont arise because of ienergetic nteraction - they CAUSE the energetic interaction yet have no PHYSIICAL cause themself..

Just as likewise the "energetic force" is again FULLY ABSTRACT - boil it all away - everything in existance is liiterally IMAGINED - it flows from ABSTRACT fully none material origins - and that can ONLY be the domain of a MIND - abstract imaginery laws are going to be used to guide another abstract imaginery force we call energy - this is a MIND making PLANS - isnt it obvious

Now - I COULD answer your questions in full - most fully and completely actually - I could explain it all as my mate did - from the very first creative act of this Primal Sovereign Mind right through to mankind here on the Earth - but that would take us wholly of topic here...

 

[Godobeyer]

Are you thinking that if the single, original cell died there would be no life on Earth? The conditions that create one cell can create more, and cells reproduce. Under ideal conditions many kinds of bacteria can reproduce every 15 minutes, .

You missunderstand my point.
I was NOT talking about bacteria in that case, I was refering to the first living cell "protein" produced by bacteria. (which some evolutists claim it was origin of life)

Every single cell (protein) had one way out which is death "BYE BYE",where reproduce comes from since the first one is GONE ?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Hi Folks..

Luis;

Except the LOGIC of our own experiment tells us clearly that is entirely wrong..because as said - we can get an organism now that is ALREADY FULLY ALIVE - we can kill it - we can break it down into that primordial molecular soup - and right there we have EVERYTHING that we need - all the PHYSICAL components, and we know we have ALL that we need as it was once indeed alive......

According to this "spontaneous theory" then - that PERFECT mix we just made SHOULD start to reconstitute itself into base building blocks - except of course IT NEVER DOES - not ever...We have replicated as best as we can, the original conditions - we have tampered in every conceivable way - no matter WHAT we try - we simply cannot get the process to unfold.....And that is under OPTIMUM conditions with EVERYTHING from a once alive organism present and STILL no spontaneous life arises...NEVER...The process does NOT EVEN BEGIN - until we ADD a binding agent to FORCE other chemicals to bond - it takes DIRECT MANIPULATION to even get the process kick started...

It is really REALLY naive then - ridiculous actually - to assume as science does, that somehow spread throughout the entire worlds oceans - these chemicals came together under perfect conditons and it all started from there...COMPLETE RUBBISH - for as we know - even when we gather them in the perfect ratios of a once alive animal - no matter what we try that mix of chemicals DOES NOT EVER come "back to life" of any description - not until WE intervene directly....There is simply no reason at all to believe in this spontaneous theory as direct evidence blows it right out the water so to speak - if it was true at all as the theory proposes - then all our dead rotting decomposing animals would instead miraculously start to reform as all the necassary base chemical components are already there in one place ready and waiting...lol......Think about it - logic is always our ally

All we can do - as said before - is REPLICATE - STUFF THAT IS ALREADY ALIVE.....And this shows us again - somehting EXTERNAL to the chemical mix is required - this elusive "spark of life" can NOT be directly replicated at all...If it could then we could liiterally gather these chemicals together as we already know the ratios and interactions necassary - and so we could "grow our own dna" as we saw fit and MAKE it alive - except - oops - cant do that either can we..??...

NO - all we can do is CLONE something that is ALREADY ALIVE - we cannot replicate that clone and GIVE it life it self from scratch so to speak - we must "borrow" life from dna that is ALREADY alive....Let it sink in.....

This tells us logically - again - beyond dispute really if you THINK about it - there is definately something EXTRA that the dna alone CANNOT PROVIDE - something EXTERNAL to the chemical mix CAUSES that mix to be alive....

oh - and btw - I dont tell lies - all about truth - these are just logical undeniable observations I make - everything I said here about the physical process is scientifically sound and accurate..

Valjean;

Hmm - well as I hinted at - take it right back to the SOURCE for actually we cannot seperate life process form the creation of the universe itself - one and the same event - all part of the same process....So - right back AT that Source - it is all purely ABSTRACT - a force we call "energy" - that will form "material components" that will then become stars planets etc etc and LIFE......Well - NONE of that begins at all - unless FIRST IN PLACE are a whole web of likewise ABSTRACT "natural laws" - thermodynamics gravity, speed of light etc etc etc - hundreds of parameters that all work in UNISON to affect this "energy" force that will become the solid universe.. Alter any of these natural laws and the universe formation fails - yet these "laws" have NO BASIS in anything PHYSICAL - they dont arise because of ienergetic nteraction - they CAUSE the energetic interaction yet have no PHYSIICAL cause themself..

Just as likewise the "energetic force" is again FULLY ABSTRACT - boil it all away - everything in existance is liiterally IMAGINED - it flows from ABSTRACT fully none material origins - and that can ONLY be the domain of a MIND - abstract imaginery laws are going to be used to guide another abstract imaginery force we call energy - this is a MIND making PLANS - isnt it obvious

Now - I COULD answer your questions in full - most fully and completely actually - I could explain it all as my mate did - from the very first creative act of this Primal Sovereign Mind right through to mankind here on the Earth - but that would take us wholly of topic here...

Here is a good article for you to read...


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/why-life-does-not-really-exist/

 

[LuisDantas]

You missunderstand my point.
I was NOT talking about bacteria in that case, I was refering to the first living cell "protein" produced by bacteria. (which some evolutists claim it was origin of life)

Every single cell (protein) had one way out which is death "BYE BYE",where reproduce comes from since the first one is GONE ?

I truly don't know what you mean to say in this post.

What are cell "proteins"?

Cells are not proteins. Nor are proteins cells. Nor are proteins alive. Nor are they presumed to be precursors of living beings, nor of cells. They are parts of cells. Cells are composed, among many other parts, of proteins.

Bacteria are not the origin of life, either. They are living beings already, after all. It is possible that the earliest life forms were bacteria or similar to them, though.

As for you not believing that mitosis (the simples way of cell reproduction) may develop spontaneously... with all due respect, I feel no duty to conform to your beliefs.

 

[FearGod]

Why do you say this, Pete?
And who designed the designer, what is s/he made of? How did it assemble?

Do you think and believe that the universe can be the product of nothingness, IOW
Nothingness reacted with nothingness and the result was a thing which was then the
start for everything?

It's either it was always nothingness or it was always a thing, but what that thing is and
why it always exists is the simpler option to find answers for, but nothingness can never
be a rational option, yes it's hard to understand how then that thing existed and always
existing, but it's the only right option because nothingness means nothing.

 

[Godobeyer]

Cells are not proteins. Nor are proteins cells. Nor are proteins alive. Nor are they presumed to be precursors of living beings, nor of cells. They are parts of cells.

lol I

I truly don't know what you mean to say in this post.

What are cell "proteins"?

Cells are not proteins. Nor are proteins cells. Nor are proteins alive. Nor are they presumed to be precursors of living beings, nor of cells. They are parts of cells. Cells are composed, among many other parts, of proteins.

Bacteria are not the origin of life, either. They are living beings already, after all. It is possible that the earliest life forms were bacteria or similar to them, though.

As for you not believing that mitosis (the simples way of cell reproduction) may develop spontaneously... with all due respect, I feel no duty to conform to your beliefs.

I find an article relate to my point

All Species Evolved From Single Cell

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/

do you agree that all species evolved from single cell ?

 

[LuisDantas]

lol I

What is it that you find funny?

(...)
do you agree that all species evolved from single cell ?

Probably, although that is not necessarily true. It is conceivable that whatever originated the first viable cell may well have originated a handful or even many thousands fairly independently.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think and believe that the universe can be the product of nothingness, IOW

Such a question is terribly biased, you know.

The universe exists. That much we know for a fact.

People who have been taught or spontaneously came to believe that there is a "problem of origin" for the universe sometimes end up feeling that there is some need to find a creator for the universe.

In reality, there is no such need. Nor would hypothetizing a creator be an actual explanation, either. Among other reasons, because that would bring the matter of how the creator came to exist itself.

You are simply appealling arbitrarily to a claim of necessary supernatural origin.

Such an appeal is many things. One thing that it is not is an explanation. On the contrary, it occupies the place where an explanation might conceivably be proposed.

Nothingness reacted with nothingness and the result was a thing which was then the
start for everything?

Why are you presuming that there ever was "nothingness" before existence?

It's either it was always nothingness or it was always a thing, but what that thing is and
why it always exists is the simpler option to find answers for, but nothingness can never
be a rational option, yes it's hard to understand how then that thing existed and always
existing, but it's the only right option because nothingness means nothing.

You are just obsessed with sterile questions. I hope you shake that off.

 

[Godobeyer]

What is it that you find funny?

Sorry that was typo error.

Probably, although that is not necessarily true. It is conceivable that whatever originated the first viable cell may well have originated a handful or even many thousands fairly independently.

Probably ?

So you are not sure ?

so one cell (independent cell) produce thousands of cells ?

let's suppose thats true.
so what ? thousand of cells don't have reproduce system , so they gone/died in end , don't they ?

failure (death) is the only way logically for one cell or thousand of cells don't have reproduce system.

 

[LuisDantas]

Probably ?

So you are not sure ?

Of course I am not sure. We are talking about what happened millions of years ago.

For all I know life on Earth originated by panspermy. That brings questions of its own, but it is not outright impossible.

so one cell (independent cell) produce thousands of cells ?

That is not only possible, but a very widespread, everyday occurrence. It happens inside our own bodies fairly often. That is how bacteria live, after all, including those of our gut flora.

let's suppose thats true.

It is true. We know that. We actually manipulate that reproduction every time we take antibiotics or make any of a variety of dairy products.

so what ? thousand of cells don't have reproduce system , so they gone/died in end , don't they ?

Uh, no. Cells do reproduce.

failure (death) is the only way logically for one cell or thousand of cells don't have reproduce system.

Except that cells do make mitosis.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Sorry that was typo error.



Probably ?

So you are not sure ?

so one cell (independent cell) produce thousands of cells ?

let's suppose thats true.
so what ? thousand of cells don't have reproduce system , so they gone/died in end , don't they ?

failure (death) is the only way logically for one cell or thousand of cells don't have reproduce system.

It's called asexual or nonsexual reproduction: bacteria and most single-celled life don't engage in sexual reproduction (although some do, and there are a variety of processes identified). But basically, a single cell of bacteria eats and grows...after a time, it gets big enough, and splits into two. As long as the environment has food available, both will continue to eat and grow...until they each get big enough, and they split, and so on, until food isn't available or conditions turn unfavorable, we some of the cells will enter a state of reduced activity/stasis until conditions turn favorable again...

1 cell becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 8 becomes 16 become 32 becomes 64 and so on in geometric progression...as long as food/resources are available and conditions are right for growth. For most common bacteria, that's every 20 minutes or so to a generation...

Once the first cell started functioning, it did this until there were lots of cells just like it...the result, millions, billions, trillions of copies and beyond...all alive, all just like the original cell, all grown by consuming resources and splitting in half over and over again.

Now then, some of those would die, but there were lots more there, and always growing someplace...

 

[Godobeyer]

Of course I am not sure. We are talking about what happened millions of years ago.

So if you are not sure why you defend for it ?

For all I know life on Earth originated by panspermy. That brings questions of its own, but it is not outright impossible.

Do mean by panspermy
Life comes out of space ?

That is not only possible, but a very widespread, everyday occurrence. It happens inside our own bodies fairly often. That is how bacteria live, after all, including those of our gut flora.

I was refering to the first cell.

It is true. We know that. We actually manipulate that reproduction every time we take antibiotics or make any of a variety of dairy products.

I meant by "reproduce" is first cell ever (origin of life) remain alive despite there is no life system ?

Uh, no. Cells do reproduce.

let's suppose this is the begining/origin of life ,millions of years ago
whatever we had cells appears
but in the end they(cells) died, right ?
what happened after that ?

Except that cells do make mitosis

Again as I said before, about claim of origin of life (millions of years ago)
So what ?
logically the cells died in end after moments or years, end of story.

conclusion:
To make life (variety of creatures) is not simple by that way.