The creator did it.

[Rapture Era]

The first life form(s). Whatever those were, it is irrelevant to what happened after. What follows is very funny:

Irrelevant? I would think for your case it would be the most relevant, why? Because "Whatever those were", you are assuming there were life forms. Here is the point, if there were no life forms, your relevance "to what happened after" is meaningless! You are putting the cart before the horse.

Why do I have to have something?
In my research, I looked at the phylogeny of groups of mammals. What the first living thing was did not matter one bit to the questions I was dealing with.

And what was that question you were dealing with? You cant have groups of mammals without a beginning. You are assuming a beginning without the mountains of evidence of information required to build the mammals. To dismiss this and say I don't care what the first life was is a little reckless. Dont you understand that without the first life ("whatever those were") you got nada!

Right - which is exactly what I indicated above.
You keep conflating abiogenesis (i.e., "explain the beginning of your faith-based belief in how your Phylogenetic tree started") and evolution despite claiming you know the difference.

This is absolute nonsense! The beginning of life and evolution go together! It is amazing that you cant grasp this concept No life, no evolution! If abiogenesis is not your beginning, what is?

Of course, MY faith in this is not premised on my worship of some ancient scroll stories from the middle east, rather, on the track record of the scientific enterprise in chipping away at problems.

That's real nice, but, scientific enterprise as you call it has been chipping away at the catastrophic problem of life coming about from meaningles purposless matter for a long time with nothing but speculation and guesses that have left them with a big fat zero!

Wow, OK - I dismiss your deity story from middle eastern numerologists and KNOW that abiogenesis AND evolution are totally true because we see the insurmountable evidence that even science validates that all of life, time, space, and matter authenticates! WOW! Argument via unsupported assertion is SO satisfying - easy, too!

Well, first of all, you haven't dismissed anything. You have made unsubstantiated claims that life came about for your evolutionary beliefs but fail to justify the life which came about! I know its easy to just say we don't care how life came about, but it did, because we assume it did, is ludicrous! If you want to live in your fantasy world and try to convince us it's true, be my guest! But we see you!

 

[Rapture Era]

Why do you insist on being dishonest like that concerning the scope of certain theories?
Evolution theory address the process that existing life is subject to.
It does not address where life originally comes from.

Dishonest? Look, its a simple concept! In order for you to have an evolutionary process, you MUST have a beginning! All I'm asking you is what is the validity of that beginning? You cant just say we dont care about it. Science is validating that life cannot come from non-life! Period! You can say maybe one day well have this or that but right now? Nada!

 

[Rapture Era]

Completely false.
We don't "have to have" something.

Of course you do! Because without it you have nothing!

Life exists and we can study it.
It doesn't matter where it come from, in terms of that study.

Of course it matters! If life came from a transcendent being or from a natural process like evolution, the implications are monumental! We know that everything we as humans experience is from a massively intelligent creator and science confirms this, like it or not. To think that meaningles purposeless matter can gain intelligence to create the very things in your tree of life is the height of lunacy! Why? because its impossible!

 

[Rapture Era]

When you are in a discussion about a subject and you are trying to convince others about your beliefs concerning said subject, it really will only backfire if you consistently get it wrong - especially after plenty of people have been correcting you and brought your error to your attention.

I agree! We have been constantly correcting you and others of your error but you refuse concede when brought to your attention. So at this point, just like a parent trying to educate and protect their children, the children continue to disobey and the parents have no choice but to say, "okay, do it your way!" What is the end result? They fail, and say, you were right mom and dad. And we are rolling our eyes saying to ourselves, "I tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen!
So head down your path with your beliefs and see how that works out for you, good luck!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Irrelevant? I would think for your case it would be the most relevant, why? Because "Whatever those were", you are assuming there were life forms. Here is the point, if there were no life forms, your relevance "to what happened after" is meaningless! You are putting the cart before the horse.

Your logic here is fundamentally flawed. Evolution already operates on the assumption that life exists (that's obviously a pre-requisite for life to evolve). What you are saying here is akin to saying that you first need to understand how a ball is made before you can observe and examine how a ball rolls down a hill. It's simply wrong. We don't need to know or understand how life started in order to observe or understand how life diversifies. So yes, it is irrelevant.

And what was that question you were dealing with? You cant have groups of mammals without a beginning. You are assuming a beginning without the mountains of evidence of information required to build the mammals. To dismiss this and say I don't care what the first life was is a little reckless. Dont you understand that without the first life ("whatever those were") you got nada!

Once again, this line or reasoning is ridiculous. Obviously life started, otherwise there wouldn't be life currently diversifying. We don't need to know where all life came from in order to observe "there are these things called mammals and they diversify in this way..." To take this argument to its logical extreme, it's like you going to see your doctor when you're feeling ill and the doctor telling you that they cannot possibly diagnose, examine and treat your sickness because they have no idea if you were born or not, since they didn't observe your mother's labour. This is exactly the kind of logic you're using here.

This is absolute nonsense! The beginning of life and evolution go together! It is amazing that you cant grasp this concept No life, no evolution! If abiogenesis is not your beginning, what is?

Once again, no. We don't need to understand how life started in order to observe an understand how life diversifies over time. I don't need to have witnessed your birth in order to read and understand your posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dishonest? Look, its a simple concept! In order for you to have an evolutionary process, you MUST have a beginning!

Life just has to exist.
It doesn't matter how it came into existance, as long as it exists.

This is why the theory of evolution starts with life existing.
The origins of life are another field of study.

How many times must it be repeated?

All I'm asking you is what is the validity of that beginning?

It happened, one way or the other.
And as far as evolution goes, how it happened is irrelevant.

As for me (and the rest of the world - that includes you btw), I don't know how it happened.
Abiogenesis researches try to find out.

And as far as evolution is concerned - it matters not if their study is succesfull or not.

Again, how many times must it be repeated?

You cant just say we dont care about it.

Who said that?
Certainly not me.

Science is validating that life cannot come from non-life! Period!

False. Science can't validate negative assertions.

You can say maybe one day well have this or that but right now? Nada!

Right now, we don't know. That is correct.
But there is something we do know.....

And that is that life evolved once it existed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course you do! Because without it you have nothing!

Without it, we just don't know how life came into existance.
Just like we don't know a lot of other things.

That doesn't negate the things we DO know.

Of course it matters!

Not in terms of that study.
Just like it doesn't matter how the earth came to be, in order to be able to study something like plate tectonics and its role in earthquakes, volcano's, mountain formation etc.

Might knowing it provide additional insights? Sure. Would it matter the the processes we know and observe today? No. Plate tectonics isn't going to change when we find out how the earth formed. It works the way it works. It exists and we can study it.

The same goes for life.

If life came from a transcendent being or from a natural process like evolution, the implications are monumental!

Not to evolution they aren't.
Life we observe would remain the exact same.
Fossils would remain the exact same.
DNA patterns would remain the exact same.
Mutations would still happen.
Natural selection would still happen.
Phylogenies would remain what they've always been.
In short: life would still evolve.

We know that everything we as humans experience is from a massively intelligent creator and science confirms this, like it or not.

Funny then, how the entire scientific community seems to have missed it.

To think that meaningles purposeless matter can gain intelligence to create the very things in your tree of life is the height of lunacy! Why? because its impossible!

The evolution process doesn't require any intelligence to work.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dishonest? Look, its a simple concept! In order for you to have an evolutionary process, you MUST have a beginning!

That doesn't mean that the beginning is included in the theory, just as the origin of all mass is not included within the theory of gravity and the origin of all unicellular organisms is not included within germ theory.

All I'm asking you is what is the validity of that beginning?

Life exists, therefore life either started existing or has always existed in some form.

You cant just say we dont care about it.

But we CAN say that this isn't something that the theory of evolution is concerned with, because evolution a theory regarding how living system diversify over time and NOT how living systems originate, just as gravity is concerned with how objects with mass are drawn towards each other and not how the concept of mass came to exist.

Science is validating that life cannot come from non-life! Period!

False.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree! We have been constantly correcting you and others of your error but you refuse concede when brought to your attention. So at this point, just like a parent trying to educate and protect their children, the children continue to disobey and the parents have no choice but to say, "okay, do it your way!" What is the end result? They fail, and say, you were right mom and dad. And we are rolling our eyes saying to ourselves, "I tried to tell you but you wouldn't listen!
So head down your path with your beliefs and see how that works out for you, good luck!

Projecting much?

Ask any working biologist.
He or she will tell you that origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant? I would think for your case it would be the most relevant, why? Because "Whatever those were", you are assuming there were life forms. Here is the point, if there were no life forms, your relevance "to what happened after" is meaningless!

But..... there ARE lifeforms.

The beginning of life and evolution go together!

No, they don't.

No life, no evolution!

Right. But there IS life.

If abiogenesis is not your beginning, what is?

Life is.
Existing life is the beginning of evolution.
No matter if that life came about through chemistry, magic or farting unicorns.

 

[tas8831]

Hoo boy...

Irrelevant?

Yes.

I would think for your case it would be the most relevant, why? Because "Whatever those were", you are assuming there were life forms.

And you would think wrong.
I am assuming that there was 'first life', and this assumption is IRRELEVANT to the relationships among extant mammals.

Here is the point, if there were no life forms, your relevance "to what happened after" is meaningless! You are putting the cart before the horse.

If there were no life forms, then we would not be here to ask questions.
Your point is ludicrous on its face.
Try harder.

And what was that question you were dealing with?

Generally, what are the relationships between living mammals.

You cant have groups of mammals without a beginning.

There was obviously a beginning, because there are mammals. Your desperation is making you look silly.

You are assuming a beginning without the mountains of evidence of information required to build the mammals.

I am assuming a beginning because mammals exist. What should the assumption be?

And please expand on this "information required to build the mammals." Creationists like to toss the I-word around a lot, but I don;t think most of you have a clue what it means. So tell me what "information" is in the context of biology, specifically, genetics. Then explain how much was needed to make a mammal, and explain how you know that.
Then explain why natural processes as described by the ToE cannot have produced it, with evidence for your suggested replacement.

If you cannot do any of that, then just stop hiding behind creationist buzzwords.

To dismiss this and say I don't care what the first life was is a little reckless. Dont you understand that without the first life ("whatever those were") you got nada!

Yes, I do. But don't you understand that it is obvious that there was 'first life'? Why should I have addressed such a question when I was concerned with extant mammals?

Do you make such requirements for all fields of study?

Do you require optometrists to re-establish the field of optics and to re-create the first human eye before every eye appointment?

Does your minister take you through the history of ancient middle eastern numerology and mythology every week in church before getting to the part about hell?

This is absolute nonsense! The beginning of life and evolution go together! It is amazing that you cant grasp this concept No life, no evolution! If abiogenesis is not your beginning, what is?

So despite you proclamations re: your understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are different things, here you are, yet again, saying it is absolute nonsense NOT to combine them intimately.

i suspect it is because you cannot understand and thus not discuss actual evidence for evolution and are looking for an out.

Of course, MY faith in this is not premised on my worship of some ancient scroll stories from the middle east, rather, on the track record of the scientific enterprise in chipping away at problems.

That's real nice, but, scientific enterprise as you call it has been chipping away at the catastrophic problem of life coming about from meaningles purposless matter for a long time with nothing but speculation and guesses that have left them with a big fat zero!

Regarding research into abiogenesis, I present the following - all just from one guy and his collaborators (only a partial listing due to this forum's message size constraints):

2017

Moore EK, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Jelen BI, Meyer M, Hazen RM and Falkowski PG Geological and chemical factors that impacted the biological utilization of cobalt in the Archean Eon. (in review)

Hao J, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Limits on the partial pressure of H2 in the Archean atmosphere during weathering of basaltic minerals. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Selective adsorption of calcium-aspartate ligands onto [Mg(OH)2]-brucite: Implications for calcium in prebiotic chemistry. Astrobiology (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Enhanced and inhibited adsorption of D-ribose with Ca2+ and Mg2+ onto brucite [Mg(OH)2]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Hazen RM Chance, necessity, and the origins of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (in review)

54. Estrada CE, Mamajanov I, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD and Hazen RM (2017) Aspartate transformation at 200 °C with brucite [Mg(OH)2], NH3, and H2: Implications for prebiotic molecules in hydrothermal systems. Chemical Geology 457:162-172

53. Gherase D, Hazen RM, Krishnamurthy R and Blackmond DG (2017) Mineral-Induced Enantioenrichment of Tartaric Acid. Synlett 28(1):89-92

Wenge J, Pacella MS, Athanasiadou D, Nelea V, Vali H, Hazen RM, Gray JJ, McKee MD (2017) Chiral acidic amino acids induce chiral hierarchical structure in calcium carbonate. Nature Communications 8:15066



2016

Ertem G, Ertem MC, McKay CP and Hazen RM (2016) Shielding biomolecules from effects of radiation by Mars analogue minerals and soils. Astrobiology 6(3):280-285

Grew ES, Krivovichev SV, Hazen RM and Hystad G (2016) Evolution of structural complexity in boron minerals. Canadian Mineralogist 54(1):125-143



2015

Liu X-M, Kah LC, Knoll AH, Cui H, Kaufman AJ, Shahar A and Hazen RM (2015) Tracing Earth’s O2 evolution using Zn/Fe ratios in marine carbonates. Geochemical Perspective Letters 2(1):24-34

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA, Pelletier M, Razafitianamharavo A, Hazen RM (2015) Interaction between L-aspartate and the brucite [Mg(OH)2]-water interface. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 155:172-186 [pdf]

Grosch EG, Hazen RM (2015) Microbes, mineral evolution, and the rise of micro-continents: Origin and co-evolution of life with early Earth. Astrobiology 15(10):922-939

Nance JR, Armstrong JT, Cody GD, Fogel ML, Hazen RM (2015) Preserved shell-binding protein and associated pigment in the Middle Miocene (8 to 18 Ma) gastropod Ecphora. Geochemical Perspectives Letters 1:1-8

Grew ES, Dymek RF, De Hoog JCM, Harley SL, Boak JM, Hazen RM and Yates MG (2015) Boron isotopes in tourmaline from the ca. 3.7–3.8 Ga Isua supracrustal belt, Greenland: Sources for boron in Eoarchean continental crust and seawater. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 163:156-177



2014

Hazen RM (2014) Enantioselective adsorption on rock-forming minerals: A thought experiment. Surface Science 629:11-14

Lee N, Foustoukos DI, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD, Hazen RM (2014) The effects of temperature, ph and redox state on the stability of glutamic acid in hydrothermal fluids. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 135:66-86

Lee N, Sverjensky DA, Hazen RM (2014) Cooperative and competitive adsorption of amino acids with Ca2+ on rutile (α-TiO2). Environmental Science and Technology 48:9358-9365

Lee N, Foustoukos DI, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD, Hazen RM (2014) Hydrogen enhances the stability of amino acids in hydrothermal environments. Chemical Geology 386:184-189


Now please present the published research regarding the act of transforming silicates into organic molecules during Genesis.

Wow, OK - I dismiss your deity story from middle eastern numerologists and KNOW that abiogenesis AND evolution are totally true because we see the insurmountable evidence that even science validates that all of life, time, space, and matter authenticates! WOW! Argument via unsupported assertion is SO satisfying - easy, too!

Well, first of all, you haven't dismissed anything.

Sure I did! I said so! isn't that all YOU do? Why is a mere dismissal enough for you but not for me?

You have made unsubstantiated claims that life came about for your evolutionary beliefs but fail to justify the life which came about!

And you have made unsubstantiated claims about "information" and Yahweh and the like. The difference is, I have evidence.

know its easy to just say we don't care how life came about, but it did, because we assume it did, is ludicrous!

And I know that saying that not caring about the origin of life being ludicrous is ludicrous and a rather transparent and lame way of avoiding having to deal with the evidence.

If you want to live in your fantasy world and try to convince us it's true, be my guest! But we see you!

Nice projection.

Fully formed man from dust of the ground via tribal deity magic.

But evolution is 'ludicrous.'

 

[tas8831]

In order for you to have an evolutionary process, you MUST have a beginning! All I'm asking you is what is the validity of that beginning?

The more sensible creationists admit that evolution takes place (they just put bible-friendly limits on it).

Do you accept that the created Kinds diversified?

If so, let's see your evidence for the beginning of the created Kinds. Bible tales are not evidence. Where did all that information come from? How much information did it take to make Yahweh? And who designed HIM?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A very short list for @Rapture Era , even if God magically poofed the first cell into existence once it started to reproduce evolution began.

That is why abiogenesis is immaterial to the theory of evolution.

P.S. Even you believe that there was an abiogenesis event.

 

[gnostic]

The bottom line is that, the scientific method we all agree, (a method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses) cannot validate the evolutionary process of origins.

You keep forgetting that evolution is about studying biodiversity of species, not about the origin of first life.

If you really want to focus on “origin”, then you needs to examine the ongoing hypothesis of Abiogenesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your own #4 pretty much says it all.
Your cause (still can't scientifically explain the source of the bottom of the supposed Phylogenetic Tree process), your principle (belief in impossible evolutionary beginnings), and last but not least, the system of beliefs that there is no God that you hold with ardor and faith. There ya have it!

This is absurd.

Huh? The phylogenetic tree was put together based on the available evidence. Your query doesn't appear to make sense.

I have no idea what you mean by "evolutionary beginnings," but that's not a principle, in the sense you're trying to use it in order to make it into a religion. More importantly, it has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists aren't required to accept evolution any more than anybody else is. They should though, given that it's a demonstrable fact of life.

What "system of belief" are you positing that comes with a lack of belief in god(s)? I just told you that atheists believe all kinds of different things. The only thing they all collectively are required to not believe in are god(s). That is the only thing that makes a person an atheist. That's it. Other than that, they believe all kinds of different things. There is no faith in a lack of belief, as you assert.
Do you believe in fairies? Does it take faith for you to not believe in fairies? Would you call your lack of belief in fairies a "system of beliefs" that you hold "with ardor and faith?"

So it appears that the definition you've chosen does not apply to atheism. Just like all the other definitions for religion. The way you're trying to twist this turns lack of belief for things into systems of belief, Which of course is absurd.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is this not your phylogeny?

So what is the undisputed ridiculously huge evidence for the bottom of the trunk whereby the rest of it comes? In your world, you must have life in order to move up your tree! So you want to pass that part of the life-root of your tree and ignore it? You want to say that abiogenesis is a different subject that has nothing to do with the evolutionary Phylogenetic Tree? What started this tree?

Of course I do! What are you using to take the place of abiogenesis then, to start your life giving root for your belief in this tree? You have to have something! What is it?

No no! I'm asking you to explain the beginning of your faith-based belief in how your Phylogenetic tree started!

Yes! Why? Because we see the insurmountable evidence that even science validates that all of life, time, space, and matter authenticates!

Did you even look at the diagram you provided? Because judging from your questions, it appears that you did not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you'll notice, I don't really quote his views on science.... Science has changed so much.

But the text of the Bible hasn't.
What supposed contradictions exist now, existed then.
And he was an expert on the Scriptures: if there truly were genuine discrepancies, he would have found them. He discovered spurious texts, and was quick to expose them! His views shouldn't be discounted.

That's all.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't put all my eggs in one Newton basket, but that's just me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Irrelevant? I would think for your case it would be the most relevant, why? Because "Whatever those were", you are assuming there were life forms. Here is the point, if there were no life forms, your relevance "to what happened after" is meaningless! You are putting the cart before the horse.

And what was that question you were dealing with? You cant have groups of mammals without a beginning. You are assuming a beginning without the mountains of evidence of information required to build the mammals. To dismiss this and say I don't care what the first life was is a little reckless. Dont you understand that without the first life ("whatever those were") you got nada!

This is absolute nonsense! The beginning of life and evolution go together! It is amazing that you cant grasp this concept No life, no evolution! If abiogenesis is not your beginning, what is?

That's real nice, but, scientific enterprise as you call it has been chipping away at the catastrophic problem of life coming about from meaningles purposless matter for a long time with nothing but speculation and guesses that have left them with a big fat zero!

Well, first of all, you haven't dismissed anything. You have made unsubstantiated claims that life came about for your evolutionary beliefs but fail to justify the life which came about! I know its easy to just say we don't care how life came about, but it did, because we assume it did, is ludicrous! If you want to live in your fantasy world and try to convince us it's true, be my guest! But we see you!

We know life came about. It's here. It's all over the earth. It's not speculation to say that life exists. Evolution begins with life.

Abiogenesis is another field of study, separate from the biodiversity of life. Like how germs are a different field of study from gravity, which is a different field of study from medicine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course you do! Because without it you have nothing!

Of course it matters! If life came from a transcendent being or from a natural process like evolution, the implications are monumental! We know that everything we as humans experience is from a massively intelligent creator and science confirms this, like it or not. To think that meaningles purposeless matter can gain intelligence to create the very things in your tree of life is the height of lunacy! Why? because its impossible!

Well that's news to a lot of people. What science confirms that "we know that everything we as humans experience is from a massively intelligent creator?" If that's true, you'd better call the Nobel Prize Committee and let them know you have this evidence.

 

[He has Risen!]

The Bible is didactic literature. It is neither history nor science .. and it was not intended as such. The Bible stories are myths borrowed and adapted from other cultures.. Egypt, Sumer, Babylon and the North Coast Canaanites.

sooda...what you posted is wrong, very wrong. The bible has 3 areas that scholars look at to verify the reliability of its ancient texts...they are
1. The bibliographical test-(explained below)
2. internal witness-do the authors claim to be the eyewitness, do the authors claim to be giving the account of eyewitness testimony
3. external witness-are there sources dating close to the original authors that support the documents

The bibliographical test examines manuscript reliability, and for more than a generation Christian apologists have employed it to substantiate the transmissional reliability of the New Testament. The bibliographical test compares the closeness of the New Testament’s oldest extant manuscripts to the date of its autographs (the original handwritten documents) and the sheer number of the New Testament’s extant manuscripts with the number and earliness of extant manuscripts of other ancient documents such as Homer, Aristotle, and Herodotus.
Since the New Testament manuscripts outstrip every other ancient manuscript in sheer number and proximity to the autographs, the New Testament should be regarded as having been accurately transmitted. However, although apologists have stayed abreast of the dates of the earliest extant manuscripts and latest New Testament Greek manuscript counts, we haven’t kept up with the increasing numbers of manuscripts for other ancient authors that are recognized by classical scholars. For example, although apologists rightly claim that there are well over five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, they have reported the number of manuscripts for Homer’s Iliad to be 643, but the real number of Iliad manuscripts is actually 1,757.
https://www.equip.org/article/the-bibliographical-test-updated/