What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[YoursTrue]

It is rather obvious that if an organism does not reproduce that it will go extinct.

Yes, that seems to be the order of things now. But that these organisms evolved with such an inborn, or rather innate proclivity to do such? Hmmm, I don't think so. But that's me and obviously not everybody thinks like I do, whether I'm right or wrong. I mean I don't think these organisms naturally evolved to procreate. But again -- that's the way I think now. Up until I began to read and understand the Bible more, I virtually believed anything evolutionists said. Now I do not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some do, some just say "first life". Modern prokaryotes are very complex. But then they have been evolving for 3.8 billion years. If complexity helps, and it often does, then it will be added to the genome. The first life had no need for complexity.


Do you not understand that there is a lot of competition going on today?

What I understand is destruction by men to the atmosphere which causes an imbalance and can make things go awry. Furthermore, I believe from my reading that scientists say that prokaryotes ARE the first life forms. And as you and I seem to agree, they are very complex.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some do, some just say "first life". Modern prokaryotes are very complex. But then they have been evolving for 3.8 billion years. If complexity helps, and it often does, then it will be added to the genome. The first life had no need for complexity.


Do you not understand that there is a lot of competition going on today?

Besides, the idea of "need for complexity" ?? Something after the first life had a need for complexity? (Don't get me started...<g>)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that seems to be the order of things now. But that these organisms evolved with such an inborn, or rather innate proclivity to do such? Hmmm, I don't think so. But that's me and obviously not everybody thinks like I do, whether I'm right or wrong. I mean I don't think these organisms naturally evolved to procreate. But again -- that's the way I think now. Up until I began to read and understand the Bible more, I virtually believed anything evolutionists said. Now I do not.

Once again, it would have arisen naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you understand that traits are heritable. Organisms with low drive to reproduce would be replaced by those with a higher drive.

This is not rocket science. It should be obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I understand is destruction by men to the atmosphere which causes an imbalance and can make things go awry. Furthermore, I believe from my reading that scientists say that prokaryotes ARE the first life forms. And as you and I seem to agree, they are very complex.

Then you at best did not understand your sources.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, it would have arisen naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you understand that traits are heritable. Organisms with low drive to reproduce would be replaced by those with a higher drive.

This is not rocket science. It should be obvious.

You, first of all, understand that no one as of yet knows how life really got started. I'm talking about science.

 

[Bthoth]

The light? -- and the life wants to survive? Aren't you attributing anthropomorphic qualities to vegetation?

I comprehend that the living, intent to survive. Instinct itself expresses that attribute.

I know that sunlight certainly helps the growth of much vegetation, but to say the life wants to survive?

The seeds, the strategies to pollinate. Some pine trees require fire to open the cones and release it's seeds, the life will evolve to survive. Even if just into the next generations.

How is this scientifically researched, please.

Observation and over half a century of learning. No i do not have a bibliography.

The very method of learning and conveying to the next generations is how knowledge has evolved ever since mankind became conscious.

That capstone of description is what perfects the unveiling.

Hint: life is of light, evolved throughout the body of god (mother nature itself), became conscious, created words and in yourstrue existence, is defining itself.

Welcome to the jungle. Eventually the "book of life' (an owners manual) will be available for the generations to come. (1000 yrs of peace)

That capstone is the 'holy of holies' (the name).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's been almost fifteen years now.

Fifteen years? Wow! That’s more than enough time to get acclimated!
You’re a retired doctor, right?
I’m a retired engineer.

My wife and I really enjoyed Mexico, but we only visited the Yucatán area (just north of Belize) … that part was too flat for us.

Where are you now?

We have homes in Georgia & Alabama…. It’s the South, but it still gets too cold for my wife.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Given that you were disingenuous enough to deliberately omit the rest of my post

What exactly did I omit, that would change the message of your post?

It seems you mistook my amiable nature as something you could exploit.

Now I exploited you? How?
I don’t see it.

But I do see how you effectively ended our dialogue.

I wish you the best, my cousin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find it difficult to imagine that prokaryotes emerged as the first lifeform as said by some. I mean by evolution. Before I continue, do you believe prokaryotes were the first lifeforms on the earth?

I find it difficult to imagine that relative to an observer time slows down as speed goes up.
I find it difficult to imagine that in quantum physics, a particle can be detected "here" while simultanously showing up "there".

Me having difficulty to imagine these things only tells you something about the limits of my imagination, not about the truth of those phenomena.


Having said that, nobody in the relevant sciences is proposing that first life was comparable to the highly complex (and higly evolved) procaryotes we observe today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm thinkin', but do you have at least a link I can look at to support the idea that "organisms without such a drive very quickly go extinct?"

Do you really need a link for such a common sense thing?
When is it NOT true that those that can't compete with peers, disappear?

Even in business this is so. If A can't compete with competitor B, it won't be long before A goes bankrupt with B taking over the market.

Besides, I see that prokaryotes are really complex organisms

The prokaryotes you see are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolution.

that of which organisms without such a drive, and by drive I think you mean a need to live(?) very quickly go extinct?

Think about it logically. If an organism is outcompeted by its peers, what is the most likely thing to happen to it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Besides, the idea of "need for complexity" ?? Something after the first life had a need for complexity? (Don't get me started...<g>)

Once again, think about it logically.

First life would have had to be extremely simple. In fact, as simple as it gets.
So ANY evolutionary change which would be adding function / traits, would have ment an increase in complexity.

When that occurs, they would quickly outcompete peers. So those peers will either evolve traits / function as well to be able to compete, or be outcompeted (and thus go extinct).

When you are in the most simplest form, the only direction complexity can go is UP.

 

[YoursTrue]

I find it difficult to imagine that relative to an observer time slows down as speed goes up.
I find it difficult to imagine that in quantum physics, a particle can be detected "here" while simultanously showing up "there".

Me having difficulty to imagine these things only tells you something about the limits of my imagination, not about the truth of those phenomena.


Having said that, nobody in the relevant sciences is proposing that first life was comparable to the highly complex (and higly evolved) procaryotes we observe today.

I know there are images of what prokaryotes looked like. It is too complicated, in my opinion. to have come about complete and I see no other explanation -- so far it seems from scientific explanation they emerged in complete form. If you know of any other scientific endeavor to explain, I'll be happy to look at it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you really need a link for such a common sense thing?

I do not believe that innate need to evolve is something imbued in an organism by physical nature. Where did it come from? Yes, especially when it seems you claim it is true. Of course a link to scientific explanation is necessary. If life is the prime ingredient, everything dies anyway. However, the Bible explains that humans can live forever someday.

 

[McBell]

"innate need to evolve"

What does this mean?

 

[flowerpower]

Evolution seems to be self-evident.

Darwin just explained it and put a framework around it.

However, even without Darwin, the defining attribute of species is clear to even the most strident anti-evolutionists is reproduction. Reproduction involves two sets of genes replicating. Each generation is thus different to the last.

All of this is self evident even to people in the Dark Ages.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you at best did not understand your sources.

As usual, you just put me down without explanation. And so do some others.
But here is something interesting I found and I encourage you and others to read it.
"Plants are composed of fewer cell types than are animals, but each different kind of plant cell is specialized to perform specific tasks required by the organism as a whole (Figure 1.12)." That's just a sample of the article. Do I think these things came about by evolution without an intelligent force? You may have guessed right. The answer is no, I do not think these fabulous complex things came about by natural physical forces without an intelligence beyond the human understanding. But the scientific information in the article is very, very interesting. The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.

 

[YoursTrue]

Preaching is not allowed on this forum


Atheism is the lack of belief in deity


You have mixed up science with your beliefs.


Again, preaching is not allowed on this forum.


Gonna have to.
Cause it is not like you are going to offer up anything with substance.

Preaching about evolution, though, IS allowed, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

That’s not what I was talking about, though; I was talking about the first of these elegantly structured molecular machines in the cell. And built to replicate! It is “wondrously impressive.”

Yes.
I found an excellent article about the complexity of so-called simple organisms. The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.
For someone (anyone) to tell me these fabulous and wondrous complexities of said early origins came about without a super intelligent force making it possible is not something I can agree to or understand rationally speaking, of course. The article is very, very interesting, as I was looking up information about early forms of life. Fabulous in their complexities.
From the article, "Saccharomyces cerevisiae is about 6 μm in diameter and contains 12 million base pairs of DNA (Figure 1.9). Other unicellular eukaryotes, however, are far more complex cells, some containing as much DNA as human cells have (Table 1.2). "
The early forms of life are so complex. No one can convince me now, based on the evidence, that there is no rational intelligent force behind these fabulously complex early forms of life.

 

[McBell]

Preaching about evolution, though, IS allowed, right?

The Moderation Team is the final authority on this forum as to what is and what is not preaching.
If you think someone is preaching, regardless of the sermons subject matter, report it.

Here is Rule 8:

8. Preaching/Proselytizing​

Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.​