What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Colt]

Physics and chemistry create every day. Consciousness and intent are not required.

No, physics never got together with chemistry and designed life. The creators of life working within Gods laws created life. The spark of life was needed to make matter into living organisms.

Now THAT'S religion and an absurd claim to make lacking any evidence that spirits exist.

Prior to the evolution of life there was NO evidence that life existed or that personality could exist but it does.

Which new life forms came into existence in the past 100 years?


In the theory of abiogenesis, they speculate that a "spark" or initial event caused life to start.

"External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication."

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe God loves us and wants our long term good. You seem to believe that my belief is made up as one of the many ways humans have made up to explain the creation and life and suffering etc etc.

Considering the many varied versions of Creation in ancient cultures this is likely true.

God's promises are in the Bible and the promised Messiah came and did what was promised (or half of it at this stage) and is working on the rest.
It could be said to be part of history, or if you don't want to believe it, it is all no more than lies.

Far too many disagreements in the many interpretations of the Bible for this to be meaningful.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, it did, which is why, as I wrote, "the rest of what follow[ed was] only of interest to those who share your premise." Did you want to address that? Probably not. It seems self-evidently correct and noncontroversial to me.

1) your first reply to me in this thread was false lacking reading comprehension
2) your second reply is completely irrelevant, because, the post I was replying to presumes god

if you do not presume god, and do not share the premise, then you have declared my reply is not of interest to you. My response to this is: "I don't care." I wasn't talking to you. You are interrupting. This is me addressing your irrelevant comment.

goodbye

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if you do not presume god, and do not share the premise, then you have declared my reply is not of interest to you.

Yes. Good for you for understanding that! It took you a few posts and a few insults (feel better?), but you got there. Glad to have played a part in your education. I'm sure that you hope to return the favor someday.

physics never got together with chemistry and designed life.

No, they didn't. Yet life is here and redesigning itself through biological evolution, which is a creator and designer, albeit an unconscious one.

The creators of life working within Gods laws created life.

Now what? Angels?

There are only physical laws, not "God's law." And why would a tri-omni god need or use laws to poof life into existence?

The spark of life was needed to make matter into living organisms.

Life is a slow burn (metabolism). The "spark of life" is generated de novo by oxidation just as it is in a candle flame. They call and measure our food in calories for a reason:

Look at the Krebs (citric acid) cycle, aerobic glycolysis (boxes 1 and 2 below), and oxidative phosphorylation (electron transport). We require oxygen for the same reason a flame does - reduce it, usually to water (see ox phos and O2 -> H2O below as e- moves into the O2 and reduces it to O2--, or water without its H+ ions). That's oxidation of the electron source:

Similarly, the heat of the flame vaporizes the liquid wax, which is drawn up into the flame and reacts with oxygen to create heat, H2O and CO2, just like the above pathway occurring in living cells. That's why metabolism can be called a slow burn.

In the theory of abiogenesis, they speculate that a "spark" or initial event caused life to start: "External sources of energy may have triggered these reactions, including lightning, radiation, atmospheric entries of micro-meteorites and implosion of bubbles in sea and ocean waves. Other approaches ("metabolism-first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication."

Not necessary. The original conception of abiogenesis was that it occurred in tide pools and depended on a fortuitous lightning strike into a puddle containing the needed ingredients, hence the Miller-Urey experiment, which attempted to reproduce that milieu in a flask using artificial "lightning." Life was thought to be unlikely then, a lucky happenstance.

In the deep ocean fumarole model, that "spark" is geothermal heat.

And today, it seems that life ought to arise wherever possible, no luck needed, if oceans with minerals and organic solutes are present, as on Enceladus (moon of Saturn) and Europa (moon of Jupiter). If the ingredients for life are in those oceans, then so will be life as soon as enough time for chemical evolution to occur has passed:

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.”
A New Physics Theory of Life

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if I had the means to make my children good people by directly choosing their values and temperament, I would..

What does that even mean .. "directly choose" ?

So, for a tri-omni god who has the power to design people without the ability to experience malice or indifference, or to be cowardly or disloyal, there is no excuse to introduce evils into the world..

No evil, no test.
No test, no appreciation of what it even means.

Such a god cannot be tri-omni. As Epicurus noted, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ..

Negative thinking..
satan only wishes to sow doubt .. to divert us from a path of righteousness.

G-d does not wish us to choose evil over good .. but He allows it .. not for ever, though.

 

[Colt]

Yes. Good for you for understanding that! It took you a few posts and a few insults (feel better?), but you got there. Glad to have played a part in your education. I'm sure that you hope to return the favor someday.

No, they didn't. Yet life is here and redesigning itself through biological evolution, which is a creator and designer, albeit an unconscious one.

Now what? Angels?

There are only physical laws, not "God's law." And why would a tri-omni god need or use laws to poof life into existence?

Life is a slow burn (metabolism). The "spark of life" is generated de novo by oxidation just as it is in a candle flame. They call and measure our food in calories for a reason:

View attachment 82058

Look at the Krebs (citric acid) cycle, aerobic glycolysis (boxes 1 and 2 below), and oxidative phosphorylation (electron transport). We require oxygen for the same reason a flame does - reduce it, usually to water (see ox phos and O2 -> H2O below as e- moves into the O2 and reduces it to O2--, or water without its H+ ions). That's oxidation of the electron source:

View attachment 82059
Similarly, the heat of the flame vaporizes the liquid wax, which are drawn up into the flame and react with oxygen from to create heat, H2O and CO2, just like the above pathway occurring in living cells. That's why metabolism can be called a slow burn.

Not necessary. The original conception of abiogenesis was that it occurred in tide pools and depended on a fortuitous lightning strike into a puddle containing the needed ingredients, hence the Miller-Urey experiment, which attempted to reproduce that milieu in a flask using artificial "lightning." Life was thought to be unlikely then, a lucky happenstance.

In the deep ocean fumarole model, that "spark" is geothermal heat.

And today, it seems that life ought to arise wherever possible, no luck needed, if oceans with minerals and organic solutes are present, as on Enceladus (moon of Saturn) and Europa (moon of Jupiter). If the ingredients for life are in those oceans, then so will be life as soon as enough time for chemical evolution to occur has passed:

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.”
A New Physics Theory of Life

EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES OF LIFE​

65:6.1 It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm. The chemist can elucidate the chemistry of dead protoplasm, but he cannot discern either the physical organization or the dynamic performance of living protoplasm. Ever will the scientist come nearer and nearer the secrets of life, but never will he find them and for no other reason than that he must kill protoplasm in order to analyze it. Dead protoplasm weighs the same as living protoplasm, but it is not the same.

65:6.2 There is original endowment of adaptation in living things and beings. In every living plant or animal cell, in every living organism—material or spiritual—there is an insatiable craving for the attainment of ever-increasing perfection of environmental adjustment, organismal adaptation, and augmented life realization. These interminable efforts of all living things evidence the existence within them of an innate striving for perfection.

65:6.3 The most important step in plant evolution was the development of chlorophyll-making ability, and the second greatest advance was the evolution of the spore into the complex seed. The spore is most efficient as a reproductive agent, but it lacks the potentials of variety and versatility inherent in the seed.


"65:6.4 One of the most serviceable and complex episodes in the evolution of the higher types of animals consisted in the development of the ability of the iron in the circulating blood cells to perform in the double role of oxygen carrier and carbon dioxide remover. And this performance of the red blood cells illustrates how evolving organisms are able to adapt their functions to varying or changing environment. The higher animals, including man, oxygenate their tissues by the action of the iron of the red blood cells, which carries oxygen to the living cells and just as efficiently removes the carbon dioxide. But other metals can be made to serve the same purpose. The cuttlefish employs copper for this function, and the sea squirt utilizes vanadium." UB 1955 IMOP

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What does that even mean .. "directly choose" ?

Program rather than teach or train, which are indirect methods of accomplishing that end. Did you want to go back now and address the comment? Here it is again:

"The question was, "If you could design your children, would you program the ability to do wrong in or out of them?" It's a very good question the answer to which illustrates a relevant point. Since you won't answer, I will. Yes, if I had the means to make my children good people by directly choosing their values and temperament [meaning dial them in], I would. Since none of us have that power, we come as close to that as we can during upbringing. We correct bad behaviors after the fact with admonitions and maybe punishment."

No evil, no test.
No test, no appreciation of what it even means.

Your turn. What's that? A song:

Spoiler: No Woman, No Cry

satan only wishes to sow doubt .. to divert us from a path of righteousness. G-d does not wish us to choose evil over good .. but He allows it .. not for ever, though.

I didn't ask you for your religious beliefs, because why would I? They're meaningful to you, but not to an atheist. What if I said, Let me reciprocate and telepathically petition to Raël to focus the yin and yang of his inner eye on your chakra and astrally project your aura to the ninth cloud of Kolob? Would you find that edifying, or just shake your head and skip past it as soon as you realized what it was?

"65:6.4 One of the most serviceable and complex episodes in the evolution of the higher types of animals consisted in the development of the ability of the iron in the circulating blood cells to perform in the double role of oxygen carrier and carbon dioxide remover. And this performance of the red blood cells illustrates how evolving organisms are able to adapt their functions to varying or changing environment. The higher animals, including man, oxygenate their tissues by the action of the iron of the red blood cells, which carries oxygen to the living cells and just as efficiently removes the carbon dioxide. But other metals can be made to serve the same purpose. The cuttlefish employs copper for this function, and the sea squirt utilizes vanadium." UB 1955 IMOP

Good to know, but it doesn't address the comment you replied to or have any apparent relevance to our discussion. Why did you want to tell me this?

 

[Colt]

Program rather than teach or train, which are indirect methods of accomplishing that end. Did you want to go back now and address the comment? Here it is again:

"The question was, "If you could design your children, would you program the ability to do wrong in or out of them?" It's a very good question the answer to which illustrates a relevant point. Since you won't answer, I will. Yes, if I had the means to make my children good people by directly choosing their values and temperament [meaning dial them in], I would. Since none of us have that power, we come as close to that as we can during upbringing. We correct bad behaviors after the fact with admonitions and maybe punishment."

Your turn. What's that? A song:

Spoiler: No Woman, No Cry

I didn't ask you for your religious beliefs, because why would I? They're meaningful to you, but not to an atheist. What if I said, Let me reciprocate and telepathically petition to Raël to focus the yin and yang of his inner eye on your chakra and astrally project your aura to the ninth cloud of Kolob? Would you find that edifying, or just shake your head and skip past it as soon as you realized what it was?

Good to know, but it doesn't address the comment you replied to or have any apparent relevance to our discussion. Why did you want to tell me this?

It's for interest. I don't buy into any of your claims that matter dreamt up life and THEN kept improving itself for ****z&giggles over millions of years!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's for interest. I don't buy into any of your claims that matter dreamt up life and THEN kept improving itself for ****z&giggles over millions of years!

Okay, you don't "buy" it. That is fine. But why would you "buy" anything else? There is only one concept that is strongly supported by evidence. Believers may propose alternatives, but they cannot seem to find any reliable evidence at all for those beliefs.

 

[dybmh]

Yes. Good for you for understanding that! It took you a few posts and a few insults (feel better?), but you got there. Glad to have played a part in your education. I'm sure that you hope to return the favor someday.

I already knew that you do not presume god. And I would not engage you in conversation, because, of our history. So, you're not teaching me anything. It's best we avoid each other.

If you feel you must reply to me, please:

1. read the entire post
2. if I am replying to someone else read their post too for context
3. do not ignore either 1 or 2
4. if the entirety of your comment is "this does not concern me" press "ctrl+a" then press "delete" or "backspace" and move forward in the thread without replying to me.

 

[dybmh]

Please note follow-up post #186. Your initial description was more than just being included.

This example describes Caner growth at the molecular level as fractal. even though it appears random.

I'm not sure how much value there is in arguing about what I meant when I wrote the post. It seems to me, that I should be trusted to express my intentions. Let's not devolve into that OK?

The best way to describe the problem of terminology to describe variability over time is this example concerning the variability of Cancer growth. Note: At the molecular cause-and-effect event outcome the events are described as fractal even though appear as random.

Fractals and Cancer

Abstract. Recent studies have shown that fractal geometry, a vocabulary of irregular shapes, can be useful for describing the pathological architecture of tumors and, perhaps more surprisingly, for yielding insights into the mechanisms of tumor growth and angiogenesis that complement those...

aacrjournals.org

PERSPECTIVES IN CANCER RESEARCH| JULY 15 2000

Fractals and Cancer1​

James W. Baish;

Rakesh K. Jain
Whereas our present discussion has focused on applications of fractal analysis to tumor vasculature and the tumor border, several groups are seeking to extend the use of fractals to the classification of abnormalities of cellular and nuclear structures (5, 59–61). Explanations for why structures at this scale should display changes in fractal dimension under pathological conditions remain to be explored.
Although better understood than cellular morphology, determinants of vascular morphology are just beginning to be revealed by molecular methods (62, 63). The extent to which specific vascular growth factors may be linked to specific vascular morphologies is an area of ongoing study. Hopefully, when molecular methods are combined with fractal analysis and more classical morphometric methods(64), a more complete understanding of tumor pathology may be obtained.
If carefully applied, fractal methods may someday have a significant impact on our understanding of challenges in treatment delivery and diagnosis of cancer. Being able to quantify the irregular structures that are present in tumors helps to clarify why treatment is so frustratingly difficult, a disappointing but important finding. More constructively, the same irregularities that thwart treatment appear to be promising means of highlighting tumors in new imaging procedures based on the patterns of tracer movement. Fractal analysis shows its greatest promise as an objective measure of seemingly random structures and as a tool for examining the mechanistic origins of pathological form. Whether fractals will ultimately find a place in the oncologist’s toolbox awaits more controlled comparisons with conventional pathological procedures.

OK. Thank you. I see the part at the bottom which says: "Whether fractals will ultimately find a place in the oncologist’s toolbox awaits more controlled comparisons with conventional pathological procedures."

That was written over 20 years ago. Do you have something more current?

I'm not saying you're wrong. But it seems like you are in a rush to correct me. Let's talk about it, OK?

If I grant that it's not random, it's fractal, what does that change about what I wrote; what are the implications on my assertion if the word chaos is replaced by fractal?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would not engage you in conversation, because, of our history.

That's fine. Your responses haven't been valuable to me in the past, and are often deliberately offensive, so I don't mind if you never post to me again. You got angry over me suggesting that people claiming to know god were likely only misinterpreting their own minds. Why that set you off rather than disagreeing cheerfully is unknown to me, but RF has attracts many types of people, and we deal with them as they present themselves if we deal with them at all.

It's best we avoid each other.

I'll decide what's best for me. Feel free to scroll by if I reply to one of your posts in the future. You never need to read another word from me (hide me if you like) nor reply to anything I write. It doesn't matter to me either way.

If you feel you must reply to me, please:

1. read the entire post
2. if I am replying to someone else read their post too for context
3. do not ignore either 1 or 2
4. if the entirety of your comment is "this does not concern me" press "ctrl+a" then press "delete" or "backspace" and move forward in the thread without replying to me.

Once again, I'll make these decisions for myself.

 

[Colt]

Okay, you don't "buy" it. That is fine. But why would you "buy" anything else? There is only one concept that is strongly supported by evidence. Believers may propose alternatives, but they cannot seem to find any reliable evidence at all for those beliefs.

It’s always been obvious to me that life isn’t an accident. The so called evidence that materialists provide could just as well be an observation of the processes that created and propels life.

My religious beliefs explain that the Life Cariers arrived on earth when the planet reached a stage wherein life could survive. They constructed the patterns here on earth but needed the “spark of life” from the Holy Spirit to transform the lifeless material into living organisms.

 

[dybmh]

That's fine. Your responses haven't been valuable to me in the past, and are often deliberately offensive, so I don't mind if you never post to me again. You got angry over me suggesting that people claiming to know god were likely only misinterpreting their own minds. Why that set you off rather than disagreeing cheerfully is unknown to me, but RF has attracts many types of people, and we deal with them as they present themselves if we deal with them at all.

Not true.

I'll decide what's best for me. Feel free to scroll by if I reply to one of your posts in the future. You never need to read another word from me (hide me if you like) nor reply to anything I write. It doesn't matter to me either way.

Please do not reply to my posts unless you read them in total. If there is a post quoted I am replying to, please read that too for context.

If your reply is nothing more than, "this does not interest me" please do not reply.

Once again, I'll make these decisions for myself.

Please do not reply to my posts unless you read them in total. If there is a post quoted I am replying to, please read that too for context.

If your reply is nothing more than, "this does not interest me" please do not reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s always been obvious to me that life isn’t an accident. The so called evidence that materialists provide could just as well be an observation of the processes that created and propels life.

My religious beliefs explain that the Life Cariers arrived on earth when the planet reached a stage wherein life could survive. They constructed the patterns here on earth but needed the “spark of life” from the Holy Spirit to transform the lifeless material into living organisms.

If it was "obvious" you could support that claim. What you appear to have is an unjustified belief.

I am amazed at how often people misuse the word obvious. If you were being honest you will be able to support your claim. Don't worry. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Colt]

If it was "obvious" you could support that claim. What you appear to have is an unjustified belief.

I am amazed at how often people misuse the word obvious. If you were being honest you will be able to support your claim. Don't worry. I won't be holding my breath.

Consciousness, the presence of the spirit of God, love, morality, values, primitive life forms progressing onward, upward to will conscious man, these are just some of the truths that make up “obvious”.

And you can’t support your claims or belief that life invented itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure how much value there is in arguing about what I meant when I wrote the post. It seems to me, that I should be trusted to express my intentions. Let's not devolve into that OK?

I believe I may revive the thread on the question of randomness if you are interested

OK. Thank you. I see the part at the bottom which says: "Whether fractals will ultimately find a place in the oncologist’s toolbox awaits more controlled comparisons with conventional pathological procedures."

You missed the important point I cited. The question of randomness is not addressed in 'conventional pathological procedures,' which is a different issue. The issue in the article is that the apparent observed randomness is explained by fractal properties of Cancer at the molecular level.

That was written over 20 years ago. Do you have something more current?

I'm not saying you're wrong. But it seems like you are in a rush to correct me. Let's talk about it, OK?

If I grant that it's not random, it's fractal, what does that change about what I wrote; what are the implications on my assertion if the word chaos is replaced by fractal?

The age of the publication is not an issue. This is just an example of the proper use of fractals in cause-and-effect outcomes that appear random and are explained by Fractal relationships. If you replace fractal with chaos it changes the meaning. Fractal properties throughout nature are explained by 'Chaos Theory,' which is a different meaning to chaos as you use it, which is more like a synonym for randomness. Contemporary computer programs for predictable patterns in weather prediction and genetic mutation research.

the following article is another concerning cancer.

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon.15.211

• https://www.futuremedicine.com/action/showCart?FlowID=1

Skip main navigation

FUTURE ONCOLOGYVOL. 11, NO. 22GENERAL CONTENT – EDITORIAL

Fractals: a possible new path to diagnose and cure cancer?​

• Igor Sokolov

Published Online:15 Oct 2015https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.15.211
About

The war on cancer is rather far from being victorious. The number of oncology patients has been increasing. In part, it can probably be explained by general aging of human population. There is multiple evidence of correlation between cancer development and polluted environment, genetic predisposition to cancer and exposure to some hazardous chemicals. Nevertheless, the general nature of cancer is not known as of yet. Traditional biochemical studies of cancer seem to be running out of steam. With the increase of precision and speed of DNA sequencing, it has become clear that just standard evolutionary genetic model of cancer may be not enough to understand the nature of cancer [1]. A recently observed sharp increase in the complexity and variability of genetic signatures of activated/mutated genes associated with cancer has considerably slowed the advancement in this direction. There is a hope that physical sciences can provide a missing link to understand and eventually eradicate cancer.
Fractal geometry is one of the intriguing mathematical constructs. If a surface is fractal, its geometry repeats itself periodically at different scales [2]. In 1997, Sedivy and Mader proposed a connection between cancer and fractal [3]. It was justified by the observation that cancer tissues look rather random, chaotic. Fractal, on the other hand, typically occurs when the geometry is formed from chaos (or far-from equilibrium processes, which are quite similar to chaos as well). Indeed, cancer-specific fractal geometry of tumors was found at the tissue scale when analyzing tumor perimeters [4,5]. Fractal geometry was also found in the structure of tumor antiangiogenesis [6,7].
The search for appearance of fractals at the single-cell level is of particular interest. For example, it is still unclear if cancer develops from an individual cell. In the other words, if there is a clear cancer marker for individual cells rather than the entire tumor. A strong correlation between cancer and fractal at the cellular level could be such a biophysical marker. Nevertheless, high-resolution (electron) images of cells did not show the expected transition to fractal geometry when cells become cancerous. Cells derived from cancer and normal tissues demonstrated almost ideal fractal geometry (although having different fractal dimension, in other words, the degree of ‘roughness’ of the fractal surface) [8,9]. Imaging of cells by means of atomic force microscopy (AFM) [10,11] demonstrated higher than SEM resolution of cell surface. It also showed a clear segregation between cancer, immortal (precancerous), and normal cells when using the fractal dimension parameter. However, the use of fractal dimension does not imply presence of fractal geometry. Technically, fractal dimension can be calculated for any surface which is not necessarily fractal.
It is here worth mentioning one important feature of the definition of fractal. Rigorously speaking, fractals are defined for the infinite range of scales, from infinitely small to infinitely large. In reality, it is obviously impossible to obtain an image with infinite resolution and unlimited in size. For example, when imaging cells, the geometric scale is limited by the cell size (˜10 μm) and the resolution of the used imaging technique (1–20 nm in the case of the AFM imaging). Therefore, it is plausible to limit the fractal definition to these scales when studying individual cells. This has been done when studying cell fractals.
The emergence of fractal geometry on cell surface during progression toward cancer has been finally found in [12], in which human cervical epithelial cells were imaged by a high-resolution AFM technique. The maps of adhesion between the AFM probe and cell surface were analyzed, which can be approximately treated as high-resolution topography images (see [12] for detail). The cervical cell model was chosen as a well-developed system to study development of an epithelial cancer. To better understand what was discovered in [12], let us describe a few technical details. A self-correlation function is used to define fractal and calculate the fractal dimension. The definition of fractal implies that the self-correlation function obeys a power-law dependence on the geometric scale. It can easily be seen as a straight line in the log–log scale. The tilt of that straight line is proportional to the fractal dimension. Divergence of the self-correlation function from this behavior means deviation from being fractal. This deviation was studied in [12].

 

[shunyadragon]

EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES OF LIFE​

65:6.1 It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm. The chemist can elucidate the chemistry of dead protoplasm, but he cannot discern either the physical organization or the dynamic performance of living protoplasm. Ever will the scientist come nearer and nearer the secrets of life, but never will he find them and for no other reason than that he must kill protoplasm in order to analyze it. Dead protoplasm weighs the same as living protoplasm, but it is not the same.

65:6.2 There is original endowment of adaptation in living things and beings. In every living plant or animal cell, in every living organism—material or spiritual—there is an insatiable craving for the attainment of ever-increasing perfection of environmental adjustment, organismal adaptation, and augmented life realization. These interminable efforts of all living things evidence the existence within them of an innate striving for perfection.

65:6.3 The most important step in plant evolution was the development of chlorophyll-making ability, and the second greatest advance was the evolution of the spore into the complex seed. The spore is most efficient as a reproductive agent, but it lacks the potentials of variety and versatility inherent in the seed.


"65:6.4 One of the most serviceable and complex episodes in the evolution of the higher types of animals consisted in the development of the ability of the iron in the circulating blood cells to perform in the double role of oxygen carrier and carbon dioxide remover. And this performance of the red blood cells illustrates how evolving organisms are able to adapt their functions to varying or changing environment. The higher animals, including man, oxygenate their tissues by the action of the iron of the red blood cells, which carries oxygen to the living cells and just as efficiently removes the carbon dioxide. But other metals can be made to serve the same purpose. The cuttlefish employs copper for this function, and the sea squirt utilizes vanadium." UB 1955 IMOP

Source? I have a problem with some of the statements in this reference concerning science. I do not believe this is a scientific source. Example bold.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Consciousness, the presence of the spirit of God, love, morality, values, primitive life forms progressing onward, upward to will conscious man, these are just some of the truths that make up “obvious”.

And you can’t support your claims or belief that life invented itself.

No, those are just examples of handwaving. They are not evidence. Those traits can all be explained by evolution. I am waiting for support of the "it is obvious" claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source? I have a problem with some of the statements in this reference concerning science. I do not believe this is a scientific source. Example bold.

From a Google search of a phase of it the work appears to be from the Urantia book. Definitely not a work of science:

Evolutionary Techniques of Life