Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[shawn001]

There are many theories as to how the life started from non-life and then perpetuated. There is not much definitive proof for any of these theories, yet.

A warranty do I have that singled cell organisms predate all other things?

Well, in Australia there are cyanobacteria fossils that date back 3.5 billion years. You won't find a fossil around this time of more than a cell. The earliest known fossil of an organism with more than one cell is 2.1 billion years old.

As far as possible ways could start programmed to stay alive, well the best I can give you sources to people who study this sort of things exclusively.

"LA JOLLA, CA, January 8, 2009—One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely."

News Release

Consider that:

"In March 2015, NASA scientists reported that, for the first time, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, have been formed in the laboratory under conditions found only in outer space, using starting chemicals, like pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in giant red stars or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[60]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna_world

"cyanobacteria fossils that date back 3.5 billion years."

Which can still be found today and they don't get this but its the reason they can even breathe. It evolved photosynthesis and gave the Earth its oxygen atmosphere.

Evolution and Oxygen


3 Billion years ago cyanobacteria appeared on the planet, changing the course of life on earth. Scientists call this event the Oxygen Catastrophe.
This video discusses the appearance of cyanobacteria and the effect it had on the evolution of life over the next 3 billion years.

 

[shawn001]

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Science


Excerpts of Statements by Religious Leaders
Who See No Conflict Between Their Faith and Science
Many religious denominations and individual religious leaders have issued statements acknowledging the occurrence of evolution and pointing out that evolution and faith do not conflict.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[shawn001]

I imagine it .and does not work

could you make human or a complete lifeform by single cell ?

Well first imagine no oxygen, in fact natural gas, extreme radiation and motlen lava and an enviroment compltetly hostile to life, because that is how the Earth started. Then some 3.5 billion years ago a bacteria called cynobacteria was able to convert energy from sunlight and create oxygen, because that is how we got our oxygen atmosphere.

This will be way over your head but if you want to learn.

Jack William Szostak (born November 9, 1952)[1] is a Canadian American[2]biologist of Polish British descent and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Alexander Rich Distinguished Investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, along with Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol W. Greider, for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres.

Jack W. Szostak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 1: The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth

Szostak begins his lecture with examples of the extreme environments in which life exists on Earth. He postulates that given the large number of earth-like planets orbiting sun-like stars, and the ability of microbial life to exist in a wide range of environments, it is probable that an environment that could support life exists somewhere in our galaxy. However, whether or not life does exist elsewhere, depends on the answer to the question of how difficult it is for life to arise from the chemistry of the early planets. Szostak proceeds to demonstrate that by starting with simple molecules and conditions found on the early earth, it may in fact be possible to generate a primitive, self-replicating protocell.

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 2: Protocell Membranes

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 3: Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acid Templates

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

*triple facepalm*

What I said is that you cannot possibly calculate all of the variables in order to make a calculation predicting whether evolution is more likely to be true than to not be true, and there currently exists no way to predict when and where mutations occur. That is not even remotely the same as saying "we can compare DNA in order to match it to a specific individual, and the likelihood of two individuals possessing the exact same sequence is astronomically improbable.

Allow me to illustrate: If you and I both have 100 6-sided die, and rolled them one after another, it would be astronomically impossible to successfully predict the exact sequence of numbers we would roll. However, once we have have FINISHED rolling our 100 die, we can still compare and contrast our sequence of rolls to see if they match up in any place. You don't need to do any form of calculation to deduce that the odds of both sequences being exactly alike are extremely, extremely low.

Do you understand?

I understand that mutations can be calculated, and that you are wrong to say it cannot.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Having the same sequence of DNA is not necessary for DNA fingerprinting to match - it isn't doing a sequencing check. The probability of two unrelated human DNA fingerprints matching is only in the tens or hundreds of millions to one against (I say "only" - when you consider the number of possible genomes, those are very short odds indeed). The odds are good enough for the legal people to ascertain guilt, whether you factor in mutations or not.

It may feel like authoritarian to you, but it isn't: it's a simple straightforward request that you learn something about the subjects about which you're pontificating. You're talking from a position of almost perfect ignorance, so there's no chance of you understanding what the arguments against are, or why you're almost fractally wrong.

You are still talking authoritarian nonsense which has nothing to do with the argument I was making.

 

[Altfish]

You are still talking authoritarian nonsense which has nothing to do with the argument I was making.

"authoritarian nonsense" in most people's language means "science", i.e. tested, reviewed and proven to be the best explanation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"authoritarian nonsense" in most people's language means "science", i.e. tested, reviewed and proven to be the best explanation.

No it means, not listening to what someone has to say, then assert their ignorance, then assert the authority of science, then pontificate some scientific finding which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[Altfish]

No it means, not listening to what someone has to say, then assert their ignorance, then assert the authority of science, then pontificate some scientific finding which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

But...if science has demonstrated something why resort to calling it 'asserted'. I'm sorry, but if many people have tested a hypothesis, developed a theory it becomes fact, not an assertion. Assertions are made when evidence is lacking.

 

[philbo]

You are still talking authoritarian nonsense which has nothing to do with the argument I was making.

er, no: you brought in forensic DNA matching - I was trying to point out that the sort of DNA matching they use to show identity doesn't use genetic sequencing, most mutations won't change the result of a DNA match at all, and those that do will make a tiny difference in the probability.

I think the problem is that you don't really understand the argument you're making.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes.

Exactly the opposite of what creation mythology states.

So it's about
God creat everything vs cell of bacteria creat everything .
how smart bacteria !!!!

Can your imagination create a cell ????

Can your IMAGINATION make new life from bacteria?

no,

your theories claim "bacteria" is creat a life , can your science make the bacteria ,make new life in laboratoire ?

I mean why not the scientists could not make the bacteria make new life in laboratoire ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But...if science has demonstrated something why resort to calling it 'asserted'. I'm sorry, but if many people have tested a hypothesis, developed a theory it becomes fact, not an assertion. Assertions are made when evidence is lacking.

Sheldon is not normal.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

er, no: you brought in forensic DNA matching - I was trying to point out that the sort of DNA matching they use to show identity doesn't use genetic sequencing, most mutations won't change the result of a DNA match at all, and those that do will make a tiny difference in the probability.

I think the problem is that you don't really understand the argument you're making.

....completely besides the point, I wasn't making the argument you think I am making.

 

[philbo]

....completely besides the point, I wasn't making the argument you think I am making.

..er, no. It's directly relevant to this post of yours:

Again, that would make DNA evidence inadmissable in courts of law, because then a suspect can just say well somebody else has largely the same DNA as me. You don't understand anything, and there is just something with people who don't accept freedom is real that makes talking reasonably with them impossible.

While I understand that it is easy to lose the thread, so to speak, if you're going to take the arrogant "you don't understand anything" line with people, while at the same time obviously not having a clue on the subject about which you're wiffling, don't be surprised if you get some pointed comments back.

Or as someone else said, better than I could:

 

[Altfish]

Sheldon is not normal.

Who's Sheldon?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

..er, no. It's directly relevant to this post of yours:


While I understand that it is easy to lose the thread, so to speak, if you're going to take the arrogant "you don't understand anything" line with people, while at the same time obviously not having a clue on the subject about which you're wiffling, don't be surprised if you get some pointed comments back.

Or as someone else said, better than I could:
View attachment 8567

.....these people denying freedom is real are very special.

 

[David M]

but dinosaurs were extincted .

Technically speaking Birds are Dinosaurs because their ancestors were Dinosaurs.

 

[philbo]

.....these people denying freedom is real are very special.

..and these people telling others they're wrong while evidently not understanding what on earth they're talking about aren't really the ones to point this out if they want to avoid accusation of hypocrisy

 

[LuisDantas]

So it's about
God creat everything vs cell of bacteria creat everything .
how smart bacteria !!!!

No. Not "smart".

The whole history of differentiation and speciation is utterly "dumb".

The cummulative result of a very many generations of gradual change and differentiation is impressive and may well appear to be directed, but at this point we have far too much evidence that it is not to hold much in the way of doubts.

The variety of lifeforms is amazing, and shows a great many facts that at least hint to accidental differentiation. And then we have more sophisticated study such as biological markers, vestigial organs, many others above my pay grade.

your theories claim "bacteria" is creat a life , can your science make the bacteria ,make new life in laboratoire ?

Bacterias can reproduce and can mutate and differentiate while so doing, eventually producing new lifeforms.

I don't call that creating life, because the bacteria were already alive when that began.

Nevertheless, there has indeed been research about possible origins for life itself, and artificial life is likely to develop at some point in the near future, IMO.

It will of course be speculative. How could one say with any certainty that life did originate as we are hypothetising it to have been?

I mean why not the scientists could not make the bacteria make new life in laboratoire ?

Odds are that they will, soon enough.

 

[leibowde84]

Hi all

I have some question :

Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :

human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?

Nope. Not at all. But, one explanation that might help you understand how evolution works is the theory that Dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds. Thus, there are examples of birds without wings.

When it comes to humans, I'm not sure where you have a problem. We evolved from a common ancestor of apes. We diverged from them millions of years ago, so no one should expect to see fingerless humans. They should expect to see this common ancestor (lesser evolved humans).

It seems like you are missing the connecting point. Mammals all started out with a common ancestor ... small animals that could hide underneath the ground during the mass extinctions. Even those small animals most likely had "fingers" (in a way), as mice or rats do now. It is not like humans only evolved as humans.

 

[leibowde84]

does the evolution thoery said : does our ancestor had missed body parts ?

If you go back far enough to when amphibious creatures came out of the water, I guess you might be right. But those ancestors wouldn't be "human" in any discernible way.