JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Science has an ever evolving definition of life.
Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
- Status
Science has an ever evolving definition of life.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
what failed hypothesis? are you discounting neutonian mechanics?
The author believes what he says and implies:
He believes that as far as we know life arose only once.
He believes the jury is still out with regard to LUCA and horizontal gene transfer and it not clear how it will be tested -- Translation: at this point in time it is an unprovable theory.
He also believes all life from bacteria to humans is interrelated.
So since he believes that as far as they can tell life only arose once and since he said all life is interrelated and since he says "So how do we know that all life has evolved from a single cell?" and then gives a reason why, it is obvious to infer that this Phd. believes all life from bacteria to humans came from one cell.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Please explane how you think those laws are being violated. Many pepole here will clarify those laws for you.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Correct science evolves, you should give it a try sometime (either science or evolving).
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Physics and math fail when explaining the Big Bang. To ignore tried and true science to support a theory is ridiculous.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Try looking up some of the recent developments in quantum loop gravity. Although, without confirmation it is just mathematical speculation. But we never even need to get to T0 or beyond, since life could not exsit under conditions aproching that time (circular or otherwise)
As I understand it, the Big Bang does not violate physical laws, it is simply that those laws don't apply at the T=0 singularity - they have no meaning.
It's also worth noting that in some of my reading, scientists were careful to make the distinction that the Big Bang Theory does not in fact refer to the origin of the universe, but is a model of how the universe has developed over time - fairly analagous to the situation with evolution.
Wiser minds than me would be able to give more detail I am sure.
It's also worth noting that in some of my reading, scientists were careful to make the distinction that the Big Bang Theory does not in fact refer to the origin of the universe, but is a model of how the universe has developed over time - fairly analagous to the situation with evolution.
Wiser minds than me would be able to give more detail I am sure.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, before I waste a whole lot of time trying to explain this to you, do you really want to know how this works or are you simply rejecting it because it doesn't agree with what you believe?
What do you believe, anyway? What would prove to you that your assumptions were wrong?
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
But Jerome, no one claims to be able to explain why the Big Bang happened. Some people are employing lots of brain cells to try and figure it out, but no one says he has a solution, yet. In other words, science, as we know it today, cannot explain the Big Bang. However, science can explain a whole lot of things based on the theory of the Big Bang. In other words, we don't know what existed at T=0-, and we don't know why things changed at T=0. However, if we look around the universe today, we can say that it is all consistent with a particular model of what was happening at T=0+. That model is called the Big Bang.
To put it more succinctly, the evidence that the Big Bang happened is overwhelming. The explanation of why it happened does not exist, and may never exist.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Sure. And your point? For what it's worth, I think the jury is still out on whether this guy's explanation is true. We don't know if life arose only once, or if it arose multiple times. Either one is possible.
We are pretty sure that somewhere back in history there was indeed a single cell that could be called the ancestor of all modern life. We are also pretty sure that that ancestor shared the world with some other stuff, although it is possible that that is not the case, if you go back far enough.
The mental image that I have is that somewhere in a tidepool, or underwater volcanic vent, or similar bizarre place, there were some organic molecules, like amino acids, created by some interesting chemistry. Some of those things reacted in such a way as to create lipids. Those lipids form membranes, and one or more such membranes trapped inside it the right collection of molecules to replicate themselves, and create more lipids, for more membrane material. Voila, a cell. There were lots of lipids and replicators in some goo, and the lipid sacks formed and reformed trapping different collections of molecules inside the lipids. Some sacks of lipids were very good at adding more, similar, material, to the sacks. As more material was added, there was enough stress that the membrane ruptured, but closed in on itself. Voila, reproduction by fission. One of those proto-cells was better at maintaining its package of replicating molecules better than others. Voila, LUCA. It ended up "eating" or pushing aside, all those other protocells.
In other words, there was one, single, cell like thing that was really good at reproducing itself, with just enough errors to create variation. That little cell was indeed our ancestor. On the other hand, it was not the only cell in existence at the time. It was just the one that made it. Before it was so successful, there was more of a mush than a collection of cells.
Of course, there's a lot of speculation in my mental image, but something like it is indeed the scientific consensus of how things happened. Why do you think most atheists don't understand that?
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
I can asssure you that you are the only person confused by the content of that particular sentence.
DOC, I'm sorry, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and take the high road in dealing with you, but this assertion is simply a lie. You have been "complaining" (such as it is, rooted in scientific inaccuracy and all) about how "atheists" (meaning anyone who accepts evolutionary theory be they religious or not) supposedly don't know that all life evolved from a "single cell". Perhaps you're more ignorant of biology than I suspected, but you have been given multiple links to the base of the phylogenetic tree which demonstrate that while all eukaryotic life possibly or probably shares a common ancestor with all other eukaryotic life, you ignore in the above statement that your OP tried to conflate eukaryotes, bacteria, procaryotes, and viruses in suggesting that all life evolved from one cell when that's not what evolutionary theory suggests.
Leaving that ignorance on your part aside... again for a moment.. all eukaryotic life, which would include plants and animals coming from a common ancestor is the logical conclusion of common ancestry and evolutionary theory and is entirely consistent with the evidence - but that is not the same thing as your (well, current) suggestion that "all plants and animals evolved from a single primordial cell".
We've given you a number of links with a number of other links you could follow showing how all eukaryotic life is likely decended from a LUCA - which was a eukaryote and at that point had likely integrated a number of organelles from other organisms (single cellular) to give rise to eukaryotic single celled organisms and yet you chose to ignore those evidences and stick with your faulty OP premise or pathetically flawed quote mines of current
You know, I have to wonder sometimes if you are naturally dense or if this is all a big troll, but, again, please stop with the childish appeals to authority, especially when, as Hokulele and others have demonstrated, you don't really understand the issue they were discussing.
There is evidence, especially in the organelles of eukaryotic cells that there is a connection between bacteria and eukaryotes. There is also evidence that viruses have injected parts of their DNA into eukaryotic cells which as become part of our DNA. This is very different than your assertion that "all life" is evolved from a "single cell". So the answer to your question is yes, not no. Humans do have genetic evidence of having evolved from bacteria and, despite your claims in the OP, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with evolutionary theory realizes and embraces this.
Yes, a eukaryotic cell, and a eukaryotic gamete cell most likely. For anyone who knows anything about evolutionary theory the "chicken and egg" cunondrum is a farce. Eggs existed before chickens by hundreds of millions of years, but more specifically, there was a first common ancestral chicken that existed not only as an ova, but as an oviparous egg before it was born so the answer is - the egg.
Your point?
Posted by Doc
The above statement makes no sense, period.
I stand by my statement. To imply that I did not read any of the 1007 messages that have been left in my thread up to that time when I have made 99 posts and most of them in response to other posts simply makes no sense. And then you add to that by speaking for what over 70 posters supposedly believe.
If some people don't like me that's fine. But to make posts that make no sense just to aggravate me or try to make me look bad just for the heck of it only hurts your credibility. I hope you reply because there is no way you can make sense out of the question "Did you not read the "1007 messages" that have been posted since then or did you just ignore their content?
If you meant to word that question differently, that is understandable. But if you want stand by that question and imply I did not read any of the 1007 posts, well that is your right I guess. Some people in these threads have got to realize that if you want to attack me you better be clear and logical in your attacks because I have no problem in picking apart your statements in front of everyone.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Totally irrelevant. I am not speaking about the title of the thread. You made a statement that "science teaches X." When that statement was challenged as being uncorroborated, you disqualified the challenge for lack of corroboration. That's either stupid or dishonest. The assertion requires corroboration, not the challenge.
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Jarome - I get the feeling Worm and others have identified part of the issue you seem to have with (evidence for) the Big Bang being evidence that at some point life did not exist, which would point to the conclusion that life came from non-life at some point. Consider any mathematical function with a discontinuity/asymptote. The function may be undefined at a particular point, but it in no way invalidates the existence of the function, nor the ability to use it for analysis/prediction at other points. Why is this different for the science of Big Bang cosmology? Just because we cannot describe what happened at or before T=0, the theory makes predictions that are holding up well. It is science.
CT
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
The subject is the Big Bang.
- Status