Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for Evolutionists

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Complex organs like the eye have supposedly evolved separately a whole bunch of times anyway. I have no idea about the DNA; this sh*t could get Ship of Theseus. But just because we can't perceive the relation, doesn't mean there isn't one. I would imagine life started a whole bunch of times, personally. Seems about the most sensible notion.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:38:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.

I'm aware. I just thought it was a fun answer, lol.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:45:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.

How is the question irrelevant to a theory that says that all life forms are related??
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:47:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:45:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.

How is the question irrelevant to a theory that says that all life forms are related??

It doesn't say that. We've found life on Mars, haven't you heard?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:47:04 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:45:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.

How is the question irrelevant to a theory that says that all life forms are related??

It doesn't say that. We've found life on Mars, haven't you heard?

I guess I'm out of the loop.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:52:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:50:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:47:04 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:45:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.

How is the question irrelevant to a theory that says that all life forms are related??

It doesn't say that. We've found life on Mars, haven't you heard?

I guess I'm out of the loop.

Evolutionary theory is the mechanics of life. It's sort of like how we have our solar system, and our life on earth: we're not the only solar system.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 7:07:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:52:19 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

It doesn't say that. We've found life on Mars, haven't you heard?

That turned out to be just a coincidental shape of minerals that wasn't life at all.

Evolutionary theory is the mechanics of life. It's sort of like how we have our solar system, and our life on earth: we're not the only solar system.

There's no evidence, no reason to assume there is life anywhere but on Earth. Given how difficult is has been for us to purposely create life (impossible), it stands to reason that, given the size of the observable universe, there probably hasn't been any way of life starting elsewhere accidentally.

Also, I don't buy the notion that advanced life, if it exists, would view us as ants. We are conscious, sentient beings... if life started elsewhere, then it stands to reason that some of it is advanced. If some of it is advanced, it stands to reason that some of it would have contacted us by now. Either they would have come in peace, or they would have come for war. But they would have come.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 7:42:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:40:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Looks like oxygen is not all that important for life after all rob....

I mean carbon... looks like they got life to grow on a dang cathode!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 6:42:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:42:04 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/23/2015 7:40:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Looks like oxygen is not all that important for life after all rob....

I mean carbon... looks like they got life to grow on a dang cathode!

Weird.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 7:21:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve??

Yes. Miller-Urey experiments shows that lightning, a fairly common phenomena during the beginning of this Earth, could create amino acids and other chemicals that could sustain life on Earth: more evidence shows that through these lightnings, more complex molecules could have been formed.

Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

You know you've gone full Genesis if you call people evolutionists.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 9:12:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:07:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:52:19 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

It doesn't say that. We've found life on Mars, haven't you heard?

That turned out to be just a coincidental shape of minerals that wasn't life at all.

Evolutionary theory is the mechanics of life. It's sort of like how we have our solar system, and our life on earth: we're not the only solar system.

There's no evidence, no reason to assume there is life anywhere but on Earth. Given how difficult is has been for us to purposely create life (impossible), it stands to reason that, given the size of the observable universe, there probably hasn't been any way of life starting elsewhere accidentally.

Also, I don't buy the notion that advanced life, if it exists, would view us as ants. We are conscious, sentient beings... if life started elsewhere, then it stands to reason that some of it is advanced. If some of it is advanced, it stands to reason that some of it would have contacted us by now. Either they would have come in peace, or they would have come for war. But they would have come.

You really have an interest in the aliens, haven't you, Rob? I don't really think about that sort of stuff at all, to be honest. My brother does, though. All this aliens on the moon sh*t, and I'm laughing at him asking him what the f*ck would they be doing just hanging out on the moon if they had the tech to fly all the way from wherever just to get to us. There's something of religious consideration in it, I think. Or... transference or something maybe. I don't know. He really is scientifically/metaphysically illiterate, but aliens are definitely on his radar lol. I think there's a metaphor in it for feeling small, too, though. It's a sort of religion minus the faith in goodness, lol.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 9:13:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 7:21:01 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve??

Yes. Miller-Urey experiments shows that lightning, a fairly common phenomena during the beginning of this Earth, could create amino acids and other chemicals that could sustain life on Earth: more evidence shows that through these lightnings, more complex molecules could have been formed.

And the fact that they filtered out the product, thus protecting it from the environment which wouldn't have happened in the natural setting, along with the removal of oxygen from the test environment, doesn't tell you that this test was not a legitimate approximation of what would happen in a natural setting??

Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

You know you've gone full Genesis if you call people evolutionists.

It's a perfectly valid scientific question, regardless of my personal beliefs.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 9:32:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

That question may never be answered, and so the answer will probably need to be assumed. Probabilistically, it is much safer to assume life had one origin, not many, since abiogenesis is already a very rare event, so imagine the little probability of that rare event happening not once, but twice or more times. But on your hypothesis there's more uncertainty than that; you are wondering if life happened not only twice, but both times it happened in the same way to the point that we cannot distinguish one life form from the other. That is VERY unlikely to happen if compared to "life happened just once", or, to be more rigorous "succesful life emerged just once", because I suppose it is possible that life appeared more times but was quickly destroyed.

And there's even more. If I understood right, you are asking if a DNA analysis could reveal this situation by looking at the DNA of present creatures. Well, if those two separate original lifeforms evolved exactly in the same way to produce modern species (to have the same DNA sequences), then of course genetic techniques would be useless. But wow, that would be probabilistically... well, not impossible, but if something is "near impossible", then you have just found it lol
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 10:22:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 9:13:14 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/24/2015 7:21:01 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve??

Yes. Miller-Urey experiments shows that lightning, a fairly common phenomena during the beginning of this Earth, could create amino acids and other chemicals that could sustain life on Earth: more evidence shows that through these lightnings, more complex molecules could have been formed.

And the fact that they filtered out the product, thus protecting it from the environment which wouldn't have happened in the natural setting, along with the removal of oxygen from the test environment, doesn't tell you that this test was not a legitimate approximation of what would happen in a natural setting??

Actually, that's exactly what the natural setting would have been. Earth had precious little molecular oxygen prior to the great pollution crisis of 2.5 Ga.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 10:28:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)??

We're unlikely to ever know for certain but given the universal orientation of certain organic compounds in all life it seems unlikely that we are descended from more than one original life form.

If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

The earliest life is unlikely to have used DNA so that won't help much. We're probably talking about a single self-replicating molecule so any genetic analysis is unlikely to be useful.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 10:33:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It's an abiogenesis question, not an evolution question. I suspect multiple organisms originated by abiogenesis, and one simply outcompeted all of the rest and thus all of life is descended from one common ancestor.

IF life originated independantly many times, then we would expect an array of different genetic codes (besides the ATCG system used), very different structures for ubiquitous proteins (such as ribosomes, cytochrome C, etc.) across the board. We would expect to see a lot more variety in the machinery of life, since there are many ways to get the same or better function.

That's not what we observe however, so the common ancestry hypothesis is much more likely. Moreover we would expect different orders in the genomes, since the order (or location) genes fall in the genome hardly matter to function. So even if we would expect essentially the same protein structures and sequences then we would expect to see these sections of sequences randomised between species or families (since there is no selection pressure). We don't observe that either.

You can draw an analogy with how computers are coded too. Computer programs are seldom linear ('spaggheti code'), they are broken up into sections. You can rewrite the program by mixing around where the sections are in the linear code and it will work just as well, since these sections are only called when needed, their position doesn't affect anything.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 11:26:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 10:22:01 AM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/24/2015 9:13:14 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/24/2015 7:21:01 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve??

Yes. Miller-Urey experiments shows that lightning, a fairly common phenomena during the beginning of this Earth, could create amino acids and other chemicals that could sustain life on Earth: more evidence shows that through these lightnings, more complex molecules could have been formed.

And the fact that they filtered out the product, thus protecting it from the environment which wouldn't have happened in the natural setting, along with the removal of oxygen from the test environment, doesn't tell you that this test was not a legitimate approximation of what would happen in a natural setting??

Actually, that's exactly what the natural setting would have been. Earth had precious little molecular oxygen prior to the great pollution crisis of 2.5 Ga.

I know that's what the concept of evolutionism would argue, but can you prove that scientifically and empirically?? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 12:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 9:32:21 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

That question may never be answered, and so the answer will probably need to be assumed.

Therein lies enough reason to doubt the UCA hypothesis. You have to "assume" that life began once, and everything evolved from that. I agree that if you make that assumption, and interpret everything as though that assumption were the only possibility, then I can see how one would come to the conclusion of UCA. Problem is then that there is no way to falsify that belief in the mind of the believer, because the concept will find a way to incorporate any piece of evidence, into the story, if that is the only option that a person is willing to consider.

What if it didn't form just once though?? If spontaneous generation is possible in the right conditions, then what leads one to believe that it could only happen once?? Seems to me that we're talking about a miracle here, rather than a plausible "natural" occurrence. If one wants to bring mathematical probabilities into the mix, then the probability of spontaneous generation happening is far beyond what mathematicians consider impossible.

All that aside though, and back to the original question, how would one determine from DNA analysis, which organisms are related and which aren't, when we don't have the original ancestors' DNA to trace back to?? Creationists are so often accused of not thinking critically, but it seems to me that if one is going to dogmatically defend UCA, they should be able to answer my question, if they are themselves, using critical thinking in evaluating their own beliefs.

This is the reason that I don't buy anything, regarding DNA analysis, that comes from the evolutionist camp in defense of their theory. They could very possibly be looking right into the absolute falsification of their theory, and not even know it.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 12:22:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 11:26:16 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/24/2015 10:22:01 AM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/24/2015 9:13:14 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/24/2015 7:21:01 AM, Kc1999 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve??

Yes. Miller-Urey experiments shows that lightning, a fairly common phenomena during the beginning of this Earth, could create amino acids and other chemicals that could sustain life on Earth: more evidence shows that through these lightnings, more complex molecules could have been formed.

And the fact that they filtered out the product, thus protecting it from the environment which wouldn't have happened in the natural setting, along with the removal of oxygen from the test environment, doesn't tell you that this test was not a legitimate approximation of what would happen in a natural setting??

Actually, that's exactly what the natural setting would have been. Earth had precious little molecular oxygen prior to the great pollution crisis of 2.5 Ga.

I know that's what the concept of evolutionism would argue, but can you prove that scientifically and empirically?? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for that.

Evolution has little to do with it. It's largely geology.

As for evidence: BIF, red-beds, detrital uranite and pyrite, mass-independant fractionation of sulfur isotopes, RedOx state of Chromium...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 12:43:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 10:33:24 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It's an abiogenesis question, not an evolution question. I suspect multiple organisms originated by abiogenesis, and one simply outcompeted all of the rest and thus all of life is descended from one common ancestor.

IF life originated independantly many times, then we would expect an array of different genetic codes (besides the ATCG system used), very different structures for ubiquitous proteins (such as ribosomes, cytochrome C, etc.) across the board. We would expect to see a lot more variety in the machinery of life, since there are many ways to get the same or better function.

That's not what we observe however, so the common ancestry hypothesis is much more likely. Moreover we would expect different orders in the genomes, since the order (or location) genes fall in the genome hardly matter to function. So even if we would expect essentially the same protein structures and sequences then we would expect to see these sections of sequences randomised between species or families (since there is no selection pressure). We don't observe that either.

It's possible that there would be differences in the different lineages, but then again since they all formed on the same planet, in the same conditions and environment, that there may NOT be any obvious differences, in the organisms that we now have available for testing.

Basically, anything that either of us say, in regards to the original life forms, is total speculation. Yet, it is a critical determining factor in evaluating whether or not UCA is true, because if life began in more than one original entity, logic dictates that today's life forms came from different lineages, which falsifies the UCA concept.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 1:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 12:21:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/24/2015 9:32:21 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

That question may never be answered, and so the answer will probably need to be assumed.
Therein lies enough reason to doubt the UCA hypothesis.

Actually that's the main reason to doubt every single theory. Everything, theories included, are based on assumptions. This applies also to, ie, religion, since I'm pretty sure you assume God exists, you assume the Bible was written by holy inspiration, etc. So yeah, everything can, or rather must be doubted if we are to truly understand nature.

You have to "assume" that life began once, and everything evolved from that. I agree that if you make that assumption, and interpret everything as though that assumption were the only possibility, then I can see how one would come to the conclusion of UCA.

I don't think that's what I do. I look at the evidence, which points towards UCA as the simplest explanation. Although it also can point to more complex explanations, ie: two indentical independent ancestries were formed, that ended un being the same, that also ended evolving in the same way producing the same species. But this is a dead point, there's no way to proof if one is true over the other, so we simply use Occam's razor and assume the simplest is the true one. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which one is true if both fit perfectly the evidence, because that would mean they both can be used to make the same predictions, and thus there would be no negative repercussion whatsoever by choosing one over the other.

Problem is then that there is no way to falsify that belief in the mind of the believer, because the concept will find a way to incorporate any piece of evidence, into the story, if that is the only option that a person is willing to consider.

Not really, I mean, both options can incorporate any piece of evidence since at the end they are virtualy the same. Some people use probability and say: well, probably life happened just once. Other people say: oh but it could had happened twice. And they are right. Same evidence serves both hypothesis equaly right. Although by probability, I believe one is more plausible than the other.

What if it didn't form just once though?? If spontaneous generation is possible in the right conditions, then what leads one to believe that it could only happen once??

I don't think any abiogenesis supporter will tell you that they are absolutely sure that it happened just once. It could happen twice. But you are going a little futher, you are saying: it happened twice, but in the exact same way so they can't be distinguished with DNA techniques. You are also saying both evolved in the same way, so modern species that arise from those two original forms, can not be distinguished from one another either. This is of course not impossible, but it is so absurdly improbable that no sane scientist would consider it worth investigating when he/she already has a much more likely hypothesis. You get the point?

Seems to me that we're talking about a miracle here, rather than a plausible "natural" occurrence. If one wants to bring mathematical probabilities into the mix, then the probability of spontaneous generation happening is far beyond what mathematicians consider impossible.

Not really, spontaneous generation is not "that" unlikely if you take into account that it could happen in trillions of planets, through trillions of tries (billions of years) etc. Of course the event happening twice is, well, twice less probable. About your scenario of both forms being identical, evolving in the same way, etc. That is far beyond my mathematical skills, but probably it is something like a billion times more improbable lol.

All that aside though, and back to the original question, how would one determine from DNA analysis, which organisms are related and which aren't, when we don't have the original ancestors' DNA to trace back to??

Well this is an exciting field. But being simplistic, imagine you do a DNA analysis to a bacteria, a common fly, a fish, a reptile, a chimpanzee and a human. And you find something like this:

Bacteria: AAA GA
Fly: AAA CCCT
Fish: AAA CGG TC
Reptile: AAA CGG CT AG
Chimpanzee: AAA CGG CTC TGA
Human: AAA CGG CTC TTA...etc

So, clearly there's nothing there that is an ancestry to another thing, right? But do you see something in common? They have a lot in common on their DNA. Almost as if the original DNA from a bacteria shifted slowly towards the DNA of a human. What you have there is that all those things have a common ancestor. You don't have the DNA of that ancestor, although you can assume how it would be like. Ie look at the dog and human DNA's, they clearly have a recent ancestor. It's DNA? This one: AAA CGG CTC. That's the sequence of the ancestor because that's what they both have in common. You can even put a date to when that ancestor existed since mutations of nucleotides (the letters) occur at a relatively constant rate as demonstrated (if I remember correctly) by Kimura in the 60s. If on top of that, paleontologists findd a fossil with characteristics expected for an ancestor of apes and humans, which has a similar age to the one you calculated, then man you certainly have nailed it!

Creationists are so often accused of not thinking critically, but it seems to me that if one is going to dogmatically defend UCA, they should be able to answer my question, if they are themselves, using critical thinking in evaluating their own beliefs.

Yes. We shouldn't defend "dogmatically" UCA or any other thing, especially science, that must always remain open to possibilities. Although I believe you guys, especially creationists, need to comprehend science works with probabilities and not with absolute truths, and some of the things creationism proposes are painfuly lacking on probabilistic backup, and too often they lack any evidence whatsoever.

This is the reason that I don't buy anything, regarding DNA analysis, that comes from the evolutionist camp in defense of their theory. They could very possibly be looking right into the absolute falsification of their theory, and not even know it.

You shouldn't buy "anything". Just look at the evidence, and extract your own conclusions. Just don't get lost in the "it could have happened on any other way", because everything could have happened in any other way, so that statement will lead you nowhere. Any scientist know that theories may be inaccurate no matter the mountains of evidence they have. One example is the one you mentioned (life originated twice).
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 2:45:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:45:18 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:33:52 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:30:47 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:28:10 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:13:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Did life begin with one life form then evolve?? Or did it begin with numerous different life forms that all had no relation to each other, but have observable similarities because they all formed in, and live in, a similar environment (same chemicals, same air content, same energy source/food supply, etc.)?? If the latter were true, how would you be able to distinguish, using DNA analysis, between those who are related and those who aren't??

It is irrelevant to evolutionary theory whether we all evolved from one single-celled organism or from many single-celled organisms.

What an interesting way of saying 'I don't know'. :3

The question he is asking is meaningless and irrelevant. Did life evolve from one single-celled organism? or from two single-celled organisms? or from a dozen such organisms? The question is irrelevant. Whatever the answer happens to be it will not change anything.

How is the question irrelevant to a theory that says that all life forms are related??

Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains the process of diversification and speciation through the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, genetic variation and descent with modification, genetic drift, etc. It would not matter at all whether we all descended from one single-celled organism or from two, we would all still be related.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 2:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:07:55 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:52:19 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

It doesn't say that. We've found life on Mars, haven't you heard?

That turned out to be just a coincidental shape of minerals that wasn't life at all.

Evolutionary theory is the mechanics of life. It's sort of like how we have our solar system, and our life on earth: we're not the only solar system.

There's no evidence, no reason to assume there is life anywhere but on Earth. Given how difficult is has been for us to purposely create life (impossible), it stands to reason that, given the size of the observable universe, there probably hasn't been any way of life starting elsewhere accidentally.

Miller-Urey Experiment.

Also, I don't buy the notion that advanced life, if it exists, would view us as ants. We are conscious, sentient beings... if life started elsewhere, then it stands to reason that some of it is advanced. If some of it is advanced, it stands to reason that some of it would have contacted us by now. Either they would have come in peace, or they would have come for war. But they would have come.

Not really. Considering the vast distances of space between solar systems and galaxies, and the fact that the conditions for life--at least life as we know it--are very specific and rare in our universe, it is not at all surprising that we haven't come across aliens. It might be the case that aliens have looked into space searching for life but saw no signs of it anywhere.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.