Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Common Ancestry

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:20:21 AM, tkubok wrote:
Can I ask, do you accept Common ancestry and the fact that all life can be traced back to a single celled organism?

At 4/24/2015 10:44:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
No, I do not believe in evolution of all life from the same single primordial cell. If you want to know why, I will explain it.

At 4/26/2015 11:36:00 AM, tkubok wrote:
Okay. Please explain/expand on why.

The reason I do not accept the concept of all things evolving from the very same single source is because it is illogical when you take a look at the innumerable life cycles of the various life forms on Earth. Variety obviously exists. Variety comes from variety not from a single source.

Compare the so called primordial cell to an apple seed.
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety. You need another variety to cross breed them to get a new variety. It also takes life to create life in reality. See Biogenesis.
Life does not just evolve from some non life source and it does not all grow the same way or reproduce the same way which it should logically do if it all came from the same single source and had to adapt to the environment over billions of years.

Many different cycles cannot come from a single source because all cycles tend to replicate or reproduce after their own kind. That is what creates the variety we see.
Eg Bacteria reproduces nothing but bacteria. Plants reproduce plants. Animal reproduce animals. Humans reproduce humans. etc.
It is illogical to believe plants and humans all came from exactly the same original source and have some common ancestor.

That is why I believe more than one source of life must have always existed.
It is the only really logical and sensible conclusion which does not lead to a dead end that implies something came from nothing.

Something must logically have always existed due to the fact that you cannot get something from nothing. If one single thing can have always existed then there is no reason why an infinite variety of things cannot also have always existed.

The concept of only one mysterious thing being the beginning of all things is a very narrow minded concept and belief which has been handed down through tradition, religion and science over many years. I perceive that narrow mindedness as blinding those who choose to wear those "blinkers" and refuse to broaden their view and look at other possibilities.

Cultural brainwashing has a great affect of making people believe mythical stories based on hypothetical phenomenon or characters which cannot be proved to exist. It is all speculation based on best guesses and chasing illusions and fantasies of the human mind instead of starting with what are FACTS in life today and reasoning logically from there.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

Aside from your thesis being wrong, Sky, that's about the worst example you could have picked for illustration.

Apples are classed as "extreme" heterozygotes, which means they don't breed true, even when breeding within a single strain. Their genetic makeup includes alleles -- genetic variations that combine randomly and cause significant differences from an apple's parents. For this reason, apple-farmers normally grow applies from grafts on rootstock rather than from seeds.

Rice would have been a better example for your purposes. :p

Moreover, the apple genome has been fully sequenced (and is in fact longer than the human genome.) This gene-sequencing resolved a question that had long divided biologists, regarding whether all apples have a common ancestsor.

It turns out, they do: it's the species Malus sieversii, a wild ancestor of domestic apples found in the mountains of Kazakhstan and other parts of central Asia.

A conspiracy among scientists wouldn't need gene-sequencing for evidence, so to continue arguing that scientists with all their research don't know what they're talking about while you with nothing more than paranoid intuitions do, you need to explain why science was divided about apples until gene-sequencing, and why following gene-sequencing science now considers the matter resolved.

Moreover, we know from fossil evidence that for most of the history of life, there were no flowering plants -- and hence no apples. So if you really believe that apples don't have a common ancestor with other plants then you also need to explain how all the flowering plants suddenly appeared when only non-flowering plants had been present for about 3.8 billion years.

I hope that may help.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 7:20:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

Aside from your thesis being wrong, Sky, that's about the worst example you could have picked for illustration.

Apples are classed as "extreme" heterozygotes, which means they don't breed true, even when breeding within a single strain. Their genetic makeup includes alleles -- genetic variations that combine randomly and cause significant differences from an apple's parents. For this reason, apple-farmers normally grow applies from grafts on rootstock rather than from seeds.

Rice would have been a better example for your purposes. :p

Moreover, the apple genome has been fully sequenced (and is in fact longer than the human genome.) This gene-sequencing resolved a question that had long divided biologists, regarding whether all apples have a common ancestsor.

It turns out, they do: it's the species Malus sieversii, a wild ancestor of domestic apples found in the mountains of Kazakhstan and other parts of central Asia.

A conspiracy among scientists wouldn't need gene-sequencing for evidence, so to continue arguing that scientists with all their research don't know what they're talking about while you with nothing more than paranoid intuitions do, you need to explain why science was divided about apples until gene-sequencing, and why following gene-sequencing science now considers the matter resolved.


But note that you have described genetics and not evolution.

Moreover, we know from fossil evidence that for most of the history of life, there were no flowering plants -- and hence no apples. So if you really believe that apples don't have a common ancestor with other plants then you also need to explain how all the flowering plants suddenly appeared when only non-flowering plants had been present for about 3.8 billion years.


He (she) needs to explain it? Sounds like a bigger problem for evolutionists, if you ask me. "All the flowering plants suddenly appeared" doesn't sound like like evolution, does it? It sounds like a good place to suspect ID injection. Especially when you consider that 'flowing plants' require a whole new system to be built around them to pollinate the flowering plants. If we've already burnt up 3.8B years, we've got to build the existing ecosystem in a pretty short period of time.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 2:14:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 7:20:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

But note that you have described genetics and not evolution.
Skyangel's contention was that all the different apple-strains don't come from a common ancestor, which is incorrect. The ancestor exists, was nly able to be identified through gene sequencing, and the great diversity of apple-strains is also well-understood.

He (she) needs to explain it? Sounds like a bigger problem for evolutionists, if you ask me. "All the flowering plants suddenly appeared" doesn't sound like like evolution, does it?
That's exactly what common ancestry looks like: a plan change, followed by a profusion of species using the new plan. This happens countless times in multiple species over billions of years for major and minor plan changes.

Especially when you consider that 'flowing plants' require a whole new system to be built around them to pollinate the flowering plants.
Please research facts before posting, V3nesl, as members should not be required to correct trivial errors arising from your negligence and intellectual dishonesty.
A quick fact check would have told you that some 20% of modern flowering plant species pollinate abiotically -- that is, without the assistance of other species. This is common in grasses, conifers and many deciduous trees.

Modern abiotic pollination vectors comprise wind (98%) and water (2%.) Pollen survives well in fossils, and in the gut of fossilised insects, so there's an extensive pollen fossil record. The first fossil record for abiotic pollination I'm aware of is from fern-like plants in the late Carboniferous period (about 300 million years ago.) Gymnosperms (flowering plants) show evidence for biotic pollination as early as the Triassic period (about 200 million years ago.) So there's potentially 100 million years between abiotic pollination and biotic pollination. It's speculated that beetles are among the first biotic pollinators.

It sounds like a good place to suspect ID injection.
ID is not a scientific hypothesis, V3nesl, nor even a useful scientific conjecture, so there's no good place in biology to conjecture it.

For example, I haven't seen a single ID conjecture that acknowledges how many interventions would be required across hundreds of millions of years to 'guide' macro-evolutionary development consistently with the fossil record; nor accounts for how intelligent and purposeful intervention is consistent with macro-evolutionary lags of this scale.

ID has to remain vague and obstructionist because the moment it gets specific or tries to offer constructive, accountable conjecture, it starts to look ludicrous. That's the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 3:14:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are making a signficant number of both logical, and scientific errors in this post. I will attempt to explain what these are:

At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
The reason I do not accept the concept of all things evolving from the very same single source is because it is illogical when you take a look at the innumerable life cycles of the various life forms on Earth. Variety obviously exists. Variety comes from variety not from a single source.

Conceptually, Evolution is a study about how variety can come from a single source, using a number of natural processes. Modern breeding of animals show, fundamentally, that variety can indeed come from a single source; and the fundamental patterns of nature including embryology, genetics and comparative anatomy demonstrate that all variations are best explained as a sequential set of variations on variations on variations.

Saying this is not possible as "Variety comes from variety not from a single source"; is contrary to the evidence that we see, and is basically you saying that you do not accept evolution because evolution can't happen. That doesn't seem like any sort of rational argument or evidence based position.

This argument is, basically, opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.

If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety. You need another variety to cross breed them to get a new variety.

This would be neat if it wasn't for the fact that there are 7500 different varieties of apples, most of which have been selectively bred. Indeed, most food you eat either plants or domestic animals, including dogs have been selectively bred and in many cases consistutes variety arising from a single source.

It also takes life to create life in reality. See Biogenesis.
Life creates life; this is not the same as saying only life can lead to life. You can demonstrate one, but the other doesn't follow from it. Unless you are willing to justify or provide a reason why you beleive life can only be created by life, this statement is merely opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.

Life does not just evolve from some non life source.
The evidence for this is? Unless you are willing to justify or provide a reason why you beleive life does not just evolve from some non life source, this statement is merely opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.

and it does not all grow the same way or reproduce the same way which it should logically do if it all came from the same single source and had to adapt to the environment over billions of years.
Why should it logically do so? What possible reasons do you have for thinking a theory that describes life as successive series of adaptive variation not create variation? Unless you are willing to justify or provide a reason why it should logically do so, this statement is merely opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.

Many different cycles cannot come from a single source because all cycles tend to replicate or reproduce after their own kind. That is what creates the variety we see.
Eg Bacteria reproduces nothing but bacteria. Plants reproduce plants. Animal reproduce animals. Humans reproduce humans. etc.
It is illogical to believe plants and humans all came from exactly the same original source and have some common ancestor.

Why? I can explain why it is completely logical given the nature of comparative anatomy and genetics showing that life is successive generations of adaptive variation procuding a tree like array of life all stemming from a common starting point. Because that's what we see.

Humans reproduce humans? Of course they do. Dogs will produce dogs. Mammals will always produce mammals, birds will always produce birds, verterbrates will always produce verterbrates. Deutorostomes will always produce deutorostomes. Chordata will always produce chordata. Animalia will always produce animalia, Eukaryotes will always produce Eukaryotes.

You are tripping over an arbitrary definition of "kind" that you cannot show actually exists in the real world; when you actually look at the fundamental properties of organisms it is clear that at no point in evolutionary history has it been required, or apparent that something is fundamentally different from it's ancestor. Verterbrates, throughout evolutionary history have always given birth to verterbrates; but the variations of verterbrates that have evolved now include birds, mammals, reptiles, lizards, fish, amphibians and other major divisions. At each stage of the evolutionary tree, new "Kinds" appear, which have all the properties of it's ancestor "Kind", with some new changes. There are kinds, which have sub-kinds which have sub-kinds, which have sub-kinds.

Dogs and cats are not different kinds. They are different sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub kinds, but the same sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-kind. Dogs will always be dogs; but this isn't a big deal because dogs will always be mammals, and will always be tetropods, will always be verterbrates, will always be chordata, will always be deutorostomes, will always be bilaterals, will always be eukaryote, will always be DNA based celluar life.

That is why I believe more than one source of life must have always existed.
It is the only really logical and sensible conclusion which does not lead to a dead end that implies something came from nothing.

Something must logically have always existed due to the fact that you cannot get something from nothing. If one single thing can have always existed then there is no reason why an infinite variety of things cannot also have always existed.

The concept of only one mysterious thing being the beginning of all things is a very narrow minded concept and belief which has been handed down through tradition, religion and science over many years. I perceive that narrow mindedness as blinding those who choose to wear those "blinkers" and refuse to broaden their view and look at other possibilities.

Cultural brainwashing has a great affect of making people believe mythical stories based on hypothetical phenomenon or characters which cannot be proved to exist. It is all speculation based on best guesses and chasing illusions and fantasies of the human mind instead of starting with what are FACTS in life today and reasoning logically from there.

As I pointed out, you have justified NONE of what you have mostly just claimed is true without any support. You have merely written opinon based speculation and presented it here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification. Your arguments are falsified both by actual facts, which I have summarised here, and by pointing out that the fundamental concepts you are trying to imply are flat out wrong.

It is clear that you are unaware of the concepts, evidence, logic or justification behind evolution (if you were, you'd be making none of the statements you make here), and it is also clear that you beleive a valid argument against evolution is you asserting that a series of things that you can't show are true, are true when contradicted by evidence, and I beleive it is also clear that I can justify the validity of evolution through evidence; as a result, it is obvious that you are guilty of every single quality you lament in your final rant; and evolution is guilty of none.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 4:36:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:20:21 AM, tkubok wrote:
Can I ask, do you accept Common ancestry and the fact that all life can be traced back to a single celled organism?

At 4/24/2015 10:44:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
No, I do not believe in evolution of all life from the same single primordial cell. If you want to know why, I will explain it.

At 4/26/2015 11:36:00 AM, tkubok wrote:
Okay. Please explain/expand on why.

The reason I do not accept the concept of all things evolving from the very same single source is because it is illogical when you take a look at the innumerable life cycles of the various life forms on Earth. Variety obviously exists. Variety comes from variety not from a single source.
Compare the so called primordial cell to an apple seed.
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety. You need another variety to cross breed them to get a new variety.

But that argument of yours is disproven in laboratory. From a single E.coli, you can get pretty different E.coli. And when I say different I mean a huge variety of E.coli strains. So it is clear, scientificaly demonstrated, that variety can come from just a single source.

It also takes life to create life in reality. See Biogenesis.

If life only comes from life, how do you expect evolution to be false? If life only comes from life, then modern species come necesarily from ancient species, which means evolution would be impossible to refute by your own logic.

Life does not just evolve from some non life source and it does not all grow the same way or reproduce the same way which it should logically do if it all came from the same single source and had to adapt to the environment over billions of years.

Sorry I think that this paragraph does not make much sense, perhaps you should rephrase it.

Many different cycles cannot come from a single source because all cycles tend to replicate or reproduce after their own kind. That is what creates the variety we see.

Variety seen within populations is demonstrated by the Hardy-Weinberg principle as being the sum of the variety caused by mutation, variety caused by natural selection and variety caused by sexual reproduction.

Eg Bacteria reproduces nothing but bacteria. Plants reproduce plants. Animal reproduce animals. Humans reproduce humans. etc.

Wolves produce wolves. Oh, no wait, they produce dogs too. Ok, but cabbage surely produces only cabbages, right!? Oh, no wait, they produce broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and kai-lan.............

It is illogical to believe plants and humans all came from exactly the same original source and have some common ancestor.

Of course, it is much more logical that they were created by the magic of a super powerful being that exists on a super high dimension of existence unreachable to us unless we die.

That is why I believe more than one source of life must have always existed.
It is the only really logical and sensible conclusion which does not lead to a dead end that implies something came from nothing.

The first cell being made of biomolecules that progresively assembled together, has nothing to do with "something comming from nothing". I don't think you are giving enough thought to what you are writting sky...

Something must logically have always existed due to the fact that you cannot get something from nothing.

So since you can not do it, it is logically impossible?

If one single thing can have always existed then there is no reason why an infinite variety of things cannot also have always existed.

Well, everything is possible indeed. What about it?

The concept of only one mysterious thing being the beginning of all things is a very narrow minded concept and belief which has been handed down through tradition, religion and science over many years. I perceive that narrow mindedness as blinding those who choose to wear those "blinkers" and refuse to broaden their view and look at other possibilities.

Cultural brainwashing has a great affect of making people believe mythical stories based on hypothetical phenomenon or characters which cannot be proved to exist. It is all speculation based on best guesses and chasing illusions and fantasies of the human mind instead of starting with what are FACTS in life today and reasoning logically from there.

Stop beating around the bush lol
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 4:44:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
Please research facts before posting, V3nesl, as members should not be required to correct trivial errors arising from your negligence and intellectual dishonesty.

I bet you had a real fun life as a kid on the playground.

A quick fact check would have told you that some 20% of modern flowering plant species pollinate abiotically -- that is, without the assistance of other species. This is common in grasses, conifers and many deciduous trees.


That would mean 80% pollinate biotically, no? Just working with what you're telling me here.

Modern abiotic pollination vectors comprise wind (98%) and water (2%.) Pollen survives well in fossils, and in the gut of fossilised insects, so there's an extensive pollen fossil record. The first fossil record for abiotic pollination I'm aware of is from fern-like plants in the late Carboniferous period (about 300 million years ago.) Gymnosperms (flowering plants) show evidence for biotic pollination as early as the Triassic period (about 200 million years ago.) So there's potentially 100 million years between abiotic pollination and biotic pollination. It's speculated that beetles are among the first biotic pollinators.


Ok. I'm saying that 100-200 million years isn't really very long for the contemporary pollination system to have developed. You wouldn't even buy a PC with 100million bytes of memory, ya know? It's not really that big of a number

It sounds like a good place to suspect ID injection.
ID is not a scientific hypothesis, V3nesl, nor even a useful scientific conjecture, so there's no good place in biology to conjecture it.


Why not? You simply rule it out, hoping your arrogance will carry the day.

For example, I haven't seen a single ID conjecture that acknowledges how many interventions would be required across hundreds of millions of years to 'guide' macro-evolutionary development consistently with the fossil record; nor accounts for how intelligent and purposeful intervention is consistent with macro-evolutionary lags of this scale.


What? This is nonsense, this is like saying Darwin doesn't account for how many mutations would have to take place.

ID has to remain vague and obstructionist because the moment it gets specific or tries to offer constructive, accountable conjecture, it starts to look ludicrous. That's the difference between science and pseudoscience.

But your "science" is also vague. 100 million here, 200 million there, 'speculated it might be beetles'. And as I've pointed out many times, this vague wave of the hand stuff is the ONLY way evolution works. It can't work as an actual string of specific mutations, because there is no way to build such an actual sequence. Not by design, not at random.

So you have evidence that can be construed to show a progression over a long period of time. That is equally consistent with a speculation of design, I hate to tell you. That exact pattern can be seen in human design.

The arrogance kills you evolutionists. Not just you personally - the whole community has gotten so incestuous that you've really lost sight of just how speculative the whole thing is. Design is a perfectly valid hypothesis. It's a sure sign of a non-critical thinker to reject it out of hand, IMHO.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 6:28:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 4:44:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/28/2015 2:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Some 20% of modern flowering plant species pollinate abiotically -- that is, without the assistance of other species. This is common in grasses, conifers and many deciduous trees.
That would mean 80% pollinate biotically, no? Just working with what you're telling me here.
Yes. I'm not a botanist and had to look it up. Links available on request.

I'm saying that 100-200 million years isn't really very long for the contemporary pollination system to have developed.
As I understand it biotic and abiotic pollination use much the same physiology and biochemistry, only with different vectors. Plants using abiotic pollination show some physiological differences, such as more pollen, bigger stigma or pollen receptors, and lack of a corolla or wreath of petals. This is how it is that grasses, for example, which pollinate through wind, don't seem to have flower-petals. Again, links available on request.

Notwithstanding that, a technical opinion such as how long a particular transition ought to take, should reference a published, peer-reviewed paper supporting this view. Like inventing unchecked factoids, It's intellectual dishonesty to claim expertise that you don't have.

It sounds like a good place to suspect ID injection.
ID is not a scientific hypothesis, V3nesl, nor even a useful scientific conjecture, so there's no good place in biology to conjecture it.
Why not? You simply rule it out, hoping your arrogance will carry the day.
No. There are are clear guidelines about what makes an acceptable hypothesis in science, and ID as it's normally promoted fails multiple criteria. However, that's off-topic for this thread, which is why I didn't go into detail. Hit me up elsewhere if you'd like more info.

For example, I haven't seen a single ID conjecture that acknowledges how many interventions would be required across hundreds of millions of years to 'guide' macro-evolutionary development consistently with the fossil record; nor accounts for how intelligent and purposeful intervention is consistent with macro-evolutionary lags of this scale.
This is nonsense, this is like saying Darwin doesn't account for how many mutations would have to take place.
Again, it would be off-topic to explore this here. However, any claim of life being the product of an intelligently-guided project needs to substantiate the qualities intelligent projects normally exhibit, such as the ability to hold a clear direction, synthesise insights from experience and apply them across the project, learn from mistakes, and work toward a coherent outcome with increasing efficiency and efficacy.

If life on earth were a project conducted by a single intelligence, evidence of intellect should be exhibited not just in individual products, but also in the conduct of the project over-all. Yet the chronology of life shows the hallmarks of floundering, inefficiency, repeated failure, lessons unlearned, huge wastage of individuals and whole species, failure to use simple scaling strategies, prolonged failure to overcome simple geographical obstacles or adapt the environment, and a great deal of aimless repetition. Any serious conjecture of intelligence must therefore account for that.

Moreover, we can also see life continuing to develop without such intervention, so there's also the question of redundancy.

ID has to remain vague and obstructionist because the moment it gets specific or tries to offer constructive, accountable conjecture, it starts to look ludicrous. That's the difference between science and pseudoscience.
But your "science" is also vague.
What you're calling vagueness is attributable to your laziness, ignorance and negligence -- both in the conduct of scientific inquiry and the nature of scientific publications. There are papers; they're very specific in key particulars and scrupulously honest in any that are conjectural, because they don't get published unless they are.

You just don't read them.

The arrogance kills you evolutionists.
V3nesl, you have twice exhibited ignorance, laziness and intellectual dishonesty in the space of two posts. Had you not done so, we could have a conversation elsewhere about the importance of precision and accountability in science. However, you must meet those criteria yourself to be credible in that conversation, and right now I think you'd do better to reflect on the need for more accountability, transparency, dilgence and intellectual honesty in your own posts.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 8:47:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 4:44:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
So you have evidence that can be construed to show a progression over a long period of time. That is equally consistent with a speculation of design, I hate to tell you. That exact pattern can be seen in human design.

The patterns of life is only consistent with "design" or "human design" if you ignore every single fundamental facet of this pattern that isn't like design, or human design.

Strangely enough, your 8 word summary of the "patterns of life", just so happen to exclude every single pattern that is found in life supportative of evolution over design. Seriously, your argument is basically, "If you ignore all the aspects of life that do not look like they were designed, life looks designed!".

Do you see cars with vestigial crank-shafts on the front? Automatic cars with a teeny tiny clutch pedal that now has some other use? When comparing a car to a descedant do you never find anywhere where there is a full and fundamental redesign of major components? Do you find diesel engines only present in particular models of car or models closely related to that model? Do you find the internal electronics, engine structure, components, etc, in two long and well established car brands or models completely different? Do you never find an identical engine in two disparate brands? If you compare all blueprints of modern cars, can you identify how closely separated they are by the number of different tweaks made to the crankshaft?

No.

Do you find new technology emerging in multiple makes and models of cars at roughly the same time? Do you find total re-work of wiring systems, engine management, structure, interior, body work, all at the same time? Do you find blueprints and designs for different models of cars being completely different in layout and structure?

Yes.

The first set are patterns found in life; and are never found in wide-ranging design because they are indicitive of a scenario where only small, limited tweaks are allowed. The second is NEVER found in life for the same reason. It is these small, limited tweaks that are apparent in genomics, emrbyology and comparative anatomy; patterns that I could spend the next 10 posts explaining and outlining; that you conveniently ignore in your overly simplistic 8 word summary.

Your problem is that you post analogies that are bland and tenuous and attempt to spin grand conclusions despite the fact that they do not hold at any deeper level.

Your bad analogies are akin to me saying that because your arguments are like cheese; in that they have holes and often really stink, that I can literally reach in the internet, tear off one of your posts and put it on a slice of bread and toast it for a delicious evening meal!

So how about an actually good analogy:

Language. Languages all have aspects of commonality; some more common than others. American English and UK English are very close, but have differences. There are dialects, sub-dialects and many variations and sub-divisions that have fewer and fewer differences.

There is vestigiality; I will explain without a by your leave if there was enough room to swing a cat and it wasn't putting the cart before the horse and putting my heart on my sleeve.

Going above english, we have many germanic languages; romance languages with many commonalities, dialects, derivations and sub-dialects, with the same sorts of new world-old world differences as can be seen in english, but different one. I could go further, but fundamentally, languages of the world forms a nested heirarchy just like life. All the differences between languages matching what we understand of their historical derivations; european and languages all over the world.

These form a nested heirarchy; and they do this because the primary source of the spread of language is DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION. Fortunately, we KNOW language evolved, it can be demonstrated with archaeology rather.

The patterns in language very closely mirror the patterns found in life if you chose to accurately define what those patterns actually are.

So, what can we gain from this: I can list dozens of ways in which the patterns of life doesn't match things that we know were designed. I can list dozens of ways in which most if not all the key patterns of life DOES match things we KNOW evolved primarily via descent with modification.

The differences we can see between design and life can be explained by the differences in patterns that can be produced by biological evolution vs intelligent design.

The similarities we can see between language and life can be explained by them both using primarily descent with modification; and these patterns are what such a process produces.

So please; if you use your analogy between design and life to show design; then I can use an analogy between something that we know evolved and life to show evolution. It is pretty evident which one works better!
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 10:43:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

Aside from your thesis being wrong, Sky, that's about the worst example you could have picked for illustration.

First of all my OP is not a thesis. It is simply my perception which I am sharing with any interested people.
Whether the apple seed is a good illustration or not is a matter of subjective judgement, perception and interpretation in the opinion of the readers. It was simply the first illustration that came into my mind so I used it to make the point that seeds bear fruit after their own kind. No one plants an apple seed and expects to get bananas or grapes or carrots, or an animal, not in a billion years or ten billion years or a hundred billion years or ever. Why then do they claim or believe that the innumerable life forms we see today all originated from the same "seed" or same "atom" or same "singularity" or the same "primordial cell"
The whole concept is ludicrous.

Apples are classed as "extreme" heterozygotes, which means they don't breed true, even when breeding within a single strain. Their genetic makeup includes alleles -- genetic variations that combine randomly and cause significant differences from an apple's parents. For this reason, apple-farmers normally grow applies from grafts on rootstock rather than from seeds.

Rice would have been a better example for your purposes. :p

The SIMPLE message is that it takes "X" to reproduce "X"
If you start with "X" and nothing else at all, sooner or later you end up with a reproduction of "X"... IF.... "X"is fertile and capable of reproducing itself in the first place.
"X" as a single cell can and does "evolve" or grow into something that looks nothing like "X" over time but ultimately whatever it grows into will reproduce "X"eventually. It does not evolve into a whole alphabet over time.

Moreover, we know from fossil evidence that for most of the history of life, there were no flowering plants -- and hence no apples. So if you really believe that apples don't have a common ancestor with other plants then you also need to explain how all the flowering plants suddenly appeared when only non-flowering plants had been present for about 3.8 billion years.


Nothing "suddenly appears" unless you are watching a magic show where you see something seeming to appear from nowhere.
Illusions obviously exist and can fool the best of us at times regardless of whether they are created by a human illusionist or by "Mother Nature". Our own minds can even fool the best of us due to faulty reasoning.
Where people make a mistake is in the presumption that lack of evidence of "X" equals lack of "X" which is not necessarily true at all.
( Replace "X" with whatever you wish to believe did not exist once upon a time ).
Humans come to false conclusions due to a false interpretation of their so called "evidence"
Fossils are evidence of nothing but themselves. They are not evidence that flowering plants did not exist once upon a time.
All things are evidence of nothing but themselves.
Lack of evidence of "X" is evidence that humans lack evidence of "X".
If a person cannot find evidence of "X", it does not mean "X"once did not exist. It means they cannot find evidence of it.
There are many reasons why evidence cannot be found. Maybe Nature recycled the evidence so well that it no longer appears to be evidence. Nature has a way of recycling things and making things disappear from human view and perception.

Having certain things in common with something else does not mean the individual things have a common ancestor from which both things originally evolved over billions of years. It just means they have a few things in common.

The story that "Once upon a time nothing existed" makes no logical sense because it is impossible for something to result from nothing.
Neither does the story that Once upon a time a single thing (A singularity or a God or our own universe the size of a speck of dust) existed all by itself and everything in the universe including Earth and life on Earth came from that single point or phenomenon in space and time which some people imply once also did not exist.

It seems more logical to believe "something" is not an individual thing, singularity, or God but more than likely the "Something" consists of MANY things...... possibly innumerable things.

Label that "something" whatever you like but in reality we all observe that "something" results from "something" which also resulted from "something" and that regress is infinite. You can never get to a place where you can claim "something" did not reproduce, or create, or result from "something" or that you found the "first something" when the " first" is a result of the LAST something before it.

Life reproduces Life in reality. It is illogical nonsense to believe life evolved from non life.
The CYCLE of life producing Life is a CYCLE of infinite regress which leads me to believe the CYCLE of Life is eternal and infinite in spite of individual Life forms obviously being finite and in spite of humans finding no evidence of life beyond a certain point.

My answer to the question of lack of evidence is that nature is self sustaining and recycles itself and so does the whole universe. They do it so well over a period of time that eventually all evidence disintegrates and none is left for humans to find because it becomes dust which ends up blowing in the wind or floating around in space. Most people do not perceive any kind of dust to be evidence of past life. They prefer larger evidence like fossils and bones.
Also, just because Life ends up as dust does not mean Life began as some speck of lifeless dust on Earth or speck of star dust or any other dust and evolved from that lifeless dust. That is all bull dust.
It takes living things to create new life in reality. Dead, lifeless things produce nothing but fertilizer which becomes food for the living things. The living feed off the dead.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 11:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:20:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

But note that you have described genetics and not evolution.
Skyangel's contention was that all the different apple-strains don't come from a common ancestor, which is incorrect. The ancestor exists, was nly able to be identified through gene sequencing, and the great diversity of apple-strains is also well-understood.

NO that is not my contention. That is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what I wrote.
I am trying to convey the PRINCIPLE of living things reproducing their own kind according to their own CYCLES of reproduction. Apples reproduce apples. You need to use an apple to reproduce an apple you need to use an apple tree to reproduce an apple tree. The CYCLE is that apples come from apple trees. I don't care if you want to grow the tree from a seed or grow the tree by chopping one of its branches off and planting it in the ground. I am saying you will never get a peach or orange or any other fruit from an apple tree or from an apple seed. You will only ever get an apple regardless of whether all the apples look the same or not.

You cannot have evolution ( defined as growth and change over a period of time ) of any kind without reproduction.
One reproduction cycle cannot evolve into another reproduction cycle because the essence or blueprint of the reproductive system is within the system itself. Maybe it is in the DNA and maybe it is not. I don't know where to find the "blueprints" but I do know that you cannot take one cell of any kind and expect that cell to naturally evolve into billions of different life forms over a period of time no matter how much change you observe in it.
I am saying it would be impossible for humans, plants, animals, bacteria, chemicals, etc to all come from the same original source. I am saying there must be more than one source of all the life forms and variety of living and non living things on this planet. I am saying it takes variety to create variety.

What causes people to think along the lines of all things originating from the same single source?
Tradition? Religion? Culture? The teachings of our elders which we choose to believe or disbelieve?
WHY do humans think the way we do?
WHY do westerners use linear thinking processes to reason?
WHY do most people believe all things MUST have a finite beginning and a finite end?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 11:47:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 10:43:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.
Aside from your thesis being wrong, Sky, that's about the worst example you could have picked for illustration.
First of all my OP is not a thesis. It is simply my perception which I am sharing with any interested people.

You didn't express it as a perception, Sky. You said common ancestry was illogical. In doing so, you accused an estimated three million biologists worldwide, all of whom have studied biology more than you, and who have devoted their lives to exploring plants, animals and their environment of acting illogically, while you with your lack of investigation and poorly-researched examples, have claimed the expertise to judge them.

Whether the apple seed is a good illustration or not is a matter of subjective judgement
No. It's a matter of whether you researched it, got the facts right, and drew the right conclusions.

You didn't. You relied on intuitions instead, and your intuitions were wrong.

The SIMPLE message is that it takes "X" to reproduce "X"
I understand your intention, but you've based that not on logic or evidence, but intuition. You know that X can come from X, so you've intuited that X must come from X.

But you didn't check to see whether that's always true. In the case of apples, similar parents can produce a wildly different child, and it happens so often and so badly that apple-growers are scared to grow apple-trees from seeds.

Nothing "suddenly appears" unless you are watching a magic show
Nature is full of amazing change, Sky. Seeds to trees, caterpillars to butterflies, and some remarkable chemical reactions (linked right.)

Fossils are evidence of nothing but themselves. They are not evidence that flowering plants did not exist once upon a time.
Fossils are the product of well-understood processes, so there's not much mystery about how fossils appear. If flowering plants were part of the process, they'd leave a trace. If they don't leave a trace, then you can conclude that they weren't part of the process, and think about why they weren't, if they were present at the time the process occurred.

Having certain things in common with something else does not mean the individual things have a common ancestor

That's true. And this is why biologists argued over apples so long -- because they were so different. But once you have the genome for apples you can tell exactly how much is similar and how much is different, and there are ways to work out which bit came first.

The story that "Once upon a time nothing existed" makes no logical sense because it is impossible for something to result from nothing.
We're not telling that story today though. We're talking about common ancestry. :)

It seems more logical to believe "something" consists of MANY things...... possibly innumerable things.
You've used the word 'logic' here where I think you actually mean 'intuition'. Intuition is built on your experiences and inquiries, but do you have enough experience? Have you asked enough questions?

Experiments are a way of building experiences, answering inquiries and building intuitions.

Scientist intuitions about their field tend to be very good -- so much that they can often guess the results of new experiments. However, without scientific training, intuitions about science tend to be quite poor. This is why so many results took so long to discover.

That doesn't mean you must believe a scientist's intuitions, but you shouldn't trust your own in the face of contrary evidence.

My answer to the question of lack of evidence is that nature is self sustaining and recycles itself and so does the whole universe.
There are some good reasons to not believe that. A universe that did that might not be any universe we can experience.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:15:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
You are making a signficant number of both logical, and scientific errors in this post. I will attempt to explain what these are:

At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
The reason I do not accept the concept of all things evolving from the very same single source is because it is illogical when you take a look at the innumerable life cycles of the various life forms on Earth. Variety obviously exists. Variety comes from variety not from a single source.

Conceptually, Evolution is a study about how variety can come from a single source, using a number of natural processes. Modern breeding of animals show, fundamentally, that variety can indeed come from a single source; and the fundamental patterns of nature including embryology, genetics and comparative anatomy demonstrate that all variations are best explained as a sequential set of variations on variations on variations.

Saying this is not possible as "Variety comes from variety not from a single source"; is contrary to the evidence that we see, and is basically you saying that you do not accept evolution because evolution can't happen. That doesn't seem like any sort of rational argument or evidence based position.

This argument is, basically, opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.

You are also misinterpreting my words.
I do not doubt the studies and observations made by breeding and cross breeding living things. We can obviously learn a lot from them and see how things can be changed deliberately via human intervention or change naturally over time... BUT these changes can be observed to happen VERY FAST.
It does not take billions of years to create a new species or variety of animal from existing animals or a new variety or plants from existing plants or new bacteria strains from existing bacteria etc.

Evolution defined as a change and growth over time or the gradual development of a living organsim is obviously valid and true. I believe and understand it perfectly.
BUT the concept that One individual object billions of years ago, evolved all by itself into billions of different forms over billions of years is illogical. One cell cannot evolve into a plant on one hand and into an animal on the other. This is where the 'evolution tree of life" makes no sense at all.
http://biologos.org...
Take a look at the diagram. They have all things originating from the same source.
That is illogical. Life is not like a tree which has many branches that all originate from the same trunk.
Life is more like many different trees which all have a different trunk, a different life cycle and different source.
How do you get a reproductive system that takes "X" amount of time as an individual thing evolving into innumerable different reproductive systems?
Do you really think the reproductive system of a plant and the reproductive system of an animal all evolved from the same original source due to having to adapt to the changing environment?

If "X" is the original source then any offspring of "X" would have the same reproductive system as 'X". The reproduction of their own offspring would use the same reproductive cycle and take the same time amount of time etc etc etc. In the end whatever offspring has "evolved"over the years still has the same reproductive system as the original reproductive system. The offspring might need to adapt to changes in environment but the environment is Earth so any "offspring" would need to make the same adaptions to survive on Earth. That makes the whole idea of changes in life forms being due to adaptations in environment ridiculous if you want to believe some of the "offspring" adapted to become plants and some adapted to become animals.
It is as ridiculous as the myth that humans came from dirt and so did plants and animals. The only thing in common in the stories is the dirt which apparently adapted to Earths environment and some decided to remain dirt while some evolved into plants and some evolved into animals and some evolved into fish and decided to live in water etc..... Plants do not come from dirt at all. They come from the plants before them which come from the plants before them. They come from their own reproductive cycles not from the reproductive cycle of another species which had a vastly different reproductive cycle.

Evolution in itself is nothing but change and growth over time.
Metamorphosis could be seen as a type of evolution which takes very little time at all. The change and growth of a tadpole over time into a frog is a vast change. The change of a caterpillar to a butterfly is also a vast change and is a gradual development of something changing into something else over time but these changes are due to the reproduction and growth cycle itself. They are not due to changes in any environment.
Growth and change obviously happens but it does not take billions of years for a single cell to grow and change into a human at all. It still happens today and we can all observe it happening in the environment of the mothers womb. We all understand the reproduction cycle a lot better today than people did hundreds of years ago.
We ought to be smart enough to throw away their myths about a cell taking billions of years to evolve into a human and all the speculation about how it had to adapt to the environment.
If variety of life was due to evolution which took billions of years due to environmental changes on Earth and IF bacteria, plants, animals and humans, etc are all a result of the adaptation of the species which existed in "year dot" then how do we all end up living in the same environment of planet Earth?
Have blind humans who are born blind, become blind due to some adaptation to environment or due to some natural "error" in the reproduction process which created them?
Do people who are born with two heads, or four legs or other "flaws" and mutations, end up that way due to adaptation to environment or due to natural mutations and errors in the reproduction process?
Do you think the "first" two headed person on Earth was the "first" of a new species of humans and will eventually reproduce a new variety of humans due to adaptation to environment?
Do you think they will be able to think twice as fast as we can or have twice as much knowledge?

Humans are stupid gullible creatures who like to believe themselves and also believe the fictions and fantasies which are fed to them if those fictions and fantasies fit in with their own preconceived ideas.

For those who don't believe two headed people exist.... Look up two headed people on Google.
Some of them will even talk to you with both their heads.

Is it Evolution or a reproduction system mistake?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:16:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 11:04:28 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I am trying to convey the PRINCIPLE of living things reproducing their own kind according to their own CYCLES of reproduction. Apples reproduce apples.
Yes, that's what biologists believed until the mid 19th century. It's a natural and intuitive thing to think; it was believed for centuries, and it took a lot of evidence before biologists believed differently.

The trick to understanding where biology is now, is to make sense of how the thought changed, and what tipped the balance from an easy contention to believe, to a very unintuitive contention.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:34:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 3:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
You are making a signficant number of both logical, and scientific errors in this post. I will attempt to explain what these are:

At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:

It also takes life to create life in reality. See Biogenesis.

Life creates life; this is not the same as saying only life can lead to life. You can demonstrate one, but the other doesn't follow from it. Unless you are willing to justify or provide a reason why you beleive life can only be created by life, this statement is merely opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.


When you have made billions of observations of life creating life and other people see the very same thing, how is it opinion based speculation to say " Only life can lead to life."
I have only ever seen life reproduce life, and so have all other people that I know. The observation is objective as well as subjective.

It is a 100% obvious FACT that life reproduces life. It is not a theory of some kind.
Life is its own evidence that it does what it does. It gives life and also takes away life.
I have absolutely no reason to believe anything other than life produces or reproduces life because only Life itself has provided me with evidence of itself. No dead thing has ever provided me with evidence that it has the ability to produce life.
Do you have any evidence of something dead or non living producing or reproducing life?
Have you ever seen life produced or reproduced from something non living or dead?
If so please provide me with such evidence which is not just your own speculation and science fiction, or religious fiction or fairy tale that ONCE UPON A TIME Life came from non life.

As far as I AM concerned Life can ONLY come from Life and can come from nothing else but Life. I believe that with all my heart and I believe I am 100% correct because LIFE provides me with plenty of evidence daily, that it does exactly that.
Nothing and no one has provided me with evidence that life comes from anything else but life.
Therefore I have no logical reason to believe the story.... "Once Upon a time Life did not exist."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 12:53:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 12:34:23 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/28/2015 3:14:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
You are making a signficant number of both logical, and scientific errors in this post. I will attempt to explain what these are:

At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:

It also takes life to create life in reality. See Biogenesis.

Life creates life; this is not the same as saying only life can lead to life. You can demonstrate one, but the other doesn't follow from it. Unless you are willing to justify or provide a reason why you beleive life can only be created by life, this statement is merely opinon based speculation, presented here as if it is fact with no evidence or justification.


When you have made billions of observations of life creating life and other people see the very same thing, how is it opinion based speculation to say " Only life can lead to life."
I have only ever seen life reproduce life, and so have all other people that I know. The observation is objective as well as subjective.

What exactly would you call viral reproduction? That is literally the intermediary step from "non life" to "life", rearing its ugly head to this day in the forms of various ailments.


It is a 100% obvious FACT that life reproduces life. It is not a theory of some kind.

I again point back to viruses.

Life is its own evidence that it does what it does. It gives life and also takes away life.
I have absolutely no reason to believe anything other than life produces or reproduces life because only Life itself has provided me with evidence of itself. No dead thing has ever provided me with evidence that it has the ability to produce life.

Subtle difference between dead an inanimate.

Do you have any evidence of something dead or non living producing or reproducing life?
Have you ever seen life produced or reproduced from something non living or dead?
If so please provide me with such evidence which is not just your own speculation and science fiction, or religious fiction or fairy tale that ONCE UPON A TIME Life came from non life.

As far as I AM concerned Life can ONLY come from Life and can come from nothing else but Life. I believe that with all my heart and I believe I am 100% correct because LIFE provides me with plenty of evidence daily, that it does exactly that.
Nothing and no one has provided me with evidence that life comes from anything else but life.
Therefore I have no logical reason to believe the story.... "Once Upon a time Life did not exist."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 1:44:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

Aside from your thesis being wrong, Sky, that's about the worst example you could have picked for illustration.

Apples are classed as "extreme" heterozygotes, which means they don't breed true, even when breeding within a single strain. Their genetic makeup includes alleles -- genetic variations that combine randomly and cause significant differences from an apple's parents. For this reason, apple-farmers normally grow applies from grafts on rootstock rather than from seeds.

Rice would have been a better example for your purposes. :p

Yet you can't get an orange from any apple variety. Don't confuse yourself please, you may get apple varieties from an apple but that's all. Species always reproduce after their kind and that rubbishes the idea they all evolved from a vastly different common ancestor.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 1:52:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 1:44:01 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Apples are classed as "extreme" heterozygotes, which means they don't breed true, even when breeding within a single strain. Their genetic makeup includes alleles -- genetic variations that combine randomly and cause significant differences from an apple's parents. For this reason, apple-farmers normally grow applies from grafts on rootstock rather than from seeds.

Yet you can't get an orange from any apple variety.
We can't ever possibly get apples and oranges from a common fruiting ancestor? Or you don't know how we can?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 2:04:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 2:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 7:20:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety.

But note that you have described genetics and not evolution.
Skyangel's contention was that all the different apple-strains don't come from a common ancestor, which is incorrect. The ancestor exists, was nly able to be identified through gene sequencing, and the great diversity of apple-strains is also well-understood.

The ancestor would be an apple. If it's not an apple it can't possibly be the ancestor.


He (she) needs to explain it? Sounds like a bigger problem for evolutionists, if you ask me. "All the flowering plants suddenly appeared" doesn't sound like like evolution, does it?
That's exactly what common ancestry looks like: a plan change, followed by a profusion of species using the new plan. This happens countless times in multiple species over billions of years for major and minor plan changes.

This has never been observed anywhere and can't possibly happen as you describe given the way it will compromise the organisms involved, not to mention the total impossibility of random mutations with NS effecting such.


It sounds like a good place to suspect ID injection.
ID is not a scientific hypothesis, V3nesl, nor even a useful scientific conjecture, so there's no good place in biology to conjecture it.

And yet in arson detection, forensics and archeaology design detection is rife.


For example, I haven't seen a single ID conjecture that acknowledges how many interventions would be required across hundreds of millions of years to 'guide' macro-evolutionary development consistently with the fossil record; nor accounts for how intelligent and purposeful intervention is consistent with macro-evolutionary lags of this scale.

Most ID theorists don't accept universal common ancestry. NEither does I'd need to provide what you asked to be validated.


ID has to remain vague and obstructionist because the moment it gets specific or tries to offer constructive, accountable conjecture, it starts to look ludicrous. That's the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Predicting discovery of functions for junk DNA or vestigial organs is constructive.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 2:06:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 4:36:09 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:20:21 AM, tkubok wrote:
Can I ask, do you accept Common ancestry and the fact that all life can be traced back to a single celled organism?

At 4/24/2015 10:44:57 PM, Skyangel wrote:
No, I do not believe in evolution of all life from the same single primordial cell. If you want to know why, I will explain it.

At 4/26/2015 11:36:00 AM, tkubok wrote:
Okay. Please explain/expand on why.

The reason I do not accept the concept of all things evolving from the very same single source is because it is illogical when you take a look at the innumerable life cycles of the various life forms on Earth. Variety obviously exists. Variety comes from variety not from a single source.
Compare the so called primordial cell to an apple seed.
If you took a single apple seed, there is no way you would get a variety of apples by starting with one seed, not even over billions of years, due to the seed only ever being capable of reproducing the same variety of apples and those apples going through the same cycle to produce more apples of the same variety. You need another variety to cross breed them to get a new variety.

But that argument of yours is disproven in laboratory. From a single E.coli, you can get pretty different E.coli. And when I say different I mean a huge variety of E.coli strains. So it is clear, scientificaly demonstrated, that variety can come from just a single source.

Are you ever going to get an animal from the evolution of E. coli or do you only ever end up with different strains of E. coli?

It also takes life to create life in reality. See Biogenesis.

If life only comes from life, how do you expect evolution to be false? If life only comes from life, then modern species come necesarily from ancient species, which means evolution would be impossible to refute by your own logic.

Life does not just evolve from some non life source and it does not all grow the same way or reproduce the same way which it should logically do if it all came from the same single source and had to adapt to the environment over billions of years.

Sorry I think that this paragraph does not make much sense, perhaps you should rephrase it.

Perhaps you should reread it till you understand it. It is obviously way over your head and any explanation will also be way over your head.
I explained it in one of my previous posts. I am not going to rewrite the whole thing and explain it again. Read my previous posts in this thread and you will find the answer you are looking for.

Many different cycles cannot come from a single source because all cycles tend to replicate or reproduce after their own kind. That is what creates the variety we see.

Variety seen within populations is demonstrated by the Hardy-Weinberg principle as being the sum of the variety caused by mutation, variety caused by natural selection and variety caused by sexual reproduction.

Sigh... Stop thinking backwards.
Start at your imaginary beginning and think forwards. We are not beginning with a variety when it comes to the concept of all things originating from the same original source. We are beginning with one single thing. Not a set of two or three different things which can be mixed and matched to form variety. There is only ONE thing, ONE source in the imaginary beginning.
How do get a variety from only one source?
How does one single source with only one reproductive system produce bacteria on one hand, eukaroytes on another and archaeans on another, as well as a universe filled with known and unknown objects and phenomenon?
All this variety of totally different things from what?.... An imaginary single source. "The origin of life" which very FEW people are certain about because they refuse to believe the origin of life is life itself. They prefer to believe something OTHER than Life created life and claim anyone who believes the observation that Life creates life and must have always created life due to having no evidence to the contrary, is merely speculating.
They like to deny that their own speculation of life originating from a non living source is speculation. They prefer to call it a theory and claim it is based on evidence but in reality science theories are based on nothing but their own interpretation of what they see and observe which is not evidence that life once came from non life. Many science theories are nothing but science fiction. They are evidence that humans have a great imagination and can tell great stories about what they observe and gullible science fiction fans will believe them.

It is illogical to believe plants and humans all came from exactly the same original source and have some common ancestor.

Of course, it is much more logical that they were created by the magic of a super powerful being that exists on a super high dimension of existence unreachable to us unless we die.

For your information, I don't believe that either. In my mind, all Gods are mythical beings. They are nothing but personifications of something that does exist in reality. They are personifications of "forces" and "powers that be" regardless of whether humans can explain those forces and their causes or not.

That is why I believe more than one source of life must have always existed.
It is the only really logical and sensible conclusion which does not lead to a dead end that implies something came from nothing.

The first cell being made of biomolecules that progresively assembled together, has nothing to do with "something comming from nothing". I don't think you are giving enough thought to what you are writting sky...

What makes you believe there ever was a first cell? What makes you believe it was made of bio molecules which progressively assembled together? Where did all this imaginary collection of "first" biomolecules which made up the first cell come from ?
I have given over 60 years of thought to what I am writing. How many years have you given to what you write?

I could say you also are not giving enough thought to what you are writing since you seem to be misinterpreting my words and seem to presume that I believe in a supernatural god as the creator of the universe.
Your own preconceived ideas about what I am saying is stopping you from seeing what I am really saying.

Something must logically have always existed due to the fact that you cannot get something from nothing.

So since you can not do it, it is logically impossible?

I cannot believe it is possible till someone or something shows me it is possible. Even if someone pulls something out of thin air I will tend to believe it is an illusion even if I cannot explain how the trick is done. It is more logical for me to believe anything coming from nothing is an illusion than to believe it can actually happen in reality. Believing in reality keeps me sane.
I see CYCLES in Life and there is not one thing I can see in reality to cause me to believe the CYCLES I see are finite.
There is plenty of evidence to cause me to believe individual life is finite but that evidence does not apply to the CYCLES of life. The CYCLES of life do not seem to work on the same finite principle as individual life. The CYCLES of Life go on in an infinite regress into the past and infinite progress into the future. Individual life comes and goes, lives and dies, in an INFINITE CYCLE which existed in the past, exists today and will always exist in the future. Life that exists today is evidence of its own innumerable cycles. Which came first in the CYCLE? The immature form or the mature form? The immature form comes from the mature form and the mature form comes from the immature form. Life is a paradox.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 2:08:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 1:52:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2015 1:44:01 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Apples are classed as "extreme" heterozygotes, which means they don't breed true, even when breeding within a single strain. Their genetic makeup includes alleles -- genetic variations that combine randomly and cause significant differences from an apple's parents. For this reason, apple-farmers normally grow applies from grafts on rootstock rather than from seeds.

Yet you can't get an orange from any apple variety.
We can't ever possibly get apples and oranges from a common fruiting ancestor? Or you don't know how we can?

No, it can't ever be done. What will make you believe such a silly thing when the most we observe is species producing their likes.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 2:23:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 11:47:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 10:43:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/27/2015 11:36:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

First of all my OP is not a thesis. It is simply my perception which I am sharing with any interested people.

You didn't express it as a perception, Sky. You said common ancestry was illogical. In doing so, you accused an estimated three million biologists worldwide, all of whom have studied biology more than you, and who have devoted their lives to exploring plants, animals and their environment of acting illogically, while you with your lack of investigation and poorly-researched examples, have claimed the expertise to judge them.

That is a most interesting way to interpret my words.
So I need to spell things out to you because you do not comprehend that a judgment of something being logical or illogical is due to personal perception? When I read a statement about "X" being illogical. I do not interpret it as the writer accusing the world that believes in "X"of acting or thinking illogically. I interpret it as a personal opinion and judgment of the writer. I read it as them saying that "X" makes no sense to them personally so that is why they see it as illogical. However, you will interpret my words through your own perception and believe yourself regardless of whether you are correctly interpreting the words or not. Such is human nature and human perception. If the cap fits, please feel free to wear it or complain about me trying sell it to you as you most likely will.
I judge all things I see and observe through my own personal perception and so does everyone else.
I believe myself the same as all other people believe themselves. I have no reason to doubt myself.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:04:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 2:23:46 AM, Skyangel wrote:
So I need to spell things out to you because you do not comprehend that a judgment of something being logical or illogical is due to personal perception?

No, I'm afraid I don't comprehend that. I think you're confusing evidentiary reasoning with intuition.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:15:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 11:47:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/28/2015 10:43:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:

You didn't. You relied on intuitions instead, and your intuitions were wrong.

Thank you for your personal opinion and perception.
Where is your evidence that my intuitions are wrong?
Where is your evidence that I even have any intuition in the first place?
Are you relying on your own perception and interpretation of the words you see in front of you?

The SIMPLE message is that it takes "X" to reproduce "X"
I understand your intention, but you've based that not on logic or evidence, but intuition. You know that X can come from X, so you've intuited that X must come from X.

Why is that illogical to you ?
"X" its evidence of itself. The cycles of "X"are also self evident.

But you didn't check to see whether that's always true. In the case of apples, similar parents can produce a wildly different child, and it happens so often and so badly that apple-growers are scared to grow apple-trees from seeds.

The offspring is still an apple even if it is a wildly different looking apple. It is never a different fruit. The offspring of humans do not always turn out looking human either. There are more malformed and deformed fetuses than you know. The body either miscarries them or they are born dead. If they do survive, they were either treated as outcasts or as manifestations of Gods in the past by our superstitious ancestors. Some people in some cultures still think deformed children are reincarnations of gods. Those who are better educated understand they are simply errors in the reproductive system. Those errors or deformations can be caused by many different things.

Nothing "suddenly appears" unless you are watching a magic show
Nature is full of amazing change, Sky. Seeds to trees, caterpillars to butterflies, and some remarkable chemical reactions (linked right.)

I am not claiming changes and chemical reactions etc do not happen. Change and growth is obvious but everything has a logical explanation.
A single source of everything is not a logical explanation for everything we see and observe.
In my perception it is a wrong answer or wrong conclusion to believe all things came from the same single original source.
Many different sources of varying phenomenon exist in this world and in the universe so why believe all those cycles and sources of varying phenomenon came from the same original single source?

CYCLES of living organisms are self sustaining and self reproducing. They can be mixed and matched with some cycles and cannot be mixed and matched with other cycles.

Having certain things in common with something else does not mean the individual things have a common ancestor

That's true. And this is why biologists argued over apples so long -- because they were so different. But once you have the genome for apples you can tell exactly how much is similar and how much is different, and there are ways to work out which bit came first.

The story that "Once upon a time nothing existed" makes no logical sense because it is impossible for something to result from nothing.
We're not telling that story today though. We're talking about common ancestry. :)

In the end all the stories connect to form one huge story that all things came from a single original source and "EVOLVED" or expanded ( grew) from that time in space. Very FEW have any idea where that so called "original source" came from. It is simply taken for granted that it existed as many people expand on the story about what it did and how they think it did it.
The only common ancestors I have with other humans are human ones.
Every one of us evolves from a single cell into a human who can breathe air on planet Earth, in the environment of the womb of our mothers and that process does not take billions of years.
Since we all know it is such a fast process of evolution today, there is no logical reason to believe the process has not always been just as fast and humans have always evolved from a single cell in the environment of the womb of the mother who is also human and was never anything but human.

It seems more logical to believe "something" consists of MANY things...... possibly innumerable things.
You've used the word 'logic' here where I think you actually mean 'intuition'. Intuition is built on your experiences and inquiries, but do you have enough experience? Have you asked enough questions?

What I actually say and what you want to think I mean are obviously very different things.

Experiments are a way of building experiences, answering inquiries and building intuitions.

Scientist intuitions about their field tend to be very good -- so much that they can often guess the results of new experiments. However, without scientific training, intuitions about science tend to be quite poor. This is why so many results took so long to discover.

That doesn't mean you must believe a scientist's intuitions, but you shouldn't trust your own in the face of contrary evidence.

My answer to the question of lack of evidence is that nature is self sustaining and recycles itself and so does the whole universe.
There are some good reasons to not believe that. A universe that did that might not be any universe we can experience.

It could also be the very universe we are indeed experiencing.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:18:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 3:15:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
What I actually say and what you want to think I mean are obviously very different things.

I don't want to think you mean it, Sky. I'd much rather believe you meant something else.

Please could you answer these questions for me:

What does 'logic' mean? How do we learn it? how does it differ from other kinds of reasoning, and why is it useful?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 3:33:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 2:08:00 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/29/2015 1:52:35 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2015 1:44:01 AM, Iredia wrote:
Yet you can't get an orange from any apple variety.
We can't ever possibly get apples and oranges from a common fruiting ancestor? Or you don't know how we can?

No, it can't ever be done. What will make you believe such a silly thing when the most we observe is species producing their likes.

So, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and broccoli are different vegetables, and always were?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 4:02:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 12:53:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/29/2015 12:34:23 AM, Skyangel wrote:

When you have made billions of observations of life creating life and other people see the very same thing, how is it opinion based speculation to say " Only life can lead to life."
I have only ever seen life reproduce life, and so have all other people that I know. The observation is objective as well as subjective.

What exactly would you call viral reproduction? That is literally the intermediary step from "non life" to "life", rearing its ugly head to this day in the forms of various ailments.

I guess that depends on whether you perceive a virus to be a living thing or not.
I personally do not perceive a virus as being "non life". You seem to imply a virus or "germ" is a non life form.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines virus as "an extremely small living thing that causes a disease and that spreads from one person or animal to another"

It is a 100% obvious FACT that life reproduces life. It is not a theory of some kind.

I again point back to viruses.
Again I point to the fact that it all depends on whether you personally regard a virus as living or non living thing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

It seems that science does not have a clear definition of what LIFE is in the first place.
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.astrobio.net...

Life is its own evidence that it does what it does. It gives life and also takes away life.
I have absolutely no reason to believe anything other than life produces or reproduces life because only Life itself has provided me with evidence of itself. No dead thing has ever provided me with evidence that it has the ability to produce life.

Subtle difference between dead an inanimate.
Of course there is. Something can be be inanimate, not appear to be moving, and still be alive.
However, something can be moving and still be dead. You can chop a head of a chicken and put the dead chicken on the ground and it will still kick its legs and run around. There you have proof that dead things can still move even if they don't move for long.
If you think about all the movement in the universe, something can be moving very fast and not appear to be moving in human perception. Dead things can also move around in the universe due to some outside force causing them to move. Movement or animation alone does not necessarily mean something is alive.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 4:36:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 6:35:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Are you ever going to get an animal from the evolution of E. coli or do you only ever end up with different strains of E. coli?

Well that"s besides the point, isn"t it? You were arguing that it is not possible to produce variety from a single source, yet I"ve just told you that from 1 single E.coli, you get different E.coli. Untill you understand how this is possible, you are simply not qualified to critique common ancestry without embarassing yourself...

Sigh... Stop thinking backwards.
Start at your imaginary beginning and think forwards. We are not beginning with a variety when it comes to the concept of all things originating from the same original source. We are beginning with one single thing. Not a set of two or three different things which can be mixed and matched to form variety. There is only ONE thing, ONE source in the imaginary beginning.
How do get a variety from only one source?

I've just told you. E.coli, remember? :/

How does one single source with only one reproductive system produce bacteria on one hand, eukaroytes on another and archaeans on another, as well as a universe filled with known and unknown objects and phenomenon?

Evolution. 1st procariotes, then archeas, then symbiosis between them which produces eucaryotes (that"s why mithocondria and cloroplasts have their own bacterial DNA, did you know?)

All this variety of totally different things from what?.... An imaginary single source.

An imaginary single source... You mean God?

"The origin of life" which very FEW people are certain about because they refuse to believe the origin of life is life itself. They prefer to believe something OTHER than Life created life and claim anyone who believes the observation that Life creates life and must have always created life due to having no evidence to the contrary, is merely speculating.
They like to deny that their own speculation of life originating from a non living source is speculation. They prefer to call it a theory and claim it is based on evidence but in reality science theories are based on nothing but their own interpretation of what they see and observe which is not evidence that life once came from non life. Many science theories are nothing but science fiction. They are evidence that humans have a great imagination and can tell great stories about what they observe and gullible science fiction fans will believe them.

Again, that life only comes from life, is an argument that heavilty supports evolution. If life only comes from life, bacteria necesarily produced humans.

What makes you believe there ever was a first cell? What makes you believe it was made of bio molecules which progressively assembled together? Where did all this imaginary collection of "first" biomolecules which made up the first cell come from ?
I have given over 60 years of thought to what I am writing. How many years have you given to what you write?

It is pointless to think something over the years if you do not investigate in depth the problem you want to solve. I have not 60 years old, but I have a degree in biology, a master in biotechnology, and another master in didactics of experimental sciences...

I could say you also are not giving enough thought to what you are writing since you seem to be misinterpreting my words and seem to presume that I believe in a supernatural god as the creator of the universe.
Your own preconceived ideas about what I am saying is stopping you from seeing what I am really saying.

Were did I say you believe in God? I mentioned God, and you quickly took the hint, which is interesting considering your answer that you do not believe in God.

Plus where is your evidence that life is eternal, or at least your reasoning? Why does the fossil register have a clear beginning if life is eternal? Why are species, ALL OF THEM, related by their genome if life comes from more than one source?

I cannot believe it is possible till someone or something shows me it is possible. Even if someone pulls something out of thin air I will tend to believe it is an illusion even if I cannot explain how the trick is done. It is more logical for me to believe anything coming from nothing is an illusion than to believe it can actually happen in reality. Believing in reality keeps me sane.
I see CYCLES in Life and there is not one thing I can see in reality to cause me to believe the CYCLES I see are finite.
There is plenty of evidence to cause me to believe individual life is finite but that evidence does not apply to the CYCLES of life. The CYCLES of life do not seem to work on the same finite principle as individual life. The CYCLES of Life go on in an infinite regress into the past and infinite progress into the future. Individual life comes and goes, lives and dies, in an INFINITE CYCLE which existed in the past, exists today and will always exist in the future. Life that exists today is evidence of its own innumerable cycles. Which came first in the CYCLE? The immature form or the mature form? The immature form comes from the mature form and the mature form comes from the immature form. Life is a paradox.
That"s confusing. Why would you think cycles are eternal and don"t have a beginning? If I start going to the hair dresser, then my hair grows again, I go again, then my hair grows again, etc. Would you say my relation with the hair dresser is eternal since we relate in a cyclical fashion? Weird.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 4:50:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 3:04:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/29/2015 2:23:46 AM, Skyangel wrote:
So I need to spell things out to you because you do not comprehend that a judgment of something being logical or illogical is due to personal perception?

No, I'm afraid I don't comprehend that. I think you're confusing evidentiary reasoning with intuition.

Merriam -Webster Dictionary definitions...
Logic...
* a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
* a particular way of thinking about something
*the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.

Intuition...
* a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why

*something that is known or understood without proof or evidence.

I am not using intuition or claiming something is true without any evidence. I have proof of Life reproducing life. My logic is based on that proof. It is not based on some fantasy that has no proof. The reproduction cycles of many life forms are evidence and proof that life produces life. Life is clear evidence of itself.
I understand WHY I think and believe what I do. It's is not like I cannot understand my own logic and have no evidence.
It is the people who speculate that life came from non life who have no evidence at all.
Any process of life coming from non life has never been observed and cannot be observed because it does not happen in reality it only happens in peoples imaginations and fantasies.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 4:50:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/29/2015 4:02:33 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/29/2015 12:53:04 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/29/2015 12:34:23 AM, Skyangel wrote:

When you have made billions of observations of life creating life and other people see the very same thing, how is it opinion based speculation to say " Only life can lead to life."
I have only ever seen life reproduce life, and so have all other people that I know. The observation is objective as well as subjective.

What exactly would you call viral reproduction? That is literally the intermediary step from "non life" to "life", rearing its ugly head to this day in the forms of various ailments.

I guess that depends on whether you perceive a virus to be a living thing or not.
I personally do not perceive a virus as being "non life". You seem to imply a virus or "germ" is a non life form.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines virus as "an extremely small living thing that causes a disease and that spreads from one person or animal to another"

Good for Miriam. This was mentioned previously in another thread, the most basic of questions about life being does it have its own metabolism? Can it reproduce sexually or asexually? Does it respond to external stimuli? The answers are no no and no.

It is a 100% obvious FACT that life reproduces life. It is not a theory of some kind.

I again point back to viruses.
Again I point to the fact that it all depends on whether you personally regard a virus as living or non living thing.

So... real simple question, then. Of the various qualifiers for what constitutes life, what do you attribute to it/them?

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Hm. "These behaviors are what led many to think of viruses as existing at the border between chemistry and life. " Does that sound similar to something some one said about five paragraphs up?

"Approached from this perspective, viruses, though not fully alive, may be thought of as being more than inert matter: they verge on life." -- I am not certain how favorable you think this article was to your position.

It seems that science does not have a clear definition of what LIFE is in the first place.
http://www.nasa.gov...
http://www.astrobio.net...

Using this uncertainty, please allow me to posit that you are not alive, then, as we don't know what LIFE is in the first place.

Or, my point stands: you have been handed an example of the bridge from non life to life (agreed with in part by your citations).



Life is its own evidence that it does what it does. It gives life and also takes away life.
I have absolutely no reason to believe anything other than life produces or reproduces life because only Life itself has provided me with evidence of itself. No dead thing has ever provided me with evidence that it has the ability to produce life.

Subtle difference between dead an inanimate.
Of course there is. Something can be be inanimate, not appear to be moving, and still be alive.

"not -appearing" to be moving, vs, CAN'T because its not alive, or was ever alive. Like a virus.
However, something can be moving and still be dead. You can chop a head of a chicken and put the dead chicken on the ground and it will still kick its legs and run around. There you have proof that dead things can still move even if they don't move for long.

... because parts of it are still very much alive. That is why it can still move. The muscles are still alive, the nerve endings are still alive, and its body is processing misinformation. That is hardly proof of anything "Dead" moving about of its own accord.

If you think about all the movement in the universe, something can be moving very fast and not appear to be moving in human perception. Dead things can also move around in the universe due to some outside force causing them to move. Movement or animation alone does not necessarily mean something is alive.

I don't think I ever tried to argue that point, but throwing a dead cat is a smidge different than the H1N1 doing its thing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...