Into the Night
Verified User
Yet cells are made of lifeless chemicals.
Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Yet cells are made of lifeless chemicals.
Open systems.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
But not randomly arranged chemicals or arranged out of necessity according to physical laws—like ice crystals.
Nobody claimed that they're "randomly arranged". Natural selection is not random. Sure there's a few random mutations here and there.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You skipped a step or two lol.
Natural selection needs something to select *from* before it can do anything interesting. One of the [several] problems with abiogenesis is it lacks a mechanism. No mechanism, no theory. It’s a big part of the reason abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
Darwin’s contribution was that he provided a mechanism to explain the phenomena. I think the explanatory power of NS is over rated when it comes to Darwin’s broader claims [not allowed to use the term macro evolution lol] but NS wasn’t even around when there was no life.
The origin of life is inexplicable.
Why can't natural selection apply to abiogenesis? Or stellar evolution? Or anything?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Natural selection isn't random because it selects for a specific criteria, survival of the fittest. The problem is that what is "fittest" varies with conditions.
Animal species on islands that branched from continental members select for smaller sizes since smaller versions eat and drink less on an island. The competition is heavily reduced to the point that environment overtakes hostile threats where size and strength are benefits of most importance. Some call it "insular dwarfism". It's still an example of evolution through adaptation.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/island-living-can-shrink-humans
Living on an island can have strange effects. On Cyprus, hippos dwindled to the size of sea lions. On Flores in Indonesia, extinct elephants weighed no more than a large hog, but rats grew as big as cats. All are examples of the so-called island effect, which holds that when food and predators are scarce, big animals shrink and little ones grow. But no one was sure whether the same rule explains the most famous example of dwarfing on Flores, the odd extinct hominin called the hobbit, which lived 60,000 to 100,000 years ago and stood about a meter tall.
Now, genetic evidence from modern pygmies on Flores—who are unrelated to the hobbit—confirms that humans, too, are subject to so-called island dwarfing. An international team reports this week in Science that Flores pygmies differ from their closest relatives on New Guinea and in East Asia in carrying more gene variants that promote short stature. The genetic differences testify to recent evolution—the island rule at work. And they imply that the same force gave the hobbit its short stature, the authors say.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. It's a big unknown which is why I think the Creationists are assholes for submitting their beliefs as fact when all evidence points to modern man existing for at least 300,000 years and genetically related to several other related branches before Homo Sapiens Sapiens dominated the entire fucking planet.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no seriously, are you alive or not alive......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
young earth creationism and biblical inerrancy are rare doctrines in either world Christianity or American Christianity......not sure why you waste your energy discussing either.........
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Stellar evolution is governed by physical laws and can only produce patterns like spiral galaxies. Basically, the same process that governs snowflake formation but on a cosmic scale.
Again, NS only works if it has something to select from.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
how does that differ from you?......
Into the Night
Verified User
The Theory of Evolution is not science. It's a religion. You are simply pushing your religion over Christianity.
The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It's a religion. You are simply pushing THAT religion also over Christianity.
I have no problem with you stating your beliefs in your religions, but I will point out when you are trying to prove the circular arguments that they are.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Could Homo sapiens sapiens mate with a Homo erectus and produce fertile offspring lol?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the same way they choose to believe in anything......
What deity is being worshipped in the Theory of Evolution religion?
Life has an origin (possibly a few origins).
Three hypotheses for abiogenesis
Notes from my Origin of Life class:
Metabolism-first hypothesis: The first possibility is that life began with metabolism, and genetic molecules were incorporated later. This metabolism-first scenario states that life began autotrophically. Life began with a self-replicating chemical cycle, such as the reverse citric acid cycle, perhaps on a mineral surface. Variants of this cycle competed for resources, and the system became more efficient and more complex. All subsequent chemical complexities, including genetic mechanisms and encapsulation into a cell-like structure, emerged later by the process of natural selection. Life emerged as an evolving chemical coating on rocks.
RNA World: The second scenario is that life began with a self-replicating strand of some genetic molecule—the RNA World. Life relied on an abundance of biomolecules in the environment. Metabolism was incorporated later. A template, such as a clay mineral or astack of PAHs, helped to assemble information-rich polymers from organic molecules in the prebiotic soup. Ultimately, one of these polymers acquired the ability to self-replicate. Then, as variants of the genetic polymer became more efficient at self-replication, new chemical complexities arose through natural selection. In this genetics-first version, life began as an evolving polymer with a functional genetic sequence.
The model lacks the crucial support of one experiment that demonstrates the prebiotic synthesis of a genetic polymer like RNA. If such an experiment succeeds, most experts will agree that the problem of life’s chemical origins has been more or less solved.
Dual metabolism-genetics hypothesis: In the third scenario, life began as a cooperative chemical phenomenon, arising between metabolism and genetics.
It is possible that neither a primitive metabolic cycle nor a primitive genetic molecule could have progressed far by themselves. Metabolic molecules without enzymes tend to react in uncontrolled ways and may be too unconstrained to sustain advanced cellular life. Genetic molecules are much too unstable, and their individual building blocks—the nucleotides—don’t seem to emerge spontaneously from the soup.
Yet what if crudely self-replicating genetic molecules became attached to a crudely functioning surface-bound metabolic coating? A kind of cooperative chemistry might have occurred.
If experiments establish easy synthetic pathways to both a simple metabolic cycle and an RNA-like genetic polymer, such a symbiosis may be the most likely origins scenario of all.
Source credit: Professor Robert M.Hazen, George Mason University
Notes from my Origin of Life class:
Metabolism-first hypothesis: The first possibility is that life began with metabolism, and genetic molecules were incorporated later. This metabolism-first scenario states that life began autotrophically. Life began with a self-replicating chemical cycle, such as the reverse citric acid cycle, perhaps on a mineral surface. Variants of this cycle competed for resources, and the system became more efficient and more complex. All subsequent chemical complexities, including genetic mechanisms and encapsulation into a cell-like structure, emerged later by the process of natural selection. Life emerged as an evolving chemical coating on rocks.
RNA World: The second scenario is that life began with a self-replicating strand of some genetic molecule—the RNA World. Life relied on an abundance of biomolecules in the environment. Metabolism was incorporated later. A template, such as a clay mineral or astack of PAHs, helped to assemble information-rich polymers from organic molecules in the prebiotic soup. Ultimately, one of these polymers acquired the ability to self-replicate. Then, as variants of the genetic polymer became more efficient at self-replication, new chemical complexities arose through natural selection. In this genetics-first version, life began as an evolving polymer with a functional genetic sequence.
The model lacks the crucial support of one experiment that demonstrates the prebiotic synthesis of a genetic polymer like RNA. If such an experiment succeeds, most experts will agree that the problem of life’s chemical origins has been more or less solved.
Dual metabolism-genetics hypothesis: In the third scenario, life began as a cooperative chemical phenomenon, arising between metabolism and genetics.
It is possible that neither a primitive metabolic cycle nor a primitive genetic molecule could have progressed far by themselves. Metabolic molecules without enzymes tend to react in uncontrolled ways and may be too unconstrained to sustain advanced cellular life. Genetic molecules are much too unstable, and their individual building blocks—the nucleotides—don’t seem to emerge spontaneously from the soup.
Yet what if crudely self-replicating genetic molecules became attached to a crudely functioning surface-bound metabolic coating? A kind of cooperative chemistry might have occurred.
If experiments establish easy synthetic pathways to both a simple metabolic cycle and an RNA-like genetic polymer, such a symbiosis may be the most likely origins scenario of all.
Source credit: Professor Robert M.Hazen, George Mason University
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Ummmm...no. The gravitational forces resulting in the shapes of most galaxies (not all) and solar systems is a matter of gravitational physics, but snowflakes are a matter of temperature and crystalline structures. You know, crystals like in Meth.
Into the Night
Verified User
There are fundamentalists in any religion, including fundamentalists in the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of Evolution.