Ok, how did the first living cell pop into existence?

Off-Topic
41

ive repeated the argument because it is quite important. Incomplete and deformed fossils is still 100% more proof than you have. …and its not a handful, its thousands, if not thousands and thousands (probably more)…lets not also forget that “phylogeny reflects ontology” (this is an important concept). and the dinosaurs did not just disappear, its quite accepted that an asteroid started off a period of climate change and allowed mammals to flourish which otherwise they would not have done because they would have been lunch if they ventured out during the day, starting a chain of speciation, mammals finding different niches in the environments they found themselves in. the disappearance of the dinosaurs is called the 5th mass extinction, where extinction rates increased way over the natural background rate of extinction. We are currently in the 6th mass extinction where it is estimated that ~30000 species are going extinct annually…way over the background rate of normal extinction…all of these mass extinctions are well documented. But what about explosions of organisms too??Cambrian explosion for one. a period where organisms developed the ability to utilise bicarbonates for shells etc…

good ol wiki…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I looked at that and you haven’t convinced me in the slightest

42

Lol @ the internal harmony of the Bible. Have you actually read the Bible? The Old Testament is almost entirely war and violence directed by god himself.

God once got mad at a dude for looting a battlefield. Not that, mind you, god had a problem with looting, sometimes he let them loot and sometimes he didn’t, and this particular time he said no, and he got mad that he did it anyways. So because of this one dude, he made Israel lose their battle, and then once he was found out, god opened up a rift in the earth and dropped him and his entire family straight into hell.

Then there was the time god told saul to go attack the amalekites and murder all their babies and kill all their animals and literally kill em all. Saul spared some of them, then god got mad that Saul wasn’t brutal enough.

The bible is full of war, incest, rape, murder, horrible gore (someone’s body parts got sent around at one time to send a message), and much much more. Any internal harmony is wholly imagined and claimed by all religions of their holy texts.

As for mars, like I said in an earlier post, Earth would be too cold too, but we still have the right atmosphere to trap heat. And that could change, as it theoretically could have changed for mars in the past. All the water is frozen, but there is clear evidence on mars of it once flowing, which means mars was warmer in the past.

43

Also, being a Jehovah’s Witness, you’re in a glass house when it comes to throwing bricks at the Catholic Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Society_unfulfilled_predictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse

Then there’s this bit of history:

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/the-racist-history-of-watchtower-literature

Also, are you also into the no-blood transfusions thing? (If so I hope you have no children?)

44

For example, under mosaic law, there was a list of “unclean” animals (ruminants) that the Israelites weren’t allowed to eat (see Deut.14:7, Lev.11:6) Camel, hare, rock badger, …wait a minute, the hare? How did Moses know it was a ruminant? This was only discovered by zoologists in the 19th century. Before that, these passages were often cited by biblical critics as being false. Other examples in the mosaic law include periods of quarantine when people had certain symptoms of diseases, which all correspond perfectly to the gestation times of the respective bacteria as we know them today, not to wash in stagnant water even if it appears to be completely clean, the fact that the 8th day is the optimal age to circumcize a baby, etc etc.

OK, here I have to step in, because this is just wrong.

My authority for saying so is a jewish family, and working farms. I have spent a hell of a lot of time around ruminants, and have the cuts and bruises to prove it. And the smell of my laundry.

Ruminants are most emphatically not on the forbidden (trayf, in modern language) list. Jews now and then have eaten sheep and goats with glee, and both are ruminants. Hares are lagomorphic coprophages, not ruminants. They don’t even have a cud to chew. Moreover, there are lots of things which we know now are quite safe to eat regardless of mosaic law.

Mosaic law (and this is behind a lot of modern jewish schisms) was a darned good observationally supported set of guidelines for healthy living, but we know more now than we did then, and we can tweak a lot of our understanding, but trying to paint Moses as having the inside line on reality is just plain wrong.

Seriously, somebody has been feeding you a gargantuan line of nonsense. Get your basics right, then figure out why people will willingly lie to you and what they have to gain from it.

45

…lets not also forget that “phylogeny reflects ontology” (this is an important concept).

Generally you’re on the right track, but I think you mean “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.

46

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. …yep that too :slight_smile:

47

ive repeated the argument because it is quite important. Incomplete and deformed fossils is still 100% more proof than you have. …and its not a handful, its thousands, if not thousands and thousands (probably more)…
[…]
good ol wiki…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
I looked at that and you haven’t convinced me in the slightest

Like i mentioned, look at how many of these are just drawings, sketches, etc. vs. those that are actual pictures of actual fossils. And of the fossils, how many could be arranged in any kind of way to make them look like any number of things. Now if you’re thinking “oh, the experts have it all figured out”… read my above comment about the entire family trees of “intermediate forms” between species that were imagined and accepted as fact by evolutionists in the 1960’s… all based on a single tooth fossil, which was later proven to be from a pig.

If that’s still enough evidence for you, then whatever… personally i find it pretty absurd to believe that an immensely complex mechanism which biologists are very far from fully understanding, just spontaneously invented itself, by simply waving the magical evolutionary voodoo spell of “millions and millions of years”.

Lol @ the internal harmony of the Bible. Have you actually read the Bible? The Old Testament is almost entirely war and violence directed by god himself.
[…]
Any internal harmony is wholly imagined and claimed by all religions of their holy texts.

Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion. I certainly won’t force you to believe in the Bible’s divine origin, but you seem to already know quite a bit about it, so you must certainly see some good in it, right?

Also, being a Jehovah’s Witness, you’re in a glass house when it comes to throwing bricks at the Catholic Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Society_unfulfilled_predictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah’s_Witnesses’_handling_of_child_sex_abuse
Then there’s this bit of history:
http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/the-racist-history-of-watchtower-literature

Also, are you also into the no-blood transfusions thing? (If so I hope you have no children?)

Of course you can paint a bad picture of any religion, country, or group of people if you focus on only the negative and amplify it. This is what such sites try to do, and they have absolutely nothing positive to offer anyone. I already know the organisation has made mistakes in the past.

Whatever the case, we now have a magnificent, united brotherhood throughout the entire world. This comes from putting Christ’s teachings into practice in our daily lives, as our organisation strongly encourages us to do. This, in contrast, does have something immensely positive to offer.

And yes, i do obey the Biblical commandment of not taking blood into my body (this is repeated very clearly at 3 separate instances in the Bible) and no i don’t have children. Just because we don’t (yet) understand the full exact details behind this commandment, doesn’t mean we can just throw it away. Btw, more and more doctors are acknowledging the negative side effects of blood transfusions, this has been happening for years now.

OK, here I have to step in, because this is just wrong.

My authority for saying so is a jewish family, and working farms. I have spent a hell of a lot of time around ruminants, and have the cuts and bruises to prove it. And the smell of my laundry.

Ruminants are most emphatically not on the forbidden (trayf, in modern language) list. Jews now and then have eaten sheep and goats with glee, and both are ruminants. Hares are lagomorphic coprophages, not ruminants. They don’t even have a cud to chew. Moreover, there are lots of things which we know now are quite safe to eat regardless of mosaic law.

Sorry, my mistake. My definition of a “ruminant” wasn’t exactly the scientifically accepted one. (i did this research quite a while ago, so i can’t remember all the details perfectly :smiley: ) A few articles about the subject from a quick google search.

48

@delt
I cant have arguments with people in your position, you know very well where to find information and how to educate yourself, you are obviously a fanatic that wants to appear like reasonable person.
Dont expect to say hilarious things about the “advanced science” on the bible and that educated people dont laught

49

Refusing blood transfusions has the side effect of_fucking dying._

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7734480/Teenage-Jehovahs-Witness-refuses-blood-transfusion-and-dies.html

Please don’t force this on your kids when you have them. Even if it means being excommunicated.

50

The reasons of using pictures and artist impressions is because showing a picture of an otolith or a small fraction of an ear bone wouldn’t really be very helpful to people who haven’t studied evolution or know anything about diapsids or therospids or the whole of the holes in the head science, if you want to follow up on a particular species and the evolution theorised by the morphology of transitions then you need to go look at the scientific papers, I mean real scientific papers, not documentaries made by just anyone with a camera. Of course there is a lot of inferring when it comes to deducing the whole life-mode and/or physical appearance when all you have is a small piece of jaw bone millions of years old, but even just using a ratio (or statistical analysis) of jaw bone to cheek bone can start to give you an idea of what the head must be like. so again, Il trust the scientific papers over “The Good Book” any day.

51

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fxNbXjBbzEo#t=55

52

JW evangelism on the Renoise forum?

53

[background=#f0f0ed]“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. …yep that too :-)[/background]

…so, sea creatures evolved a pair of eyes over millions and millions of years, and at the same time land creatures evolved the exact same mechanism, at the same respective part of their anatomy, BY PURE COINCIDENCE? Come on, seriously…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fxNbXjBbzEo#t=55

Fascinating, thanks for sharing :smiley:

54

Ontology reflecting phylogeny is a concept a little bit different to that, its more focused on how when you look at a developing embryo, of say a human, or a tadpole, the embryo will go through morphological changes that reflect the evolution of changes the animal/organism has gone through over its history of morphological phylogenetic history. its not perfect, but it is true in a lot of cases.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

On to the subject of the eye,It is pretty well accepted that all land mammals/marsupials have evolved from a 4 lobed fin fish i.e, something like the Coelacanth, which would have already had eyes when it made the first steps to start habituating terrestrial environments. And yes eyes have evolved in many places, but it obviously isnt that far fetched as light is one of the most abundant resources on the planet. Plankton, bacteria, amoebae, multicellular, unicellular, prokaryotic, eukaryotic, all of them generally have some sort of statocyst for regulation of circadian rhythms or orientating themselves in the water column of the oceans or freshwater habitats. As the annoying Dawkins has shown, you only have to look at the phyla Mollusca to see all the evolutionary steps of an eye as good as the one that humans have (and even that has plenty of faults). and all of these steps are in species of Mollusca today, from the most basic single cell sensitive to light, a few more cells so shadows can be made out, then another species that has the most rudimentary of lenses, right up to a squid or nautilus that has eyesight as good as us…

55

@slippycurb
You have formal education or self education? just curious
@delt, your now not even reasoning a little bit, terrestrial life come out of water, already with eyes, what are you saying about “coincidences”?
Not need of a phd to arrive a that conclusion…

56

@pirate utopia

Im in my 4th year applied freshwater and marine biology degree. Its quite broad but we have done a fair bit of classification/zoology, botany,microbiology etc…

57

@pirate utopia

Im in my 4th year applied freshwater and marine biology degree. Its quite broad but we have done a fair bit of classification/zoology, botany,microbiology etc…

cool!!!

58

Ontology reflecting phylogeny is a concept a little bit different to that, its more focused on how when you look at a developing embryo, of say a human, or a tadpole, the embryo will go through morphological changes that reflect the evolution of changes the animal/organism has gone through over its history of morphological phylogenetic history. its not perfect, but it is true in a lot of cases.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

Ah, that’s much clearer. thanks for clarifying.

On to the subject of the eye,It is pretty well accepted that all land mammals/marsupials have evolved from a 4 lobed fin fish i.e, something like the Coelacanth, which would have already had eyes when it made the first steps to start habituating terrestrial environments.

That’s not what i remember from school, strange how science always changes its mind about stuff like this.

On the same topic, here’s a question about the appearance of multi-cellular life… if cells were at first “adapted” to living individually, how come they suddenly decided to work in groups, which specialize in performing specific tasks and form complex life forms? What was the “survival fitness” benefit for such individual cells, to suddenly multiply and “associate” with other cells?

59

Science is not always taught well in schools. You may have simply been taught incorrectly. That being said, science does “change it’s mind” when new evidence is presented. That is because it is science, and not religion. That’s a good thing. If scientists weren’t willing to change their models to reflect the best currently available data, they wouldn’t be doing science.

You’ve got to get this “survival fitness” thing out of your head. As people have already told you in this thread, “survival of the fittest” is a bit of an outdated phrase. A trait doesn’t have to have a benefit to get passed on. Survival matters, yes, because surviving longer means a higher chance of reproducing, but there are other ways. And just because something gets passed on doesn’t mean it was beneficial, it just means it didn’t hinder reproduction enough to not get passed on. You want to see some crazy shit? Look up duck penises and vaginas.

60

In fact, I think you specifically want to look up muscovy duck hemipenes, erections, and rape.

I have seen a few of them. It’s real.

Sometimes I wonder how I sleep.

.

.

.

.

.

Under the hood, farming is all sex and violence. But you could say the same about nature.