ok, took your name out and replaced it with delt’s lol
I think we need an alternative theory or someone ought to explain evolution better because l’m just not getting it.
ok, i guess they’ll have to scrap it now because it doesn’t make sense to you. :>>>
i’ve seen this debate quite a number of times on forums and it always end up in a deadlock.
Well, if anything, evolution has been more or less proven to be false. If it was a fact, we’d have fossil records of “missing links” between every species and the next. For example, if the giraffe was really a descendant of the antilope, we would have fossils of intermediate forms with progressively longer necks. We haven’t found a single one of these, for any species.
Evolutionists concentrate on the “missing link” between apes and humans, when all they have is a handful of deformed specimens, which were probably diseased individuals to begin with. If these “ape-men” were more “fit” to survive than apes, then how come there are still apes, and not a single one of these ape-men?
Also, how did the first living cell come into existence? Even the simplest cell, such as the e.coli bacteria, is extremely complex. Next to it, the most advanced man-made computer is nothing but sticks and stones. Just take a look at how DNA works, which is present even in bacteria - a very complicated and powerful mechanism.
That’s just a few of the serious flaws in the theory of evolution. Also, if evolution is a proven fact, why do evolutionists still disagree about fundamental aspects of it?
BAAHAHAHHAHAHAA!
Someone’s been drinking the Kool-aid 
Do you even rationality?
BAAHAHAHHAHAHAA!
Someone’s been drinking the Kool-aid
Do you even rationality?
…no, he doesn’t even rationality marginally rationally. It’s hilarious though!
I have read about many different finds like this earlier, biological material that apparently does not contain earthly DNA:
http://www.livescience.com/15456-biological-ingredients-meteorites.html
I believe primitive biological material is spread around the whole universe falling down on planets every day. Exactly where it was created is not possible to say, but i don’t think life started on earth.
Most elements can not be created on a planet, they have to be created in a star, so how could life have been created on earth?
Do we really know the most primitive lifeform that has existed? I think not. Life can be so much more than what we have seen on our planet, why would earth be any more than just the tip of the iceberg?
We don’t even know half of what’s going on in our own oceans, so why should we expect to know how life was created?
We don’t know crap, but we know things evolve. End of discussion. You can close this thread now. 
I don’t know how much of the question revolves around the first “cell.” Given the assumption of an evolutionary origin to life, we would likely have to begin on a much more primitive level. In fact, it would likely be difficult to describe this as life at all, as it would exhibit very few of life’s characteristics (growth, responsiveness, etc.). The fundamental necessity would simply be self-replication. After all, the conceptual backbone of evolution is that groups that can reproduce themselves are more likely to continue existing than groups that do not. It doesn’t really matter what the groups are - could be races of people, animals, bacteria, cells, or even compounds. The question is how these self-replicating patterns can come into existence, and, if they can develop and become more complex patterns.
I’m not a scientist, and I don’t know much about biology, but I think that this is something that can be assessed as plausible or implausible with reason.
Mainly addressing Delt, I want to rephrase your question. Hopefully this might lead to answers that are more satisfying to you. I’ll break it into two:
“Can compounds that exist on earth form self-replicating structures, simply by chance?”
And,
“Could these structures become more effective at reproducing through competition with one another, eventually developing into life as we know it?”
Others have mentioned crystal structures - this is, of course, not a reasonable example: they just form in stable repeating patterns because of their electrical properties, they don’t “reproduce themselves.” Something more on track might be chain reactions, such as with the formation of carbon polymers. It’s chemically not too difficult for simple carbon compounds to bond together and form long chains. It should make sense that if it is chemically stable for a polymer to bond with additional carbon compounds, then it will continue to grow, while others, which are less likely to bond will stay small. In other words, the chain that can bond the easiest grows the longest.
What determines how easily they can bond? Well, chains can be arranged in various ways, some with branches, nitrogen atoms, rings of carbon, all of the above, etc. It’s not necessary to know any this, other than that all these configurations will affect how the next compounds in the chain can bond. If a chain gains a compound that “blocks” another compound from bonding then it couldn’t grow as easily as a chain that did not.
Eventually, with this sort of process, we might see that the longest chains have compounds that bond easily, but are also are configured in a specific way that block “slower” compounds from joining as easily. Which makes sense, as doing so would slow them down, which would make it harder to bond with compounds before other chains grabbed hold of them.
Now, bonding can generally only occur at the ends of the chain, so long chains and short chains will have two points to grow from. Chains can break apart, though, in some circumstances. A long chain breaking, then, would form two medium chains. Naturally, these would contain the same compounds that made up the large chain, and it would open up new points of contact for the compounds to bond. Four with the first split, eight on the second, and so on. So configurations of compounds that would allow for the fastest “uptake” of any nearby compounds would likely exhibit this splitting behaviour. These new chains would contain the compounds of their “parent” chains, and they would also mutate dependant on whatever new compounds they gain.
If we were to imagine this sort of thing taking place on the molecular level, thousands of possible instances of these competitive molecules could begin from the most basic of carbon compounds. And carbon compounds can have effectively infinite variations in their own right. So there is a very large number of candidates for the “solution” of the most efficiently bonding carbon chain. When this microscopic process occurs across the planet, an incredible number of carbon permutations can be produced, and as they spread around, compete, and interact with another, they would only become more efficient at this. If they didn’t, that configuration would cease to exist, and others would overtake it.
On an entirely different note, you mentioned the “missing link” between men and apes. This is actually a fairly common point of confusion. The point isn’t that man evolved from monkeys; if we were to go far back enough, to before the days of primitive man, there would be a species that “split” in two. Essentially, one “tribe” of early monkeys would have migrated and lived in an environment where tools and intelligence aided it’s survival, while the other got by perfectly fine using brute strength, dexterity, instinct, etc… As we know, monkeys today are quite good at living in their natural habitat, but man is not quite as good at swinging from trees and the like. This is an example of two variant “niches” for survival, where two species can evolve to be better at reproducing under different circumstances, and don’t necessarily compete. After all, the Earth is a large place.
The take away from this is that properties may arise from competition that would not exist in isolation. We can imagine that with extreme environmental stresses, such as variations in temperature, light, or the presence of other variations in the evolution process, different properties could be accentuated and encouraged in our stock of chain compounds. It’s hard to say for certain, but with enough competition and fluctuation, these properties that ensure the persistence of the compounds could develop features that might meet your definition of life, and continue to propagate and grow in complexity to arrive at a “cell,” via further stresses.
That’s my best understanding of the thought process, anyway. It could be wrong, but it seems reasonable to me. I hope it provides a useful answer to the main question.
@no one in particular.
Too many confuse the everyday meaning of a “theory” and a “scientific theory”, it’s mind boggling IMO.
A scientific theory (e.g. evolution) isn’t what you would call a theory in your daily life.
A scientific theory may or may not explain all details of a subject but there are tons of evidence that support the basis of the scientific theory.
E.g.no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory).
Unless a gigantic astroid or other cosmic event push the earth out of orbit, then this discussion won’t mean much anyway 
Other theories may have areas which are not completely known yet and possibly we may never know.
The key thing though with science in general is that it’s allowed “not to know”, there is actually a point to saying “we can’t explain this”.
It doesn’t mean that you put God or any other super being as answer to those yet unexplained questions.
Even brilliant minds have done this misstake in the past e.g. Isaac Newton and some of his theories, which was later explained by other scientists.
This is what happens when you put God or a super being as the answer, there is no longer a way for you to go any further.
If it’s “explained” by “god works in mysterious ways” there is no reason for you to find another answer.
You limit yourself and that is exactly what Newton did.
In regard to evolution and other sciences I would recommend that you watch the excellent show “Cosmos - A Space Time Odyssey” hosted by Niel DeGrass Tyson.
It goes through all kinds of scientific subjects (including evolution) and does it really well in my opinion.
Especially the time scale of things, which is the key in this discussion.
Wow, this thread is still alive?
To the OP:
You mentioned that you are a Jehovah’s Witness.
Why exactly then are you asking about the first cell’s spontaneous creation when the scientific answer likely to be givenwould only prove to go against the creation-by-god-as-autonomous-entity story propounded by the scriptures in which you place your faith?
Just curious.
Like i said, i was hoping for a discussion with a more diverse and/or open-minded set of opinions - that completely failed 
Do religious people need to prove science wrong to make their faith valid?
Some religious people do. But evolutionary “biology” is pretty far from being a real science.
They say evolution is a theory and a theory in science is not like other theories, it is basically fact. Well, Darwinian evolution is not like other scientific theories, it is unscientific. If it is so provable, then please somebody prove it in your own words
No external links. If you understand it, then show your understanding.
How about you disproving it instead? The evidence is on science side, not the imaginary nonsense side. So prove in your own words how science is wrong.
Evolution is being discussed in a boardroom with men in white coats and men in suits etc. Suddenly a green alien skull crashes onto the desk. Well, that settles it then! Lmao. And great timing eh?! Sorry but that makes me laugh. I don’t think we’ll find any bacteria out there, every other planet / moon we’ve looked at seems inhospitable. And even if it rained green skulls for a trillion years, what would come of it? Cutting a body into pieces and replicas of the original body forming from those tiny pieces = cartoon stuff. I think l saw it in a cartoon version of the Adventures of Baron Munchaussen.
What are you talking about? Don’t you know the difference between something having a shape like something and actually being something? Are you delusional?
On Earth we have discovered time after time that life exists on the most inhospitable places we know of, wherever we look there seem to be live organisms or traces of it.
And why would NASA spend a fortune on trying to find traces of life on Mars? They believe Mars has once supported life and they’re on a mission to prove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars
For all i know, the green goo may be a hoax repeated in several incidents by different people or the goo may come from within our own atmosphere as some have suggested. I really have no idea, but if this came from space, then it won’t be hard to imagine how life started on Earth. If i find it very likely? Not really, but i do find it likely that organic matter falls down on a rare occation. There are supposedly more stars than sand grains on our whole planet, then if every star has an average of our solar system, then we talk about quite a bit of planets. So if there are this many planets then why wouldn’t there be one similar to Earth? If Earth is so exeptional it’s like winning the lottery a billion times in a row.
Talking about evolution and explaining it in “ones own words” is of course nice, but then it comes down to being nothing more than an opinion.
Although, you have a point - in this whole discussion of fact vs. fiction, we shouldn’t leave ignore the “messenger”. For example, evolution to me, is a fact. Because I choose to believe that it’s true. That’s my opinion, and thankfully I don’t feel forced to find powerful arguments to support my cause.
As a scientist, you don’t have to personally believe in a theory (famous “god doesn’t play dice” quote by Einstein comes into mind). That shouldn’t obstruct you from seeking the truth.
Whether you seek to prove or disprove a theory is a matter of your personal background and motivations.
What I do find disturbing about creationism is, that it tries to apply scientific method to matters of faith. They (should) exist in separate domains, as you can easily be a religious/spiritual person with a scientific background. It doesn’t have to be either/or. For example, astronauts returning from a space mission can experience a shift in their perception of life (the “overview effect”)
theres many scientific papers on evolution, there’s no real need to discuss it between normal people, you cant help some people, they just dont want to look and study either A)the maths, or B) come to conclusions of experiments. a field of evolution ive been studying lately has been animal behaviour. Why does behaviour evolve? In this we looked at how behaviour is adaptive…eg anti predator behaviour e.g vigilance…http://www.jstor.org/stable/1368202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents…
it always comes down to costs and benefits, i.e a behaviour is adaptive if the cost minus the benefit has a better outcome than alternative strategies. And many of you have seen evolution in action, albeit you might have missed it…a couple of years back there was a bad frost in Ireland, bad enough that lots peoples homes had burst water pipes…before it happened there was robins (yes the bird) everywhere, of all shapes and sizes…(i live in the country so was used to seeing them around)…after the frost there were very few turning up around the place…and the ones that did show were plump little bastards…the ones that didnt have the weight died in the frost…what will happen with the next few generations? Im making the assumption that they willl all be better at surviving harsh weather as their parents had something that allowed them to survive…be it behaviour in foraging or maybe a physiological abilitiy…
As regards the grains of sand. There are probably about 10^22 stars in the known universe, more than the grains of sand on earth, or vice-versa, l forget. By probability alone this isn’t enough to turn up even haemoglobin protein for a pitiful red blood cell, given basic elements (probability is something like 10^750). Also the limit of statistical probability is something like 10^50. You ought to realise that probability arguments are used to attack Darwinism, never to defend it as far as l’m aware.
You’re jumping from the most primitive lifeform in history to a protein of a super complex lifeform that has evolved in billions of years. It’s not even vaguely comparable.
Also, l’ve already dealt with the number of planets in post #80. So many planets, zero radio transmission. Why the cosmic silence?
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? We can’t even visually see almost any planet outside our own solar system, they just don’t emit enough light and are too far away, let alone radio waves. The absolute closest planet to us that we know about is so far away it takes light over 4 years to reach us, and we only know it’s there because we measured its effect on its sun. Now on the off chance the absolute closest planet to us just happens to be one of the planets that not only is inhabited by life, but intelligent life, at the same point in the universe’s history as us, how are they supposed to communicate with us. Radio waves just won’t work, we can’t even get light to them. And that’s the absolute closest planet.
If there’s a civilization out there that has overcome this technical limitation and has found a way to communicate over lightyears, we just have not found a way to receive their messages yet because we’re very far behind them in tech.
No one addressed your “point” in post 92 because it’s clear from it that you haven’t even the slightest elementary school level grasp of the science you seek to prove false, in the same way you haven’t the slightest grasp of just how vast the universe is, and what the limitations of radio waves are. It’s a pointless argument, you know nothing about the subject you debate.
Bellows, even the most primitive lifeforms contain cells / a cell full of millions / billions of such proteins.
Btw, by inhospitable, l meant “nasty cold radioactive dump bombarded with meteors and cosmic rays”.
As for why NASA is exploring Mars, l’m not completely sure it’s to find new life. I think the main reason is to establish a backup place to live, in case Earth gets destroyed and becomes a freezing cold radioactive dump. Like Mars is already. Go figure. I’m not even going to try to figure out USA’s budget. I’ll accept that we need somewhere to dump our white goods (fridge freezers dishwashers cookers etc), that’s all the space exploration we need today, dark side of the moon anyone?
Seriously l wish there were life out there, and my gut instinct is that there is. But l cannot rationalise it so l won’t propose it.
If you know nothing of a subject you might want to read about it before you discuss it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
There’s a pretty big difference between radio waves caused by cosmic objects and sending a radio message.
Panspermia is just a hypothesis, and you are treating it like scientists believe it is fact. Panspermia is just a thought experiment, there isn’t any hard evidence of it, and it has no effect on the validity of evolutionary theory.
The truth is, evolution is obviously true, and has nothing to do with how life started. We don’t really know how life got started, and it’s an entirely separate area of study from evolution. It doesn’t matter if a god did it, if aliens did it, if microbes rode in on a comet, or if it happened spontaneously, or something else, it really doesn’t matter. That’s not what evolution studies, that’s not what evolution is. Evolution is the statistics of how genetic traits are passed over incredibly long periods of time, and nothing more. There are in fact many religious evolutionary scientists. The two are not incompatible.
It’s clear you’re not a remotely reasonable person so I’m not going to waste any more time on this thread.
So you are saying there has only been a few weak studies on evolution, and the rest is a media hype?
Yes I was using the term “media” in a very broad sense.
How many studies are there out there that fit with the theory of evolution, and studies that replicate or otherwise strengthen these hypotheses? How many studies and replicated studies are there that falsifies the the theory of evolution, or large enough parts that makes it weak? How many studies and follow up studies are there on any major competing theory?
I’m not sure I have the time or energy to get too involved in this topic, there is too much confusion on fundamentals which would probably require much work to reach a consensus on, which the discussion could continue, if that consensus even would be possible. There are also loads of assumptions based on cherry picking “facts” or “problems” with a theory, which makes it a daunting task to adress them all one by one.
Might give it a go, might not. It’s an interesting discussion though, but more in a psychological sense.
Re: #92
“you mentioned the “missing link” between men and apes. This is actually a fairly common point of confusion. The point isn’t that man evolved from monkeys; if we were to go far back enough, to before the days of primitive man, there would be a species that “split” in two.”
Split from a common ape-like ancestor. When we look for ancestors of humans, we look for apelike creatures, no less.
Ah yes, I might been have been too brief here, without context. I was just clarifying Delt’s question asking why there are no “in-betweens” or ape-men, in modern times. My point was that apes and humans are the only remaining in-betweens, and the others have long since died out. It’s perfectly true that we would look at ape-like fossils as the missing link; I just wanted to make sure he wasn’t under the conception that “modern man is the progression of modern apes”. In reality, evolutionists would be more likely to say that “both modern man, and modern apes, are two progressions from ancient primates.”
The animals that stayed behind clearly flourished, so it was best to stay behind. Also, what is there to say the offspring of the breakaway apes felt happy with their parents’ catastrophic migration?
I think you might have made some assumptions that I didn’t really intend. For one thing, the environmental conditions millions of years ago could have been quite different from today. Also, reading my own words again, it seems I implied a time-scale of a much smaller proportions than I should have.
With your example of the zebra specifically, what’s to say that the fruit was high up to begin with? The process of evolutionary adaptation applies to the trees as well, as they need to spread their seeds to ensure optimal reproduction. Lets look at it from the perspective of three species: the zebra, the apple tree, and another, maybe the gazelle? (these names are only a convenience, and wouldn’t likely resemble their modern counterparts) The zebra is taller than the gazelle, but both can reach the fruits of the apple tree. This zebra likely uses it’s long legs to travel larger distances than the smaller gazelle, which could be territorial. The zebra eating the fruit is good for the tree, as it would be inefficient to have many apple trees in one place, drinking the same water, casting shade on others. This means that the short apple tree would like to favour the zebra, correct? In this model, both the zebra and the apple tree would grow taller, away from the gazelle, adapting into the modern giraffe and the modern “tall apple tree” or what have you.
Now, though, your previous assertion is correct! The gap between the modern gazelle becoming the modern giraffe is indeed “trillions of years away.”
Of course this proves nothing conclusively, I only mean to show that without having complete knowledge of past conditions, trying to debate these “evolutionary pathways” is mostly hapless conjecture, regardless of whether you are arguing in support, or in opposition of evolution.
Going back to the primate tribes, you said:
The animals that stayed behind clearly flourished, so it was best to stay behind. Also, what is there to say the offspring of the breakaway apes felt happy with their parents’ catastrophic migration? These changes are (i) not genetic (ii) even genetic mutations have no way of passing onto the offspring unless the generative organs are zapped and the gametes therein change
(i) non-genetic changes
I assume you’re referring to the fact the apes splitting up is a geographic change, rather than a genetic one? I hope I’m understanding right.
(ii) mutation
This seems to be an elaboration on your thoughts on the zebra and the fruit tree? i.e. that natural mutation is too minor to overcome the “billion year gaps,” only external sources of mutation could “zap” the radically different, but favourable, mutations into existence. (you’d be right, to say this is highly improbable.)
So to build on my thoughts on the zebra-giraffe problem, let’s re-examine the primate problem. You are describing a “catastrophic migration,” which is not something that I had imagined. The time frame of our discussion is critical here, I think you’re talking about something that would have happened in the course of one or two generations, however, I was thinking that the two groups would develop genetically, and shift geographically very slowly, over the course of millions of years. “Migration” was a poor choice on my part, sorry.
So, to elaborate on the development of the two tribes, the first thing that might happen is that certain apes would begin to make small adaptations over hundreds of years to take advantage of niches. Some genetic strains or families learned to use simple tools for hunting, or some primitive vocalizations to warn others about predators. On the other hand, some strains made up for this with physical strength, etc. as I said before. They would exist side by side in the same tribe, present as slight variations of the archetype of their species, and this wouldn’t be a problem because they would mostly be similar. They wouldn’t interfere with each other’s niches, and could coexist as members of the same tribe. However, over time, the niches could begin to exacerbate their differences, as in the case of the giraffe. Slowly, the more intelligent apes could be encouraged to become even more intelligent, and likewise, the strong apes would become stronger. Continuing on, this could lead to the development of two races of the same species coming from different familial groups. Because of their differences, they would likely start to follow different migratory patterns, in order to best obtain resources based on their specializations. Maybe the “human-apes” could fish in rivers much easier than the normal apes, for example. As their differences and the separation of their movement patterns became more pronounced, the two tribes would be completely disassociated from one another, facilitating their development into separate species.
I apologize for the lack of clarity in that paragraph, I would have gone in to greater detail but the post was already quite long as it was. I want to respond to the rest of your comments on my post from post #92, but I thought this deserved its own post first.
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
Ok I though I’d give it a go. Thought I’d try to answer those issues you seemed lacked a response, so I looked through those posts you mentioned to try to pinpoint them. Some of it has been mentioned before probably.
For evolution to occur there must be positive genetic mutations. People cite the sickle cell mutation. That doesn’t cause an actual physical feature, but anyway, that’s never been shown to be created in nature. It’s just a trait that varies across the world. It’s in the same class as saying white skin is a mutation helps ppl in northern latitudes to dodge polar bears. Circular logic: you start of saying it’s a mutation, and then you conclude it’s a mutation plus you say something nice about it. Really, l don’t think l’ve seen any positive mutations. Also, l figured out once there would have to be new positive mutations happening like every decade, just in the human race (accelerating these days with all the mutagens in the environment). Also, don’t forget the countless other species. There ought to be positive mutations everywhere. Not to mention the various extinctions earth experienced, including once when the entire surface was covered in ice.
To pass on mutations, your gametes need to have been mutated (know what l mean by that? A nasty zap). Just being a great driver won’t mean your kids will be great drivers (unless you teach them?).
The mutations need to be just right every time. One wrong evolutionary step, the poor mutant likely dies. That’s a lotta corpses. Bear in mind the human race probably only had a few hundred thousand members about 20,000 years ago (and we need to go back even further than that if we’re discussing human evolution).
Natural cures: did plants adapt themselves just to cure our illnesses, and even with some species just to be there for us to wipe our bottoms on?
Seems like you believe evolution is a constant forward motion always aiming to some better form. It’s not. Evolution goes in any direction, and natural selection then carve out some direction. Not necessarily towards something “better” or more advanced, just something that has some kind of edge in a particular environment. Like you point out, there are many groups of species that has specialised successfully in a certain environment, and when something has changed, like climate or introduction of new species, they vanquish.
Plants that cure illness have mostly evolved in some way as to defend against it’s enemies, like bugs, microbes and stuff. And lucky for us these substances can be used by us for different reasons. Many plants, by being useful to other organisms in different ways, gain some advantage in the natural selection.
Anyway, Religion and Atheism (and as most people would have it, by extension Evolution) are both unfalsifiable, and therefore both should strictly speaking be kept out of science. Feel free to correct me in a dispassionate manner if you’re an evolution boffin or if you’re a creationist boffin (l want to be well-informed, l’m openminded), but please no external links
Well I would argue that Atheism is totally falsifiable, even though I don’t think Atheism claims to be a science.
Even if many Atheists argue for evolution against creationism, they are in no way connected other than evidence for creationism falsifies Atheism. But evolution can work either way, if life was created by chance or if some god created life and the rules it adhere. There theory of evolution could still be true, god made or not.
They say evolution is a theory and a theory in science is not like other theories, it is basically fact. Well, Darwinian evolution is not like other scientific theories, it is unscientific. If it is so provable, then please somebody prove it in your own words No external links. If you understand it, then show your understanding.
This is the misunderstanding about science, you can never prove something 100%. You put forward hypotheses and strengthen them or falsify one or more claims, which will eventually rework or scrap the hypotheses (evolution of knowledge at work). If a lot of studies strengthens the hypotheses and no replicable study falsifies it, it is considered highly probable that the hypotheses is “on the right track”. Enough studies, and it’s considered more or less a fact. But the fact is, nothing can be proved 100% in this universe.
The basic claim of Panspermia (the belief that we originated as asteroid-bound bacterial spores from another planet) is, as Karl Popper would have it, “unfalsifiable” thus unscientific.
I don’t think the Panspermia hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But I think we are a long way from knowing it’s validity. And the theory of evolution does not rest on panspermia, it’s a related but different topic IMO.
And in that molten lump of plasma, magma, noxious gases and radioactive (?) crater, we expect life to flourish? “Extremophile bacteria” has no meaning here because many different environments will have been traversed.
You make a lot of assumptions on what types of environment extremophile organisms can cope and what types of stress all objects in space must go through before landing on earth.
“Essentially, one “tribe” of early monkeys would have migrated and lived in an environment where tools and intelligence aided it’s survival, while the other got by perfectly fine using brute strength, dexterity, instinct, etc…”
The animals that stayed behind clearly flourished, so it was best to stay behind. Also, what is there to say the offspring of the breakaway apes felt happy with their parents’ catastrophic migration? These changes are (i) not genetic (ii) even genetic mutations have no way of passing onto the offspring unless the generative organs are zapped and the gametes therein change (iii) Of course a long necked zebra can possibly have long necked kids, but Darwinism is stacked against such abnormalities, and that neck isn’t yet long enough to reach for high branches and thus become a giraffe, so there’s no point in the neck getting longer, it’s trillions of years from getting at any high fruit
In fact how did the apes even communicate to each other to begin with? If things were so bad, they should have just eaten each other. Maybe signalled to each other by playing bongos on empty skulls. Lebensraum and communication solved in one go.
Again, evolution doesn’t aim for any goal. Lets say the zebras started to prefer a long neck in its partner, just because it looked hot, like you know it’s taller than the other guys or something. What’s to say the “goal” of evolution was fruits in the tree top. Maybe fruits get incrementally tastier or more nutritious the higher they grow? So only a slightly longer neck would still be an advantage there.
I don’t know what you mean gametes need to be zapped? Traits, good or bad, that are passed on down through generations are easily observable.
I don’t get what you get at with communication between apes, what’s the connection with habitat? All animals (I think) communicate in different ways… expression, sound, scent, vibration… the list goes on. The studies of animal communication often proves it to be more complex than we previously imagined.
And why would it have been more advantageous to become cannibals than expand to new areas?
As regards the grains of sand. There are probably about 10^22 stars in the known universe, more than the grains of sand on earth, or vice-versa, l forget. By probability alone this isn’t enough to turn up even haemoglobin protein for a pitiful red blood cell, given basic elements (probability is something like 10^750). Also the limit of statistical probability is something like 10^50. You ought to realise that probability arguments are used to attack Darwinism, never to defend it as far as l’m aware.
…
Anyway l hope you understand that it’s simpler for car manufacturing factories to appear by themselves and produce better and better cars, than it is to even produce a toenail. You must never talk probabilities if you’re looking to defend Darwinism.
There’s a lot of probability assumptions made there, I don’t know where you got those numbers. And how come a car factory could appear spontaneously more easily than a toenail? Sometimes you use probability and statistics to attack evolution, and sometimes you say it’s useless to prove anything. Some mathematicians recently proved it is more likely we live in a simulation than in the real world, but it doesn’t make it true or false.
As for 4 light years bla bla - with a trillion planets in our galaxy, and the logic of Panspermia, you’d expect life to be rife, and eventually develop to the point of communication via EM spectrum. May l remind you that radio waves travel at light speed, so, we ought to have picked up some naff alien TV stations (l never said they must be communicating with us). This is an extension of Panspermian logic. And it’s false.
Who’s to say life is expected to be rife by the logic of panspermia hypothesis? That assumption is taken from thin air. Universe is large - other life might be very far off, time is long - they might be long since extinct, and most life might not evolve to radio technology. Life could be extremely rare, like earth won the lottery. Or it could be very common, but perhaps in other forms than radio broadcasting beings.
Actually l think l get what you’re saying. Darwinism is distinct from abiogenesis, but it deoends on abiogenesis, like children require parents to pre-exist. Anyway, both sets of belief are immensely flawed so far.
As l explained, Panspermia is there to answer serious problems of Darwinism, so it does indeed matter, and does indeed, in turn, fall on its face, or at least according to post #80 and #92 it does. Answer those posts if you are serious. Make an effort lad.
Well both seem very flawed to you. How much have you studied them to come to that conclusion, and would you like to share the information that falsifies the theories so much that they become questionable? Is the problem that they do not present all the answers about the origin of life?
Let me stress that l’m not looking for a religious alternative, that is unfalsifiable, l am looking for - and might actually have already - an alternative natural explanation for how we got here, but l cba talking about, bit shy to talk of it in fact.
I’m looking forward to read your hypothesis. If it’s more probable that evolution and provide an explanation to the origin, you have a great shot at fame and fortune I bet. Well, you could get that with a good scam as well 