Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
In the C/E=GA thread, Juvenissun issued a response to whether the creation evolution debate could even be considered a discussion.
For example, we can discuss that plants were created before animals. There could be tons and tons of scientific discussions on this issue. It is much much MORE than just a faith.
So lets do that.
Hey, evolutionists.
Hey!
Have interest in talking about it? I am not a biologist nor a paleontologist. So, there is no need to be afraid of me. But I think I can beat most, if not all of you, on this issue.
Well I'm not a biologist either, but I consider myself to be rather well informed in the subject, so best of luck.
First, there is no common ancestor for animal cell and plant cell. Right?
Wrong.
This common ancestor is known as LUCA, standing for "Last Universal Common Ancestor", and could refer to either a single cell or a population of cells (or more likely protocells) that gave rise to every other living species on the planet. This includes Eukaryota (encompassing both plant and animal cells), Bacteria, and Archaea. Genes from every existing life form on Earth suggest a common ancestor. In fact, a quick Google search reveals an article that explains how scientists are attempting to reconstruct what LUCA would be like, as well as a link to the origional paper.
There is no need to argue about this question. Just say "right !"
Nope, 'cause you're not.
(some of you may even say that this is an irrelevant question to evolution, I think that is a cowardly answer.).
Asking about a universal common ancestor is not an irrelevant question to evolution, asking about where that ancestor came from is, then we need to talk about abiogenesis, which is certainly an option.
Then I have more interesting topics for you after this.
Well that might take a little while, but don't forget about it, we'll get to it right after we clear up the origional topic.
Sigh, I can feel already that there are not many of you qualified for this discussion.
Sigh, so I guess no one should discuss it then.
Some of you can only yell: Evidence ! Evidence !
Well, us loony evolutionists do like our reality based in facts.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
Angiosperms --- the key word here is "angiosperms".
Here even before the sun was.
Yes indeed, flowering plants did come before the sun according to Genesis, how they survived on a heatless planet with some mysterious ambient light as their only nourishment? I assume only God knows how.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
This common ancestor is known as LUCA, standing for "Last Universal Common Ancestor", and could refer to either a single cell or a population of cells (or more likely protocells) that gave rise to every other living species on the planet. This includes Eukaryota (encompassing both plant and animal cells), Bacteria, and Archaea. Genes from every existing life form on Earth suggest a common ancestor.
Obviously this is just a hypothetical origin of life scenario, but it is pretty interesting to think about how life could have started and what LUCA would have been like.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Yes indeed, flowering plants did come before the sun according to Genesis, how they survived on a heatless planet with some mysterious ambient light as their only nourishment? I assume only God knows how.
Now, now. Let's not derail yet another promising thread where we can actually discuss science-type stuff instead of the usual goofy creationist apologetics nonsense.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Now, now. Let's not derail yet another promising thread where we can actually discuss science-type stuff instead of the usual goofy creationist apologetics nonsense.
I guess they need to add a [sarcasm][/sarcasm] function
Nice chart, those were the good 'ol days, before oxygen came and started poisoning everything.
__________________ "We can easily forgive a child that is afraid of the dark, the real tragedy is when people are afraid of the light"
-Plato
Yes indeed, flowering plants did come before the sun according to Genesis, how they survived on a heatless planet with some mysterious ambient light as their only nourishment? I assume only God knows how.
Get out of your tunnel view. It must not be OUR sun. There are many other suns, right?
I guess they need to add a [sarcasm][/sarcasm] function
Nice chart, those were the good 'ol days, before oxygen came and started poisoning everything.
So the LUCA is an imaginary creature, right? Do we ever find LUCA in comet? Why not?
Did I read on the chart that it were made in a "more oxidized" environment? Is that a mistake?
And how do we know the Hadean sea had a more acidic water (you are excused to answer this one, it is in the field of geochemistry)?
-----
My way of dealing with evolution is that I will throw out hard questions, so evolutionist could not answer. I count that as my victory. And based on that, evolutionist has absolutely no right to accuse anything about Creationism.
Linear Mode
