no evidence for evolution

[AV1611VET]

If life came about through abiogenesis, then there was no time gap between them since abiogenesis is defined as the production of organisms capable of evolving. If you are talking about the amount of time between the first interactions of organic molecules and the emergence of life, then you are probably talking about 500 million years or so.

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

First you said 'no time gap.'

Then you mumbled some stuff I don't even understand.

Then you say '500 million years or so.'

I'm confused.

 

[RickG]

But there is a gap of time between abiogenesis and evolution, no?

Yes, as well there is a gap between pregnancy and birth. Is there a problem from your point of view?

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree, even if it was as long as one million years, and I have severe doubts that it would be that high, that is a mere blink of the eye when we are talking of an event at least 3 billion years ago. In geology the further back one goes the fainter the record is. First life would have left no record at all until longer after it was established and competing.

Since single celled organisms don't produce fossils, the best we can hope for is the chemical signature of life. One of the possibilities that scientists are looking at is carbon isotope ratios. Biological processes tend to favor lighter carbon isotopes compared to heavier isotopes, so carbon samples with higher than expected ratios of lighter isotopes are possible evidence for life. In fact, scientists have found these possible signatures of life in 4.1 billion year old zircons.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth

 

[Loudmouth]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

First you said 'no time gap.'

Then you mumbled some stuff I don't even understand.

Then you say '500 million years or so.'

I'm confused.

No contradiction. The time between the emergence of the first organism (i.e. abiogenesis) and evolution would be immediate since evolution would start immediately. If you are talking about the time span between there being no life and life, then you are talking about hundreds of millions of years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, as well there is a gap between pregnancy and birth. Is there a problem from your point of view?

Is that gap considered a time on the earth when there was life?

 

[AV1611VET]

No contradiction. The time between the emergence of the first organism (i.e. abiogenesis) and evolution would be immediate since evolution would start immediately. If you are talking about the time span between there being no life and life, then you are talking about hundreds of millions of years.

Okay ... thanks.

 

[RickG]

Is that gap considered a time on the earth when there was life?

It is what it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is what it is.

Alright ... thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there is a gap of time between abiogenesis and evolution, no?

Yes, there would be. But as Loudmouth pointed out it would be a very short time. Why does this matter to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No contradiction. The time between the emergence of the first organism (i.e. abiogenesis) and evolution would be immediate since evolution would start immediately. If you are talking about the time span between there being no life and life, then you are talking about hundreds of millions of years.

I would tend to disagree, but thinking more on this the change from "not alive" to "alive" would of course be a very fuzzy one. There probably was competition for basic chemicals by proto-life before what we consider as life today. So I am now changing my answer to my previous post and agreeing with you. Evolution would be immediate since the late processes of abiogenesis would have been evolutionary ones.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would tend to disagree, but thinking more on this the change from "not alive" to "alive" would of course be a very fuzzy one. There probably was competition for basic chemicals by proto-life before what we consider as life today. So I am now changing my answer to my previous post and agreeing with you. Evolution would be immediate since the late processes of abiogenesis would have been evolutionary ones.

The way I view is that without the process of reproduction freezing those chemical processes in place the chemical reactions would just go away. What you have is a period of failed abiogenesis events. The best analogy I can think of is asking for the time gap between winning the lottery and being a millionaire. The time gap would be almost immediate. However, you can ask the separate question of how many times you played the lottery and lost. Is abiogenesis the production of the first life, or is it the interaction of chemicals that didn't result in life?

 

[Robert Palase]

Yes, there would be. But as Loudmouth pointed out it would be a very short time. Why does this matter to you?

It matters because without these crumbs of comfort his ability to sustain his beliefs would be diminished, the gaps in our knowledge and understanding are all his beliefs have to feed on, creationism in of itself has no substance so it has nothing to sustain it, trying to rubbish evolution is all that keeps it alive, remove evolution and creationism dies, creationist know this all too well.

 

[RickG]

1. The fossil evidence doesn't show evolution occurring. Evolutionists claim they can fit the data into some models, but the same data can fit into other non-evolutionary models as well.
There is nothing about the fossil record to prove evolution.

Explain the distribution of fossils throughout the geologic column without evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain the distribution of fossils throughout the geologic column without evolution.

Explain the distribution of population throughout the earth without evolution.

Examples: Chinese in China, French in France, Canadians in Canada, and Scots in England.

 

[Robert Palase]

Explain the distribution of population throughout the earth without evolution.
Examples: Chinese in China, French in France, Canadians in Canada, and Scots in England.

If a person want's to be a creationist please follow this example, the first thing you must learn to do is "Always" answer a question with a question, in that way you don't answer the question and the questioner doesn't usually come back and ask again, doing this allows you to do two things, not answer a question you could not answer anyway and also fool yourself into believing that you were smart enough to really answer the question, smiles all round.
The downside is the only one to be fooled by that ruse is you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The downside is the only one to be fooled by that ruse is you.

Believe me.

I'm not "fooled by that ruse."

I know it works.

 

[Robert Palase]

Believe me.
I'm not "fooled by that ruse."
I know it works.

You are fooled because everyone knows exactly what you are doing yet you fool yourself into thinking they don't and believe the ruse actually works.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are fooled because everyone knows exactly what you are doing yet you fool yourself into thinking they don't and believe the ruse actually works.

Amen to that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Explain the distribution of population throughout the earth without evolution.

Examples: Chinese in China, French in France, Canadians in Canada, and Scots in England.

Scots in England? Don't you mean Scots in Scotland?

 

[AV1611VET]

Scots in England? Don't you mean Scots in Scotland?

England.

(It's a joke, son, a joke.)