Which came first? plants or animals?

[USincognito]

Pretending? How so?

Pretending that the issue hadn't already been addressed. You know, like I wrote in the rest of that sentence you're not dishonestly pretending I didn't write.

It appears that thread quickly dissolved into talking about retroviruses.

I'm sure, to you, it appears that way.

 

[USincognito]

It was a planimal.
It came about by unknown means and somehow contained the genetic information to become every species of plant and animal on earth. We know that it had to be schizophrenic and harbor hatred for itself, because it would have to yield predatory offspring to control its population before it consumed all of the available food in whatever body of slime it came from. The food of course is another problem, since living things eat only living things. Maybe it lived off photosynthesis and pooped salinity into the oceans. In any respect, it had to contain in its barely functional DNA the blueprint for all life on earth. The alternative is that there is a God. That brings with it implications of its own.

You're a GREAT Creationist.

 

[KWCrazy]

I wonder what you hope to accomplish by making such childish posts.

I wonder if you realize that there isn't any difference between what I posted and your own theory of an original progenitor.

If you introduce a living organism into an environment, it has to eat something or die. If it's the only living thing, it has nothing to feed off but light. But let's presume in this make-believe theory in your make believe distortion of science that it came to exist in a pond of water and magically could reproduce. What, then, would it do? It would eat and reproduce exact replicas of itself since there would be NO EVOLUTIONARY FORCES to act upon it. So it eats, reproduces and thrives until the pond is full of its offspring. Eventually the food source runs out and all of them die.

You see, you can't create a balanced terrarium without balance. If something can breed, something must control the population or it will consume whatever it's eating. The only way life would been able to establish itself would be for predator and prey to pop into existence at the same time. Without that balance life wouldn't last thousands of hours, let alone millions of years. Evolution, taken to its logical conclusion, has no basis whatever in logic or science. It's a religion; pure and simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wonder if you realize that there isn't any difference between what I posted and your own theory of an original progenitor.

If you introduce a living organism into an environment, it has to eat something or die. If it's the only living thing, it has nothing to feed off but light.

Ignorance must be bliss.

I guess you never heard of "smokers" found on the ocean floor. It is a complete ecosystem that exists in deep water where no light can reach it. Guess what? They get along just fine. The energy that forms the foundation of that ecosystem is hydrogen sulfide. Not light. Not eating other animals. Hydrogen sulfide.

Learn something, then get back to us.

 

[Skaloop]

If something can breed, something must control the population or it will consume whatever it's eating. The only way life would been able to establish itself would be for predator and prey to pop into existence at the same time.

Why would you suggest that having a predator is the only way to control the prey population? Like you said, the population would grow as long as there were resources for it. But when resources got short, natural selection would do the job of controlling the population without any need for a predator of any kind.

 

[EternalDragon]

Ignorance must be bliss.

I guess you never heard of "smokers" found on the ocean floor. It is a complete ecosystem that exists in deep water where no light can reach it. Guess what? They get along just fine. The energy that forms the foundation of that ecosystem is hydrogen sulfide. Not light. Not eating other animals. Hydrogen sulfide.

Learn something, then get back to us.

Yes, bacteria. And things do feed on that bacteria.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, bacteria. And things do feed on that bacteria.

But you said living organisms must eat or use light. This bacteria is a living organism that doesn't eat. Nor does it need light. So your entire premise fails.

And what exactly feeds on that bacteria?

 

[EternalDragon]

But you said living organisms must eat or use light. This bacteria is a living organism that doesn't eat. Nor does it need light. So your entire premise fails.

And what exactly feeds on that bacteria?

KWCrazy was the one that actually posted the idea but to answer, the bacteria eats the sulfur from the vents, and the worms, crabs, etc. that live down there eat the bacteria and they themselves are eaten by bigger fish and so on.

It's along the same lines of bees pollinate flowers which then sustain the bees, there are male and female versions of many creatures, some creatures have to live off other creatures, etc. An ECOSYSTEM.

 

[Skaloop]

KWCrazy was the one that actually posted the idea but to answer, the bacteria eats the sulfur from the vents, and the worms, crabs, etc. that live down there eat the bacteria and they themselves are eaten by bigger fish and so on.

It's along the same lines of bees pollinate flowers which then sustain the bees, there are male and female versions of many creatures, some creatures have to live off other creatures, etc. An ECOSYSTEM.

Which worms, crabs, etc. live down there?

 

[lasthero]

KWCrazy was the one that actually posted the idea but to answer, the bacteria eats the sulfur from the vents, and the worms, crabs, etc. that live down there eat the bacteria and they themselves are eaten by bigger fish and so on.

It's along the same lines of bees pollinate flowers which then sustain the bees, there are male and female versions of many creatures, some creatures have to live off other creatures, etc. An ECOSYSTEM.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Also, this is a moot point. Even if there were things down there feeding off the bacteria - which there aren't; I've never heard of any worms living at the bottom of the sea, certainly no crabs, and CERTAINLY neither of them hanging around vents - that wouldn't erase the fact that the bacteria themselves don't eat or need light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Also, this is a moot point. Even if there were things down there feeding off the bacteria - which there aren't; I've never heard of any worms living at the bottom of the sea, certainly no crabs, and CERTAINLY neither of them hanging around vents - that wouldn't erase the fact that the bacteria themselves don't eat or need light.

I beg to disagree:

Hydrothermal Vent Creatures | Smithsonian Ocean Portal

Of course we all know that E.D. is wrong.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ignorance must be bliss.

Name calling is childish. Post as an adult or do not post to me.

I guess you never heard of "smokers" found on the ocean floor.

Yes I have. They are there because the rest of the ocean has gone non-smoking. The smokers only have a small reserved section.

Abiogenesis is said to have received energy from lightning which jump started the chemical reaction and created the first living things. Having not seen lightning strikes in deep ocean thermals, I don't think they occur there, do you? Perhaps you didn't read my post before taking off on a wild, unrelated tangent. I was discussing life originating in a primordial ooze and you went off to talk about bacteria dining on earth flatulence. It has nothing whatever to do with my point that a single life form introduced into an environment will eat and reproduce until the food is gone, then die off.

Skaloop said "But when resources got short, natural selection would do the job of controlling the population without any need for a predator of any kind."
From what group would it select if there was only one life source?
If it's just a dumb, single cell, how would it know its food supply was being depleted until it got hungry? More importantly, how would it possess the ability to morph into dinosaurs and daffodils? The notion of a single progenitor is not science; it's a fable evolutionists tell each other to reassure themselves that their faith is well placed. This is easily testable. Get a petri dish, a food source and some bacteria and watch them. See if they change into anything else when the food is gone. If your claim has validity, let's see it in action.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lightening strikes water in the ocean all the time, and the atmosphere of the ancient earth was very different than it is today.

 

[KWCrazy]

Lightening strikes water in the ocean all the time,

However, because water is a good conductor it remains on the surface. It doesn't penetrate a mile deep to deep water thermals.

and the atmosphere of the ancient earth was very different than it is today.

The problem with that claim is that there's no way to verify it. It simply must have been the case for evolution to work, therefore it was the case. Sorry. I don't buy it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

However, because water is a good conductor it remains on the surface. It doesn't penetrate a mile deep to deep water thermals.

The problem with that claim is that there's no way to verify it. It simply must have been the case for evolution to work, therefore it was the case. Sorry. I don't buy it.

Well, salt water is a good conductor, but I will inform you that pure water actually sucks at conducting.

And it wouldn't have to penetrate a mile deep, and abiogenesis does not have to be correct for evolution to be correct. Also, while we can't prove exactly in every way how the atmosphere was different, we can tell that it was thanks to the records of atmospheric changes frozen in ancient ice at the poles. Air bubbles were trapped when the ice formed, so we literally have samples of air from thousands upon thousands of years ago, depicting that the atmosphere does change.

 

[HitchSlap]

The problem with that claim is that there's no way to verify it.

Not... sure... if... serious...

 

[EternalDragon]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Also, this is a moot point. Even if there were things down there feeding off the bacteria - which there aren't; I've never heard of any worms living at the bottom of the sea, certainly no crabs, and CERTAINLY neither of them hanging around vents - that wouldn't erase the fact that the bacteria themselves don't eat or need light.

You need to get out more maybe?

Direct from the Wiki page on hydrothermal vents:

The ecosystem so formed is reliant upon the continued existence of the hydrothermal vent field as the primary source of energy, which differs from most surface life on Earth, which is based on solar energy. However, although it is often said that these communities exist independently of the sun, some of the organisms are actually dependent upon oxygen produced by photosynthetic organisms, while others are anaerobic.

The chemosynthetic bacteria grow into a thick mat which attracts other organisms, such as amphipods and copepods, which graze upon the bacteria directly. Larger organisms, such as snails, shrimp, crabs, tube worms, fish, and octopi, form a food chain of predator and prey relationships above the primary consumers. The main families of organisms found around seafloor vents are annelids, pogonophorans, gastropods, and crustaceans, with large bivalves, vestimentiferan worms, and "eyeless" shrimp making up the bulk of nonmicrobial organisms.

Tube worms, which may grow to over two meters tall, form an important part of the community around a hydrothermal vent. They have no mouth or digestive tract, and like parasitic worms, absorb nutrients produced by the bacteria in their tissues. About 285 billion bacteria are found per ounce of tubeworm tissue. Tubeworms have red plumes which contain hemoglobin. Hemoglobin combines with hydrogen sulfide and transfers it to the bacteria living inside the worm. In return, the bacteria nourish the worm with carbon compounds. The two species that inhabit a hydrothermal vent are Tevnia jerichonana, and Riftia pachyptila.

One discovered community, dubbed "Eel City", consists predominantly of eels. Though eels are not uncommon, invertebrates typically dominate hydrothermal vents. Eel City is located near Nafanua volcanic cone, American Samoa.[10]

Other examples of the unique fauna which inhabit this ecosystem are the scaly-foot gastropod Crysomallon squamiferum, a species of snail with a foot reinforced by scales made of iron and organic materials, and the Pompeii worm Alvinella pompejana, which is capable of withstanding temperatures up to 80 °C (176 °F).

 

[biggles53]

Name calling is childish. Post as an adult or do not post to me.

Yes I have. They are there because the rest of the ocean has gone non-smoking. The smokers only have a small reserved section.

I'm betting you don't see any hypocrisy between those two paragraphs....right?

This is easily testable. Get a petri dish, a food source and some bacteria and watch them. See if they change into anything else when the food is gone. If your claim has validity, let's see it in action.

Ummm.....so those bacteria in Lenski's experiment...? The ones who rapidly took over the population once they evolved to make use of a new food source....!?

I guess they don't qualify.....right?

 

[Kylie]

Citation needed that it is "millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information."

But it's all irrelevant anyway, because if those few percentage points of difference are worth millions of volumes of encyclopedia type of information, then the many percentage points of similarity would be worth TRILLIONS of volumes of encyclopedia type of information.

Miss this, EternalDragon?

 

[lasthero]

You need to get out more maybe?

Says the guy who thought it was possible to get more than 300 on an IQ test.

Anyway, as interesting as that is, the point of my post still remains - it's moot. None of that stuff erases the fact that the bacteria themselves don't rely on food or light.