How to choose between creation and evolution.

[xianghua]

The only people that 'see design' in genomes are non-biologists with a previous dedication to creationism.

so prof dawkins isnt biologist since he said this?: "“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have very little interest in a response from you if it's not an answer to the question I've asked.

Such questions are just clever diversions from the topic. Here's what you should be asking,

What is the origin of the first life form, the "cell"?

Watch the video then ask yourself, "Do I really expect the uninitiated to believe this came about through "common descent" and "natural selection"?

 

[xianghua]

However, God is not limited in this way, and He could presumably have made different living things with proteins made out of a different set of amino acids, and genetic material made out of different pyrimidines and different purines.

several things: first there are different codes in nature:

Universal genetic code may not be so universal

secondly: the problematic word here is "presumably". since you are not the designer you cant know why he choose this code.


3) i see no difference from a designer who use different materials like plastic, steal glass and so on. i think that most vehicles use the same basic materials.

The fact that all living things are made out of the same set of organic molecules is therefore slightly more consistent with the hypothesis that all living things are related by common descent from a small number of common ancestors

this isnt what we find:

"The results are contradictory to a widely held belief among biologists. "There are significant errors in text books. The universal code is not universal and all species now on earth do not use a code "frozen in time" as claimed by Watson and Crick," Duax said. "Some basic assumptions about evolution are incorrect."

 

[Speedwell]

so prof dawkins isnt biologist since he said this?: "“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

He said "appearance" not actuality, and he did not make that comment as propaganda statement for an ugly right-wing political agenda like ID proponents do.

 

[VirOptimus]

so prof dawkins isnt biologist since he said this?: "“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

Quotemining does not impress.

 

[tas8831]

Most tissues do look alike, I guess.
The only time I've heard someone use the word molecule in relation to a cell is in reference to its organelles (which are made of molecules). Still, nobody looks at your arm and says 'what a great assembly of cells'. Same with the cell.

Agreed.

Of note, the 'supplement' to the definition of tissues I referred to previously mentions plants separately:

Tissue

Definition

noun, plural: tissues

An aggregate of cells in an organism that have similar structure and function


Supplement

A tissue is an aggregate of cells that having the same structure and function. The fundamental types of tissues in animals are as follows:

epithelial tissues (or epithelium)
nerve tissue
connective tissue
muscle tissue
vascular tissue

In plants, the different types of tissues are the embryonic or meristematic tissues (such as apical meristem and cambium), the permanent tissues (e.g. epidermis, cork, trichome), and the reproductive tissues (i.e. sporogenous tissues). The permanent tissues may be further classified into fundamental (e.g. parenchyma, collenchyma, sclerenchyma) and complex (e.g. phloem and xylem tissues).

Tissues that work in unison to carry out a specific set of functions form an organ.​

I am an animal guy, so I was unaware of any plant-related issues, so what you brought up is good to know.

Isn't it amazing how science works - I learned something I did not know based on another scientist's input.

 

[tas8831]

Such questions are just clever diversions from the topic. Here's what you should be asking,

What is the origin of the first life form, the "cell"?

Watch the video then ask yourself, "Do I really expect the uninitiated to believe this came about through "common descent" and "natural selection"?

So precious that creationists rely so heavily on videos.

By "uninitiated", I suppose you mean "under-informed" or "uneducated."

Such folk do have a tendency to be anti-science.

 

[Snappy1]

Such questions are just clever diversions from the topic. Here's what you should be asking,

What is the origin of the first life form, the "cell"?

Watch the video then ask yourself, "Do I really expect the uninitiated to believe this came about through "common descent" and "natural selection"?

And done.

 

[tas8831]

so prof dawkins isnt biologist since he said this?: "“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

You have already been exposed on that. Why keep bringing it up?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So precious that creationists rely so heavily on videos.

By "uninitiated", I suppose you mean "under-informed" or "uneducated."

Such folk do have a tendency to be anti-science.

The video, which was not produced by creationists, illustrates the utter impossibility of evolution (although, as a biology teaching tool, I'm certain it is also used to support evolution).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So precious that creationists rely so heavily on videos.

By "uninitiated", I suppose you mean "under-informed" or "uneducated."

Such folk do have a tendency to be anti-science.

Calling those who reject evolution as anti-science is like calling someone anti-food because they don't like rutabaga (no one likes rutabaga).

 

[Gene2memE]

Such questions are just clever diversions from the topic. Here's what you should be asking,

What is the origin of the first life form, the "cell"?

From earlier protocells, which were formed from lipids creating various types of membrane structures. Which were in turn formed from various naturally occurring molecules, which were in turn formed from simpler molecules.

 

[pitabread]

so if you will see a car made of wood or special materials you will not conclude design then?

I think you need to stop asking questions you've already been given answers for.

(And stop invoking the False Equivalence Fallacy while you're at it.)

 

[Speedwell]

(And stop invoking the False Equivalence Fallacy while you're at it.)

Impossible. It is the basis of the entire ID argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From earlier protocells, which were formed from lipids creating various types of membrane structures. Which were in turn formed from various naturally occurring molecules, which were in turn formed from simpler molecules.

How long did it take for the first self-replicating cell to be 'formed', based on what is known about cell division?

 

[Gene2memE]

How long did it take for the first self-replicating cell to be 'formed', based on what is known about cell division?

The qualifier (second part of the question) is irrelevant.

The earliest simple life that we can definitively identify as life - in the form of stromatolite fossils laid down by algae-like creatures is about 3.65 billion years old.

There is less definitive, but still robust, evidence that life is at least 3.77 billion years old - Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates - White Rose Research Online - and may be as old as 4.282 billion years old. These results come from fossils of microtubials, which are similar to those found laid down by extant microorganisms around modern hydrothermal vents.

Given that all the evidence points to the formation of the earth about 4.54 billion years ago, and the formation of oceans about 4.3 to 4.4 billion years ago, this suggests that life could have come into existence is as little as 100 million to 200 million years after the formation of the oceans.

With certainly, basic life - specalised microbial autolithotrophs and chemotrophs - was around within the first 800 million years of the existence of earth.

Self-replicating cells are definitely older than this. How much older - 100, 200 or 500 million years - is hard to tell.

So, in answer to your question: At the most 800 million years, but plausibly no more than 200 million years.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The qualifier (second part of the question) is irrelevant.

The earliest simple life that we can definitively identify as life - in the form of stromatolite fossils laid down by algae-like creatures is about 3.65 billion years old.

There is less definitive, but still robust, evidence that life is at least 3.77 billion years old - Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates - White Rose Research Online - and may be as old as 4.282 billion years old. These results come from fossils of microtubials, which are similar to those found laid down by extant microorganisms around modern hydrothermal vents.

Given that all the evidence points to the formation of the earth about 4.54 billion years ago, and the formation of oceans about 4.3 to 4.4 billion years ago, this suggests that life could have come into existence is as little as 100 million to 200 million years after the formation of the oceans.

With certainly, basic life - specalised microbial autolithotrophs and chemotrophs - was around within the first 800 million years of the existence of earth.

Self-replicating cells are definitely older than this. How much older - 100, 200 or 500 million years - is hard to tell.

So, in answer to your question: At the most 800 million years, but plausibly no more than 200 million years.

My question wasn't when these cells appeared but how long it took for them to develop the ability to self-replicate from the time they became 'living' things.

 

[Gene2memE]

My question wasn't when these cells appeared but how long it took for them to develop the ability to self-replicate from the time they became 'living' things.

We don't know an exact timeframe, and we may never know, as we don't know when the first self replicating protocells existed.

But, we can give the answer thusly: At least 200 million years, but no more than 800 million years.

 

[tas8831]

The video, which was not produced by creationists, illustrates the utter impossibility of evolution (although, as a biology teaching tool, I'm certain it is also used to support evolution).

How so?

EXACTLY how so?

As you have admitted to your ignorance of biology, why on earth should anyone care that you claim evolution is impossible because you personally do not understand it (and goes against your religious programming)? You claim a high IQ - can you really think this line of "argumentation" is anything other than fallacious nonsense?

 

[tas8831]

Calling those who reject evolution as anti-science is like calling someone anti-food because they don't like rutabaga (no one likes rutabaga).

Your posts show that you are anti-science, in the current pro-Trump/climate change is a hoax/creationism is true fashion.


You are anti-science in part because you have admitted your ignorance of the subject matter yet feel justified in rendering judgements on it. Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.