• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Demise of Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The article suggests the same "astronomical" odds that I have proposed.

Some context would help. That specific reference is with respect to RNA spontaneously arising:

While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.
That is not the same sort of context as you keep claiming with respect to "odds".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Some context would help. That specific reference is with respect to RNA spontaneously arising:

While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.
That is not the same sort of context as you keep claiming with respect to "odds".

There are many such steps that share the same odds in the ToE. If each step faces impossible odds how did the process succeed? I don't think it's reasonable to assume clear sailing once the RNA/DNA thing is resolved. And even that is underpinned by unexplained processes. Too many assumptions as placeholders.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
There are many such steps that share the same odds in the ToE.

There are no meaningful ways to actually calculate those odds though, so such discussion is irrelevant. In the context of the article quote, the reference to improbability is strictly colloquial. This is where context matters.

If each step faces impossible odds how did the process succeed? I don't think it's reasonable to assume clear sailing once the RNA/DNA thing is resolved.

In the context of the article they are quoting a chemist, Robert Shapiro. A quick reference to his Wikipedia article suggests he doesn't favor an RNA-first scenario, and proposes a different scenario for the origin of life:

He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. - Robert Shapiro (chemist) - Wikipedia

Again, context.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,301
7,515
31
Wales
✟432,641.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
What is the purpose of the belly button in evolution, since science lies and states we came from slime.

... care to give that another go, chief?
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No biologist has ever said we came from slime.

Read a biology book sometime. It won’t burn you, I promise.

The devil must have been chuckling when he came up with creationism.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No biologist has ever said we came from slime.

Read a biology book sometime. It won’t burn you, I promise.

We came from 'goo' (as in "Goo to You") :p
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,467
4,001
47
✟1,130,841.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
What is the purpose of the belly button in evolution, since science lies and states we came from slime.
It's a scar from where your umbilical cord attached you to your placenta while in your mothers womb.

Other born or hatched animals have something similar.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
13,764
5,830
60
Mississippi
✟324,278.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Just was wanting to see the explanation of the birthing process in evolution. Especially the evolution of the womb. How was the birth brought fourth before the womb evolved and then how the birthing process came about while the womb was evolving over billions of years. What did the womb evolve from, what was it before, it is what we know now.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,301
7,515
31
Wales
✟432,641.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Just was wanting to see the explanation of the birthing process in evolution. Especially the evolution of the womb. How was the birth brought fourth before the womb evolved and then how the birthing process came about while the womb was evolving over billions of years. What did the womb evolve from, what was it before, it is what we know now.

Then why didn't you ask that instead of saying: "What is the purpose of the belly button in evolution, since science lies and states we came from slime."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,467
4,001
47
✟1,130,841.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Just was wanting to see the explanation of the birthing process in evolution. Especially the evolution of the womb. How was the birth brought fourth before the womb evolved and then how the birthing process came about while the womb was evolving over billions of years. What did the womb evolve from, what was it before, it is what we know now.
Before mammals had a womb, their ancestors internally fertilised, then laid eggs similar to reptiles.

The internal structure doesn't have to maintain their young over the entire development so it is structurally simpler.

An even simpler system is to lay unfertilised eggs then for the male to fertilise them. Many fish and amphibians use this system.

(Incidentally the belly button or equivalent may still be visible on an animal who hatched from an egg because the internals of the egg can attach to the developing animal in the same way.)
worker-cuts-umbilical-cord-newborn-baby-crocodile-hatching-eggs-108636397.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
13,764
5,830
60
Mississippi
✟324,278.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Before mammals had a womb, their ancestors internally fertilised, then laid eggs similar to reptiles.

The internal structure doesn't have to maintain their young over the entire development so it is structurally simpler.

An even simpler system is to lay unfertilised eggs then for the male to fertilise them. Many fish and amphibians use this system.

(Incidentally the belly button or equivalent may still be visible on an animal who hatched from an egg because the internals of the egg can attach to the developing animal in the same way.)
worker-cuts-umbilical-cord-newborn-baby-crocodile-hatching-eggs-108636397.jpg

Show me evidence of a human egg
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,467
4,001
47
✟1,130,841.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Show me evidence of a human egg
Humans have never laid eggs.

The very earliest mammals laid eggs and now only one very small branch does likewise. (Just two species).

Can you explain what point you are trying to make? It seems to jump around from belly buttons to eggs.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.