-
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.
A few questions for atheists...
- Thread starter dysert
- Start date
In many situations (but not all), long life spans are less fit than short life spans. When parents compete with offspring, this slows the emergence of fitter phenotypes in the population as a whole. Populations with quick turnover of individuals can outcompete populations that are stagnant and less dynamic.
Also, no individual has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.
Upvote
0
No. You need more than just homeostasis for life. You also need replication.
Also, a "spark" connotes a sudden emergence of life. That may not be the case.
Upvote
0
Miller and Urey set out to prove that complex organic molecules could emerge from simple chemicals in an environment like that of the early Earth. The experiment was a stunning success.
The problem is that none of the cells you are pointing to are said to be the product of abiogenesis.
Upvote
0
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
- Dec 7, 2013
- 9,346
- 4,337
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Hello Dysert.
Given that the scientific understanding of the origin of the universe was the Big Bang. The universe
in the first instance was a sterile environment, life definitely cannot occur in any sterile environment.
There seems to be a serious flaw in the scientific explanation.
Upvote
0
- Nov 22, 2002
- 19,570
- 4,622
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
In general the idea would be that "evolving" doesn't mean that all life forms become better and better or longer lived with each generation. Individuals are born with slightly different genetics than their parents and with that comes uncertainty, along with some chance of harmful mutation that can render an individual weaker or less suited to their environment.
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,338
- 1,559
- 77
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
These are all questions for biologists, not for atheists. A Christian biologist would be better able to answer them than an atheist with no biological qualifications.
Upvote
0
It might be educational when dysert sees that the answers given by atheists happen to match those given by biologists who also happen to be Christians.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 43,102
- 46,211
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
There seem to be a lot of problems with your question.
For the most part, living things don't destroy themselves.
One celled organisms may not even die, as the fission into more and more copies. Some copies die, and the rest go on. "symmetrically dividing bacteria and yeast can be biologically immortal under ideal growing conditions."
Living things don't start 'degenerating' from birth. The process from infant to adult is not one of degeneration.
Even if we overlook all of that, it's fair to respond, "Why shouldn't they?"
Upvote
0
Sorry to be late to the party - the traffic was terrible...
If you call a simple replicator (e.g. a molecule that can copy itself) a 'living entity', then yes. But there's a considerable distance between the earliest replicating molecules and what the man on the Clapham omnibus might call a 'living entity' that they gave rise to. The boundaries and definition of life are debatable and uncertain, for example, the hoary old question - are viruses alive?
Upvote
0
No; some homeostatic processes are sufficiently complex, flexible, and adaptable that some might say the process itself is 'clever' or 'has some intelligence' (just as they might say that a car's control system is intelligent enough to counter a skid, or can intelligently follow the car in front), but there's no intelligent entity in control.
Upvote
0
That's not quite what was said - which was "a chance merging", not "a chance of merging"... Meaning that the merging was a chance event.
Just sayin'...
Upvote
0
That's not a coherent question; there is no 'spark' of life. Simple homeostasis probably would not have developed until the replicator was encapsulated in a vesicle, to constitute a primitive cell with an internal environment to be regulated; but it's not clear at what stage this would occur - there are a number of competing hypotheses.
Upvote
0
Lol! It's moved on a fair bit from there. There are deep rock hypotheses, clay hypotheses, oceanic vent hypotheses, ocean spume hypotheses, etc., etc. There's whole areas of study into RNA replicators ('RNA World') and their precursors ('Pre-RNA World'). Self-assembly of RNA chains and other polynucleotides has been demonstrated; there's all kinds of stuff going on.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
