All Life Came From One Initial Life - Evidence?

[SLP]

loudmouth,
your ego might say you do, but you don't have the credentials to call koonin a liar.

I find it hilarious to see anti-evolutionists stand steadfastly by a scientist when they believe that he or she has said something that they agree with, even though these very folks see their anti-evolution stance as idiotic.

Seeing as how you worship Koonin so much, you MUST agree with him that evolution has occurred and that creationism is silly, right?

 

[Mediate]

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

The diversification of life observed in the geological strata.

The layers of rock and sediment in the Earth's crust were formed over millions of years. The deeper you dig, the more millions you're going back in time.

The deeper you dig into the ground, the less different types of life you find. The shallower you get, the more different types you find. This means that as millions of years went by, more different types of life inhabited the planet.

How did those different types of life come to exist on Earth millions of years after other types existed, and how did just a few life forms (in the deepest layers) turn into millions (like what we see now), over billions and billions of years, if not evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by JacksBratt

You have some wonderful examples of how our creator has shown His design in all things.
​

The same "evidence" that you use to show common origin.

So, it doesn't matter what the evidence actually is, you will interpret it to supports "design" by default... correct?

 

[Split Rock]

this reminds me of the list of 1000 scientists you find on creation sites.
this list is rejected solely on the basis it comes from a creation site and for no other reason.
some of the signors have impeccable credentials.

Do you mean this list?
Dissent from Darwin

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This list which has been deceptively used by creationists to claim they have support among scientists?

I agree with this statement. Evolution is known to be affected by genetic drift and gene flow, in addition to natural selection. I would never add to their "list of dissenters," however, because they misrepresent what the people who signed this statement actually agreed with.

 

[Loudmouth]

and here we go, right back to you refusing to believe koonin actually said it.
if they haven't evolved by 1977, i doubt a few more years will make any difference.
i already have, "the logic of chance"
maybe you should read it.

Maybe you should read it. The sections I have read state quite clearly that life evolved through natural mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

amazing isn't it?
you will notice crjmurray offers no opinion on what "koonin meant"
to me the answer is simple.
koonin is apparently calling for a ground up reappraisal of "evolution"
in other words, neodarwinism simply does not explain what science is finding and has found.

All Koonin is doing is telling biologists that some evolutionary mechanisms are more important than they think. Nowhere does Koonin reject evolution.

this reminds me of the list of 1000 scientists you find on creation sites.
this list is rejected solely on the basis it comes from a creation site and for no other reason.
some of the signors have impeccable credentials.

In order to sign the list, you don't even have to reject evolution, or even Darwinian evolution.

 

[lasthero]

this reminds me of the list of 1000 scientists you find on creation sites.
this list is rejected solely on the basis it comes from a creation site and for no other reason.
some of the signors have impeccable credentials.

It should also be noted that quite a few of those scientists:

A) aren't actually scientists, or at least aren't scientists from fields relevant to evolution.
B) have openly stated that they weren't made aware of who was behind that list. A few have been asked to be removed from it. So far as I'm aware, they haven't.
C) even if we consider that they're all genuine (which is doubtful) and they're all biologists (certainly not) there were about 1,000,000 biologists in the United States alone as of 2000. 1,000 is a pahetically small fraction of that. But I guess the other 99% are just too afraid to speak up on something, right?

 

[whois]

Do you mean this list?
Dissent from Darwin

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

yes, that's a reasonable facsimile.

This list which has been deceptively used by creationists to claim they have support among scientists?

are the signors creationists?
do the signors specifically state they are signing in support of creation?

I agree with this statement. Evolution is known to be affected by genetic drift and gene flow, in addition to natural selection. I would never add to their "list of dissenters," however, because they misrepresent what the people who signed this statement actually agreed with.

that's right, they DID NOT sign in support of creationism, they signed because they were sceptical of darwinism.
and as it turns out, they were correct (the signors).

 

[crjmurray]

Do you mean this list?
Dissent from Darwin

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This list which has been deceptively used by creationists to claim they have support among scientists?

I agree with this statement. Evolution is known to be affected by genetic drift and gene flow, in addition to natural selection. I would never add to their "list of dissenters," however, because they misrepresent what the people who signed this statement actually agreed with.

Actually she means this list.

http://www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf

Here's the main site

REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION

 

[whois]

I find it hilarious to see anti-evolutionists stand steadfastly by a scientist when they believe that he or she has said something that they agree with, even though these very folks see their anti-evolution stance as idiotic.

i have not seen one shred of evidence that supports evolution, despite all of the research i have seen.
there is no evidence anywhere that says inanimate matter can become alive, there is no evidence anywhere that says man came from whales, or plants, or anything else.
none.
despite 100s of thousands of generations of fruitfly mutations or cell mutations has science been able to demonstrate it

Seeing as how you worship Koonin so much, you MUST agree with him that evolution has occurred and that creationism is silly, right?

i honestly don't know WHAT to think.
i know i haven't seen any demonstration of either one.

you know, you laughed at me when i made the statement of "dogs turning into cats" or something along those lines.
i have asked you twice the following question, are you going to answer it this time?
what were canines before they were canines?"
surely a simple question for someone so versed in biology.
seeing as we have the fossils and all.

 

[Mediate]

i have not seen one shred of evidence that supports evolution, despite all of the research i have seen.

Then you haven't understood the research.

there is no evidence anywhere that says inanimate matter can become alive,

We're made of chemicals. Calcium, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen. That's what we are. The evidence that those chemicals produce life, is that life is made of chemicals.

there is no evidence anywhere that says man came from whales, or plants, or anything else.

Evidence doesn't suggest men came from whales. It suggests all life has a common ancestor.

none.
despite 100s of thousands of generations of fruitfly mutations or cell mutations has science been unable to demonstrate it

Evolution doesn't state that men came from whales, so if the evidence doesn't suggest it, maybe that'd be why. It's not asserted by evolutionists.

i honestly don't know WHAT to think.
i know i haven't seen any demonstration of either one.

That's because no evolutionists suggest man came from whales.

you know, you laughed at me when i made the statement of "dogs turning into cats" or something along those lines.
i have asked you twice the following question, are you going to answer it this time?
what were canines before they were canines?

Something other than canines. Species are defined by humans. The taxonomic classification is something asribed to life-forms as a categorization tool, by humans. Canines are canines, and if an organism isn't a canine, then it's not a canine.

 

[bhsmte]

i honestly don't know WHAT to think.
i know i haven't seen any demonstration of either one.

That's funny. For someone who doesn't know what to think, your posts seem to only focus on one particular thing.

 

[sfs]

i have not seen one shred of evidence that supports evolution, despite all of the research i have seen.

You also said the evidence was over your head when you did see it. Which is it? Are you competent to evaluate the evidence or not?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It's precisely this sort of inaccuracy about the way you think and type stuff out without caps -- it really matters how you say a thing when it comes to science, dear:

i made the statement of "dogs turning into cats" or something

When you get caught with your nickers in a bunch dear, then it's time to eat a little of that humble pie and begin trying to understand the thing you are anti- about, before shooting your mouth off at everyone.

I refer: More Litter On The Road Of Science: here
I refer: the signature of whois: here

What you typed was the following:

'science has been unable to prove that dogs can become cats ....'

 

[whois]

You also said the evidence was over your head when you did see it. Which is it? Are you competent to evaluate the evidence or not?

numbers and symbols do not proof this stuff sfs.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

numbers and symbols do not proof this stuff sfs.

I thought AV was the only one who thought stuff is over his head -- the secret would be to empty your mind of preconceptions and start at the beginning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RW3nDRmu6k

 

[whois]

Nowhere does Koonin reject evolution.

where did i ever state that he did?

 

[crjmurray]

where did i ever state that he did?

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7875228-23/#post67397069

wait a minute.
"evolutionists" say that all life came from a common ancestor.
for example, birds came from dinosaurs.
the research koonin is pointing to says this apparently isn't the case.

 

[SkyWriting]

What is the best available evidence that is held that confirms that all life came from one initial living combination of molecules?

On that line of thinking, I like the one that
hypothesizes that the globe functioned as
the one initial life. The one cell idea fails too
easily.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

whois, I believe you have a more serious problem, than this:

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7875228-23/#post67397069

wait a minute.
"evolutionists" say that all life came from a common ancestor.
for example, birds came from dinosaurs.
the research koonin is pointing to says this apparently isn't the case.

Something which Wiltor outlined:

'whois, the thought that you have in your mind about what evolution is, is different from the thought that is had in the minds of evolutionists. By different, I mean incompatible. The thing that you are calling evolution -- the thing that you are arguing against -- this is a thing that evolutionists argue against, too.' ( link here if you care )

l think what you might want to do now, is to take down the blinders and ask a simple but straightforward question -- in the form of a post: What is Evolution? Then instead of trying to pretend like you know, let the folks here help you to understand that.
I know this is not easy -- but it might be a way of actually having an argument that is eventually worthy of being published and peer-reviewed.

On that topic, where were you educated and what sort of background in the sciences do you have?