Herman Hedning
Hiking is fun
Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.
Upvote
0
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.
Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized.
Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.
QV:That was the estimate I came across in another discussion some years ago. I will attempt a little research.
Nothing at all. Spontaneous generation posited the appearance of higher life forms like fruit flies or maggots on rotting fruit or meat. Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized. This is what Pasteur and others disproved --- not the possibility of abiogenesis.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a fruit fly or a single cell amoeba or a microscopic whatever, it’s the spontaneous generation of “life from non-life”. The only difference is scale.Nothing at all. Spontaneous generation posited the appearance of higher life forms like fruit flies or maggots on rotting fruit or meat. Even though a fruit fly might seem rather simple, it does consist of about 50,000 cells that are quite well organized. This is what Pasteur and others disproved --- not the possibility of abiogenesis.
Actually, just the opposite is true. Abiogenesis may be a common event even now, but in the densely populated biosphere of today any proto-life which appeared would almost instantly become food and so remain undetected.It doesn’t matter if it’s a fruit fly or a single cell amoeba or a microscopic whatever, it’s the spontaneous generation of “life from non-life”. The only difference is scale.
The observations show life only comes from life. Due to conditions that apparently favor an abundance of life forms of all varieties and sizes, one would think the current conditions would be more favorable to such life from non-life than past periods where the earth must have been highly adverse to life of any kind.
Sure, we can posit anything and call it science as long as it fits your system of beliefs. From the spontaneous generation of life from non-life that can’t be observed, to branes, multiverses and whatnots.Actually, just the opposite is true. Abiogenesis may be a common event even now, but in the densely populated biosphere of today any proto-life which appeared would almost instantly become food and so remain undetected.
. The common ancestors of modern organisms aren’t missing . They’re either fossils or we can see them through genetics . Why do you keep posting that PRATTSure, we can posit anything and call it science as long as it fits your system of beliefs. From the spontaneous generation of life from non-life that can’t be observed, to branes, multiverses and whatnots.
Does that go hand in hand with those missing “common ancestors” that are all missing?
one or a quadrillion doesn’t matter. You must first start with one.Not that it really matters for the argument, but isn't that a huge underestimate? I would have thought at least a billion cells, even in such a small creature.
Then show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp?. The common ancestors of modern organisms aren’t missing . They’re either fossils or we can see them through genetics . Why do you keep posting that PRATT
Sure it is. You have a sample set of one - the solar system. From that they based a universal conclusion that gravity is the dominating force everywhere in the universe.
Then show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp?
Not one supposedly before the split or after, or leading to the split, but the common ancestor that split to become both.
Show me your specific human ancestors from exactly 1450 years ago. Not the ones before, not the ones after but the precise ancestors in your family tree from exactly 1450 years ago.
Oh you can't do that? I guess they don't exist then. </creationist logic>
Either that, or science is myopic.That just means you didn't have any ancestors prior to AD 167.
Oh hush you.
Oh hush you.
Then show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp?
Not one supposedly before the split or after, or leading to the split, but the common ancestor that split to become both.
Show me one for any of the claimed evolutionary trees where life split to become another thing....
They don’t exist. It’s why at every single split on any evolutionary tree imaginary lines are drawn to imaginary common ancestors to link them with imaginary lines to past and future forms.
And their orbit is calculated without adding ad-hoc theory. Now the orbit of those binary stars around the galaxy itself is not correctly calculated using any gravitational theory without adding ad-hoc theory to what was just shown to be 99.9% correct without it.Binary stars, which consist entirely of plasma, orbit around their common centre of gravity in accordance with Newton's theory of gravitation; these orbits are the main source of information about stellar masses.
I see no common ancestors. Like I said, imaginary lines drawn to imaginary common ancestors to link them to past and present forms.View attachment 234003briefly, here they are arranged by the approximate dates . Specifically you want a chance to move the goalposts because you know that it’s rarely possible to show a ancestor to direct descendent relationship with fossils . However, you can show that a fossil organism is a close relative and that taken as a whole the fossil record does show common descent. This and modern animal anatomical studies was enough to convince the 19th century scientific community of common descent. Modern scientists also have confirming evidence with genetics.
As far as humans being Primates, Linnaeus challenged all of his contemporaries to demonstrate anatomically that they weren’t . They couldn’t . Some modern primatologists , who actually study Primates, think of humans as a type of chimpanzee . Behaviorally we’re between chimps and bonobos . Anatomically we’re the outliers because we don’t treeswing and we can run and walk upright.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?