Evolutionary debate

[AV1611VET]

We haven't seen a creature evolve?

Not on the scale evolutionists want us to believe.

The cat which you mention is a pretty good example that we have. The egyptians took wildcats, and kept the smallest and tamest and let those breed. Thus, by natural (or in this case human) selection, the wildcat evolved into a domestic cat.

It's still a cat, though.

The same principle applies to the cow, domestic cows are evolved by man from some wild bovine creature. Cows as they are today aren't even able to survive without man.

It's still a cow, though.

We have observed many examples of evolution, for example various insects can evolve immunities against insecticides like DDT.

It's still a mosquito, though.

If you think it takes faith to believe in evolution you don't understand the principle.

Has it occurred to you that we have these cats, cows and insects, and each one has its own binomial?

But when you (I, actually) start seeing binomials without their koine name, then I get suspicious.

I can see Ursus Thalarctos, for instance, and know it's a polar bear -- but when I start seeing Austrahippodrome this and Archaeoboxtop that, without a common name, then that tells me even they don't know what it is.

These names are just made up out of thin air.

But it takes huge faith to believe in creation, because it wasn't and can never be observed.

By whose comparison?

We don't even have the faith of a grain of mustard seed.

And something else bothers me with creationism, that is if God designed every species, why do a lot of them go extinct?

God didn't design every species, God designed their incipient prototypes.

Is God too stupid to design creatures that survive?

The creatures He designed would still be alive today, if Adam hadn't thrown a Semnopithecus wrench into the whole thing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't believe it.

Fair enough.

The main reason I don't is because we've never seen a species turn into a different species.

Yes, we have. We've seen one species turn into several distinct and non-interbreedable daughter species, precisely as evolution predicts. We've seen this naturally in the wild, accidentally in human habitat, and artificially in the lab. We have an abundance of evidence that this has occurred countless times in the past, and that it is the main mechanism by which new taxa form.

What came before the cow? The spider? The cat? I've yet to see the creatures that came before them, or turned into them.

That doesn't mean those creatures don't exist - have you actually done a Google search for 'evolution of the cow', say? Here's what I found:

All modern species of cow evolved from the auroch, the last 'true' auroch dying in 1627. We humans farmed it and bred it to our needs for ten thousand years, and we can even find cave paintings of them:

Cats followed a similar route, being domestic versions of the wildcat.

As for spiders, I honestly didn't know anything it, so this Wikipedia article on the evolution of spiders should be enlightening for both of us. It turns out their immediate ancestors were Trigonotarbids, and their ancestors in turn were the same ancestors for all chelicerates (scorpions, etc).

So, don't complain about a lack of evidence if you haven't actually gone out and looked. I admit that I haven't looked into the evolution of spiders before now (arachnophobia probably didn't help ), but I'm at least willing to learn. Are you?

It would take a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

To someone who hasn't research the evidence, sure. But the internet alone is chock-full of the stuff, as is literally any university or museum you care to mention (bar those specific Creationist 'museums' and 'universities').

 

[Hespera]

I don't believe it.

The main reason I don't is because we've never seen a species turn into a different species.

What came before the cow? The spider? The cat? I've yet to see the creatures that came before them, or turned into them. They just aren't there.

It would take a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

you have not seen the patient centuries it takes for a limestone cave to form, either. nor a glacier move, nor a mountain was away.

but if you have been in the rockies in the summer, you have probably seen a little rockfall, and you have sure seen the talus slopes formed by the thousands of little rockfalls. you've seen the silt in the rivers, carrying bits of the mountains off across the prairie.


if one makes no effort at all to understand what you are seeing, of course, you wont see it.

The fossil record does an excellent job of showing what sort of ancestors your cow had. some histories are better preserved than others; the horse is exceptionally well represented in the fossil history.

You might benefit if, instead of being satisfied by just reciting a slogan you heard ("a lot of faith to believe in evolution") you made an effort to learn for yourself if that is true.

Kind of like "hope and change" or, "down with the Imperialists and their running dogs". Slogans function to stand in place of thought, often enough to prevent thought.

Id suggest that nobody be suckered by slogans.

I think it is probably true that you have yet to see anything of the creatures or plants that predated the modern forms. To me that seems really a shame. What could be more fascinating than to learn about the past worlds that are beneath our feet?

here is a scene from life as it once was, where i live. I have found pieces of the shells of these animals in road cuts.

doesnt it make you want to know more?

 

[Split Rock]

I don't believe it.

The main reason I don't is because we've never seen a species turn into a different species.

What came before the cow? The spider? The cat? I've yet to see the creatures that came before them, or turned into them. They just aren't there.

It would take a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

Common Descent does not require faith, it is infered by the physical evidence.

You are also wrong when you say we've never seen a species turn into a different species. We have observed speciation both in nature and in the lab. Here is a list compiled by Lucaspa:

Observed Speciation - Lucaspa


Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia) — PNAS
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

 

[Split Rock]

Not on the scale evolutionists want us to believe.

It's still a cat, though.

And will always be one.

It's still a cow, though.

And will always be one.

It's still a mosquito, though.

And will always be one.

We cannot escape our heredity. That is why we are still apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc. Yes, I know you think you are not.

Has it occurred to you that we have these cats, cows and insects, and each one has its own binomial?

So?

But when you (I, actually) start seeing binomials without their koine name, then I get suspicious.

Why?

I can see Ursus Thalarctos, for instance, and know it's a polar bear -- but when I start seeing Austrahippodrome this and Archaeoboxtop that, without a common name, then that tells me even they don't know what it is.

They all have full names, they are not always used because the fossil record is incomplete and it is hard to distinguish between species in a genus only based on fossils. Also, we often only have fossils for one species in a genus anyway.

These names are just made up out of thin air.

Of course... they are names after all! ?????

God didn't design every species, God designed their incipient prototypes.

So you claim, but you cannot give us a list.

The creatures He designed would still be alive today, if Adam hadn't thrown a Semnopithecus wrench into the whole thing.

A real lack of foresight on God's behalf... especially since He knew what was going to happen before it did.

 

[sandwiches]

Not on the scale evolutionists want us to believe.

It's still a cat, though.

It's still a cow, though.

It's still a mosquito, though.

Exactly. Just like we'll always be apes. =)

These names are just made up out of thin air.

Where do names come from, if not arbitrarily selected, AV?

 

[SkyWriting]

Common Descent does not require faith, it is inferred by the physical evidence. ...

It is indeed inferred. Common decent does require that all life came from one single cell. There is an very large amount of faith involved to say that all living things came from this one cell.

In fact, the living cell is not that much less complicated that an entire organism. Then there is the faith needed to imagine this one cell surrounded by non-living chemicals. Then there is the problem of reproduction.

So it turns out common decent is really no good solution at all and the infusion of life from an outside source is the obvious winner.

One can choose space aliens or God. I did consider aliens at one time, but eventually ruled them out.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

It is indeed inferred. Common decent does require that all life came from one single cell. There is an very large amount of faith involved to say that all living things came from this one cell.

Actually, it would be a population of cells. Not a individual.

In fact, the living cell is not that much less complicated that an entire organism. Then there is the faith needed to imagine this one cell surrounded by non-living chemicals.

That would be because we dont believe the cell just popped into existance. there where quite a few non-cell lifeforms before it

Then there is the problem of reproduction.

Where you basing that arguement on a single cell that had nobody to have sex with?

Ignoring for a moment that cells reproduce by splitting themselfs in two no sex involved?

So it turns out common decent is really no good solution at all and the infusion of life from an outside source is the obvious winner.

Your missunderstood version of it might not be a good solution.
The actual theory is though.

One can choose space aliens or God. I did consider aliens at one time, but eventually ruled them out.

If i cant make up my mind can i go with a alien god?

 

[Split Rock]

It is indeed inferred. Common decent does require that all life came from one single cell. There is an very large amount of faith involved to say that all living things came from this one cell.

In fact, the living cell is not that much less complicated that an entire organism. Then there is the faith needed to imagine this one cell surrounded by non-living chemicals. Then there is the problem of reproduction.

So it turns out common decent is really no good solution at all and the infusion of life from an outside source is the obvious winner.

One can choose space aliens or God. I did consider aliens at one time, but eventually ruled them out.

Here is a good defintion of Inferred, since you do not seem to understand its meaning:
To conclude from evidence or premises.
inferred - definition of inferred by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence
Infer | Define Infer at Dictionary.com

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is indeed inferred. Common decent does require that all life came from one single cell.

Well, to be fair, it says that life has at most a few, and at least one, common ancestor(s). Whether it/they was/were a cell(s) or not is a matter of some debate.

There is an very large amount of faith involved to say that all living things came from this one cell.

The massive amount of evidence begs to differ.

In fact, the living cell is not that much less complicated that an entire organism. Then there is the faith needed to imagine this one cell surrounded by non-living chemicals. Then there is the problem of reproduction.

Modern cells are indeed complicated, but they've had 3.5 billion years to evolve complexity. The simplest conceivable cell is almost insultingly uncomplicated. No faith needed.

Life formed in the prebiotic oceans, back when everything was warm and full of ammonia and whatnot. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the first lifeform would be surrounded by inorganic chemistry: we still are. No faith needed.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'problem of reproduction'. The question "How did the first organism reproduce?" is certainly a valid one, and it's one to which we have an answer. Essentially, fats clump together into balls, and lone fat particles will merge with the ball to make it bigger. When it gets too big, mechanical actions (water currents, collisions, etc) will physically break it in two. That's how the original cell (the micelle) would both form and replicate, entirely naturally. The DNA part of it also replicates naturally, since it's only a matter of time before a self-replicating molecule arises out of the broth of random combinations of component parts; it may be unlikely, and it may take a long time, but all that's needed is for it to happen just once, and then it populates the oceans with its (slightly varied) clones. Thus, evolution begins. No faith needed.

 

[Doveaman]

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'problem of reproduction'. The question "How did the first organism reproduce?" is certainly a valid one, and it's one to which we have an answer. Essentially, fats clump together into balls, and lone fat particles will merge with the ball to make it bigger. When it gets too big, mechanical actions (water currents, collisions, etc) will physically break it in two. That's how the original cell (the micelle) would both form and replicate, entirely naturally. The DNA part of it also replicates naturally, since it's only a matter of time before a self-replicating molecule arises out of the broth of random combinations of component parts; it may be unlikely, and it may take a long time, but all that's needed is for it to happen just once, and then it populates the oceans with its (slightly varied) clones. Thus, evolution begins. No faith needed.

You gave an explanation that is based on faith then concluded with "No faith needed"?

Do you have evidence your explanation is how it actually happened?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You gave an explanation that is based on faith then concluded with "No faith needed"?

The point, of course, is that it's not based on faith. I was explaining how life could have naturally, spontaneously emerged. Specifically, I was addressing your criticisms of it ('the problem of reproduction' and so on).

Do you have evidence your explanation is how it actually happened?

Yes. This article is a nice collation of the evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

The point, of course, is that it's not based on faith. I was explaining how life could have naturally, spontaneously emerged. Specifically, I was addressing your criticisms of it ('the problem of reproduction' and so on).


Yes. This article is a nice collation of the evidence.

Imagine the chagrin of scientists who are unable to find enough SUITABLE CONDITIONS OF CHEMICALS COMBINED WITH TIME ON EARTH for life to have arose spontaneously so they have turned to SPACE as a possible source of life for the planet. The reason this is necessary is that the conditions which support life turn out not to be the same ones needed to create it. Obviously. Otherwise new forms of life would be forming regularly.

Still, these scientists are somewhat supportive of the Creationists stand that life did not form on earth due to a natural evolutionary process. They find that Darwins own theory does not hold up well enough as a potential source of life.

Between the "natural" theories of life generation and the possible extra terrestrial sources, scientists have probably wasted billions of dollars in resources trying to disprove the story as presented in Genesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, it would be a population of cells. Not a individual.
That would be because we dont believe the cell just popped into existance. there where quite a few non-cell lifeforms before it
Where you basing that arguement on a single cell that had nobody to have sex with?
Ignoring for a moment that cells reproduce by splitting themselfs in two no sex involved?
Your missunderstood version of it might not be a good solution.
The actual theory is though.
If i cant make up my mind can i go with a alien god?

You describe a population of cells appearing (poof!) as the first source of life, and from this point on each cell reproduces by splitting themselves in two. It does sound like an alien god is in charge, I'll give you that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here is a good defintion of Inferred, since you do not seem to understand its meaning:
To conclude from evidence or premises.
inferred - definition of inferred by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence
Infer | Define Infer at Dictionary.com

I agree with your definitions. All inferred conclusions are subject to analysis and testing. Perhaps you are confusing "facts" with "inferred conclusions"?

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, to be fair, it says that life has at most a few, and at least one, common ancestor(s). Whether it/they was/were a cell(s) or not is a matter of some debate.
<snip>

Excellent! Then it very nearly matches Genesis as written.

We are pretty much in agreement then that plants, a handful of kinds of animals, and man were all created separately. I mean, it does broadly match your "few" common ancestors theory anyway.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, to be fair, it says that life has at most a few, and at least one, common ancestor(s). Whether it/they was/were a cell(s) or not is a matter of some debate.
<snip>

Excellent! Then it very nearly matches Genesis as written.

We are pretty much in agreement then that plants, a handful of kinds of animals, and man were all created separately. I mean, it does broadly match your "few" common ancestors theory anyway.

Modern cells are indeed complicated, but they've had 3.5 billion years to evolve complexity. The simplest conceivable cell is almost insultingly uncomplicated. No faith needed.

The facts are otherwise. Be insulted by my reply.

- (the)Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes.
- The bottom-up approach aims at constructing artificial chemical supersystems that could be considered alive. No such experimental system exists yet; at least one component is always missing.
ORIGIN OF LIFE: IN SEARCH OF THE SIMPLEST CELL

 

[driewerf]

Between the "natural" theories of life generation and the possible extra terrestrial sources, scientists have probably wasted billions of dollars in resources trying to disprove the story as presented in Genesis.

In all the universties troughout the world, in all their science departements scientists are shaking their test tubes, looking trough microscopes and manipulating petri dishes with one single goal: proof Genesis is wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Imagine the chagrin of scientists who are unable to find enough SUITABLE CONDITIONS OF CHEMICALS COMBINED WITH TIME ON EARTH for life to have arose spontaneously so they have turned to SPACE as a possible source of life for the planet. The reason this is necessary is that the conditions which support life turn out not to be the same ones needed to create it. Obviously. Otherwise new forms of life would be forming regularly.

Panspermia is a valid hypothesis, but so is the alternative. The conditions of early Earth were quite unique, and life itself has changed Earth's climate and oceans.

Still, these scientists are somewhat supportive of the Creationists stand that life did not form on earth due to a natural evolutionary process. They find that Darwins own theory does not hold up well enough as a potential source of life.

Well of course it's not: it's not a theory on the origin of life, but the origin of species from pre-existing life. Where life originally came from is unrelated to Darwin's theory.

Between the "natural" theories of life generation and the possible extra terrestrial sources, scientists have probably wasted billions of dollars in resources trying to disprove the story as presented in Genesis.

Only incidentally. It's not our fault the literal reading of Genesis is wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Excellent! Then it very nearly matches Genesis as written.

We are pretty much in agreement then that plants, a handful of kinds of animals, and man were all created separately. I mean, it does broadly match your "few" common ancestors theory anyway.

Broadly, but not in the specifics. These few ancestors are ancestral to all plants and to all animals, including humans.

The facts are otherwise. Be insulted by my reply.

- (the)Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes.
- The bottom-up approach aims at constructing artificial chemical supersystems that could be considered alive. No such experimental system exists yet; at least one component is always missing.
ORIGIN OF LIFE: IN SEARCH OF THE SIMPLEST CELL

Neither of which actually affects my argument one bit. The top-down approach is inherently flawed, and the bottom-up approach hasn't worked yet. It's premature to conclude it's wrong.