Groundbreaking Paper Shows Thousands of New Genes Needed for the Origin of Animals

[SkyWriting]

The Cambrian explosion took a mind-numbing 25-50 million years! There was a further 60-70 or so million years prior to that where multi-celled life forms got their act together (genetically speaking), so your reservations over the emergence of the first animals and plants over that 120 million year timeframe seems strange when you consider that we've only been around in our current form for maybe 200 to 300 thousand years by comparison. We even know of mammals larger than us that have undergone an entirely terrestrial life to an entirely deep-water oceanic life in less than half that time. Your incredulity isn't a replacement for the facts and evidence.You might feel fine taking any number of things by faith, but there's no faith for me, thanks!

Any past event you know of is a statement of your faith.
It's actually a declaration of your faith in your own mental
health. The human brain processes information in just the
same way whether "real" or vividly imagined. So all of
history is a fabrication in your mind.

For example, just becasue I asked you questions about the
Cambrian explosion, you invented the idea that I doubted
it happened. And you have no facts to support that.
Without facts, you're just operating on faith.
With "facts," you faithfully believe and trust they are facts.

 

[pitabread]

Because evolutionists are falsely extrapolating one little thing fact into an explanation of all the functional complexity of life. Unlike what you claim, it's not been experimentally proven. You just imagine it to be so.

The thread topic is about the evolution of novel genes. We have known mechanisms by which gene duplications occur. We have evidence that gene duplications have occurred.

I'm not seeing your objection here or what it has to do with re-creating the origin of life?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Outer Space theories? WhOOOoooOoooo
Panspermia - WikipediaView attachment 231179
Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by space dust, meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and also by

-_- unrelated to evolution. If you want to debate about the origin of life, make a thread for that. It makes 0 difference in regards to the theory of evolution if the first life on this planet originated on an asteroid, on Earth, or was made by a deity.

 

[SkyWriting]

-_- unrelated to evolution. If you want to debate about the origin of life, make a thread for that. It makes 0 difference in regards to the theory of evolution if the first life on this planet originated on an asteroid, on Earth, or was made by a deity.

Zero would be an assumption you are not qualified to make.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The theory sometimes assumes that plant life already existed here, so it's relevant. ;P

-_- the theory of evolution doesn't suggest that (nor do the genetics of plants compared to other eukaryotes). Abiogenesis, panspermia, etc., are hypotheses, not theories, and I have never heard of any hypothesis about the origin of life suggesting that all life doesn't have a shared origin in some regard. It certainly wouldn't make sense for all life on the planet to share the same exact form of genetic material if some of it originated on an asteroid and some had entirely terrestrial origins.

 

[SkyWriting]

-_- the theory of evolution doesn't suggest that (nor do the genetics of plants compared to other eukaryotes). Abiogenesis, panspermia, etc., are hypotheses, not theories, and I have never heard of any hypothesis about the origin of life suggesting that all life doesn't have a shared origin in some regard. It certainly wouldn't make sense for all life on the planet to share the same exact form of genetic material if some of it originated on an asteroid and some had entirely terrestrial origins.

I'm not asking you to make sense of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not asking you to make sense of it.

Actually, I was asking you to explain yourself. Where is the example of any hypothesis about the origin of life on Earth suggesting that some life had extraterrestrial origins while plants specifically don't? You claimed that this exists, so show it to me so I can laugh at it.

If you can't provide it, I'll just consider it a strawman you pulled out of your butt.

 

[mark kennedy]

seems to be mostly right if not for this falsity near the end. Do you have any idea how devastating it has actually been for Evolution? because Darwinism isn't really a thing anymore... it hasn't been for a while now.

Unibersal common Descent is Darwinism and its not just a thing, it is the thing. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, little more, the equiviocation of ebolutionary biology with Darwinian naturalistic assumption is the guise of a natiralistic world view. Small wonder you dont want to discuss Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, since in thos context its indefensible.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Cambrian explosion took a mind-numbing 25-50 million years! There was a further 60-70 or so million years prior to that where multi-celled life forms got their act together (genetically speaking), so your reservations over the emergence of the first animals and plants over that 120 million year timeframe seems strange when you consider that we've only been around in our current form for maybe 200 to 300 thousand years by comparison. We even know of mammals larger than us that have undergone an entirely terrestrial life to an entirely deep-water oceanic life in less than half that time. Your incredulity isn't a replacement for the facts and evidence.

You might feel fine taking any number of things by faith, but there's no faith for me, thanks!

Sure, differ to exaggerated time frames that is rightly identified as a step wise cause and effect. I don't think you're without faith, you're unending reliance appears to be the entire substance of you're argument, as usual.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Unibersal common Descent is Darwinism and its not just a thing, it is the thing. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, little more, the equiviocation of ebolutionary biology with Darwinian naturalistic assumption is the guise of a natiralistic world view. Small wonder you dont want to discuss Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, since in thos context its indefensible.

I agree universal common descent as indicated by the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of the diversity of life we see today, but darwinism is the original theory as proposed by Charles Darwin, and we've all moved on since then. The basic premise might be largely unchanged but there's been a huge swathe of progress made since then, and I don't think 'darwinism' adequately covers it by a long shot.

Sure, differ to exaggerated time frames that is rightly identified as a step wise cause and effect. I don't think you're without faith, you're unending reliance appears to be the entire substance of you're argument, as usual.

You know, you could just address the facts I put forward? Tell me all about my unending reliance, and why not show the evidence for why I should think otherwise?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Any past event you know of is a statement of your faith.
It's actually a declaration of your faith in your own mental
health. The human brain processes information in just the
same way whether "real" or vividly imagined. So all of
history is a fabrication in your mind.

For example, just becasue I asked you questions about the
Cambrian explosion, you invented the idea that I doubted
it happened. And you have no facts to support that.
Without facts, you're just operating on faith.
With "facts," you faithfully believe and trust they are facts.

.....riiiiiiight.

So, no problems with my point then, I take it? well, That's Great!

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree universal common descent as indicated by the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of the diversity of life we see today, but darwinism is the original theory as proposed by Charles Darwin, and we've all moved on since then. The basic premise might be largely unchanged but there's been a huge swathe of progress made since then, and I don't think 'darwinism' adequately covers it by a long shot.

You know, you could just address the facts I put forward? Tell me all about my unending reliance, and why not show the evidence for why I should think otherwise?

Darwinism has at it's core, universal common descent and a categorical rejection of special creation. Far from having moved on it was blended with Mendelian gennetic through what has been called the Modern Synthesis. You talk in circles around the evidence always leaving the opposing view to it's own devices and pretendinding that your not arguing in circles around your core premise, neodarwinism and its requisite naturalistic assumptions. You think there's some special merit in denying the obvious, Darwinian logic is exclusively naturalistic and your unwillingness to even speak to this speaks volumes for the courage of your convictions. I have no problem with the underlying assumptions, rationality has it's merit, that's not what we are dealing with here. You refuse to even acknowledge that your working from naturalistic assumptions to the actual evidence, if you ever get that far. It's called equivocation, pretending Darwinian natruralistic assumptions are the same as the phenomenon known as adaptive evolution. Then comes begging the question of proof followed inevitably by the death spirial into the ad hominem rhetoric that is the modern Darwinian theator of the mind.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Darwinism has at it's core, universal common descent and a categorical rejection of special creation. Far from having moved on it was blended with Mendelian gennetic through what has been called the Modern Synthesis. You talk in circles around the evidence always leaving the opposing view to it's own devices and pretendinding that your not arguing in circles around your core premise, neodarwinism and its requisite naturalistic assumptions. You think there's some special merit in denying the obvious, Darwinian logic is exclusively naturalistic and your unwillingness to even speak to this speaks volumes for the courage of your convictions. I have no problem with the underlying assumptions, rationality has it's merit, that's not what we are dealing with here. You refuse to even acknowledge that your working from naturalistic assumptions to the actual evidence, if you ever get that far. It's called equivocation, pretending Darwinian natruralistic assumptions are the same as the phenomenon known as adaptive evolution. Then comes begging the question of proof followed inevitably by the death spirial into the ad hominem rhetoric that is the modern Darwinian theator of the mind.

Universal common descent is not a hard, fast rule - it's simply what's borne out of the evidence. If it turns out there was special creation, then that doesn't change everything else we currently know. If that's the case, then the evidence will eventually bring that out.

Do you have any evidence?

 

[pitabread]

It's called equivocation, pretending Darwinian natruralistic assumptions are the same as the phenomenon known as adaptive evolution.

The real equivocation here is working with a private definition of Darwinism that already has better suited terminology: methodological naturalism. And of course not conflating that with metaphysical naturalism.

When you drop the word "Darwinism" from your lexicon, then you'll have grounds to complain about equivocation. Until then, glass houses and all that...

 

[mark kennedy]

Universal common descent is not a hard, fast rule - it's simply what's borne out of the evidence. If it turns out there was special creation, then that doesn't change everything else we currently know. If that's the case, then the evidence will eventually bring that out.

Do you have any evidence?

You've seen the evidence and proven you don't care about it, it's almost completely beside the ppint. Nothing about the fossils, nothing about genomics, nothing in the way of an evidential argument. No, you just want me to make an argument and rationalize it away. That's not an argument, it's not rationality, itsv an attitude organized around an asssumption, opposed to God as a cause. It's Darwinism without it's empirical props, your a walking strawman, an easy target and an oppositional view without a foundation except for a naturalistic assumption, rightfully called Darwinism.

 

[mark kennedy]

The real equivocation here is working with a private definition of Darwinism that already has better suited terminology: methodological naturalism. And of course not conflating that with metaphysical naturalism.

When you drop the word "Darwinism" from your lexicon, then you'll have grounds to complain about equivocation. Until then, glass houses and all that...

No Darwin makes clear he was arguing againt the miraculous as a cause for life. I didn't define it but unlike you I read Darwin along with the requisite scientific literature.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You've seen the evidence and proven you don't care about it, it's almost completely beside the ppint. Nothing about the fossils, nothing about genomics, nothing in the way of an evidential argument. No, you just want me to make an argument and rationalize it away. That's not an argument, it's not rationality, itsv an attitude organized around an asssumption, opposed to God as a cause. It's Darwinism without it's empirical props, your a walking strawman, an easy target and an oppositional view without a foundation except for a naturalistic assumption, rightfully called Darwinism.

...really?? That's a long way of saying "Nope, no evidence at all to back up my personal unfounded opinions". seems I've touched on a nerve there.

Anyhoo, the Theory of Evolution says nothing about how life started, your God could have done it and nothing about the Theory changes. Your issues are your own given plenty of other Theists have no problem with it.

 

[mark kennedy]

...really?? That's a long way of saying "Nope, no evidence at all to back up my personal unfounded opinions". seems I've touched on a nerve there.

Anyhoo, the Theory of Evolution says nothing about how life started, your God could have done it and nothing about the Theory changes. Your issues are your own given plenty of other Theists have no problem with it.

Thats where your wrong, theism is a postive arrgumet. We koow for instance that you know there is a God and what he is like. I know this because you never ask. You want to defend a Darwinian view then own it, who cares what you call it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We koow for instance that you know there is a God and what he is like. I know this because you never ask.

... really? Really?!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

We koow for instance that you know there is a God and what he is like. I know this because you never ask.

LOL,WHUT?? you gotta be kidding!?

I agree that theism is a positive argument, so feel free to support your position whenever you're ready - especially that nonsense about how I supposedly know there's a God and that it's your particular God to boot...