Here’s how the first proteins might have assembled, sparking life

[AV1611VET]

Whether the first life on earth came to be by chemistry, was created by God, or was placed by aliens, the evolution of new forms and species will remain an observed fact of reality.

You're calling it an "observed fact," yet you can't tell us whether it came about by God, aliens, or nature.

Fair enough.

I'm sure you didn't see the first blade of grass on the earth.

Therefore there must have been a period of time from abiogenesis to your first "observed fact."

And I submit that what occurred in that period of time isn't anywhere near what evolutionists think happened.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're calling it an "observed fact," yet you can't tell us whether it came about by God, aliens, or nature.

You're continuing to conflate abiogenesis (where there are still many competing hypotheses) with evolution (an observed fact).

 

[AV1611VET]

You're continuing to conflate abiogenesis (where there are still many competing hypotheses) with evolution (an observed fact).

Show me where I did that in that post.

Jordan said evolution will remain an observed fact.

He did not say abiogenesis was.

So I chimed in with basically: "If evolution is so observed, when did that observation start, with respect to abiogenesis?"

I see a car going down the highway.

I did not see that car start up.

But I'm curious as to how much time elapsed from the time the driver started it up, to when I first observed the car.

 

[Zaha Torte]

We've observed, documented, and studied evolution happening for decades, which reveals the fundamental mistake you keep repeating. Whether the first life on earth came to be by chemistry, was created by God, or was placed by aliens, the evolution of new forms and species will remain an observed fact of reality.

When did we observe this?

 

[AV1611VET]

When did we observe this?

Only on paper.

 

[River Jordan]

You're calling it an "observed fact," yet you can't tell us whether it came about by God, aliens, or nature.

I said populations and new species evolving are observed facts. Read more carefully before replying next time.

 

[AV1611VET]

I said populations and new species evolving are observed facts. Read more carefully before replying next time.

So in your opinion, how much time elapsed from abiogenesis to the first observed population of grass?

 

[River Jordan]

When did we observe this?

Scientists have been conducting experimental evolution experiments for decades and have observed, documented, and studied the evolution of all sorts of things.

New species have been observed to evolve many times. A few examples:

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species - PubMed

The mojavensis cluster of the repleta species group of Drosophila (Drosophilidae: Diptera) consists of three species. One is newly described as D. navojoa. A second species, described here as D. arizonae, replaces D. arizonensis, which has become a junior subjective synonym for D. mojavensis...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1102811108

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem - PubMed

Acoustic mate-attracting signals of related sympatric, synchronic species are always distinguishable, but those of related allopatric species sometimes are not, thus suggesting that such signals may evolve to "reinforce" premating species isolation when similar species become sympatric. This...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05183.x

 

[AV1611VET]

New species have been observed to evolve many times.

Species ≠ Genus

 

[essentialsaltes]

Show me where I did that in that post.

Jordan:

"Whether the first life on earth came to be by chemistry, was created by God, or was placed by aliens,"

The bolded phrase is abiogenesis. Three options are provided wrt abiogenesis.

"the evolution of new forms and species will remain an observed fact of reality."

AV:

"You're calling it an "observed fact," yet you can't tell us whether it came about by God, aliens, or nature."

The first "it" in your sentence is how Jordan described evolution. The second "it" references Jordan's options for abiogenesis.

These two "it"s are not the same, but that is how you treated them. You conflated them.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I've placed the key words in your post in bold. My question: you do know that Mount Everest was climbed over seventy years ago, the total number of successful summit attempts is over 11,000, with age ranges from 13 to 80?

Noting that something is difficult is not the equivalent of demonstrating it is impossible, which you appear to imply. Complex problems require patient, small steps. You sound like a person denying anyone can run a marathon because the stride length of humans is only a few feet.

My response was to show that some articles about scientists making certain positive scientific advancements (in creating a cell) are made to sound like a major breakthrough (in creating a cell) is just around the corner. That is far from the truth and people should not be led into believing that it is. Mount Everest is a super difficult mountain to climb (and yes, I know that people have climbed it successfully) and that is why I chose that image as the obstacle that scientists still have to face in trying to create a cell.

I don't see what I said that makes you think a cell won't be created by scientists someday. I'm just saying they have a very very long (and difficult) way to go.

 

[AV1611VET]

These two "it"s are not the same, but that is how you treated them. You conflated them.

Are you all clear as to what I meant now?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Scientists have been conducting experimental evolution experiments for decades and have observed, documented, and studied the evolution of all sorts of things.

New species have been observed to evolve many times. A few examples:

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species - PubMed

The mojavensis cluster of the repleta species group of Drosophila (Drosophilidae: Diptera) consists of three species. One is newly described as D. navojoa. A second species, described here as D. arizonae, replaces D. arizonensis, which has become a junior subjective synonym for D. mojavensis...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1102811108

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem - PubMed

Acoustic mate-attracting signals of related sympatric, synchronic species are always distinguishable, but those of related allopatric species sometimes are not, thus suggesting that such signals may evolve to "reinforce" premating species isolation when similar species become sympatric. This...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05183.x

I don't see anything you shared supporting what you claim.

I may have just missed it though.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see anything you shared supporting what you claim.

I may have just missed it though.

Notice they're all the same genus: Drosophila?

Then four species are mentioned.

These four species are products of microevolution, not macroevolution.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't see anything you shared supporting what you claim.

I may have just missed it though.

Well that's weird. I posted that scientists have observed populations evolving new things and new species, then I backed that up by posted published papers where scientists describe their work in observing populations and new species evolve.

For example, the very first paper at the PNAS link goes to:

Experimental evolution of multicellularity​

We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production.​

The speciation papers are the same (published examples of the evolution of new species).

I'm not sure what's tripping you up.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I think this is exciting! That's all I have to say about this plausible route (I'm not smart enough on the science to say anything else about it). In regard to the current discussion, there doesn't seem to be a necessary relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. Living matter could have arisen out of non-living matter and then proceeded in a very different fashion. Evolution just happens to be the process of living matter. That works both ways, but I can't really imagine a situation where living matter does not arise out of non-living matter. I say that partly because (inductively) all living matter becomes non-living matter, and the best inference is that living matter arises out of non-living matter, as well.

But the question is: did someone (with intelligent thought) put the non-living matter together to bring about life or did the non-living matter pull itself together with some primordial soup and lightning action to bring about life. Science isn't happy with God brought the stuff together (if that is how it happened).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution is the claim that living organisms are transformed into different forms or species through accumulated changes over time.

It said "set the stage for evolution" - not life.

ANYTHING that formed the first life would be "setting the stage for evolution". It's just a bit of poetic statement. It's not a claim about abiogenesis being part of evolution.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Well that's weird. I posted that scientists have observed populations evolving new things and new species, then I backed that up by posted published papers where scientists describe their work in observing populations and new species evolve.

For example, the very first paper at the PNAS link goes to:

Experimental evolution of multicellularity​

We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production.​

The speciation papers are the same (published examples of the evolution of new species).

I'm not sure what's tripping you up.

Is this word jumble describing evolution? This yeast became a new species? Is it describing it dying off?

 

[River Jordan]

Is this word jumble describing evolution?

No, just basic biology.

This yeast became a new species? Is it describing it dying off?

They evolved lots of new traits and "forms" (to use your term) in response to a new environment.

The evolution of new species is described in the other papers I posted for you.

 

[public hermit]

But the question is: did someone (with intelligent thought) put the non-living matter together to bring about life or did the non-living matter pull itself together with some primordial soup and lightning action to bring about life. Science isn't happy with God brought the stuff together (if that is how it happened).

That's a metaphysical question. Such a question is outside the domain of scientific methods/understandings, which can only work within the context of observable, natural processes. But, again, even if lightening struck a primordial soup, that doesn't tell us whether there is a God behind it or not. Unless you want to argue that God is a physical entity subject to the limitations of time and space, I don't think there's an issue.