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

[Hvizsgyak]

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.

When God does show His hand that he was the Creator of life to scientist (and it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that He started it all), will they allow Him to be included in the "domain of scientific methods/understandings"?

 

[public hermit]

When God does show His hand that he was the Creator of life to scientist (and it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that He started it all), will they allow Him to be included in the "domain of scientific methods/understandings"?

Some scientists do include God (as you and I understand God) and some don't because a transcendent, creator God as understood in the Abrahamic faiths does not fall within its domain. How could such a God be a subject of science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some scientists do include God (as you and I understand God) and some don't because a transcendent, creator God as understood in the Abrahamic faiths does not fall within its domain.

Indeed.

Isaiah 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

When you see the word "heavens" plural, it is a reference to First Heaven (or atmosphere), Second Heaven (outer space), and Third Heaven (Heaven proper).

In this vein, how can a three-dimensional space be "rolled together as a scroll," unless there is a fourth dimension to roll it into?

Paul mentions four dimensions of space in his letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, just basic biology.


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.

So like how water would freeze if introduced to a colder environment?

Which part of the yeast became a new species of yeast?

I recall the other sources mentioning multiple species - but I don't recall it mentioning an observation of one species becoming another.

Could you point out where it stated that? I might have just missed it.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Some scientists do include God (as you and I understand God) and some don't because a transcendent, creator God as understood in the Abrahamic faiths does not fall within its domain. How could such a God be a subject of science?

If He says, "Here I am and this is how I did it (create cells)." You have to give credit where credit is due.

 

[public hermit]

If He says, "Here I am and this is how I did it (create cells)." You have to give credit where credit is due.

That might be true if it were the case the God "saying so" were so obvious and unmistakable that no one could hardly doubt it. Clearly many rational folks do doubt it, so that is off the table in terms of what scientists should or should not accept. I sense we are going to widely disagree on a fundamental level. That's fine, but if I bow out, you'll know why. Besides, I think we're way off topic. As I said in my initial post, I don't really know enough about this potential route to an account of abiogenesis to speak on the details, but maybe somebody can.

 

[River Jordan]

So like how water would freeze if introduced to a colder environment?

Not really.

Which part of the yeast became a new species of yeast?

Remember, you posted "Evolution is the claim that living organisms are transformed into different forms or species through accumulated changes over time", which is two different things. The first is that organisms "transform into different forms" and the second is that they "transform into different species".

The yeast experiment is one of many that show organisms evolving into "different forms". The papers I posted after that show that organisms evolve into "different species".

I recall the other sources mentioning multiple species - but I don't recall it mentioning an observation of one species becoming another.

Could you point out where it stated that? I might have just missed it.

"Here we report the generation of four self-sustaining clonal lineages of a tetraploid species resulting from fertilization of triploid oocytes from a parthenogenetic Aspidoscelis exsanguis with haploid sperm from Aspidoscelis inornata. Molecular and cytological analysis confirmed the genetic identity of the hybrids and revealed that the females retain the capability of parthenogenetic reproduction characteristic of their triploid mothers. The tetraploid females have established self-perpetuating clonal lineages which are now in the third generation. "​

 

[Zaha Torte]

Not really.


Remember, you posted "Evolution is the claim that living organisms are transformed into different forms or species through accumulated changes over time", which is two different things. The first is that organisms "transform into different forms" and the second is that they "transform into different species".

The yeast experiment is one of many that show organisms evolving into "different forms". The papers I posted after that show that organisms evolve into "different species".

"Here we report the generation of four self-sustaining clonal lineages of a tetraploid species resulting from fertilization of triploid oocytes from a parthenogenetic Aspidoscelis exsanguis with haploid sperm from Aspidoscelis inornata. Molecular and cytological analysis confirmed the genetic identity of the hybrids and revealed that the females retain the capability of parthenogenetic reproduction characteristic of their triploid mothers. The tetraploid females have established self-perpetuating clonal lineages which are now in the third generation. "​

So like how water turns into ice. Different forms.

Explain the last paragraph in layman's terms.

It sounds like some mad scientists spliced some strains and called it evolution.

 

[River Jordan]

So like how water turns into ice. Different forms.

I suppose.

Explain the last paragraph in layman's terms.

It means they demonstrated the evolution of a new species in an experimental setting.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Please point me to a couple of examples where this has occurred. If you could give the full citation of the relevant articles and also the page number I would find the claim that would be ideal.

Please don't waste your time or mine by quoting articles about the article. That's down to the media, not the scientists.

 

[Ophiolite]

I recall the other sources mentioning multiple species - but I don't recall it mentioning an observation of one species becoming another.

Could you point out where it stated that? I might have just missed it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It begins to seem that you are not discussing this in good faith.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I suppose.


It means they demonstrated the evolution of a new species in an experimental setting.

They selected one species that can breed alone and inseminated them with sperm from a similar species and now these hybrids can continue because they can breed alone like their mothers.

Mules are a hybrid that are not considered to be a new species - even though a small number of them can still reproduce - so why do you consider these lizards to be a new species?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It begins to seem that you are not discussing this in good faith.

No - I am just a layman asking for someone to better explain what I read.

People should be able to explain the source they share - right?

 

[Ophiolite]

No - I am just a layman asking for someone to better explain what I read.

People should be able to explain the source they share - right?

Agreed. Can you point specifically to the first item/phrase/statement that is puzzling you?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Agreed. Can you point specifically to the first item/phrase/statement that is puzzling you?

The forum member that shared the source already explained it to my satisfaction.

 

[Ophiolite]

The forum member that shared the source already explained it to my satisfaction.

Very good. I missed that.

 

[River Jordan]

They selected one species that can breed alone and inseminated them with sperm from a similar species and now these hybrids can continue because they can breed alone like their mothers.

Mules are a hybrid that are not considered to be a new species - even though a small number of them can still reproduce - so why do you consider these lizards to be a new species?

I'm not sure what your point is. The newly generated species reproduce on their own and can't reproduce with their parent species. If that's not a new species, what do you think is a new species?

If you're actually denying that new species can arise, you're really out on your own island. IIRC even YEC organizations don't deny it (it's how two members of a "cat kind" can produce all the current species of cats after the flood).

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Please point me to a couple of examples where this has occurred.

No.

 

[Ophiolite]

No.

Why not?

Are you unable to find any examples where scientists, not the media, have inflated the importance of their research? This was your assertion:

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.

This was my response.

Please point me to a couple of examples where this has occurred. If you could give the full citation of the relevant articles and also the page number I would find the claim that would be ideal.

Please don't waste your time or mine by quoting articles about the article. That's down to the media, not the scientists.

Based on your "No", (Which I applaud for concision.), I must assume that is tacit acknowledgment, by you,Se that scientists have not made such inflated claims.

 

[Larniavc]

When God does show His hand that he was the Creator of life to scientist (and it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that He started it all), will they allow Him to be included in the "domain of scientific methods/understandings"?

I guess we have to wait for that to happen. Until then ‘no’.