The Incredible Odyssey of Mankind: Ape to Human in a Million Years (Video)

[Bradskii]

This is the single cell that supposedly appeared out of a puddle of toxic sludge: Not exactly simple, is it.

Who told you that? They are either lying to you or are woefully uninformed.

And that's a serious question. I'd really like to know.

 

[DaisyDay]

This is the single cell that supposedly appeared out of a puddle of toxic sludge: Not exactly simple, is it.

How can the sludge be toxic if it gave rise to life? Before life exists, there is nothing for the sludge to be toxic to.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How can the sludge be toxic if it gave rise to life? Before life exists, there is nothing for the sludge to be toxic to.

Good question. Somehow the sludge quit being toxic about the time the most primitive lifeforms evolved. Stunning coincidence. Like evolution in general.

 

[Shemjaza]

Good question. Somehow the sludge quit being toxic about the time the most primitive lifeforms evolved. Stunning coincidence. Like evolution in general.

Just making up nonsense about ideas you don't like the conclusions of is dishonest and silly.

Is it supposed to be insulting? Funny? An attempt to get a particular reaction?

 

[DaisyDay]

Good question. Somehow the sludge quit being toxic about the time the most primitive lifeforms evolved. Stunning coincidence. Like evolution in general.

No, it more how you would determine if something is "toxic" if there is nothing for it to be toxic to. Then that life began from it contradicts the notion that it would be toxic to that life.

 

[Estrid]

Who told you that? They are either lying to you or are woefully uninformed.

And that's a serious question. I'd really like to know.

Similarly likewise.

We'd hate to think he just made it up

 

[AV1611VET]

Similarly likewise.

We'd hate to think he just made it up

Would you know it, if he did?

 

[USincognito]

This is the single cell that supposedly appeared out of a puddle of toxic sludge:

Could you cite someone, anyone, claiming that eukaryotic cells "appeared out of a puddle of toxic sludge"?

Not exactly simple, is it.

View attachment 331743

Now do a prokaryote.

 

[Estrid]

Who told you that? They are either lying to you or are woefully uninformed.

And that's a serious question. I'd really like to know.

Just made it up.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is the single cell that supposedly appeared out of a puddle of toxic sludge: Not exactly simple, is it.

View attachment 331743

It is astounding how many egregious errors you packed into a single sentence and the irrelevant diagram.

First, the sentence:

1. As others have pointed out this cell is not representative of the first cellular life. More on that later.
2. The phrase "supposedly appears" implies sponataneous or very rapid emergence of the first cell. I do not know of amy practicing biologist, or biochemist, who thinks that was the case. If you did not mean to imply that please choose your wording more carefully in future.
3. No puddles were involved, unless you think of the oceans, tidal pools and waters surrounding thermal vents as all subsets of the puddle class.
4. Toxicity is specific to the organism. There are many species of bacteria today that thrive on what to us are excessively toxic conditions. Those bacteria happily gobble up those "toxins". Curiously these generally seem, along with other extremophiles, to be the most ancient forms of life still extant.

Then the diagram! The first cells did not contain:
A nucleus
A Golgi vesicle
An endoplasmic reticulum (smooth, or soft)
Mitochondria
Any other organelles as complex as the eukaryote cell you have shown

In simple terms you have shown a diagram of a B1-stealth bomber and asked how the Wright brothers could possibly have built that at a first attempt.

As other have suggested, if you wish to have your posts taken seriously then please don't post such error laden material. It offers no opportunity for discussion, only correction of the errors.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It is astounding how many egregious errors you packed into a single sentence and the irrelevant diagram.

First, the sentence:

1. As others have pointed out this cell is not representative of the first cellular life. More on that later.
2. The phrase "supposedly appears" implies sponataneous or very rapid emergence of the first cell. I do not know of amy practicing biologist, or biochemist, who thinks that was the case. If you did not mean to imply that please choose your wording more carefully in future.
3. No puddles were involved, unless you think of the oceans, tidal pools and waters surrounding thermal vents as all subsets of the puddle class.
4. Toxicity is specific to the organism. There are many species of bacteria today that thrive on what to us are excessively toxic conditions. Those bacteria happily gobble up those "toxins". Curiously these generally seem, along with other extremophiles, to be the most ancient forms of life still extant.

Then the diagram! The first cells did not contain:
A nucleus
A Golgi vesicle
An endoplasmic reticulum (smooth, or soft)
Mitochondria
Any other organelles as complex as the eukaryote cell you have shown

In simple terms you have shown a diagram of a B1-stealth bomber and asked how the Wright brothers could possibly have built that at a first attempt.

As other have suggested, if you wish to have your posts taken seriously then please don't post such error laden material. It offers no opportunity for discussion, only correction of the errors.

I don't expect any evolutionist to take my posts seriously. They start with unprovable assumptions, such as the age of the earth. Since time apparently can change speed, how is it possible to date its beginning? We know nothing for sure. Has the speed of light changed? Did the "big bang" really happen? What about dark matter? It's supposed to make up most matter, yet it is undetectable. Radiometric dating? Who knows if the rate of decay has been constant since the creation of the earth?

You obviously missed the point I was trying to make with the cell. I was taught the "simple" cell structure in biology. The supposedly simple cell is vastly more complex. It was not me making the analogy but my science teachers. The headstone of biological sciences will read "We Got it Wrong".

 

[Aussie Pete]

Who told you that? They are either lying to you or are woefully uninformed.

And that's a serious question. I'd really like to know.

This was evolution 101 when I was at school. I just accepted this for years because I did not know any better. I'm thankful to Professor James Tour for enlightening me.

 

[Estrid]

I don't expect any evolutionist to take my posts seriously. They start with unprovable assumptions, such as the age of the earth. Since time apparently can change speed, how is it possible to date its beginning? We know nothing for sure. Has the speed of light changed? Did the "big bang" really happen? What about dark matter? It's supposed to make up most matter, yet it is undetectable. Radiometric dating? Who knows if the rate of decay has been constant since the creation of the earth?

You obviously missed the point I was trying to make with the cell. I was taught the "simple" cell structure in biology. The supposedly simple cell is vastly more complex. It was not me making the analogy but my science teachers. The headstone of biological sciences will read "We Got it Wrong".

Of course you are not taken seriously.
But it's not for the reasons you think.

 

[Estrid]

It is astounding how many egregious errors you packed into a single sentence and the irrelevant diagram.

First, the sentence:

1. As others have pointed out this cell is not representative of the first cellular life. More on that later.
2. The phrase "supposedly appears" implies sponataneous or very rapid emergence of the first cell. I do not know of amy practicing biologist, or biochemist, who thinks that was the case. If you did not mean to imply that please choose your wording more carefully in future.
3. No puddles were involved, unless you think of the oceans, tidal pools and waters surrounding thermal vents as all subsets of the puddle class.
4. Toxicity is specific to the organism. There are many species of bacteria today that thrive on what to us are excessively toxic conditions. Those bacteria happily gobble up those "toxins". Curiously these generally seem, along with other extremophiles, to be the most ancient forms of life still extant.

Then the diagram! The first cells did not contain:
A nucleus
A Golgi vesicle
An endoplasmic reticulum (smooth, or soft)
Mitochondria
Any other organelles as complex as the eukaryote cell you have shown

In simple terms you have shown a diagram of a B1-stealth bomber and asked how the Wright brothers could possibly have built that at a first attempt.

As other have suggested, if you wish to have your posts taken seriously then please don't post such error laden material. It offers no opportunity for discussion, only correction of the errors.

And none of that gets addressed

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't expect any evolutionist to take my posts seriously. They start with unprovable assumptions, such as the age of the earth. Since time apparently can change speed, how is it possible to date its beginning? We know nothing for sure. Has the speed of light changed? Did the "big bang" really happen? What about dark matter? It's supposed to make up most matter, yet it is undetectable. Radiometric dating? Who knows if the rate of decay has been constant since the creation of the earth?

You obviously missed the point I was trying to make with the cell. I was taught the "simple" cell structure in biology. The supposedly simple cell is vastly more complex. It was not me making the analogy but my science teachers. The headstone of biological sciences will read "We Got it Wrong".

You chose to completely ignore that your post was laden with errors. You refuse to acknowledge that fact, or even offer a challenge to the points I offered. Instead you attempt to sidetrack away from the issue.
Let me put it simply: your post was factually untrue, I pointed this out, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead you double down by claiming this is what you were taught in school. There are two possibilities there: either you had an especially poor biology teacher, or you failed to properly understand what you were taught. Either way the fault does not lie with the methodology or findings of biology.

Now, would you do me the courtesty and restore your integrity by acknowledging the above.

 

[Estrid]

You chose to completely ignore that your post was laden with errors. You refuse to acknowledge that fact, or even offer a challenge to the points I offered. Instead you attempt to sidetrack away from the issue.
Let me put it simply: your post was factually untrue, I pointed this out, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead you double down by claiming this is what you were taught in school. There are two possibilities there: either you had an especially poor biology teacher, or you failed to properly understand what you were taught. Either way the fault does not lie with the methodology or findings of biology.

Now, would you do me the courtesty and restore your integrity by acknowledging the above.

Dr. K Wise, PhD yec paleontologist:

" ....even if all the evidence in the universe turns
against yec, I will still be yec as that is what the
Bible seems to indicate."

This nicely illustrates my observation that
it's impossible to be an informed yec with
intellectually integrity.

Such behaviour does not well represent
Christianity- which though I am atheist
I see as an inherently noble religion.

It's too bad to see people of faith or
anyone else trash it.

 

[AV1611VET]

This nicely illustrates my observation that it's impossible to be an informed yec with intellectually integrity.

Such behaviour does not well represent Christianity- which though I am atheist I see as an inherently noble religion.

As Paul put it ...

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Okay with Christianity if we don't know the difference between thin layer chromatography and radiohalos?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't expect any evolutionist to take my posts seriously.

I'm not an evolutionist, just a physicist, but I think I can handle these questions (mostly).

They start with unprovable assumptions, such as the age of the earth.

The age of the Earth is measured, not assumed, using a variety of geological dating methods.

Since time apparently can change speed, how is it possible to date its beginning?

Not completely sure what that means.

We know nothing for sure.

We can measure the limits of our knowledge.

Has the speed of light changed?

No. We can measure the properties of atoms in distant galaxies from ~10 billion years ago and see that they haven't changed. This means the fundamental constants haven't changed in the same period.

Did the "big bang" really happen?

The Big Bang is a model for what happened after the Universe started to expand. But that thing being modeled (the expansion of the Universe and development of structure) defintately happened.

What about dark matter? It's supposed to make up most matter, yet it is undetectable.

It is well detected astrophysically. It just hasn't been identified as a specific particle by particle detectors.

Radiometric dating? Who knows if the rate of decay has been constant since the creation of the earth?

Decay rates are dependent on the same physical constants as the atomic physics in those distant galaxies, so the rate hasn't changed since the formation of the Earth.

You obviously missed the point I was trying to make with the cell. I was taught the "simple" cell structure in biology. The supposedly simple cell is vastly more complex. It was not me making the analogy but my science teachers. The headstone of biological sciences will read "We Got it Wrong".

Others have gotten this, but I can add that most cells alive today aren't that complex as most are bacteria.

 

[Bradskii]

This was evolution 101 when I was at school. I just accepted this for years because I did not know any better. I'm thankful to Professor James Tour for enlightening me.

One, you aren't refering to evolution. You are constantly confusing it with abiogenesis. And two, nobody with even a second grade grasp of biology thinks that what you posted suddenly emerged from 'toxic sludge.' So there is no way on God's little blue planet that anyone told you that. Feel free to dig around for anything whatsoever at any time that says anything remotely as stupid.

And time changes speed? That's not even wrong.

 

[Estrid]

One, you aren't refering to evolution. You are constantly confusing it with abiogenesis. And two, nobody with even a second grade grasp of biology thinks that what you posted suddenly emerged from 'toxic sludge.' So there is no way on God's little blue planet that anyone told you that. Feel free to dig around for anything whatsoever at any time that says anything remotely as stupid.

And time changes speed? That's not even wrong.

Evolutionc101? It's not even Intro to Remedial
Dictionary usage.

As in, no, not taking someone seriously.

At all