UNBREAKABLE

[Speedwell]

You seem to know about all the common ancestors up the evolutionary tree, but the original one escapes you. Whyzat?

So what's your reasonable inference and what is it based on? Why should we think that life has more than one ancestor?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm just playing off things that scientists have written on the subject,

Things that you have not understood and appear to be wholly committed to not understanding.

Inamely that there are pre-requirements for evolution that haven't been explained, nor indeed can be, imo.

Firstly, as previously noted, your opinion on these matters s valueless since it is based upon profound ignorance.
Secondly, none of the points I have seen you raise are pre-requirement for evolution.
Thirdly, if you are somehow thinking that scientists think abiogenesis is pre-requirement for evolution, you are mistaken. Scientists think abiogenesis preceded evolution because that is the most logical explanation and is consistent with the evidence. This does not mean they think it is a necessary prerequisite.
As I already noted, you just do not have even a rough grasp of the subject you seem to keen to deny.

If you don't like your atheist theory to be questioned on a Christian forum why not just go to an atheist/evolution forum where you will feel more at home?

1. The theory of evolution is not an atheist theory. You have been told this before. Constantly repeating something you know to be untrue is considered lying. The majority of Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution. Are you claiming that Roman Catholics are atheists?

I welcome questioning of the TOE. Any one serious about the theory welcomes questioning. What I do not welcome is trite, foolish, ill informed attacks on the theory that continue even after repeated correction of the nonsense within those attacks.

(Your inconsequential efforts are a frustration. I hate to see anything done so badly. I could readily present attacks of far more substance than anything you have ever posted.They would still be handily refuted, but they would give those presenting the evolutionary case a little bit more of a work out than afforded by your empty attempts. )

 

[Speedwell]

If you don't like your atheist theory to be questioned on a Christian forum why not just go to an atheist/evolution forum where you will feel more at home?

The theory of evolution is not an "atheist theory." If you want to spread offensive falsehoods like that, perhaps you would feel more at home on another forum.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But "time" did stand still didn't it?

Please answer the 2 questions I asked which would demonstrate whether time stood still or not. If you can't answer we'll assume you have no explanation and are, therefore, simply making unsupportable assertions.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I'm just playing off things that scientists have written on the subject, namely that there are pre-requirements for evolution that haven't been explained, nor indeed can be, imo.

That is just silly. It is like you can not accept germ theory because science can not yet explain the birth of cosmos.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is just silly. It is like you can not accept germ theory because science can not yet explain the birth of cosmos.

What needs to be in place before evolution can occur? What actually evolves?

 

[Speedwell]

What needs to be in place before evolution can occur? What actually evolves?

A self-replicating molecule of some kind. I gather that some scientists have hypothesized that semi-living organisms were capable of replication with variation (and thus capable of evolving) before developing to the point that they possessed the full suite of characteristics which we say define "life." Something like modern viruses, perhaps.

 

[Ophiolite]

A self-replicating molecule of some kind. I gather that some scientists have hypothesized that semi-living organisms were capable of replication with variation (and thus capable of evolving) before developing to the point that they possessed the full suite of characteristics which we say define "life." Something like modern viruses, perhaps.

One hypothesis I rather like (but only because its author, Cairns-Smith, taught at my alma mater) is the notion that the first replicating and evolving templates were clay minerals, that later transfered their patterns to organic molecules. Read more here and here.