And never will be! all experiments so far have met with abject failure. Principle of cause and effect plays a big role here. Teh effect cannot be greater than the thing that caused it! IOW non-life cannot beget life!
The first point is false, even the original abiogenesis experiments demonstrated that amino acids, themselves much more complicated than the base chemicals, can form naturally in presence of energy.
Polymerisation is a well known event in organic chemistry, it just needs a chemical catalyst, no life or designer necessary.
Your idiom about "effect cannot be greater than the thing that caused it" isn't true... it also leaves you open to claims of special pleading when it comes to how you explain where God came from.
BUT! According to evolutionary thought- it all began when that first non-life became life! Maybe they have changed their guesses (hypotheses) and say multiple differing life forms all began simultaneously but otherwise it all began with that first microbe who is poppa and momma to all life here!
We don't know, that was my point. But I also pointed out that while I guess from a logical point there much a singular first celled organism, there might be a whole host of life like chemical processes that led the very earliest life.
That is what I said, just more colloquially.
Not really, your post was unclear to the point of falsehood.
And I don't think that any evolutionist has yet come up with a feasible hypothesis explain the Cambrian explosion of life or produce the evidence to give their hypothesis any real validity.
Just to clarify, the plant animal divide and the Cambrian explosion are probably billions of years apart.
The Cambrian explosion is easy to explain. Complex life lived before hand, but the environmental changes that led to the Cambrian explosion had allowed for the development of hard parts like bones and shells.
Bones/shells are a massive advantage and opened up a whole host of new ecological niches, this in turn led to rapid speciation.
We have evidence of some more complicated life before the explosion, but it is limited for very logical reasons.
Trivially?
We see horizontal changes but no vertical changes. We have never observed the process of say that land mammal turn to whale! NOr has evolutionist shown how th emutative process worked to change a land mammal to whale. They just take some fossils and fill in the missing parts with teh help of paleo-artists to show how it supposedly evolved! I know it is more complicated than that- but when you boil it all down- that is what they do! Because they believe evolution is a fact!
When discussing a topic it helps to learn what the terms mean first.
Vertical gene transfer describes transmission of genetic material from parent to child and horizontal gene transfer describes transmission of genetic material between other individual without reproduction.
We have the genetic remnants in whale DNA, we have fossils of animals that are clearly cetaceans from their bone/skull structure but are smaller land animals.
And as evidence for the possibility of such a transition, every stage in between land and whale exists in other families so there are no unsurvivable transitions.
Ever seen a hippo? A seal? A manatee?
Finches change beak shape to adapt to food diets.
Subway rats no longer able to reproduce with outside rats etc.
Those are clearly all the tools needed for evolution to occur... what's the barrier to more changes building up with longer time, larger populations and differing pressures?
Horizontal means that it started as a rat and ended as a rat or bird or whatever.
Vertical is the macro hypothesis that says we started as a microbe and through a series of horizontal and vertical mutations we evolved over X millions of years to become man.
Please don't make up terms, it just causes confusion.
Micro evolution (still same species) and macro evolution (change in species) are exactly the same method, just over a longer time span with sufficient arbitrary change to cause a redefine or not allow reproduction.
Your sewer rat example is the first stage of speciation. Given the sewer and non sewer rats cannot reproduce any useful traits found in, or developing in one cannot spread to the other.
Well that is their educated guess (hypothesis.) But Australopithecus is just an ape. southern ape as it name says! but ini teh eons long evolution from ancestral ape to man there had to be a species that was equally ape as man so I named it homo-pithecus!
So it was a lie. Don't do that, it's beneath you.
If Australopithecus is "just an ape" and humans are "men", what's the difference? How do you clearly define a difference?
Modern non human apes aren't bipedal and don't craft tools... but most of these guys did. There features would demonstrate them as non human, but still far more like a human than any chimp.
