Where did the first cell come from?

[ReformedPharisee]

Evolutionists like to play games, and the play a lot of them. When Darwin first postulate his theory (which really wasn't his), origins was a part of that theory...it wasn't until the Synthetic theory of evolution came around after the official death of darwinism in the 1960's, that origins was taught to be a separate thing from evolution.

Nonsense and fiddle-diddle bug squat!

Where did the first cell come from? Until evolutionists can answer this question with confidence (not with unwarranted assumptions that dot the evolutionary landscape like sand on the sea-shore), TOE is out the window.

 

[Assyrian]

Evolutionists like to play games, and the play a lot of them. When Darwin first postulate his theory (which really wasn't his), origins was a part of that theory...it wasn't until the Synthetic theory of evolution came around after the official death of darwinism in the 1960's, that origins was taught to be a separate thing from evolution.

Nonsense and fiddle-diddle bug squat!

Where did the first cell come from? Until evolutionists can answer this question with confidence (not with unwarranted assumptions that dot the evolutionary landscape like sand on the sea-shore), TOE is out the window.

Darwin didn't explain where the first call or cells came from, just what happened to them once there were here.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, last sentence.
​

 

[Smidlee]

Evolutionists like to play games, and the play a lot of them. When Darwin first postulate his theory (which really wasn't his), origins was a part of that theory...it wasn't until the Synthetic theory of evolution came around after the official death of darwinism in the 1960's, that origins was taught to be a separate thing from evolution.

Nonsense and fiddle-diddle bug squat!

Where did the first cell come from? Until evolutionists can answer this question with confidence (not with unwarranted assumptions that dot the evolutionary landscape like sand on the sea-shore), TOE is out the window.

The origin of life is not the only problem ToE has. ToE can't explain the origins of anything. Evolution can only work with what already existed. Not only is there no evidence of the existence of Frankencell there is no evidence of LUCA existence either. Even if evolutionist want to separate their theory from Frankencell this doesn't help them much.
Science so far works against the ToE as scientists haven't come close of reproducing what blind nature (evolution) was suppose to have done. There is no reason to believe natural selection can do more than what artificial selection can do.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolutionists like to play games, and the play a lot of them. When Darwin first postulate his theory (which really wasn't his), origins was a part of that theory

Have you ever read Origin of Species? In it Darwin is very clear that the origin of the first cell is NOT part of the theory. This is the relevant passage:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Notice that Darwin is perfectly happy to have God zap the first cell into existence by miracle. Evolution happens after the first life comes into being.

it wasn't until the Synthetic theory of evolution came around after the official death of darwinism in the 1960's, that origins was taught to be a separate thing from evolution.

WHAT have you been reading? The Modern Synthesis, or neo-Darwinism (what you call the "synthetic theory") was not not the "death of darwinism". Instead, it reinforced Darwinism because it synthesized Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory: Synthetic Theory of Evolution

Where did the first cell come from? Until evolutionists can answer this question with confidence (not with unwarranted assumptions that dot the evolutionary landscape like sand on the sea-shore), TOE is out the window.

Because of what Darwin wrote, when people state this, I always know that they are really arguing the atheism vs theism debate, and not arguing about evolution. You are saying that there is a "gap" between non-living matter and living cells. You insert God into that "gap" and say evolution is dead, because you mistakenly think evolution = atheism. Evolution is not atheism. Proof of that is that there are so many Christian evolutionists here in this forum. Look at my faith icon, for example.

Now, what were the secondary causes God used to create life from non-life? We know of at least one way for life to arise from non-living chemicals. It's been done. Start with these websites and then you and I can discuss it in more detail:

The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

As you can see, I've done this before.

For a quick summary, when a solution of amino acids are heated (either in a tidal pool under the sun or at a hydrothermal vent), they polymerize to form proteins. The proteins, in turn, spontaneously form cells. These cells have the 4 characteristics that, together, define something as alive:
1. Metabolism (both breaking down chemicals for energy and building up larger chemicals from simpler building blocks).
2. Growth
3. Response to stimuli
4. Reproduction.

God created the first cell by chemistry, not miracle.

 

[lucaspa]

The origin of life is not the only problem ToE has. ToE can't explain the origins of anything. Evolution can only work with what already existed.

Evolution explains the origin of new species. That's what the theory is for. EVERY scientific theory assumes the existence of something. Genreal Relativity explains gravity but assumes the existence of spacetime. Chemistry explains the origin of different chemicals, but assumes the existence of elements.

Science so far works against the ToE as scientists haven't come close of reproducing what blind nature (evolution) was suppose to have done. There is no reason to believe natural selection can do more than what artificial selection can do.

LOL! Sorry. I shouldn't have laughed, but, you see, natural selection and artificial selection are the same thing! Again, have you read Origin of Species? "natural" selection, Darwin makes clear, is the same thing that happens with "artificial" selection, except that in artificial selection it is humans doing the selecting while in "natural" selection it is nature.

Same process, but different selectors. So if you say natural selection can do everything artificial selection can, then you are admitting evolution. Humans have used artificial selection to get new species and even a new genus! So you have just "proved" evolution. Thank you.

Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

 

[Greg1234]

LOL! Sorry. I shouldn't have laughed, but, you see, natural selection and artificial selection are the same thing!

That was the point.

 

[juvenissun]

Darwin didn't explain where the first call or cells came from, just what happened to them once there were here.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, last sentence.
​

He did not explain does not mean it "should" be excluded. Darwinism should not define the word evolution.

Yes, as I think about this question, it is quite a good one. Try to imagine the "blobs" of material floating in water which were just around the corner to become a full functional cell ... Should that thing also have a name, such as "proto-cell"? Is this a right picture according to the "idea of evolution"?

Are we still trying to make a cell? Where are we in this research? Should this research be called an evolution research or a creation research?

 

[mathetes123]

Evolutionists like to play games, and the play a lot of them. When Darwin first postulate his theory (which really wasn't his), origins was a part of that theory...it wasn't until the Synthetic theory of evolution came around after the official death of darwinism in the 1960's, that origins was taught to be a separate thing from evolution.

Nonsense and fiddle-diddle bug squat!

Where did the first cell come from? Until evolutionists can answer this question with confidence (not with unwarranted assumptions that dot the evolutionary landscape like sand on the sea-shore), TOE is out the window.

They can't answer this question so they exclude it from the discussion claiming it to be a separate issue. Evolution is about origins. It doesn't make sense that the origin of the first cell should be excluded from the discussion. People have no concept of billions of years of time and so evolution can be made to sound like a possibility if just given enough time, despite the statistical impossibility. They cannot use this to explain away the idea of everything from nothing, the creation of life from nonlife, or the evolution of the ability of that first life to reproduce itself in the first generation. Instead, they will turn to strawman arguments, claim abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, claim creationists are ignorant of science or the processes of evolution, everything but address the lack of evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

That was the point.

You think so? Then Smidlee screwed it up since artificial selection produces new species!

 

[Smidlee]

.


LOL! Sorry. I shouldn't have laughed, but, you see, natural selection and artificial selection are the same thing! Again, have you read Origin of Species? "natural" selection, Darwin makes clear, is the same thing that happens with "artificial" selection, except that in artificial selection it is humans doing the selecting while in "natural" selection it is nature.

Same process, but different selectors. So if you say natural selection can do everything artificial selection can, then you are admitting evolution. Humans have used artificial selection to get new species and even a new genus! So you have just "proved" evolution. Thank you.

.

What man has proven with artificial selection is selection clearly has it's limits. Both the fruit fly experiments as well as Kentucky Derby horses are examples of it's limits. We agree natural selection has no more power than man's selection.

 

[lucaspa]

He did not explain does not mean it "should" be excluded. Darwinism should not define the word evolution.

Why not? He invented it for this context. Would you deny Huxley the ability to define "agnostic"? Shouldn't Einstein have been able to define "relativity"?b
What Darwin made clear in the quote is that the origin of the first cell was excluded. Evolution works after the first life and it doesn't matter how the first cell got here: by chemistry or God zapping it into existence by miracle. Once that first cell exists, then evolution will produce the diversity of species and the designs we see in living organisms.

Yes, as I think about this question, it is quite a good one. Try to imagine the "blobs" of material floating in water which were just around the corner to become a full functional cell ... Should that thing also have a name, such as "proto-cell"? Is this a right picture according to the "idea of evolution"?

The researchers working on the origin of the first cell did call them "proto-cells". They did so to distinguish them from modern cells. Similarly, proteins made abiotically by thermal polymerization are sometimes called "proteinoids". It's just a convenient label to know exactly what we are talking about.

Are we still trying to make a cell? Where are we in this research? Should this research be called an evolution research or a creation research?

Read the websites I posted. Yes, we have made a cell. What scientists are now doing is trying to make a cell with directed protein synthesis.

And it's neither evolution nor creation research. It's abiogenesis. It's chemistry.

It appears that you too think evolution = atheism. So you seem to think that the research is either atheism or "creation research". That's really, really, poor Christianity. It's playing right into the hands of militant atheists and represents one of the biggest dangers to Christianity today.

 

[lucaspa]

What man has proven with artificial selection is selection clearly has it's limits. Both the fruit fly experiments as well as Kentucky Derby horses are examples of it's limits. We agree natural selection has no more power than man's selection.

Actually, it hasn't been proven that artificial selection has its limits. New species of fruit fly have been produced by natural selection. Did you note the paper I referenced of a new genus with several new species?

In terms of Kentucky Derby horses is that humans also propose limitations. Remember, the horses must still belong to the subspecies Equus ferus caballos. If they don't, then they would be disqualified!

Humans simply haven't been doing artificial selection that long and they impose limits: sheep must still be sheep, pigeons must still be pigeons. In the case of dogs, the process has gone on long enough and the types of "breeds" are so diversified that there are now four species (at least) of dogs.

Remember, the only biological reality is "species". Higher taxa are simply groups of species. So, once you have speciation (either by natural or artificial selection), then getting more and more diversification is simply multiple speciation events thru time. See the diagram (it's the only one) in Origin of Species.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 pg 90

In terms of fruit flies, humans have followed natural selection in the production of new species:

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos.  A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster  Evolution 34:730-737, 1980 Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures
2. D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989.  JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Got new species on different diets: starch vs maltose. 52 generations

Notice in #2 that the flies are no longer "fruit" flies. They can't eat fruit anymore. They are "potato" (the source of starch) or "malt" flies.

 

[Greg1234]

And now for reruns.

 

[lucaspa]

And now for reruns.

The whole thread is a rerun of several previous threads. Creationists just never learn but keep repeating the same old falsified claims again and again despite the evidence refuting them.

I notice no one is talking about the information in the websites I posted. Care to be the first?

 

[Assyrian]

He did not explain does not mean it "should" be excluded.

I was answering the claim that he had included it, which clearly he didn't. I think the onus is on you to explain why it should be included. You cannot arbitrarily jumble very different scientific processes together. Perhaps if you showed how the first cells arose, and showed it was by the same process as evolution, then you would have a case. But first you would have to show how the first imperfect replicator is supposed to have arisen by replication.

Darwinism should not define the word evolution.

Darwinism? You mean evolution? Evolutionary science shouldn't define evolution???

Yes, as I think about this question, it is quite a good one. Try to imagine the "blobs" of material floating in water which were just around the corner to become a full functional cell ... Should that thing also have a name, such as "proto-cell"? Is this a right picture according to the "idea of evolution"?

Evolution say nothing about it.

Are we still trying to make a cell? Where are we in this research? Should this research be called an evolution research or a creation research?

What is wrong with calling it abiogenesis?

 

[lucaspa]

I was answering the claim that he had included it, which clearly he didn't. I think the onus is on you to explain why it should be included. You cannot arbitrarily jumble very different scientific processes together.

So true. The connecting link is "god-of-the-gaps" theology and the mistake that evolution = atheism. The connection is that there is a "gap" between non-life and life that can only be filled by God. If that is the case, then atheism (evolution) is refuted.

Darwinism? You mean evolution? Evolutionary science shouldn't define evolution???

I think he meant that Darwin shouldn't define evolution. Because Darwin didn't describe it as juvenissum wants.

What is wrong with calling it abiogenesis?

I don't think that is the point. Notice that juvenissum gave us 2 choices: evolution or creation science. What he wants to know is whether abiogensis belongs in atheism (evolution) or creationism.

 

[Smidlee]

Actually, it hasn't been proven that artificial selection has its limits. New species of fruit fly have been produced by natural selection. Did you note the paper I referenced of a new genus with several new species?
.

All that is required in biology for a new species is "reproductively isolated population of individuals". Even if the species could mate but are isolated they could be consider different specie. So I don't find it hard to believe there could be new species with such a loose term for specie. You seem to suggest if the diet changes then it's a new specie. ( It seems the fruit flies experiment results only partial reproductive isolation. )
I do read something lately that some animals that eats only meat has no (they believe lose) taste for sweets.

 

[lucaspa]

All that is required in biology for a new species is "reproductively isolated population of individuals". Even if the species could mate but are isolated they could be consider different specie. So I don't find it hard to believe there could be new species with such a loose term for specie. You seem to suggest if the diet changes then it's a new specie. ( It seems the fruit flies experiment results only partial reproductive isolation. )

You ignore the effect on hybrids and the genetic component of the first study. The Biological Species Concept is that 2 populations either do not interbreed or, if they do, then their offspring are not fertile. You left off that last part.

Now, the F1 hybrids had reduced fertility and fitness and the F2 hybrids were sterile. So it's not just that they did not mate, but that when mated the offspring turned out to be infertile.

The authors also looked at 9 common genes between the species. They found that the genetic difference was 3%. Humans and chimps, for the same genes, differ by less than 1%. So they have 3x the genetic difference than humans and chimps!

In the second, forced mating also produced sterile offspring. For fruit flies, different diets mean more than different tastes. They mean major structural changes in the mouth parts and changes in the digestive enzymes.

Aren't you getting embarrassed asserting things as true that are not true?

I see that you also decided not to discuss the abiogenesis references. Instead, you are diverting to speciation.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think that is the point. Notice that juvenissum gave us 2 choices: evolution or creation science. What he wants to know is whether abiogensis belongs in atheism (evolution) or creationism.

Because 'evolution' is what Creationists call anything that disagrees with creationism. I get it now.

 

[Greg1234]

but keep repeating the same old falsified claims again and again

I notice no one is talking about the information in the websites I posted. Care to be the first?

I've got the t-shirt.