Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 In astronomy we talk about the evolution of stars. In automobile building we talk about the evolution of the automobile. Do you really believe either of those are living things? You keep talking about context. Sheesh Stars nor automobiles are in the evolutionary tree of life. Sheesh. But, the first common ancestor is. How did it evolve?
jkwilliams Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Stars nor automobiles are in the evolutionary tree of life. Sheesh. But, the first common ancestor is. How did it evolve? How it evolved is the subject of organic evolution. How it came to be in the first place is not.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 How it evolved is the subject of organic evolution. How it came to be in the first place is not. Yes- how that first life evolved is the subject of evolution- how did the first life form evolve- that is all part of evolutionary theory.
jkwilliams Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Yes- how that first life evolved is the subject of evolution- how did the first life form evolve- that is all part of evolutionary theory. Only in your imagination.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Only in your imagination. Hum, no. Pick up any biology book on evolution.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 1, 2014 Author Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) I read the link. It appears to mostly a long series of micro evolution. But none that distinctly shows new features in one creature that it did not have (such as wings). I have yet to see a "smoking gun". It is obvious that a whole lot of speculating is going on. Well Mormon PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists see it, because they understand it, because they studied that for years. If it is only speculation, why do faithful LDS Biologists believe it? Many micro-evolution steps = Macro-Evolution. Retroviruses, Pseudogenes, mitochondrial DNA, Chromosomal Fusion prove that Evolution did happen. With DNA evidence scientists can know who you are related to. With DNA evidence, they can identify a person. DNA evidence is powerful, and it tells us that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Edited June 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Stars nor automobiles are in the evolutionary tree of life. Sheesh. But, the first common ancestor is. How did it evolve? Stars and automobiles have a common ancestor just not a living one. We call it The Big Bang. Largely unknown at this time. Depends of if it Is a single universe or a multiverse? .
Rob Osborn Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Stars and automobiles have a common ancestor just not a living one. We call it The Big Bang. Largely unknown at this time. Depends of if it Is a single universe or a multiverse? . Is evolution concerned with what our first ancestor was and from where it came from? Also, at what point in evolution does life emerge? Doesn't this mean that at some strict point you would have a non-life form give rise to the first life form? What thus makes it be alive?
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Is evolution concerned with what our first ancestor was and from where it came from? Also, at what point in evolution does life emerge? Doesn't this mean that at some strict point you would have a non-life form give rise to the first life form? What thus makes it be alive? Evolution is only concerned with how life developed AFTER it got here. So whether it came from some primordial soup, or outer space, or by the intervention of God. It does not effect the evidence for biological evolution. That is Abiogenesis, a related but independent subject. Theories that they are there is still plenty to learn. But it is widely known that certain chained chemical polymers exhibit the ability to gain information and reproduce. They are not alive as we would define it, but they do offer interesting clues as to how if COULD have developed.
Rob Osborn Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Evolution is only concerned with how life developed AFTER it got here. So whether it came from some primordial soup, or outer space, or by the intervention of God. It does not effect the evidence for biological evolution. That is Abiogenesis, a related but independent subject. Theories that they are there is still plenty to learn. But it is widely known that certain chained chemical polymers exhibit the ability to gain information and reproduce. They are not alive as we would define it, but they do offer interesting clues as to how if COULD have developed. I am interested though in the defining moment when the "first" life form evolved. Was the "thing" before it non-life that immediately gave birth to life?
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I am interested though in the defining moment when the "first" life form evolved. Was the "thing" before it non-life that immediately gave birth to life? Life on this planet is pretty tenacious. We don't know the defining moment, or even if there was just one. It well COULD have been, and probably was, multiple events.
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I am interested though in the defining moment when the "first" life form evolved. Was the "thing" before it non-life that immediately gave birth to life? So, you're attacking evolutionary biology because it doesn't concern itself with what you're interested in?
longview Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Well Mormon PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists see it, because they understand it, because they studied that for years. If it is only speculation, why do faithful LDS Biologists believe it?We can be certain that there is a whole range of opinions among scientists. We would expect most if not all to be honest about there being a whole lot more questions to be answered than so-called "facts" which are in turn still subject a whole range of multiple interpretations. Many micro-evolution steps = Macro-Evolution.Yes, I have known this for decades and this has been brought up multiple times on this board. But the challenge still remains: "Where is the best and most unambiguous example of an inter-species 'transition' (such as a winged creature arising from non-winged)?" Retroviruses, Pseudogenes, mitochondrial DNA, Chromosomal Fusion prove that Evolution did happen.All in beginning stages of inquiry. You are jumping the gun on wether there is 'proof', there is still a tremendous amount of projecting and speculating and extrapolating. With DNA evidence scientists can know who you are related to. With DNA evidence, they can identify a person. DNA evidence is powerful, and it tells us that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.Sure it is powerful. I love science. An honest investigator would agree there is a huge amount of unknowns to be studied. DNA science is still in its infancy. 1
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Life on this planet is pretty tenacious. We don't know the defining moment, or even if there was just one. It well COULD have been, and probably was, multiple events. So, you are not even sure if all life shares a common ancestor?
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 So, you're attacking evolutionary biology because it doesn't concern itself with what you're interested in? I am interested in knowing at what moment evolutionists agree on when life first came into existence.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I am interested in knowing at what moment evolutionists agree on when life first came into existence. Why would you expect them to agree on that? Some of them believe God created life, but I don't know that there's anything close to consensus as to when life began or how.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Why would you expect them to agree on that? Some of them believe God created life, but I don't know that there's anything close to consensus as to when life began or how. I thought they were supposed to know this stuff.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I thought they were supposed to know this stuff. You thought wrong.
readstoomuch Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 The thread is about Book of Mormon problems. Good members espouse to evolution snd many don't. You keep beating a dead tapir. No one has changed their mind after multiple pages and threads.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 You thought wrong. It actually proves my point that they cannot figure out when, how or what on the emergence of life. The intriguing part is that they have to acknowledge that at some point life came from something nonliving. That to me seems like a paradox. I mean what was it?
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 We can be certain that there is a whole range of opinions among scientists. We would expect most if not all to be honest about there being a whole lot more questions to be answered than so-called "facts" which are in turn still subject a whole range of multiple interpretations. There are still many unanswered questions, but all Mormon PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists agree that Evolution is a fact, because there are "smoking guns" Please name me one Mormon PhD Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that doesn't believe in Evolution. "But none that distinctly shows new features in one creature that it did not have" My challenge first, name me one Mormon PhD Biologist that doesn't believe in Evolution. Even Young Earth Creationists (like AnswersinGenesis) agree that Evolution happens. They believe that "the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances" http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/ How about Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate? Shuyu, Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates. "DNA science is still in its infancy."If DNA science is useless, why did the church say "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America" With DNA evidence scientists can know who you are related to, and can identify a person So DNA science is only useful for the things you like, Cherry Picking. What is that, a human or an ape? AnswersInGenesis won't be able to spin this one
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 So, you are not even sure if all life shares a common ancestor? All life has a common ancestor. What exactly that common ancestor looked like is what is unknown at this time.SEE Argument from Ignorancehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceSEE God of the Gaps
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 It actually proves my point that they cannot figure out when, how or what on the emergence of life. The intriguing part is that they have to acknowledge that at some point life came from something nonliving. That to me seems like a paradox. I mean what was it? People who believe God created us also believe that at some point life came from something nonliving. Why is that a paradox?
Gray Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 It actually proves my point that they cannot figure out when, how or what on the emergence of life. The intriguing part is that they have to acknowledge that at some point life came from something nonliving. That to me seems like a paradox. I mean what was it? "Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"
cinepro Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I like Scott Adams' (the creator of Dilbert) take on this: http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/proof_almost_of_intelligent_design/ I can't provide 100% certainty that human life on Earth is the result of intelligent design. But I can get to around 99.99% certainty. By intelligent design, I mean Earth is seeded with DNA provided by human-like inhabitants of another planet. I'm borrowing my argument from others. None of this is original, and I've written about it before. What's new is that we're getting close to being able to seed another planet with our own DNA. And there's talk of doing just that because there's a non-zero chance that humans of the Earth variety won't survive unless we seed other planets. I imagine we'd launch one big rocket into space that would leave the atmosphere and divide into thousands of small rockets that can make tiny adjustments to their direction but otherwise use the inertia of the mother rocket as propulsion. These tiny rockets can scan planets on the fly for earthlike properties and navigate toward ones that look promising, ending in a parachute landing. If we decide to seed other planets with our DNA, which seems inevitable, it's likely we'd send thousands of seed rockets, not one. Sending one rocket would be a bad bet. And since scientists are already talking of doing something like that now, and apparently we will have the ability to do so, it stands to reason that our genetic spawn on those planets will someday evolve to have the same impulses and capabilities. Then they will send out their own DNA seed ships. So the odds are that planet-seeding will happen not once but thousands if not millions of times as one seeded planet begets thousands of others and so on. We have no reason to believe we're the original humans. Sure, we evolved from lower creatures, but that might have been exactly how the seeding works. You start with the lower forms of creatures and let them evolve until humans have plenty to eat when they come along later. That's how I'd play it. Edited June 2, 2014 by cinepro
Recommended Posts