Well, if you're going to keep this up, I'll read a couple more sentences of your non-science. I stopped here:So what is macroevolution ?like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plansI can't show you that. That's exactly what I said macro-evolution is not. Click here for an explanation of what it is.]
Well, if you're going to keep this up, I'll read a couple more sentences of your non-science. I stopped here:So what is macroevolution ?like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plansI can't show you that. That's exactly what I said macro-evolution is not. Click here for an explanation of what it is.]
What is macroevolution? Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life. It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms. Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
Well, if you're going to keep this up, I'll read a couple more sentences of your non-science. I stopped here:So what is macroevolution ? The lighter blue text indicates a link. A link is a pointer to a different place on the internet. The color is not very high contrast on this forum, that's why I usually say "Click here". You are the master of your life, so it's not a command, it's a request. So, in answer to your question, click there.like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plansI can't show you that. That's exactly what I said macro-evolution is not. Click here for an explanation of what it is.]
adonai said, Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?They chemically self-assemble by a fundamental process of atomic bonding of elements. Is water, H2O irreducubly complex? If not, does it follow that a designer assembled water or is it just a probability that when Hydrogen atom encounters 2 Oxygen atoms, they bond spontaneously. If you agree that this is how water forms, then what is the objection to more complex bonding of compound elements, given the enormous space and time of the universal chemical reactions?
thats a simplistic answer, and says nothing about how cells are formed.adonai said, Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?They chemically self-assemble by a fundamental process of atomic bonding of elements. Is water, H2O irreducubly complex? If not, does it follow that a designer assembled water or is it just a probability that when Hydrogen atom encounters 2 Oxygen atoms, they bond spontaneously. If you agree that this is how water forms, then what is the objection to more complex bonding of compound elements, given the enormous space and time of the universal chemical reactions?
Well, if you're going to keep this up, I'll read a couple more sentences of your non-science. I stopped here:So what is macroevolution ?like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plansI can't show you that. That's exactly what I said macro-evolution is not. Click here for an explanation of what it is.]
What is macroevolution? Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life. It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms. Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48i do not see anything in your link that contradicts what i wrote. If you miss that it is a process that takes a long time, then, ok. I agree on that , too.
i do not see anything in your link that contradicts what i wrote. If you miss that it is a process that takes a long time, then, ok. I agree on that , too.It contradicts the part where you said God did it. Your 2nd sentence doesn't make sense. We didn't miss that it is a process that takes a long time. But if you agree macro is just micro occurring over a long time, then, cool.
thats a simplistic answer, and says nothing about how cells are formed. I assume then that you agree on this simplistic and fundamental proposition that when you throw a bunch of chemicals together they tend to self-organize and it is just a matter of time (4 billion years on earth) and countless (2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion) chemical experiments of this SIMPLE process on earth alone), before you get more complex forms. Can we agree on that? Example: if we take 2 magnets and try to join them, it is only possible if they are turned so that the negative (-) end of one magnet lines up with the positive (+) end of the other magnet. If aligned incorrectly, the magnets will repel each other. Is that a designed code or a natural expression of universal potential and function occurring everywhere in the universe? Another simple question. Mathematics are irreducibly simple (+, -, x, : ), but this very simplicity allows for the creation of complex forms and functions. This is how we are able to recognize and construct equations. Science has been able to break down these complex forms into ever smaller individual elements down to Planck (quantum) scale, at which point we are no longer able to make measurements and no one claims that the term *irreducible complexity* can be applied at Planck scale. So, pray tell, at what point does irreducible complexity begin? It really is all very SIMPLE, because ALL change is a result of natural universal mathematical values and functions. As Tegmark explains; "the Universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties." And these mathematical functions are determined by the potential (inherent values) of the interacting matter. The problem is that you seek to make it more complex than it actually is. The Universe functions in accordance with just a few mathematical constants (native potentials) and a handful of equations (man-made analyses of these native universal potentials and how they interact). But the universe needs no programmer or designer. It has functioned mathematically since *the beginning*, from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality..adonai said, Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?They chemically self-assemble by a fundamental process of atomic bonding of elements. Is water, H2O irreducubly complex? If not, does it follow that a designer assembled water or is it just a probability that when Hydrogen atom encounters 2 Oxygen atoms, they bond spontaneously. If you agree that this is how water forms, then what is the objection to more complex bonding of compound elements, given the enormous space and time of the universal chemical reactions?
Adonai wrote:
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
If you insist on injecting a creator into the mix, why couldn’t he have created the universe through the Big Bang and evolution? Not smart enough? Too complicated? He can only do things by magic and not by a logical process? Not a particularly intelligent designer, is he?
After you offer W4U’s thoughtful explanation and description a thoughtful response,
Perhaps you can explain
What is not fact: 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.How does such a claim survive the reality that every living organism uses the same DNA code, and that many important DNA structures can be traced back to the dim reaches of time, when they first evolved to perform necessary functions and have been getting handed down and across the diverse Domains, Kingdoms, Phylums, Classes, Orders, Families and Species of life ever since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating the common descent of all life on Earth developing from a last universal ancestor. This evidence constructs the theoretical framework on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and is able to show the natural processes that led to the emergence of Earth's biodiversity. Additionally, this evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent by making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes. Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Genetic fragments such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations support common descent alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms. Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop phylogenetic trees: a construction of organisms evolutionary relatedness. It has also led to the development of molecular clock techniques to date taxon divergence times and to calibrate these with the fossil record.
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/evolution-and-the-origin-of-species-18/understanding-evolution-124/evidence-of-evolution-498-11724/ LEARNING OBJECTIVE Explain how the fossil record has aided in the development of the theory of evolution KEY POINTSFossils serve to highlight the differences and similarities between current and extinct species, showing the evolution of form over time. Similar anatomy across different species highlights their common origin and can be seen in homologous and vestigial structures. Embryology provides evidence for evolution since the embryonic forms of divergent groups are extremely similar. The natural distribution of species across different continents supports evolution; species that evolved before the breakup of the supercontinent are distributed worldwide, whereas species that evolved more recently are more localized. Molecular biology indicates that the molecular basis for life evolved very early and has been maintained with little variation across all life on the planet.Source: Boundless. “Evidence of Evolution." Boundless Biology. Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 31 Jul. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/evolution-and-the-origin-of-species-18/understanding-evolution-124/evidence-of-evolution-498-11724/
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.The Blind Watchmaker is an ancient thesis that has long lost it's educational value, you'd do yourself good by not obsessing over an imaginary construct that's been shown to be a poor analogy indeed. The understanding has moved well beyond that.
Adonai888 - 25 July 2016 04:33 AM What is not fact: 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.To the adherents of science. A thought occurred to me that life may not come from a single common ancestor, but may have organized in several different ways depending on the conditions. Check out this lecture by Jack Szostak (Harvard) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fEaM4ouQ8k and a comprehensive overlook by DR Hazen. (Carnegie Institute) (start at 20.15 to avoid lengthy introduction) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A All will become clear once you understand how chemical reactions occur and life can emerge from inanimate matter.
Lausten - 22 July 2016 03:15 AM A few parts have been shown to be unworkable, but they aren’t parts that bring down the whole theoryAnd that is due to the fact that once they filled a different function which is no longer necessary, but the fundamental structure and function was used in the evolution of even more complexity, which is exactly what happened with the evolution of the flagellum.
Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? All the argument in the world won't have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he's engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It's like when a fundie says "scientists say XYZ", thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don't believe in science!It's not only Adonai who might read these responses. There might even be someone who has some intelligence and whose brain has not been destroyed by religious indoctrination who might take notice. That's the reason we engage people like Adonai. We are well aware that he us a lost cause. We live in hope that there are others who have more sense. Lois
Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? All the argument in the world won't have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he's engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It's like when a fundie says "scientists say XYZ", thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don't believe in science!It's not only Adonai who might read these responses. There might even be someone who has some intelligence and whose brain has not been destroyed by religious indoctrination who might take notice. That's the reason we engage people like Adonai. We are well aware that he us a lost cause. We live in hope that there are others who have more sense. Lois I agree!!!!!!!!! Adonai is the vehicle by which we can discuss the science of Origins. Actually, I have come up with a proposition: Life on earth did not begin in one single place and by a single chemical path. This strengthens the argument for the great diversity in life forms on earth, some of which seem to have evolved in different environments and function at a completely different level than other species. IOW, I submit that origins of life on earth was not only inevitable, but occurred in several different areas on earth, producing different species. What say you?
Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? All the argument in the world won't have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he's engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It's like when a fundie says "scientists say XYZ", thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don't believe in science!It's not only Adonai who might read these responses. There might even be someone who has some intelligence and whose brain has not been destroyed by religious indoctrination who might take notice. That's the reason we engage people like Adonai. We are well aware that he us a lost cause. We live in hope that there are others who have more sense. Lois I agree!!!!!!!!! Adonai is the vehicle by which we can discuss the science of Origins. Actually, I have come up with a proposition: Life on earth did not begin in one single place and by a single chemical path. This strengthens the argument for the great diversity in life forms on earth, some of which seem to have evolved in different environments and function at a completely different level than other species. IOW, I submit that origins of life on earth was not only inevitable, but occurred in several different areas on earth, producing different species. What say you? Sounds logical and is worth exploring. Have there been any scientific explorations on the idea? Any peer-reviewed articles? Lois
Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? All the argument in the world won't have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he's engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It's like when a fundie says "scientists say XYZ", thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don't believe in science!It's not only Adonai who might read these responses. There might even be someone who has some intelligence and whose brain has not been destroyed by religious indoctrination who might take notice. That's the reason we engage people like Adonai. We are well aware that he us a lost cause. We live in hope that there are others who have more sense. Lois I agree!!!!!!!!! Adonai is the vehicle by which we can discuss the science of Origins. Actually, I have come up with a proposition: Life on earth did not begin in one single place and by a single chemical path. This strengthens the argument for the great diversity in life forms on earth, some of which seem to have evolved in different environments and function at a completely different level than other species. IOW, I submit that origins of life on earth was not only inevitable, but occurred in several different areas on earth, producing different species. What say you? Sounds logical and is worth exploring. Have there been any scientific explorations on the idea? Any peer-reviewed articles? Lois Here is at least one environment (very interesting article):
Origin of Life: Did a Simple Pump Drive Process?http://www.livescience.com/26173-hydrothermal-vent-life-origins.html But are there other environments that could create bio-molecules?........I'm on a quest.
And if we count Pan-spemia, this article may be of interest:
Can Life Evolve From a Different Chemical Code?
Can Life Evolve From a Different Chemical Code? | Space
Onward…
Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Ownhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-xna-synthetic-dna-evolution-genetics-life-science/ Onward......... This may be of interest at several levels. http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s5/all_eco_sys.html
Actually, I have come up with a proposition: Life on earth did not begin in one single place and by a single chemical path. This strengthens the argument for the great diversity in life forms on earth, some of which seem to have evolved in different environments and function at a completely different level than other species. IOW, I submit that origins of life on earth was not only inevitable, but occurred in several different areas on earth, producing different species. What say you?How would you explain the fact that all life uses the same four nucleobases: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C) although at RNA level there's also uracil (U) which is very similar to thymine. But that's it.
All animals, plants and fungi evolved from one ancestor, the first ever complex, or “eukaryotic", cell. This common ancestor had itself evolved from simple bacteria, but it has long been a mystery why this seems to have happened only once: bacteria, after all, have been around for billions of years. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18734-why-complex-life-probably-evolved-only-once/For a thoughtful simple review of arguments see:
Why did abiogenesis only happen once? http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14175/why-did-abiogenesis-only-happen-onceWIRED has a pretty interesting article regarding a study that looked at that question.
Life on Earth Arose Just Once http://www.wired.com/2010/05/origins-of-life-on-earth/ "A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates."
Actually, I have come up with a proposition: Life on earth did not begin in one single place and by a single chemical path. This strengthens the argument for the great diversity in life forms on earth, some of which seem to have evolved in different environments and function at a completely different level than other species. IOW, I submit that origins of life on earth was not only inevitable, but occurred in several different areas on earth, producing different species. What say you?How would you explain the fact that all life uses the same four nucleobases: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C) although at RNA level there's also uracil (U) which is very similar to thymine. But that's it. Is that all? In addition to DNA and RNA we have now been able to add a third duplicating machine in a lab (XNA). If we can make it in a lab, it's already been done naturally somewhere in the universe.
All animals, plants and fungi evolved from one ancestor, the first ever complex, or “eukaryotic", cell. This common ancestor had itself evolved from simple bacteria, but it has long been a mystery why this seems to have happened only once: bacteria, after all, have been around for billions of years.As Hazen demonstrated that cell (membrane) formation is actually very easy, at least in water and not all water is contained in the oceans. Moreover, there may be several liquids which may assist in the formation of bio-molecules. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18734-why-complex-life-probably-evolved-only-once/ For a thoughtful simple review of arguments see:
Why did abiogenesis only happen once? http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14175/why-did-abiogenesis-only-happen-onceWIRED has a pretty interesting article regarding a study that looked at that question.
Life on Earth Arose Just Once . http://www.wired.com/2010/05/origins-of-life-on-earth/ "A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates."But that is a meaningless number compared to 2 billion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions over the lifespan of earth alone. Watch the Robert Hazen lecture again. He specifically qualified his remarks that there may be many ways to form the first "eggs". Moreover, the fact that on earth, DNA consists of 4 values, aligned in a certain way, would argue that simple DNA , RNA, XNA, can form rather easily, given the size and scale of universal chemistry. Webster
: EGG: an animal (living organism)reproductive body consisting of an ovum together with its nutritive and protective envelopes and having the capacity to develop into a new individual capable of independent existence(Red highlight by me) Seeds and spores are also eggs. And then there are viruses, which occupy the cells of hosts as their eggs. If life was so difficult to create, then why do most scientists believe that life is an imperative under the right basic conditions, which most likely are (were) present in the early earth and similar planets throughout the universe.. I just cannot accept the notion that earth alone produced life and then only as a *singular event* in the entire universe? It just doe not make sense except as a egocentric notion. Consider that trees use an umbilical system (as well as photosynthesis to exist. What, if anything is a *root system*. And not all plants are passive organisms, the Venus fly-trap is also predatory in addition to possessing roots. Then of course we find symbiotic relationships, such as between pollinating insects and flowering plants. Is all this unique to the earth only? Hazen and many others are disputing this "chance v imperative".
Actually, I have come up with a proposition: Life on earth did not begin in one single place and by a single chemical path. This strengthens the argument for the great diversity in life forms on earth, some of which seem to have evolved in different environments and function at a completely different level than other species. IOW, I submit that origins of life on earth was not only inevitable, but occurred in several different areas on earth, producing different species. What say you?How would you explain the fact that all life uses the same four nucleobases: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C) although at RNA level there's also uracil (U) which is very similar to thymine. But that's it. Is that all? In addition to DNA and RNA we have now been able to add a third duplicating machine in a lab (XNA). If we can make it in a lab, it's already been done naturally somewhere in the universe.Fascinating. I'm embarrassed to admit that I wasn't familiar with XNA But, that's lab made and I don't think there are any creatures featuring XNA.
http://www.sciencealert.com/world-first-artificial-enzymes-suggest-life-doesn-t-need-dna-or-rna World-first artificial enzymes suggest life doesn't need DNA or RNA For the first time, scientists have built artificial enzymes using lab-grown genetic material called XNA. The experiment bolsters the idea that life could evolve without what we thought to be the fundamental building blocks of life - DNA and RNA. SCIENCEALERT STAFF 2 DEC 2014Also I'm thinking you are responding to someone else's assertions. I didn't say life could not have formed more than once on infant Earth - I said I believed all of today's living creatures are descendent from one original organism. Alternate arrangements didn't make it into the evolutionary race. Also I didn't say Earth has the only life in the universe. It would be amazing if there weren't any others considering how easily building blocks form. Though when it comes to advanced creatures such as human's that's a whole other story. Sure it's possible, but it might also not have happened. I say this because there are so many freak events that happened to Earth during it's evolution, all of which were required for advanced life to evolve (such as our weirdly huge, but wonderfully stabilizing moon), that the odds get vanishingly small. Add to that the huge expanses of the universe we have been able to explore in one way or another, yet nothing. As for our Earth, it's teaming life, thanks to it's atmosphere, would be detectable from amazing distances with the proper instruments. Call me agnostic to slightly skeptical, but than science is full of amazing surprising revelations, so who knows. Not me.