No time for Evolution?

a reply to: Noinden

Three-ply? That's giving him way too much credit.

It's more like that nasty tracing paper stuff you got in the 80s.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No one wants push through with this sort of stuff Perhaps its some dot matrix paper?

a reply to: Noinden

Even that's too fancy.

What about the old cardboard type floppy discs that had wholes punch into them for servers?

a reply to: neoholographic

We know the origins of erosion and it's not the rock. It's the atmospheric conditions around the rock.

Wrong. That's not an origin, that is a cause. Those are natural processes that happen whether the rock is present or not. You do NOT need to know the exact origin of a certain rock to measure the effect of erosion on that particular rock, just like you do NOT need to know the exact origin of life to measure the changes to that particular organism over time. I can't put it any simpler.

The reason why we don't see the origin of evolution like we know the origin of erosion because there's no such thing as the origin of evolution without knowing the origin of life.

Repeating this over and over doesn't make your point suddenly true. I already explained exactly what causes evolution, and once again you ignored it completely. Evolution is a description of several mechanisms and processes in nature. You don't need to know the origin of life to measure it and understand it.

You can't find any peer reviewed papers that talk about the origin of evolution. You can find peer reviewed studies that talk about erosion though.

How do you not see the blatant contradiction? You say that you can't find peer reviewed papers that talk about the origin of evolution, but then you just say erosion, rather than the ORIGIN of erosion. Very dishonest there, pal. I guarantee you won't find any peer reviewed papers that address the origin of erosion. Because it doesn't have an origin, it's a result of numerous natural processes, just like evolution. It's pretty simple actually.

Can you address these points without repeating your original argument 50 times? Let's keep it simple. Point by point.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Or perhaps a Babbage machine?

a reply to: Noinden

No way! You know how much that thing costs?

Think, man! Think!

(Friendly reminder, it was about his opinion not being worth the paper it's written on)

a reply to: Noinden

originally posted by: Noinden
No its not nonsensical, and I know you are not trying to disprove it. Rather why would it matter for evolutionary theory if there were more time? No seriously, what implication would there be? if nothing else it is a positive addition to the theory. More time for change to happen. This gave more time for changes to accrue.

It's nonsensical as it applies to the context of our discussion, so if you wouldn't mind, let's leave out any references to denying evolution or appealing to an unseen man in the sky.

You keep referring to evolution having "more time". What I'm saying is that from life's origin point to the single celled organism found in this fossil the evolutionary time scale has been shortened by some 200+ million years. IOW, if this discovery proves to be the goods, evolution had less time to operate, not more. That's the implication - the leap from chemical soup to single celled organism occurred a lot faster. But yes, on the back end, evolution gets 200 million more years to work with to get to us.

originally posted by: Noinden
DNA was probably not the first molecule involved, RNA most likely was, but there may have been an earlier self replication precursor. SO Why DNA? It is more stable than RNA. RNA is a unstable.

So yes in a sense the use of DNA may well be a result of natural selection, the genetic code, coded for by DNA hung around longer, and as a consequnce traits were passed on, and stayed around, but changed in less catastrophic ways.

Okay then, extrapolating backwards to pre RNA which lead into more complex RNA then DNA, then life, evolution seems to apply throughout the entire process of abiogenesis. Why then is it vehemently denied that evolution has anything to do abiogenesis? Yet we use natural selection et al to describe the evolution of the earliest molecules. Is there a different natural selection for chemicals?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Then its a cave painting, from an early hominid?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Actually in the context of the entire thread it is in context. The cited source is a creationist one If someone cites a source with a bias, you confront said bias.

No onto your points. If you read the article, all it applies is that there was life earlier than we thought. You are not going to find fossils of organisms with out a cell wall. What this means is life has had more time to diverge from them to what we see today. THAT is a criticism that we hear all the time from creationists. "There is not enough time to get a human from a single celled organism". That is more important than what the biased author is implying. What is actually implied to me, is what we call "life" came early, and in leaps and bounds.

The evidence still has nothing to do with evolution (which the term Darwinist implies). Life changing vs life beginning are different things

Abiogenesis is one and only one of the proteogenic hypotheses. Again, with feeling, evolution has nothing to do with that.

First life. is one process. Change in life comes next. So yes you need life for biological evolution. But you don't need evolution (in the biological sense) for first life.

You can use the term evolution in a chemical sense, but its not the biological sense. I regularly have in process descriptions the phrases "gas evolved" or "heat evolved". Its nothing to do with biological evolution, but it is a correct application of the word. Quite simply people get hung up on the word, not the context. The solar system evolved too So did the Universe.

a reply to: Noinden

Yeah, that would work. Extra rough stone too.

a reply to: Barcs

LOL!

You're making it up as you go. Erosion has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

Let me go to a kids website about Erosion and maybe you will understand. You're doing what a typical ATS Darwinist does. You're making things up as you go because there's no answer. Evolution is incomplete without the origin of life because as you say EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE.

What is erosion?

Erosion is the wearing away of the land by forces such as water, wind, and ice. Erosion has helped to form many interesting features of the Earth's surface including mountain peaks, valleys, and coastlines.

www.ducksters.com...

See, we know about water, wind and ice and we don't need know about the origins of the rock to know about erosion.

Evolution deals with things like mutations and selection. Without life no evolution because as you said EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE.

Now, if we had no idea about the Origins of water, wind and ice then our understanding of erosion would be incomplete. Let's go back to Wiki.

Natural rates of erosion are controlled by the action of geomorphic drivers, such as rainfall; bedrock wear in rivers; coastal erosion by the sea and waves; glacial plucking, abrasion, and scour; areal flooding; wind abrasion; groundwater processes; and mass movement processes in steep landscapes like landslides and debris flows. The rates at which such processes act control how fast a surface is eroded.

We know about these rates because we know about the Origins of erosion. So we know why some things erode over long periods of time and why some might take shorter periods.

We don't know any of this when it comes to evolution because we don't know the Origin of Life. We can discover the conditions needed for life to exists and we can know how limited is evolution and what laws and rules does it follow that flow from the Origins of Life.

For instance, I can watch a Poker game being played and I can understand the game because I know it's origins. I know what different combinations of cards mean. I know which combinations are better than others. If I didn't have this information how can I say I understand the game of Poker?

Evolution is incomplete without the Origin of Life. The Origin of Life will tell us the conditions when life started. Did it start via abiogenesis, panspermis or something else. It will tell us whether these conditions occur easily or are these conditions more constrained and do you need new theories to explain evolution.

I will give you an example. Scientist predicted the value of the Cosmological Constant based on current observations. It was off by 58 decimal places and it's called the vacuum catastrophe. They found the Cosmological Constant fine tuned to 120 decimal places.

When they discovered this, theories on some sort of multiverse or cyclical universe was needed because they knew that one universe with these constants is a miracle. So when you think about it, the only real Scientific evidence that we have is that the universe is a miracle until we or if we discover all of these universes and discover they all have different values of the Cosmological Constant.

The point is, without the Origin of Life, Evolution is incomplete and the fact you're talking about erosion shows how desperate you are because there isn't any answers until we find the Origin of Life.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
What I'm saying is that from life's origin point to the single celled organism found in this fossil the evolutionary time scale has been shortened by some 200+ million years. IOW, if this discovery proves to be the goods, evolution had less time to operate, not more.

I'm confused here. 200 million less years to do what, exactly? Go from the first life (single celled organism) to this discovery (single celled organism). What's the issue with that? It doesn't seem like much really changed in that time.

Okay then, extrapolating backwards to pre RNA which lead into more complex RNA then DNA, then life, evolution seems to apply throughout the entire process of abiogenesis. Why then is it vehemently denied that evolution has anything to do abiogenesis? Yet we use natural selection et al to describe the evolution of the earliest molecules. Is there a different natural selection for chemicals?

Maybe I'm not up to snuff on the terminology but I have always understood abiogenesis as the emergence of life from its basic components. Then you have RNA World hypothesis, which is the entire process to go from pre-RNA to RNA to simple DNA to complex modern DNA (which could be billions of years). I thought the second one referred to what happened after abiogenesis, and wouldn't technically be part of it, although it would seem that evolution would affect RNA World hypothesis.

When asked about natural selection and abiogenesis, a certain scenario pops into my head. To me, the idea that abiogenesis forming simple organisms happened only once doesn't quite jive. The way I see it, there may have been an area where all the right conditions for life were present and it produced not just one organism, but tons of them via abiogenesis on a regular basis.

Remember impact events like comet collisions, etc create enough energy to make amino acids, which is the first step in abiogenesis. The earth was getting bombarded by impacts during that time, so it is logical that there would be LOTS of amino acids present on earth and the conditions would favor life emerging during that time, rather than later when everything calmed down.

Now let's go back to this area (or areas) where the conditions were just right to produce life. Maybe it was by a thermal vent in the ocean, combined with other conditions. Perhaps it was near an underwater volcano in a high pressure environment. Essentially what you get is a fountain of life, where lifeforms were created on a regular basis. The problem is that most of it could not replicate. So you have lots of different lifeforms that interact with one another, until eventually you have one that can replicate itself. Then that life continues on to become the ancestor of all life on earth, and eventually the conditions for abiogenesis went away, and the remaining life continued on because replication was better than non replication. In a way that could be considered natural selection. Obviously this isn't fact, it's just my own personal belief about how life could have gone from amino acids and other chemicals to a replicating life form. I don't buy that it just happened once and somehow got it right on the first try.

a reply to: neoholographic

Horrible rebuttal. You just essentially denied what I said and went off on a tirade explaining erosion as if I don't know what it is.

See, we know about water, wind and ice and we don't need know about the origins of the rock to know about erosion.

See, we know about cosmic radiation and solar radiation and we don't need to know about the origins of life to know about evolution.

So easy to debunk. It's the same concept. Evolution and erosion are both results of natural processes that stay the same regardless of how the first life or rock emerged. Water, wind, ice causes erosion. Radiation causes genetic mutations. Same concept. You are thinking like evolution is built into life. It's not, it's just how life is affected by those external factors that stay the same.

LMAO at claiming I'm making this up. YOU are making this up because you literally have no way to argue against evolution without changing the subject. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt evolution because we don't fully understand the origin of life. NO REASON. I still haven't heard any explanation from you on how the origin of life could go against evolution, you just keep repeating how our understanding is incomplete. In what way is it incomplete? Give me details. Incomplete does not mean wrong.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You said:

Okay then, extrapolating backwards to pre RNA which lead into more complex RNA then DNA, then life, evolution seems to apply throughout the entire process of abiogenesis. Why then is it vehemently denied that evolution has anything to do abiogenesis? Yet we use natural selection et al to describe the evolution of the earliest molecules. Is there a different natural selection for chemicals?

You asked the right question but you got this response from Noinden:

Abiogenesis is one and only one of the proteogenic hypotheses. Again, with feeling, evolution has nothing to do with that.

First life. is one process. Change in life comes next. So yes you need life for biological evolution. But you don't need evolution (in the biological sense) for first life.

Pure gobbledy gook!

He seems to be saying you should accept the the Origins of Life have nothing to do with evolution just because he said it with feeling LOL!

Like I said, you can't separate evolution from the origins of life and most papers that offer theories about the origin of life talk about evolution. Here's a paper on the subject:

An Asymmetric Underlying Rule In The Assignment Of Codons: Possible Clue To A Quick Early Evolution Of The Genetic Code Via Successive Binary Choices

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This paper talks about EARLY EVOLUTION as it relates to an underlying rule that might be present in Codons. So if this were to turn out to be correct it would definitely change our understanding of evolution today deriving from early evolution in the hypothetical prebiotic goo.

What this just shows is that Darwinist are just true believers. They want you to accept that the Origin of Life has nothing to do with Evolution because they say so with feeling. Why couldn't the Origin of Life and Evolution be one connected and continuous process? Why do we have to have this strict imaginary line between the two?

It's because of belief not Science.

a reply to: Barcs

Wow, you have sunk to a new low. The desparation is evident.

No evolution REQUIRES LIFE those are your words. Erosion doesn't require a rock. You have:

Foundation erosion
Soil erosion
Stream bank erosion
Tunnel erosion
Gully erosion and more

The point is, the origin of erosion is things like water, wind or ice not the rock. Like you said, evolution REQUIRES LIFE.

So just like you need to know about water, rain and ice which is REQUIRED for erosion and to know the rates of erosion, you need to know the Origin of Life which you say is REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION.

a reply to: neoholographic

Let's take 2 scenarios:

1) the most primitive form of life arose from non-life through yet to be discovered means

2) the most primitive form of life was created by your chosen god

Please explain the functional difference in our understanding of genetic changes sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity between the two scenarios.

a reply to: neoholographic

Your OPINIONS are ASININE.

You haven't got an original thought in your head. That's why you can't post evidence. You've been told all this garbage by some religious freak who doesn't have any evidence either.

Care to show us some peer reviewed paper to back up your opinions? Or are you going to carry on ranting about something that has no bearing on the other?

a reply to: neoholographic

Prove me wrong then, because the prevailing scientific view is that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life". If you can't prove me wrong. Then I am afraid it is Hitchen's Razor for you

a reply to: neoholographic

Also did you read that paper? Or just cited because it LOOKED like it supported your ideas?

originally posted by: Noinden
Actually in the context of the entire thread it is in context. The cited source is a creationist one

If someone cites a source with a bias, you confront said bias.

I cited the actual paper (abstract) and a couple of non-biased articles which discuss the very same discovery. The context of our conversation should be from those sources, not the OP article. But I understand why you might feel the need to keep referring to the OP article.

originally posted by: Noinden
If you read the article, all it applies is that there was life earlier than we thought. You are not going to find fossils of organisms with out a cell wall. What this means is life has had more time to diverge from them to what we see today. THAT is a criticism that we hear all the time from creationists. "There is not enough time to get a human from a single celled organism". That is more important than what the biased author is implying. What is actually implied to me, is what we call "life" came early, and in leaps and bounds.

Again, I'm not discussing how life would have more time to evolve after the fact. What is actually implied to me is that what we call "life" (the fossilized microbes) arrived on the scene much faster, like more than 200 + million years faster, than we thought. These microbes didn't just pop into existence. They evolved to the state they were in. How much time from soup to nuts? Probably can't say other than the fact the the process started much earlier and/or happened much faster. The scientist(s) behind the discovery seem(s) to harbor this sentiment

originally posted by: Noinden
The evidence still has nothing to do with evolution (which the term Darwinist implies). Life changing vs life beginning are different things

Opinion noted.

originally posted by: Noinden
Abiogenesis is one and only one of the proteogenic hypotheses. Again, with feeling, evolution has nothing to do with that.

I feel it

originally posted by: Noinden
First life. is one process.

So then, onto self assembly