Evolution is racist!!!!! (Page 17)
kittybobo34: Faith is belief without evidence, Science is belief with evidence and proof. Its the science that presents us with the facts, proofs that guided our beliefs in evolution. So far 150 years of discoveries , and new sciences has corroborated those beliefs.
Blackshoes: No, they haven't, we've gone over this many times You may never overcome your academic programming no matter how much scientific evidence I've presented and posted.
Faith is the belief in things unseen. Not without evidence! When was the last time you saw a catbird flying around?
Never observed NEVER HAPPEN
kittybobo34: No cat birds, and the science says that wouldn't have happened as well. The science has found evidence of evolution in many species, that is fact based.
kittybobo34: The science does agree, a majority of scientists concur. It is the law of the land in science and explains the entire biologic tree , it also fits with the newer science of genetics. So its your assumptions that are faith based.
HydroMan: Can someone tell me if charles Darwin believed evolution could explain the origin of life or only the development of life? My understanding is evolution explains how life develops, not where it orginstes. I also think Origin of Species is misleading if evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.
kittybobo34: Darwin being a seminary student was only describing the development of life by using the islands and observing how life had changed to adapt. The Theory of evolution has evolved since then, to account for all the evidence we have accumulated . There are several theories for how life started, even more if you count all the crack pot religious concepts.
Even more crackpot is evolutionist deny how completely impossible Abiogenesis IS. Even if there was anything that could make macroevolution plausible? " There isn't "
Nothing can make their belief in Abiogenesis anything other than a religious fairytale
Naturalistically impossible is just final!
kittybobo34: Yet, it seems to have happened, the traces are there, the evidence of early versions of life are there. We have found symbiotic bacteriums that act as a complex cell. RNA based bacteria instead of DNA, that survive on the chemicals coming out of the deep sea volcanic vents. This is not life as we have known it
HydroMan: Well I support creationism and intelligent design theory and I dont think they are crack pot religious concepts. I was simply wanted to know Darwins understanding of how life originated.
kittybobo34: Hydro,, I think Darwin as a seminary student in the 1800's was very much bound to the God concept of creation.
zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: Yet, it seems to have happened, the traces are there, the evidence of early versions of life are there. We have found symbiotic bacteriums that act as a complex cell. RNA based bacteria instead of DNA, that survive on the chemicals coming out of the deep sea volcanic vents. This is not life as we have known it"
There isn't a shred of proof or credible evidence that nature has any intelligence to make RNA or DNA--which are both languages that are chemically encoded within each structure. They don't just randomly form & whammo bammo--life occurs. That is pure fiction because DNA cannot exist outside of a cell & a host for very long & DNA & RNA had to BOTH exist at the same time for a cell to operate properly. There is NO evolutionary pathway--it's nothing but pure science fiction that \is designed to keep atheist scientists employed at the continued expense of taxpayers...
zeffur: kittybobo34: Nope,, primitive bacteria with only RNA still exist, Symbiotic simple bacterias have been found forming a complex cell, these things would need to exist to make the next step to DNA.
That ^^ is pure fiction. Viruses (or Bacteria, if there actually are any) that contain only RNA are not life because they do not have the tools to replicate their genetic material themselves--they require DNA & other micro-machines from living cells in order to replicate.
What are the RNA only bacteria that you are referring to called?? Are they real or just more imaginary evo chump false/indefensible claims?
Adam Southworth: I've seen no good evidence to persuade me that science will soon solve the emergence of life, but I might be behind on recent evidence. Kitty seems well-informed of recent developments.
Darwin's Origin of Species barely touched the origin of life. I know Darwin speculates that life might have emerged from some "one primordial form", though elsewhere he is ambivalent about whether life came from a single source. He also speculates in one letter about a "warm little pond". Perhaps the deep sea vents hypothesis is not much more than the modern iteration of that. And Darwin had no knowledge of DNA or RNA (he posits "gemmules" as the carriers of hereditary information), so the RNA world hypothesis was beyond his ken.
The people I read on this subject claim that the emergence of life must have been a highly improbable event. The molecules wouldn't just assemble themselves. I heard the same thing Zeffur claims from people like Richard Dawkins - that RNA, while a less complex molecule than DNA and thus a more plausible source of life, would be too unstable to transmit genetic information between generations. As I understand, experiments like those of Miller-Urey have produced only some of the constituents of life.
(Edited by Adam Southworth)
Blackshoes: No matter what you want to believe ? Nothing can make the impossible possible!
Abiogenesis is naturally IMPOSSIBLE! Yes, a number of fanatical, bias, humanistic, religious academics and scientists want you to believe it plausible.
Yet, it never happened, because nature doesn't create codes, language, and Boeing 787
because that requires writers, designers, and engineers.
As a matter of fact, nature would have an easier time creating a Model T by chance than creating DNA or RNA no matter how many eons and unscientific processes you throw at it.
By the way, 99 percent of what Miller-Urey developed was TAR, and the few amino acids developed were left-handed, and the rest were right-handed.
\their experiment was is and will always be a gigantic failure!
If you ever get a chance to look at the sphere they used in their experiment? It's a black greasy mess!
kittybobo34: Agreed the Miller -Urey experiment only produced a few amino acids. At that time they thought life started in some pond near a volcano. What they didn't consider then was that radiation would have killed any life on the surface.
kittybobo34: The only place life could have started was on the sea floor, at the volcanic vents. Constant energy available, no radiation, variety of chemicals around, especially amino acids and proteins.. Samples of those spots even today, show a huge variety of life and semi life. The exact point where something is alive is rather gray. Organic chemists are calling this intelligent chemicals... The mission to Europa will be an important segway into this subject since its been volcanic, with under the ice, seas for as long as earth has been around.
Blackshoes: The only real explanation is God created life. Science has ruled out any other imagined possibility!
zeffur: re: "kittybobo34: The only place life could have started was on the sea floor,..."
Next year it will be life started near the center of the earth in a primitive pocket just recently found by scientists... I can see the headline now "The Deep Earth Cocoon of Life"...
The more absurd & less verifiable, the more atheist evo chump liars will believe it & promote it...
kittybobo34: Zeff,, and if they found that along with some evidence it would be worth considering. You act as if this is something scientists just make up willy nilly. Yet when it comes to made up stuff, the bible is the most likely leader. All those stories were word of mouth, letters from one congregation to another compiled after several generations had gone by.... It's human nature to exaggerate, and where we can find actual documentation we usually find the bible is wrong on many points and most often wrong on time frames.