T
Techno2000
Guest
If you think that’s just a bright light…then there’s no help for you.
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
W
Wozza
Guest
Thank you. If there is something you’d like to contribute as to how we can differentiate between natural and supernatural then feel free to share it.Wozza:
If you think that’s just a bright light…then there’s no help for you.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Yes, that’s an Eucharist monstrum being illuminated.This picture was taken in a Catholic church by lady with a Iphone.There’s are more , but unfortunately the website is down.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I
IWantGod
Guest
The problem with pictures and similar media is that while this may actually be real, the same image can be recreated in Photoshop or other image related software. Which means that it will never be accepted as evidence by anyone who has a reasonable aversion to deception, and will certainly not convince an atheist.
If images were good enough, we would all believe in the existence of UFO’s.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
I often “wonder” why some “people” use scare quotes around “certain” words like “scientists”. Is there a “reason” for this?
And I like that you feel you can say that science has no idea how abiogenesis happened and then include in your quote:
…the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11]
One assumes that if you consider it to be a supernatural act, we can stop looking for a natural answer. Would that be correct?
Last edited:
T
TomH1
Guest
I am not certain what it is you intended to say. However, it has no relevance to what I said. Biologists and other scientists do not accept evolution and reject abiogenesis. It is, though, important to know they are not the same thing, which is all I have been saying.
B
buffalo
Guest
Can’t say intelligent design, can’t say intelligent design, etc…
“Scattered throughout the history of evolution are major transitions, including the leap from a world of microscopic single-cells to a world of multi-celled animals,” Professor Degnan said.
“With multicellularity came incredible complexity, creating the animal, plant, fungi and algae kingdoms we see today.
“These large organisms differ from the other more-than-99-per-cent of biodiversity that can only be seen under a microscope.” … “We’re taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,” she said.
How multi-celled animals developed
Evolutionary discovery to rewrite textbooks
The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.“Scattered throughout the history of evolution are major transitions, including the leap from a world of microscopic single-cells to a world of multi-celled animals,” Professor Degnan said.
“With multicellularity came incredible complexity, creating the animal, plant, fungi and algae kingdoms we see today.
“These large organisms differ from the other more-than-99-per-cent of biodiversity that can only be seen under a microscope.” … “We’re taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,” she said.
Loading…
www.sciencedaily.com
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
You do realize that this new information goes against one of the key arguments of intelligent design, right? These findings suggest that the complexity of animal bodies does indeed arise from a primordial cellular flexibility, rather than an otherwise unexplainable fitting together of puzzle pieces that can’t exist without eachother yet can’t explain eachother’s existence.
In other words, primitive cells could take whatever forms and traits they needed to, and complexity is a natural outgrowth of innate cellular flexibility. The parts of the “watch found on the moon” all grew from the same base component, rather than having to be fit together by a watchmaker.
Peace and God bless!
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s nonsense. Say I need a part for a watch. I can’t use just any part. It must be precisely the right size, the right shape and have the right mechanical strength to work - to function. A random part with random shape will not. Cells are far, far more complex.
B
buffalo
Guest
Smacks of front loaded design.
E
edwest211
Guest
Exactly. characters
A
Aloysium
Guest
What exactly does “primordial cellular flexibility” mean?
You read the article; how is that anything but a “gaps” argument, or simply restating that it happened?
Describe the process, that at least a counter argument can be proposed.
Otherwise, it is just an assumption, a belief.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
The part needs to work just a little better than the equivalent part in other cells. Cells are flexible; the match does not have to be exact or perfect, merely better than others in the population. Natural selection can only select from the parts currently available, so it selects the best available.
B
buffalo
Guest
The cells are flexible as in stem cells. They have the programming instructions already built in. These are the 500 or so conserved core components I have previously posted about and the ability to build any body plan. Right there at the get go. The design is so obvious.
E
edwest211
Guest
Using 3D computer modeling, it is easy to start with any four-limb body plan and build any animal you like.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Actually, I have read from private revelations that UFOs are a demonic deception.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Stem cells are able to develop into many different kinds of cells with many different structures. If the progenitor cells for animal life were more “rigid” in what they could develop into then there is a greater question of how complex organ structures could arise.
This article is saying that the previous scientific concensus was that early animal life developed from cells that possessed a fairly set structure and that complexity developed later over time. New research suggests that the earliest animals were more like stem cells than determined cellular structures, so they could adapt much more rapidly to environmental pressures and bodily needs.
Peace and God bless!
B
buffalo
Guest
Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity?
More support for design and IDvolution.Loading…
idvolution.blogspot.com
(Phys.org) 2012 article —The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.
The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex.
The researchers say that the discovery, of ghostly remains of gene neighbourhoods that once existed in a 550 million year old ancestor, suggests that the earliest animal was more complex than previously thought.
The findings, published later today in the journal, Current Biology, appear to contradict the common perception of evolution – that creatures have advanced by becoming genetically more complex over time.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
100% false. They are manmade aircraft.
- Status