Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their

On 2008-10-23, Suzanne <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j0fof4ptgenub1dsqq6rnbnetjg8dbd4qe@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:30:32 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uEHJk.3439$x%.1631@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pVwJk.3337$D32.3153@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:UQyIk.2144$pr6.1474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LnnIk.5186$YU2.4317@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:FN***.4673$be.4215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
[snip]
Here is what I was asking. This is not a trick question.
How, in your opinion or learning, do you think that life
began on the earth? Science is supposed to work based
on evidence. What evidence do you have that life just
"evolved?" This is what evolutionists claim. I just want
to be fair and find out if you understand why that claim
is made.

We have a mountain of evidence that life has evolved on Earth for at
least the last 3.8 billion years. Most of that evidence has been given
to you many times.

The old "you've been told" routine. : )

Yes, Suzanne. The reason that people keep saying that is that you
seem to need to be repeatedly told. You act like Drew Barrymore in
"50 First Dates": each time you post, it's like you've never read
any posts before.

As to abiogenesis, there are a number of alternative ideas but we may
never be sure which one actually gave rise to the life we know. In
reality there was a time when we can be certain there was no life,
then there is a time when we can also be certain there was life. Those
two points are separated in time by as little as 500 million years.

Are you sure it's not 500 and two million years?
Or maybe 596 million years? Or 999 million years?
Or 424 million years? Can you give an accounting
for 500 million years by any chance?

The earth is about 4.55 billion years old, +/- 1%, but the so-called
"heavy bombardment" which lasted until about 3.8 billion years ago would
likely have kept the earth sterile. Stromatolites are 3.5 billion years
old.

Abiogenesis almost certainly happened many times and probably in
several different ways. All we can be sure of is that all life on
Earth today is descended from one common ancestor - that is proven by
the study of DNA.

If we all came from one common ancestor, what sort of
organism was this ancestor, and why do you think it has
been proven to be so?

It used DNA to reproduce. The reason we think it was the
common ancestor was because all living things use DNA to
reproduce.

They decided at one time that one
woman bore all living.

I presume that what you are trying to talk about is the so-called
"Mitochondrial Eve".

They insisted that her residence
was in Africa. How did one person give birth without a
person to sire her young, unless of course she did
multiplication by dividing, like an amoeba?

Oh dear lord. She wasn't the only person alive. She wasn't even the
only woman alive. She wasn't even the only woman who had children.
It's just that she's in every living person's family tree.

The dust of the earth is probably the residue of seawater, and all of
us are composed of the same elements that are in seawater. Was the
ancestor a fish? A dinosaur? A carrot? A tree? Or are you just buying
into someone's idea of how it all began?

Sigh.

If people think that species are from organisms that
have mutated, are they saying that two mutations were
produced coincidentally simultaneously and produced
a population? For sexual organisms to have evolved
into new species, and then formed a population, they
only could do that if two mutants were produced, one
being male and the other being female.

Wrong.

Bob, yes.

No Suzanne. This isn't right. It isn't what the theory of evolution
says. Nobody believes this.

We are told that mutants form...such as a
mule is a mutant.

No, a mule is an infertile hybrid, not a mutation.

But a mule cannot reproduce. The mutants that are said to reproduce,
do not have mates like themselves. So...how do sexual organisms
reproduce and form a population without a mate? They can't.

Sigh.

You have within you mutations that are unique to you. They may, or may
not, get passed on. If they do then within a few generations there is
a population sharing that mutation.

You have been told this. You are skipping things and
drawing conclusions without explaining (or even
wondering, perhaps?) how we get from mutant to a
whole population being produced. How does it
happen in sexual organisms that a population can form,
seeing as how we do not populate the planet by any
asexual means?

Because single mutations don't cause speciation. You've been explained
all this before. Patiently.

Since there are so
many species, it would not be too likely that two possible
mutants of a newly formed species would exist contemporary
with each other. How else do they think they could have
reproduced?

I think you need to learn a little about genetics an breeding.

I have studied this.

You aren't doing a very good job then.

That's how I know what is missing
in what...we have been told.

What about plant life? Are the evolutionists claiming
that plant life and animal life began with the first life forms
on the planet, too? Or are they saying that each of those
began independently of each other.

We know that ALL life on Earth today, plants and animals, share the
same common ancestor.

Do we?

Well, people who aren't ignorant do.

Then tell us about it. Show the evidence. And while you are at it,
please tell us how the animal or human species formed that fantastic
organization called "Mutants Without Partners?"

Why do you insist on being so stupid?

Since we know now that all of the organisms on the planet
cannot be defined any more with just one definition of the
"species" (sexually produced populations and assexually
produced populations, etc.) why wouldn't evolutionists
think each could have "evolved" independently of one
another. Why do they all have to have branched from one
another?

Because that is what the evidence says.

There is no evidence of a common ancestor.

Of course there is. There is evidence in every cell of your body.

Only
predictions that there should be one. I know about
predictions. Linguists are good at them. They can
even predict languages that predated the first
language on earth, and claim they know they
existed, even though they can't find them.

At the beginning, where is the evidence that things happened
this way?

Within the DNA of all life on Earth.

And how did they collect all the DNA of the
Earth?

With cotton swabs.

The way you have worded this it has a different
meaning. I was asking about your belief about how humans
and chimps are genetically related to one another in what you
believe. I know we earlier spoke about the creation account
and how man came to exist.

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. Can you ask your question
again in a way I can understand?

OK...here is another try...
Give a technical explanation about why you think that
humans are more closely related to man than apes are
related to man. What is the evidence that convinces you
of this?

That doesn't make sense. Humans are man, one of the great apes.

You see? You are biased. Why can't apes be one of the
great men? Why do you put the men as last?

Because there were apes before there were men.

You see, you are drawing the conclusion for
the reader without presenting technically why you think
this is so, if you don't mind this observation. Don't ever
assume that someone that does not speak your lanaguage
is not intelligent. A bunch of celery could probably tell
a human a few things that they don't understand, if the
celery could talk our langauge.

Hohohohohoho!!!

It's Santa!

It is a book of
history, it is a book of faith, and it is a book of science.
You're saying that the bible is a science text? Paging Tony Pagano.

Yes I am saying that. In fact, I've already said it.

I make a point of it only because some other creationists have claimed
that nobody ever says that.

It might surprise you to know that I didn't comb creationist
websites to see what I am supposed to ask or say to a
person that is an evolutionist. I'm asking on my own, the
things that occur to me about the things that you are saying.

But the science that it uses is God's science, which he
has simplified for you since his science would be over
your head and the heads of most that read it. In the
Creation account, it says that God created light. It says
that it was good. That was on the first day. It was not
until the 4th day that God created the sun, the moon,
the stars. So the only kind of light that He created on
the first day would be all that travels at the speed of
light, all of the electromagnetic radiation photon energy.
*He*calls it light. Also, 1 Tim. 6:16 says additionally
that He, himself, dwells in "unapproachable light."
Sorry, but why has this discussion of light wandered in from some
other
thread? We were talking about evolution.

Because you said that the Bible is not a book of science.

I didn't say that, precisely, though it's certainly true. I merely said
that sacred books don't trump physical evidence. But that's true for
books
of science too. If you found me a science text that said Mercury showed
only one face to the sun (and you could easily do that), it wouldn't
trump
the evidence that Mercury isn't tidally locked. So anyway, this is an
irrelevant digression.

I was only speaking about the Bible right now.

Useless if you want to talk about science.

Do you think Mercury always has only one side that
faces the sun?

Mercury rotates three times for every two orbits. It was thought for
many years (until 1965) that Mercury was tidally locked. I've got some
older astronomy books that still say that it's tidally locked.

What is the purpose of this diversion?

(snip for brevity only)

All right. What are we calling life here? Are you speaking
of cells that are alive, and wouldn't that be an organism?
Such as an amoeba, or a paramecium? Something like
one-celled organisms?

I'm saying that "alive" isn't a simple question when you're dealing with
the origin of life. It was probably gradual, so that whether any of the
intermediate steps could be called "alive" would be ambiguous. There are
a
few examples of this in the present day. Are viruses alive? I'd have to
say that depends on what you mean by "alive".

If viruses existed in the beginning, they truly would
be wonders of intelligence, because they would have
to have calculated and predicted the billions of years
into the future occurence of the formation of a human
being, in order to be able to do what they do so well
when we contract some of them.

They have evolved. One type at least does it every year or so - the
influenza virus.

How can they have evolved if they are not alive?

Oddly, I find this question much less profoundly stupid than most of the
ones that you have submitted in this thread. The simplest answer is of
course that while viruses aren't alive, they do replicate with mutation,
and they are subject to natural selection.

They are rather too
sophisticated to have existed in the beginning,

They are almost certainly one of the simplest forms of life, so simple
that some do not count them as living.

This is an amazing contrast to the people who believe
that a little baby in the womb is not alive,

Nobody thinks such a thing. And you are diverting.

even though it can swim in amniotic fluid with great gracefulness, can
move it's hands, arms, legs, and has a heart that is beating. And some
don't admit it is living when it's still only partially born.

You can set those goalposts down anywhere you like.

I would
think. But judging from the rest of your answer, I can
see that your answer is that you do not know. So, can
we conclude that you have no evidence as to how life
began on earth?

No. There is a lot of evidence.

Predictions based on what they believe is evidence.

No Suzanne. Evidence.

Of course this could bring up the
subject of intelligent design. If early life was intelligent,
I know that some evolutionists have even considered
that intelligent beings from another planet may have
begun life on earth. If they consider that, then those that
do that must see that organisms are too complicated to
have just evolved out of nothing without there being
some external help.

All that does is to move the origin of life off planet. It does not
change the fact that abiogenesis occurred somewhere.

According to scientists, a single cell is too complicated
to have just begun living, without having been programmed
to do that.

According to _which_ scientist?

Life was created by a creator.

So you keep saying.

2. How do you think the second one came about?
There were no "first" and "second" organisms. There would have been a
population of many individuals (or individual-like sysems).

John, you are misunderstanding my question. Do you
think that life came about on the planet because of one
single cell or lifeform that just came into existence? If so,
how did it produce a population?

The answer to the first question is "no". So the second question is
moot.

You don't understand. I am saying, if an organism mutated,
and a new species came into existence, where is the second
organism (in sexual organisms) of the opposite sex, that
helped produce a population. Where did that second one
come from?

There is no need for a second one.

Yes there is...
"The second one," does have to exist. It is the one that
is the product of the first. Otherwise you have no line
of descent. The second one would be the beginning of
the population. The beginning of the descending life of
the first. In sexual organisms you need a mother *and*
a father organism.

But both don't need to have the same mutation.

3. Do you think that it is possible that more than one
organism came into being simultaneously with the first?
All these questions seem to assume that some kind of life poofed into
existence instantly; one minute nothing, the next minute a cell.
That's
a silly claim.

No. I don't think any of that. You answered above
something about a population. I want to know where
the population came from.

Again, I don't know, but it would have come from a prior population,
back
to a point where the "population" is just a small area where chemical
reactions of various sorts were going on.

OK...now we are getting at something. Can you give any
evidence that life comes from a chemical reaction? Or is
that just something that someone some where has presented
as a speculation? Where is this idea coming from?

We know life had to start. We have several very good ideas as to how
life could have started. Whish one actually happened is still open to
debate.

You are right Bob, what you have is ideas. That's it.

He has a clue as well. Perhaps you should search for one.

Sometime soon we will create life in the laboratory. That May prove
the viability of some of the ideas but we will never be able to prove
that it is exactly how life cam about 4 billion years ago.

You are basing your claim on faith. Not on evidence.
You have no evidence that man can create life. If man
produced what looked like life, he's have to start with
the first cell. Can he even create a cell?

People are working on it.

He can create
something like a complicated computer. But that is not
life as we know of life to be.

People are working on it. You'll probably be around to see it.

Where is this going, and what does it conceivably have to do with
whether humans are related to the other apes?

I don't get any answers about the basics. That is what
I am asking about. Steps get skipped and people can't
explain what they believe is the origin of life.

The origin of life is irrelevant to the question of human relationships
to
other apes. And we know a lot about apes, but very little about the
origins of life. I, personally, know even less about the origins of
life,
but quite a bit about the origins of humans.

So if those are the basics, I really can't help you very much. But you
originally asked about humans and apes. That I can help you with.

If you say that humans and apes or chimps appear to have
come from the same root organism/or being, and then
branched in different directions, the chimp having branched
the latest and being the closest like us genetically, I have
an idea that could show how they could look like they are
all related, and yet not really be branching from the same
earlier ancestor (the root organism/being). I'm also basing
this on some recent evidence...

Most scientists assume that man is the most ultimate (so far)
form of evolution.

Wrong. No scientist would agree with that. Evolution does not have a
direction, it has no goal.

Oh, really? What they say is that man and apes "branched."
They speak all the time about how highy evolved man is.

You should provide some kind of quote to support this assertion. You
are, I'm sorry to say, so profoundly confused, and well, stupid that you
are almost 100% guaranteed to be misunderstanding what scientists say.
Chimps, and birds, and iguanas, and in fact every other living thing is
just as "highly evolved" as man.

None of the other living things is considered to be as smart as man
is, according to the talk.

This is a different claim.

But if they've proved that chimps are more evolved, as they have done
in the recent times, then that creates a problem that leaves quite a
bit of explaining.

I have no idea what you mean here. I bet you don't either.

But since recently it has been found that
chimps are more evolved, that is, they have evidence of
having more allele changes within them, that would
indicate their supposed branch is older than the branch that
humans are supposed to have come from. This presents the
possibility that the line in which humans are supposed to
have come from grew independently of the line in which
chimps are supposed to have come from. Psalm 104:29
explains that "leviathans" come from their own dust of the
earth. Man was created out of the dust of the earth, too.
That doesn't mean that one of them branched from the
other. But it might look like it in an analysis.

You do have some very daft ideas.

Well, the above is not my speculation. It's from Psalms.

It's still daft.

The Bible shows that there are more than one organism
that was created in the beginning. They came from the
groups the Lord calls "kinds." All scientists do not agree
with one another.

They'd probably all agree that you are a galloping ignoramus.

Mark

Suzanne


.

Loading