Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

The point about Pluto was not about the heavens -- but about so-called facts that have changed because of changing facts, and discoveries.

What facts have changed? Pluto is still in orbit. It has not changed one iota.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SZ: further research into Haeckel's writings are interesting. "In a book called The Riddle of the Universe, he divided humankind into races and ranked each of them. In his view, “Aryans”—a mythical race from whom many northern Europeans believed they had descended—were at the top of the rankings and Jews and Africans were at the bottom." Ain't that interesting. I can only guess...Breeding Society’s "Fittest"

Again, so what?

 

[Polymath257]

Again there is no proof other than conjectures that the first thing alive was a unicellular structure. No photo of anything like that emerging from wherever it is said to have emerged from. And no... abiogenesis is absolutely involved with evolution to start.

Wrong. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis about how life started. But our knowledge of evolution would not change if some deity got the process started as opposed to the process being purely physical. That's what you don't seem to understand. Evolution is supported by the evidence and that evidence stays the same whether life got started by some chemical process, by divine intervention, by some space aliens nudging things along, or by being sneezed from the nostril of the invisible pink unicorn.

Your conflating evolution with abiogenesis is mistaken.

 

[Polymath257]

The point about Pluto was not about the heavens -- but about so-called facts that have changed because of changing facts, and discoveries.

What facts have changed? The mass of Pluto is still what it was before (although we know it more accurately now). The orbit is the same as before. The *only* thing that has changed is *our* classification. And how *we* classify isn't written in stone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, so what?

So what? That's an interesting question. What do you believe? Are all the "races" equally human? Or do you believe as Haeckel did, namely that Jews and Africans were at the bottom of that racial evolution type thing? The following information helps.
"The term eugenics, which literally means “well born,” was coined in England by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, but many of the most prominent eugenicists were Americans. American eugenicists advocated restrictions on marriage and immigration in order to prevent races from mixing. They also lobbied for laws that would permit sterilizing the “socially unfit.” These American laws, passed in the 1920s, became models for similar laws enacted in Germany a decade later." Thank you very much, SZ, for helping.
Breeding Society’s "Fittest"

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis about how life started. But our knowledge of evolution would not change if some deity got the process started as opposed to the process being purely physical. That's what you don't seem to understand. Evolution is supported by the evidence and that evidence stays the same whether life got started by some chemical process, by divine intervention, by some space aliens nudging things along, or by being sneezed from the nostril of the invisible pink unicorn.

Your conflating evolution with abiogenesis is mistaken.

You believe life came from non-living matter. By itself without intervention from a higher source, an intelligent one. Frankly, you also believe--don't you(?)--that the first form of living matter was a unicellular organism? Or is it that you don't really know.

 

[Polymath257]

Again there is no proof other than conjectures that the first thing alive was a unicellular structure. No photo of anything like that emerging from wherever it is said to have emerged from. And no... abiogenesis is absolutely involved with evolution to start.

Well, all life we know of is cellular. We know the types of reactions required for life and those need some sort of isolation from the more general environment. The easiest way to accomplish that is with cells.

Furthermore, we know that only single celled organisms lived, say 2.5 billion years ago. The first multi-cellular organisms were much later than that.

Now, is it *possible* that the first living things weren't cellular? Sure. I have seen conjectures that the chemical reactions started out in clays. We don't know.


But we *do* know that there was a time when ALL life was single celled and that all multicellular life came later (at least on Earth). That suggests strongly that all current life came from single celled precursors, don't you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

What facts have changed? The mass of Pluto is still what it was before (although we know it more accurately now). The orbit is the same as before. The *only* thing that has changed is *our* classification. And how *we* classify isn't written in stone.

lol, ok. If it weren't funny, you guys would be funny. It is a planet (a dwarf) but maybe not really. OK...so now the solar system doesn't have nine planets as had been taught. It has, I believe, 8 planets and a dwarf planet. ok...

 

[Polymath257]

You believe life came from non-living matter. By itself without intervention from a higher source, an intelligent one. Frankly, you also believe--don't you(?)--that the first form of living matter was a unicellular organism? Or is it that you don't really know.

I see it as likely that the first living thing was single celled, but I do not know that.

For example, it could have lived between layers of certain minerals with an RNA genetics and metabolism. You seem to think that pointing to a 'higher source' (whatever that means) and an intelligence solves all the problems, when, of course, it actually solves none of them and only introduces new ones.

Where did that source come from? Are there other similar intelligences? If so, where are they? If not, why not? What was the mechanism used for this 'higher source' to create life? How did it get the chemicals to do what it wanted?

The list goes on and on. But even worse, there is absolutely no way to test any of the ideas presented for their resolution. Was the 'higher intelligence' a great dragon that separated land from sky? Or was life started by the invisible pink uniform stomping her sacred hoof?

And more to the point, how do we tell? What *evidence* is there to decide? What evidence could there be to decide?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, all life we know of is cellular. We know the types of reactions required for life and those need some sort of isolation from the more general environment. The easiest way to accomplish that is with cells.

Furthermore, we know that only single celled organisms lived, say 2.5 billion years ago. The first multi-cellular organisms were much later than that.

Now, is it *possible* that the first living things weren't cellular? Sure. I have seen conjectures that the chemical reactions started out in clays. We don't know.


But we *do* know that there was a time when ALL life was single celled and that all multicellular life came later (at least on Earth). That suggests strongly that all current life came from single celled precursors, don't you think?

No, I don't think like you do. A unicellular organism is not as simple as one would like to make it out to be. According to what I read. So if I have you correct, you believe that a unicellular organism came about by itself.

 

[Polymath257]

lol, ok. If it weren't funny, you guys would be funny. It is a planet (a dwarf) but maybe not really. OK...so now the solar system doesn't have nine planets as had been taught. It has, I believe, 8 planets and a dwarf planet. ok...

Well, 8 planets and quite a number of dwarf planets. It was all the rest of the smaller objects that convinced people that the classification scheme needed to be changed.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I don't think like you do. A unicellular organism is not as simple as one would like to make it out to be. According to what I read. So if I have you correct, you believe that a unicellular organism came about by itself.

As opposed to a much more complex being getting it going? yes, at some point life had to get itself going. I don't know what that life was like, but the evidence points to it happening on Earth and that it was single celled. There is still a lot of debate about that, though.

What is NOT a point of debate any longer is that species change over time (evolution).

 

[YoursTrue]

I see it as likely that the first living thing was single celled, but I do not know that.

For example, it could have lived between layers of certain minerals with an RNA genetics and metabolism. You seem to think that pointing to a 'higher source' (whatever that means) and an intelligence solves all the problems, when, of course, it actually solves none of them and only introduces new ones.

Where did that source come from? Are there other similar intelligences? If so, where are they? If not, why not? What was the mechanism used for this 'higher source' to create life? How did it get the chemicals to do what it wanted?

The list goes on and on. But even worse, there is absolutely no way to test any of the ideas presented for their resolution. Was the 'higher intelligence' a great dragon that separated land from sky? Or was life started by the invisible pink uniform stomping her sacred hoof?

And more to the point, how do we tell? What *evidence* is there to decide? What evidence could there be to decide?

I certainly do not think that pointing to a higher source, or perhaps a better expression for me would be Creator, solves all the problems. The test also is that no one, but no one can answer really how life got started on the earth. (remember the word 'really' there) It seems perfectly logical for me to believe that in the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. And He also made plants, fishes, animals and then the first man and woman. But I know you don't believe that. One of the first things, though, that I learned is that no one but God can give you faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, 8 planets and quite a number of dwarf planets. It was all the rest of the smaller objects that convinced people that the classification scheme needed to be changed.

OK, ok, at least you're honest. Thanks for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

As opposed to a much more complex being getting it going? yes, at some point life had to get itself going. I don't know what that life was like, but the evidence points to it happening on Earth and that it was single celled. There is still a lot of debate about that, though.

What is NOT a point of debate any longer is that species change over time (evolution).

Not gonna argue that now, because I had enough right now with Haeckel. Have a nice night and thanks for the conversation.

 

[Polymath257]

I certainly do not think that pointing to a higher source, or perhaps a better expression for me would be Creator, solves all the problems. The test also is that no one, but no one can answer really how life got started on the earth. (remember the word 'really' there) It seems perfectly logical for me to believe that in the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. And He also made plants, fishes, animals and then the first man and woman. But I know you don't believe that. One of the first things, though, that I learned is that no one but God can give you faith.

There was a time on the Earth before there were any fish, but when there was life. There was a LONG period when the only life was single celled. In fact, there was a long period when the only life would be what we think of as bacteria today. That stage ended less than a billion years ago.

Humans came much, much, much later and have only been around a couple hundred thousand years (give or take).

Whether your are 'perfectly logical' depends, of course, on whether you have taken the evidence into account. And, from what I can see, you haven't.

 

[YoursTrue]

As opposed to a much more complex being getting it going? yes, at some point life had to get itself going. I don't know what that life was like, but the evidence points to it happening on Earth and that it was single celled. There is still a lot of debate about that, though.

What is NOT a point of debate any longer is that species change over time (evolution).

Speaking of which (getting itself going...), life really got itself going from a unicell evolving over millions of years to plants, animals, and then humans.

 

[Polymath257]

I certainly do not think that pointing to a higher source, or perhaps a better expression for me would be Creator, solves all the problems. .

I would go further and say that it solves *none* of the problems.

 

[Polymath257]

Speaking of which (getting itself going...), life really got itself going from a unicell evolving over millions of years to plants, animals, and then humans.

Well, billions of years, actually. And most of that time *was* as single celled organisms, although the progression to eucaryotes was a biggie.

 

[YoursTrue]

There was a time on the Earth before there were any fish, but when there was life. There was a LONG period when the only life was single celled. In fact, there was a long period when the only life would be what we think of as bacteria today. That stage ended less than a billion years ago.

Humans came much, much, much later and have only been around a couple hundred thousand years (give or take).

Whether your are 'perfectly logical' depends, of course, on whether you have taken the evidence into account. And, from what I can see, you haven't.

Let's go back to the beginning. (A unicell.) Was it simple, or complex? And -- how do you know what it looked like? (Two questions...)