• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Interesting Video - Simulating Natural Selection

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
A lot of posts here focus around the difficulty in understanding and explaining exactly how evolution actually works but I've stumbled across this video which does a decent job of demonstrating some of the key principles. You don't have to believe it actually happens, this is just a explanation of some of the theorised mechanisms which can then be discussed and debated.

I've not checked them out yet but some of the other videos on the channel look relevant too. Again, I have no connection to them, it just happened to pop up on my YouTube front page. Enjoy.

 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Without bleuprint to reproduction , there is no life.

In evolution without creation,Creator "who insert bleuprint

Should/would be end like this :
"First cell ever indeed would DIE ,because there were no bleuprint,nor reproduction"
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Without bleuprint to reproduction , there is no life.

In evolution without creation,Creator "who insert bleuprint

Should/would be end like this :
"First cell ever indeed would DIE ,because there were no bleuprint,nor reproduction"

1. cells evolved

2. how life initially began, is irrelevant to evolution theory. That is to say: irrelevant to what happened to life after it already existed..
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Without bleuprint to reproduction , there is no life.

In evolution without creation,Creator "who insert bleuprint

Should/would be end like this :
"First cell ever indeed would DIE ,because there were no bleuprint,nor reproduction"

Yes, we do not know how the first cells originated. But that isn't the topic of evolution: it is the topic of abiogenesis.

But the fact that we don't know doesn't make the God hypothesis the best candidate.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
1. cells evolved

2. how life initially began, is irrelevant to evolution theory. That is to say: irrelevant to what happened to life after it already existed..

I was talking to first cell ever,it's won't live forever,I mean cells also die"extinct" bleuprint and reproduction.

I known there was evolution,I do believe there was blueprint.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I was talking to first cell ever

You mean "first life".

And it's out of scope of evolution theory, as has been said multiple times already.

If tomorrow we find out that life has natural origins, evolution theory remains unaffected.
If instead we find out that your god of choice created that first life, evolution theory remains equally unaffected.
If instead we find out that extra-dimensional aliens planted first life, evolution theory again remains equally unaffected.

Why is it, that creationists have such a hard time comprehending that simple point?

I known there was evolution,I do believe there was blueprint.

You can believe whatever you want off course. Be it in creating gods or farting magical unicorns.
But beliefs and facts obviously aren't the same thing.


And the point remains: it matters not to evolution.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
You mean "first life".

And it's out of scope of evolution theory, as has been said multiple times already.
That's it.

So bleuprint of body cell,reproduction,out of range of evolution.
Why you could not call it creation,then? is that word hurt .:p



If tomorrow we find out that life has natural origins, evolution theory remains unaffected.
If instead we find out that your god of choice created that first life, evolution theory remains equally unaffected.
If instead we find out that extra-dimensional aliens planted first life, evolution theory again remains equally unaffected.

Why is it, that creationists have such a hard time comprehending that simple point?
Because everything life,had blueprint.


You can believe whatever you want off course. Be it in creating gods or farting magical unicorns.
But beliefs and facts obviously aren't the same thing.


And the point remains: it matters not to evolution.
by simple point.
Evolution could not deny God or creation.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Yes, we do not know how the first cells originated. But that isn't the topic of evolution: it is the topic of abiogenesis.

But the fact that we don't know doesn't make the God hypothesis the best candidate.
Yes,the bleuprint of abiogenesis cell came from ?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes,the bleuprint of abiogenesis cell came from ?

We don't know how the genetic started yet. Why do you think there is an overall blueprint ahead of time?

The first cells would have been fairly simple. They almost certainly did not use DNA (at least not in the way modern cells do) and their genetics would have been much more prone to errors.

One point is that matter has properties. The atoms and molecules that make up life have properties that make the formation of life spontaneously at least possible. Given the number of planets we *know* exist even in this small part of the galaxy, it isn't too difficult to understand life is probably pretty common in the universe.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
by simple point.
Evolution could not deny God or creation.

And it doesn't. But it also doesn't need to make the assumption there *is* a deity either. The matter is simply not relevant to the subject.

Think of it like this. We can understand the orbits of the planets and how they move without knowing how the planets were formed. that is a separate consideration and an interesting one. But it isn't the subject of solar system dynamics.

In the same way, the theory of evolution is about how biological species change over time. We don't have to know how life got started to be able to study how it changed after. And evolution is *only* the study of how life changed after it got started.

Now, this doesn't mean that the question of how life got started isn't interesting. It most certainly is. But it isn't the subject of evolution.

And, given the parameters of what the subject of evolution is and what it studies, the question of whether there is a deity or not is irrelevant. it isn't that evolution accepts or rejects the idea of a deity. That idea is simply irrelevant to the subject.

On the other hand, when studying abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life *is* the subject. And its one we know a fair amount about, but we don't have many of the answers.

Is it *possible* that the beginning of life requires the intervention of a deity? Maybe. That is very far from being demonstrated, however. And, truthfully, it isn't much of a workable hypothesis. it doesn't lead to any testable ideas. it doens't give any details. And it postulates an unknown force in a literal deux ex machina. Resorting to something like that would be almost at the bottom of the list of possibilities.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That's it.

So bleuprint of body cell,reproduction,out of range of evolution.
Why you could not call it creation,then? is that word hurt .:p

That word is loaded with unwarranted, unjustified religious baggage - or better said: "garbage".

Because everything life,had blueprint.

Which doesn't counter the point at all.

by simple point.
Evolution could not deny God or creation.

Neither could it deny magical farting unicorns crapping out first life. Or extra-dimensional aliens planting it. Or natural processes producing it.

So what?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That's the most important condition to remain alive,and continous to reproduction.

Says who? And what, exactly, doe sit mean to be a 'blueprint'? You realize that DNA doesn't actually have a blueprint for the body, right? There is no picture of what the end result will be, nor are there actual 'instructions' for how to build the body, understood?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Wrong answser.
Chemistry is science,still did not explain how first life came to exist.

Life in its most basic form, at bottom, is just an extreme expression of chemistry.
Life literally IS bio-chemistry. There's nothing going in your body or cells or what not that isn't ultimately reducible to mere chemistry.

In fact, life (as we know it, at least) is even made up of the most common elements in the universe. The ratio of elements that your body is made up off, actually even pretty much matches the ratio by which those elements occur in the universe. Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc

The only exception being Helium. Interestingly enough, Helium is chemically inert - you can't do anything with it, except inhale it so that your voice becomes fit to do voice overs for disney movies without the need for audio effects.

Another hint that life works by chemistry.

So if you think that there is such objective evidence that life's origin isn't chemical, you are free to share that evidence.

In the mean time, if you are an abiogenesis researcher, looking into chemical compounds and processes to get to the answer of that question, seems like the best option with the most chances of success.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I was talking to first cell ever,it's won't live forever,I mean cells also die"extinct" bleuprint and reproduction.

I known there was evolution,I do believe there was blueprint.
Yes,the bleuprint of abiogenesis cell came from ?
By "blueprint" do you mean plan, as in a pre-construction design?

There is no need for pre-planning, and the idea of a "first cell" is misleading.

Various components or parts of cells self-assemble by ordinary chemistry. This self-assembly, and even self reproduction, is observed by biologists every day.
As the components combine, more and more lifelike structures are created, but determining the point at which "life" or "cells" first appeared is like determining the point at which Latin turned into French.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Wrong answser.
Chemistry is science,still did not explain how first life came to exist.
Simply claiming that there is a God doesn’t explain how life first came to exist either. You have nothing more to offer than anyone else on that question.

Luckily, this thread wasn’t about how life came to exist. Do you have any comments on the video I posted? :cool:
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's the most important condition to remain alive,and continous to reproduction.
There are self assembling molecules and biological structures. There are even self reproducing molecules and structures. They have no plan or blueprint. None is needed. Ordinary chemical interactions are enough.
This level of speech I don't like.
anyway, everything life had bleuprint,that's fact.
Depends how you define "life," doesn't it? It's true that modern, autonomous, cellular life has nucleic acids that act as a sort of blueprint or program for cell maintenance and reproduction, but these patterned polymers evolved just as the cells evolved. There's no need or evidence for any intention or design.
 
Top