Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

May I ask how you know for sure that the first unicellular organisms had bacteria evolve from them?

It is almost certain that the first life would not have qualified as "bacteria". This is far outside of my area of expertise, but bacteria have looped DNA and I do not think that we could tell if the earliest life had loops of DNA or strands as we do. When one does not know then one cannot apply terms such as "bacteria". Single celled organism is more general. We do know that. But whether it would qualify as bacteria or archaea or even some other form we cannot know right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think the term "unicell" ever caught on. The first life on this planet appeared over 3 billion years ago. Right now it looks like 3.8 billion years, but there are some that argue for an even earlier date. I don't know about you, but 3.8 billion years would qualify as "wayyy in the future" to me.

OK, I see. I saw from Immortal Flame's post that I was not using the right terminology and he says bacteria eventually emerged (evolved) from the single-celled organisms, if I have him correct, although bacterium are single-celled organisms, so -- I guess the first single-celled organism must have duplicated itself, or more than one of the same kind emerged from the elements before them that were not alive. So again -- humans are the last right now in the line of evolution which started from a single-celled organism, not called bacteria. Bacteria is said to have come later, but it is a single-celled organism.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is almost certain that the first life would not have qualified as "bacteria". This is far outside of my area of expertise, but bacteria have looped DNA and I do not think that we could tell if the earliest life had loops of DNA or strands as we do. When one does not know then one cannot apply terms such as "bacteria". Single celled organism is more general. We do know that. But whether it would qualify as bacteria or archaea or even some other form we cannot know right now.

OK, thanks. Yet beyond me, although the subject of bacteria is to me, rather interesting. Present-day bacteria.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is almost certain that the first life would not have qualified as "bacteria". This is far outside of my area of expertise, but bacteria have looped DNA and I do not think that we could tell if the earliest life had loops of DNA or strands as we do. When one does not know then one cannot apply terms such as "bacteria". Single celled organism is more general. We do know that. But whether it would qualify as bacteria or archaea or even some other form we cannot know right now.

OK.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gotta go, talk to you guys later.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so single celled organisms. So not to call it a unicell. So then according to you if I understand you correctly, humans evolved wayyy in the future from single celled organisms which started the process of evolution.

Yes. The last single celled ancestor of humans was more than 500 million years ago and probably more like 1 billion years ago.

The point about bacteria is that there are several very different types of single-celled organisms. Bacteria are one type, Archea are another type. Then there are the eucaryotes, can be single celled, but where the cells themselves have organelles and so are more complicated.

All animals and plants are eucaryotes (complex celled organisms). Amoeba are single celled eucaryotes, and so are complex single celled organisms. The infectious agent for cholera, for example, is a bacterium. So it is a rather simple single celled organism.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I see. I saw from Immortal Flame's post that I was not using the right terminology and he says bacteria eventually emerged (evolved) from the single-celled organisms, if I have him correct, although bacterium are single-celled organisms, so -- I guess the first single-celled organism must have duplicated itself, or more than one of the same kind emerged from the elements before them that were not alive. So again -- humans are the last right now in the line of evolution which started from a single-celled organism, not called bacteria. Bacteria is said to have come later, but it is a single-celled organism.

One point here: just as humans are the last of a line going back to some single celled ancestor, so does every other species we see around us today. So, you could say exactly the same thing abut cats, lizards, or corn plants.

 

[tas8831]

Animals do not evolve when they are alive. They are born/hatch with whatever new/modified traits they will have, since it is via mutations in the gametes that these changes are produced.

And what, since you imply you know God and his thoughts by telling me I am lying about Him,

I have no idea what you are referring to, I have never indicated this.

do tell about new species that have come about from these mutations that you personally know about, or have had someone tell you in their eyewitness accounts. (Thanks.)

Sure - right after you produce eyewitness testimony to magical creation of the 100+ species of bat.

I can be absurdly disingenuous, too.

 

[tas8831]

Animals do not evolve when they are alive. They are born/hatch with whatever new/modified traits they will have, since it is via mutations in the gametes that these changes are produced.

Are they alive when they make/produce another of their organisms? (Or are they dead...)

It is so cool how creationists let us know that they are not here to learn or for discussion of any sort without saying as much.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

May I ask how you know for sure that the first unicellular organisms had bacteria evolve from them?

We don't know "for sure", but it's what the available evidence in the fossil record and genetics shows us.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...[Einstein] might have figured God does not exist.

A personal God, i.e., a God who is concerned with mankind, is what Einstein did not believe.

But Einstein did think there was "a superior reasoning power" as the source of the "incomprehensible universe."

Einstein quote:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

 

[YoursTrue]

Here are a few examples. I can find more if you want.

This New Lizard Species Evolved in a Lab | Smart News | Smithsonian

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Florida lizards evolve rapidly, within 15 years and 20 generations

I think there may be a problem in our references as to what is a species and what is a kind. So here is a question. Since it appears that most, if not all, who believe in evolution rather than the hand of God being involved with life starting on the earth, how do you feel or believe about that? In other words, would you say that life started with one unicellular organism, or more than one coming up at the same time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there may be a problem in our references as to what is a species and what is a kind. So here is a question. Since it appears that most, if not all, who believe in evolution rather than the hand of God being involved with life starting on the earth, how do you feel or believe about that? In other words, would you say that life started with one unicellular organism, or more than one coming up at the same time?

There is a working definition of what a species is. A species is merely a population that can generally interbreed and have fertile offspring (I said "generally" because there will always be some individuals that cannot breed).

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a working definition of what a species is. A species is merely a population that can generally interbreed and have fertile offspring (I said "generally" because there will always be some individuals that cannot breed).

So I can't speak about bats. Yet. However, an interesting article about bats and the various populations is this: BATS Magazine Article: When is a Species not a Species?
I think it's saying that despite differences, these seemingly disparate types of bats can interbreed. Maybe I'm interpreting wrong, perhaps you can take a look at it. Why exactly there are such different populations is yet beyond me right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is a working definition of what a species is. A species is merely a population that can generally interbreed and have fertile offspring (I said "generally" because there will always be some individuals that cannot breed).

But! that wasn't my question in particular, although interesting point. Question again is: how is it that one, two, or more supposed unicellular organisms emerged from wherever they came from (I think most say water...) -- and then what do those who believe in spontaneous lifeforms say happened after that? From the beginning of the unicellular organism or organisms. What happened after that? Which leads me to my next question. And I am quite sure it does not mean abiogenesis. I mean the beginning of life on earth.
So what I am asking is, the oceans existed with their mineral content for quite a long time before the first life supposedly by spontaneous emergence (not sure of proper term) came about in the form of unicellular organisms. Do scientists agree on how many of these unicellular organisms emerged at the beginning, meaning essentially, did they emerge at the same time? And, of course, the next question is: what happened after that? But my first question is, did these unicellular organisms emerge from a lifeless ocean at the same time? Or was it one organism? And how long did it or they exist before evolving into other lifeforms?

 

[YoursTrue]

A personal God, i.e., a God who is concerned with mankind, is what Einstein did not believe.

But Einstein did think there was "a superior reasoning power" as the source of the "incomprehensible universe."

Einstein quote:
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I can't speak about bats. Yet. However, an interesting article about bats and the various populations is this: BATS Magazine Article: When is a Species not a Species?
I think it's saying that despite differences, these seemingly disparate types of bats can interbreed. Maybe I'm interpreting wrong, perhaps you can take a look at it. Why exactly there are such different populations is yet beyond me right now.

This is an example of the "Species problem". There is no hard line as to what is and what is not a species. That is because evolution is a fact. If your beliefs were true there would be no fuzzy borders. The article that you linked is an example of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But! that wasn't my question in particular, although interesting point. Question again is: how is it that one, two, or more supposed unicellular organisms emerged from wherever they came from (I think most say water...) -- and then what do those who believe in spontaneous lifeforms say happened after that? From the beginning of the unicellular organism or organisms. What happened after that? Which leads me to my next question. And I am quite sure it does not mean abiogenesis. I mean the beginning of life on earth.
So what I am asking is, the oceans existed with their mineral content for quite a long time before the first life supposedly by spontaneous emergence (not sure of proper term) came about in the form of unicellular organisms. Do scientists agree on how many of these unicellular organisms emerged at the beginning, meaning essentially, did they emerge at the same time? And, of course, the next question is: what happened after that? But my first question is, did these unicellular organisms emerge from a lifeless ocean at the same time? Or was it one organism? And how long did it or they exist before evolving into other lifeforms?

Try asking one well formed question at a time. This looks like wild scrabbling with disjointed ideas and poorly formed questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. The last single celled ancestor of humans was more than 500 million years ago and probably more like 1 billion years ago.

The point about bacteria is that there are several very different types of single-celled organisms. Bacteria are one type, Archea are another type. Then there are the eucaryotes, can be single celled, but where the cells themselves have organelles and so are more complicated.

All animals and plants are eucaryotes (complex celled organisms). Amoeba are single celled eucaryotes, and so are complex single celled organisms. The infectious agent for cholera, for example, is a bacterium. So it is a rather simple single celled organism.

And that is what I am asking about now. Thank you for pointing out the difference between bacteria and other single-celled organisms. So it wasn't a bacteria that first emerged from water to life then, was it, even though it is a single-celled organism, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is an example of the "Species problem". There is no hard line as to what is and what is not a species. That is because evolution is a fact. If your beliefs were true there would be no fuzzy borders. The article that you linked is an example of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

So let's go over this again. A kind (which the Bible speaks of) is different from species.