Explain please

This_person

Well-Known Member
More creationist douche-water dogma. Did your intellectually bankrupt pastor teach you that humans evolved from sponges? Tell him I said that he's an idiot, and that I invite him here for a debate.
My pastor isn't who's debating this, I am.

So, after that first (astronomically unlikely) cell formed life, what did it become? What is the current evolutionary model?

Let me help:
Just as algae gained by living together in colonies, so protozoa began living together. The earliest many-celled animals might have been sponges, which are bottle-shaped animals which look like plants. A current of water is drawn in through small holes in their sides by the beating of tiny whip-like hairs (flagella). Food is filtered out of the water current, which leaves through a large hole at the top.
Sponges might have evolved into jellyfish.
Sponges might have appeared around 700 million years ago.​
 
Last edited:

wxtornado

The Other White Meat
My pastor isn't who's debating this, I am.

So, after that first (astronomically unlikely) cell formed life, what did it become? What is the current evolutionary model?

Oh there's plenty of information out on the net - you certainly don't need me to find it for you when google can do a much better job.

So—can you corrborate the parting of the Red Sea for us? How about the Flood? How about Elisha travelling to Heaven on a chariot. Can you support that historical event? What about all the dead people that rose and walked around Jerusalem after Jesus was crucified? Any historical corrboration on that incredible event? Surely there must be scads of documents that support these claims. Why, we must be DROWNING in those supporting areas of corrboration, yet I can't seem to find anything (I tried google)..... Thanks in advance.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Oh there's plenty of information out on the net - you certainly don't need me to find it for you when google can do a much better job.
And, I found it, posted it, and the link.

So, it's not an "intellectually bankrupt pastor" that taught me that humans evolved from sponges, it was science.

Are you prepared to debate the science, or did you not know that was the theory you are putting forth as accurate?
So—can you corrborate the parting of the Red Sea for us? How about the Flood? How about Elisha travelling to Heaven on a chariot. Can you support that historical event? What about all the dead people that rose and walked around Jerusalem after Jesus was crucified? Any historical corrboration on that incredible event? Surely there must be scads of documents that support these claims. Why, we must be DROWNING in those supporting areas of corrboration, yet I can't seem to find anything (I tried google)..... Thanks in advance.
I still offer you no proof, and I still don't claim to.

I'm still looking for how evolution, as taught, meets the scientific method - the one it demands Intelligent Design meet. Or, how abiogenesis does. You claimed the science was "creationist douche-water dogma", yet it is actually what the "science" says. Still believe it to be "douche-water dogma"? I do! :lmao:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Oh there's plenty of information out on the net - you certainly don't need me to find it for you when google can do a much better job.

So—can you corrborate the parting of the Red Sea for us? How about the Flood? How about Elisha travelling to Heaven on a chariot. Can you support that historical event? What about all the dead people that rose and walked around Jerusalem after Jesus was crucified? Any historical corrboration on that incredible event? Surely there must be scads of documents that support these claims. Why, we must be DROWNING in those supporting areas of corrboration, yet I can't seem to find anything (I tried google)..... Thanks in advance.

There is just as much corroborating evidence that Elisha went to heaven on a chariot as there is that a mix of matter through spontaneous chemical reactions bred life. There is just as much evidence that Moses parted the Red Sea that there was a big bang. Christians have the bible, science has a bunch of speculation and mathematical theory.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
More creationist douche-water dogma. Did your intellectually bankrupt pastor teach you that humans evolved from sponges? Tell him I said that he's an idiot, and that I invite him here for a debate.
WX, Nuck, Tommy, Xaqquin..... Does SOMEBODY who puts their faith in this crap want to acknowledge that humans and sponges are along the same evolutionary train (according to and "intellectually bankrupt" scientist, not pastor), even though there is no scientific method to show it?
The only thing older in the same line, the line leading directly to animals and to us, are the fungi. “This is revolutionary,” Sogin says, pushing back thick, graying hair. “Animals and sponges share a common evolutionary history from fungi.”

Until Sogin was able to prove otherwise, “we thought fungi were related to plants or somehow were just colorless plants,” he says. “Plants had seeds, fungi had spores, and so on. Scientists used to publish fungi articles in plant journals. But the work does not support that. We’ve shown that fungi and plants are very different from each other, and fungi are actually more closely related to animals.” With a pen, he taps his evolutionary tree sketch. Green plants form one branch, and the fungi and animals are farther along on another branch.

Does all this mean humans are just highly evolved mushrooms? “I’d say we share a common, unique evolutionary history with fungi,” Sogin says. “There was a single ancestral group of organisms, and some split off to become fungi and some split off to become animals.”​
:whistle:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Sorry, guys. I thought you knew what the "science" of evolution was teaching. If I'd have realized you didn't know what you'd put your faith into, I wouldn't have bothered......
 

wxtornado

The Other White Meat
Sorry, guys. I thought you knew what the "science" of evolution was teaching. If I'd have realized you didn't know what you'd put your faith into, I wouldn't have bothered......

The problem is, you have no understanding of what you oppose. There is a kernel of substance to what you say, but you envelope it with such nonsense, that it is lost, a peanut swimming in a sea of shat. Break out your 7th-grade Biology textbook, and then we'll talk.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
<img src='http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst320w.jpg'>

Evolution shortened to 9 months for those with a shortened attention span..
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The problem is, you have no understanding of what you oppose. There is a kernel of substance to what you say, but you envelope it with such nonsense, that it is lost, a peanut swimming in a sea of shat. Break out your 7th-grade Biology textbook, and then we'll talk.
It's broken out, I'm ready to talk.

Cells formed in an astronomically improbable way that we can't and don't understand, and then those cells "evolved" through mutations in splitting to become fungi, which mutated, eventually (through a long chain of improbable, indeterminate, and as yet unproven and unavailable for view events) to humans.

What part of that single sentence (to keep it easy for you) is NOT what evolution teaches?
 

wxtornado

The Other White Meat
Cells formed in an astronomically improbable way.........

I'll stop here. Cite your source for this, and your pastor doesn't count. This is exactly what I mean when I say "creationist douche-water dogma". This crap was boring before, so by now you're dead-air squared.
 
L

luckystar

Guest
This is just slightly off topic, but did anyone see (or have relevant opinions on) that show from National Geographic the other night:

I can't remember what it was called, but it was about reverse evolution, and trying to create dinosuar-like traits from chicken fetuses? They managed to lengthen the tail and turn the scales on their legs into feathers (which I assume is supposed to mean they can turn the feathers into scales). They were also able to grow teeth in the beak.

In a nutshell, bird DNA might possibly still hold all the information to create a dinosaur, depending on which pieces are turned on or off.

Thought it was cool.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
<img src='http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/CSt9b.gif'> <img src='http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/CSt15.gif'>
<img src='http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/images/chris.gif'>

If this isn't the model of evolution, I don't know what is.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'll stop here. Cite your source for this, and your pastor doesn't count. This is exactly what I mean when I say "creationist douche-water dogma". This crap was boring before, so by now you're dead-air squared.
SUMMARY OF THE ORIGIN OF LIVING BEINGS IN THE UNIVERSE

The elements are produced in the new generating stars by the effect of thermonuclear reactions in the first phases of the formation of the stars. Many stars rise from the condensation of gases and dust dispersed by the outbursts of supernovas. The stars thus originated are more feasible to have habitable planets than the stars with a lower metallicity because the stars with a low metallicity have a shorter life, related to their thermonuclear activity; thus, the stars with a low metallicity keep going active through so abbreviated time that they do not yield living beings to emerge and evolve on the planets orbiting them.

Most organic and inorganic compounds -especially water- are formed in the solar nebula thanks to fluctuations in the energy density, which causes phase transitions in the molecules that permit the spontaneous autosynthesis of simple organic and inorganic substances.

The water in the stellar nebulas permits the cooling of the interstellar medium, propitiating the synthesis of glycerol and more complex organic compounds, like ammonia, amino acids, lipids and perhaps globulins into holes and cracks of dust grains that contain water that suffers sudden phase transitions from solid phase to liquid phase and vice versa.

The ultraviolet radiation, the heat and other forms of stellar radiation, helped by condenser agents, cause the polymerization of simple compounds to make more organized molecules of hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, proteins and lipids, which are integrated like microscopic globules in the frozen water trapped by the granules of dust (fractals) of the planetary clouds.

When the planetary nebulas lower the temperature at a proper point, the spontaneous synthesis of microspheres with external membranes of lipoproteins occurs under the effect of UV radiation and the heat generated by the collisions among the particles of dust. The microspheres contain a larger diversity of organic compounds thanks to the agglomerative substrates that act like strata that facilitate the accumulation and interaction of substances; examples of agglomerative substrates are the granules of calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, silicon carbide, graphite, fullerenes (allotropic forms of carbon) or Iron Sulfur -which can or cannot contain ice of water- and by the action of condenser agents (substances that promote the abiotic synthesis of simple and complex biomolecules; for example, HCN (Hydrogen Cyanide) and C2H2 (acetylene). These compounds are abundant in the interplanetary medium of early stars and it has been artificially confirmed that they act like condenser agents. The trials indicate that the biopolymerization of proteins and complex sugars is facilitated by these agents and by reactions promoted mainly by high energy bosons.

Going back to the microspheres, the particles of dust (fractals) suspended in the planetary atmospheres retain the microspheres into their holes and fissures. The dust grains work like protective shields of the biomolecules against the stars’ ionizing radiation, so the phase transitions permit the synthesis of more complex biomolecules, for example, waxes, phospholipids, proteins and lipoproteins. These molecules build highly stable and lasting membranes that contain a higher number of microspheres with diverse biological products; however, the single membranes are ephemeral because the radiation emitted by the stars that is received by the planets destroys them. However, many microspheres that are segregated from the surroundings by membranes or by membrane-like structures subsist in that hostile environment because they remain into dust grains containing icy water.

Due to their low resistance to the cosmic radiation, it is not feasible the synthesis of nucleotides in the interplanetary space. Probably, the nucleotides synthesize on the planets a long time after the emergence of the first living forms. Besides, the synthesis of molecules of nucleic acids does not occur spontaneously or no-spontaneously in nature. By this reason, the protobionts built in the planetary medium cannot have any form of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA).

The Gravitational Force of planets maintains to the small stellar dust grain accretions with microspheres wrapped by membrane amphiphilic in planetary orbits, forming dense clouds of dust, vapor of water, ammonia, acetylene, hydrogen cyanide, methane, carbon dioxide and other gases; however, the acceleration of the grains of dust and the intense heat emitted from the surface of the planets impede the setting down of the dust on the planetary surfaces. At later phases through the gestation of the planets, the water vapor condenses in the planetary atmospheres forming heavy drops that precipitate on the planetary soils dragging the grains of dust with and without microspheres with them.

Even suspended in the planetary atmospheres, the microspheres are agglutinated into the humid grains of dust to form prebiotic structures segregated by more complex amphiphilic membranes –known like protobionts- that are not yet living forms, but already experience transfers of energy as living forms (bionts) do.

When the planets chill fast and rains can occur, the fractals with and without protobionts are dragged down by the water drops unto the planets’ surfaces.

Once placed on the planetary grounds, resting on humid layers of soil or on the bottoms of shallow ponds, the protobionts can be maintained stable under dense clouds of dust and water vapor suspended in the planetary atmospheres which protect them from the intense cosmic radiation.

Thousands of millions of protobionts can be destroyed by the aggressive conditions of the planetary environments; nevertheless, when the planets make colder and the stars are less unstable, the basic structures of the protobionts can remain stable during more prolonged periods of time. The difference consists of being in microenvironments with the basic factors that permit them to resist and prevail under the pressure of the early planetary environments.

The later chemical evolution depends on the amalgamation of protobionts, one to other, by electrochemical affinity. The protobionts fuse one to other forming vesicles with continuous membranes. Those complex vesicles rest on the humid soils or in the bottom of shallow or subterranean ponds. The fractures and holes of soils, full of chemical substances, are covered by the biomembranes establishing microenvironments chemically similar to the cytosol of modern cells. It blocks the osmotic catastrophe that would occur if the hypothesis of the "nutritious broth" of Oparin were real. The paleontology and geological observations clearly indicate that the "nutritious broths" have not existed and cannot exist in nature.

Once fused, some protobionts become into bionts by possessing molecular configurations that are apt to experience the biotic phase thanks to successive chemical structural changes in the biomembranes. This intricate configuration of biomembranes permits the aggregate of polypeptides and glycopeptides that promotes changes in the magnetic fields which start patterns of electrochemical gradients that establishes an electrodynamic field that permits the transfer of energy through particles. The bionts (living beings) self-synthesize through this system. It is the mechanism by which any living form existing anywhere in the universe emerges.

Let’s come back to the cosmic abiogenesis: The biomembranes extended on the bottoms of ponds, coating holes and cracks on soils packed with organic substances, carry out active transfers of fermions and compounds with the environment.

The incorporation of proteins, lipids, and other complex molecules to the cytosol promotes the formation of molecular structures specialized in the transfer of energy from the surroundings; for example, molecules of ATP Synthase, single RNA nucleotides, short molecules of RNA, NADP, ADP, etc. The small chains of RNA are synthesized by the autocatalytic proteins with biochemical affinity toward the nucleotides transferring the information of the amino acids sequences toward codifier molecules of RNA.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Continued......

In this way, the bionts are maintained stable through longer periods, besides they can transfer the information of their individual characteristics through the sequences of RNA toward the new generated vesicles through the development of their cytosol. Protected under a darkened sky by suspended dust and diverse vapors, in deposits of water and at not more than 36° C, the bionts reproduce by means of the formation of vesicles that grow out from the membranes as bubbles or buds that have the same functional and structural characteristics of their ancestors.

The autocatalytic proteins, by their physicochemical characteristics, obligatorily direct the synthesis of simple molecules of RNA, forming longer chains each time containing all the information for the synthesis of the same autocatalytic proteins and identical RNA molecules. Later, the same autocatalytic proteins produce nucleotides of DNA and, after this, complete DNA chains.

Earth is not the unique planet of the solar system that had favorable conditions for the emergence of bionts. There are sidereal bodies where living beings could be formed like on Earth; however, although those extraterrestrial bionts had not the minimal possibilities of survival due to the inappropriate conditions of the planetary environments where they had been formed or due to sudden and extreme planetary climate transitions. For example, the living beings could emerge on Mars by the same epoch that on Earth, however, a sudden and severe climate change in the planet, occurred some 400 million years after its concretion, destroyed all the bionts that could be living on that planet. (Shuster and Weiss. Science. 2006).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'd get a second opinion.
Okay...

Essentially, abiogenesis is an exercise in reductionism whereby we attempt to a) conceptualize life in progressively simpler and simpler components and b) imagine that history reversed this process of conceptualization, building up layer and layer of increasing complexity. The goal is to begin with the simplest components (along with minimally specific interactions) that could be generated by nonliving forces but that were also able to give rise to life. In other words, a smooth continuum is sought that shows that the chemistry of life and non-life are bridged by nothing more than the laws of chemistry and physics. Since we've reduced life to simple and messy components, its origin then becomes a problem of accounting for the emergence of the increased complexity and increased specificity. John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary define this problem as follows: "How could chemical and physical processes give rise, without natural selection, to entities capable of heriditary replication, which would therefore, from then on, evolve by natural selection?" (The Major Transitions of Evolution, p 17). Others might define the problem as one of self-organization. How do chemicals organize themselves into more complicated forms that eventually reproduce themselves and thus evolve? Or to put it another way, how do we explain the self-organization of organic self-replicators and how did these self-replicators become the cell?

Once the origin of life has been defined simply as a problem of increasing complexity, the basic approach of science is to break it down into three basic phases: the origin of monomers (or basic building blocks); the origin of polymers (chains of basic building blocks); and the origin of cells. Living things are built upon a variety of basic building blocks, including amino acids, the parts that make up nucleotides (sugars, nitrogenous bases, soluble forms of phosphate), and fatty acids. Thus, we need to account for their origin in the same way that we would need to account for the origin of bricks to explain the origin of a brick house. This appears at first glance to be no problem as these basic building blocks are largely thought to have been generated by the type of processes demonstrated by Stanley Miller. That is, as long as there was a reducing atmosphere, with no free oxygen, and an energy source, the monomers would spontaneously appear and accumulate over time. A soup of organic precursors was thus generated and might even have been bolstered from periodic impacts of meteorites and comets containing such precursors.







:lol: See, as long as certain conditions existed, the "soup of life" spontaneously forms.

See the likelihood?
 
Top