Grav: If you were so sure that God didn't do it, then you would not be so strident in insisting would you? I'm pretty happy with just admitting that there is a lot we do not know. :)
@Lenocas2011 To me, never having been raised to be religious at all, I just always knew that something created the order. I've spent my life trying to understand the "orderer". I'm actually around a lot of athiests, but most know that I believe in the Constitution, and believe that each person has the right to their own belief. We should be able to talk about our differences with out feeling the other person must agree with me. I'm now LDS and feel their expression of faith and science is good.
@Nilguiri Don't deny it. You choose to believe what you believe, nothing can be proven 100 %, while science probably is the most Objective process, it isn't without a doubt a flawless system.
Respect other beliefs, because 99% of life is subjective.
What do you mean, don't deny it? I most certainly do deny it, there are no answers in religion. Religion has never answered a single question about anything. Not once. Ever.
Proof isn't a concept that science uses. Nobody says that science is "flawless"; that is ridiculous and to suggest it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is.
Why should I respect people who have fallen for made up mumbo jumbo?
"99% of life is subjective" What does that even mean?
@Nilguiri Religion has answered many questions. By definition an answer is solution to a question. Because even supposedly objective scientific laws cannot be proven 100 %, you cannot debunk even primitive religious ideas, even if you think them ridiculous. I choose to accept scientific ideas because that's just me but someone who has been raised in a religious environment might think differently and that must be respected. It's not fair to call it "brain wash" or "mumbo jumbo".
Name me one answer that religion has provided to anything.
Why are you talking about science "proving" stuff? You are confusing "proof" with accepting something as fact. e.g:Gravity, geocentrism and evolution are known to be facts because of overwhelming evidence,not proof.
If these ppl were born in a different place or time, they would believe something else. They have been persuaded to accept an unlikely story contrary to all evidence. What would you call that if not brainwashing?
@Nilguiri I don't know, maybe a less provocative/cheeky synonym, perhaps?
And from what I'm reading it seems like you answered your own question. This argument has gotten out of hand, I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. Oh well, if that's your opinion I'll respect it.
What I don't like is you not wanting to watch this video because of one phrase, but I won't judge you for that.
@Nilguiri Yes I prefer indoctrination because you're likely to hurt less feelings that way, if you haven't noticed humans have emotion and will more than likely react defensively to being called "Brain Washed".
Like I said Religion has answered questions if your belief is that an 'answer' is just a solution to a question. To theists religion has simple 'answers' to the universes big questions, I never said they were objective truths, in a way they accept their, albeit primitive, answers as fact
@Nilguiri If you read my comment you wouldn't be bantering me from the beginning. And it seems like I'm not communicating with you well or you're just a little narrow minded (no offense this is from what I see you're perceiving).
In any case religion has done plenty of things, good and bad, as has science, neither are going away for quite some time that I know for sure. I don't know why you wanted me to answer a question you knew the answer too either.
Why don't all these so called brilliantly minded people ... which supposedly are in the millions all put their minds together to make EARTH a beautiful place to live for ALL of HUMANITY ... then and only then carry on with their self absorbed egotistical ventures costing Trillions of dollars ,Resources and Labour... Bring PEACE,LOVE and The BASIC NECESSITIES ie. Comfortable living conditions,Food,Water,Housing,Clothing, and Useful Education ... Call me crazy but it kind of makes sense to me...
Tons of ignorant hate in this discussion. It's amazes me how close minded people can be. Don't believe in a God? Fine. Leave those that do alone. It's really fucking simple. Grow up.
Also...there is no way that the solar system's Oort cloud can be 3 ly away from the sun. That would be far enough to make it Alpha Centauri's and Barnard's star's Oort cloud
This video and the description implies that "God did it" isn't a "good enough" answer. But given all the facts without the bias there is no other option.
So "God did it" isn't a good enough answer, but "life came from space" is...?
The description of the formation of the planets is just wrong. What about the asteroid field between Earth and Mars. And by that description the moon couldn't exist...
why the hell would god be an adequate cause for life when we haven't a clue if god of gods even exist?..panspermia and abiogenesis take actual natural processes that we know and understand, and build theories based on those known processes. c'mon now, think man.
@itzahazylife That's all theoretical science. You don't know abiogenesis is an "actual natural process". If fact experiments to repeat it failed. And panspermia is based on abiogenesis. So failed science and then theory based on failed science. That's what you want to believe?
I know God exists, that's why the hell. If you look into it there is plenty of evidence for God.
there is a hell of a lot of evidence suggesting that abiogenesis occurred. are u at all familiar with dr. jack szostak's work on abiogenesis? u KNOW a god that is supposedly transcendent of nature exists?..what a ridiculous thing to claim to know for certain. what's your evidence that A god, let alone the biblical god, exists?
@itzahazylife There's also quite a bit of evidence against abiogenesis. If you look at it objectively it's hard to accept it as fact or even possible.
I've seen healings in the name of my God. Other supernatural miracles happen ALL THE TIME. Look on youtube and you can see video of people being raised from the dead.
So on the one hand you're presented with evidence that happens "all the time" and on the other hand something that has never been proven.
what is the evidence against it?..because i can provide u with evidence for it..and if there is evidence against it, is this evidence provided by scientists, or creationists?..
@itzahazylife I would say the Miller - Ulrey experiment is some pretty good evidence against it. You would call them scientists, wouldn't you? They certainly weren't creationist, they were trying to disprove creationism...
You imply that creationist aren't scientists. And I'll agree that scientists of all persuasions are biased toward their personal beliefs whether they be theist or atheist (as are we both). But is your opinion based on your bias? Or reality?
the miller-ulrey experiment?..that was done in 1952 man..abiogenesis has come a very long was since then.
creationists aren't scientists. creationism is derived straight from the biblical story of creation. a story that claims a god transcendent of nature created the earth. how can that possibly be scientific?..most of these creationist "scientists" go to religious universities and are members of religious institutes. it's pseudo science.
actually it has not..All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!
I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!..your cell would never evolve ..you dont know chemistry at all..there has been no cell made, or living one, that can live with just one protein..and no scientist has ever even made a protein..
just because we don't have the technology to be able to do it, doesn't mean it isn't possible, or won't eventually become possible..u just wanna jump to fuckin conclusions.
@itzahazylife you are going against a well established law of biogenesis,thats why these experiments dont work.the amino acids are to unstable,thats why they wont stay together to assemble anything.
you're jumping to the conclusion that because we haven't been able to mimic what occurred on earth billions of years ago, that abiogenesis didn't and cannot occur.
@itzahazylife these tests have been tried for 60 years,this simple process of life emerging from a chemical broth..no matter of time and chance even under amazing conditions in labs is impossible..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube.
you believe in some chemistry unknown to life and science.
and earth and life scientists are not about bias. they are about physical evidence. scientists may have their beliefs,but it's not their beliefs that get published in scientific journals..they obtain facts,and let those facts lead to answers. their personal beliefs are left out of the scientific process. the scientific method is based the system of falsification. so,if a theory stands in the scientific community,that means it has withstood vigorous scrutiny,making it very solid.
All of us want to be right.IT is impossible.WE have too much in our brain.More than allot.and all this is GOOD FOR NOTHING.WE find a place in which WE feel secure, illusion of safety, we do choose from things we learn in the different stages of life, the clock runs in one direction and never comes-back and the bodies and the gases in the space. fuse..
MOST of US are only teachable humans,by the billions, very few 1000's prodigious, real observers,and dedicated. they don't have time for this
Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists already all over the Universe, and is distributed through the interaction of traveling bodies of rock and ice such as asteroids with planets which harbor said life. Panspermia proposes that lifeforms which can survive the effects of space including radiation, such as extremophile bacteria, become trapped inside frozen ice and rock after other large asteroids impact their native planets exploding fragments into space.
Bacteria may travel this way dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other habitable planets, once stuck, become active and begin the process of biological evolution again.
Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book?
This type of logic never ceases to amaze me. We admit we don't know how life begin, & in the next sentence we speak so authoritatively about how the solar system was formed, which is equally as mysterious. Sometimes its ok to say we just don't know at this time. The Pan Spermia theory doesn't answer questions of OOL, it only puts the problem of origins out of site and out of mind by saying it must have happened somewhere else and handing off the logistics of OOL to another place in the universe.
We have several theories as to how live began..........You mean there are several hypothesis out there. These are hypothetical theories based on conjecture. They are not scientific theories based on testable empirical evidence. There just educated guesses. A scientific theory requires testable & repeatable evidence. Pasteur proved through empirical testable science that living thing only come from other living things.
We can test them, and so far we've had RNA form itself when left in a early earth like enviroment. It is quite possible RNA could evolve into DNA. Pasteur also lived into the 1800's. Also it is possible that we have already observed abiogensis in the Miller-Fox-Urey experiments,althought due to an certain amount of uncertainty we have to throw this out. The point is that this is testable.
@Takua38000 The word spontaneous doesn't mean ribonucleic acid forms all by itself. This is a misleading term. An intelligent agent has to coax these elements to form. H. Urey could never form anything more than a racemic mixture. Living things require left handed amino acids exclusively. Szoatac uses in vitro selection which require an intelligent agent and he Gerald Joyce and others in OOL haven't been able to create anything even close to a living cell. I have spoken with Szostac on this.
@Takua38000 Newton lived before pasture & we still use Newtonian physics here on earth. Darwinism is 160 years old & still hasn't been proven. In fact the Altenberg 16 summit is calling for a relaxing of the modern synthesis & are proposing a new extended synthesis based on epigenetics and self organization models because what your taught in school is insufficient to explain a molecule to man paradigm, & only now are many in the scientific community stating this, and at risk to there careers.
@Takua38000 This is his statement concerning RNA work u cite. There are more but wont fit on you tube..... "The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right"END He also said that the primordial earth could not have done this on his own. The News paper sensationalize stories.
@Takua38000 The only thing that has been testable is failure to produce a living cell.
If you don't understand chirality you won't be able to understand why Urey- Miller failed. Again they produced 98 percent tar and a 2 percent racemic mixture. I don't dispute evolution and natural selection, only its grand unsubstantiated claims of the ability of macro change.
@Takua38000 I would be happy to tell you why, but I'm not sure how much research you have done, so I think the best way to answer is, to tell me why you believe in evolution? What scientific discovery or piece of work convinced you? If it was many then tell me, but please don't just say there is evidence, show it to me. Tell me in your own words and be specific the same way I have broken down the Miller experiment. Then cite your evidence and I will give you the same courtesy.
@Takua38000 Selective breeding mimics natural selection. We can breed cows to form long horns or short horns, same with dogs being bred for different sizes but cows are still cows and dogs are still dogs. Genetic information does not increase through this process. It is truncated.There is no free lunch in nature & there is always a price to pay, in this case, its a loss of info. Its called (the loss of genetic variation) Look it up . Mutations R mistakes that happen during transcription process.
@Takua38000 f you get your information by watching anti creationist videos, then I am not surprised that you think as you do. The video is unnamed & doesn't identify narrator or cite origin of evidence, and makes the claim that ediacara biota is ancestry to Cambrian phyla, Ediacara biota is considered enigmatic and were not even sure what domain to put it into, We assume that its multicellular because of its size. Stop watching videos and educate yourself. You have to read and study,
"It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them." ...
"...An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered...."
@Takua38000 Ediacra went extinct and no one really knows how to interpret the trace fossils. You have still not shown me one transnational link, are you speaking of Kimberella? or R u saying because we find sponge embryos that this explains a rapid and abrupt appearance of multy celled creatures on orders of magnitude? Your being general and vague. Tell me the evidence for one of these creatures and name the species. Your repeating things but yet you don't seem to understand question & point.
That are quite a few things that could've cause the Cambrian Explosion. From the oxygenization level of the ocean changing, to the end of an ice age at the beggining of the cambrian. Hox genes were expected to be evolving around this time. An example of a cambrian transistional fossil group would be the lobopods.
Which we think evolved into arthropods. Also since you don't accept the "old earth" you must also realize that no fossils apper as current creatures.
@Takua38000 Your confusing the radiation event or whats called the explosion, with the 40 MY old fossil record of Cambrian phyla diversification. The initial radiation event is estimated at two to ten million years depending on who you ask. The Chinese who have a great Cambrian fossil record estimate it at between five and two million years. On the geological time scale this is a blink of an eye. It started around 530 MY ago. I bet they never taught you about the Cambrian explosion in school.
@Takua38000 What makes you believe I don't accept old earth? are these your assumptions again? Where did the oxygen come from before plants? Ediacara biota die out millions of years before Cambrian event and Blue green algae diminishes by almost 90% so there wasn't enough H20 to account for Cambrian radiation. No oxygen, No Ozone, No Ozone then any precursors to life would be destroyed by ultra violets rays and Life itself would not happen .Did your teachers speak of that in science class.
@benthemiester "I don't dispute evolution and natural selection, only its grand unsubstantiated claims of the ability of macro change." cast doubt on you accepting the old Earth.
"At about 2.4 billion years ago, oxygen was released from the seas as a byproduct of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria. Levels of the gas gradually climbed, reaching about one percent around two billion years ago. About 800 million years ago, oxygen levels reached about 21 percent and began to breathe life into more complex organisms." from National Geographic. So, where wre you seeing there was no ozone layer?
@Takua38000 cyanobacteria is another name for blue green algae. Cyanobacteria use water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight to create their food. The byproducts of this process are oxygen and calcium carbonate.. Source WIKI. There is actually less of them by the time Cambrian event occurred. If they produced the oxygen then how could they produce more for Cambrian to occur when there is actually less of them by this time period? Ill explain ozone in second thread.You didn't seem to understand.
@Takua38000 Ediacara goes extinct long before Cambrian. Some have recently tried to argue that it may have stood around & point to trace fossils but they don't have real evidence and this is highly disputed in the literature. Cbact. starts to diminish by the Cambrian event, I said there was less at the time of Cambrian event, I didn't say it goes extinct. As I said I picked Wiki because it is very evolution friendly compare to other encyclopedias that stick to the facts and stray from conjecture
@Takua38000 Evidence suggesting that a mass extinction occurred at the end of the Ediacaran period, 542 million years ago, includes: * A mass extinction of acritarchs
* The sudden disappearance of the Ediacara biota and calcifying organisms; * The time gap before Cambrian organisms "replaced" them.
@Takua38000 Without ozone protection mass amounts of ultra violet rays would destroy any living thing on the primordial earth. The formation of oxygen doesn't happen in one day, it takes millionsX of years. How do prokaryotes survive all that time exposed to radiation? Furthermore how is the VERY first living cell smart enough to capture, and metabolize energy when evolution says these complex process take a long time to evolve? If a primordial living cell cant hit the ground running its dead.
Photosynthesis emerged during th end of the Archean around 2500 million years ago. As far as the organelles of the first cells, that still remains unknown.
@benthemiester Sorry, but you are wrong about the radiation. Many types of bacteria exist just fine while being cooked by radiation. Check out, for example, the recent International Space Station experiment which purposefully placed bacteria on the outside of the capsult--in the vacuum of space without the protection of ozone--and it lived and thrived.
@rcharding I'm always interested in new discoveries but the information you gave wasn't enough for me to form an opinion. Can you please cite specific article.
Having said that I think you misunderstood what I meant about Cambrian Radiation. The Cambrian explosion sometimes referred to as the Cambrian radiation event has nothing to do with radio activity. You can find more about subject by typing in Cambrian radiation.
@rcharding U also may have confused what I was saying about OOL ( - origins of life), concerning the problems with an H2O rich environment which would act as a poison to the assembly of amino acids required for protein formation & the equally negative effects of a reducing atmosphere where a lack of ozone would be equally negative to OOL formation because of harmful ultra violet rays. OOL is different from life that already exist. The RNA world is another popular hypothesis but unsubstantiated.
"Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion"." - PBS
@Takua38000 Type in key words..... fossil record problematic, and spend a few days researching it. Learn about the Cambrian radiation event which marks the beginning of the Cambrian explosion. Research from a neutral unbiased perspective and be honest with yourself. Pretend you have never heard of evolution, creation, or Intelligent design. and research it. Then call me back. I cant debate, unless you understand these things.
@Takua38000 Why don't you research it first and then ask me? It took me years to consider all the so called evidence from the whale of a tale to Australopithecus and every thing in between. I know your not that fast. Tell me why we find animals appearing abruptly in fossil record? or why the Cambrian phyla appear so abruptly on the geological time scale? Tell me why J Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium if gradualism is supposed to be the model but yet is not present. Darwin wrote about this?
@Takua38000 If you understood the subject you would know that Ediacara biota went extinct millions of years before the Cambrian event. The so called trace fossils that are found are nothing like the Cambrian fauna and many people think they may have been worm like but know body knows. Even if these unsubstantiated hypothesis are correct it still doesn't explain the explosion of life occurring globally in orders magnitude in a very short time period especially the initial radiation event.
We find the "explosion" happening over several 10 of millions of years. We've also found diverse fossil formed around before 555 Mya, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. There is evidence suggesting that at least 6 animal phyla are precambiran.
how can protiens evolve they arent living systems they're just combonations of atoms.( atleast amino acids the building blocks of protiens) Also didnt scientist find amino acids in comets? plz reply if im wrong guys i like to be educated
Proteing cannot form unless the cell exists as an integral whole. Darwinists cannot explain how a protein can evolve without a complete cell, which is turn requires proteins. So now Darwinism has become a space religion! Aliens planted the first complete cell on earth!!!! So you believe in aliens you have never seen, have never communicated with and of whom you have no proof? Sounds like faith not religion. A bit like the Church of Climatology or Scientology!
I guess he who loses the argument also loses his temper. But I do not argue with foul mouthed people on the internet. Exchanging insults in place of facts is for those with no reason and only those with no reason would belive a nonsensicle theory like Darwins. Goodbye now, I hope that some day you can overcome your anger and your reluctance to examine the evidence.
There there, you are very upset. I know the lack of transitional fossils being pointed out always brings an angry reaction. It's not my opinion there are no transitional fossils, it is a fact. Sure, there have been many fakes, mostly from China, like the 'dinosaur bird'. To be fair, most of them have been good for a laugh. I'd say pigs could fly before dinosaurs, in as much as their dense bones would allow it. But hey, if it makes some Darwinist who know nothing of biology happy.......
There are more transitional fossils than you can probably count,RETARD. Maybe you should stop denying science and accept reality. You don't have to interpret everything in in the Bible literally like a fundamentalist idiot, in order to be a good Christian! It's just embarrassing!
I interpret not the Bible. Why do you say that? I was discussing science not religion, nor did I mention the Bible. If you have proof of these transitional fossils you say are more than I can 'probably count' then please provide it. As to your charge that I am a 'fundamentalist idiot', if you mean my science, then yes I am fundamentalist but not an idiot. I follow the evidence and facts where they lead. If you mean a Christian fundamentalist then you are wrong. You see Christians everywhere!
You have as much to do with science as I am from Mars.
NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS????REALLY??? What have you been living under a rock or are you completely retarded??? Type"transitional fossils" in You Tube, in Google, read on Wikipedia, go to a museum, look at the facts! THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY! Religious fundamentalism is detrimental to all progress!
If that kind of ignorance irritates ME, imagine how some paleontologist must feel if some retard starts denying his work in such idiotic way!!
There are HUNDREDS of transitional fossils - fish to amphibian, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, ape to human. All you have to do is look at them, denying simple facts won't make them go away! Evolution is as real as the fact that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun(that was also "unacceptable" in the time of Galileo but they got over it). Religious fundamentalism is simply "anti-science", it stops progress and it's devastating to society!
You keep saying there are 'thousands' of transitional fossils. Actually there are none. There have been a good many fakes that have been exposed as frauds. If you would care to direct me to just one example you believe to be true then I will gladly discuss it with you. You're comments on religion should be directed to a religious person and not introduced into a scientific argument. This is not between religion and science but about bad science (evolution) versus genuine science.
FIRST WATCH THESE TWO AND EVERY VIDEO ON YOU TUBE DISPLAYING THEM.
Then type "List of transitional fossils in Wikipedia and check all the related pictures of fossils and references. Then it in GOOGLE , press PICTURES and read every related article! -->
--> AND FINALLY, GO TO A MUSEUM AND SEE THEM FOR YOURSELF!
Blindly, mindlessly denying facts and reality LIKE A BRAINDEAD IDIOT doesn't make them go away!! Evolution is as much part of science as the theory that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun, the Germ Theory(that germs make you sick), or the Atomic Theory(the Atom that nobody has ever seen).
YOU EITHER ACCEPT SCIENCE OR YOU DON'T! IT'S THAT SIMPLE! If you don't then go live under a rock or in the forest!
And an ignorant religious fundamentalist retard is not the one that should lecture SCIENTISTS, who develop medicine, vaccines and drive scientific progress, about what's science and what's not! DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? If you reject science, because you've been beaten on the head with the Bible when you were a kid, THAT"S YOUR BUSINESS! Just let scientist do their work, and if you don't like it, go live in the forest with your beliefs and be happy!
You cannot argue against science with religion no more than you can argue against religion with science. Your obsession with anti-religious bile is blinding you to the argument here. You said there are 'thousands' of transitional fossils but you cannot produce a link to just one. Many scientist who are not religious express the view that Darwins theory is false. Google "Dissent from Darwin" and you will see hundreds of Phd scientists under 'download the list' who think Darwin is bunk.
Are you paying attention to what you are reading at all???
THE STATEMENT IS: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS "People who reject evolution" It's misleading.
1st: Vast majority of these people have nothing to do with Biology.
2nd: There's no way to tell if they really reject evolution.
There are NO scientific controversies whether or not evolution is true and so far it's been tested in every field of science repeatedly. It is no more doubtful in scientific circles than the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun.
Also 99,98 % of biologists accept evolution and those who don't is because of personal religious beliefs or incompetence, not because of evidence against it. The overwhelming evidence and research in molecular genetics, paleontology and so on irrefutably support it. So that's basically it! IT'S ABOUT CHOOSING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND BRAIN-DEAD RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST IGNORANCE!
LOL! That's it? You read it on Wikipedia and watched a video about it on YouTube? Lol! I was actually 'hoping' for SCIENTIFIC links. That Wikipedia page is a list of the faked transitional fossils, all of which have been debunked as frauds or misrepresentations. For instance, 'Archaic Homo sapiens' is not a a step on the illusory ladder of evolution. Representatives of this race still live today i.e. native Australians and native Australians are normal humans and not an 'evolutionary' fossils.
DO YOU HAVE A SINGLE BRAIN CELL IN YOUR HEAD RETARD????? I TOLD YOU TO CHECK OUT THE SOURCES!
Every single article about a fossil is related to a peer reviewed approved by the scientific community book or journal.That's how these things work.
Those fossils have been repeatedly analyzed and classified through modern technology, chemical analysis and paleontological methods before included in the record and none of them have been "debunked", otherwise they wouldn't have been included. Get it?
Oh dear, you are such an angry little person. I fear if I confront you further with the fraudulence of your evolutionary beliefs, you will burst a bloodvessel in your brain. Lol. Once again, dear friend, the Wikipedia article is a litany of fraud not scientific fact. There is not one single example of a transitional fossil that remains undebunked. But have we not here left off the topic of Panspermia? That noble theory of the Evolutionists that aliens seeding life on earth ! LOL!
No idiot, just that kind of blind denial and breathtaking stupidity kind of irritates me.
However it would be even more interesting for you to read all the articles, sources and journals about the more prominent hominid fossil finds. It's gonna take quite some time but since you are sooo interested in the fossil topic...
Just type "List of human evolution fossils" in Wikipedia and don't forget to check and read all the references in the articles:)
By all means provide links to some of your 'scientific' papers and I will discuss them one by one. Transitional fossils or any proof of the 'aliens' who you claim seeded life on earth would be fine. But why would 'scientists' believe in 'aliens' they have never seen, never had communication with and for whom they have no proof? That sounds like a religion to me. Perhaps that is why you guys hate the religious fundamentalists so much? You detest in others what you deny in yourself (ala C.J.Jung)
We are not talking about aliens we are talking about fossils.
Oh come on do I REALLY have to explain this to you step by step?? You type "List of human evolution fossils" in Wikipedia. There you have a list of about 90 finds of hominid fossils with detailed pictures, places and date of discovery and so on. About each species and each find you have a separate article -->
Oh come on, do I have to explain this to you step by step?? You type "List of human evolution fossils" in Wikipedia. You get a list of about 90 hominid fossil finds with detailed pictures, places and date of discovery and so on. About each species and separate find you have a separate article. In those articles you have references to sources which are published articles, scientific journals, even books. You just check and read them all..That's it.
Yes, I know about the Wikipedia page of scam fossils. We have discussed it ad nauseum. You believe it is a list of real transitional fossils and I know it is not. But then you believe in aliens too!
Aaaa let me get this straight.. First you say that there are no transitional fossils. Then I give you more than a 150 examples, 90 of which are prominent finds of fossils of hominid species, all backed up with detailed information,classification ,pictures, published peer revised scientific research and analysis, dig sites and so on.. And according to you "you know they are all a scam" and then you start talking about "aliens"..
YEAH sure pal. Whatever you say:)))I agree I can't argue :))))
Well I guess it's my own fault that I wasted so much time thinking that someone can argue with brainwashed religious fundamentalist retards that are brain-dead by default. Anyway, I really don't have anything against your willing ignorance and religious beliefs, just keep them out of science and serious discussions OK?
And don't talk about "science" or "evidence" because you just look ridiculous. You can now probably understand why :))))
You're the only person here talking about religion. Even most Darwinist scientists admit there are no transitional fossils but a small group still hold one example of Archaeopteryx as genuine despite the impossiblity of such a creature. You are unaware of this if you quote the Wikipedia list of 'thousands' as proof. I suspect you are driven by religious hatred and seek an excuse to argue with religious people .. and then you 'waste your time' arguing with an atheist!Lol So what about the aliens?
I don't really understand what "aliens" have to do with fossils, but then again I guess it's all part of the big scientific world conspiracy to overthrow the wholly teachings of the Bible..Yeah, I understand that pal:))) However the point that I was trying to make is that this kind of thinking belongs in personal belief system ONLY. It has no place in science or any serious discussion. It's not only ridiculous, it's annoying and a waste of time. Get it? :))
Aliens have to do with this video, duh! You just went off on a rant about transitional fossils and the bible etc. Yawn!
Panspermia or directed Panspermia, as it is now claimed, is how the evolutionists explain how life started on earth. To be brief the cell cannot make proteins witout which a cell cannot exist. Chicken or egg, which came first if we had neither? In Darwins day they didn't have microbiology. Hence 'aliens' put the first 'egg' (or is that chicken) on earth. Ludicrous, I know.
Well actually the study about the origin of life on Earth is called ABIOGENESIS. Nothing to do with evolution. It is based on different hypotheses about how first self-replicating life-forms could have arisen from inanimate matter through series of chemical reactions. However no one yet knows for sure. There are only different hypotheses . That thing in the video about "organic elements of life" coming from space is one of those hypotheses -->
You really need to stop treating Wikipedia as a serious scientific source and I don't think the bible mentions it either! Lol. Darwinists claimed for years that life began (abiogenesis) from some sort of lightning hitting a swamp of 'primordial soup'. When microbiology debunked this they then, as you say, shifted the argument to 'aliens' on another planet (panspermia) and then when that was debunked aliens sending the seed here (directed panspermia). All part of the same 'scientific' bullcrap!
From the mindless jumble of nonsense you just wrote i can see you didn't understand a single thing of what I explained, but I wasn't expecting that anyway:))
As I told you Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter through chemical processes. There is no universal theory about it ,no one yet knows for sure, there are only HYPOTHESES(if you know what that means) -->
That thing in this video "organic elements of life" coming from space isn't a valid hypothesis, because even if it is true it doesn't explain life's INITIAL ORIGINS. Get it?
There are many abiogenesis hypotheses and you can read details about some of them but you wouldn't understand absolutely anything. So you can just get back to memorizing verses from the wholly Bible(a lot easier than bio-chemistry) and leave rational thought to rational people:)))
Yeah, I get it. Darwins book, "On the Origin of Species" is debunked. There is no proof for the 'origin of the species' on Earth. There are many 'hypotheses' on how life started and they are all as ridiculous as this one. Why do you continue to believe in Darwins theory when it is so full of holes? Ah well, you continue to believe I am a Christian without any proof when I keep telling you that I am not. Could you tell me your 'rational' reason for believing that since you are so 'rational'?
No, moron, you still don't get anything. You still can't even make the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. The book of Darwin was called "On the Origin of Species" NOT "On the Origin of Life". It explains DIVERSITY of life, not origins. His hypothesis is now a proven fact.
And science is about FILLING THE HOLES, knowing more on the basis of what we already know. Just because you don't know everything about the Solar System you don't go back to the concept that the Earth is flat:)))
Abiogenesis(study of origin of life) has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin. The hypotheses of abiogenesis are founded on bio-chemistry and are A LOT MORE COMPLICATED. No one yet has established an absolute model, but research continues.That's the idea.
That's why I'm saying that Abiogenesis is way over your head. You don't have the brains and education to comprehend the theories(neither do I) The Bible is a lot more easy to understand than bio-chemistry, so stick to that:)))
"Could you tell me your 'rational' reason for believing that since you are so 'rational'?" --> hahahahahaha Now why would I think that hahahahahahahahahaa:))))))))))
Well of course abiogenesis has to do with Darwin. He didn't call his book, " The evolution of life on earth", he called it "on the origin of species". Now the Darwinists have to admit they don't have a clue how the species originated they are talking about 'aliens'. It's a crucial part of the Theory of Evolution, or was until they realised it wasn't possible. Who knows what they will come up with next. Darwin would have got a good laugh out of this 'aliens did it' panspermia crap! LOL ;)))
Sorry but if you are too stupid to tell the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis after all these explanations then you really need help.
"Origin of SPECIES" means explanation about the DIVERSITY of life on Earth and COMMON DECSENT, not origin of life. That's what the theory is all about. (see definition of Evolution in Wikipedia)
Abiogenesis(origin of life) study hypotheses are based on organic chemistry and molecular biology. In case you don't know Darwin lived in the 19th century.
You don't seem to understand anything of what I tried to explain to you about abiogenesis, you are still babbling about "aliens" like an idiot. That's why it's a good Idea to keep out of rational conversations - because it's just annoying.
New hypothesis and experiments about self-replicating organic compounds and origin of the first living cell are developed all the time. That's what science is about. Research and development.
But as I said this is way over your head. If you want to interpret everything written in the Bible literally,that's fine. but that is something you have to keep for yourself and not try to bring it into science and rational discussions. It just doesn't work that way. Get it??
No problem with the self-replicating bit but where did the first cell come from? Oh wait, let me consult Darwins, "on the origin of species". No, his explanation about the primordial soup being hit by lightning is debunked, what next? Oh yeah, I have it... panspermia... aliens did it! Lol ; )))) And you believe this??? and you believe I am a christian!? LOL??? Blessed are you Brother Alexander for your faith! LOL!
To put it simple - evidence for Evolution tells us that all life on Earth originates from a single organism - the first living cell. That's undisputed and already clear.
Abiogenesis is the research about how that first living cell WAS FORMED through natural processes.
There was a hoax many years ago where a 'scientist' claimed to have made life in a laboratory. Now they are close to doing it again? Have you seen a cell? It's like a complex factory. There is no way that can be 'made'. They can't even make nano machines! And if they could make a cell? That would prove it takes intelligence to make a cell? Back to the 'aliens' again. Obviously it takes intelligence to design a cell but I have no proof for 'aliens' so I conclude nothing for panspermia. Fact only.
First cell were supposed to be just "a strip of genetic material surrounded by a fatty membrane" that could self-replicate. According to their hypothetical model.Read the article.
No, they are not trying to construct the cell manually, they are trying to simulate it forming in natural environment - in test tube of water. That's the whole point. And it's even more complicated. They are making progress very slowly but maybe some day someone will get it right...
And Wikipedia is not a source by itself, it's a combination of sources. Reading about Abiogenesis from there might give you some slight idea of what it's about but the specific hypotheses and theories(even in that simplified way) are waaaaaaay over your brains and education. So I wouldn't bother :)))
That thing in the video about "organic elements of life" coming from space is one of those hypotheses. Not a very good one because the question about its initial origins still remains. It's relapsing one unknown for another unknown. That's it.
You can read about Abiogenesis hypotheses in Wikipedia and all over the net , but this is a VERY COMPLICATED TOPIC and it is waaaaaaaay over your head.:))))) Better just stick to memorizing verses from the Bible:)))
Hey, after reading all your comments, please, tell me: How do you think life was formed? Some god created it?
Why are you losing your time watching/replying videos like this when all you do is tell it is bullshit?
The fact that Darwin didn't knew a cell just like today proves nothing, nothing but he was a extreme observer. He could tell us how creatures evolved just by seeing from their structures.
We don't need to know how everything exactly happened to know it happened.
I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!..your cell would never evolve ..you dont know chemistry at all..there has been no cell made, or living one, that can live with just one protein..and no scientist has ever even made a protein..
@guifercon ..All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!
@manhunt48 LOL. Sutherland, has not made RNA, Copying and rearranging pre existing INFORMATION is not creating anything ,synthesizing machines and templates is far from undirected natural processes! The same goes for Craig Venter taking genomes that already existed and inserting them back into a living bacterium!! all being done In controlled laboratories! The atheists becomes so Ignorant and gullible to believe these exaggerated claims!! Desperate claims!!
@5tonyvvvv Ohhhh dude. Seriously are you this fucking idiotic? or just a trolling?
The point was to prove it's possible, that is EXACTLY what they did. Of course they didn't let it happen naturally that could take millions of years in a specifically controlled environment which matches that of early earth.
This is why we laugh at you people. You claim it's impossible, we provide proof that it is. then you pull all sorts of bullshit arguments which have nothing to do with point being made
@5tonyvvvv Let me break it down for you, because clearly you can't be trusted to do it yourself.
all matter on Earth is made from elements. these combine via electrochemical bonds to form compounds which is a process almost impossible to STOP,even in a lab (CO2,
H2O,etc);the compounds also combine in the same way, some making amino acids-->NH2-CH-(R)-COOH. (R)is a joint
When this formula is joined by a phosphate-->NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH results,the formula for RNA emerges.
NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH is not only the formula for RNA, it also describes the earliest known living organism-->Cyanobacteria Archaea. no nucleus, no DNA, no organelles, no protein.just RNA coiled over to enclose a space! This is basic biochemistry~no "designer" necessary---this happened on it's own,not by chance,but by chemistry. The fossils of these are called stromatolites, but cyans exist today as one of the largest phyla on Earth, but in more evolved forms.
@manhunt48 LOL. Time Never Helps, You really believe RNA molecules would survive millions of years!!! and all there information would be protected in some primordial Toxic broth! or some deep sea vent! RNA breaks down down so quickly, it has to be protected even in laboratories!! So what makes you think it would last on some Harsh Earth? ..LOL..HAHAHA! Ridiculous!!
@5tonyvvvv " You really believe RNA molecules would survive millions of years!!! " Facepalm. Did i say that? NO. So now you're just attacking a position that I don't even hold. What a typical creationist you are.
Next you'll be saying evolution says "everything came from nothing" Bahahah.
" RNA breaks down down so quickly, " That's simply un true. Where are your sources for this? (I bet you don't have any and refuse to produce them) Again cyans are one of the largest phylas on Earth today.
@5tonyvvvv "RNA breaks down down so quickly, it has to be protected even in laboratories!!" That statment is sooo fucking ridiculous.
Cyanobacteria Archaea (simple RNA organism) one of the largest phylas on Earth (up to 20% of earth's biomass), infact prefer very extreme environments which can include very cold habitats and highly saline, acidic, or alkaline water.
This information is VERY simple to find, and shows you're a complete liar.
Doesn't your little book say something about liars?
@manhunt48 LOL.. You're ridiculous desperate claims just make you look even more Stupid! RNA, forming on some primordial earth is laughable and not science, Abiogenesis is not confirmed! You need to learn Homochirality!! If you think amino acids can self organize themselves!! Your sources are assumptions from atheists!!
@5tonyvvvv WOw okay so basically all you have left is " NU UH!". . . Despite the fact you've proven wrong, despite the fact i've provided links which do so despite the fact i've asked for sources to your claims and you've done exactly as i predicted you would and ignored it.
I think I've proven my point enough, and it's clear NOTHING is getting through to you.
You've got nothing left, you've been reduced to " NU UH!" and yet you still think you know better then reality & the worlds smartest.
"...aborigines believe each star is a dancing goddess..". OK, so from this point on we can ignore anything aborigines have to say.
bigglyguy 1 month ago
Thk y so much for posting
Lenocas2011 1 month ago in playlist science
Grav: If you were so sure that God didn't do it, then you would not be so strident in insisting would you? I'm pretty happy with just admitting that there is a lot we do not know. :)
401Hala 1 month ago
@401Hala I still can´t understand why people have to think about the existence of a God, no offense I am just trying to understand
Lenocas2011 1 month ago in playlist science
@Lenocas2011 To me, never having been raised to be religious at all, I just always knew that something created the order. I've spent my life trying to understand the "orderer". I'm actually around a lot of athiests, but most know that I believe in the Constitution, and believe that each person has the right to their own belief. We should be able to talk about our differences with out feeling the other person must agree with me. I'm now LDS and feel their expression of faith and science is good.
401Hala 1 month ago
Right... if you believe this you probably also believe in the tooth fairy. Atheists are so damn stupid.
PurelyUnintentional 4 months ago
@PurelyUnintentional What a defensive comment. Generalizing all atheists.
This isn't objective fact, it's a scientific THEORY, <---Try being more open minded.
Scientists won't go self-righteously telling you this is (without a doubt) the origin of life.
Unlike many theists, like yourself I am presuming.
Sovember 3 months ago
1:24 "Some find the answers in religion and spirituality, others find comfort in the hard facts of science.
Great start! What nonsense. People do not find "answers" in religion. Answers, not "comfort" are to be found in science.
I don't think I'll bother to watch the rest.
Nilguiri 5 months ago 2
@Nilguiri Don't deny it. You choose to believe what you believe, nothing can be proven 100 %, while science probably is the most Objective process, it isn't without a doubt a flawless system.
Respect other beliefs, because 99% of life is subjective.
Sovember 3 months ago
@Sovember
What do you mean, don't deny it? I most certainly do deny it, there are no answers in religion. Religion has never answered a single question about anything. Not once. Ever.
Proof isn't a concept that science uses. Nobody says that science is "flawless"; that is ridiculous and to suggest it is shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is.
Why should I respect people who have fallen for made up mumbo jumbo?
"99% of life is subjective" What does that even mean?
Nilguiri 3 months ago
@Nilguiri Religion has answered many questions. By definition an answer is solution to a question. Because even supposedly objective scientific laws cannot be proven 100 %, you cannot debunk even primitive religious ideas, even if you think them ridiculous. I choose to accept scientific ideas because that's just me but someone who has been raised in a religious environment might think differently and that must be respected. It's not fair to call it "brain wash" or "mumbo jumbo".
Sovember 3 months ago
@Sovember
Name me one answer that religion has provided to anything.
Why are you talking about science "proving" stuff? You are confusing "proof" with accepting something as fact. e.g:Gravity, geocentrism and evolution are known to be facts because of overwhelming evidence,not proof.
If these ppl were born in a different place or time, they would believe something else. They have been persuaded to accept an unlikely story contrary to all evidence. What would you call that if not brainwashing?
Nilguiri 3 months ago
@Nilguiri I don't know, maybe a less provocative/cheeky synonym, perhaps?
And from what I'm reading it seems like you answered your own question. This argument has gotten out of hand, I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. Oh well, if that's your opinion I'll respect it.
What I don't like is you not wanting to watch this video because of one phrase, but I won't judge you for that.
Sovember 3 months ago
@Sovember
Yes, I deliberately chose the word brainwashing for its negative connotations. Do you prefer indoctrination?
That doesn't have the negative meaning I wanted to express.
Before you go, I'm interested to hear what questions you insist that religion has answered. You haven't mentioned one yet.
Nilguiri 3 months ago
@Nilguiri Yes I prefer indoctrination because you're likely to hurt less feelings that way, if you haven't noticed humans have emotion and will more than likely react defensively to being called "Brain Washed".
Like I said Religion has answered questions if your belief is that an 'answer' is just a solution to a question. To theists religion has simple 'answers' to the universes big questions, I never said they were objective truths, in a way they accept their, albeit primitive, answers as fact
Sovember 3 months ago
@Sovember
In other words you are unable to give me a single answer that religion has provided to anything.
Don't worry about it, nobody can.
Nilguiri 3 months ago
@Nilguiri If you read my comment you wouldn't be bantering me from the beginning. And it seems like I'm not communicating with you well or you're just a little narrow minded (no offense this is from what I see you're perceiving).
In any case religion has done plenty of things, good and bad, as has science, neither are going away for quite some time that I know for sure. I don't know why you wanted me to answer a question you knew the answer too either.
Sovember 3 months ago
Not an unreasonable idea. Organic compounds have been found in the solar system.
VinnyMonster1 9 months ago
Why don't all these so called brilliantly minded people ... which supposedly are in the millions all put their minds together to make EARTH a beautiful place to live for ALL of HUMANITY ... then and only then carry on with their self absorbed egotistical ventures costing Trillions of dollars ,Resources and Labour... Bring PEACE,LOVE and The BASIC NECESSITIES ie. Comfortable living conditions,Food,Water,Housing,Clothing, and Useful Education ... Call me crazy but it kind of makes sense to me...
horuslovechild2 9 months ago
Tons of ignorant hate in this discussion. It's amazes me how close minded people can be. Don't believe in a God? Fine. Leave those that do alone. It's really fucking simple. Grow up.
soSUBURBIA 10 months ago
These idiot still in the 21st century promoting darwanism which have no reality the
idiot Darwan only seeing the thigns so his stupid brain told him yes it is evolved from
each others.....hahahaha...if that time he does have eletro microscope he never
say each spieces evolved in each others.....hahahah
strangerlover11 1 year ago
Also...there is no way that the solar system's Oort cloud can be 3 ly away from the sun. That would be far enough to make it Alpha Centauri's and Barnard's star's Oort cloud
Gintable 1 year ago
the edge of the atmosphere is officially 100 km above Earth's surface (Karman Line)...not just 30 km
Gintable 1 year ago
As is 'Christian' to 'cretin' is it thus 'Mormon' to 'moron' I wonder ? Please tell me if you know
bonkersmcbonkers 1 year ago
Thank you..
martini4948 1 year ago
REAL scientists haven't got a clue on origins. space or life.
crabsyman 1 year ago
This video and the description implies that "God did it" isn't a "good enough" answer. But given all the facts without the bias there is no other option.
So "God did it" isn't a good enough answer, but "life came from space" is...?
The description of the formation of the planets is just wrong. What about the asteroid field between Earth and Mars. And by that description the moon couldn't exist...
joshualcoombe 1 year ago
@joshualcoombe
why the hell would god be an adequate cause for life when we haven't a clue if god of gods even exist?..panspermia and abiogenesis take actual natural processes that we know and understand, and build theories based on those known processes. c'mon now, think man.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife That's all theoretical science. You don't know abiogenesis is an "actual natural process". If fact experiments to repeat it failed. And panspermia is based on abiogenesis. So failed science and then theory based on failed science. That's what you want to believe?
I know God exists, that's why the hell. If you look into it there is plenty of evidence for God.
joshualcoombe 1 year ago
@joshualcoombe
there is a hell of a lot of evidence suggesting that abiogenesis occurred. are u at all familiar with dr. jack szostak's work on abiogenesis? u KNOW a god that is supposedly transcendent of nature exists?..what a ridiculous thing to claim to know for certain. what's your evidence that A god, let alone the biblical god, exists?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife There's also quite a bit of evidence against abiogenesis. If you look at it objectively it's hard to accept it as fact or even possible.
I've seen healings in the name of my God. Other supernatural miracles happen ALL THE TIME. Look on youtube and you can see video of people being raised from the dead.
So on the one hand you're presented with evidence that happens "all the time" and on the other hand something that has never been proven.
joshualcoombe 1 year ago
@joshualcoombe
what is the evidence against it?..because i can provide u with evidence for it..and if there is evidence against it, is this evidence provided by scientists, or creationists?..
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife I would say the Miller - Ulrey experiment is some pretty good evidence against it. You would call them scientists, wouldn't you? They certainly weren't creationist, they were trying to disprove creationism...
You imply that creationist aren't scientists. And I'll agree that scientists of all persuasions are biased toward their personal beliefs whether they be theist or atheist (as are we both). But is your opinion based on your bias? Or reality?
joshualcoombe 1 year ago
@joshualcoombe
the miller-ulrey experiment?..that was done in 1952 man..abiogenesis has come a very long was since then.
creationists aren't scientists. creationism is derived straight from the biblical story of creation. a story that claims a god transcendent of nature created the earth. how can that possibly be scientific?..most of these creationist "scientists" go to religious universities and are members of religious institutes. it's pseudo science.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
actually it has not..All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!..your cell would never evolve ..you dont know chemistry at all..there has been no cell made, or living one, that can live with just one protein..and no scientist has ever even made a protein..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
just because we don't have the technology to be able to do it, doesn't mean it isn't possible, or won't eventually become possible..u just wanna jump to fuckin conclusions.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife you are going against a well established law of biogenesis,thats why these experiments dont work.the amino acids are to unstable,thats why they wont stay together to assemble anything.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv
you're jumping to the conclusion that because we haven't been able to mimic what occurred on earth billions of years ago, that abiogenesis didn't and cannot occur.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife these tests have been tried for 60 years,this simple process of life emerging from a chemical broth..no matter of time and chance even under amazing conditions in labs is impossible..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube.
you believe in some chemistry unknown to life and science.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@joshualcoombe
and earth and life scientists are not about bias. they are about physical evidence. scientists may have their beliefs,but it's not their beliefs that get published in scientific journals..they obtain facts,and let those facts lead to answers. their personal beliefs are left out of the scientific process. the scientific method is based the system of falsification. so,if a theory stands in the scientific community,that means it has withstood vigorous scrutiny,making it very solid.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
All of us want to be right.IT is impossible.WE have too much in our brain.More than allot.and all this is GOOD FOR NOTHING.WE find a place in which WE feel secure, illusion of safety, we do choose from things we learn in the different stages of life, the clock runs in one direction and never comes-back and the bodies and the gases in the space. fuse..
MOST of US are only teachable humans,by the billions, very few 1000's prodigious, real observers,and dedicated. they don't have time for this
ilikeyouallot 1 year ago
Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists already all over the Universe, and is distributed through the interaction of traveling bodies of rock and ice such as asteroids with planets which harbor said life. Panspermia proposes that lifeforms which can survive the effects of space including radiation, such as extremophile bacteria, become trapped inside frozen ice and rock after other large asteroids impact their native planets exploding fragments into space.
TheBlitz1 1 year ago
Bacteria may travel this way dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other habitable planets, once stuck, become active and begin the process of biological evolution again.
TheBlitz1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book? Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book?
streetcornerjames 1 year ago
This type of logic never ceases to amaze me. We admit we don't know how life begin, & in the next sentence we speak so authoritatively about how the solar system was formed, which is equally as mysterious. Sometimes its ok to say we just don't know at this time. The Pan Spermia theory doesn't answer questions of OOL, it only puts the problem of origins out of site and out of mind by saying it must have happened somewhere else and handing off the logistics of OOL to another place in the universe.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
We have several theroies as to how live began. We also have quite a concise knowldge base on how the solar system formed.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 ago
@benthemiester
We have several theories as to how live began..........You mean there are several hypothesis out there. These are hypothetical theories based on conjecture. They are not scientific theories based on testable empirical evidence. There just educated guesses. A scientific theory requires testable & repeatable evidence. Pasteur proved through empirical testable science that living thing only come from other living things.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
We can test them, and so far we've had RNA form itself when left in a early earth like enviroment. It is quite possible RNA could evolve into DNA. Pasteur also lived into the 1800's. Also it is possible that we have already observed abiogensis in the Miller-Fox-Urey experiments,althought due to an certain amount of uncertainty we have to throw this out. The point is that this is testable.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 The word spontaneous doesn't mean ribonucleic acid forms all by itself. This is a misleading term. An intelligent agent has to coax these elements to form. H. Urey could never form anything more than a racemic mixture. Living things require left handed amino acids exclusively. Szoatac uses in vitro selection which require an intelligent agent and he Gerald Joyce and others in OOL haven't been able to create anything even close to a living cell. I have spoken with Szostac on this.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Newton lived before pasture & we still use Newtonian physics here on earth. Darwinism is 160 years old & still hasn't been proven. In fact the Altenberg 16 summit is calling for a relaxing of the modern synthesis & are proposing a new extended synthesis based on epigenetics and self organization models because what your taught in school is insufficient to explain a molecule to man paradigm, & only now are many in the scientific community stating this, and at risk to there careers.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Can you cite study that shows that RNA can form all by itself or are speaking of RNA replication?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"Can you cite study that shows that RNA can form all by itself or are speaking of RNA replication?" Dr. Sutherland's experiments
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 This is his statement concerning RNA work u cite. There are more but wont fit on you tube..... "The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right"END He also said that the primordial earth could not have done this on his own. The News paper sensationalize stories.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@Takua38000 The only thing that has been testable is failure to produce a living cell.
If you don't understand chirality you won't be able to understand why Urey- Miller failed. Again they produced 98 percent tar and a 2 percent racemic mixture. I don't dispute evolution and natural selection, only its grand unsubstantiated claims of the ability of macro change.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Abiogensis is has quite a bit to go before it's still fully understood. Also macroevolution is something you don't accept why?
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 I would be happy to tell you why, but I'm not sure how much research you have done, so I think the best way to answer is, to tell me why you believe in evolution? What scientific discovery or piece of work convinced you? If it was many then tell me, but please don't just say there is evidence, show it to me. Tell me in your own words and be specific the same way I have broken down the Miller experiment. Then cite your evidence and I will give you the same courtesy.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
The observation ofspeciation (macroevolution) is probly the most conviencing argument. We also have the fossil record and genetics aswell.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Selective breeding mimics natural selection. We can breed cows to form long horns or short horns, same with dogs being bred for different sizes but cows are still cows and dogs are still dogs. Genetic information does not increase through this process. It is truncated.There is no free lunch in nature & there is always a price to pay, in this case, its a loss of info. Its called (the loss of genetic variation) Look it up . Mutations R mistakes that happen during transcription process.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
We have documented speciation events
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 f you get your information by watching anti creationist videos, then I am not surprised that you think as you do. The video is unnamed & doesn't identify narrator or cite origin of evidence, and makes the claim that ediacara biota is ancestry to Cambrian phyla, Ediacara biota is considered enigmatic and were not even sure what domain to put it into, We assume that its multicellular because of its size. Stop watching videos and educate yourself. You have to read and study,
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them." ...
Takua38000 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"...An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered...."
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Ediacra went extinct and no one really knows how to interpret the trace fossils. You have still not shown me one transnational link, are you speaking of Kimberella? or R u saying because we find sponge embryos that this explains a rapid and abrupt appearance of multy celled creatures on orders of magnitude? Your being general and vague. Tell me the evidence for one of these creatures and name the species. Your repeating things but yet you don't seem to understand question & point.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
That are quite a few things that could've cause the Cambrian Explosion. From the oxygenization level of the ocean changing, to the end of an ice age at the beggining of the cambrian. Hox genes were expected to be evolving around this time. An example of a cambrian transistional fossil group would be the lobopods.
Which we think evolved into arthropods. Also since you don't accept the "old earth" you must also realize that no fossils apper as current creatures.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Your confusing the radiation event or whats called the explosion, with the 40 MY old fossil record of Cambrian phyla diversification. The initial radiation event is estimated at two to ten million years depending on who you ask. The Chinese who have a great Cambrian fossil record estimate it at between five and two million years. On the geological time scale this is a blink of an eye. It started around 530 MY ago. I bet they never taught you about the Cambrian explosion in school.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@Takua38000 What makes you believe I don't accept old earth? are these your assumptions again? Where did the oxygen come from before plants? Ediacara biota die out millions of years before Cambrian event and Blue green algae diminishes by almost 90% so there wasn't enough H20 to account for Cambrian radiation. No oxygen, No Ozone, No Ozone then any precursors to life would be destroyed by ultra violets rays and Life itself would not happen .Did your teachers speak of that in science class.
benthemiester 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benthemiester "I don't dispute evolution and natural selection, only its grand unsubstantiated claims of the ability of macro change." cast doubt on you accepting the old Earth.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@benthemiester
"At about 2.4 billion years ago, oxygen was released from the seas as a byproduct of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria. Levels of the gas gradually climbed, reaching about one percent around two billion years ago. About 800 million years ago, oxygen levels reached about 21 percent and began to breathe life into more complex organisms." from National Geographic. So, where wre you seeing there was no ozone layer?
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 cyanobacteria is another name for blue green algae. Cyanobacteria use water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight to create their food. The byproducts of this process are oxygen and calcium carbonate.. Source WIKI. There is actually less of them by the time Cambrian event occurred. If they produced the oxygen then how could they produce more for Cambrian to occur when there is actually less of them by this time period? Ill explain ozone in second thread.You didn't seem to understand.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Where are you getting that they died off?
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Ediacara goes extinct long before Cambrian. Some have recently tried to argue that it may have stood around & point to trace fossils but they don't have real evidence and this is highly disputed in the literature. Cbact. starts to diminish by the Cambrian event, I said there was less at the time of Cambrian event, I didn't say it goes extinct. As I said I picked Wiki because it is very evolution friendly compare to other encyclopedias that stick to the facts and stray from conjecture
benthemiester 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Evidence suggesting that a mass extinction occurred at the end of the Ediacaran period, 542 million years ago, includes: * A mass extinction of acritarchs
* The sudden disappearance of the Ediacara biota and calcifying organisms; * The time gap before Cambrian organisms "replaced" them.
source wiki
benthemiester 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Without ozone protection mass amounts of ultra violet rays would destroy any living thing on the primordial earth. The formation of oxygen doesn't happen in one day, it takes millionsX of years. How do prokaryotes survive all that time exposed to radiation? Furthermore how is the VERY first living cell smart enough to capture, and metabolize energy when evolution says these complex process take a long time to evolve? If a primordial living cell cant hit the ground running its dead.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Photosynthesis emerged during th end of the Archean around 2500 million years ago. As far as the organelles of the first cells, that still remains unknown.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@benthemiester Sorry, but you are wrong about the radiation. Many types of bacteria exist just fine while being cooked by radiation. Check out, for example, the recent International Space Station experiment which purposefully placed bacteria on the outside of the capsult--in the vacuum of space without the protection of ozone--and it lived and thrived.
rcharding 1 year ago
@rcharding I'm always interested in new discoveries but the information you gave wasn't enough for me to form an opinion. Can you please cite specific article.
Having said that I think you misunderstood what I meant about Cambrian Radiation. The Cambrian explosion sometimes referred to as the Cambrian radiation event has nothing to do with radio activity. You can find more about subject by typing in Cambrian radiation.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@rcharding U also may have confused what I was saying about OOL ( - origins of life), concerning the problems with an H2O rich environment which would act as a poison to the assembly of amino acids required for protein formation & the equally negative effects of a reducing atmosphere where a lack of ozone would be equally negative to OOL formation because of harmful ultra violet rays. OOL is different from life that already exist. The RNA world is another popular hypothesis but unsubstantiated.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Comment removed
Takua38000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benthemiester
"Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion"." - PBS
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Type in key words..... fossil record problematic, and spend a few days researching it. Learn about the Cambrian radiation event which marks the beginning of the Cambrian explosion. Research from a neutral unbiased perspective and be honest with yourself. Pretend you have never heard of evolution, creation, or Intelligent design. and research it. Then call me back. I cant debate, unless you understand these things.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
how is the fossil record promblematic?
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 Why don't you research it first and then ask me? It took me years to consider all the so called evidence from the whale of a tale to Australopithecus and every thing in between. I know your not that fast. Tell me why we find animals appearing abruptly in fossil record? or why the Cambrian phyla appear so abruptly on the geological time scale? Tell me why J Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium if gradualism is supposed to be the model but yet is not present. Darwin wrote about this?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
We don't find them appearing abruptly, that was a valid argument years ago, since then we have found the answers to this.
/watch?v=95W4DdWYIpw
Takua38000 1 year ago
@Takua38000 If you understood the subject you would know that Ediacara biota went extinct millions of years before the Cambrian event. The so called trace fossils that are found are nothing like the Cambrian fauna and many people think they may have been worm like but know body knows. Even if these unsubstantiated hypothesis are correct it still doesn't explain the explosion of life occurring globally in orders magnitude in a very short time period especially the initial radiation event.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
Even if it is yet unexplained what does it prove? Simply that we don't have the fossils yet.
Takua38000 1 year ago
@benthemiester
We find the "explosion" happening over several 10 of millions of years. We've also found diverse fossil formed around before 555 Mya, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. There is evidence suggesting that at least 6 animal phyla are precambiran.
Takua38000 1 year ago
Geo-Archaeology For The Win
jmm1233 1 year ago
Please watch my video. Earth changes.... People changes too!
Cheers!
fridaysabtu 2 years ago
how can protiens evolve they arent living systems they're just combonations of atoms.( atleast amino acids the building blocks of protiens) Also didnt scientist find amino acids in comets? plz reply if im wrong guys i like to be educated
jileel 2 years ago
PROTEIN
lonergalliz 2 years ago
Proteing cannot form unless the cell exists as an integral whole. Darwinists cannot explain how a protein can evolve without a complete cell, which is turn requires proteins. So now Darwinism has become a space religion! Aliens planted the first complete cell on earth!!!! So you believe in aliens you have never seen, have never communicated with and of whom you have no proof? Sounds like faith not religion. A bit like the Church of Climatology or Scientology!
lonergalliz 2 years ago
I guess he who loses the argument also loses his temper. But I do not argue with foul mouthed people on the internet. Exchanging insults in place of facts is for those with no reason and only those with no reason would belive a nonsensicle theory like Darwins. Goodbye now, I hope that some day you can overcome your anger and your reluctance to examine the evidence.
guydecervens 2 years ago
There there, you are very upset. I know the lack of transitional fossils being pointed out always brings an angry reaction. It's not my opinion there are no transitional fossils, it is a fact. Sure, there have been many fakes, mostly from China, like the 'dinosaur bird'. To be fair, most of them have been good for a laugh. I'd say pigs could fly before dinosaurs, in as much as their dense bones would allow it. But hey, if it makes some Darwinist who know nothing of biology happy.......
guydecervens 2 years ago
There are more transitional fossils than you can probably count,RETARD. Maybe you should stop denying science and accept reality. You don't have to interpret everything in in the Bible literally like a fundamentalist idiot, in order to be a good Christian! It's just embarrassing!
AlexGruev 2 years ago
I interpret not the Bible. Why do you say that? I was discussing science not religion, nor did I mention the Bible. If you have proof of these transitional fossils you say are more than I can 'probably count' then please provide it. As to your charge that I am a 'fundamentalist idiot', if you mean my science, then yes I am fundamentalist but not an idiot. I follow the evidence and facts where they lead. If you mean a Christian fundamentalist then you are wrong. You see Christians everywhere!
guydecervens 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have as much to do with science as I am from Mars.
NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS????REALLY??? What have you been living under a rock or are you completely retarded??? Type"transitional fossils" in You Tube, in Google, read on Wikipedia, go to a museum, look at the facts! THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY! Religious fundamentalism is detrimental to all progress!
If that kind of ignorance irritates ME, imagine how some paleontologist must feel if some retard starts denying his work in such idiotic way!!
AlexGruev 2 years ago
There are HUNDREDS of transitional fossils - fish to amphibian, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, ape to human. All you have to do is look at them, denying simple facts won't make them go away! Evolution is as real as the fact that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun(that was also "unacceptable" in the time of Galileo but they got over it). Religious fundamentalism is simply "anti-science", it stops progress and it's devastating to society!
AlexGruev 2 years ago
You keep saying there are 'thousands' of transitional fossils. Actually there are none. There have been a good many fakes that have been exposed as frauds. If you would care to direct me to just one example you believe to be true then I will gladly discuss it with you. You're comments on religion should be directed to a religious person and not introduced into a scientific argument. This is not between religion and science but about bad science (evolution) versus genuine science.
guydecervens 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=0puoduvfBxA&feature=PlayList&p=BAE3EEBF7F3E32B2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12
watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM&feature=PlayList&p=BAE3EEBF7F3E32B2&index=13
FIRST WATCH THESE TWO AND EVERY VIDEO ON YOU TUBE DISPLAYING THEM.
Then type "List of transitional fossils in Wikipedia and check all the related pictures of fossils and references. Then it in GOOGLE , press PICTURES and read every related article! -->
AlexGruev 2 years ago
--> AND FINALLY, GO TO A MUSEUM AND SEE THEM FOR YOURSELF!
Blindly, mindlessly denying facts and reality LIKE A BRAINDEAD IDIOT doesn't make them go away!! Evolution is as much part of science as the theory that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun, the Germ Theory(that germs make you sick), or the Atomic Theory(the Atom that nobody has ever seen).
YOU EITHER ACCEPT SCIENCE OR YOU DON'T! IT'S THAT SIMPLE! If you don't then go live under a rock or in the forest!
AlexGruev 2 years ago
And an ignorant religious fundamentalist retard is not the one that should lecture SCIENTISTS, who develop medicine, vaccines and drive scientific progress, about what's science and what's not! DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? If you reject science, because you've been beaten on the head with the Bible when you were a kid, THAT"S YOUR BUSINESS! Just let scientist do their work, and if you don't like it, go live in the forest with your beliefs and be happy!
AlexGruev 2 years ago
You cannot argue against science with religion no more than you can argue against religion with science. Your obsession with anti-religious bile is blinding you to the argument here. You said there are 'thousands' of transitional fossils but you cannot produce a link to just one. Many scientist who are not religious express the view that Darwins theory is false. Google "Dissent from Darwin" and you will see hundreds of Phd scientists under 'download the list' who think Darwin is bunk.
guydecervens 2 years ago
Are you paying attention to what you are reading at all???
THE STATEMENT IS: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS "People who reject evolution" It's misleading.
1st: Vast majority of these people have nothing to do with Biology.
2nd: There's no way to tell if they really reject evolution.
GET IT?
AlexGruev 2 years ago
I found an interesting video about this so called "list" :
watch?v=zVx6IubbvNg
AlexGruev 2 years ago
There are NO scientific controversies whether or not evolution is true and so far it's been tested in every field of science repeatedly. It is no more doubtful in scientific circles than the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun.
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Also 99,98 % of biologists accept evolution and those who don't is because of personal religious beliefs or incompetence, not because of evidence against it. The overwhelming evidence and research in molecular genetics, paleontology and so on irrefutably support it. So that's basically it! IT'S ABOUT CHOOSING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND BRAIN-DEAD RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST IGNORANCE!
AlexGruev 2 years ago
And about the fossils ,genius:
Did you watch the videos I sent you below??
Watch them and all the other on You Tube displaying fossils!
Then read this article in Wikipedia:"List of transitional fossils" and check every picture and source related:
And then go to a museum and see them yourself!
That's it for the"lack of transitional fossils!
At least that should be enough if you are not a complete retard after all..
AlexGruev 2 years ago
LOL! That's it? You read it on Wikipedia and watched a video about it on YouTube? Lol! I was actually 'hoping' for SCIENTIFIC links. That Wikipedia page is a list of the faked transitional fossils, all of which have been debunked as frauds or misrepresentations. For instance, 'Archaic Homo sapiens' is not a a step on the illusory ladder of evolution. Representatives of this race still live today i.e. native Australians and native Australians are normal humans and not an 'evolutionary' fossils.
guydecervens 2 years ago
DO YOU HAVE A SINGLE BRAIN CELL IN YOUR HEAD RETARD????? I TOLD YOU TO CHECK OUT THE SOURCES!
Every single article about a fossil is related to a peer reviewed approved by the scientific community book or journal.That's how these things work.
Those fossils have been repeatedly analyzed and classified through modern technology, chemical analysis and paleontological methods before included in the record and none of them have been "debunked", otherwise they wouldn't have been included. Get it?
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Oh dear, you are such an angry little person. I fear if I confront you further with the fraudulence of your evolutionary beliefs, you will burst a bloodvessel in your brain. Lol. Once again, dear friend, the Wikipedia article is a litany of fraud not scientific fact. There is not one single example of a transitional fossil that remains undebunked. But have we not here left off the topic of Panspermia? That noble theory of the Evolutionists that aliens seeding life on earth ! LOL!
guydecervens 2 years ago
No idiot, just that kind of blind denial and breathtaking stupidity kind of irritates me.
However it would be even more interesting for you to read all the articles, sources and journals about the more prominent hominid fossil finds. It's gonna take quite some time but since you are sooo interested in the fossil topic...
Just type "List of human evolution fossils" in Wikipedia and don't forget to check and read all the references in the articles:)
HERE YOU GO. HAVE FUN:)
AlexGruev 2 years ago
By all means provide links to some of your 'scientific' papers and I will discuss them one by one. Transitional fossils or any proof of the 'aliens' who you claim seeded life on earth would be fine. But why would 'scientists' believe in 'aliens' they have never seen, never had communication with and for whom they have no proof? That sounds like a religion to me. Perhaps that is why you guys hate the religious fundamentalists so much? You detest in others what you deny in yourself (ala C.J.Jung)
guydecervens 2 years ago
We are not talking about aliens we are talking about fossils.
Oh come on do I REALLY have to explain this to you step by step?? You type "List of human evolution fossils" in Wikipedia. There you have a list of about 90 finds of hominid fossils with detailed pictures, places and date of discovery and so on. About each species and each find you have a separate article -->
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Oh come on, do I have to explain this to you step by step?? You type "List of human evolution fossils" in Wikipedia. You get a list of about 90 hominid fossil finds with detailed pictures, places and date of discovery and so on. About each species and separate find you have a separate article. In those articles you have references to sources which are published articles, scientific journals, even books. You just check and read them all..That's it.
Well it's a looong list.. HAVE FUN :)
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Yes, I know about the Wikipedia page of scam fossils. We have discussed it ad nauseum. You believe it is a list of real transitional fossils and I know it is not. But then you believe in aliens too!
guydecervens 2 years ago
Aaaa let me get this straight.. First you say that there are no transitional fossils. Then I give you more than a 150 examples, 90 of which are prominent finds of fossils of hominid species, all backed up with detailed information,classification ,pictures, published peer revised scientific research and analysis, dig sites and so on.. And according to you "you know they are all a scam" and then you start talking about "aliens"..
YEAH sure pal. Whatever you say:)))I agree I can't argue :))))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Well I guess it's my own fault that I wasted so much time thinking that someone can argue with brainwashed religious fundamentalist retards that are brain-dead by default. Anyway, I really don't have anything against your willing ignorance and religious beliefs, just keep them out of science and serious discussions OK?
And don't talk about "science" or "evidence" because you just look ridiculous. You can now probably understand why :))))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
You're the only person here talking about religion. Even most Darwinist scientists admit there are no transitional fossils but a small group still hold one example of Archaeopteryx as genuine despite the impossiblity of such a creature. You are unaware of this if you quote the Wikipedia list of 'thousands' as proof. I suspect you are driven by religious hatred and seek an excuse to argue with religious people .. and then you 'waste your time' arguing with an atheist!Lol So what about the aliens?
guydecervens 2 years ago
"Even most Darwinist scientists admit there are no transitional fossils"--> hahahahahhaha YEAH SURE THEY DO PAL:)))))
Aaaa so we're back at stage 1- "there are no transitional fossils" are we? OMG hahahaha THIS IS GETTING HILARIOUS:))))))))))))
Tell you what, pal. Close your eyes and repeat "There are NO transitional fossils" 1000 more times. I'm sure they will all go away :)))))))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
I don't really understand what "aliens" have to do with fossils, but then again I guess it's all part of the big scientific world conspiracy to overthrow the wholly teachings of the Bible..Yeah, I understand that pal:))) However the point that I was trying to make is that this kind of thinking belongs in personal belief system ONLY. It has no place in science or any serious discussion. It's not only ridiculous, it's annoying and a waste of time. Get it? :))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Aliens have to do with this video, duh! You just went off on a rant about transitional fossils and the bible etc. Yawn!
Panspermia or directed Panspermia, as it is now claimed, is how the evolutionists explain how life started on earth. To be brief the cell cannot make proteins witout which a cell cannot exist. Chicken or egg, which came first if we had neither? In Darwins day they didn't have microbiology. Hence 'aliens' put the first 'egg' (or is that chicken) on earth. Ludicrous, I know.
guydecervens 2 years ago
Well actually the study about the origin of life on Earth is called ABIOGENESIS. Nothing to do with evolution. It is based on different hypotheses about how first self-replicating life-forms could have arisen from inanimate matter through series of chemical reactions. However no one yet knows for sure. There are only different hypotheses . That thing in the video about "organic elements of life" coming from space is one of those hypotheses -->
AlexGruev 2 years ago
You really need to stop treating Wikipedia as a serious scientific source and I don't think the bible mentions it either! Lol. Darwinists claimed for years that life began (abiogenesis) from some sort of lightning hitting a swamp of 'primordial soup'. When microbiology debunked this they then, as you say, shifted the argument to 'aliens' on another planet (panspermia) and then when that was debunked aliens sending the seed here (directed panspermia). All part of the same 'scientific' bullcrap!
guydecervens 2 years ago
From the mindless jumble of nonsense you just wrote i can see you didn't understand a single thing of what I explained, but I wasn't expecting that anyway:))
As I told you Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter through chemical processes. There is no universal theory about it ,no one yet knows for sure, there are only HYPOTHESES(if you know what that means) -->
AlexGruev 2 years ago
That thing in this video "organic elements of life" coming from space isn't a valid hypothesis, because even if it is true it doesn't explain life's INITIAL ORIGINS. Get it?
There are many abiogenesis hypotheses and you can read details about some of them but you wouldn't understand absolutely anything. So you can just get back to memorizing verses from the wholly Bible(a lot easier than bio-chemistry) and leave rational thought to rational people:)))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Yeah, I get it. Darwins book, "On the Origin of Species" is debunked. There is no proof for the 'origin of the species' on Earth. There are many 'hypotheses' on how life started and they are all as ridiculous as this one. Why do you continue to believe in Darwins theory when it is so full of holes? Ah well, you continue to believe I am a Christian without any proof when I keep telling you that I am not. Could you tell me your 'rational' reason for believing that since you are so 'rational'?
guydecervens 2 years ago
No, moron, you still don't get anything. You still can't even make the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis. The book of Darwin was called "On the Origin of Species" NOT "On the Origin of Life". It explains DIVERSITY of life, not origins. His hypothesis is now a proven fact.
And science is about FILLING THE HOLES, knowing more on the basis of what we already know. Just because you don't know everything about the Solar System you don't go back to the concept that the Earth is flat:)))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Abiogenesis(study of origin of life) has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin. The hypotheses of abiogenesis are founded on bio-chemistry and are A LOT MORE COMPLICATED. No one yet has established an absolute model, but research continues.That's the idea.
That's why I'm saying that Abiogenesis is way over your head. You don't have the brains and education to comprehend the theories(neither do I) The Bible is a lot more easy to understand than bio-chemistry, so stick to that:)))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
"Could you tell me your 'rational' reason for believing that since you are so 'rational'?" --> hahahahahaha Now why would I think that hahahahahahahahahaa:))))))))))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Well of course abiogenesis has to do with Darwin. He didn't call his book, " The evolution of life on earth", he called it "on the origin of species". Now the Darwinists have to admit they don't have a clue how the species originated they are talking about 'aliens'. It's a crucial part of the Theory of Evolution, or was until they realised it wasn't possible. Who knows what they will come up with next. Darwin would have got a good laugh out of this 'aliens did it' panspermia crap! LOL ;)))
guydecervens 2 years ago
Sorry but if you are too stupid to tell the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis after all these explanations then you really need help.
"Origin of SPECIES" means explanation about the DIVERSITY of life on Earth and COMMON DECSENT, not origin of life. That's what the theory is all about. (see definition of Evolution in Wikipedia)
Abiogenesis(origin of life) study hypotheses are based on organic chemistry and molecular biology. In case you don't know Darwin lived in the 19th century.
AlexGruev 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand anything of what I tried to explain to you about abiogenesis, you are still babbling about "aliens" like an idiot. That's why it's a good Idea to keep out of rational conversations - because it's just annoying.
AlexGruev 2 years ago
New hypothesis and experiments about self-replicating organic compounds and origin of the first living cell are developed all the time. That's what science is about. Research and development.
But as I said this is way over your head. If you want to interpret everything written in the Bible literally,that's fine. but that is something you have to keep for yourself and not try to bring it into science and rational discussions. It just doesn't work that way. Get it??
AlexGruev 2 years ago
No problem with the self-replicating bit but where did the first cell come from? Oh wait, let me consult Darwins, "on the origin of species". No, his explanation about the primordial soup being hit by lightning is debunked, what next? Oh yeah, I have it... panspermia... aliens did it! Lol ; )))) And you believe this??? and you believe I am a christian!? LOL??? Blessed are you Brother Alexander for your faith! LOL!
guydecervens 2 years ago
To put it simple - evidence for Evolution tells us that all life on Earth originates from a single organism - the first living cell. That's undisputed and already clear.
Abiogenesis is the research about how that first living cell WAS FORMED through natural processes.
AlexGruev 2 years ago
Actually, researchers at Harvard Medical School are already close to reconstructing "the first living cell":
Type "Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell" into Google
Maybe in 100 years or so someone will manage to reconstruct it(or something like it) and then we'll know more...You never know:))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
There was a hoax many years ago where a 'scientist' claimed to have made life in a laboratory. Now they are close to doing it again? Have you seen a cell? It's like a complex factory. There is no way that can be 'made'. They can't even make nano machines! And if they could make a cell? That would prove it takes intelligence to make a cell? Back to the 'aliens' again. Obviously it takes intelligence to design a cell but I have no proof for 'aliens' so I conclude nothing for panspermia. Fact only.
guydecervens 2 years ago
First cell were supposed to be just "a strip of genetic material surrounded by a fatty membrane" that could self-replicate. According to their hypothetical model.Read the article.
No, they are not trying to construct the cell manually, they are trying to simulate it forming in natural environment - in test tube of water. That's the whole point. And it's even more complicated. They are making progress very slowly but maybe some day someone will get it right...
AlexGruev 2 years ago
And Wikipedia is not a source by itself, it's a combination of sources. Reading about Abiogenesis from there might give you some slight idea of what it's about but the specific hypotheses and theories(even in that simplified way) are waaaaaaay over your brains and education. So I wouldn't bother :)))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That thing in the video about "organic elements of life" coming from space is one of those hypotheses. Not a very good one because the question about its initial origins still remains. It's relapsing one unknown for another unknown. That's it.
You can read about Abiogenesis hypotheses in Wikipedia and all over the net , but this is a VERY COMPLICATED TOPIC and it is waaaaaaaay over your head.:))))) Better just stick to memorizing verses from the Bible:)))
AlexGruev 2 years ago
@guydecervens:
Hey, after reading all your comments, please, tell me: How do you think life was formed? Some god created it?
Why are you losing your time watching/replying videos like this when all you do is tell it is bullshit?
The fact that Darwin didn't knew a cell just like today proves nothing, nothing but he was a extreme observer. He could tell us how creatures evolved just by seeing from their structures.
We don't need to know how everything exactly happened to know it happened.
guifercon 2 years ago 7
Have you ever read Darwin's Origins of Species book?
guifercon 2 years ago
darwin was a mason and the cousin of the founder of eugenics sir francis galton, who was evil as fuck........darwin i can't trust
panspermia is real, watch the movie horizon, we are the aliens
it's a good film proving panspermia , but how are the organisms formed?
abiogenesis is one theory it could havppen anywhere at any time, here or there or anywhere
ogskeetdizzle 2 years ago
@guifercon
If scientists believe that the earth was seeded with life, who seeded it? Who created the seeds of life?
kaydenpat 1 year ago
@guifercon obvious troll is obvious...yawn
boorens18 1 year ago
I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!..your cell would never evolve ..you dont know chemistry at all..there has been no cell made, or living one, that can live with just one protein..and no scientist has ever even made a protein..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@guifercon ..All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv "There is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance" AND WE ALL completely agree. . . However nobody is stating it happens by chance.
Abiogenesis confirmed
Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland1 & John D. Sutherland Published online 13 May 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.471
there is no excuse for ignorance now.
manhunt48 8 months ago
@manhunt48 LOL. Sutherland, has not made RNA, Copying and rearranging pre existing INFORMATION is not creating anything ,synthesizing machines and templates is far from undirected natural processes! The same goes for Craig Venter taking genomes that already existed and inserting them back into a living bacterium!! all being done In controlled laboratories! The atheists becomes so Ignorant and gullible to believe these exaggerated claims!! Desperate claims!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Ohhhh dude. Seriously are you this fucking idiotic? or just a trolling?
The point was to prove it's possible, that is EXACTLY what they did. Of course they didn't let it happen naturally that could take millions of years in a specifically controlled environment which matches that of early earth.
This is why we laugh at you people. You claim it's impossible, we provide proof that it is. then you pull all sorts of bullshit arguments which have nothing to do with point being made
manhunt48 8 months ago
@manhunt48 The Chemistry proves natural mechanisms, can not produce life, or even the building blocks of life!, Homochirality is a Huge Problem!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Let me break it down for you, because clearly you can't be trusted to do it yourself.
all matter on Earth is made from elements. these combine via electrochemical bonds to form compounds which is a process almost impossible to STOP,even in a lab (CO2,
H2O,etc);the compounds also combine in the same way, some making amino acids-->NH2-CH-(R)-COOH. (R)is a joint
When this formula is joined by a phosphate-->NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH results,the formula for RNA emerges.
manhunt48 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Cont'd (pay attention)~
NH2-CH-(H3PO4)-COOH is not only the formula for RNA, it also describes the earliest known living organism-->Cyanobacteria Archaea. no nucleus, no DNA, no organelles, no protein.just RNA coiled over to enclose a space! This is basic biochemistry~no "designer" necessary---this happened on it's own,not by chance,but by chemistry. The fossils of these are called stromatolites, but cyans exist today as one of the largest phyla on Earth, but in more evolved forms.
manhunt48 8 months ago
@manhunt48 LOL. Time Never Helps, You really believe RNA molecules would survive millions of years!!! and all there information would be protected in some primordial Toxic broth! or some deep sea vent! RNA breaks down down so quickly, it has to be protected even in laboratories!! So what makes you think it would last on some Harsh Earth? ..LOL..HAHAHA! Ridiculous!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv " You really believe RNA molecules would survive millions of years!!! " Facepalm. Did i say that? NO. So now you're just attacking a position that I don't even hold. What a typical creationist you are.
Next you'll be saying evolution says "everything came from nothing" Bahahah.
" RNA breaks down down so quickly, " That's simply un true. Where are your sources for this? (I bet you don't have any and refuse to produce them) Again cyans are one of the largest phylas on Earth today.
manhunt48 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "RNA breaks down down so quickly, it has to be protected even in laboratories!!" That statment is sooo fucking ridiculous.
Cyanobacteria Archaea (simple RNA organism) one of the largest phylas on Earth (up to 20% of earth's biomass), infact prefer very extreme environments which can include very cold habitats and highly saline, acidic, or alkaline water.
This information is VERY simple to find, and shows you're a complete liar.
Doesn't your little book say something about liars?
manhunt48 8 months ago
@manhunt48 LOL.. You're ridiculous desperate claims just make you look even more Stupid! RNA, forming on some primordial earth is laughable and not science, Abiogenesis is not confirmed! You need to learn Homochirality!! If you think amino acids can self organize themselves!! Your sources are assumptions from atheists!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv WOw okay so basically all you have left is " NU UH!". . . Despite the fact you've proven wrong, despite the fact i've provided links which do so despite the fact i've asked for sources to your claims and you've done exactly as i predicted you would and ignored it.
I think I've proven my point enough, and it's clear NOTHING is getting through to you.
You've got nothing left, you've been reduced to " NU UH!" and yet you still think you know better then reality & the worlds smartest.
manhunt48 8 months ago