Is there such a thing as a Christian?

Did anyone mention the Platypus?

 

I also didn't find any real speciation as in a crossing from one distinct critter to another different type of critter. May look into it a little closer, but doubt that I will find any evidence to support the core idea of ALL life starting from a single instance of spontaneous life coming into being.

Sure lots of interesting biological stuff, but a new type of fruit fly coming from the mutation of another type of fruit fly is still nothing more than the adaptation of a species to environmental factors. They are both still fruit flys. Now a fruit fly mutation resulting in a bird or mouse would be much more convincing. I know I'm being ludicrous, but gotta make the point somehow.
One thought.
If I am willing too accept the notion of life spontaneously springing into existence from the random mix of amino acids and other such stuff that grew and developed through evolutionary process' into all the animal life we see now, What about plants? Can you point to a VERIFIABLE something that clearly shows the differentiation between the two very different forms of life, plant and animal?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification



These are just differences in the cells. There are many other differences. One being how plants don't have nervous systems.

 

Went right over your head, didn't it? Maybe you didn't understand the context of the question.

Can you show me the COMMON ancestor to both plant AND animal life that should exist if evolution is fact?
Then after verifying the common ancestor to both plant and animal, show and explain how/why it differentiated into those to very different kingdoms?

Is that more clear?

The point being that IF life spontaneously sprang into existence, the odds are astronomical for such an occurrence and border on a very high degree of improbability of it happening twice to be considered impossible.

 

i think he meant transformation. not sure though.

edit: woops he already answered.

 

http://ongenetics.blogspot.com/2007/07/plants-animals-and-ancient-rna-toolkit.html

I don't think anyone can "show you" that. Like all other evidence for evolution, it's a matter of inference from a wide variety of circumstantial evidence. Believers in evolution accept the theory because it accounts for such a wide variety of evidence, and seems to be the best available explanation that does so. The best alternative so far is the Genesis account or similar creation stories in other religious traditions. So far, no one has "shown us" any evidence, outside scripture, that that literally happened, and it seems to be inconsistent with a vast amount of evidence to the contrary: genetic, fossil, molecular, anatomical, etc. Kenneth Miller , a Christian evolutionary biologist, comments in In Search of Darwin's God that the only other way to account for this evidence is that God or Satan put it there to deceive us, and if they're doing that, we don't stand a chance. For a mine of information about the evolutionary process, see the website of the BioLogos Foundation, created by Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the Genome Project, present head of NIH, and ardent Evangelical Christian.

 

You are asking about the history of evolution, and the history of evolution is not evolution, it is the history of it. The fact that you refer to the idea that life started in a primordial soup as a "core idea" tells me that you don't recognize the distinction.

You are probably violating your own definition of "well versed in evolution" by asking questions like these so i will say this; If you want me to understand you, you need to use the proper words.

 

do you guys think that it is probable that life sprang up from "inanimate" matter spontaneously?

i don't think we've directly covered that so far.

 

Talking about the probability of Abiogenesis theories is very very touchy because while you can calculate the age of the earth and how possible it was for life to have come from inanimate matter, there is nothing actually saying that IS what happened.

I think its very possible though, I am on the edge of my seat while scientist across the globe struggle to create life in a pitri dish. Makes me wonder how precise the chemical reactions would need to be to create life. Fortunately, there are ways to calculate that also.

 

it would make more sense to me if everything was already alive, and organic life sprang from older forms. i guess there isn't much place in this discussion for that kind of talk, since i have nothing but subjective experience to support it.

 

What a load of crap.
I asked a pretty straightforward question. And yes, part of the whole friggin' theory of evolution as opposed to creation and a creator is the concept of life spontaneously popping up. I don't need to adjust my question, words or anything. You have yet to actually answer any single question I have asked with a plain and simple, clear, verifiable example that can be shown to be an actual "link" between one type or form of animal or life and another. All you have provided thus far are examples of THE ADAPTATION OF A SPECIES TO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS RESULTING IN A NEW SUB-SPECIES OF THE SAME ANIMAL!!
Do you not understand the question or something?

Then when I ask you to provide some type of common connecting link between the plant and animal kingdom, you do some song and dance around the meat of the question.

Please explain to me how what I asked was "the history of evolution".

From what I understand, the theory of evolution as taught in opposition to creationism does entail the idea of ALL LIFE having ONE common ancestor that through mutations and diversification gave rise to every form of life on the planet.

For you to try to dance around that very basic and fundamental concept of the theory is laughable.
So can you provide me with a straight answer to my question or not?

 

Yes there is, the theory of evolution does put forth that hypothesis and it is FUNDAMENTAL to the theory.

If there is nothing actually saying that is what happened, then where DID life come from? Don't say another planet or asteroid or some shit, because that idea is encompassed in the theory of a creator that created everything.

Do you even have any grasp of this concept of evolution at all, considering you just contradicted yourself.

 

i think instead of "nothing saying", he meant no evidence of it.

 

then maybe he needs to use the "proper words".

 

I'm sorry but speciation means:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species.

If you are not willing to accept documented cases, nothing will convince you.

And i'm not sure what your asking for when you say "actual link" as if there is always an intermediate. There has only been so many hominids on planet earth. how many human like intermediates do you want us to show you?....

Find it yourself.

I gave you a link to an organic taxonomy source.

Evolution posits that organisms change over time through successive generations. How it started isnt even relevant to the fact that it happens.

Creationism cannot even attempt to oppose evolution. It isn't even science.

So then it is safe to say that the big bang is fundamental to the theory that claims the earth orbits the sun?

It has and is proposed by evolutionists that all life started from a primordial soup, which life from inanimate molecules emourged. This will not be verified until it is recreated in a laboratory. I think its a very good idea but it is only a hypothesis.

A hypothesis that when proven true or false, will only affect the origins of evolution.

 

i believe that's why its called " faith "

 

I'd like to hear what you mean in detail if you feel like it.

I don't want to discuss it i'm just curious. I've got a hypothesis concerning how people regard their understanding in faith.

 

You do understand you are contradicting yourself again.

You are so much more concerned with "proving" Christians to be wrong on all counts based on all the different threads you post in, that you are completely blinded to being able to consider any of these different topics from a neutral and un-biased position.
It is laughable because you exhibit the same degree of obstinance and ignorance that you ascribe to Christians.
Maybe you need to buy a mirror.
Have a nice life.

 

heeh2-

the idea of matter transforming into life isn't vital to support the idea of evolution, but it is vital if you are saying that life wasn't created in the first place.

maybe the processes we see in action today, including evolution (which i never opposed) didn't just happen by chance. evolution and the idea of creation can easily walk hand in hand.

 

of course, it always breaks down to matters that are incomprehensible using our limited cognitive capacity: how could there be anything in the first place? what is time, really? how is anything alive and aware? how is anything not alive and aware?