Can all life be descended from a single-celled organisim?

Yet when you see the dung, you deny it is there.

Funny innit?

This is how I feel about the non believers. I have no problem with the Science of GOD.

 

agreed, unless one believes Genesis is the real story of creation, there is no issue

 

well every cell in your body carries your full genetic make-up. Depending on epigenetic expression a cell will then develop into an eye cell or kidney cell etc. We've also seen mutations epigenetically and eventually genetically... so yes... why not.

 

I'm not much younger than you, but this is irrelevant. Regarding evolution, the eye is remarkable, but it also has interesting flaws. Other animals have eyes superior to ours. (Eagles have sharper vision and can focus faster, for instance.) Likewise, there are simpler animals that have simpler eyes. Worms can see shadow and light, but their eyes aren't developed enough to make out shape or color.

 

I suggest that the eye of the eagle vs the eye of the human should have led to equality, not the difference you mention.

Color perception among animals also varies.

But there is nothing evolutionary about the eye. Either you have it or you are blind as a clam.

 

It is one thing for a cell to develop into different forms than for a cell to direct to later on being the eye.

The eye is a virtual miracle. Other organs also are.

Evolution is not a good explanation. Experiments are needed in science. If you can't replicate the experiment, it has failed or just not done well at all.

 

There is a very good book that deals with that situation.

 

we for sure know the bible doesn't

 

Epigenetics cause changes in organisms by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself... epigenetic changes comes first... genetic changes follows later. Epigenetics is the HOW of evolution.

 

Evolution does not tell me how a single cell managed to later show up as a human. A human with eyes, brains and vital organs.

 

NOOOO pulling hair out... but epigenetics DOES.... it's how a baby forms inside his mothers womb.... switching genes on and off according to the type of cell it's destined to be

 

That word is not in my university book called Evolution.

But a discussion of the eye is.

Per computer best estimates, it takes 2000 steps to move from sightless to the eye. And it takes about 400,000 years.

Still no reason why one goes from no sight to having very complex sight.

Sight requires more than the eye. It also requires connections to the Brain. I requires brain capacity to comprehend sight.

This Eye argument is very old.

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-3r...d=1468797064&sr=1-1&keywords=evolution+ridley

 

it doesn't take a baby 400 000 years to form an eye... Robert we're talking past one another. I can't comment on your book I haven't read it but I suggest if you don't know about epigenetics there's a gazillion books on Amazon about epigenetics and evolution.

Epigenetic Principles of Evolution (Elsevier Insights)

And epigenetics is what I'm talking about, the HOW the mechanics, the biology of evolution, if you want to comment on my posts you need to know about epigenetics

And frankly if you're going to discuss evolution on a cellular level then you also need to know about epigenetics.

 

Scarlett, you are trying to discuss way past what I was discussing.

While true I brought up the eye, I do not see how his theory creates an eye.

Evolution teaching has many levels.

But go back to the single cell. This was the basis of all life. I have previously taken it back to the no life era and tried to discuss how elements managed to even derive the single cell.

A lot of times those who do not accept GOD hurl out evolution as their explanation.

Press them further and they have no clue how life began.

 

Yeah...because it's so much more likely that some supernatural man in the sky did it!! LOL!!

AA

 

Review: The Science of God
Reports of the National Center for Science Education

Evolutionists will justifiably criticize Schroeder for his simplistic and inconsistent treatment of evolution while the real creationists will reject him for his theology which includes rejection of the literal reading of Genesis, acceptance of the Big Bang, an old age for the earth, existence of pre-Adamites, a local flood, and ignoring Christ, Christianity and the New Testament.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-science-god

Mark Perakh on Gerald Schroeder’s book The Science of God
Confronted with critique, Schroeder lost voice

Until Schroeder provides some reasonable answers to my critique, my assertions regarding his errors, amazing for a PhD in physics, remain in force and Schroeder’s output, for all its popularity among gullible readers, has to be construed as pseudo-scientific piffle.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/confronted-with.html

 

Ok let’s go back to my first post you quoted. How life began and the question the thread asks are two different issues. Life did not begin with epigenetics.

I answered the question “can all life be descended from a single cell” and my reply was yes, I believe it can and the reason I believe it can is due the process of epigenetics which is the changes in genetic sequences.

Now how life began is the riddle and I think these findings in 2015 to be the most accurate to date... and if someone knows of any better theories I'd be more than happy to hear them... just please don't give me the god theory I've had more than 30 years of that.

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html

 

Here is the thing. Pre life, there was no such thing as a cell. No such thing as genes. No such thing as DNA.

The 6 necessary elements needed for life are these.

CHONSP

Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Phosphorous

I am citing the book by William Schopf, professor at UCLA.

I don't care to dispute the findings you cite of the grand meteor theme bringing life to Earth, but isn't it strange how life got on the Meteor to begin with and you don't question that premise.

For your idea to work, first has to be the Genes. And you never explained where those came from.

 

Where did the single cell come from???

 

Look at that again. Digest it.

There is a certain arrogance attached to evolution.

It pretends to know how life formed.

 

no Robert not genes, what you need is RNA a polymeric molecule implicated in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes.

if you have RNA you can code, decode and regulate genes. In this study researchers did manage to convert RNA into DNA enzymes...

Accelerated evolution' converts RNA enzyme to DNA enzyme in vitro

And In the study I quoted previously Chemists managed to produce more than 50 nucleic acids—precursors to DNA and RNA molecules from three elements, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light. Three ingredients that were available pre life.

 

All elements from Hydrogen up to Iron were generated via Stellar Fusion and all heavier elements were generated via Supernova thus all these elements specific to life existed on Earth well before life was generated.

AA

 

Robert I respectfully disagree, it's not arrogance attached to evolution, instead I would say a lot of hard work from scientists and researchers are attached to evolution.

 

Science is presented by the Demcorats with no face.

When I studied Physics, all laws came with names. We studied who created the laws. As I studied Chemistry, we too learned who did what. Where did the elements table come from? That was part of the teaching.

We read science this and science that. But nobody cites the scientist.

Wonder why not?

Darwin is mentioned. But Darwin had no clue what a gene was. But he still is the promised man.

I think to evolutionists Darwin is their god.

 

Evolution is a proven fact as it has been so proven upon a Molecular/Atomic Level with is tantamount to a Mathematical Proof.

And never in HISTORY has anything obtained a Mathematical Proof and then later found out to be wrong.

AA