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

It's a thread from 2013, the research I quoted was in 2015 besides... you can't compare a thread with actual research, and even if they refer to research in the thread, then it's at least 3 years out of date

 

I was pointing out how experts do not agree.

If I am as an amature am not allowed to disagree, how can experts disagree?

 

I have known of Einsteins curved space idea for so long I can't really say when I first read him. I was reading Einstein back in 1957 for sure.

I am well aware of his concept that the Sun distorts space as well as Planets and lesser object.

I have to brush up on him to try to recall why it has any bearing on time.

 

Yes the origins of life is still a MAY, but as far as I'm concerned the experiment of producing 50 nucleic acids from 3 elements available during pre life and the conversion of RNA into DNA enzymes is excellent proof for the origins of life.

More studies WILL be done and I think it will be conclusive not to far in the distant future.

 

It is a very long path from RNA to humans.

I come at this having studied over 12 books on this very topic. While some bring GOD into the matter, most did not.

I have told some who asked, what is GOD? I explain an awesome power. I realize this is not satisfactory. They wanted me to talk of GOD in the context of the Bible. I don't plan to enter into that sort of talk.

Awesome power baffled most. They did not get at all how it is that boiled down.

So why Awesome power? I look at the magnificent Universe and all it contains and just can't see a weak power or no power of any directed form creating it.

 

Having studied Professor Schopf's excellent book on origins of life, and pretty much accepting him as the expert on this topic, I try to imagine what seems a sterile world. Sterile because there is zero life. Contamination means life forms.

And I believe his Chemistry is accurate.

But he put in his book his qualifications. He did not show his address nor call me his pal, but in his book he lays out who he is and the reason for listening to him.

 

Where does it mention these "experts" credentials?

 

no it's not, I'm beginning to see you do not understand the magnitude of the two studies I posted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

 

I am dealing with a forum of non credentialed experts. Why are those different?

 

I am no biologist. And since I can't draw out credentials of posters, why accept them at face value?

Dr. Schopf in his awesome book does mention both RNA and DNA. I must get the book from storage to read what he had to say.

 

These are not my studies, I never claimed to have done those experiments, credentials to the authors of the research conducted are within the articles

Also, how old is the book in storage, it may well be out of date, especially if there's no mention of RNA or DNA, remember LIFE IS BIOLOGY, LIFE IS DNA AND RNA

How can you talk about the origins of life and not mention RNA nor DNA

 

What you're doing is using a tactic that creationists are well known for.

 

Ah hahh

I now observe how you scan my posts to the point you miss content.

I mentioned both RNA and DNA in the Schopf Book.

My copy of his book definitely dates back to close to the original publish date.

The title is Cradle of Life. And of course Dr. Schopf deals with DNA and RNA.

I thought you presented yourself as the expert on this topic. That is why I sought some credentials. But you rely on others. Fine by me.

His book was published in 1999 and I read it soon as it came out.

I really am trying to start with the sterile world and move step by step from no life at all to life.

This is extremely difficult for a lot of people. This is more common than one hopes for.

The bit on RNA to DNA while useful still assumes RNA existed and came from the sterile world.

(sterile world, my definition, is a world with no life at all. )

- - - Updated - - -

Define creationist?????????/

Even the anti GOD types believe in creation. Surely you believe man is not eternal?

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), you're trying to discredit my posts, they stand on their own merit, I do not have to post my drivers license and full educational background just because you don't understand what I'm posting

The book is too old, the mapping of the human genome was only competed after 2000 and subsequent studies led to true understanding, (also not complete and not likely to be for quite some time)

 

Schopf's book was not about humans. It was about the cradle of life.

To this day, it is a giant of a book.

 

Wait, are you trying to discredit me?

I did not give a thought to discrediting you. I was using the presentation of others to discuss. The others I called into question over the term MAY.

 

I can see what the problem is, there are many religious people who think as soon as you mention evolution the extent of what you're talking about this



but the reality is, origin of life and evolution for me and many others, is based in micro biology and the basic elements dating back to pre life that set it in motion

 

Me too. I am with you.

 

Theories don't get "proven", they get affirmed/validated over time: like Gravity.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
[......]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]​

Faith is belief withOut evidence.
Evolution has overwhelming Evidence: god/S have none.

I call your silly game, the "everything is just a belief Fallacy," wherein Creationists seek to give equivalence to their baseless belief/Faith in gods, with science's acknowledgement of Evidence.
+

 

I have no idea why this is different than say economics. Per Democrats only they know the path for a country to follow. I object since it is easy to prove they are wrong.

Don't expect me to see the big picture when you do not see the big picture.

Your motive has nothing to do with science. Were it science, you would discuss this like a scientist would.
Rather it is pure naked politics.

My evolution discussions are based on science. This topic has long been argued about.

I have gone on record as affirming evolution. I simply took the topic deeper and some don't get that is all that happened.

 

No, this has Nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans (WTF!) and you CANNOT Prove anything about either being right or wrong. OFF TOPIC deflection/evasion.
An INCOHERENT/Deluded response to my linear Rebuttal of your fallacious and loony post.

Huh? What?
We're talking Science, whatever the hell you mean about "big picture", good luck!
This was another INCOHERENT response to my linear Rebuttal of your fallacious and Ignorant post.

:^)
My motive, and 95% of my posts on this board ARE 'science'!
I responded with, and 3/4 of my post was.... SCIENTIFIC American! No Politics "naked" or otherwise.
Every sentence you write is INCOHERENT and OFF the wall and OFF topic.
Medic!

You have no clue.
Again, and back TO the debate you Lost:
1. Scientific theories do Not get proved.
You got PORKED and then rambled off topic in this post.
2. You countered another poster's point about your superstition that he had "Faith in Darwin".
NO, there is Huge EVIDENCE Darwin is correct, so it does not take 'Faith'/Baseless belief.
You got PORKED again.
And that's a very strange thing to say for someone who claims he believes in evolution.

all in all, your posts are all over the place/INCOHERENT and Incapable of linear debate.
I more than suspect some significant and intractable issues here.
+

 

Our sun did not create any of the elements that make up or planet, it could not have but will contribute eventually to the next batch in several billion years.
And, I have no faith in a man long dead.....I do however agree with the basic theory he developed because many thousands have verified and expanded on it over the last hundred years or so.

- - - Updated - - -

Please stop trying to tell me what I think....pretty sure I have a better view.

 

I don't see what so hard to believe about it? The evolutionary path of life on Earth, even incomplete, is pretty obvious. Folks need to stop brainstorming ways to be fake offended by evolution and find a way to reconcile their chosen God story with it. Stuff like this will end up driving more people away from religion as religious folks circle the wagons desperately trying to keep modernity out. Change your stories to accept evolution. Just chalk it up to what things are always chalked up to when it comes to the bible and other religious texts. Lost in translation. Shouldn't be taken literally. You know, what is always done when the bible contradicts reality or common sense.

 

That's pretty funny, considering the dead have plenty of both.

 

The argument that God created everything is based upon our lack of complete scientific knowledge at this instant. In order for anyone to accept that God exists or created everything, one has to make the giant leap that mankind will never know the answer or be unable to create life in a petri dish sometime in the future. This is an admission of deep misunderstanding about science and man's ability to gain new knowledge. 10,000 years ago, man kind did not know what the moon was made of, had no clue that the Sun was a giant ball of exploding gas, did not know atoms existed, they had not even invented mathematics yet so they made up a story about a God. We now understand those once mysterious questions left only for the Gods to explain. We only need a God to explain to some the gaps in our knowledge. Some of us have no need for this God at all, we are comfortable with living with unknowns.